Frey Filet Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 So it turns the potentially game-changing reveal relating the US elections and Hillary more specifically never happened this morning as planned. Assange now claims the leaks will be publicized at the end of the year. Thoughts??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 My thoughts are that Assange is a dumbass, and quite possibly a completely deranged lunatic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frey Filet Posted October 5, 2016 Author Share Posted October 5, 2016 2 hours ago, Swordfish said: My thoughts are that Assange is a dumbass, and quite possibly a completely deranged lunatic. Care to back that eloquent assessment with any supporting evidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 26 minutes ago, Frey Filet said: Care to back that eloquent assessment with any supporting evidence? Um, the facts presented in your original post? He trolled people into paying attention for a two-hour infomercial of self-aggrandizement, and now even Alex Jones think he's "Hillary's butt plug." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 It's gotta be tough to be Alex Jones, the only guy out there who never, for one second takes off that tinfoil hat. This VP debate is awful. They both just talk over each other, and everything Pence says is a lie. I'd hate to be the one transcribing this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 8 hours ago, Frey Filet said: So it turns the potentially game-changing reveal relating the US elections and Hillary more specifically never happened this morning as planned. Assange now claims the leaks will be publicized at the end of the year. Thoughts??? What exactly did he say? All I could find in mainstream sources is this: Quote Assange, speaking by video link to an anniversary news conference in Berlin, said Tuesday that WikiLeaks plans to start a series of publications this week, but wouldn't specify the timing and subject. He says the group hopes "to be publishing every week for the next 10 weeks" and the leaks include "significant material" on war, arms, oil, Google and the U.S. election. This is not the same thing as what you said. There are 5 weeks from when he said it until the election. If he spends those weeks on Google or whatever and publishes the election stuff later, then obviously it's completely worthless and chances are nobody will listen to him. However, if he publishes the election stuff 2-3 weeks from now, then that would be in line with the traditional time frame for an October surprise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lordsteve666 Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 The thing I cannot understand and which really pisses me off about the whole thing is that Assange is so intent on aiming things at Clinton (some of which may be fair game) but seems unwilling to bother targeting anything at Trump, who seems to most sane people to be the bigger threat here. I means yes there's probably some skeletons we should know about but Trump is a danger to the whole damned world so how the hell is he not worthy of some closer attention?!?? I mean are we to believe that he thinks destroying Clinton (resulting in a Trump win) would make his position any better? Or would it change the status quo in terms of the sort of secretive stuff that he alleges is goi f on and is revealed by the leaks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SerPaladin Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 7 hours ago, Lordsteve666 said: I mean are we to believe that he thinks destroying Clinton (resulting in a Trump win) would make his position any better? Or would it change the status quo in terms of the sort of secretive stuff that he alleges is goi f on and is revealed by the leaks. It's personal for him against Hillary. For whatever reason, but he might be a bit afraid if someone who allegedly wanted to drone strike him in the past suddenly had control of the entire arsenal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DireWolfSpirit Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 I'm in the minority on this one. I have great affection for all whistleblowers from the Pentagon Papers, to Tobacco exposers, Bradley/Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, Anomynous and Julian Assange as well. That said, Assanges current focus should be more equally towards both the shitheel U.S. candidates. Surely Le Donald has a skeleton or twenty that Julian should trot out and not just dirt on Clinton. I think at the heart of Julians unpopularity is that people feel he's overtly going after Hillary and giving Trump a pass. I dont support that. Expose both of them, everything on everyone should be his standard, not a picker of sides and most certainly not a picker of the wrong side. If he has something on Clinton i'm fine with him releasing it, but no quarter should be made for Trump and his nasty entourage, let their dirt see the light of day as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse Named Stranger Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 Well, but you have to keep in mind, that Assange's jackassery and carelessness has lead to the exposure of Manning. Wikileaks was/is a good idea, worth supporting. If only Assange was not such a douche. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 Eh, kinda. Exposing government secrets can be good. Exposure of Corp secrets is good. Exposing thousands of individual people's details is really really shitty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lordsteve666 Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 10 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said: I'm in the minority on this one. I have great affection for all whistleblowers from the Pentagon Papers, to Tobacco exposers, Bradley/Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, Anomynous and Julian Assange as well. That said, Assanges current focus should be more equally towards both the shitheel U.S. candidates. Surely Le Donald has a skeleton or twenty that Julian should trot out and not just dirt on Clinton. I think at the heart of Julians unpopularity is that people feel he's overtly going after Hillary and giving Trump a pass. I dont support that. Expose both of them, everything on everyone should be his standard, not a picker of sides and most certainly not a picker of the wrong side. If he has something on Clinton i'm fine with him releasing it, but no quarter should be made for Trump and his nasty entourage, let their dirt see the light of day as well. Yes that was kind of my view initially as well, exposing the true nature of how governments and organisations etc are acting is important. But the fact that Assange is leading such a singular campaign against one candidate whilst ignoring Trump is just bizarre and makes him look like he's acting more on a personal vendetta rather than the guardian of truth and justice he's always tried to claim in the past. I mean Trump's campaign and his ilk are essentially the absolute worst of what America has to offer; racism, bigotry, homophobia being only a few examples. No way should that side of the tracks get away scot free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 46 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Eh, kinda. Exposing government secrets can be good. Exposure of Corp secrets is good. Exposing thousands of individual people's details is really really shitty. Given that governments and corporations consist of thousands of individuals, it's not possible to expose the former without also exposing the latter. If you try to keep things generic, the governments and/or corporations will simply accuse you of lying in the service of their rivals (as, in fact, the Democrats have already preemptively done to Wikileaks for all future leaks). To make the leaks impossible to deny, one needs to include concrete, verifiable information about the actions of specific individuals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 That doesn't mean you have to dox 20000 antigovernmebt protesters. It doesn't mean you have to give out to everyone 10000 ssns. And they aren't just releasing info of the peoples who work at places. That is my point. And that is bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 Revealing the major donors (i.e. the people who go to $50K/plate dinners, not random people who sent in $20 once) is perfectly acceptable; this is one of the few ways in which we can learn anything at all about the resources bases of various organizations. On the other hand, I agree that releasing the information of large numbers of random citizens who have nothing to do with the people in power is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 8 minutes ago, Altherion said: Revealing the major donors (i.e. the people who go to $50K/plate dinners, not random people who sent in $20 once) is perfectly acceptable; this is one of the few ways in which we can learn anything at all about the resources bases of various organizations. On the other hand, I agree that releasing the information of large numbers of random citizens who have nothing to do with the people in power is wrong. But it wasn't the 50k/plate dinners. It was random people who had donated $20. And they purposely left it in even after they were called on it. Furthermore, there are a lot of ways to reveal that the 50k/plate people exist without doxing them. You can use independent outsiders to verify that those are indeed the SSNs of the people involved without publishing them, and then have a trust relationship there. That's how news agencies have done it for the past 150 years. That's how the NY Times did it with the taxes before they released it. The notion that you ever have to dox people for the public good is bullshit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 13 hours ago, Lordsteve666 said: The thing I cannot understand and which really pisses me off about the whole thing is that Assange is so intent on aiming things at Clinton (some of which may be fair game) but seems unwilling to bother targeting anything at Trump, who seems to most sane people to be the bigger threat here. I means yes there's probably some skeletons we should know about but Trump is a danger to the whole damned world so how the hell is he not worthy of some closer attention?!?? I mean are we to believe that he thinks destroying Clinton (resulting in a Trump win) would make his position any better? Or would it change the status quo in terms of the sort of secretive stuff that he alleges is goi f on and is revealed by the leaks. What difference does it make? If the information he provides (when they used to provide actual info) is accurate and important, then 'yeah, but it's not fair because... TRUMP!' is a really weak argument. 5 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said: I'm in the minority on this one. I have great affection for all whistleblowers from the Pentagon Papers, to Tobacco exposers, Bradley/Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, Anomynous and Julian Assange as well. You're not in the minority. I have plenty of affection for whistleblowers. It's Assange specifically that i think is a self aggrandizing dumbass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DunderMifflin Posted October 6, 2016 Share Posted October 6, 2016 I think he thought ppl were going to care more about the DNC intel so now needs something bigger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
all swedes are racist Posted October 6, 2016 Share Posted October 6, 2016 23 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said: I think he thought ppl were going to care more about the DNC intel so now needs something bigger Yeah. Cybering is hard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted October 6, 2016 Share Posted October 6, 2016 4 hours ago, Kalbear said: But it wasn't the 50k/plate dinners. It was random people who had donated $20. And they purposely left it in even after they were called on it. Furthermore, there are a lot of ways to reveal that the 50k/plate people exist without doxing them. You can use independent outsiders to verify that those are indeed the SSNs of the people involved without publishing them, and then have a trust relationship there. That's how news agencies have done it for the past 150 years. That's how the NY Times did it with the taxes before they released it. The notion that you ever have to dox people for the public good is bullshit. I've only seen the O($1M) donor list. If there are also $20 ones, that is obviously problematic. Regarding independent outsiders: they might be quite a bit harder to come by for Wikileaks than for traditional media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.