Julian Assange

[Caracara 41]

Hugo, can you not call off the chihuahua?  or is he your good boy.

[DixonHur 11948]

11 minutes ago, Caracara said:

Thanks for the civility. There were lots in my opinion.  But emails showing the DNC's favoritism in the primary cost HRC a lot of votes from bernie folks.  And tons of bernie peeps are now "red-pilled" as they say, and are determined to rally around the truth rather than hang onto a totally corrupt bipartisan establishment and a MSM that does nothing but parrot its talking parts.

How is that incriminating?  The DNC (and the RNC, for that matter) can favor any candidate they want...there's nothing illegal or even unethical about that.

[Anastasis 23706]

4 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

How is that incriminating?  The DNC (and the RNC, for that matter) can favor any candidate they want...there's nothing illegal or even unethical about that.

Right, they are private organizations free to tilt the scales as they see fit.  And that is just fine. I mean, they own our democracy, but if you point out this nonsense masquerading as democracy you are a both sider. BTW have you heard about the sham that is Russian elections?

Edited March 30, 2018 by Anastasis

[Caracara 41]

1 minute ago, DixonHur said:

How is that incriminating?  The DNC (and the RNC, for that matter) can favor any candidate they want...there's nothing illegal or even unethical about that.

I'd say the emails that showed favoritism toward hilidawg and collusion between the media and the dnc, were the most damaging.

I didn't like Hillary before the election season, and the emails didn't raise her any higher in my eyes.  Incriminating?  I usually keep my opinions to myself, on this board, and stick to what I think can be proven.

[Anastasis 23706]

Just now, Caracara said:

I didn't like Hillary before the election season,

Nobody liked Hillary.  The right, the middle, shit even the fucking left. Nor did many internationally. But it was her turn to crash through that glass ceiling with the backing of a captured democrat party apparatus, so batter up. And the GOP was incapable of nominating the only electable adult in the room (Kasich) because they had cultured 8 years of fucking brain damage within their own base, so here we fucking are. And all this shit is Russia's fault, with a side dish of assange and snowden and whatever other nonsense. 

[Caracara 41]

Kasich had a good interview w Dave Rubin yesterday.  Enjoyed listening to him ramble.

[DixonHur 11948]

10 minutes ago, Caracara said:

I'd say the emails that showed favoritism toward hilidawg and collusion between the media and the dnc, were the most damaging.

I didn't like Hillary before the election season, and the emails didn't raise her any higher in my eyes.  Incriminating?  I usually keep my opinions to myself, on this board, and stick to what I think can be proven.

You said "damaging", but it was in response to a question from Hugo asking which you thought was the most "incriminating".  Don't play the obtuse card.

Nothing in that scenario is damaging.  If you needed to see an email to know that the DNC wanted Hillary as their candidate, then you have much bigger issues to worry about.  But who cares?  The DNC's actions were not unlike how many companies hire their CEO.  The Board or Directors (DNC) could have a person in mind, but have to put it to a shareholder (registered Dems) vote.  THe BoD is free to use all their influence to get the shareholders to vote for their candidate, but it's still up to the shareholders to decide.

Bernie could have run as an Independent, but chose to run under the DNC banner. 

 

[DixonHur 11948]

25 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Right, they are private organizations free to tilt the scales as they see fit.  And that is just fine. I mean, they own our democracy, but if you point out this nonsense masquerading as democracy you are a both sider. BTW have you heard about the sham that is Russian elections?

Not sure what a "both sider" is, or how I fit into that group by pointing out a fact, but ok.

[berlinerbaer 692]

2 hours ago, Caracara said:

I'd say the emails that showed favoritism toward hilidawg and collusion between the media and the dnc, were the most damaging.

I didn't like Hillary before the election season, and the emails didn't raise her any higher in my eyes.  Incriminating?  I usually keep my opinions to myself, on this board, and stick to what I think can be proven.

Hillary beat Bernie in the primary by more than 3.5 million votes. That's 12 percent. Not close.

Are you suggesting that favoritism toward HRC by the DNC and the media led to her putting up a double-digit win over Sanders among average rank-and-file Joes and Janes in the voting booth?

Fact. The Democratic party bigwigs favored Hillary. Here's another fact. It didn't matter. Emails, superdelegates. Sounded shady, didn't it? Except it was completely worthless because the voters took care of things on their own.

In the end, it did matter, because it pissed off dumb-ass Sanders' supporters who chose to believe the primary was staged instead of their candidate losing by 12 goddamn points to fucking Hillary.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[In10se 175]

On 3/29/2018 at 8:18 PM, Caracara said:

Thanks for the civility. There were lots in my opinion.  But emails showing the DNC's favoritism in the primary cost HRC a lot of votes from bernie folks.  And tons of bernie peeps are now "red-pilled" as they say, and are determined to rally around the truth rather than hang onto a totally corrupt bipartisan establishment and a MSM that does nothing but parrot its talking parts.

Give specifics. Shit, just like on that shaggy thread where I asked for exact facts and policy to point to where trumpers believe Hillary would be worse than trump there's not a single one mentioned. 

It's all rhetoric and innuendo with you people. Give exact examples and cite your sources. 

[Brian Fantana 6856]

We've just entered this world where people believe their opinions hold greater weight than fact. Trumpism in a nutshell. 

[F250 29181]

On 3/29/2018 at 8:38 PM, Anastasis said:

Right, they are private organizations free to tilt the scales as they see fit.  And that is just fine. I mean, they own our democracy, but if you point out this nonsense masquerading as democracy you are a both sider. BTW have you heard about the sham that is Russian elections?

That's pretty fucked up when you think about it.

[Anastasis 23706]

Just now, F250 said:

That's pretty fucked up when you think about it.

Look!  A Russian squirrel!

[Caracara 41]

8 hours ago, In10se said:

Give specifics. Shit, just like on that shaggy thread where I asked for exact facts and policy to point to where trumpers believe Hillary would be worse than trump there's not a single one mentioned. 

It's all rhetoric and innuendo with you people. Give exact examples and cite your sources. 

What are the specific reasons that prompted Debbie Wasserman Schultz to step down from heading the DNC?  

I could give you long list of HRC "sins," and cite them all to mainstream reportage.  Then I could give you a list of donations to the clinton foundation that coincide with arms deals. Or one could say, "looky how things have slowed down for the great charity/tax-free holding company, now that the clintons have lost access to our government."   It wouldn't be worth the effort to do any of this research for you.  You simply wouldn't acknowledge it.   While I'm grateful for any rare, verifiable, pristine truth, from any source, at any time, most folks on this thread immediately set out to obscure everything inconvenient and hard facts especially.

 

[In10se 175]

41 minutes ago, Caracara said:

What are the specific reasons that prompted Debbie Wasserman Schultz to step down from heading the DNC?  

I could give you long list of HRC "sins," and cite them all to mainstream reportage.  Then I could give you a list of donations to the clinton foundation that coincide with arms deals. Or one could say, "looky how things have slowed down for the great charity/tax-free holding company, now that the clintons have lost access to our government."   It wouldn't be worth the effort to do any of this research for you.  You simply wouldn't acknowledge it.   While I'm grateful for any rare, verifiable, pristine truth, from any source, at any time, most folks on this thread immediately set out to obscure everything inconvenient and hard facts especially.

 

Do it. Give exact examples. If you cant then there's no reason to pay attention to you. 

[Caracara 41]

3 minutes ago, In10se said:

Do it. Give exact examples. If you cant then there's no reason to pay attention to you. 

I need a little investment from you.  Remember, we're on a thread about a guy who publishes good information, and you, along with almost everyone, want nothing to do with talking about the details of it.  At the moment, you want to go after me. What are the specific reasons that prompted Debbie Wasserman Schultz to step down from heading the DNC?   Try wikipedia. I know you can do some of your own research.

[Caracara 41]

sorry, don't know how to embed twitters

 

The Democrats

 

✔ @TheDemocrats

20 Apr

The Democratic Party is fighting to protect elections. That’s why we’re suing the Trump campaign and Russia. https://bit.ly/2vvrgj7 

WikiLeaks

 

✔ @wikileaks

 

 

We're counter suing you for fun -- and also because you're lame. "Voters! WikiLeaks took away our right to lie about rigging the primary!" That's some serious one dimensional chess right there.

WikiLeaks‏Verified account @wikileaks

 

 

 

 

The Democrats are suing @WikiLeaks and @JulianAssange for revealing how the DNC rigged the Democratic primaries. Help us counter-sue. We've never lost a publishing case and discovery is going to be amazing fun: https://www.iamwikileaks.org/donate/ 

 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13619]

I voted for Bernie in the primaries and was pissed at the DNC for tilting the scales towards Hillary, but there's nothing illegal about what they did.

The Democrats can pick their candidate by picking straws, charades, or rock-paper-scissors. 

Knowingly distributing stolen goods though, would be illegal.

[Caracara 41]

22 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

I voted for Bernie in the primaries and was pissed at the DNC for tilting the scales towards Hillary, but there's nothing illegal about what they did.

The Democrats can pick their candidate by picking straws, charades, or rock-paper-scissors. 

Knowingly distributing stolen goods though, would be illegal.

Get your point.

so you and Bernie got over it, but some didn't. It might cause worse (PR/discovery) problems for Democrats than they want.  If I was a young dem candidate heading into midterms I'd like distance from HRC, DWS, Awans, Lynch, fusion gps, Podestas and 2016's ultra-fail.  But they run/fund the DNC.  Maybe they'll drop the lawsuit. seems like a big mistake for the party and its future.

Also, I don't think wikileaks buys info, or is for-profit.

 

WikiLeaks‏Verified account @wikileaks

Democrats have gone all Scientology against @WikiLeaks. We read the DNC lawsuit. Its primary claim against @WikiLeaks is that we published their "trade secrets". Scientology infamously tried this trick when we published their secret bibles. Didn't work out well for them.

[SaucyJack 3517]

JA&CJK5H

[Pods 7623]

31 minutes ago, SaucyJack said:

JA&CJK5H

Julian Assange Leaked 5 Emails?

[SpiralOut 1958]

On 3/29/2018 at 7:25 AM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Assange and Snowden have a lot of similarities.

Both were championed for being whistleblowers in the beginning but as more time elapses it’s becoming clearer that they’re not much more than weapons of adversaries to undermine the United States and the West.

I’m not saying they’re Russian spies but the Kremlin certainly loves these guys for obvious reasons and probably exerts influence over them to push out certain messages.

Was it just a coincidence Russia was about to ship Snowden to Ecuador before Obama dropped the hammer on him?

 I’d speculate Snowden would have operated in a similar fashion in Ecuador as he is now except with more plausible deniability from the Kremlin.

You've gone to far down the rabbit hole, my friend.  When you bang on Trump for being an idiot and surrounding himself with other morally bankrupt idiots, I'm on board.  When you bang on Russia for doing some underhanded shit, I'm on board.  But now you're just going to start burning down the reputation of a guy like Snowden to keep this hysteria running?

Snowden didn't want to be stuck in Russia.  Obama stuck him there.  How hard is it to put 2 and 2 together and realize he did this so he and the American government could paint Snowden as a Russian puppet instead of a whistleblower exposing all the fucked up shit our intelligence agencies have been up to.  Obama was tits deep in making sure the NSA could collect all our shit.  Making sure the FISA courts approved every civilian killing drone strike he wanted.  Tapping the phones of our allies like Chancellor Merkel.  The list goes on.

And guess what?  All those intelligence agencies are still doing that shit now with President Dunderhead in charge and no one is saying a fucking peep about it.

Assange and Snowden are evidence of how much power the people in charge here in America have to shape a narrative.  Both guys were dropping truth bombs on the American people about what their shitty government was up to.  Then, after some well crafted lies and mass media propaganda, both of those guys who were previously unimpeachable sources are now considered Russian agents.  I can't facepalm hard enough to express how stupid this is.

Meanwhile, those evil, devious Russians are so goddamn tech illiterate that they basically shut down the country's entire internet access to try and stop their citizens from accessing one company, Telegram.  And they didn't actually stop anyone from reaching it.  I mean, maybe I'm too far out on a limb here, but I think we can reasonably conclude the Russians aren't smart enough and crafty enough to be behind everything from the DNC "hack" to aliens at Roswell to why Whataburger stopped making the A1 Think and Hearty Burger. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/18/world/europe/russia-telegram-shutdown.html

http://techcrunch.com/2018/04/17/telegram-plays-down-russia-block-claiming-no-significant-impact-yet/

Hate on the Russians all you like.  Hate Drumpf all you like.  Just don't be sullying the reputation of a patriot like Snowden to keep getting your rocks off in this McCarthyesque hysteria.  Dude blew up his great life to expose some evil shit our government was up to and now has to live in exile in fear for his life.  Show him some fucking respect, please.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Snowden is a douchebag POS that’s free to return the United States anytime he wants but instead he chooses to live in a brutal fascist regime.

Snowden can suck Reality Winner’s dick.

[Sawbonz 28093]

Snowden is not subject to criminal charges if he returns to the US?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:

Snowden is not subject to criminal charges if he returns to the US?

He is.  It’s about accountability with Snowden.  He broke the law for his own just cause which is fine if you’re willing to stand and face the music for your disobedience.  

It’s like those kids that walked out of class for gun control and have accepted that they will get detention for their civil disobedience.

Snowden is the emo kid that walked out of class and ran to Hong Kong because he was afraid of detention.

He’s a coward absorbed with his own self righteousness that betrayed the United States by fleeing with State Secrets. 

[Sawbonz 28093]

I already addressed this on the old site but Daniel Ellsberg does not agree with you 

He has spoken at length about (and in this piece with) ES

Quote

I once read a statement by Ed Snowden that there are things worth dying for. And I read the same thing by Manning, who said she was ready to go to prison or even face a death sentence for what she was doing. And I read those comments and I thought: that is what I felt. That is right. It is worth it. Is it worth someone’s freedom or life to avert a war with North Korea? I would say unhesitatingly: “Yes, of course.” Was it worth Ed Snowden spending his life in exile to do what he did? Was it worth it for Manning, spending seven and a half years in prison? Yes, I think so. And I think they think so. And I think they are right.

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/16/is-whistleblowing-worth-prison-or-a-life-in-exile-edward-snowden-talks-to-daniel-ellsberg

 

Quote

Snowden was the one person in the fucking NSA who did what he absolutely should have done

https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/375031/

the Atlantic article has a partial transcript of this

 

[SpiralOut 1958]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Snowden is a douchebag POS that’s free to return the United States anytime he wants but instead he chooses to live in a brutal fascist regime.

Snowden can suck Reality Winner’s dick.

You sound a lot like Trump here. 

Make a stupid argument denigrating someone's character.  Get called out on it.  Instead of rethinking your position and either apologizing or coming up with a better argument for why you think the way you do, you double down on the stupidity and vulgarity. 

I think it's about time you tagged out and let someone else pick up the torch and pitchfork.

 

[Brian Fantana 6856]

Snowden did the right thing by blowing the whistle. He did the wrong thing by sauntering off and sharing state secrets with China to save his own skin.

You can both have noble intentions and have a sense of self-preservation that overpowers your original intent. It's pretty simple.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Y’all can try to rationalize Snowden all you want but just because you saved a bunch of kids from a burning school bus doesn’t give you the right to murder the driver without consequences.

Weird analogy I know but this isn’t complicated.

[Sawbonz 28093]

One of the few men on the planet who has walked in his shoes is ok with his actions. I’ll take his opinion over yours and Hugo’s 

[maninblack 7975]

Bingo. Hugos analogy is the dumbest shit I've ever heard.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11858]

You must not have been listening much. Blackie. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

51 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

One of the few men on the planet who has walked in his shoes is ok with his actions. I’ll take his opinion over yours and Hugo’s 

Great, I’ll continue to evaluate things for myself based on facts. 

Edited April 22, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Buzzrock 15118]

Great, I’ll continue to evaluate things for myself based on facts. 

I chuckled.

[Caracara 41]

10 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Great, I’ll continue to evaluate things for myself based on facts. 

For the facts, Assange and Snowden may be useful to you.

[Sawbonz 28093]

Now Daniel Ellsberg is fake news. Just waiting for someone to call him a Russian asset 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

 

1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

One of the few men on the planet who has walked in his shoes is ok with his actions. I’ll take his opinion over yours and Hugo’s 

That comparison doesn't exactly favor Snowden.  Ellsberg walked his shoes over to the authorities and faced the consequences.   There's also a big difference in the nature of the information they took.  Snowden took a lot of information legitimately in the public interest, but also a lot of additional shit that put our covert agents at risk.   I know someone who had to leave the field permanently as a result and can never visit that country again.   I think Snowden meant well, but he went way too far. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Ellsberg is entitled to his opinion just as much as  I’m entitled to mine.

I think many of you are missing the point that what Ellsberg is saying isn’t much different from my position.

Ellsberg is saying what Snowden did was worth a life of exile, which I don’t disagree.  The nuance that’s overlooked is that Snowden CHOSE a life of exile, no one forced him to run and hide, eventually in Russia where he’s now nothing more than a mouthpiece for anti-American propaganda.

There’s nothing patriotic about him DECIDING to do that.

[Sawbonz 28093]

Ellsberg was also the ultimate insider; he was scared but had reason to believe he would at least be afforded due process, even had the investigators not been so crooked. Snowden could not have been more of an outsider 

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/12/19/daniel-ellsberg-edward-snowden-and-the-modern-whistle-blower/amp

[Sawbonz 28093]

Ellsberg does not equivocate on what he says about Snowden. It is 180 degrees from your position 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

44 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

 

That comparison doesn't exactly favor Snowden.  Ellsberg walked his shoes over to the authorities and faced the consequences.   There's also a big difference in the nature of the information they took.  Snowden took a lot of information legitimately in the public interest, but also a lot of additional shit that put our covert agents at risk.   I know someone who had to leave the field permanently as a result and can never visit that country again.   I think Snowden meant well, but he went way too far. 

This point doesn’t get enough attention.

From the Comey book:

 

Edited April 22, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[F250 29181]

4 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Snowden is a douchebag POS that’s free to return the United States anytime he wants but instead he chooses to live in a brutal fascist regime.

Snowden can suck Reality Winner’s dick.

What's the difference between Reality Winner and Snowden?

One got caught and the other didn't.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

One ran away

One didn’t 

[F250 29181]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

One ran away

One didn’t 

Reality Winner was caught, she didn't turn herself in to the FBI.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

One ran away

One didn’t 

Edited April 22, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Judge Roybeanbag 11858]

That is a pretty big distinction.  One owned up to what she did.  The other slinked off and found comfort in the arms of Dotards friends.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

I think Reality Winner will have a better life in the long run because of it.  She will get out or get pardoned soon enough while Snowden will be looking over his shoulder for the rest of his life, in Russia.

[Satchel 6982]

On March 29, 2018 at 11:19 PM, berlinerbaer said:

Hillary beat Bernie in the primary by more than 3.5 million votes. That's 12 percent. Not close.

Are you suggesting that favoritism toward HRC by the DNC and the media led to her putting up a double-digit win over Sanders among average rank-and-file Joes and Janes in the voting booth?

Fact. The Democratic party bigwigs favored Hillary. Here's another fact. It didn't matter. Emails, superdelegates. Sounded shady, didn't it? Except it was completely worthless because the voters took care of things on their own.

In the end, it did matter, because it pissed off dumb-ass Sanders' supporters who chose to believe the primary was staged instead of their candidate losing by 12 goddamn points to fucking Hillary.

Uh, this is true.

[Caracara 41]

Why, what and who caused Debbie Wasserman Schultz to step down from heading the DNC?  

There's a % of people, of various political leanings, who don't agree that lying, colluding, cheating is okay because "Hillary was going to win anyway."   (if she really was).