• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Someone tried to frame Assange of being a pedo/taking money from Russia

sailordeac said:
why vote for either?
Click to expand...

because we're adults and our actions have consequences? not voting doesn't mean you can shirk responsibility for what happens as a result of other people voting.
 
Last edited:
Strickland33 said:
because we're adults and our actions have consequences? not voting doesn't mean you can shirk responsibility for what happens as a result of other people voting.
Click to expand...

who said not voting?

have some self respect and quit supporting that which clearly does not deserve support, like Hillary and the Donald
 
Who clearly deserves support? Gary Johnson?
 
Hey if he doesn't know what Aleppo is he's probably not bringing any refugees to America and we know how that makes Sailor tingle a little
 
Pretty obvious that Clinton and co have been floating the Russians angle as a preemptive strike. They continue to do that and float the "they could've been altered/don't trust them" angle as a way to buy time to come up with some kind of angle to spin should they ever be actually asked about the substance of the e-mails by an obedient media. They may very well have come from the Russians, but maybe not. Maybe it was just some dork in Iceland with nothing better to do than guess Podesta's password. Or maybe it actually was a 400 lb guy in his mom's basement. Given the demonstrable arrogance around everybody associated with Clinton, I'm guessing their passwords don't comply with minimum password requirements related to most government systems. In other words, their passwords are probably something like podesta#1 or hrcisabitch or just plain ol' password.

Assange is a sketchy dude, exposing a lot of underbelly. I'm not a big fan of him publishing war secrets, diplomatic tactics, etc, but private e-mails relating to political tactics would appear to be a different arena. It's pretty shifty shit, and an area where the Clintons have long claimed a vast RWC. Instead, we see through a combination of Wikileaks and FBI reports confirmation of longstanding attitudes about the Clintons-- their phoniness, their calculated demeanors, as well as the absolute worst thing that they ushered into modern politics with the neverending triangulating spin machine. They and everybody around them is rotten to the core.
 
Wikileaks is an interesting entity to consider. As I understand it, the entity doesn't do the hacking itself. So maybe that absolves them from blame. But if someone broke into, say, a building in DC and took a server that contained all of these emails, we would think about it a bit differently, no?
 
BobStackFan4Life said:
Well, I think the charges against him in Sweden, involving consensual sex with two adult women, are bullshit, which is why the first prosecutor refused to prosecute him.
Click to expand...

Then he should go face the charges as an innocent man.
 
If this turns out to be true it should be huge. Having said that, I have little faith the news will cover it and even less Clinton voters will care- they've made it clear there is no level of corruption that is too great for them- even if that means framing an innocent man of pedophilia.
 
emily-b.jpg
 
What if, instead of a sloppy smear campaign, it turns out someone else, like the Russians :eek:, were using this all along to frame the Clinton campaign? If that is the case, I think they underestimate just how immune Clinton voters are to her crookedness and how in the tank the msm is for her. They can make it look like her campaign tried to frame an innocent man as a pedo and it will not move the needle one iota. That's where we're at.
 
Last edited:
EatLeadCommie said:
Pretty obvious that Clinton and co have been floating the Russians angle as a preemptive strike. They continue to do that and float the "they could've been altered/don't trust them" angle as a way to buy time to come up with some kind of angle to spin should they ever be actually asked about the substance of the e-mails by an obedient media. They may very well have come from the Russians, but maybe not. Maybe it was just some dork in Iceland with nothing better to do than guess Podesta's password. Or maybe it actually was a 400 lb guy in his mom's basement. Given the demonstrable arrogance around everybody associated with Clinton, I'm guessing their passwords don't comply with minimum password requirements related to most government systems. In other words, their passwords are probably something like podesta#1 or hrcisabitch or just plain ol' password.

Assange is a sketchy dude, exposing a lot of underbelly. I'm not a big fan of him publishing war secrets, diplomatic tactics, etc, but private e-mails relating to political tactics would appear to be a different arena. It's pretty shifty shit, and an area where the Clintons have long claimed a vast RWC. Instead, we see through a combination of Wikileaks and FBI reports confirmation of longstanding attitudes about the Clintons-- their phoniness, their calculated demeanors, as well as the absolute worst thing that they ushered into modern politics with the neverending triangulating spin machine. They and everybody around them is rotten to the core.
Click to expand...

You are smarter than this. Even Congressional Committees run by Republicans say it's the Russians. The NSA, FBI and CIa say it's the Russians.

BTW, Ted Olson has admitted how they led the Arkansas Project to get the Clintons. It's not a myth. It was a reality.

https://www.texasobserver.org/777-the-arkansas-project-unmasked/
 
BobStackFan4Life said:
If this turns out to be true it should be huge. Having said that, I have little faith the news will cover it and even less Clinton voters will care- they've made it clear there is no level of corruption that is too great for them- even if that means framing an innocent man of pedophilia.
Click to expand...

So the Clintons are now hiring grad students to be their "mysterious intelligence contractors"? Sounds legit.
 
Also, the "Holds a PhD (ABD)" move is fucking brilliant.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
Pretty obvious that Clinton and co have been floating the Russians angle as a preemptive strike. They continue to do that and float the "they could've been altered/don't trust them" angle as a way to buy time to come up with some kind of angle to spin should they ever be actually asked about the substance of the e-mails by an obedient media. They may very well have come from the Russians, but maybe not. Maybe it was just some dork in Iceland with nothing better to do than guess Podesta's password. Or maybe it actually was a 400 lb guy in his mom's basement. Given the demonstrable arrogance around everybody associated with Clinton, I'm guessing their passwords don't comply with minimum password requirements related to most government systems. In other words, their passwords are probably something like podesta#1 or hrcisabitch or just plain ol' password.

Assange is a sketchy dude, exposing a lot of underbelly. I'm not a big fan of him publishing war secrets, diplomatic tactics, etc, but private e-mails relating to political tactics would appear to be a different arena. It's pretty shifty shit, and an area where the Clintons have long claimed a vast RWC. Instead, we see through a combination of Wikileaks and FBI reports confirmation of longstanding attitudes about the Clintons-- their phoniness, their calculated demeanors, as well as the absolute worst thing that they ushered into modern politics with the neverending triangulating spin machine. They and everybody around them is rotten to the core.
Click to expand...

Are these not related to the same supposed hacks that American intelligence said was originating from Russia? It's hard to keep the hacks straight.
 
How many voters on either side do you think would change their vote if it turned out their preferred candidate was trying to slander Assange as a pedophile?

I'll set the over under at 5.5 people.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
How many voters on either side do you think would change their vote if it turned out their preferred candidate was trying to slander Assange as a pedophile?

I'll set the over under at 5.5 people.
Click to expand...

Trump supporters are incredibly desperate at this point. It's getting pathetic, really.
 
RJKarl said:
You are smarter than this. Even Congressional Committees run by Republicans say it's the Russians. The NSA, FBI and CIa say it's the Russians.

BTW, Ted Olson has admitted how they led the Arkansas Project to get the Clintons. It's not a myth. It was a reality.

https://www.texasobserver.org/777-the-arkansas-project-unmasked/
Click to expand...

And you, as usual, are completely missing the point. It doesn't matter who is doing it. Nobody has pointed to any particular e-mail yet and said that it has been falsified. They throw the Russians thing out there to preemptively discredit anything that might gain traction as potentially damaging. Look no further than the Malcolm Nance/Kurt Eichenwald fiasco as pretty solid proof of it. It gives them time to craft responses for anything potentially damaging that comes out, but it appears everybody wants instead to go with the Trump accuser stories. They haven't even needed to put out responses.

As for the Arkansas Project, nice book review of a Clinton apologist from 2000, dude. You can do better than that. It's pretty clear people were digging around for dirt on the Clintons in the 90s. It's also pretty clear that there was plenty of dirty to find. Some was tainted with Bill and some wasn't. You don't bat an eye when Soros or anybody else openly requests dirt on Trump or anybody with an R next to his name. That dude in 2000 was still souring from the impeachment proceedings. If he still thinks the same way now, he's an idiot.
 
Nor has anyone verified that the emails are real. Nor has there been anything of note in them.

I wouldn't underwrite any life insurance on Assange. After the election, Putin will have no need for him. That often means bye, bye.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
How many voters on either side do you think would change their vote if it turned out their preferred candidate was trying to slander Assange as a pedophile?

I'll set the over under at 5.5 people.
Click to expand...

Good point. Hillary voters are voting for her in spite of her corruption or because she is corrupt and they think she will do whatever it takes to advance their agenda. Some of the people may even admire her for trying to smear someone as a pedophile. I would say Trump supporters are the same, except a good number of them have jumped ship. This election season is definitely different than all others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top