Making the public aware they were voting for a self-confessed sexual assaulter?
Julian Assange is Live on Twitch, answering user questions.
- Thread starter Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
- Start date
- Status
Making the public aware they were voting for a self-confessed sexual assaulter?
Why dont you respond to particular posts and ideas instead of derailing the thread by impuning the motivations of posters based on very little context or evidence.
EatinOlives
Member
Not just Trump, but the entirety of the RNC. WL kept a laser-eye focus solely on Clinton and the DNC for seemingly no reason...until you realize there's a very obvious reason why they were focused only on that side.
And I hope you don't genuinely believe we know all there is to know about Trump.
TestOfTide
Banned
The motivation was that NBC was sitting on the tape trying to edit out Billy Bush, so someone leaked it to the Washington Post who posted it in its full honest version.
And in that tape, Trump literally bragged about sexual assault, whereas in the DNC leaks and Podesta leaks the democrats confessed to........pretty much nothing other than saying mean words about a few people, such as Jeff Weaver.
I do that as well, but I like to let those reading the thread know the context of a poster's arguments.
That's not a Wikileaks document. It's a tweet by someone who works for the organisation, not something they released.
TestOfTide
Banned
A tweet that Wikileaks has STILL not taken down, which means that Wikileaks approves of a tweet that defends shooting down a Ukraine Airplane.
The question was about false Wikileaks documents. I have no idea whether Julian personally believes this to be the case or others in the organisation. Or even the one who wrote the tweet. I also don't care as it doesn't discredit their releases.
Veritigo_X
Member
If you follow the comments, sugarhigh originally said wikileaks "has literally never released false information." Saying this isn't a wikileaks document is true, but it wasn't really the original point of the exchange.
sugarhigh4242
Banned
So here's one email I liked from the Podesta archive. In it, we have a registered lobbyist (Stu Eizenstat) providing edits to a speech Clinton is going to give on Iran and Israel. He mentions that he has done "line-edits" on prior speeches for Clinton. Here's some tidbits:
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9053
So Clinton goes to a lobbyist for speech edits and the suggestions are more war blustering, more weapons to Israel, and trumped up fear-mongering.
If you don't think that's newsworthy, I don't know what to tell you.
TestOfTide
Banned
It discredits them as an organization because if they were about honesty then they wouldn't use their Twitter account to peddle such bullshit.
What the fuck does this have to do your question on the pussy-tape?
And are you seriously complaining about someone making SUGGESTIONS to Clinton? Did Hillary use all those suggestions? Oh you don't even know? Then that email is irrelevant.
A tweet isn't a release of information. I'm pretty sure he was referring to a release of documents that's hosted by them.
Honestly dude, I'm not going to engage with someone who believes NATO is preventing World War Three. You're way out of touch with reality.
It's a ridiculous tweet and one that is false but it has no bearing on the leaks that they have released. That's all that I care about.
Real courageous quoting me without quoting me.
Putin having targets killed abroad is not exactly new information
But hey Free Press in the west and Pravda everywhere else I guess.
Actually a tweet can absolutely be classified as a release of information.
When Wikileaks is peddling conspiracy theories to white knight the Ukranian rebels, they're spreading information with the same weight as if they did a press release.
Get with the times.
Twitter is a medium like any other.
BlastProcessing
Member
Isn't it interesting how you continually ignore most of the content of the posts you respond to? Instead you pick out one component and try to simplify the conversation and steer it away from what Wikileaks actually does?
It's a pretty interesting pattern. Oh well, I sure it's coincidental.
I'm sure you're right. It's impossible to criticize Wikileaks because somebody else in the world did something wrong once. That makes sense.
Veritigo_X
Member
If that's what you assumed that's fine. I agree that wikileaks hasn't released any false documents on their website. But Wikileaks has grown beyond their original scope of releasing documents. They have a pretty big social media presence that I think should be taken into account as well.
More Fun To Compute
Member
We don't know everything there is to know about any public figure. What a strange statement unless you know of a some information that was leaked that wikileaks just sat on.
TestOfTide
Banned
Are you seriously so out of touch with foreign policy that you don't understand how a WESTERN ALLIANCE INVOLVING MOST WESTERN NATIONS is responsible for preventing world war 3?
Like did you forget what actually caused the first two world wars? I'll give you a hint: the western world wasn't so unified.
Are you next going to tell me how "NATO is actually the aggressor" like a lot of pro-wikileaks people do?
Hey, Ukraine had it coming, I mean what were they thinking electing someone that wasn't pro Russia?
Silver Arrows
Banned
I imagine that Wikileaks can post pretty solid evidence that they are anti-semetic and some people in this thread would totally be on board with it--
oh wait. They already have.
oh wait. They already have.
This is a red herring assertion against Wikileaks
i.e. it didn't actually matter what was in the leaks. It mattered that the word "email", along with a lot of other insinuating headlines appeared. Wikileaks knew that. The GOP knows that. Its FoxNew's entire political strategy. Report everything. They know the "Paul Ryan being investigated for killing a black man" story will turn up nothing. Their viewers know it. But you haven't "lied" by reporting it, and they've put words in your head that you're basically powerless to erase. Its psychological warfare against their own people, or advertising 101 if you'd prefer. But people are basically powerless to fight it.
As GamerGate, the AltRight, Brexit, Trump already showed antisemitism is ok because they're all rich dude that control the world anyway.
It's not a big deal anymore and the Holocaust is kinda like slavery in that it's not that hard to spin it as a positive for the concerned population and it didn't happen anyway so what are you talking about sheeple.
More like what Chomsky and other intellectuals have been saying for decades upon decades.
https://chomsky.info/19990416/
https://chomsky.info/20141107/
Don't respond to me. I'm not engaging with you anymore.
TestOfTide
Banned
Wikileaks literally suggested that John Podesta was a Satanist and yet you have posters here going "what? lying? When have Wikileaks ever lied?"
Silver Arrows
Banned
The hilarity of it all.
TestOfTide
Banned
Holy shit you really are going the route of "no really NATO are totally the aggressors".
You clearly know nothing about foreign policy and just always run on the assumption of "Western Intervention = Bad".
I'm sure if it was 1948, you'd be telling me how horrible a thing you think the Marshall Plan is.
Viktor Yanukovych was 'pro-Russian'. What sparked the unrest was his rejection of an EU agreement in favour of closer Russian ties and a Russian bailout.
When you have even the most basic of facts mixed up, you should probably stay away from the topic. Just a suggestion.
Foreign policy is a hard subject with subtelties who heavily relies on understanding pretty much how each countries see each other.
The cable leaks were very interesting in that light, because it was easier to understand the complex interactions between countries from the PoV of the USA.
Of course you'll always have idiots who see that as another opportunity to shit on their wipping boy for perceived slights no one gives a shit about.
The proRussian guy was thrown out by his population and it was later discovered that he basically embezzeled a fortune he stole from his countrymen.
The Russian intervention is a result of this guy getting the boot which is my point.
Of course I imagine that Yanukovych mass corruption is not the problem but really the meddling EU who forced good guy Viktor into early retirement.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
That this fucker was an actual presidential candidate.
Like, are you seriously suggesting, sugarhigh, that there was nothing wrong with that tape? That the only crime was that it went public?
EatinOlives
Member
"Everything there is to know" in the context of corruption, dude, don't act intentionally obtuse. WL could very easily obtain and release information regarding Putin's actual ties to Trump, which are circling around in classified documents but not available to the general public.
Considering he's set to be the next POTUS, one would think the self-professed champion of government transparency would focus on it.
I'm honestly baffled why you'd take up this argument. You know what I'm getting at.
EDIT: And I take it since you didn't comment on my first statement that you agree with it.
The the Marshall plan was an aid program.
Afghanistan was an illegal invasion.
Iraq was an illegal invasion.
The annexation of south western Cuba is illegal. Gitmo is still running.
Obama's drone program continues to maim and kill innocent lives in 7 countries.
Arms are still being sold to disgusting despots and organisations.
Hillary rejected Saif Gaddafi's proposal to bring in democracy. Libya is now a failed stated. Good job.
The Middle East is a mess due to US meddling. Admittedly, it's not just the United States. They just contributed the most to it.
Let's not even get into industrial espionage or Latin America now shall we.
But by all means keep projecting dude. You're doing good. Uphold that imperialism and hegemony.
Yep this one is clearly a Hillary botch job and hers alone.
Libya wll forever be the country that was fucked up by the USA and the USA alone.
BlastProcessing
Member
He is suggesting whatever he can to shift the topic away from Wikileaks.
More Fun To Compute
Member
How could WL very easily obtain these documents, which we in fact can't know existed unless we saw them, unless someone in the intelligence agency leaked them to them? I have no idea how you think the operation of obtaining secret documents is very easy. The number of very secret documents I have had access to is zero although I have had access to confidential data some of which could certainly have had political uses. The problem with a lot of the democrat emails is that the data was not secured very well unlike the levels of security we would hope that top secret US intelligence reports have.
EatinOlives
Member
Did I say I expected them to snap their fingers and magically conjure it? I'm giving one specific example, since you asked for an example of what specifically they could leak about him that hasn't been leaked before. It's a continuation of your "but we already know everything about Trump" point you were making earlier.
To bring this to a more general point, you have to be incredibly naïve to think there's absolutely no through-line going from the phishing targeted at the DNC directly to WL. There was a very clear assembly-line process that led to the constant leaking of emails blatantly skewed against the DNC. WL wasn't even pretending to be objective about what they were leaking, and completely ignored the RNC. And no, not because they simply didn't have the info, but because they never even attempted to get it.
There's zero doubt that they're sitting on information that's been forwarded to them that's detrimental to the RNC.
the fact that we got a tax return from one of trump's ex shows that they really didn't look at all to begin with.
It's a magnitude harder to get classified info than whatever trump is hiding in his companies.
I mean just look at what they found from the foundation with just a dedicated journalist with barely any ressources!
It's a magnitude harder to get classified info than whatever trump is hiding in his companies.
I mean just look at what they found from the foundation with just a dedicated journalist with barely any ressources!
Are you suggesting that I am pro-Russian by any chance?
If you value WL over pretty much any journalists this side of Infowars you might as well be.
EatinOlives
Member
The bolded is true, and I agree with your overall point; it's not even hard to find this information, a few industrious journalists have managed to uncover a shitton.
That's simply a ridiculous assessment. I'm far left. I take no stock in in centrist, right or alt-right 'journalism'.
Wikileaks have yet to release false documents and have revealed a great many things. I dislike Obama, Trump and Clinton. I hate Neoconservatism. That's my position.
TestOfTide
Banned
Yes and it's also proof that US intervention isn't always a bad thing. And the parts of it that involved Turkey show that something similar could work in the Middle East.
No it was a response that was backed by NATO because 9/11 triggered Article 5.
Yes it was stupid for Bush to misrepresent CIA Intel to justify a war in Iraq that did NOT have the backing of NATO.
HOWEVER an argument COULD be made that, looking at the Arab Spring of 2011, Iraq would have needed US intervention later on.
Yes I have no issue with calling out the Gitmo detention program.
And the times where innocent lives were needlessly killed (such as the drone strike of an international hospital) were absolutely atrocious decisions by Obama.
But overall the drone program has killed a lot less innocent lives than the Iraq invasion.
Name them. Not 100% disagreeing with you here. But I'm trying to see if you consider the Kurdish Rebels "disgusting".
I didn't know about Gaddafi's proposal, so you have any links I could read about it? Also, the mistake wasn't intervening on Lybia. The mistake was not doing something like a Marshall Plan there afterwards.
Except Syria is a mess because the US DIDNT intervene in time.
Why do you assume that I support shit like Iran-Contra?
"Projecting" says the guy who thinks NATO are the aggressors.
At least you admit to being far left. Wouldn't be surprised to hear that you're a fan of scumbags like HA Goodman and Glen Greenwald.
More Fun To Compute
Member
My point was never that we know everything about Trump that was your point that I already disagreed with. I was saying that there was already an amazing amount of reporting on Trump and it's hard to see how wikeleaks were putting some sort of brake on the process of reporting on negative stories about Trump by holding back data. Honestly this narrative about wikileaks not breaking stories on Trump somehow gave him sort of spotless record is just unbelievably forced to me.
What data they are sitting on, it's hard to say unless the people who leak that data break cover and call them out.
Naturally if someone leaks email data from the DNC it's more likely to be negative to the DNC than positive otherwise they would just make the communications public. Wikileaks also have a process for leaking data to attract media attention, also McDonalds have a process for making hamburgers, this is not surprising in itself. You can have the position that leaking is bad or good but claiming that it's worse because they are effective at doing what they set out to do is more sinister than being ineffective is, I don't even know, neither here nor there.
Big Shirtless Ron
Member
I see this being passed around a lot, and it's just misleading. WikiLeaks, using a video from 2010, tried to claim Bob Beckel was a Clinton strategist, and that was a blatant lie. The Democratic strategist label doesn't seem accurate, either.
http://www.snopes.com/bob-beckel-julian-assange/
You do know the Berlin wall has fallen, right?
Who gives a shit if you're far left or centrist?
If you're functionnally identical to a infowars neonazi stooge that's what people will call you (not saying you are but you do get the point).
When you have a source that is throwing bad information and their reputation to further some kind of grudge they are worthless.
That's why so many of us have thrown them under the bus, they have no integrity and will do anything to further their petty goal.
Like seriously how fucking transparent can you be?
You could hate Adam Smith with the fire of a thousand sun, if you profit and use capitalistic method to further your goal, claiming to french kiss Marx isn't going to do you any favor.
EatinOlives
Member
It's not that I expected WL to leak stuff about Trump specifically to hurt Trump, but they did specifically leak DNC documents specifically to hurt Hillary (and many, many, many people swallowed their tripe hook line and sinker). They made no pretension of being objective. Again, you're naïve if you think WL is solely acting on information they receive from others and have no agenda of their own. I don't know what else to tell you.
They blatantly pushed a pro-Republican agenda by selectively "leaking" information. If you don't believe that, I'm not interested in further discussing this with you.
That's the opposite of his point. the point is that when you are dealing with primary sources(documents,audio, video) they stand on their own regardless of the motivations of the leaker. ie. the motivations of whoever leaked the Donald Trump tape has no bearing on the content, a disturbing admission of sexual assault.
I'm well aware the Berlin wall has fallen. I've visited it and even have a chunk of it right in front of me as I write this. Neoconservatism is alive and well, 'democracy' has been spreading through US interventionism since the end of the cold war. I don't think I need to give examples of it. I don't get the point because it's the ramblings of someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.
My position is not "functionally identical" to the fascists. How you can state this with such vigour is truly mind boggling. I've made clear on my viewpoints that I will not and can not support a candidate who upholds the status quo and continues oppressing the world. This isn't limited to the United States, but as they are the largest abuser of it I will say what I see and it should be the primary talking points instead of Assange's person or Wikileaks as an organisation. Criticise it all you want, but criticise the administration running too. That's more important. Criticise the failings of US foreign policy and all the destruction and instability it has caused throughout the world.
Cool.
Are you actually reading what you're writing?
Regarding Iraq, what is there to say? This is just so absurd. Who on planet earth would make such an argument? Maybe part of the black project is crystal balls so the US can see in the future and act and destroy counties before they can destroy themselves.
Your point about the drone program. "We didn't kill that many people." Great job, less innocent lives taken. Pat on the back everyone.
I have no issue with the Kurds in Syria. This may surprise you, but they're far left too.
You can ready about Libya here - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-kovalik/clinton-emails-on-libya-e_b_9054182.html
Syria is a mess not because the US didn't intervene. If the US had its way it would simply have turned into another Libya.
I was making no assumptions on your part. I was listing the failures or successes (depending on your view) of US foreign policy.
And yes, I have a healthy respect for Greenwald.
You're a riot.
You're a willing tool of Russian foreign policy.
It's clear as day from the outdated political alignment that is worthless to denials.
You assert basic cynical "thoughts" with no nuance.
The world is more complicated than "Western intervention = bad".
Neoconservatism is spreading but you're willing to follow its biggest peddlers if it means your strawman gets to burn with a good firework.
Bfahahahah, I fully expect a conspiracy theory to explain complex economical interactions soon.
One thing I can say is you make the best jokes these days.
I suppose Chomsky is too then.
And?
Do I really have to explain appeal to authority or something?
Did you know that Einstein wasn't that good at math?
Because that's about as relevant.
- Status