Originally posted by Robtard
Also the one you show is a nothing-email. Do you think it's even possible that BS was sprinkled in with legit emails to give the semblance of credibility?
So do you perhaps feel it might have been a mistake on the part of the Clinton Campaign and a good portion of the media to continually just ignore the wikileaks?
Originally posted by Robtard
We're entering a brave new world.
I know, it'll be great, like Tony the Tiger grrrreat.
Anyways, do you think that these wikileaks are something the Clinton campaign should take a closer look at now?
I realize if they were to prove the emails fake it would be too late to save the election, but if the emails are indeed fake then it might at least make people question wikileaks the next time they try to influence something.
Originally posted by Surtur
I know, it'll be great, like Tony the Tiger grrrreat.Anyways, do you think that these wikileaks are something the Clinton campaign should take a closer look at now?
I realize if they were to prove the emails fake it would be too late to save the election, but if the emails are indeed fake then it might at least make people question wikileaks the next time they try to influence something.
Clinton was smart to never touched the wikileaks, if she proved one false, then she would be expected to prove that they're all false otherwise they're true. They're not even her emails.
Granted, a lot of people do follow the "true until proven false" mantra, especially when it comes to Clinton, but that's not how the Burden of Proof works.
Anyways, she lost the election, so why should she bother now?
Originally posted by Robtard
Clinton was smart to never touched the wikileaks, if she proved one false, then she would be expected to prove that they're all false otherwise they're true. They're not even her emails.
I would have said she was smart to do that as well..if she had won.
Anyways, she lost the election, so why should she bother now?
Do you feel the wikileaks had any tangible effect on her loss? If you do, we should want to make sure these people were not lying, yes? For the future?
Since if they are liars they should not be allowed to influence future elections. Just because Hilary's hopes have been dashed doesn't mean the country doesn't continue on.
Originally posted by Robtard
Why are you asking the Democrats to do the lifting in proving that our election wasn't influenced by outside forces if it actually was, when you'll (the royal you) cry "sore-losers", shouldn't the Republicans be doing it, or at least their fair share?
Won't you guys need some shit to do besides cry?
Just trying to help.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Not really as exposed to US news as ppl here, did Hillary even acknowledge the emails at all? Or did her campaign completely ignore it?
Pretty much completely ignored it, as most people here cheered her on for the super good idea of ignoring it.
They just were upset, they were upset when T1 spammed thread after thread about her corruption. They wondered "why?". Now..they know why lol.
Huh.
One would think a single denial, a single instance of the emails being proven fake would have completely discredited the entire scandal and all future scandals similiar to it and would have been a good idea (her ability to control the media/celebs would have assured that it would have simply devolved into a bad joke, a weak accusation by a desperate opposing campaign). At the very least, they could have put some positive spin to it.
Ignoring negative press would only really be a good idea on 2 instances IIRC:
1) if said negative press/allegation was too insignificant and too small/unknown that drawing uneeded attention to it would give it exposure it cannot get by itself thus simply ignoring it and burying amidst constantly-flowing news ("ignore it, ppl won't hear about it anyway"😉 would make it go mostly unheard. Not applicable when there is enough media coverage that can be generated by opposing interests groups.
2) You have ample time to simply let the negative press/allegations die down and simply allow the public's/media's short attention spans do the work ("ignore it, it'll go away on it's own in time"😉. Not applicable when there is an issue of time-sensitivity (aka elections).
By ignoring the emails, her campaign basically allowed negative press to spin out of control or at the very least allowed her opponents to get serious mileage out of the allegations, thus undermining her credibility and her campaign.
Bad idea IMO.
Yes and remember I think it was Q99..or some shit, came in and said some emails might be false because of the dates that they supposed gave money to people. Like apparently it listed giving money to BLM at a time where BLM didn't exist. Some shit like that.
This was..a random person on the internet who we can assume spent zero dollars actually investigating this lol. If that person can do that, the Clinton Campaign truly dropped the ball.