A regular voter's summary of wikileaks

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody cares, except Trump supporters.

In other words, "I do not give a damn about corruption and you cannot make me. It suits my needs not to care."

You sound proud of that stance. Vote for her, sure, but for God's sake, how can you not care about the deteriorated state our country is in that is allowing people to proudly state that they do not care about unethical behavior of its politicians?

Jesus, because you nutters don't care! These leaks come from Russia, and several of you on different threads here have said you don't care, we need to see the corruption! Well, then let's get started on the Republicans, who, may I remind you, have spent the last eight years doing NOTHING and have vowed to do more of the same. That's corruption you can weed out in your own party with a vote - no foreign influence needed! - but will you do it? Of course not. Cowards.

And why is it you think we should just skip over Hillary and focus on the Republicans first?

Because the Hillary stuff is fruit of the poisoned tree and we have Republican intransigence going on right now, for at least the last eight years. Why should we skip over that?

Dude. We've had a Democrat President for the last eight years. What on earth are you talking about?

[Anonymous]

My favorite part of the leaks is seeing how nabh prents grovelled for jobs for their kids.

Also, Neena Tanden and Podeta clearly have awareness of how much their boss is hated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody cares, except Trump supporters.

In other words, "I do not give a damn about corruption and you cannot make me. It suits my needs not to care."

You sound proud of that stance. Vote for her, sure, but for God's sake, how can you not care about the deteriorated state our country is in that is allowing people to proudly state that they do not care about unethical behavior of its politicians?

Jesus, because you nutters don't care! These leaks come from Russia, and several of you on different threads here have said you don't care, we need to see the corruption! Well, then let's get started on the Republicans, who, may I remind you, have spent the last eight years doing NOTHING and have vowed to do more of the same. That's corruption you can weed out in your own party with a vote - no foreign influence needed! - but will you do it? Of course not. Cowards.

And why is it you think we should just skip over Hillary and focus on the Republicans first?

Because the Hillary stuff is fruit of the poisoned tree and we have Republican intransigence going on right now, for at least the last eight years. Why should we skip over that?

Dude. We've had a Democrat President for the last eight years. What on earth are you talking about?

Seriously? GTFO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody cares, except Trump supporters.

Nobody cares about corruption? Are we a banana republic already? It figures...

Trump wants America to be like Russia. He wants to arrest political opponents and he wants to dispute election results if he loses. Trump doesn't believe in democracy. He wants to dismantle NATO so Putin can run Scot Free. You are supporting someone that wants to be a dictator to a banana republic USA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody cares, except Trump supporters.

In other words, "I do not give a damn about corruption and you cannot make me. It suits my needs not to care."

You sound proud of that stance. Vote for her, sure, but for God's sake, how can you not care about the deteriorated state our country is in that is allowing people to proudly state that they do not care about unethical behavior of its politicians?

Jesus, because you nutters don't care! These leaks come from Russia, and several of you on different threads here have said you don't care, we need to see the corruption! Well, then let's get started on the Republicans, who, may I remind you, have spent the last eight years doing NOTHING and have vowed to do more of the same. That's corruption you can weed out in your own party with a vote - no foreign influence needed! - but will you do it? Of course not. Cowards.

And why is it you think we should just skip over Hillary and focus on the Republicans first?

Because the Hillary stuff is fruit of the poisoned tree and we have Republican intransigence going on right now, for at least the last eight years. Why should we skip over that?

Hillary's running for the highest office in the land. To me, that makes investigating her corruption more important than the Republicans who have "done nothing over the last 8 years."

Has anyone come out and disauthenticated the e-mails? No? So, if we don't have reason to believe they've been modified, why should we focus on the source rather than the content? Has conclusive evidence come out that these leaks are from illegal hacking by the Russians? Nope, just "well this kinda looks like what they do so it might be them."

If a career criminal had evidence of a crime, should that evidence be ignored and not followed up on because of the source? You might look at the evidence a little more carefully due to the source, but it shouldn't be flat out ignored.

You really think if Trump's emails and his personal details, agreements and contracts are revealed there won't be anything illegal. Heck he hasn't even paid taxes and he won't release his taxes. So what is he hiding?

You are fine with Russia breaking your emails and making them public right? Or Trump's emails? Or RNC emails? You want Russia to hack American elections to elect trump? Because you don't care about hacking but only about hacked content of Hillary. Why is Russia not having Trump's emails? Because Trump is in the pocket of Putin. You are conned.

[Anonymous]

^^ so all of that absolves Hillary?

We can only work with the evidence we have. This isn't about Trump, despite your efforts to make it so. If his e-mails/records/whatever are leaked (like his old taxes were, which was covered by the media), we'll discuss them then.

The allegations of wrongdoing that have come out of these leaks date back before the election even started. Clinton is in the pocket of many foreign governments, including several that she herself says support terrorist groups.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^ so all of that absolves Hillary?

We can only work with the evidence we have. This isn't about Trump, despite your efforts to make it so. If his e-mails/records/whatever are leaked (like his old taxes were, which was covered by the media), we'll discuss them then.

The allegations of wrongdoing that have come out of these leaks date back before the election even started. Clinton is in the pocket of many foreign governments, including several that she herself says support terrorist groups.

Receiving money from Saudi Arabia is not a per se bad thing. Sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ so all of that absolves Hillary?

We can only work with the evidence we have. This isn't about Trump, despite your efforts to make it so. If his e-mails/records/whatever are leaked (like his old taxes were, which was covered by the media), we'll discuss them then.

The allegations of wrongdoing that have come out of these leaks date back before the election even started. Clinton is in the pocket of many foreign governments, including several that she herself says support terrorist groups.

Receiving money from Saudi Arabia is not a per se bad thing. Sorry.

So what about accepting tens of millions of dollars from the Saudi king and overseeing massive arms deals to them as SoS while knowing (in her own words) that they were funding and supporting ISIS? That is a bad thing. Sorry.

[Anonymous]

Regular voter here: Its sad to think that the corruption has gone so far that we have to rely on Wikileaks to have the truth published.

[Anonymous]

Remember people, the only republican value is power: attaining it and keeping it.

The only rule is "it's okay if you are a republican."

Once you realize this, everything becomes clear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Remember people, the only republican value is power: attaining it and keeping it.

The only rule is "it's okay if you are a republican."

Once you realize this, everything becomes clear.

after the deflection and mental gymnastics on display by Hillary supporters + PP noting that this isn't about Dems v. Rep., it's about Hillary's before the election even BEGAN, that's your takeaway?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember people, the only republican value is power: attaining it and keeping it.

The only rule is "it's okay if you are a republican."

Once you realize this, everything becomes clear.

after the deflection and mental gymnastics on display by Hillary supporters + PP noting that this isn't about Dems v. Rep., it's about Hillary's before the election even BEGAN, that's your takeaway?

*Hillary's actions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ so all of that absolves Hillary?

We can only work with the evidence we have. This isn't about Trump, despite your efforts to make it so. If his e-mails/records/whatever are leaked (like his old taxes were, which was covered by the media), we'll discuss them then.

The allegations of wrongdoing that have come out of these leaks date back before the election even started. Clinton is in the pocket of many foreign governments, including several that she herself says support terrorist groups.

Receiving money from Saudi Arabia is not a per se bad thing. Sorry.

So what about accepting tens of millions of dollars from the Saudi king and overseeing massive arms deals to them as SoS while knowing (in her own words) that they were funding and supporting ISIS? That is a bad thing. Sorry.

Every American president has been involved with Saudis and sell arms to them. Remember bush was so friendly with the saudis even though all of the 9/11 perpetrators are saudi citizens and osama is a saudi himself. Guess who finally caught Osama, the same hillary and Obama you guys say are founders of ISIS.

Clinton foundation got many for charity from many people including saudi royalty. But the same Saudi royalty is not funding ISIS. Its like implicating all Americans as racists when few racist americans contribute money to KKK or Stormfront or other supremacists. What is common, because all are American citizens. Thats what you guys are saying. If some saudis are giving money to ISIS then all saudis are responsible for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Regular voter here: Its sad to think that the corruption has gone so far that we have to rely on Wikileaks to have the truth published.

Don't you think the irony is that WIKILEAKS selectively publishes Democrat content. Why are the Russians not hacking Trump or RNC ? Its not because they can't, its because they don't want to. So its obvious who the Russians want to be president of America. ofcourse the guy who calls Putin as the leader everyone to follow. The same person who wants to dismantle NATO so Putin can take over eastern europe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ so all of that absolves Hillary?

We can only work with the evidence we have. This isn't about Trump, despite your efforts to make it so. If his e-mails/records/whatever are leaked (like his old taxes were, which was covered by the media), we'll discuss them then.

The allegations of wrongdoing that have come out of these leaks date back before the election even started. Clinton is in the pocket of many foreign governments, including several that she herself says support terrorist groups.

Receiving money from Saudi Arabia is not a per se bad thing. Sorry.

So what about accepting tens of millions of dollars from the Saudi king and overseeing massive arms deals to them as SoS while knowing (in her own words) that they were funding and supporting ISIS? That is a bad thing. Sorry.

Every American president has been involved with Saudis and sell arms to them. Remember bush was so friendly with the saudis even though all of the 9/11 perpetrators are saudi citizens and osama is a saudi himself. Guess who finally caught Osama, the same hillary and Obama you guys say are founders of ISIS.

Clinton foundation got many for charity from many people including saudi royalty. But the same Saudi royalty is not funding ISIS. Its like implicating all Americans as racists when few racist americans contribute money to KKK or Stormfront or other supremacists. What is common, because all are American citizens. Thats what you guys are saying. If some saudis are giving money to ISIS then all saudis are responsible for it.

lol please point to where I said Obama and Hillary "founded ISIS." Are you the same poster who tried to make this argument in the other thread about Wikileaks and voter fatigue? Again...the Saudi KING (aka, the head of the government) gave tens of millions to the Clinton Foundation. That King's government is who HILLARY herself says is funding ISIS and other radical terrorist groups.

Was Hillary willing to oversee the arms deals despite knowing they were going to a government who were also supporting ISIS because of the Saudi King's *quite* generous donation?