141–150 of 227 posts
I have always love wikileaks for what they do. It is very sad to see that there is so much wrong information and it makes me believe that there is indeed a smear campaign against Julian Assange and wilileaks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Unfortunately, it seems to have happened anyway. If by "theft" you mean "the person who got the most votes got the nom," sure. That's not really news though. I mean, it is, but not for the reason you think it should be.
The DNC does not function as a popular vote, but with a complex system of campaigning, finance, and ultimately delegate voting. The DNC seat was stolen through illegal redirection of funds, manipulation of public debates, and a deliberate media smear campaign which led to the DNC chairwoman's forced resignation.
You could have stopped there. The major disconnect between public perception of the political parties and actual party function is the party ultimately nominates who it chooses. Votes are cast because it's assumed Americans wouldn't support a party that simply nominated a candidate via authoritarianism or autocracy, not because either party believes in the wisdom of the mob structurally. If anything, "wisdom of the mob" voting is more reflective of the Republican party's process (and with the nomination of Trump, it kind of showed).
You claim there was illegal redirection of funds. Was it actually illegal? Or merely in apparent violation of the party's charter (which could make the party less trustworthy but is not otherwise automatically illegal)? The best I can dig up is that there is a lawsuit alleging the DNC violated campaign finance law.
It is sad to see how low WikiLeaks has fallen, and makes me think more and more that there has never been much of WL beyond Assange himself. It has reached comical levels of insanity, illusion of grandeur and narcissism.
It is comically insane to clarify matters when lies are being spread about you?
This is beyond ridiculous, it is sad and pathetic...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is comically insane to clarify matters when lies are being spread about you?
This is what I'm wondering as well. Is Assange just supposed to roll over and not defend himself? It seems like no matter what he does people just mock him. There have been lots of confirmed fake stories about Wikileaks over the years, what is the "proper" way for him to act when trying to debunk them?
Defend himself from people saying that he smells? That he paints his hair? Really?
Please try to suspend the snark-meter for a second and realize the truths being stated here by Wikileaks. For example, the supposed Manafort/Assange meeting was trumpeted by The Guardian to great fanfare, yet there is literally no evidence that it happened (ex. no security cameras inside or out showed Manafort entering the embassy). https://theintercept.com/2019/01/02/five-weeks-after-the-gua... Clearly, we are being…
Speaking of just reading the headline, The Intercept piece you linked has the facts wrong, apparently relying on readers like you not having read the original Guardian story. 1. There is photo evidence, but the Guardian cannot publish it for one reason or another. They described the clothes he was wearing that day in detail. 2. There is an entry in the guestbook for him, it doesn't come up when you ctrl-f because the…
No, that was a "separate internal document" that claimed that, it wasn't in the guest logs.
As far as the photo, I don't recall anyone saying there was a photo, only that a witness claims they saw Manafort.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's certainly false.
How can you say this when the current understanding is that Guccifer 2.0 was a persona operated by the Russian military? Even if Assange was acting in good faith (a big assumption) , he was used to push Russian propaganda. There's no question he was a tool of the Russian government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How much money did Russian intelligence spend on such ads on social media? I googled "how much money did russia spend on facebook ads" but the numbers I see in that result are surprisingly small, so I'm wondering if you have a better source.
It's not the quantity they spent; it's the efficacy of the micro-targeting. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/us/politics/russia-2016-e...
How much did Trump and similar non-Russian PACs spend on microtargetted facebook ads, compared to Russian intelligence? Your article contains no hint of this. I think we're all aware that Russian intelligence was buying a lot of ads on social media, but I'm trying to understand the relative scope of this. To be frank, the scope of Russian propaganda seems dwarfed by domestic propaganda. The propagandists who deserve the most blame are probably Americans, or were paid by Americans.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>If revealing the democratic party's misdeeds hurt the democratic party and helped russia, then we agree that there is an element of complicity for the messenger. You're still oversimplifying it. I'm saying that they were trying to manipulate people with selective, perfectly timed releases designed to achieve a specific political goal while at the same time receiving information from and potentially coordinating with…
>I'm saying that they were trying to manipulate people with selective, perfectly timed releases designed to achieve a specific political goal while at the same time receiving information from and potentially coordinating with foreign intelligence agents and lying about it. There is no evidence of this. it is pure narrative based upon what you perceive as motives. > some hillary vs trump stuff, who you voted for not r…
There is plenty of evidence to suggest it. What you're looking for is a smoking gun that definitively proves it beyond a reasonable doubt, such as a leaked, signed email from Assange outlining his entire strategy or a video of him at a coffee shop with Russian Agents wearing nametags that say "Guccifer 2.0". When it comes to international espionage, that's a pretty high standard.
> Who I voted for.
So many people take sides on the Russian election interference issue based on whether or not they identify as a Republican or a Democrat. Perhaps it shouldn't be necessary, but because that's the way most of these conversations go, I thought it would be relevant to mention that I don't support either of the people that ran in 2016.
Please try to suspend the snark-meter for a second and realize the truths being stated here by Wikileaks. For example, the supposed Manafort/Assange meeting was trumpeted by The Guardian to great fanfare, yet there is literally no evidence that it happened (ex. no security cameras inside or out showed Manafort entering the embassy). https://theintercept.com/2019/01/02/five-weeks-after-the-gua... Clearly, we are being…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one has argued that Wikileaks has never done anything right. You're disingenuously oversimplifying the situation to imply that my position is ridiculous. When your ridiculous position is simply that "Wikileaks did a thing that I liked so that means they never did anything wrong and anyone that thinks its possible is just paranoid". Instead of being dismissive and condescending why not try to have a conversation?
You are arguing that it's part of an NWO conspiracy... I provided an objective view of the action you were discussing, because it seems you're drawing form inferences and assumptions, as there is clearly not sufficient evidence to support a NWO conspiracy belief. It was an attempt to allow you to connect the dots for me, by starting from the (in my opinion) reasonable act which is implied to be the smoking gun.
Compare and contrast the release of the State Department cables. Because the bulk dump took the politics of delicate international negotiations out of the hands of the SD and laid them bare for everyone to see, the Libyan people saw how what they were told by their government about international perception of them was a lie, and they followed their anger about that lie into civil war... And the country has not recovered stability. It's still unclear whether a world where Libyans unseated their government is going to shake out to be better for Libyans or the rest of the international community than the world that came before.
International politics is a delicate process full of egos and carefully-chosen words. It does not lend itself well to open-government-style action. This is irrelevant to Wikileaks, and (lacking any counterweights) it's quite possible that the end result is a shift in the balance of power to the nations that are still capable of running their international policy with their cards held close to their chests.