Have you read the content in the bullshit link you posted?
2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, which bit are you struggling to read? Are the words too small?
"
Clinton’s campaign and her Clinton Foundation are literally funded by the SAME PEOPLE who are funding ISIS and killing hundreds of thousands of innocents in the Middle East, and now, even here at home.
This is nothing short of TREASON. Hillary must be sent to trial and held accountable for crimes against humanity and Treason against the United States of America."
Offsprings of Drumpf himself or of his lunatic advisor, the demon-obsessed guy (name is Alex Jones IIRC)?
Try not to be a dick, hard as it might be.
It reads like it was written by the same kind of cretin who made that 9/11 Loose Change video, and bases it's 'conclusions' on very very little (nothing, even). You drop links to these ridiculous websites with great frequency and they're all as uncredible as each other.
Offsprings of Drumpf himself or of his lunatic advisor, the demon-obsessed guy (name is Alex Jones IIRC)?
You made the following claim -
"the opposite candidate is directly involved with Isis"
The article makes the following claims -
"when Trump called Hillary the ‘founder’ of ISIS he was telling the truth and 100% accurate"
"the newest batch of leaked emails show Hillary, in her own words, admitting to doing just that, funding and running ISIS."
"The email proves Hillary...was complicit in the funding and arming of ISIS by our ‘allies’ Saudi Arabia and Qatar!"
Not a single one of these claims reflects anything in the cited email. The entire thrust of the email is related to fighting against ISIS.
Nobody is saying that Hillary, like pretty much every major politician in the West, isn't implicated by links to Gulf money. And nobody is suggesting that the Saudis and Qataris have had nothing to do with the funding of ISIS - this has been known for years and Joe Biden admitted it in public.
Can we stop posting tweets from the Denald handle? Or make a new thread for the same in general.
This thread is made more entertaining by MoBeats desperation. Please continue.
Looks like it was Utah
You take that back.
I'll try, my bad, I want to debate not fall out. Just read like it hadn't been read if you get me.
More of The Donald:
Donald Trump brags about sex life and admits he ‘only stays with his wife for her breasts’ in shocking new tapes.
He also admits to watching the Paris Hilton sex tape. He says that is “in spite of the fact that I’ve known Paris since she was 12 and been friends with her family for years”.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/19575...s-wife-for-her-breasts-in-shocking-new-tapes/
Donald Trump brags about sex life and admits he ‘only stays with his wife for her breasts’ in shocking new tapes.
He also admits to watching the Paris Hilton sex tape. He says that is “in spite of the fact that I’ve known Paris since she was 12 and been friends with her family for years”.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/19575...s-wife-for-her-breasts-in-shocking-new-tapes/
It's always the same isn't it. Someone goes on about questioning the mainstream media (nothing wrong with that of course) while at the same time dropping these sources into the thread that clearly show that they have not at all questioned their alternative sources in anyway, shape or form.
The main reason noone is talking about Hillary's emails is that for the most part, they are boring rudimentary people-doing-their-jobs emails.
And, to make it worse, in the panicked flurry to find a smoking gun because The Donald's actual smoking guns are uniformly crrrraaaazzzzy, they've tried to force angles out of emails that are literal non-stories. This forcing of the issues has reduced the credibility of the emails in the case that something is ACTUALLY found, but also has made them dull. In this reality TV election, that is the worse possible thing that could have happened because the vast majority of people have now switched off to that angle.
To use that tweet again that I mentioned before, there isn't a smoking gun, there isn't even smoking smoke.
And, to make it worse, in the panicked flurry to find a smoking gun because The Donald's actual smoking guns are uniformly crrrraaaazzzzy, they've tried to force angles out of emails that are literal non-stories. This forcing of the issues has reduced the credibility of the emails in the case that something is ACTUALLY found, but also has made them dull. In this reality TV election, that is the worse possible thing that could have happened because the vast majority of people have now switched off to that angle.
To use that tweet again that I mentioned before, there isn't a smoking gun, there isn't even smoking smoke.
Every time I have gone to read an article about one of them I end up finding out the emails they quote don't actually say what the writer would have us believe they say.
Sshhhhh!!!!
Pretty much this.
Genuine scholarly criticism of the mainstream media is healthy, and exists in places that aren't too hard to find. Chomsky has been at it for decades. There are plenty of right wing alternatives, too. The main thing is that you actually bother to trace your citations when you post incredible stories about fantastic events involving skullduggery of one type or another. Lots of people disagree with Chomsky's conclusions, but at least his source material is solid. That part is pretty fundamental.
This account is great 
The source is valid, the interpretation is absurd, though.
The lack of criticism of Saudi Arabia in the mainstream US media goes back a lot longer than Hillary Clinton's run for President. It goes back to the days of Truman, when he granted the Saudis roughly the same deal the British had given them (British Empire was being dissolved, Americans were taking its place). Suadi Arabia is, as everyone probably knows, the world's largest exporter of oil. The deal between the US and SA is one predicated on energy. That the Saudis fund Isil isn't anything new (the entire operation has its theological and geopolitical genesis in that country).
You'll notice that the Saudis have been funding both Republican and Democratic candidates for decades (it even says so in one of the citations in the link you provide). So, why would the Saudis prefer to support Clinton over Trump? I'd imagine it has a lot to do with Trump's anti-Islamic rhetoric. So what you have really is a complete non story -- basically a narrative spun by a biased interpreter. The name of the site you obtained your article from is called "endthefed" -- that's about as Republican/Libertarian as it gets (Ron Paul probably owns it).
Last edited:
Last edited:
Yeah Wikileaks' releases over the years are probably the greatest evidence we have that, rather than masterminding a range of ingenious conspiracies that always go exactly to plan, most government officials are barely competent bumbling fools hardly able to see past the end of the year.
Wikileaks arrived with such a bang with the Collateral Damage video etc. Their Panama Papers was interesting too because it had a good lead story. However, in my opinion it's been shown up since to be utterly grasping at straws in this election, and they bloody well know they are. Hence the massive dumps now with no guidance because there is nothing enormous in them - a massive bluff by numbers. It's totally tainted by this lack of a "boooooom" moment, Assange's ego and potential dodginess and now the Russian angle which the Dems are exploiting the hell out of.
And I do almost feel sorry for the Deplorables that are undoubtedly sitting at home reading through thousands and thousands of emails, sweat running down their furrowed brow, desperately searching for something juicy. Alllllllmost.
I'd also speculate that it has a lot to do with Trump's willingness to work with Russia and Assad, as opposed to Clinton's opposition of both. There are a lot of factors at play when a sovereign of a state backs a candidate in another race, but it has almost nothing to do with the party that the person is affiliated with, or even the person running (as SA's historical bipartisan funding of both parties shows). It's about which candidate is perceived to serve Saudi interests better than the other. For a wide variety of reasons, this election year, that candidate is clearly Clinton. But that doesn't amount to anything like Clinton tacitly approving of Isis. It might mean that the Saudis prefer Clinton over Trump because a Clinton presidency is one in which the rebels will be backed against Assad (Saudis are regional superpowers, they have their own motives). But the issues shouldn't be conflated.
You also have a habit of posting the conclusions of a given author as being some kind of unbiased summary. Usually, in the links you've posted, the author has a motive which is so obviously transparent before the evidence of source material is ever introduced.
Just to finish up. Why doesn't the media report on this? Probably for the same reasons that the mainstream American media has avoided highlighting the various controversies surrounding US allies for years. Self interest, narrowness of platform, and limited scope in terms of discourse.
Last edited:
He doesn't really get it does he?
Panama papers weren't wiki leaks, but Süddeutsche Zeitung. Wikileaks had nothing to do with it.
He meant from his own mouth
You can add that to a fairly exhaustive list to be honest.
Ron Paul isn't nearly stupid enough to support crap like that.
Does anyone think that the west is in Syria to fight ISIS?
Aren't they supposed to be two different things?
So if Trump wants to get out of the perpetual war and still try and defeat ISIS, supposedly it can be done, right?
Aren't they supposed to be two different things?
So if Trump wants to get out of the perpetual war and still try and defeat ISIS, supposedly it can be done, right?
I sincerely hope they wrote that down
Again, put far better than I was able to.
Not heard of the pollster before and they don't appear on the 538 gradings, but as another early entirely post-debate data point, Clinton up 9 in Ohio - http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2016/10/new_ohio_poll_puts_hillary_cli.html
The guy is a bonafied pervert. Pretty sure he would wank in public.
- Status