Wikileaks Drops Bombshell Cia Provided Podesta Emails To Wikileaks Not Russia! [video]

a reply to: kaylaluv
Yes the same as your post.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: RickinVa

Well I would think they were a little more trustworthy if they didn't claim that Hillary was literally a demon because unnamed sources told them. I would think they were a little more trustworthy if they didn't claim that Sandy Hook was all fake, or that a tornado in Oklahoma was generated by the government, or that the government is putting stuff in juice boxes to make kids all gay for population control, among many, many other insane claims.

No, I don't think someone like that is very trustworthy.

So the anonymous sources that said she had TS Material on her server, which turned out to be 100% correct were really just making her out to be a demon and are not to be trusted?

Sandy Hook and juice boxes have absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

Nice attempt at deflection.

a reply to: seasonal

C'mon.

1. Trump's own internal polling showed him losing. That came straight out of the campaign. Chris Christie further confirmed it the day after the election. Are you now claiming that Alex Jones is a psychic?

2. How about Alex Jones's approximately 100,000 other predictions? The dozens of raids he was fake anticipating? Martial law? FEMA camps? Etc etc?

3. I have busted PJW fabricating pieces here. I have also found Joe Biggs staging videos see here (also Alex Jones faking being "attacked").

These aren't isolated incidents. This isn't occasionally getting it wrong. Infowars is garbage.

a reply to: RickinVa

So the anonymous sources who told Jones that Hillary was literally a demon that smelled of sulfur are to be trusted?

Yeah, okay - you go ahead and believe that.

originally posted by: RickinVa

Sandy Hook and juice boxes have absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

Nice attempt at deflection.

They have everything to do with this thread, as they prove my point on the reliability (or lack thereof) of Alex Jones and his "unnamed sources".

a reply to: RickinVa

So anonymous sources are okay if you trust the journalists?

The credibility of an anonymous source is inextricably tied to the journalist. You're taking the journalist at his word that the anonymous source even exists. Furthermore, to accept the anonymous source's information, you must also believe that the journalist properly vetted the source and that the journalist isn't himself being lied to.

a reply to: theantediluvian
Well you are allowed your opinion, and I have mine.

Of course you have to read the stories and make your own call.
I don't blindly believe any source, they are owned by large corps or the wealthy.

a reply to: seasonal

Hillary was right! Comey was out to get her after all. I shudder to think what would have happened to him, if she had barely won.

Now, what kind of reward should the Trump administration bestow upon the CIA/Comey for a JOB WELL DONE?

Well, I do know one thing for a fact.

As most of you know, there are thousands of feral cats in the middle-east.

Anytime HRC was there, you could NOT see a cat anywhere in the open.

This was frequently mentioned in written reports and car to car radio traffic.

SOURCE: I had eyes on
Damnest thing I ever seen.

Had you guys not brought up that sulfur statement, I would have never remembered it.

Buck

a reply to: carewemust

I would think that there is going to be very little talk about this until Oh, 2075, this will give enough time for the public to not care. Kinda like the JFK assassination.

a reply to: seasonal

Well you are allowed your opinion, and I have mine.

Of course but what I linked isn't simply a matter of opinion. Those things happened. Countless predictions that never came true were actually made so that's not simply my opinion either.

I'm certainly not advocating for blind faith in anyone but you should understand that Infowars has their own profit motive, their own editorial bias and their own agenda. They also have a lot of folks who will gladly post their videos or cite them as a source but who are utterly unconcerned with the volume of disinformation they generate and NEVER hold them to any standard.

A lack of trust in the mainstream shouldn't translate to undue trust in the fringe. That's complete non sequitur but it's exactly what is happening. How long will Infowars continue to get an unreasonable benefit of the doubt from some people despite their horrendous track record?

a reply to: seasonal

This is nothing more than the CIA trying to score brownie points with the public. Look! It was us who leaked the emails! You can trust us again! We were against evil Hillary! Even the Russian state media says it wasn't Russia!

Gimme a break. For a conspiracy site, most everyone here just laps up whatever they're given.

(If you need a source for my claim just ask)

a reply to: theantediluvian


And it doesn't.
Same as Huff post, NYT and all the others.

A lack of trust in the mainstream shouldn't translate to undue trust in the fringe. That's complete non sequitur but it's exactly what is happening. How long will Infowars continue to get an unreasonable benefit of the doubt from some people despite their horrendous track record?

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff
This is just getting ridiculous, Ill bet if I tried I could find "sources" saying it was aliens or spirits that hacked her server.

I'll take that bet, 500?

a reply to: underwerks

Why would they want to play favor with the lesser 1/2 of the people who voted? Not like we had 320,000,000 people vote and they are trying to curry favor with them.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: underwerks

Why would they want to play favor with the lesser 1/2 of the people who voted? Not like we had 320,000,000 people vote and they are trying to curry favor with them.

Its more likely a psyop like pizzagate or any of the other fake news being spread by people that don't realize they're being used in doing so.

Just a way to watch how stories spread in the "new" media and fine tune their propaganda.

If there were any credible sources behind this, I wouldn't be so distrustful, but there aren't.

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: seasonal

Unnamed sources. I see. Sounds totally legit.

When were the "Russian hacker" sources ever named or proven?

I must have missed that.

It's alright, we al make mistakes:
www.usatoday.com - Yes, 17 intelligence agencies really did say Russia was behind hacking...

I'll say one of the reasons I didn't vote for her--and they were few--was Comey coming out and saying they were investigating the emails further--just days before election time. While he did say it didn't change their former conclusions 2 days before election, I'd already voted. But let me be clear, I was hearing from others what she did wasn't acceptable, even though the FBI gave her a pass. The "investigations are continuing" was like the nail in the coffin.

I had to vote and I didn't vote for Trump either. I went for Gary. I regret it somewhat because I should have looked at all the independents more deeply. I also didn't know Gary had failed to answer a question about Aleppo and couldn't name a world leader he admired off the top of his mind. Whilst his speeches were off kilter, everything else I saw about him seemed ok, compared to Trump. For all the awkwardness of Gary speeches, it pales in comparison to the rudeness and sneer in a Trump speech. Trump is like a schoolyard boy. You'd think after doing numerous speeches Trump would tone it down. He doesn't care. And experience. Gary had experience as New Mexico governor for 8 years. From what I could tell, he wasn't coddled with a several million dollar loan from his father--being a self-made man. It was refreshing after being inundated with Trump. I'm not saying Trump has no relevant experience, but little of it seemed down to Earth and directly applicable to government work.

a reply to: underwerks

Very good points. Pick the most awful crimes and see how fast your master work spreads. Make it easier to shut down when a real story breaks.

originally posted by: flatbush71
Well, I do know one thing for a fact.

As most of you know, there are thousands of feral cats in the middle-east.

Anytime HRC was there, you could NOT see a cat anywhere in the open.

This was frequently mentioned in written reports and car to car radio traffic.

SOURCE: I had eyes on
Damnest thing I ever seen.

Had you guys not brought up that sulfur statement, I would have never remembered it.

Buck

You would think theyd be more afraid of getting grabbed by trump

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: seasonal

How long will Infowars continue to get an unreasonable benefit of the doubt from some people despite their horrendous track record?

Your question should be how long will the dinosaur MSM last, anyone can see they are on the verge of extinction.

inforwars will tell you its from a trusted anonymous source, whereas the MSM will flat out lie with no sources... The fact is the MSM has a horrendous track record that could stretch across the universe.... infowars not so much, it's better to be prepared than to bend over to MSM.