2016 USA Presidential election thread II: And. Here. We. Go!

[Day]

Quoted 3x in case you missed it.

I guess I dont know what you are trying to say. Might I remind you that you started this discussion about doctored emails specifically on wikileaks.

I'm glad to see some discussion about the possible doctoring of emails from WikiLeaks. Nothing definitive in the article but still a little interesting.

[Aerin]

I'm saying I think you have a confirmation bias when it comes to these emails, because you're so willing to believe everything that's in them. I'll admit as I've said before, I think that most of them are legitimate but I take it all with a grain of salt. Because I have to admit, I have no way of knowing where these came from or what the bias is of the party that obtained them.

Niiro was the one that pointed out the "pay to play" folder, which if you bothered to read the whole article, or even the quote I posted after about it, explicitly says that it was from a hacker who released documents.

[Day]

I read the article. I read the article yesterday when it came out. I posted an article on how the emails are verifiable on wikileaks, Niro quotes me followed by some shit not on wikileaks and a gif.

I think you are falling for the narrative, but we can agree to disagree.

[Aerin]

I read the article. I read the article yesterday when it came out. I posted an article on how the emails are verifiable on wikileaks, Niro quotes me followed by some shit not on wikileaks and a gif.

I think you are falling for the narrative, but we can agree to disagree.

His quote is to show you an example, from the article, showing that you should always be wary of information obtained through hacks via a 3rd party you don't know. Next time maybe we'll draw you a map that gets you from A to B because clearly you have to be lead by the nose.

[Xno Kappa]

Which site is gospel and which site we take with a grain of salt?

[Niiro]

I was just remarking on the ridiculousness of the "Pay to Play" folder thing because it was funny, wasn't trying to make any other insinuation.

I agree with the article and Aerin in that the vast, vast majority of this stuff is probably completely legitimate.

[Day]

I don't know why you are so up my ass about this. I'm not defending all random hacks and leaks on the internet by defending one source, and nor should you discredit all sources because some jack ass forged something. I am saying the leaks on the website wikileaks.org are most likely not doctored based on past track record and the fact not one single person has come forward with an example out of the 20,000+ already released. If someone can provide evidence otherwise I will stand corrected, linking me some other hackers stuff not on wikileaks is not a good example. It's also why that article is stupid by the way.

[Aerin]

Be wary of != Discredit. Also, as others have pointed out, WikiLeaks isn't what it used to be. Does a hackers content need to be on WikiLeaks for it to be a good example?

[Day]

For it to be a good example of a forged leak on wikileaks? well that would only make sense yes.

[Aerin]

Not a good example of a forged leak on WikiLeaks, a good example of why you should be wary of any information obtained by a 3rd party that you have no way of verifying. You really don't see the difference?

Let me put it this way. Let's say there was an email on WikiLeaks, that explicitly said there was pay to play going on. There's a difference between:

• This is outrageous. This deserves an explanation. This needs to be answered.

and

• CHECKMATE, GUILTY

[Gryffes]

[Aerin]

The original WikiLeaks.

[Fondue]

Yeah ill wait until nate phosphorous and politifact filter all these petty emails for me

[Day]

There's a difference between:

• This is outrageous. This deserves an explanation. This needs to be answered.

and

• CHECKMATE, GUILTY

When have I done either of those things?

I may have linked some things of interest, but you don't see me going "BOMBSHELL REKT GG", You're complaining about shit that has never happened.

Wikileaks is the best source I have for verified leaks. I don't have access to leaks all over the place or the means to vet and/or verify. I was very critical of O'Keefe for good reason, I'm not as trusting of other sources by any means.

You want me to say there is a possibility something on wiki leaks may be doctored? Sure. I have no evidence of that and all past history says otherwise so I wouldn't put a lot of my money on it. Seems like an easy thing to prove with the original emails. I'll continue to believe they are legit until I see evidence to the contrary. Until then I'm all good on a semantics debate over the possibility of them maybe being doctored. You do you babe.

[ringthree]

Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if it was all genuine. Wouldn't surprise me either if some were doctored to a point. But being so willing to believe in anything that looks bad and so unwilling to believe in things that disprove an already perceived narrative is straight up confirmation bias.

The problem with WikiLeaks isn't that it wasn't real, it's that it wasn't that important. Nothing stated by clinton, nothing horribly salacious. Just sausage being made, and for some (even some republicans) see it as tainted by Russia. In a post-snowden world, it's just meh, and might actually just confirm the norm of politics for the non-conspiracy middle.

[Aerin]

You want me to say there is a possibility something on wiki leaks may be doctored? Sure. I have no evidence of that and all past history says otherwise so I wouldn't put a lot of my money on it.

Yeah, I'm happy.

Seems like an easy thing to prove with the original emails. I'll continue to believe they are legit until I see evidence to the contrary. Until then I'm all good on a semantics debate over the possibility of them maybe being doctored. You do you babe.

It would be, but if they release an original email to disprove what's on WikiLeaks (or anything else) then they'll have to do that for everything. And then after, if they ever don't release an original, then it makes them look guilty. Not to mention the precedent it would set for the future.

[Krandor]

Has anything on wikileaks ever been proven to be wrong/doctored? Even if it was just one single thing, it would be a blow to their credibility.

[thetruepandagod]

Yeah ill wait until nate phosphorous and politifact filter all these petty emails for me

Odd.. I had thought I lost the ability to feel this triggered.

[Day]

was this posted lmao

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/st...56103188508672

[thetruepandagod]

Eat it team SHillary.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...president.html