541–550 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can anyone provide any evidence of confirmed illegal activity from a source other than wikileaks? E.g., results of any official investigation, etc.
You can look at the newly-released FBI reports. Here's a few key parts: https://i.sli.mg/Ykms8I.jpg
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hillary => no change. Trump => change. Positive or negative? Who knows...
What do you mean, "who knows"? Seriously, I have no idea how you can listen to anything Trump says and come away with the idea that he represents positive change. Granted, most of Trump's output is not even properly formed sentences, so maybe he's doing a malformed data denial-of-service attack on voters' senses?
If Clinton gets elected, nothing will change. If Trump gets elected, the hope is that it will dip negative for a few months, he gets impeached and removed from office, and at the next election we vote in Jill Stein or something.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But Trump is just as crooked if not even more crooked. He isn't going to change anything.
Our current crop of "leaders" are content to play a game of chicken, pushing the limit further and further to see how much we will stand. Trump is nuts enough to knock the whole house of cards over. I have sympathy with where Doug is coming from, let's just get it over and done with already.
But that candidate has decided to take the low road. And I mean LOW.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
And I don't collect welfare because it's such a small paycheck compared to my salary. But for people who could really use that money, it's a huge help.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it's pretty well known that Assange claims to have a vendetta against HRC. The details of that vendetta don't make much sense. It's clearly easier for him and his supporters to claim that they're acting out of enmity towards Clinton --- a minor figure in virtually all of Assange's dealings with the US --- than to simply cop to the fact that they are aggressively and overly supporting Donald Trump. Nerddom and the…
> The simple fact is that Assange is campaigning for Donald Trump. This is classic US politics. This A vs B mentality is what leads to such a fierce two party system. If you don't support choice A, then you are assumed to support choice B. Any attack on Hillary is viewed as support for Trump and vice versa. I don't think that's a fair interpretation.
Assange is many things, but "stupid" isn't one of them. Running Wikileaks as a year-long oppo research firm for Trump has the obvious impact of helping Trump, which is why the Trump campaign claims to coordinate with him.
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
I remain in awe of the state apparatus, and the cynical brilliance required to run it all (assuming there is such a central clique).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
The first question to ask with any James O'Keefe video is "where is the raw video." He has a long and sordid history of fabricating these kinds of storylines.
I'm still processing this information, and holding out to form a full opinion until more details become available/confirmed. In the meantime, I'm curious, for people who are angry about this: suppose it is actually true that Assange is working together with Russian hackers in an attempt to influence a US election. Do you believe there is any point at which governments should intervene to protect national sovereignty…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it became clear to me that, at some point, the attempts to tarnish Wikileaks's name was to prime the listening audience in a way such that when information so irreparably damaging would get released, the voters would have to choose between continuing a corrupt government and choosing an apparently mad authoritarian, and to soften the landing on the former. correct. you saw the exact same defamation routine a few ye…
> in other words: i want the dirt, too. 100% agree. I'm constantly amazed at how some ordinary citizens can be mad at Snowden or Assange for releasing information. Wouldn't you want to know? Even just for interest sake I like to know what government and politicians around the world are up to.
HN readership doesn't really represent the average citizen. So while you may want the info that likely doesn't hold for a lot of folks who really only care about a very minor set of immediate concerns (food, shelter, children).
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
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…
Most voters live in states that are essentially a lock-up for one of the two candidates. Arguably about 10 states might swing, but third party candidates could easily get 10+ percent of the popular vote nationally and largely influence the direction of the major parties if the voting public understood the electoral college and the multi-election game theory of it.