It’s ignorant to vote for HRC w/o reading WikiLeaks

[Deleted User 4520]

From the Denver Post

Those voting for Hillary Clinton, defending Clinton and supporting Clinton without reading the information reported by WikiLeaks are intellectually no different than those who criticize climate science without ever having read the science. In short, if you defend Clinton and ignore WikiLeaks, you have something in common with Sarah Palin. Let that sink in for a moment. Finished processing that? Now process this — if the journalists responsible for reporting on Watergate were labeled “Russian sympathizers,” charged by the media as “attempting to influence an election,” and banned from travel or communication access, how would history judge the event? This is exactly what has happened to Julian Assange, who has done more for journalism than any of these corporate-owned, brand-named media products have done this election cycle. Either you support access to information or you have a problem with an informed public. Which side are you on?

http://www.denverpost.com/2016/11/02/it ... wikileaks/

[audiophile]

Those cheerfully voting for Hillary Rotten Clinton do not want to know anything except rah-rah for blue team.

[Matt]

The "w/o reading WikiLeaks" was unnecessary in this thread...

EDIT: Any vote is valid except for a vote for Clinton. I'm voting for Trump because he might have a chance to prevent that criminal from getting into the Oval Office. I understand that others on the right do not feel comfortable voting for Trump, and I certainly won't begrudge a vote for McMullin or Johnson, but I believe the stakes are too big. There will be people in a potential Trump Administration who will keep him in line.

[Deleted User 8570]

The "w/o reading WikiLeaks" was unnecessary in this thread...

EDIT: Any vote is valid except for a vote for Clinton. I'm voting for Trump because he might have a chance to prevent that criminal from getting into the Oval Office. I understand that others on the right do not feel comfortable voting for Trump, and I certainly won't begrudge a vote for McMullin or Johnson, but I believe the stakes are too big. There will be people in a potential Trump Administration who will keep him in line.

Keep him in line? None of his campaign staff can handle him... none of them have been able to and it's changed several times. There's no hard evidence he's tameable even though they'll try... I doubt it will happen. Keep pouting because nothing can be pinned on her... it could be that she didn't do anything illegal. Just a wild guess. You guys are kind of like Captain Ahab hell bent on getting that damn whale...

[Matt]

I'd rather take a gamble of keeping a guy in line rather than putting a criminal who should be in prison in the Oval.

[Deleted User 8570]

I'd rather take a gamble of keeping a guy in line rather than putting a criminal who should be in prison in the Oval.

Significant gamble...

[Matt]

I'd rather take a gamble of keeping a guy in line rather than putting a criminal who should be in prison in the Oval.

Significant gamble...

Not really, she needs to be brought to justice.

[Deleted User 8570]

I'd rather take a gamble of keeping a guy in line rather than putting a criminal who should be in prison in the Oval.

Significant gamble...

Not really, she needs to be brought to justice.

You guys have been saying such things for years and it hasn't happened, she's been cleared twice in the emails. It's just not going to happen... probably because there's nothing illegal even though some things may be unsavory... but unsavory is not illegal.

[screen glare]

Excuse me - the criminal is dear Julian - who like Edward Snowden - can never go home again - without going to prison.

And I'm certain Vlad-the-Invader is KGB-side himself that most Americans have his number - and can see right through his grand plot to restore Mother (MoFo) Russia to GREATNESS, AGAIN!

Sound like anyone elses campaign slogan?