WikiLeaks reveals Hillary Clinton to be . . . reasonable.

citizenzen

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Mar 22, 2010
1,433
11,628
The editorial board of the Washington Post examined the information from wikileaks and concluded that it shows HRC is "knowledgeable, balanced" and promoting sound policy ...
We hope the excerpts are genuine, because at least in the texts made public as of Monday, the Hillary Clinton that emerges is a knowledgeable, balanced political veteran with sound policy instincts and a mature sense of how to sustain a decent, stable democracy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/scandal-wikileaks-reveals-hillary-clinton-to-be--reasonable/2016/10/10/bbad509c-8f19-11e6-9c52-0b10449e33c4_story.html?utm_term=.0007e054040c
As we've seen in these threads, there has been a desperate attempt by conservatives to spin the information in negative ways, usually with statements that have been taken out of context.

The editorial board concludes ...
This whole episode illustrates that point. Ms. Clinton kept the speeches under wraps out of fear that they would be distorted for political purposes by her populist foes. Alas, that fear was amply justified in this populistic, polarized environment, as the manufactured uproar over their release proves. The fact that Ms. Clinton’s eminently reasonable and open-minded words regarding the issues and her opponents are being treated as scandalous is the real scandal.
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
13,987
"The editorial board of the Washington Post" is okay with treason, funding terrorists.
Hmm, the American people seemed to be ok with treason (by definition) from Nixon in his behind the scenes sabotaging of a peace deal in Vietnam (http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21768668), and Reagan's treasonous deal to supply F16 parts to Iran so they would keep the hostages until the election was over.

But please, continue about how treasonous the Clinton "email" scandal was. I'll be here seething over things to really be pissed off about, like Obama and Clinton's violation of US law in continuing to support the Honduran government via "military aid" after the military coup. Or Hillary's personal intervention in Haitian affairs to block a pay raise to sweatshop workers on the behalf of the likes of Walmart and their ilk.

But please, please, let us all continue the outrage of the emails, the same practice that Colin Powell continued. While we're at it, where are those millions of deleted-from-a-private-server Iraq War run-up emails that the Bush administration got rid of? You know the ones that discussed the lead up to an illegal war that never got to be scrutinized via FOIA because they were erased.

All I'm saying is if we're going to go after Clinton, let's do it for the **** she actually does that matters. To harp on these bogus charges only dilutes the seriousness of actual crimes and policy.
 

Thomas Veil

macrumors 68020
Feb 14, 2004
2,435
5,506
OBJECTIVE reality
That Hillary is reasonable comes as a surprise to almost no one, except the people who write posts like these:

"The editorial board of the Washington Post" is okay with treason, funding terrorists.
This is well and truly ****ed up. This is the level of propaganda that I read about from the Korean Central News Agency.

I'd expect nothing more from The Washington Post, though.
I keep hearing we're going to find some kind of astounding revelations in these links, when all they actually reveal is stuff that is, well, mundane.

But let the conservatives living in their little VR dystopia have their freak out. They are beyond help.
 

DrewDaHilp1

macrumors 6502a
Mar 29, 2009
578
11,573
All Your Memes Are Belong to US
That Hillary is reasonable comes as a surprise to almost no one, except the people who write posts like these:





I keep hearing we're going to find some kind of astounding revelations in these links, when all they actually reveal is stuff that is, well, mundane.

But let the conservatives living in their little VR dystopia have their freak out. They are beyond help.
Says the guy with the avatar that proves Trump lives in your head rent free.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jkcerda and webbuzz

zin

macrumors 6502
May 5, 2010
488
6,439
United Kingdom
That Hillary is reasonable comes as a surprise to almost no one, except the people who write posts like these:





I keep hearing we're going to find some kind of astounding revelations in these links, when all they actually reveal is stuff that is, well, mundane.

But let the conservatives living in their little VR dystopia have their freak out. They are beyond help.
Illegal collusion with Super PACs, propaganda being spread across the mainstream media, 'birthday gifts' being given to Bill by Qatar, more evidence the primary was rigged against Bernie, accepting money from foreign agents, Clinton's true positions on open borders.

Yeah, mundane. Check out that stupid thing Trump said 11 years ago! Hillary supporter? :rolleyes:
 

Peace

macrumors Core
Apr 1, 2005
19,466
3,831
Space--The ONLY Frontier
Wait, so now it's ok to agree with and like Wikileaks? So confused. :confused:
Don't think they "like" Wikileaks. It's more of a Wikileaks put out mundane info.

Now unless Wikileaks/Russia/Drumpf inc. put out REAL damaging stuff on Clinton they should just give up or become impartial and put out some mundane stuff on Drumpf.
 

citizenzen

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Mar 22, 2010
1,433
11,628
Wait, so now it's ok to agree with and like Wikileaks? So confused. :confused:
Try not to be confused. The point is that the information wikileaks has doled out hasn't been the campaign-shattering exposé you conservatives have been dreaming about. It's not a judgement about wikileaks at all. It is however, a judgement about some conservatives, and their ability to read and comprehend that information.
 

haxrnick

macrumors 6502a
Aug 4, 2011
530
1,937
Seattle
Don't think they "like" Wikileaks. It's more of a Wikileaks put out mundane info.

Now unless Wikileaks/Russia/Drumpf inc. put out REAL damaging stuff on Clinton they should just give up or become impartial and put out some mundane stuff on Drumpf.
Try not to be confused. The point is that the information wikileaks has doled out hasn't been the campaign-shattering exposé you conservatives have been dreaming about. It's not a judgement about wikileaks at all. It is however, a judgement about some conservatives, and their ability to read and comprehend that information.
Thankfully your comrades have told us to believe nothing from Wikileaks. Close up shop, boys. Nothing to see here.
 

Peace

macrumors Core
Apr 1, 2005
19,466
3,831
Space--The ONLY Frontier
Thankfully your comrades have told us to believe nothing from Wikileaks. Close up shop, boys. Nothing to see here.
Dude if you imply I'm somehow a communist again I'm gonna consider it a personal insult.

From the PRSI standards board :

Rules:
  1. Name-calling. Name-calling falls into the category of insults and will be treated as such according to the forum rules, your own opinion about another member notwithstanding. You can't call a bigot a bigot, a troll a troll, or a fanboy a fanboy, any more than you can call an idiot an idiot. You can disagree with the content of another member's statement or give your evidence or opinion to dispute their claims, but you may not make a negative personal characterization about that member.
  2. Insults. Slurs and insults against groups of people based on negative-stereotyping and obvious generalizations fall into the category of trolling and will be treated as such.
  3. Taunting. Mocking or taunting another forum member is not acceptable. Posts that ridicule another member or obviously exaggerate or misstate their views may be removed.
 

citizenzen

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Mar 22, 2010
1,433
11,628
Thankfully your comrades have told us to believe nothing from Wikileaks. Close up shop, boys. Nothing to see here.
I don't think you're quite correct there. In threads you'll find my comrades encouraging righties on how to read that information correctly, without the paranoid, partisan spin that some were using to distort that information.

Accuracy counts. That is the message the Washington Post Editorial Board is trying to convey.
 

haxrnick

macrumors 6502a
Aug 4, 2011
530
1,937
Seattle
Dude if you imply I'm somehow a communist again I'm gonna consider it a personal insult.

From the PRSI standards board :

Rules:
  1. Name-calling. Name-calling falls into the category of insults and will be treated as such according to the forum rules, your own opinion about another member notwithstanding. You can't call a bigot a bigot, a troll a troll, or a fanboy a fanboy, any more than you can call an idiot an idiot. You can disagree with the content of another member's statement or give your evidence or opinion to dispute their claims, but you may not make a negative personal characterization about that member.
  2. Insults. Slurs and insults against groups of people based on negative-stereotyping and obvious generalizations fall into the category of trolling and will be treated as such.
  3. Taunting. Mocking or taunting another forum member is not acceptable. Posts that ridicule another member or obviously exaggerate or misstate their views may be removed.
Holy cow the left is really spinning out of control lately. It appears we have different definitions. I look at comrade, which I said your comrades, not you, as "friend", "mate", "colleague", or "ally". What you choose to believe is obviously up to you.
I don't think you're quite correct there. In threads you'll find my comrades encouraging righties on how to read that information correctly, without the paranoid, partisan spin that some were using to distort that information.

Accuracy counts. That is the message the Washington Post Editorial Board is trying to convey.
While I'm sure many of the righties appreciate your comrades telling them how to read, I'd be willing to bet they're more than capable of breaking it down for themselves. I know one of the left's favorite activities is to correct wherever it seems fit, I just don't think them telling people what to think works well outside of public education.
 
  • Like
Reactions: webbuzz

citizenzen

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Mar 22, 2010
1,433
11,628
While I'm sure many of the righties appreciate your comrades telling them how to read, I'd be willing to bet they're more than capable of breaking it down for themselves. ...
With all honesty, a review of the wikileaks threads proves otherwise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eraserhead

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Jun 10, 2013
682
38,976
Criminal Mexi Midget
Don't think they "like" Wikileaks. It's more of a Wikileaks put out mundane info.

Now unless Wikileaks/Russia/Drumpf inc. put out REAL damaging stuff on Clinton they should just give up or become impartial and put out some mundane stuff on Drumpf.
you mean besides the fact she KNOWS who is funding ISIS and is not attacking them? like that?
 

citizenzen

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Mar 22, 2010
1,433
11,628
In your opinion, correct?
Yes. It's my opinion that many of the PRSI members on the right have demonstrated poor reading comprehension skills when it came to wikileaks, interpreting them in dark and sinister ways when there was little dark or sinister content within them.

And the Washington Post Editorial Board agrees with me.

Accuracy counts. Partisanship shouldn't determine one's ability to read and comprehend information.