Erik of Hazelfield Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 The Hillary stuff is not bad per se, but it seems to me he's constantly on the wrong side of democracy and decency. He's praised Ecuador's president, who is not exactly a champion for human rights, he's called Sweden "The Saudi Arabia of feminism", and seems to have exploited Russian hacks for the benefit of Donald Trump. Nostly though I dislike him because he's a rapist, a querulant of the worst sort and now apparently a child molester too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 How about how Wikileaks said they were going to release a bunch of Turkish government emails and they turned out to be a bunch of lame stuff from online discussion groups, and then followed that up with the personal information of almost every woman voter in Turkey? http://nymag.com/selectall/2016/07/why-did-wikileaks-help-dox-most-of-turkeys-adult-female-population.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 27 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said: Maybe he doesn't have anything on Trump? Are you even being serious here? I think if the current presidential campaign has shown us anything, it is that Donald Trump's life is a bonanza for anyone interested in exposing politicians. There's just so much stuff. It's stretching credulity to say that the mainstream media have the amount of damaging information on Trump we know they do have, but wikileaks have nothing. As for the allegation here, it's not well sourced at present and it would be premature to discuss it at this point. But certainly something appears to be different: the attitude of Ecuador towards Assange. Cutting off his internet might signify a number of things, from a change of political heart to a belief that maybe these new allegations are well founded: but it certainly suggests that the status quo for Assange is about to shift. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodRider Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 3 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said: I find this all a bit dubious, considering the nature of the other cases thrown at him. Especially after the Clinton exposure. What is amazing is that governments can be so blatant the way they abuse their powers to throw dissenters in jail. I too, take this with a huge grain of salt here. He only has been accused and accusations are easily bought. And while that's a harsh thing to say in child porn cases, it is precisely because of the emotional nature of the accusation that makes it such a great thing to tag him with. As always, innocent until proven guilty. Having said that, I don't want to go too far in the other direction either. Suffice to say, we know nothing beyond the fact that a kids parents have accused him of soliciting child porn from a kid, and that it is really politically expedient to shut him up right now - for both sides, mind you. It is just as much a feather in the Russians / Trump camp if it "comes out" that this kids parents were paid off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DunderMifflin Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 Does wikileaks really matter? Seems like the recent hacks no one cared much about them. Other than the usual short lifespan of anything in the news cycle. And if anything too bad was to come from emails couldnt they just say "nah they doctored those emails and changed them" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 8 minutes ago, mormont said: Are you even being serious here? I think if the current presidential campaign has shown us anything, it is that Donald Trump's life is a bonanza for anyone interested in exposing politicians. There's just so much stuff. It's stretching credulity to say that the mainstream media have the amount of damaging information on Trump we know they do have, but wikileaks have nothing. It stretches credulity to believe that no one has hacked into Trump's personal correspondence/documents and delivered them to wikileaks? ETA: Let's unpack this further. There has been, I believe, one leak of documents damaging to Trump- the 1995 tax records to the New York Times. So your position seems to be that every news outlet in the world except for the NYT is not interested in exposing Trump. After all, the documents must exist, and they'd have them and release them if they cared to! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matrim Fox Cauthon Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 Maybe I'm naïve in my presumptions, but it seems like if you were innocent in regards to accusations of underage pornography or sexual assault then that would be something you would want to face in the court of law to justify your innocence and clear your name. Fleeing from justice only serves to confirm the validity of the accusations in the mind of most people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DunderMifflin Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 13 minutes ago, Matrim Fox Cauthon said: Maybe I'm naïve in my presumptions, but it seems like if you were innocent in regards to accusations of underage pornography or sexual assault then that would be something you would want to face in the court of law to justify your innocence and clear your name. Fleeing from justice only serves to confirm the validity of the accusations in the mind of most people. What if like shortly before the case you had heard that someone powerful on the worlds stage asked that you be killed with a drone? Would that change it any? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channel4s-JonSnow Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 14 minutes ago, Matrim Fox Cauthon said: Maybe I'm naïve in my presumptions, but it seems like if you were innocent in regards to accusations of underage pornography or sexual assault then that would be something you would want to face in the court of law to justify your innocence and clear your name. Fleeing from justice only serves to confirm the validity of the accusations in the mind of most people. I'd say in a fair system where you thought you had a good chance of being found innocent that would be true. However If I was Assange I would suspect that I'd be going to jail no matter what happened. The case against him in Sweden was highly dubious and strange (she was asleep?) but you can easily see how he would be found guilty by the letter of the law. He's probably also rather paranoid and a bit strange himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 58 minutes ago, Hereward said: If they had any ethics, then they should have refused to be used as a catspaw by Russian intelligence, who are exactly the sort of people they claim to be against, at least until they could display some balance by releasing what I am certain is a mountain of incriminating material on Trump. Also, if they had ethics they wouldn't put up anti-Semitic tweets or ask speculative anti-Clinton poll questions. Assange is terrible and I've been opposed to him since long before it was cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 15 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said: It stretches credulity to believe that no one has hacked into Trump's personal correspondence/documents and delivered them to wikileaks? Yes. At least as many people are hostile to Trump as are hostile to Clinton. At the same time, there's much more available material on Trump. But somehow, wikileaks has had leaks about Clinton but not Trump? Why would that be? There's only one possible explanation and it doesn't speak well of wikileaks. That explanation is that people who wish to expose Trump, don't bother taking their information to wikileaks. Which invites the question - why not? Possibly because they believe wikileaks aren't interested? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 Just now, mormont said: Yes. At least as many people are hostile to Trump as are hostile to Clinton. At the same time, there's much more available material on Trump. But somehow, wikileaks has had leaks about Clinton but not Trump? Why would that be? There's only one possible explanation and it doesn't speak well of wikileaks. That explanation is that people who wish to expose Trump, don't bother taking their information to wikileaks. Which invites the question - why not? Possibly because they believe wikileaks aren't interested? Since I edited this in my last post, I'll just copy this here. It anticipates your response above perfectly: ETA: Let's unpack this further. There has been, I believe, one leak of documents damaging to Trump- the 1995 tax records to the New York Times. So your position seems to be that every news outlet in the world except for the NYT is not interested in exposing Trump. After all, the documents must exist, and they'd have them and release them if they cared to! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 3 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said: True, but the timing of all of the allegations against him are highly suspect. As is the previous case taken against him These are often the accusations thrown at victims who come forward. One need only look at the women who finally felt like their voice would be heard when accusing Trump. A huge part of the population is now claiming the timing is suspect so their allegations are somehow also suspect. There's never a good time to be sexually groomed or assaulted and there are rarely good times to report it, especially when the accused is someone well known. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westerosi Coast Gangster Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 12 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said: What if like shortly before the case you had heard that someone powerful on the worlds stage asked that you be killed with a drone? Would that change it any? Yea, I think she even admitted it was a joke. even joking about using a drone to kill someone, when you actually have them, is very presidential. I admit, I'd be scared it Trump wins, but I'd be terrified if Hillary wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matrim Fox Cauthon Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 10 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said: I'd say in a fair system where you thought you had a good chance of being found innocent that would be true. However If I was Assange I would suspect that I'd be going to jail no matter what happened. The case against him in Sweden was highly dubious and strange (she was asleep?) but you can easily see how he would be found guilty by the letter of the law. He's probably also rather paranoid and a bit strange himself. And Assange can't afford a lawyer who would fairly represent him in the Swedish courts? And are the Swedish prisons really that bad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 3 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said: Since I edited this in my last post, I'll just copy this here. It anticipates your response above perfectly: I saw it. But to be brutally honest, I didn't even think it was worth replying to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westerosi Coast Gangster Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 Just now, Matrim Fox Cauthon said: And Assange can't afford a lawyer who would fairly represent him in the Swedish courts? And are the Swedish prisons really that bad? did you really ask if Swedish prisons are bad? I'd think if your innocent any prison would be bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DunderMifflin Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 1 minute ago, Westerosi Coast Gangster said: Yea, I think she even admitted it was a joke. even joking about using a drone to kill someone, when you actually have them, is very presidential. I admit, I'd be scared it Trump wins, but I'd be terrified if Hillary wins. Maybe she was just doing some locker room talk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westerosi Coast Gangster Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 1 minute ago, DunderMifflin said: Maybe she was just doing some locker room talk touche. that was a brilliant response Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matrim Fox Cauthon Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 Just now, Westerosi Coast Gangster said: did you really ask if Swedish prisons are bad? I'd think if your innocent any prison would be bad. If you're innocent, that would certainly be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.