Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut' • Hacker News Board

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#521

Post by dragonwriter » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 5:57 PM UTC

lakmear wrote: post #503

slg wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>the 'rape victim' still did not mind having dinner with him afterwards >the fact that they'd had intercourse several times before I don't care what you think about this specific case, but statements like these show a great deal of ignorance about how most sex crimes happen and the relationship between the abuser and the victim.

By that logic, a guy who had completely consensual sex may be unable prove it wasn't rape. There has to be a limit on what you can call rape or men will have no protection from false accusations.

Er, if you have a justice system that requires proof of innocence rather than proof of guilt, that is a bigger problem than any line-drawing around the boundaries of rape.

If there is not consent (or capacity for consent) at the time of the act, it's rape. In any reasonable justice system, the proof problems that come up, in certain situations, with that clear definition weigh in favor of the accused, since they make it difficult to prove that sex occurred without consent.

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#522

Post by Pigo » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 5:59 PM UTC

AvenueIngres wrote: post #363

anthony_romeo wrote: post #237

We're in the middle of some crazy propaganda war right now, and it's been this way for quite a while. It became completely transparent when the Podesta e-mails were released mere minutes after Trump's videos regarding possible sexual assault were released. Ever since the DNC leaks and the subsequent accusations against Russia, it became clear to me that, at some point, the attempts to tarnish Wikileaks's name was to…

Directly related to what you are saying, DNC consultants and execs caught on tape explaining how they plant fake Trump supporters at rallies to disrupt them or get negative media coverage. It is pretty interesting from: 1/ a partisan PoV, 2/ a methodological PoV; you are right there is a war for information that is being waged. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY

There doesn't seem to be enough room in everyone's brain to appreciate a new story in the news every day. I'm amazed at the exposing of the game and how it's played. The proliferation of all this information is making it impossible to hide how the narrative is constructed by government and media. The back-scratching is deafening.

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#523

Post by danielahn » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 6:00 PM UTC

gragas wrote: post #480

jsutton wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are the countless and extremely illegal and unethical things?

- Hillary and her team deliberately trying to trick the FBI by giving them a "slightly broader" set of emails [1]: "What that means specifically is that they are going to turn over all the Blumenthal emails to the Committee that they hav along with some other HRC emails that include a slightly broader set of search terms than the original batch. That of course includes the emails Sid turned over that HRC didn't, whic…

Is this post satirical? I think I am being trolled, but at the risk of making myself look like a fool for falling for it:

How is your reading comprehension this bad?

1. Your understanding of the comment here is miserable given the point you are trying to make. If you should find anything suspicious, it is that the 2nd set of e-mails, with a broader search, included e-mails that should have been turned over previously but weren't. If you want to go down that angle, you think the Benghazi committee would sit on those e-mails and not say anything if there was anything particularly salient in them?

2. You have an issue that State is considering whether releasing POTUS e-mails are subject to executive privilege and should be cleared first?

3. Really? I'll parrot the guys that give out free comedy show tickets - "you don't like to laugh? you don't like humor?"

4. Please point me to the illegal or unethical behavior here.

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#524

Post by wnoise » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 6:01 PM UTC

not_kurt_godel wrote: post #394

grandalf wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A vote for any third party candidate is a bigger statement, and maximizes your voter power even in a non swing-state.

A vote for third-party doesn't maximize your voter power, it diminishes it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

In the short term, i.e. for this election, yes. In the longer term, it is a signal to the parties that they are leaving votes on the table, that maybe they could pick up by altering which policies they support.

It really depends how you weight this election vs others coming up. But if you're in, say, California, your vote for President will not swing the state at all -- it's locked in for Hillary. If (and it's a big if) some other party is closer to your preferred policies, feel free to vote for them without a trace of guilt about making your side weaker for this election.

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#525

Post by Mikeb85 » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 6:03 PM UTC

the_duke wrote: post #483

gragas wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If hundreds of pieces of direct evidence don't suffice, then I'm not sure what does. The Clinton Foundation has done countless extremely illegal and unethical things. Between CTR, the Bernie fiasco, the fake Craigslist ads, the "public and private" positions, I'm not sure how you can say that HRC isn't trying to create an alternate reality.

Every politician has public and private positions. That's just how politics works. The view the plebs demands often don't align with either the politicians vision for the country, what's possible near or long term, or the people you are indebted to (donors, etc). In many cases it's acceptable and even advisable, in my opinion. A head of state has insight into facts and knowledge of others about realities and facts th…

> But if you have the choice between that and Trump, I cannot imagine how you could choose the latter.

Status quo vs. something different. The status quo is that Obama/Hillary have destabilised countless countries, and are sabre rattling against Russia, possibly leading to an eventual nuclear war.

By contrast, Trump is promising less wars, less interventionism, and otherwise is a relative wildcard with a penchant towards pragmatism and deal-making.

I'm not American, but on paper, it looks like Trump would be an improvement as far as world stability goes, I'd vote for him based on his policy concerning Russia alone.

The Clinton/Bush/Obama dynasties have not made the world a better place, have not contributed to anything positive IMO, and judging by all the leaked emails, they're all corrupt as well.

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#526

Post by grey-area » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 6:03 PM UTC

JohnStrange wrote: post #493

anthony_romeo wrote: post #237

We're in the middle of some crazy propaganda war right now, and it's been this way for quite a while. It became completely transparent when the Podesta e-mails were released mere minutes after Trump's videos regarding possible sexual assault were released. Ever since the DNC leaks and the subsequent accusations against Russia, it became clear to me that, at some point, the attempts to tarnish Wikileaks's name was to…

I completely agree with your analysis. To add to this, I've been watching US media closely over the past few months and have never seen them so biased in any matter before, including past elections. It appears to me that there is not a single news source in the US that does not entirely follow some political agenda. There seem to be no dissenters or cautious writers left. Most of them are biased against Trump, of cou…

I think the answer is simpler than some grand conspiracy of the global media elite (insert your preferred shadowy cabal here), the sort of people who work in news agencies simply are not alienated enough from the current system to see trump as anything other than a danger to the current system of representative gov. and they also don't like being demonised and slandered by Trump, this requires no conspiracy, just that media people value the status quo (which trump threatens in so many ways to destroy and disrupt from within).

There is no conspiracy.

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#527

Post by dlp211 » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 6:04 PM UTC

YPCrumble wrote: post #435

not_kurt_godel wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A vote for third-party doesn't maximize your voter power, it diminishes it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

Does your link discuss that if a third party candidate gets 5% of the vote they will receive federal funding next election? If so how can they claim a vote for a third party diminishes voter power?

Tell me where the reform party is today? The major parties don't even take federal funding because it's a joke.

In a First Past the Post voting system like the one in America, a vote for a third-party is, and always will be a vote against your preferences. Rank-choice is a far superior system (though it has its own downsides as well), but that isn't what we have in America. The lesser of two evils is still the better of two options. You want "better" candidates, get involved in party politics and vote in the primaries.

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#528

Post by Pigo » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 6:05 PM UTC

JohnStrange wrote: post #493

anthony_romeo wrote: post #237

We're in the middle of some crazy propaganda war right now, and it's been this way for quite a while. It became completely transparent when the Podesta e-mails were released mere minutes after Trump's videos regarding possible sexual assault were released. Ever since the DNC leaks and the subsequent accusations against Russia, it became clear to me that, at some point, the attempts to tarnish Wikileaks's name was to…

I completely agree with your analysis. To add to this, I've been watching US media closely over the past few months and have never seen them so biased in any matter before, including past elections. It appears to me that there is not a single news source in the US that does not entirely follow some political agenda. There seem to be no dissenters or cautious writers left. Most of them are biased against Trump, of cou…

The bias is off the rails online as well. Many places that used to claim a pretense of balance is now 100% dedicated to hating on Trump. Look at /r/politics, you'd think there is no political news outside of Trump is the next Stalin. At least it's avoidable though.

What really bothers me is not being able to watch any national news coverage without a constant stream of Democratic narrative. I'm genuinely curious about what other issues or political offices are going to be on the ballot, but I'm going to have to take it upon myself to research any of it. Maybe that's a good side-effect though.

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#529

Post by dragonwriter » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 6:06 PM UTC

not_kurt_godel wrote: post #394

grandalf wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A vote for any third party candidate is a bigger statement, and maximizes your voter power even in a non swing-state.

A vote for third-party doesn't maximize your voter power, it diminishes it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

Right, if you want to shift power to alternatives, fund them, volunteer for them, and advocate for them (and for electoral changes that negate the incentive to tactical voting) between general elections so that they can be a reasonable choice (either by displacing a major party or by competing under rules which no longer make voting for the least-bad major party the clearly best choice in a general election.)

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#530

Post by antisthenes » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 6:06 PM UTC

artursapek wrote: post #348

arkitaip wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You actually believe some 4channers when he says he is a intelligence officer? I have a bridge to sell you...

There was another poster this summer who claimed to be an FBI insider. He spilled a lot of info about their corrupt investigation into the Clinton emails. He made a lot of predictions that ended up being true. So I wouldn't rule it out as a possibility; 4chan is a known safe place for anonymity online.

You don't need to be an intelligence anything or work for any 3 letter agency to make a prediction like "HC will not suffer any consequences", which is essentially what it all boiled down to.