Anyone else disappointed in Wikileaks?

[Alex.]

^^^these two haven't been paying any attention^^^

Or there standards are TERRIBLY low..

My standards are low. If the public is not being smacked in the face and forced to acknowledge wrongdoing by the talking heads then most will just ignore it.

After the election is too late.

IanC: "My standards are low."

Explains why you are voting for Hillary

Wrong, I am pro Trump. I want to see something that Clinton supporters can't ignore. Trump only wins if Clinton loses the support of her base.

No matter what is shown regarding Hillary each individual will choose to ignore or not. I just spoke with someone who did vote for Hillary and now regrets it after the FBI announcement. Wikileaks is only one means used to expose that horrible woman.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

^^^these two haven't been paying any attention^^^

Or there standards are TERRIBLY low..

My standards are low. If the public is not being smacked in the face and forced to acknowledge wrongdoing by the talking heads then most will just ignore it.

After the election is too late.

In today time with Internet Access is almost everywhere the public can access Wikileaks and read the emails themselves... Now if the general public need some commentator to tell them what they should think tell me this nation is screwed!

You have too high of an opinion for the general public. Many need, or at least want, to be told what to do.

True, which mean this nation is screwed...

No excuse for the ignorance by general population...

 

[AntonToo]

^^^these two haven't been paying any attention^^^

Or there standards are TERRIBLY low..

My standards are low. If the public is not being smacked in the face and forced to acknowledge wrongdoing by the talking heads then most will just ignore it.

After the election is too late.

IanC: "My standards are low."

Explains why you are voting for Hillary

Wrong, I am pro Trump. I want to see something that Clinton supporters can't ignore. Trump only wins if Clinton loses the support of her base.

No matter what is shown regarding Hillary each individual will choose to ignore or not. I just spoke with someone who did vote for Hillary and now regrets it after the FBI announcement. Wikileaks is only one means used to expose that horrible woman.

FBI has so far not found new evidence against Hillary, and all Comey said was that they found some emails that MAY contain something new, so wtf is your friend regretting?

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear cereal_killer and IanC
I was told Fox News reported that an indictment is being planned.

That Huma should not have had access to classified emails through Clinton's private server
and these should not have been on a third party laptop such as her husband Anthony Weiner.

So Huma is also facing a heavy sentence,
and the question is whether she would be pleading out or seeking immunity
to get more. If they have enough on everyone would they need to bargain for more,
or are there other people involved that are worth giving immunity to go after?

So supposedly there is enough to indict both Huma and Clinton.

Is this just speculation or where was this on Fox News?

P.S. If Michelle Obama, Barack Obama, Chelsea Clinton, Bill Clinton,
were all rallying in swing states, this might indicate how badly they
need Clinton to win so she pardons anyone else who might be implicated.

If it's all a conflict of interest politically, I'd say call a halt to the whole thing.
How can you elect a person whose ability to pardon would enable all the
wrongdoing to go unchecked if they get elected to office BY THAT WRONGDOING.

That is a closed loop that doesn't have a check on it if it's allowed to close on itself.
Too dangerous to let this go on.

 

[320 Years of History]

^^^these two haven't been paying any attention^^^

Or there standards are TERRIBLY low..

My standards are low. If the public is not being smacked in the face and forced to acknowledge wrongdoing by the talking heads then most will just ignore it.

After the election is too late.

Red:
What does it mean, in this context, to have low standards?

• The barest bit of innuendo is sufficient for accepting a claim.
• A smattering of evidence, some of which is true, some of which may be true and some of which is uncertain/unverified/unverifiable, but absent incontrovertible evidence, so long as the evidence be presented with an unsound argument, one should or legitimately can accept the argument's conclusion(s)?
• If it "looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it is a duck," and one should accept it as such, even though it's mechanized toy duck, or perhaps a goose?
• Anything said by someone "important" and that agrees with whatever one had oneself thought is rightly construed as accurate, notwithstanding that the "important" speaker hasn't delivered an unassailable argument in support of the conclusion they and one share and also one hasn't oneself conducted an objective and rigorous examination of the matter?
• The standard and burden of proof is the same for objective matters as it is for subjective ones?
• Correlation equates to causation?

Blue:
Why does the public need to hear "talking heads" say anything? Is it not our responsibility to examine things for ourselves? Sure, it's nice to hear what others think about a given matter, but at the end of the day, it is each of our individual burden to collect the facts -- all of them that are available -- and perform our own analysis of them and their impact(s). The notion that we'd delegate to someone else, to the "talking heads," the intellectual process of information gathering, analysis and concluding is anathema to a strong democracy. Nobody is creating "sheeple," but the "powers that be" are perfectly willing to allow the people to be "sheeple." What people need to do is consume objective facts and eschew editorials about those facts. Sadly, however, I think that many people cannot tell the difference between what is an objective data point and what is an opinion.

 

[Redpath]

So far - nothing but innuendo and lies from the right. Just as it has been for many years now.

But hey, tomorrow's another day.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Time is running out. Where's the bombshells?

There there

 

[Redpath]

Dear cereal_killer and IanC
I was told Fox News reported that an indictment is being planned.

Oh well, that's different.

 

[Alex.]

Or there standards are TERRIBLY low..

My standards are low. If the public is not being smacked in the face and forced to acknowledge wrongdoing by the talking heads then most will just ignore it.

After the election is too late.

IanC: "My standards are low."

Explains why you are voting for Hillary

Wrong, I am pro Trump. I want to see something that Clinton supporters can't ignore. Trump only wins if Clinton loses the support of her base.

No matter what is shown regarding Hillary each individual will choose to ignore or not. I just spoke with someone who did vote for Hillary and now regrets it after the FBI announcement. Wikileaks is only one means used to expose that horrible woman.

FBI has so far not found new evidence against Hillary, and all Comey said was that they found some emails that MAY contain something new, so wtf is your friend regretting?

My friend, an attorney, examined the facts and feels that Hillary is scum.

 

[oreo]

Time is running out. Where's the bombshells?

Did it ever occur to you that someone who is willing to commit a FELONY--has an AGENDA--and a person that is so technology advanced that they could hack into secure Government computers---would also be able to add & delete context?

17 intelligence agencies, both private and government have stated these email hacks are coming from Russia. You'll note they're not hacking into RNC computers.

They want DONALD TRUMP bad, who has repeatedly snuggled up to Putin in numerous comments and even at one time is on video for encouraging Russia to do a cyber attack on the United States-(the State Department) to find more Clinton emails.
Yes, 17 intelligence agencies really did say Russia was behind hacking

You Reich wingers really aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer, are you?

A neuroscientist explains what may be wrong with Trump supporters’ brains
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/10/04/trump-polls-immigration-taxes-column/72755896/

 

[IanC]

^^^these two haven't been paying any attention^^^

Or there standards are TERRIBLY low..

My standards are low. If the public is not being smacked in the face and forced to acknowledge wrongdoing by the talking heads then most will just ignore it.

After the election is too late.

Red:
What does it mean, in this context, to have low standards?

• The barest bit of innuendo is sufficient for accepting a claim.
• A smattering of evidence, some of which is true, some of which may be true and some of which is uncertain/unverified/unverifiable, but absent incontrovertible evidence, so long as the evidence be presented with an unsound argument, one should or legitimately can accept the argument's conclusion(s)?
• If it "looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it is a duck," and one should accept it as such, even though it's mechanized toy duck, or perhaps a goose?
• Anything said by someone "important" and that agrees with whatever one had oneself thought is rightly construed as accurate, notwithstanding that the "important" speaker hasn't delivered an unassailable argument in support of the conclusion they and one share and also one hasn't oneself conducted an objective and rigorous examination of the matter?
• The standard and burden of proof is the same for objective matters as it is for subjective ones?
• Correlation equates to causation?

Blue:
Why does the public need to hear "talking heads" say anything? Is it not our responsibility to examine things for ourselves? Sure, it's nice to hear what others think about a given matter, but at the end of the day, it is each of our individual burden to collect the facts -- all of them that are available -- and perform our own analysis of them and their impact(s). The notion that we'd delegate to someone else, to the "talking heads," the intellectual process of information gathering, analysis and concluding is anathema to a strong democracy. Nobody is creating "sheeple," but the "powers that be" are perfectly willing to allow the people to be "sheeple." What people need to do is consume objective facts and eschew editorials about those facts. Sadly, however, I think that many people cannot tell the difference between what is an objective data point and what is an opinion.

Let's face it. This election is a popularity contest.

Most people can't, or couldn't be bothered, to read and organize the available evidence into a coherent conclusion.

Comey said Clinton was guilty last summer but could not prove the necessary intent to raise the negligence to the level where a prosecutor would lay charges. Some of the public claimed exoneration, some claimed whitewash.

I am of the opinion that it was whitewash.

I think a lot of FBI authorities also considered it whitewash.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Time is running out. Where's the bombshells?

Psst....there never were any.

 

[AntonToo]

My standards are low. If the public is not being smacked in the face and forced to acknowledge wrongdoing by the talking heads then most will just ignore it.

After the election is too late.

IanC: "My standards are low."

Explains why you are voting for Hillary

Wrong, I am pro Trump. I want to see something that Clinton supporters can't ignore. Trump only wins if Clinton loses the support of her base.

No matter what is shown regarding Hillary each individual will choose to ignore or not. I just spoke with someone who did vote for Hillary and now regrets it after the FBI announcement. Wikileaks is only one means used to expose that horrible woman.

FBI has so far not found new evidence against Hillary, and all Comey said was that they found some emails that MAY contain something new, so wtf is your friend regretting?

My friend, an attorney, examined the facts and feels that Hillary is scum.

Dumbass, I just explained to you the facts - NO NEW EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FOUND AGAINST HILLARY AT THE TIME OF COMEY'S LETTER. None, Zero, Zilch.

Now wtf is it that your lawyer friend knows about this that other lawyers, or people don't?

 

[IanC]

Time is running out. Where's the bombshells?

Did it ever occur to you that someone who is willing to commit a FELONY--has an AGENDA--and a person that is so technology advanced that they could hack into secure Government computers---would also be able to add & delete context?

17 intelligence agencies, both private and government have stated these email hacks are coming from Russia. You'll note they're not hacking into RNC computers. They want DONALD TRUMP bad, who has repeatedly cozi'd up to Putin in numerous comments and even at one time is on video for encouraging Russia to do a cyber attack on the United States-(the State Department) to find more Clinton emails.
Yes, 17 intelligence agencies really did say Russia was behind hacking

You Reich wingers really aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer.

It's not so easy to alter emails without leaving a record.

If you mean context similar to two opposing lawyers stating their preferred version and explanations of the facts, well then I agree with you.

 

[kaz]

Time is running out. Where's the bombshells?

That's the ignorance you have when you only watch the lamestream media

 

[oreo]

Time is running out. Where's the bombshells?

Did it ever occur to you that someone who is willing to commit a FELONY--has an AGENDA--and a person that is so technology advanced that they could hack into secure Government computers---would also be able to add & delete context?

17 intelligence agencies, both private and government have stated these email hacks are coming from Russia. You'll note they're not hacking into RNC computers. They want DONALD TRUMP bad, who has repeatedly cozi'd up to Putin in numerous comments and even at one time is on video for encouraging Russia to do a cyber attack on the United States-(the State Department) to find more Clinton emails.
Yes, 17 intelligence agencies really did say Russia was behind hacking

You Reich wingers really aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer.

It's not so easy to alter emails without leaving a record.

If you mean context similar to two opposing lawyers stating their preferred version and explanations of the facts, well then I agree with you.

Yes they can alter emails. They've done it before. It's very easy for them to add or delete context, making it look like it came from the same IP server.

You are therefore TRUSTING a criminal that is committing a felony--that clearly has an agenda--to give you viable information--and that comes from ASTOUNDING ignorance on your end.

 

[PredFan]

If by disappointed, you mean by the way that those leaks haven't put the criminal Hillary in jail yet? Then the answer is yes. That said I never really expected her to go to jail. The o my one that can put her there is the 0ba administration and they are as crooked as she is.

I'm just disappointed in the stupidity of the American People, especially the left that they are perfectly happy with putting a liar, a criminal, and a complete incompetent in the White House because she has a D after her name.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Time is running out. Where's the bombshells?

That's the ignorance you have when you only watch the lamestream media

There have been no "bombshells".

 

[IanC]

IanC: "My standards are low."

Explains why you are voting for Hillary

Wrong, I am pro Trump. I want to see something that Clinton supporters can't ignore. Trump only wins if Clinton loses the support of her base.

No matter what is shown regarding Hillary each individual will choose to ignore or not. I just spoke with someone who did vote for Hillary and now regrets it after the FBI announcement. Wikileaks is only one means used to expose that horrible woman.

FBI has so far not found new evidence against Hillary, and all Comey said was that they found some emails that MAY contain something new, so wtf is your friend regretting?

My friend, an attorney, examined the facts and feels that Hillary is scum.

Dumbass, I just explained to you the facts - NO NEW EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FOUND AGAINST HILLARY AT THE TIME OF COMEY'S LETTER. None, Zero, Zilch.

Now wtf is it that your lawyer friend knows about this that other lawyers, or people don't?

No new evidence has been released. It is difficult to discern the reasons why an independent investigation decided that evidence in one case needed to be called to the attention of a different, and closed, investigation. Zealous or overzealous? We will find out sooner or later but not in time for the election. Where does the precautionary principle land for this case?

 

[BlindBoo]

Comey said Clinton was guilty last summer

Please provide a quote of his pronouncement of her guilt.

Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System — FBI