PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: President-Elect Bob Noel on December 18, 2016, 12:54:23 PM
-
Some precious delicate liberals don't understand thread drift....
sooooo, here is a thread about the contents of the DNC emails.
Have at it:
-
Some precious delicate liberals don't understand thread drift....
sooooo, here is a thread about the contents of the DNC emails.
Have at it:
Okay, I'll kick this off.
Seems like the DNC chair was intent on screwing Bernie Sanders campaign instead of being neutral. I wonder why Bernie isn't more upset than he appears to be. I wonder what Republican emails would have revealed concerning Trump's campaign. Seems there were/are many mainstream Republicans who aren't exactly thrilled with the President Elect. Maybe the RNC should release all their emails so we could see what was really being discussed in the smoke filled rooms...just kidding. I know no one in their right mind would release private emails and have them made available to the public unless some entity like, oh, the Russians, would break American laws and disseminate something to the American public as a public service. No true American would stand for that...or would they?
-
The RNC Establishment was openly, and publicly AGAINST TRUMP. What more could their emails say? It was all out in the open, while the DNC used subterfuge against Bernie to get Hillary nominated. She lost, big time.
The content of the DNC/Hillary emails shows unethical, immoral, and sometimes illegal tactics, and statements. That is what is important, not who revealed them.
-
The RNC Establishment was openly, and publicly AGAINST TRUMP. What more could their emails say? It was all out in the open, while the DNC used subterfuge against Bernie to get Hillary nominated. She lost, big time.
The content of the DNC/Hillary emails shows unethical, immoral, and sometimes illegal tactics, and statements. That is what is important, not who revealed them.
I am not so quick to dismiss the "who revealed them"... or more to the point, how they were revealed. But that has been discussed (to be kind) in another thread.
I agree that the contents of the DNC emails is important... in a way different than the issue of the DNC being completely incompent wrt securing their servers.
or to put it another way: If the Russians hacked the DNC and released those emails in an attempt to influence the election, that doesn't excuse the corruption of the DNC.
-
I am not so quick to dismiss the "who revealed them"... or more to the point, how they were revealed. But that has been discussed (to be kind) in another thread.
I agree that the contents of the DNC emails is important... in a way different than the issue of the DNC being completely incompent wrt securing their servers.
or to put it another way: If the Russians hacked the DNC and released those emails in an attempt to influence the election, that doesn't excuse the corruption of the DNC.
So let's discuss the specifics of the corruption.
-
A difference between Republicans and Democrats is the ability of the Democrats to toe whatever line is being disseminated. On the Republican side they tend to not walk in lock step as witnessed by the "Never Trump Movement". Right up to the convention they were trying to plot how stop him. They even had that guy running in Utah in hopes he would win the electors there to deny Trump a win.
-
I can see this thread going nowhere and I suspect that other than some unsavory tactics detrimental to Bernie Sanders campaign efforts, the DNC emails are much to do about next to nothing. The anti-clinton forces saw emails as a way of flinging crap at Democrats and hoping some would stick--it did. Well played, but in the grand scheme of things, hardly an indictment of criminal activity or even corruption. Can anyone with a straight face say Republicans were any less likely to behave similarly or worse for that matter.
-
I can see this thread going nowhere and I suspect that other than some unsavory tactics detrimental to Bernie Sanders campaign efforts, the DNC emails are much to do about next to nothing. The anti-clinton forces saw emails as a way of flinging crap at Democrats and hoping some would stick--it did. Well played, but in the grand scheme of things, hardly an indictment of criminal activity or even corruption. Can anyone with a straight face say Republicans were any less likely to behave similarly or worse for that matter.
Sorry, Sparky.
The instant you lose on points, you like most liberals, immediately turn to supposition to avoid the truth.
WE KNOW how dishonestly Hilary Clinton and DNC operated. They have not denied the authenticity of any of the wikileaks other than make pretend try that went no-where.
Turning to the old, worn out, bullshit of, "Oh Yeah? Well the republicans are just as bad," is really junior grade on your part and over used.
-
Well played, but in the grand scheme of things, hardly an indictment of criminal activity or even corruption.
So emails that showed members of the Clinton Foundation emailing the SoS and her adviser telling them that individuals had made donations to the CF and now wanted to meet her are not corruption? Or criminal?
Emails that detailed "Friends of Bill" that were donors to the CF that were being given preferential treatment on contracts associated with the government were not corrupt?
How about Qatar had given millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation, and subsequently received an over 1000 percent increase in weapons exports from the United States during Clinton’s service as secretary of state?
And to add to that, here's several laws that the Clinton's have recently broke, many which were detailed in those emails.
1. Bribery
2. Acts affecting a personal financial interest (includes recommendations)
3. Conspiracy
4. False statements
5. Frauds and swindles (mail fraud)
6. Fraud by wire
7. Attempt and conspiracy (to commit fraud)
8. Obstruction of justice
9. Destruction (alteration or falsification) of records in federal investigations or/and bankruptcy
10. Disclosure of confidential information
11. Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
12. Concealment (removal or mutilation) of government records
13. Attempt to evade or defeat a tax (use of Clinton foundation funds for personal or political purposes)
14. Attempts to interfere with administration of internal revenue laws (call to IRS on behalf of UBS not turning over accounts to IRS)
15. Perjury (including documents signed under penalties of perjury)
Here are the applicable laws Hillary has broken:
18 USC 201
18 USC 208
18 USC 371
18 USC 1001
18 USC 1341
18 USC 1343
18 USC 1349
18 USC 1505
18 USC 1519
18 USC 1621
18 USC 1905
18 USC 1921
18 USC 2071
18 USC 7201
18 USC 7212
-
Clearly you are a racist, sexist, homophobe, islamaphobe for noticing that Hilary committed crimes.
-
So emails that showed members of the Clinton Foundation emailing the SoS and her adviser telling them that individuals had made donations to the CF and now wanted to meet her are not corruption? Or criminal?
So contributions by a private individual to a charitable organization to gain access is criminal? Hmm... maybe someone should tell the President- elect? It is pretty common for politicians to lend their name/access for charitable fundraising.
https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/12/19/20564/donald-trumps-sons-behind-nonprofit-selling-access-president-elect
Emails that detailed "Friends of Bill" that were donors to the CF that were being given preferential treatment on contracts associated with the government were not corrupt?
How about Qatar had given millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation, and subsequently received an over 1000 percent increase in weapons exports from the United States during Clinton’s service as secretary of state?
OK - i'm willing to be convinced, who authorized the weapon exports and how did Hillary sway that decision?
And to add to that, here's several laws that the Clinton's have recently broke, many which were detailed in those emails.
1. Bribery
LOL!!
Accusations are easy and I'll give you credit for looking up the applicable USC code (you did look it up yourself... right?). So... all you need to do is show the evidence that links them, and I'll start believing you. Start with just the first one - Bribery. I'll wait..
-
I can see this thread going nowhere and I suspect that other than some unsavory tactics detrimental to Bernie Sanders campaign efforts, the DNC emails are much to do about next to nothing. The anti-clinton forces saw emails as a way of flinging crap at Democrats and hoping some would stick--it did. Well played, but in the grand scheme of things, hardly an indictment of criminal activity or even corruption. Can anyone with a straight face say Republicans were any less likely to behave similarly or worse for that matter.
So then they really did have nothing to do with the outcome of the election. Got it!
-
So then they really did have nothing to do with the outcome of the election. Got it!
I never said it did. Many on this board would immediately bring up the accusation that any news or outrage at Russian hacking was an attempt to delegitimize the election by the losing faction. My focus has always been on the issue of a foreign government "attempting" to interfere with internal American politics by computer hacking. Y'all then fluffed it off as Dem sour grapes. Get it?
-
Recounts, The media, the Russians, maybe aliens, yes all SOUR GRAPES. Hillary lost because Hillary sucked. Even a Donald Trump could beat her, and he did!!!
-
Recounts, The media, the Russians, maybe aliens, yes all SOUR GRAPES. Hillary lost because Hillary sucked. Even a Donald Trump could beat her, and he did!!!
Actually, although any old decent candidate should have been able to beat Hillary, I have doubts that any of the others running would have done what was necessary to win. Hillary's crew underestimated Trump, and totally misread the mood of the voters. And they were mislead by optimistic polls and MSM coverage.
-
This election showed once again how inexact the science of polling is. Not sure what they are doing wrong, but they sure don't seem to be able to get it right.
It is fun to watch the Democrats continue to spin this as anything other than Trump was smart enough to know where to campaign and kicked their butt in those places to win the Electoral college by a large margin. I don't know if Hillary was lulled to sleep by the polls or just didn't believe it was even possible for Trump to win the states that he did, but she sure wasn't up to the task. I can't find any info on the ratio of the number of events each of them held, but my gut tells me that Trump held many more events than Hillary and we know that he drew far larger crowds. Were Hillary's people not telling her that he was kicking butt in filling seats at stadiums and halls and that they should work hard ot do the same. He really worked hard to get his message out while Hillary was busy calling us "deplorable" and telling everyone it was time for a woman to be President.
Until they can figure it all out and take the blame for what happened, Republicans will continue their winning ways and expand their wins across the nation. Look at the attention NC got because the Democrat beat the Republican for the Governorship while the Republicans maintained the NC legislature, picking up one Senate seat in the process. (You don't see that in the MSM)
-
I never said it did. Many on this board would immediately bring up the accusation that any news or outrage at Russian hacking was an attempt to delegitimize the election by the losing faction. My focus has always been on the issue of a foreign government "attempting" to interfere with internal American politics by computer hacking. Y'all then fluffed it off as Dem sour grapes. Get it?
Let's see, Assange has come out and said that it was not the Russians behind the hack. Other sources have said it was a disgruntled Bernie support in the DNC that leaked the DNC emails. It's been shown that John Podesta's stupidity of falling for a Phishing scheme that even I know better than to fall for caused his hacking. The FBI said it wasn't convinced that it was the Russians, before the political hacks got to them. So yes, it definitely sounds like Dem sour grapes.
-
The polling was skewed by a media who wanted Hillary to win. The various polling outfits deliberately produced polls that showed Hillary winning and a few were just outlandish. The reliable polls such as IBD showed what was really happening but was ignored, because it showed what was happening.
The so called snap polls online were dissed by the MSM as "unreliable" since most were showing Trump more favorable than Hillary, whereas in reality they were a good measure of sentiment because more people were using social media and the Internet for their news source since the MSM bias was so blatant.
Then in Trump's favor we had the silent majority who were sick and tired of BHO and the progressives who really wanted change, but just remained quiet until Election Day.
Trump's message was clear, Jobs and America First. He was also a relentless campaigner holding events that outnumbered the Clinton events almost two to one. And his events drew thousands while the Clinton events struggled to draw hundreds.
The VP choice I feel also helped Trump. Mike Pense is a rock solid, well spoken family man who complemented Trump. Tim Kaine doesn't speak well, came off rude in the VP debate and offered very little to the Clinton campaign.
And the reality. Hillary was probably the worse candidate to run. 30 plus years in Washington and enough baggage to fill a freight train. A woman whose entire adult life has been plagued in scandal after scandal. A political life of no achievements. She conveyed an attitude that the presidency was hers, it was owed to her and she was destined to be the first female president. She also was very cold, spoke in lawyer terms and could not connect with people. Her speaking style was shrill and downright annoying. Even her own campaign was trying to figure out how to make her "more human". The one defining moment was her "basket of deplorables" speech in which she told Americans how she really felt about them.
Clinton's campaign strategy was "run the clock out". They had felt she was the obvious winner so all she really had to do was wait until Election Day, and win. The campaign kept her hidden using the strategy the less seen and heard from her would limit damage in the media. Again, the believed their own MSM tripe as fact, which in the end would prove fatal.
Trump has redefined campaigning and redefined how polling will be conducted in the future. The Fourth Estate is no longer relative in campaigns and will become even less so in the next round. The Internet has now positioned itself as the "Fifth Estate" and will play even a greater roll in coming elections.
And finally, for all of Hillary's excuses for losing. It was not the Russians, it was not the "Alt Right", it was not an ancient electoral college, it was not "fake news". It was a badly flawed candidate backed by a disfunctional political party ran by incompetent stooges, supported by a flawed and biased media.
-
Excellent analysis, Luc. One other piece, maybe small, but it was obvious that her health was anything but "optimal."
The scary part is that she did "win" by population, and that is a major concern going forward.
-
The scary part is that she did "win" by population, and that is a major concern going forward.
NYC, and L.A. The cities rule now. It is unbelievable that Trump won over the dominance of the Communist metro areas. We are sliding downhill.
-
This thread started in order to focus on one topic--email content. Just look at the majority of the posts by Trump supporters on this thread. The thread topic was supposed to be the content of the emails but instead they constantly want to gloat about how brilliant their candidate conducted a brilliant campaign and how Dems are so despondent about losing. One listed laws allegedly broken but couldn't show how any specific email proved any criminal action. BLAH BLAH BlAH Trump won BLAH BLAH BLAH Dems sore losers BLAH BLAH BLAH -- absolutely no substantive discussion about what the DNC emails actually said that would indicate criminal actions on the part of the Democratic Party. Typical Conservative banter making accusations with nothing substantive to back them up.
-
This thread started in order to focus on one topic--email content. Just look at the majority of the posts by Trump supporters on this thread. The thread topic was supposed to be the content of the emails but instead they constantly want to gloat about how brilliant their candidate conducted a brilliant campaign and how Dems are so despondent about losing. One listed laws allegedly broken but couldn't show how any specific email proved any criminal action. BLAH BLAH BlAH Trump won BLAH BLAH BLAH Dems sore losers BLAH BLAH BLAH -- absolutely no substantive discussion about what the DNC emails actually said that would indicate criminal actions on the part of the Democratic Party. Typical Conservative banter making accusations with nothing substantive to back them up.
good grief.
eventually you will figure out that thread drift occurs on the interweb.
-
It's hard for poor little witmo to accept the concept that his party is the party of corruption, lies, bribery and racism.
The emails reminded us all (since the progressive, lying media refused) that the mere existence of the private server was illegal and that her holiness the queer queen Hilary lied about handing over the supeonaed (sp) documents, as well as her role in allowing, if not encouraging the theft of confidential material.
Podesta, blabber-mouth Schultz and Brazille simply reinforced the certainty that the democrat party if corrupt by outlining how the primaries were hijacked against Bernie Sanders and the depth of contempt that democrats have for inconvenient laws.
The documents show Hilary lied about Benghazi from the start and that Barack joined her in those lies willingly.
I understand how devoid of curiosity that witmo brings to this topic because the truth is very damaging to his opinions lofty impression of the royal family but the truth has no agenda, but progressive panderers do.
-
It's hard for poor little witmo to accept the concept that his party is the party of corruption, lies, bribery and racism.
The emails reminded us all (since the progressive, lying media refused) that the mere existence of the private server was illegal and that her holiness the queer queen Hilary lied about handing over the supeonaed (sp) documents, as well as her role in allowing, if not encouraging the theft of confidential material.
Podesta, blabber-mouth Schultz and Brazille simply reinforced the certainty that the democrat party if corrupt by outlining how the primaries were hijacked against Bernie Sanders and the depth of contempt that democrats have for inconvenient laws.
The documents show Hilary lied about Benghazi from the start and that Barack joined her in those lies willingly.
I understand how devoid of curiosity that witmo brings to this topic because the truth is very damaging to his opinions lofty impression of the royal family but the truth has no agenda, but progressive panderers do.
I'm sorry, did I miss the DNC email quote you want to discuss?
-
Such fertile ground for discussion. You know, there is shameful stuff in the emails, but to me one of the most damning things is the DNC and HRC tendency to say, "Tell the press to say ..."
As in, where they told the press which Republican candidates to take seriously. In other words, the Dems control the press. Most of us know this, but the extent to which it shows up in the emails should alarm voters of all ilk.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/10/13/the-most-explosive-wikileaks-clinton-revelations-so-far/
You can find them all here:
https://wikileaks.org
-
This thread started in order to focus on one topic--email content. Just look at the majority of the posts by Trump supporters on this thread. The thread topic was supposed to be the content of the emails but instead they constantly want to gloat about how brilliant their candidate conducted a brilliant campaign and how Dems are so despondent about losing. One listed laws allegedly broken but couldn't show how any specific email proved any criminal action. BLAH BLAH BlAH Trump won BLAH BLAH BLAH Dems sore losers BLAH BLAH BLAH -- absolutely no substantive discussion about what the DNC emails actually said that would indicate criminal actions on the part of the Democratic Party. Typical Conservative banter making accusations with nothing substantive to back them up.
No matter what is written on the content of the emails, you will immediately go into defense mode and denial. When you are shown the emails and what the outcome was, you immediately go to "Don't you care that the Russians influenced the election?"
The DNC needs to autopsy the Clinton Campaign. They need to dig down and identify all of the failures. They can't, because the Clintons are still in denial and searching for every scapegoat they can find to justify why she could have possibly lost.
As long as the denial exist and the boogeyman search continues, and as long as the MSM continues their inane diatribes the process can't move forward.
-
Such fertile ground for discussion. You know, there is shameful stuff in the emails, but to me one of the most damning things is the DNC and HRC tendency to say, "Tell the press to say ..."
As in, where they told the press which Republican candidates to take seriously. In other words, the Dems control the press. Most of us know this, but the extent to which it shows up in the emails should alarm voters of all ilk.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/10/13/the-most-explosive-wikileaks-clinton-revelations-so-far/
You can find them all here:
https://wikileaks.org
Y'all are making accusations and all you can do is tell me to find something in thousands of emails of which you speak that somehow prove your accusations. Well, sorry, but if you can't bother to find a specific email quote to back up an accusation, then, screw it, I'm gonna assume there ain't any examples other than pundits on Breitbart.com pulling crap out of context and making broad accusations with no real substance.
-
Y'all are making accusations and all you can do is tell me to find something in thousands of emails of which you speak that somehow prove your accusations. Well, sorry, but if you can't bother to find a specific email quote to back up an accusation, then, screw it, I'm gonna assume there ain't any examples other than pundits on Breitbart.com pulling crap out of context and making broad accusations with no real substance.
If someone were to quote a specific email, you will probably claim that it was taken out of context.
-
Y'all are making accusations and all you can do is tell me to find something in thousands of emails of which you speak that somehow prove your accusations. Well, sorry, but if you can't bother to find a specific email quote to back up an accusation, then, screw it, I'm gonna assume there ain't any examples other than pundits on Breitbart.com pulling crap out of context and making broad accusations with no real substance.
But we still like you and respect your views.
-
Y'all are making accusations and all you can do is tell me to find something in thousands of emails of which you speak that somehow prove your accusations. Well, sorry, but if you can't bother to find a specific email quote to back up an accusation, then, screw it, I'm gonna assume there ain't any examples other than pundits on Breitbart.com pulling crap out of context and making broad accusations with no real substance.
http://www.mostdamagingwikileaks.com
Hit the top 100 list and there are the quotes from the emails and links to them.
-
Y'all are making accusations and all you can do is tell me to find something in thousands of emails of which you speak that somehow prove your accusations. Well, sorry, but if you can't bother to find a specific email quote to back up an accusation, then, screw it, I'm gonna assume there ain't any examples other than pundits on Breitbart.com pulling crap out of context and making broad accusations with no real substance.
Obviously you lack the skill and comprehension to research and read. Wikileaks is there, the emails are all there, do what most intelligent people do and read, comprehend and make up your own mind. You have become so beholden to the DNC Talking Points and the MSM that you want everything spoon fed and interpreted for you.
-
http://www.mostdamagingwikileaks.com
Hit the top 100 list and there are the quotes from the emails and links to them.
Then, expect this:
If someone were to quote a specific email, you will probably claim that it was taken out of context.
-
No matter what is written on the content of the emails, you will immediately go into defense mode and denial. When you are shown the emails and what the outcome was, you immediately go to "Don't you care that the Russians influenced the election?"
The DNC needs to autopsy the Clinton Campaign. They need to dig down and identify all of the failures. They can't, because the Clintons are still in denial and searching for every scapegoat they can find to justify why she could have possibly lost.
As long as the denial exist and the boogeyman search continues, and as long as the MSM continues their inane diatribes the process can't move forward.
Here's the chance to give specific examples of the emails and I get nothing specific to defend or agree with. When a different thread starts out discussing a foreign power hacking into an American political party's private email--Lucifer and others immediately want to talk shift the thread to Dem bashing based on what someone says the emails reveal. Y'all are the ones deflecting every topic at hand that you can't offer intelligent discourse about... to bashing Dems, or anyone who doesn't agree with you.
This thread is about exactly what the emails are supposed to have revealed, not the Russian hacking. Instead of discussing the topic, all you can come up with is a prediction that I will, uncharacteristically, change the subject. I do understand thread creep but this isn't thread creep, it's deflection because the content of the emails are apparently just a lot about nothing.
-
Here's the chance to give specific examples of the emails and I get nothing specific to defend or agree with. When a different thread starts out discussing a foreign power hacking into an American political party's private email--Lucifer and others immediately want to talk shift the thread to Dem bashing based on what someone says the emails reveal. Y'all are the ones deflecting every topic at hand that you can't offer intelligent discourse about... to bashing Dems, or anyone who doesn't agree with you.
This thread is about exactly what the emails are supposed to have revealed, not the Russian hacking. Instead of discussing the topic, all you can come up with is a prediction that I will, uncharacteristically, change the subject. I do understand thread creep but this isn't thread creep, it's deflection because the emails are apparently just a lot about nothing.
And round and round he goes...............
-
If someone were to quote a specific email, you will probably claim that it was taken out of context.
There you go again making assumptions. Why don't you quote something and then I can link to it and read it in context and we can have an intelligent discussion.
-
Obviously you lack the skill and comprehension to research and read. Wikileaks is there, the emails are all there, do what most intelligent people do and read, comprehend and make up your own mind. You have become so beholden to the DNC Talking Points and the MSM that you want everything spoon fed and interpreted for you.
You're the one making broad accusations. Pick a specific accusation, quote and link the email. I'm not gonna waste my time researching and making your case for you and then attempt to tear it down, while you snipe and change the subject.
-
I'm not gonna waste my time researching
Enough said.
-
Let's see where this takes us:
Paying people to incite violence and unrest at Trump rallies
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3833
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/31335
“Engage immigrant rights organizations. DREAMers have been bird dogging Republican presidential candidates on DACA/DAPA, but they’ve learned to respond. There’s an opportunity to bird dog and record questions about Trump’s comments and connect it to the policy.”
“It doesn’t matter what the friggin’ legal and ethics people say, we need to win this motherfucker” (from video below)
"I mean honestly, it is not hard to get some of these ass holes to pop off, it’s a matter of showing up, to want to get into the rally, in a Planned Parenthood t-shirt. Or, Trump is a Nazi, you know? You can message to draw them out, and draw them to punch you."
This video - https://youtu.be/5IuJGHuIkzY - is the proof, please watch it!
"Bird-dogging" is a term coined by high level Clinton staffers who openly talk about it in the video. They boast about inciting violence at Trump rallies, paying for every “protest”, manipulating Americans through the media to think that Trump is dangerous, and tricking people into thinking Trump supporters are violent and bad.
They laugh about paying off mentally ill and homeless people for years to incite violence against conservatives. Truly despicable. And they pretended to be Bernie supporters while they were "protesting".
They admit to starting the Chicago riot where police were seriously hurt, and admit to shutting down the freeway in Arizona, partnering with Black Lives Matter. We even have proof that Hillary paid people to shut down the Chicago rally.
Inciting a riot is illegal under 18 US Code § 2102.
They also think 50% of people in Iowa and Wisconsin are racists, as they state in the video.
Robby Mook, Clinton Campaign Manager, mentions the Priorities SuperPAC in a leak, which is implicated in the video.
Bob Creamer (who was fired) claims in the video that the campaign knew about everything. Bob Creamer visited the White House 340 times and personally met with Obama 45 times.
-
Let's see where this takes us:
Paying people to incite violence and unrest at Trump rallies
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3833
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/31335
“Engage immigrant rights organizations. DREAMers have been bird dogging Republican presidential candidates on DACA/DAPA, but they’ve learned to respond. There’s an opportunity to bird dog and record questions about Trump’s comments and connect it to the policy.”
“It doesn’t matter what the friggin’ legal and ethics people say, we need to win this motherfucker” (from video below)
"I mean honestly, it is not hard to get some of these ass holes to pop off, it’s a matter of showing up, to want to get into the rally, in a Planned Parenthood t-shirt. Or, Trump is a Nazi, you know? You can message to draw them out, and draw them to punch you."
This video - https://youtu.be/5IuJGHuIkzY - is the proof, please watch it!
"Bird-dogging" is a term coined by high level Clinton staffers who openly talk about it in the video. They boast about inciting violence at Trump rallies, paying for every “protest”, manipulating Americans through the media to think that Trump is dangerous, and tricking people into thinking Trump supporters are violent and bad.
They laugh about paying off mentally ill and homeless people for years to incite violence against conservatives. Truly despicable. And they pretended to be Bernie supporters while they were "protesting".
They admit to starting the Chicago riot where police were seriously hurt, and admit to shutting down the freeway in Arizona, partnering with Black Lives Matter. We even have proof that Hillary paid people to shut down the Chicago rally.
Inciting a riot is illegal under 18 US Code § 2102.
They also think 50% of people in Iowa and Wisconsin are racists, as they state in the video.
Robby Mook, Clinton Campaign Manager, mentions the Priorities SuperPAC in a leak, which is implicated in the video.
Bob Creamer (who was fired) claims in the video that the campaign knew about everything. Bob Creamer visited the White House 340 times and personally met with Obama 45 times.
[/u]
Question - Are the underlined words yours? Just trying to understand if that is your intrepretation of the content and meaning of the e-mails and video.
-
Let's see where this takes us:
Paying people to incite violence and unrest at Trump rallies
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3833
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/31335
“Engage immigrant rights organizations. DREAMers have been bird dogging Republican presidential candidates on DACA/DAPA, but they’ve learned to respond. There’s an opportunity to bird dog and record questions about Trump’s comments and connect it to the policy.”
“It doesn’t matter what the friggin’ legal and ethics people say, we need to win this motherfucker” (from video below)
"I mean honestly, it is not hard to get some of these ass holes to pop off, it’s a matter of showing up, to want to get into the rally, in a Planned Parenthood t-shirt. Or, Trump is a Nazi, you know? You can message to draw them out, and draw them to punch you."
This video - https://youtu.be/5IuJGHuIkzY - is the proof, please watch it!
"Bird-dogging" is a term coined by high level Clinton staffers who openly talk about it in the video. They boast about inciting violence at Trump rallies, paying for every “protest”, manipulating Americans through the media to think that Trump is dangerous, and tricking people into thinking Trump supporters are violent and bad.
They laugh about paying off mentally ill and homeless people for years to incite violence against conservatives. Truly despicable. And they pretended to be Bernie supporters while they were "protesting".
They admit to starting the Chicago riot where police were seriously hurt, and admit to shutting down the freeway in Arizona, partnering with Black Lives Matter. We even have proof that Hillary paid people to shut down the Chicago rally.
Inciting a riot is illegal under 18 US Code § 2102.
They also think 50% of people in Iowa and Wisconsin are racists, as they state in the video.
Robby Mook, Clinton Campaign Manager, mentions the Priorities SuperPAC in a leak, which is implicated in the video.
Bob Creamer (who was fired) claims in the video that the campaign knew about everything. Bob Creamer visited the White House 340 times and personally met with Obama 45 times.
Let me address the second part of your post first. This thread is about emails. If you want to start a thread on youtube videos making accusations against the DNC, go for it but I refuse to address anything other than emails in this thread.
Now let's look at the two emai links you provided. I may have missed it but I don't see anything that could be construed as inciting Hillary supporters to cause violence. Could you quote the exact statement to which you are referring? The term bird dogging to me means watching, listening very closely and in no way can be twisted to mean inciting someone to violence.
-
Enough said.
True to form, take a quote out of context and declare victory. What's the matter, can't have an original thought?
-
[/u]
Question - Are the underlined words yours? Just trying to understand if that is your intrepretation of the content and meaning of the e-mails and video.
Can't say for sure but I think your copy got corrupted and added the underline. The one that came through on my reader doesn't have underlining in the second section beginning "this video...
-
Can't say for sure but I think your copy got corrupted and added the underline. The one that came through on my reader doesn't have underlining in the second section beginning "this video...
Possibly. Just wondering if the narrative was from PaulS or was part of another persons views.
Also read through the two e-mails, agree with you that I don't see a whole lot there to get all excited about. Routine correspondence from the field people on strategy, talking points and suggestions of where to go from there. The birddogging reference does indeed show up in the e-mails. Just like major league baseball team, political campaigns send people to the opponents rallies to hear the points made, the crowd reaction and provide comments - I'm not sure how that could be twisted to inciting violence. Some of the narrative pertains to the video, even though it is listed under the e-mail section.
The video is a different matter. Pretty ugly on the face of it. In true James O'Keefe fashion, rather dis-jointed and a lot of cut and paste and quotes taken out of context. It does illustrate a few things that are on the seamy side of politics. The use of PAC's and other "independent" political organizations to do the grunt work has exploded over the last 10-20 years. A tactic used to great success by both parties. Would have been interesting to see how the initial introductions to the interviews went. How did the people from ProjectVeritas portray themselves? Lots of language that has previously been characterized as "locker room" talk. Guess the "proof" will be dependent on the predisposition of the viewer.
-
[/u]
Question - Are the underlined words yours? Just trying to understand if that is your intrepretation of the content and meaning of the e-mails and video.
Gary, this was lifted from the 100 wikileaks link, I should have noted that. It is copied and pasted.
-
True to form, take a quote out of context and declare victory.
hmmmmmmmmm
-
Gary, this was lifted from the 100 wikileaks link, I should have noted that. It is copied and pasted.
Ok - Thanks. Didn't think they were your words (you write much better than that ;) )
-
wikileaks proved, to those with a mind not closed by democrat order, that the DNC and the Clinton Campaign were rife with corruption, election fixing and cheating.
They also opened the drapes and allowed people, only those with open minds, to see the depth of contempt the party has for actual people. When Podesta reminded his and the DNC staff that HRC didn't like regular people, many of us remembered the staged (fake) event in Iowa when the queer queen was supposed to mingle among the unwashed at a diner, only to discover that every person she 'mingled' was a DNC plant.
witmo won't remember, or acknowledge that either. It is only through psychopathic devotion to denial can he survive intact.
-
wikileaks proved, to those with a mind not closed by democrat order, that the DNC and the Clinton Campaign were rife with corruption, election fixing and cheating.
They also opened the drapes and allowed people, only those with open minds, to see the depth of contempt the party has for actual people. When Podesta reminded his and the DNC staff that HRC didn't like regular people, many of us remembered the staged (fake) event in Iowa when the queer queen was supposed to mingle among the unwashed at a diner, only to discover that every person she 'mingled' was a DNC plant.
witmo won't remember, or acknowledge that either. It is only through psychopathic devotion to denial can he survive intact.
My eyesight must be bad as I didn't see a single quoted email that could be construed as criminal activity in your post on this thread about emails. "Wikileaks proved" isn't something to discuss--it's a reliance on what someone or something declared and only the simple minded would take it at face value without seeing the proof for themself.
I'd like to thank Paul S. for at least attempting to discuss specific emails by posting some and commenting. As for Gary's comments, I agree that there's no smoking gun to see here so far concerning emails proving criminal activity.
-
My eyesight must be bad as I didn't see a single quoted email that could be construed as criminal activity in your post on this thread about emails. "Wikileaks proved" isn't something to discuss--it's a reliance on what someone or something declared and only the simple minded would take it at face value without seeing the proof for themself.
I'd like to thank Paul S. for at least attempting to discuss specific emails by posting some and commenting. As for Gary's comments, I agree that there's no smoking gun to see here so far concerning emails proving criminal activity.
What you are is intellectually lazy for he purpose of ignoring reality to further your delusions.
-
What you are is intellectually lazy for he purpose of ignoring reality to further your delusions.
I'm crushed by your comment. Is there any way I can change your opinion of me? It really means a lot to me to have your approval.😉
-
Still waiting to discuss something specific that the EMAILs exposed. You would think that those who claim the emails were some smoking gun of illegal activity could come up with one or two quotes from the trove of emails released, but no, we should all take their word that they've in fact read them and made the appropriate conclusion.
-
Still waiting to discuss something specific that the EMAILs exposed. You would think that those who claim the emails were some smoking gun of illegal activity could come up with one or two quotes from the trove of emails released, but no, we should all take their word that they've in fact read them and made the appropriate conclusion.
Hmmm, this one seems pretty damning, isn't it illegal to accept campaign money from foreigners?
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/2783
http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/foreign.shtml
-
Hmmm, this one seems pretty damning, isn't it illegal to accept campaign money from foreigners?
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/2783
http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/foreign.shtml
Where does it say who it is they accepted money from? I see something about discussing accepting money and FARA but it doesn't say that the individuals donating are excluded only that some discussion is warranted. Again hardly damning evidence of illegal campaign contributions. Now if the email were to say HRC accepted funds from such and such and they are flaunting FARA you'd have a smoking gun but this is hardly that.