WikiLeaks Drops Proof That NYTimes Colluded With Hillary Clinton

  • Thread starter Thread starter Theo520
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So does this mean you were the poster child for the dossier?

Again, you have a very active imagination or perhaps too gullible.
 
Last edited:
Imdaman said:
Wow interesting read but I find no truth in this article pointing towards what JIggity claims “They are wholly owned subsidiary of Putin and you are being conned”
Click to expand...
It’s interesting how you can read that article and come to the conclusion that WikiLeaks is an independent organization from the Russian government, but I am impressed you have actually read something. Keep it up.
 
I don’t care if Wikileaks got the information from the Russians, from aliens, or from a Yugoslavian plumber. So far it’s all been accurate information (much to John Podesta & other Dem’s chagrin).

Meanwhile, Wikileaks has publicly declared they did NOT get the information from Russians, but instead they got it from a DNC operative.

I have no reason to disbelieve them.
 
Boatswain2PA said:
it’s all been accurate information
Click to expand...
Hardly.
Even if the email have been authentic (how do you know), the memes woven from them have not been accurate. Are you another who believe that WikLeaks showed Clinton and the DNC behind a “Vatican Spring” plot? Pizza gate?
 
I know of nothing released by Wikileaks that has been disproven. Lots of bombshells, but they’ve all been accurate.
 
Boatswain2PA said:
I know of nothing released by Wikileaks that has been disproven.
Click to expand...
Non-responsive.
What WikiLeaks releases may be accurate, but may not be a faithful representation of the truth, and may be wildly misleading,

Have we successfully gotten away from falsehood and discerned the the truth about the WL release that forms the subject of this thread? What about Vatican Spring? what about Pizzagate?
 
Again, I know of nothing released by Wikileaks that has been disproven.

There have been LOTS of bombshells released by Wikileaks that have been proven correct.
 
Last edited:
Boatswain2PA said:
Again, I know of nothing …
Click to expand...
Again you evade the general question posed, and the specific ones.

Try this:
WikiLeaks revealed an email (above) that shows NYT collusion with Hillary Clinton - true of false? WikiLeaks revealed an email that shows that Hillary Clinton supports a Vatican Spring plot - true of false?
WikiLeaks revealed an email that shows the pizzagate ring - true of false?
 
Last edited:
NYT collusion with the Secretary of States office, led by Clinton. Also collusion between CNN, the DNC, and Clinton.

No, I don’t think they did.

No, I don’t think they did.

Can you point to anything released by Wikileaks that has been proven false??
 
Last edited:
Boatswain2PA said:
NYT collusion with the Secretary of States office, led by Clinton.
Click to expand...
Correct answer: False. In this round, WikiLeaks lied about the purpose of the contact between NYT writer and DoS, and failed to disclose the collaboration of the NYT and WL on the work, and lied about the knowledge the NYT’s WL partner of the communication with the DoS. (This answers last question.)

“No, I don’t think they did.”???
If you mean: what WL released is accurate, but the stories confected from them not, I won;t disagree, but WL is not absolved of the mess: they provide weaponry with full knowledge of its likely misuse…
 
7_Sorrows said:
I am wondering if there are classes given and people paid to go on social media and make the wild claims like you do that twist and turn and distort the obvious facts.
Click to expand...
I am not aware of any such classes.

I am amazed at how strong confirmation bias is among many posters, and how it can completely overwhelm the capacity for critical thinking and for discerning truth from the loads of falsehood that are presented to them on social media.

I can assure you that classes to develop slkills against this are given and an probably recommend some in your area.
 
dvdjs said:
Correct answer: False. In this round, WikiLeaks lied about the purpose of the contact between NYT writer and DoS, and failed to disclose the collaboration of the NYT and WL on the work, and lied about the knowledge the NYT’s WL partner of the communication with the DoS. (This answers last question.)
Click to expand...
That’s your opinion, which is as heavily biased as everything else you post.

WL releases the source documents, including the original emails. So far, nothing they have released has been confirmed as fraudulent, yet much of it has been confirmed as accurate.
 
Last edited:
Boatswain2PA said:
That’s your opinion
Click to expand...
It is an opinion based on facts that had been made part of the public record, not in repose to this WL release, but years before it occurred.

The real bias here is in disregarding these facts, and accepting a spun story because it so nicely dovetails with prejudices. It is a gross spectacle.

On WL accuracy: I have repeatedly stipulated the accuracy of the released emails.
And have repeatedly made to the point, which you fail to address, that that materials has clearly been used to propagate lies. You may think WL to be innocent of the lies made of its materials. I don’t. In any case, the reality remains, WL materials are wonderful weapons put in the hands of those willing to make grossly false presentations to achieve their ends.

And much to my surprise that includes some Catholics who object to posting from the catechism of the Catholic church on the matter.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top