Wikileaks

[GMDino]

Anyone know when the next bunch of emails is coming?

They've been pretty quiet since 11/8.

I'm sure it has nothing to do with them trying to influence the election in one direction or the other...

Just wondering.

[Rotobeast]

Assange is a little busy, trying to clear himself in Sweden.
At least he wasn't "suicided".

[*michaelsean*]

So is wikileaks good or bad? I know they used to be Assange was a hero, but then something changed. Can't quite put my finger on it.

[tigerseye]

The truth coming to light for all to see is a good thing. It is good for everyone to know what your actually voting for. The DNC wasn't denying what was being revealed. Assange did a great service to the US voters, unlike the Main Stream Propaganda Outlets who lie through their teeth to the American public.

Now the Main Stream Propaganda Outlets are calling the truth telling news outlets "fake news" when in fact (as proven during the elections) they (MSPO) are the ones actually reporting "fake news". (They are trying to attack free speach here and silence an opposing view).

The Main Stream Propaganda Outlets now have absolutely no credibility left. They even said that now they are going to report accurately now that the election is over which is what your implying about Assange and Wikileaks.

Isn't this an old Clinton/Alinsky trick? Accuse your adversary (in this case the truth telling news) of the very thing that you yourself do. Just like Clinton has always done.

We all need to see through what these manipulators are doing to us and our country.

God Bless America.

[GMDino]

Clearly Joeblogs.com and honestrealnews.net and whywouldwelie.cc are much better than those FAKE newsites like NBC, ABC, CBS, etc...

Clearly.

[SunsetBengal]

(11-19-2016, 02:47 PM)GMDino Wrote: Clearly Joeblogs.com and honestrealnews.net and whywouldwelie.cc are much better than those FAKE newsites like NBC, ABC, CBS, etc...

Clearly.

Well, they are currently the ones with egg on their collective faces.  Isn't the current number something like 78% of Americans felt like the mainstream news coverage of the election was biased?

[GMDino]

(11-19-2016, 02:54 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Well, they are currently the ones with egg on their collective faces.  Isn't the current number something like 78% of Americans felt like the mainstream news coverage of the election was biased?

You mean to tell me that 78% of people don't like news that doesn't agree with what they already "know"?


Color me stunned.  

[*PhilHos*]

(11-18-2016, 05:49 PM)GMDino Wrote: Anyone know when the next bunch of emails is coming?

They've been pretty quiet since 11/8.

I'm sure it has nothing to do with them trying to influence the election in one direction or the other...

Just wondering.

I don't think anyone doubts that they were trying to influence the election, but so did pretty much everyone. News organizations do it when they endorse a candidate (and when they influence news stories to benefit a candidate ). People do it when they put bumper stickers on their cars or signs in their yards or post on a football message board that a certain candidate sucks worse than the other one.

As long as they weren't trying to unduly or improperly or illegally influence the election (like say, having dead people cast a ballot as one example), I don't see that what they did was wrong.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(11-19-2016, 02:59 PM)GMDino Wrote: You mean to tell me that 78% of people don't like news that doesn't agree with what they already "know"?


Color me stunned.  

You can't both riot because Clinton won the popular vote and make fun of 78% of the country for not trusting pro-Clinton news.

That would make you both defending and attacking the majority of America at the same time.

[GMDino]

(11-19-2016, 06:47 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: You can't both riot because Clinton won the popular vote and make fun of 78% of the country for not trusting pro-Clinton news.

That would make you both defending and attacking the majority of America at the same time.

I didn't riot and it's not "pro-Clinton" news that they don't "trust".  It's anything that goes against what they "know".

Source be damned.