Ivanka Trump used PERSONAL EMAILS!!!!?!?????

Xzi · Nov 21, 2018

bodefuceta said:
Some russian hackers stole a bunch of data, but only part of it is available online because wikileaks is the only hosting platform in the world and it's obviously partisan, because they keep posting things I don't like. This is what liberals believe.

Wikileaks obviously had access to what the GRU had stolen through hacking, I'm not sure what would make you believe that information was widely available to any site that wanted to host it, though.

It is sad because they used to be a reliable source for stuff like the Panama papers, which included information on anybody who was evading taxes. Not just one political party or the other.

supermist · Nov 21, 2018

Uh, Wikileaks even said that they had obtained RNC emails too, but that there was "nothing notable" to release to the public.

Xzi · Nov 21, 2018

supermist said:
Uh, Wikileaks even said that they had obtained RNC emails too, but that there was "nothing notable" to release to the public.

Yeah, Assange has never exactly been subtle about his hatred for Hillary. The only other person who might hate her more is Putin, so it makes sense that the Russians worked with Wikileaks during the election.

bodefuceta · Nov 21, 2018

Xzi said:
Wikileaks obviously had access to what the GRU had stolen through hacking, I'm not sure what would make you believe that information was widely available to any site that wanted to host it, though.

It is sad because they used to be a reliable source for stuff like the Panama papers, which included information on anybody who was evading taxes. Not just one political party or the other.

By GRU, are you referring to the Main Directorate of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation?
The people who work under Putin, who was greatly helped by Clinton, by the way, through the Uranium One deal?
You think they'd simply give a bunch of data to wikileaks, and leave it solely to wikileaks for publishing just anything they'd want? And the rest would disappear forever, just because wikileaks is somehow partisan, right-wing partisan while being sponsored mainly by leftist organizations?
Are you on weed?

supermist · Nov 21, 2018

It really is a shame because they also released the reuters video where those drones attacked innocent people by mistake but the military decided to cover it up to continue receiving support for the war effort.

Xzi · Nov 21, 2018

bodefuceta said:
The people who work under Putin, who was greatly helped by Clinton, by the way, through the Uranium One deal?

Bigfoot, pizza pedos, uranium Seth Richs, oh my!

bodefuceta · Nov 21, 2018

Nice argument.

Xzi · Nov 21, 2018

bodefuceta said:
Nice argument.

It's no longer an argument when you start bringing conspiracy theories into it. Any claim made without evidence can be just as easily dismissed without evidence.

supermist · Nov 21, 2018

bodefuceta said:
Nice argument.

I mean, do you have some reliable sources to back your claims?

bodefuceta · Nov 21, 2018

Xzi said:
It's no longer an argument when you start bringing conspiracy theories into it. Any claim made without evidence can be just as easily dismissed without evidence.

Because the evidence is on wikileaks, right? But that begs to question, isn't the whole topic about wikileaks a conspiracy theory then? It should be time for you to leave this thread alone.

supermist said:
I mean, do you have some reliable sources to back your claims?

Sure, which claim?

supermist · Nov 21, 2018

All of them.

bodefuceta · Nov 21, 2018

supermist said:
All of them.

Not if you're this lazy.

supermist · Nov 21, 2018

That's the way the burden of proof works. I've provded sources for all of my claims thus far in this thread.

bodefuceta · Nov 21, 2018

supermist said:
That's the way the burden of proof works. I've provded sources for all of my claims thus far in this thread.

"The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) is the obligation of a party in a trial". That's not how it works at all.
If you have one specific thing you'd like to have sourced, I can fetch it for you. But you have to be a nice boy. And give me some time as I'll have dinner and shower now.

Xzi · Nov 21, 2018

bodefuceta said:
Because the evidence is on wikileaks, right? But that begs to question, isn't the whole topic about wikileaks a conspiracy theory then? It should be time for you to leave this thread alone.

If it's factual it shouldn't be hard to find more than one source, especially when that first source is so shaky.

I completely understand the need for conservatives to be conspiracy-focused, though, sometimes the reality of what Trump is doing to the long-term image of the party must be hard to deal with. Much easier to construct a fantasy where Hillary is responsible for anything bad that's happened in the last ~200 years. It's not going to win you any elections as the general public sees right through the stupidity of that charade, but at least you'll be comfy inside your own head.

bodefuceta · Nov 21, 2018

Xzi said:
If it's factual it shouldn't be hard to find more than one source, especially when that first source is so shaky.

The sources in question are the DNC leaks, which of I know are hosted on wikileaks and are in no way hard to find. And again, if wikileaks (and the leaks) is shaky and partisan and whatever, why do you even bother with this topic? I sincerely recommend you read up on the contents of the DNC leak, or just leave the matter alone to those who have the capacity to actually research on information instead of spewing nonsense on some gaming forum. All of what I said is very reliably sourced, up to affirmations of you on weed.

Xzi said:
I completely understand the need for conservatives to be conspiracy-focused, though, sometimes the reality of what Trump is doing to the long-term image of the party must be hard to deal with.

Not that I care about your opinion, but it's unwise to assume I'm conservative or whatever and somehow make it part of your argumentation.

Xzi · Nov 21, 2018

bodefuceta said:
The sources in question are the DNC leaks, which of I know are hosted on wikileaks and are in no way hard to find. And again, if wikileaks (and the leaks) is shaky and partisan and whatever, why do you even bother with this topic?

The thread topic has nothing to do with Wikileaks, and you were the one who initially brought it up. I've sourced my claim that they decided to become partisan as an organization around 2016. Here's another article proving that they have a political agenda because of Russian government leaks that they declined to publish:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/1...-government-during-u-s-presidential-campaign/

bodefuceta said:
All of what I said is very reliably sourced

At this point nobody should consider Wikileaks to be a reliable source any more than Facebook is. Again, you're free to desperately cling to conspiracy theories, but it's not going to change anything or be convincing to the majority.

Ivanka Trump used PERSONAL EMAILS!!!!?!?????

Time to fly, 621

Well-Known Member

Time to fly, 621

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Time to fly, 621

Well-Known Member

Time to fly, 621

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Time to fly, 621

Well-Known Member

Time to fly, 621

Similar threads

Popular threads in this forum