Thoughts on Wikileaks Denial

Started by Bashar Teg15 pages
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
She is the source, asshat👆

name calling -check
citation quote -still pending

They are ****ed when they come out, thats what I think. The liberals will just have more evidence the people they are voting for are corrupt pos's

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
name calling -check
citation quote -still pending

I already provided you the source and the quote, reported for trolling after evidence was provided.

Why would podesta validate them? Not validating them is a much smarter move on his part, as it allows people to express doubt about their authenticity.

The reason she's deflecting stuff about these as much as she can is because she's winning all while ignoring the leaks for the most part.

If in the next couple of weeks the polls start to get close, and their internal polling shows that the leaks are starting to have an impact, she will be forced to confront them in a way she hasn't had to yet.

Personally I don't expect that to happen. I think the people who are really bothered by these emails generally already have their mind made up about her. And barring some legitimately huge leak, I think the damage has been done, and the damage hasn't been all that severe.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
you can't just say "the universe came from a unicorn's butthole", put the burden of proof on the doubter to prove it wrong, and then kick back and celebrate your victory.

If I said that then I'd be asserting the claim, and the burden of proof would be on me.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
secondly, since goldbach's conjecture cannot be proven, it cannot be asserted as mathematical fact. thats the whole point of calling something 'theoretical'. so i don't see how that's even relevant.

There are no theories in mathematics. You have axioms, proofs and conjectures.

That said, Goldbach's conjecture does hold for very large numbers, and I brought it up specifically because there are methods relying on it that are used in a number of computational algorithms.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
...and if the pawn shop is selling something claimed to be authentic, it is also up to them to provide proof.

Isn't that the case though? If you're considering buying a ring that the seller claims to be 18 carat gold, aren't they going to verify it in the same way the seller verified it to them?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
no it does not indicate motive. all it does is leave room for suspicion, which doesn't hold up when the goal is assigning any guilt, let alone "beyond reasonable doubt".

Why would you plead the fifth if you weren't guilty?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
nah, that's just pure supposition. pleading the 5th cannot be used as supporting evidence of guilt. there's no way to explain around that.

Not in court, obviously. But pleading the fifth is not denying a charge—which you'd have no reason to unless you were guilty.

Originally posted by BackFire
Why would podesta validate them? Not validating them is a much smarter move on his part, as it allows people to express doubt about their authenticity.

The reason she's deflecting stuff about these as much as she can is because she's winning all while ignoring the leaks for the most part.

If in the next couple of weeks the polls start to get close, and their internal polling shows that the leaks are starting to have an impact, she will be forced to confront them in a way she hasn't had to yet.

Personally I don't expect that to happen. I think the people who are really bothered by these emails generally already have their mind made up about her. And barring some legitimately huge leak, I think the damage has been done, and the damage hasn't been all that severe.


Because people have accepted she is a law breaker who is above the law. It proves that they were never really true change agents like Bernie supposedly was.

Originally posted by BackFire
Why would podesta validate them? Not validating them is a much smarter move on his part, as it allows people to express doubt about their authenticity.

The reason she's deflecting stuff about these as much as she can is because she's winning all while ignoring the leaks for the most part.

If in the next couple of weeks the polls start to get close, and their internal polling shows that the leaks are starting to have an impact, she will be forced to confront them in a way she hasn't had to yet.

Personally I don't expect that to happen. I think the people who are really bothered by these emails generally already have their mind made up about her. And barring some legitimately huge leak, I think the damage has been done, and the damage hasn't been all that severe.

But don't you agree there is a problem when Trumps comments about women(admittedly vile) seem to get more of a rise out of people than the Clinton campaign making plans to cause riots at rallies?

I agree with you 100% the damage hasn't been severe and *that* is what worries me. It's one thing to say they are fake, but I'm just amazed people seem content to just ignore these. By "people" I mean the media.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
name calling -check
citation quote -still pending
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKRYrIzXKtY

>citation

Originally posted by Its2016
YouTube video

>citation

Originally posted by Robtard
Question: Was Clinton admitting that the wikileaks emails existed or that they existed and were legit, meaning not fabrications
Wallace mentioned their source for her emails was wikileaks. Clinton clearly says "what I was saying" in reference to the email and the question regarding immigration, then used scare tactics against Russia so people vote for her. Youre braindead. Youre immensely butthurt you thought wikileaks was nothing. Youre a failure.

B-b-but Donald Drumpf is an clown.

Face it, you ****ing lose.

Clinton admitting it isn't proof for them. It has to come from CNN to be true.

According to liberals on KMC Chris Wallace, Anderson Cooper and Martha Raditz were using fake evidence to question Hillary Clinton in a Presidential debate.

YouTube video i only need trump to win nevada to make a profit. 😄

YouTube video CNN getting owned. XD

still no quotes provided. how expected.

I provided the quotes, you ignored them👆

"CLINTON: Well, right. As I recall, that was something I said about Abraham Lincoln after having seen the wonderful Steven Spielberg movie called “Lincoln.” It was a master class watching President Lincoln get the Congress to approve the 13th Amendment. It was principled, and it was strategic."

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
still no quotes provided. how expected.
The video isnt enough for you?

CLINTON: Well, right. As I recall, that was something I said about Abraham Lincoln after having seen the wonderful Steven Spielberg movie called “Lincoln.” It was a master class watching President Lincoln get the Congress to approve the 13th Amendment. It was principled, and it was strategic.

Wallace: That's the question. Please, quiet, everybody. Is that your dream? Open borders?

Clinton: If you went on to read the rest of the sentence, I was talking about energy. We trade more energy with our neighbors than we trade with the rest of the world combined. And I do want us to have an electric grid, an energy system that crosses borders. I think that would be a great benefit to us.

http://heavy.com/news/2016/10/hillary-clinton-quotes-third-presidential-debate-best-funny-october-19-2016/

He will deny the quotes now.