• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Clinton campaign mocks Catholics, Southerners, 'needy Latinos' in emails...

MickeyW

MickeyW

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2015
Messages
14,012
Reaction score
3,439
Location
Southern Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
This kind of news brings out the deniers......

 
Trump fans whining about Hillary's staff being insulting is just wonderful, it really is.
 
MickeyW said:
Long before Hillary Clinton called millions of Americans a “basket of deplorables,” her top campaign advisers and liberal allies openly mocked Catholics, Southerners and a host of other groups, according to newly released emails that offer a stunning window into the vitriol inside the Clinton world less than a month before Election Day.
Hillary Clinton campaign WikiLeaks emails reveal disdain for Catholics, Southerners, 'needy Latinos' - Washington Times
Click to expand...

That appears to be a false email. The person sending the email IS CATHOLIC HERSELF, she says. So it seems we've finally hit on some proof that the emails have been doctored.

Are we so surprised that the so-called information being released by Russia is not truthful? :doh
 
MickeyW said:
Long before Hillary Clinton called millions of Americans a “basket of deplorables,” her top campaign advisers and liberal allies openly mocked Catholics, Southerners and a host of other groups, according to newly released emails that offer a stunning window into the vitriol inside the Clinton world less than a month before Election Day.
Hillary Clinton campaign WikiLeaks emails reveal disdain for Catholics, Southerners, 'needy Latinos' - Washington Times
Click to expand...

At least she hasn't send out her goons out to beat Christians, rednecks, Deplorables, Irredeemables, and Basement Dwellers. Although that poor soul who got beat in Vegas is only a beginning.
 
MickeyW said:
Long before Hillary Clinton called millions of Americans a “basket of deplorables,” her top campaign advisers and liberal allies openly mocked Catholics, Southerners and a host of other groups, according to newly released emails that offer a stunning window into the vitriol inside the Clinton world less than a month before Election Day.
Hillary Clinton campaign WikiLeaks emails reveal disdain for Catholics, Southerners, 'needy Latinos' - Washington Times
Click to expand...

It is a little late to do enough damage, unless something more juicy turns up.
 
JumpinJack said:
That appears to be a false email. The person sending the email IS CATHOLIC HERSELF, she says. So it seems we've finally hit on some proof that the emails have been doctored.

Are we so surprised that the so-called information being released by Russia is not truthful? :doh
Click to expand...
Yes, she's Catholic and has refuted that email.

Same with Donna Brazile refuting hers, and Podesta claiming he can't account for the voracity of specific emails.

Unlike the Trump accusations where first person witnesses step forward, these emails have no individuals attesting to their accuracy or the accuracy of the events contained within, and now the only witnesses coming forward are those the emails are attributed to - and some are denying their accuracy.

Regardless - I do believe many of the emails leaked are likely accurate, but that's not to say specific emails may not be fraudulent. There's reason and motive behind these leaks.
 
Chomsky said:
Yes, she's Catholic and has refuted that email.

Same with Donna Brazile refuting hers, and Podesta claiming he can't account for the voracity of specific emails.

Unlike the Trump accusations where first person witnesses step forward, these emails have no individuals attesting to their accuracy or the accuracy of the events contained within, and now the only witnesses coming forward are those the emails are attributed to - and some are denying their accuracy.

Regardless - I do believe many of the emails leaked are likely accurate, but that's not to say specific emails may not be fraudulent. There's reason and motive behind these leaks.
Click to expand...

No offense, but if you believe campaign rhetoric about "fake" "doctored" or "manipulated" emails, then you're being fooled.
There is absolutely 0 evidence that these emails are not real, not a single shred.

They not remembering is just an obviously convenient and predictable excuse.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
No offense, but if you believe campaign rhetoric about "fake" "doctored" or "manipulated" emails, then you're being fooled.
There is absolutely 0 evidence that these emails are not real, not a single shred.

They not remembering is just an obviously convenient and predictable excuse.
Click to expand...

There is, actually. A Newsweek author found his own writing in one of them, edited.
 
Deuce said:
There is, actually. A Newsweek author found his own writing in one of them, edited.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know exactly what the article was, unfortunately that Newsweek journalist is a retard.
His article was emailed, in full by Sid Blumenthal, to John Podesta.

There was nothing else to it.
He spun it to be a Russian Trumpspiracy, that didn't exist.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
No offense, but if you believe campaign rhetoric about "fake" "doctored" or "manipulated" emails, then you're being fooled.
There is absolutely 0 evidence that these emails are not real, not a single shred.

They not remembering is just an obviously convenient and predictable excuse.
Click to expand...

Yes, there IS evidence. When the person who supposedly sent the email appears in public nationally and states that she didn't send that email, that she herself IS Catholic. That is called proof.

The reason thee's an email about Catholics is that's an important vote block that the Republicans need (but are not getting so far).

See how it all falls into place?

That's not to say they're all false. But once several are proven to be false, that brings them all into suspicion. After all, if the emails were strong enough on their own, there would no need to "doctor" them.
 
JumpinJack said:
Yes, there IS evidence. When the person who supposedly sent the email appears in public nationally and states that she didn't send that email, that she herself IS Catholic. That is called proof.

The reason thee's an email about Catholics is that's an important vote block that the Republicans need (but are not getting so far).

See how it all falls into place?

That's not to say they're all false. But once several are proven to be false, that brings them all into suspicion. After all, if the emails were strong enough on their own, there would no need to "doctor" them.
Click to expand...

We've investigated ourselves and found ourselves innocent, is not evidence. :lol:
Who wouldn't try to do that, if they were caught with their pants down, that's hilarious that you even believe it.

No skepticism?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
No offense, but if you believe campaign rhetoric about "fake" "doctored" or "manipulated" emails, then you're being fooled.
There is absolutely 0 evidence that these emails are not real, not a single shred.

They not remembering is just an obviously convenient and predictable excuse.
Click to expand...

No offense taken, Harry.

But no, I don't feel fooled at all.

I believe many to most emails may be accurate. But I've seen nothing to prove they all are. And they are being released for political purpose.

So it's for these reasons I take them with a grain of salt. I wouldn't take any one email as a form of definitive proof of any sort, that's for sure.

So for me, they're a minor issue that will not influence my vote in any substantive fashion. I also believe the majority of citizens will become desensitized to these leaks, and this may already be occurring.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
We've investigated ourselves and found ourselves innocent, is not evidence. :lol:
Who wouldn't try to do that, if they were caught with their pants down, that's hilarious that you even believe it.

No skepticism?
Click to expand...

To continue to deny there's proof, when there's proof of proof, is insanity.

It's easy enough to very someone's religion. She wouldn't risk making herself out to be a fool and a liar on national tv. But you know that.

Donna Brazile and CNN have both strongly denied the so-called email in Wikileaks. Brazile said she didn't pass any question on to anyone, one reason being she wasn't given the questions beforehand, but she wouldn't have, anyway. CNN has stated similarly. There's no proof that the email is real; to the contrary, there is proof that it is not.

Wikileaks' found, Julian Assange, has made no secret that he wants Trump to win and is friendly with Russia. That, as they say, is the name o' that tune.

It's pathetic when a candidate is so desperate as to go to this extreme to try to sink the other candidate, when he can't win. Sinking Clinton will not equal a Trump win. He will not win, anyway.

Save yourself, your dignity, your reputation, like Paul Ryan. Concentrate on what is left to save: Congress.
 
Chomsky said:
No offense taken, Harry.

But no, I don't feel fooled at all.

I believe many to most emails may be accurate. But I've seen nothing to prove they all are. And they are being released for political purpose.

So it's for these reasons I take them with a grain of salt. I wouldn't take any one email as a form of definitive proof of any sort, that's for sure.

So for me, they're a minor issue that will not influence my vote in any substantive fashion. I also believe the majority of citizens will become desensitized to these leaks, and this may already be occurring.
Click to expand...

Sure they aren't definitive proof of a lot of things people think they are.
I've defended Hillary on out of context emails, that are being misrepresented.

With that said, Wikileaks has a 10 year history of leaking real documents.
So far, in that 10 years, not one of the millions of documents have been faked or fraudulent.
The faked and fraudulent arguments are shade to cover for their nastiness, at least in some.

I've read a couple hundred of them by now, a lot of it mild, some very interesting, a select few kinda damning/nasty.
 
Chomsky said:
Yes, she's Catholic and has refuted that email.

Same with Donna Brazile refuting hers, and Podesta claiming he can't account for the voracity of specific emails.

Unlike the Trump accusations where first person witnesses step forward, these emails have no individuals attesting to their accuracy or the accuracy of the events contained within, and now the only witnesses coming forward are those the emails are attributed to - and some are denying their accuracy.

Regardless - I do believe many of the emails leaked are likely accurate, but that's not to say specific emails may not be fraudulent. There's reason and motive behind these leaks.
Click to expand...

The easiest way to refute them would be to provide access to all of her emails.....
 
JumpinJack said:
To continue to deny there's proof, when there's proof of proof, is insanity.

It's easy enough to very someone's religion. She wouldn't risk making herself out to be a fool and a liar on national tv. But you know that.

Donna Brazile and CNN have both strongly denied the so-called email in Wikileaks. Brazile said she didn't pass any question on to anyone, one reason being she wasn't given the questions beforehand, but she wouldn't have, anyway. CNN has stated similarly. There's no proof that the email is real; to the contrary, there is proof that it is not.
Click to expand...

Denial is not proof.
In the 10 year history, Wikileaks has not leaked any false documents.
Why would they die on this hill?

JumpinJack said:
Wikileaks' found, Julian Assange, has made no secret that he wants Trump to win and is friendly with Russia. That, as they say, is the name o' that tune.
Click to expand...

Assange has never said he wanted Trump to win.
Wikileaks has released secret Russian docs before.

All these accusations, that you're stating have no basis in fact.
Someone gave you a drop of plausibility and you've run it with, without proof.

JumpinJack said:
It's pathetic when a candidate is so desperate as to go to this extreme to try to sink the other candidate, when he can't win. Sinking Clinton will not equal a Trump win. He will not win, anyway.

Save yourself, your dignity, your reputation, like Paul Ryan. Concentrate on what is left to save: Congress.
Click to expand...

I don't have a candidate or party, other than truth.
Truth is often ugly but for me, it is superior to all else.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Sure they aren't definitive proof of a lot of things people think they are.
I've defended Hillary on out of context emails, that are being misrepresented.

With that said, Wikileaks has a 10 year history of leaking real documents.
So far, in that 10 years, not one of the millions of documents have been faked or fraudulent.
The faked and fraudulent arguments are shade to cover for their nastiness, at least in some.

I've read a couple hundred of them by now, a lot of it mild, some very interesting, a select few kinda damning/nasty.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, in that I was not aware of WikiLeak's record you claim, though I'm wary about accepting this claim without researching it.

But regardless of the present campaign spin, it was my personal decision (made earlier) to not trust a source like WikiLeaks in terms of my making critical or substantive decisions. It's just not a source I trust.
 
JumpinJack said:
That appears to be a false email. The person sending the email IS CATHOLIC HERSELF, she says. So it seems we've finally hit on some proof that the emails have been doctored.

Are we so surprised that the so-called information being released by Russia is not truthful? :doh
Click to expand...

So your take is that the Russians created thousands and thousands of emails just to plant a few potentially damaging ones? You don't think that's incredibly far fetched?
 
Chomsky said:
Fair enough, in that I was not aware of WikiLeak's record you claim, though I'm wary about accepting this claim without researching it.

But regardless of the present campaign spin, it was my personal decision (made earlier) to not trust a source like WikiLeaks in terms of my making critical or substantive decisions. It's just not a source I trust.
Click to expand...

Whomever is leaking it to them, I really don't know and I'm not ready to believe claims of Russia (ala weapons of mass destruction in Iraq).
To kind of show the legitimacy of these emails, they hacked Podesta's Twitter account using a PW found in his emails.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Denial is not proof.
In the 10 year history, Wikileaks has not leaked any false documents.
Why would they die on this hill?



Assange has never said he wanted Trump to win.
Wikileaks has released secret Russian docs before.

All these accusations, that you're stating have no basis in fact.
Someone gave you a drop of plausibility and you've run it with, without proof.



I don't have a candidate or party, other than truth.
Truth is often ugly but for me, it is superior to all else.
Click to expand...

You don't know much about proof, do you? I worked in the legal field for decades. There's proof of the falsity of two of those emails. Period.

Yes, Assange is in Trump's pocket.

Yes, Assange is in Russia's pocket.

You can deny these things all you want, which is the definition of insanity.
 
Lutherf said:
So your take is that the Russians created thousands and thousands of emails just to plant a few potentially damaging ones? You don't think that's incredibly far fetched?
Click to expand...

I didn't say that.

Next question.
 
JumpinJack said:
You don't know much about proof, do you? I worked in the legal field for decades. There's proof of the falsity of two of those emails. Period.

Yes, Assange is in Trump's pocket.

Yes, Assange is in Russia's pocket.

You can deny these things all you want, which is the definition of insanity.
Click to expand...

Proof.
You have none.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom