• Joe BidetA
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    (never sayd Podesta was a meanie. i think anyone involved in the DNC or GOP is probably a piece of shit that doesnt deserve my respect, but i think the same of many other political parties in many other countries…)

    oh and by any chance, are you from the USofA? that way you have of being right about things by being louder… quite fascinating :)

    • Beetschnapps@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You wrote whole paragraphs about the dnc memos and then asked if you have to read the podesta emails to make a point. Now you’re trying to both sides it. This isn’t a matter of louder it’s a matter of you having I real point to make.

      What is the horror of the dnc emails that’s really of substance?

      Still waiting…

      • Joe BidetA
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        You and I remembered different things about these emails. I asked if we really had to source and quote them to find out who is right and who is wrong.

        There is no “horror” in DNC emails. just evidence of crass corruption and cynicism from Clinton’s campaign.

        So wait, are you saying there is nothing significant in the Podesta emails… while at the same time the would have “made Trump elected”? :)

        Some of the substance of the emails summarized here: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/10/us/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-wikileaks.html

        • The speech of Clinton at Wall Street is one of the most devastating because she actually lied and used double speech all the way
        • The efforts to undermine Sanders are despickable
        • Inflating Trump campaign, of all GOP candidates, is both dumb, cynical and short-sighted.

        But again that’s only the bits i personally remember from (reading) the emails.

        All I said is:

        • this was newsworthy and of general interest;
        • any journalist like Assange, if given authentic, unaltered material of general interest has a duty to publish them. (that’s called journalism);
        • there is no evidence that WikiLeaks knew their source was from RU intel (if it was). It was said many time the organisation functioned in such way that they cannot know the identity of their sources, and anyone who has ever been in the business of source protection would confirm it is a smart principle.

        To other fantasy claims that “WL had the GOP emails too but decided not to published them lol” i replied “haha wait what?!” and was presented with meak links about “GOP got ‘hacked’ period” with no trace of email being transmitted to whoever.

        Now please go on barking about my nickname, changing topic or whatever.

        🥱

    • Beetschnapps@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ever been to Lithuania? Not a fan of Russia and don’t suffer idiots whining about emails with zero context. It’s a lame argument a dumber name and a detractor to any real political conversation when you whine about Hillary.