Wikileaks

CwwE4Z4XEAA1jTv.jpg:large
 
I read over the weekend that El Salvador will be re-evaluating the Swedish Charges against Assange

b)
I thought El Salvador revoked his internet privileges ???
 
57Brave said:
I read over the weekend that El Salvador will be re-evaluating the Swedish Charges against Assange

b)
I thought El Salvador revoked his internet privileges ???
Click to expand...

Just a hint of ad hominem here.

Do you agree with Assange's point? Or do you think we should just "lock him up"?
 
I thought the point was, he had no point ?

Don't care what happens to Assange - never did.
Just passing on there are reports he has worn out his welcome with the El Salvadorians
for whatever reason

I'm willing to be corrected if those reports aren't true
 
57Brave said:
I thought the point was, he had no point ?

Don't care what happens to Assange - never did.
Just passing on there are reports he has worn out his welcome with the El Salvadorians
for whatever reason

I'm willing to be corrected if those reports aren't true
Click to expand...

Do you agree in the irrelevance of that in context to Sturg's post? It's odd to comment on Assange without commenting on his point.
 
50PoundHead said:
Assange can do whatever he pleases, but when do we get a look at Kelly Conway's e-mails?
Click to expand...

That's irrelevant right? Assuming Assange isn't receiving those leaks. What we do know is what has been leaked and Assange's general point of absolute transparency is a good thing, IMO.
 
chop2chip said:
That's irrelevant right? Assuming Assange isn't receiving those leaks. What we do know is what has been leaked and Assange's general point of absolute transparency is a good thing, IMO.
Click to expand...

Dude, it doesn't make you even a little bit suspicious that all of those leaks are dirt on Hilldog? Now I don't doubt that she's every bit as bad as they suggest, maybe even worse, but you don't find it even a little strange that none of the stuff from Asange/Wikileaks are dirt on Trump?
 
Oklahomahawk said:
Dude, it doesn't make you even a little bit suspicious that all of those leaks are dirt on Hilldog? Now I don't doubt that she's every bit as bad as they suggest, maybe even worse, but you don't find it even a little strange that none of the stuff from Asange/Wikileaks are dirt on Trump?
Click to expand...

Suspicious? Sure. But I don't think you can discount what Hilary actually said just because we don't know what Trump could have said. We can question the integrity of the leaks, but they're by all accounts legitimate.

FWIW, I prefer Hilary over Trump, so this isn't a case of my bias showing.
 
chop2chip said:
That's irrelevant right? Assuming Assange isn't receiving those leaks. What we do know is what has been leaked and Assange's general point of absolute transparency is a good thing, IMO.
Click to expand...

I think it's relevant if you think the media should present a balanced picture of the situation. Not to mention, all of the information has been obtained illegally. As someone who has been involved in political campaigns (thankfully before the advent of e-mails), if people are offended by what is in those e-mails, I really don't know what to tell them except to invoke Dooley's maxim of "Politics ain't beanbag." Assange's activities are just another arena for people to cry foul. All sizzle but no steak because pretty much everything that is released lacks context.
 
chop2chip said:
Suspicious? Sure. But I don't think you can discount what Hilary actually said just because we don't know what Trump could have said. We can question the integrity of the leaks, but they're by all accounts legitimate.

FWIW, I prefer Hilary over Trump, so this isn't a case of my bias showing.
Click to expand...

I didn't disagree with you about Hilldog, I just find it more than a little suspicious when any source with this much alleged dirt only seems to shovel it against one party or the other, rather than both.
 
50PoundHead said:
I think it's relevant if you think the media should present a balanced picture of the situation. Not to mention, all of the information has been obtained illegally. As someone who has been involved in political campaigns (thankfully before the advent of e-mails), if people are offended by what is in those e-mails, I really don't know what to tell them except to invoke Dooley's maxim of "Politics ain't beanbag." Assange's activities are just another arena for people to cry foul. All sizzle but no steak because pretty much everything that is released lacks context.
Click to expand...

It depends on the source of the media. I don't think Fox News has any obligation to cover the election fairly as long as they don't pretend to do as much. Although, I do hold newspapers to higher standard of ethics. Regarding wikileaks, would I prefer they leak things equally? Sure. But I understand that they hold no ethical obligation to do so. As long as the voting populace understands that point and I don't feel it's their responsibility to educate the .

And I agree with you that these emails have been more or less benign. But let's assume there was something more damning. Should we discount that information? I don't think so.
 
wikileaks can only release what they get. If they had the RNC emails they would release those too. I dont think you can blame them for trying to stop Hillary. She is partly responsible for setting up Assange for false charges that has forced him to live in an embassy. I havent seen Trump say anything but Kim Dotcom apparently thinks Trump will end the persecution of Assange, Snowden, and Dotcom. So why shouldnt they favor Trump? Normally in an election we have 2 candidates already bought and sold. This election is the rare chance to vote someone in that isnt beholden to those "special" interests.
 
chop2chip said:
It depends on the source of the media. I don't think Fox News has any obligation to cover the election fairly as long as they don't pretend to do as much. Although, I do hold newspapers to higher standard of ethics. Regarding wikileaks, would I prefer they leak things equally? Sure. But I understand that they hold no ethical obligation to do so. As long as the voting populace understands that point and I don't feel it's their responsibility to educate the .

And I agree with you that these emails have been more or less benign. But let's assume there was something more damning. Should we discount that information? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

The problem with Fox is that they do pretend. I guess my point is that Assange shouldn't call himself a journalist because he isn't practicing responsible journalism. He's a disseminator of information. There's a difference.
 
50PoundHead said:
The problem with Fox is that they do pretend. I guess my point is that Assange shouldn't call himself a journalist because he isn't practicing responsible journalism. He's a disseminator of information. There's a difference.
Click to expand...

He's caused Republicans just as much - if not more - grief in years past. We wouldn't know about Bush's torture methodologies or the unbridled NSA if it weren't for him.
 
chop2chip said:
Cryptic, cryptic, cryptic

Let me ask more directly.

Do you believe that wikileaks providing public access to Hilary's email has been a good or bad thing for voters?
Click to expand...

I thought it was irrelevant. Neither good or bad
No there ------ there

I was not surprised by anything and found none of it revealing of anything.
I thought it said more about those that took them and ran with them than what they told us about HRC.

She was running for President. How's that old saying go ?
Politics ain't bean bag
.....

I also thought it counter to Assange's introduction to the public. He used published material illegally hacked violating the privacy of John Podesta .
Opening the door for vigilante invasion of privacy. Cajum rails on and on about the drug war. In a sense, Assange personified a run away war on drugs
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top