Selective? There’s no selecting, except in you unsurprisingly choosing not to own up to it. It’s black and white, and inexcusable, and would be inexcusable on whatever side it was happening. It won’t be forgotten either. It’s going to be a black mark in American politics that lasts for a long time.
Well, there are plenty of black marks to choose from. Leak em all, and let God sort em out.
Or is it all just too much information?
Hang on, weren’t you just saying that it’s all just flimflam?
I’ve no idea what Assange is up to, and he come across as a slimy character. I agree that governments often have valid reasons for secrecy. But, on balance, I’d say anyone who makes politicians look stupid is a-OK.
What “enemies” are we even talking about? Most of America’s enemies are either fictitious or created out of their own hubris and miscalculation. I don’t think there are many people who actually want to hate Americans, but for the last 100 years or so it’s been State policy to rub foreigners up the wrong way.
1 Like
You’ve lost me totally.
Likewise.
In your previous post, you appeared to be saying “Pshaw. What of it? Who knows what governments are really up to?”.
You now seem to be implying that leaks occur because some shadowy enemy wants things leaked, in order to prevent America being Great Again.
1 Like
Where did I say that?
Where did I say that?
Just more fantasy. No shortage of that for sure … The fantasy comes from all kind of pundits who seek to spin every development large or small as a conspiracy theory or an apocalyptic vision. It doesn’t matter, reality will trudge along as usual.
He’s being the willing stooge of a foreign enemy trying to subvert our electoral processes.
No worries. I must have misunderstood.
Wait, you’re not being sarcastic right? I’ll explain if you are.
A meta-observation:
[quote]When Clinton’s surrogates respond to questions about Wikileaks by saying
the Russians are behind it, that’s an acknowledgment of guilt. Guilty people almost always question the source of the information first. Innocent people start with a clear denial, or sometimes confusion as to why the question is being asked.[/quote]
I’ve noticed this myself.
Assange is a sleaze. Compared to whom? It’s one black mark among many in a black time (is that racist?)
I’m not saying he’ll be a footnote in history. I’m saying he’ll be one bullet item in a long list.
And he’s exposing other sleazes, so that’s a net gain. If he’s a traitor, then he’s a triple-crosser. May all our traitors turn on each other like this.
1 Like
um. … I’m serious. I’m honestly not sure what you’re saying, but I’m interested.
The fantasy is coming from people who seem to think everything that happens in relation to governments is part of some master conspiracy or fodder for a reddit-thread apocalyptic prediction. I didn’t intend to imply that it has anything to do with what the governments themselves are doing. Does that explain it? I’m not sure I fully understand what you’re asking.
I think tempo’s “fantasy” comment was in reference to me speculating about the reasons for Assange suddenly getting his Internet access cut off by the Ecuadorian embassy. Nothing more interesting than that. Or maybe the fantasy he was referring to is that Assange is a willing stooge of a foreign enemy trying to subvert our electoral processes. Of course, I could be wrong. There’s a lot of fantasies going around these days.
2 Likes
The preponderance of evidence these days supports such thinking.
1 Like
This clears things up:
You say “clear things up,” I say “obfuscate.” Ecuador doesn’t want to interfere in electoral processes in the United States? That’s rich. It would love to interfere, just not in favor of the candidate that Assange seems to be supporting…
1 Like
Sure, everything is as you would like it to be and not as the facts actually indicate.
When it comes to politics, facts, unfortunately, are pretty hard to come by. Maybe I’m cynical, but I don’t take government pronouncements at face value, just like I don’t assume that reporting is fair and unbiased. The NYT is not what it used to be. Is this how I would like things to be? Of course not.
1 Like
Yeah but you seem to have settled on a conclusion that fits with your argument with no evidence that I can see. On the other hand, the fact is that many have noted that Russia appears to be attempting to influence the election through Wikileaks. Agree or not, it is a fact that many informed people have mentioned this possibility. Now Ecuador cuts Assange’s internet. What’s happening, everyone wonders. It’s hardly surprising that they state the reason is that they don’t want to be seen as interfering in another country’s electoral processes. This is the kind of thing that really would grind other nations gears, and would not be forgotten for a long, long time. For no benefit to itself. It’s one thing when you can claim to be helping an advocate of freedom of information, but another thing entirely when you’re supporting a lackey of a foreign power who is trying to subvert another country’s elections. What is your rationale for doubting this statement?
When making relevant information available to the voters constitutes interference in an election, then we are truly in Orwell’s world.
Keep all voters low info! For great democracy! Ignorance is strength.
But they don’t seem to have stopped the info dumps just yet:
The more you know.
1 Like
Why to you believe Russia was behind the hack? Many have also noted there is no way to know for sure who did the hack. Could be Russia, or North Korea or as Donald Trump pointed out could be some fat fuck in his mom’s basement. Even the FBI director Comey siad they don’t know who did it. maybe it was an inside job or maybe it was the NSA and they just hate Clintons guts and can’t stand the idea of her being president.
Russia? They are not such amateurs to leave a big flashing neon sign pointing to themselves, especially at the state level.
1 Like