271–280 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, a drone strike in the middle of the capital city of our closest ally, obviously that was a serious suggestion....
Because joking about droning people is a thing we want our leaders to do. /s
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Difficult to imagine this being "influenced" by Clinton. It feels like it would be to Trump's significant advantage if this happens. It plays directly into his narrative.
Difficult to imagine the person who called for Assange to be "droned" could influence anyone to cut his internet?
A bit of an interesting dilemma in the spirit of transparency. Given an N-way race, do you just reveal secrets pertaining to one participant (since this may be all you have) or do you with-hold until you can reveal secrets from all participants?
Maybe they have no secrets? I mean, the point of the DNC leaks is that they (the party) helped a specific candidate (Hillary) - even before she was elected a nominee - so they in essence acted undemocratically. Unless you're speculating that the GOP was secretly sheming for Trump - something which I find extremely unlikely - then it's more than possible that any GOP leaks would in fact help Trump, as well!
Shouldn't be too difficult to surpass by temporarily using mobile data or setting up an antenna for long-range wifi.
Assuming Assange is free and living.
And thanks for the downvote.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As Archer would say: "Do you want terrorist groups? Because this is how you get terrorist groups." Or, another way, one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. What option are citizens left with when state collusion to deny people their basic rights occurs in broad daylight?
Is internet access really a basic right? I would argue no, but then again I grew up in a world without internet access for the most part so I consider it a nice-to-have rather than a necessity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As Archer would say: "Do you want terrorist groups? Because this is how you get terrorist groups." Or, another way, one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. What option are citizens left with when state collusion to deny people their basic rights occurs in broad daylight?
Is internet access really a basic right? I would argue no, but then again I grew up in a world without internet access for the most part so I consider it a nice-to-have rather than a necessity.
IMO, pushing bills for changes in laws or copyrighting is probably their second best bet. Their best bet is to push people away from the web -- like they succeeded with physical books by dumbing down ebooks as much as they could.
Does anyone honestly believe Hillary is not involved in this? She has shown time and time again that there is nothing she won't do to get what she wants and cling on to power.
I don't believe Hillary is involved in this. What possible benefit does it provide to her? He obviously still has communications because he's out on the Internet claiming he has no Internet access.
Dead Man's Switch from another location that checks in.
An internet outage occurs and an internet post can be posted saying you are without internet, because you failed to "check in" and postpone the DMS. I refuse to state my opinion on the other matters. But it is possible to post via third parties in the event one is unable to post themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, sources matter if all you do is to look at the information and it's source. But if you look at the information and you can find independent verification of rejection of the information then you can form a conclusion that is a lot stronger than just speculation based on info+source. Possible facts: Assange has had his internet access shut down (probably true) Assange has been extradited (status unknown at this po…
How can you tell if a piece of information is independently verified if you don't know the source? If you're ignoring who presents the facts and who presents the verification, how do you determine whether or not the reporter of the verification is independent from the reporter of the fact? Sources matter. And there is no such thing as a "probably true possible fact". There are facts and there are allegations.
By your reckoning no anonymous source can ever be credible. Some pretty interesting stuff has come out over the years from anonymous sources and turned out - retrospectively - to have been accurate and likely to have been a leak by an insider. Given that nobody is ever (Snowden excepted) to go on the record about an imminent operation from inside some government agency the only way such information could ever come out is through anonymous sources.
See also: watergate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Haha, sorry, should have added the /s to the end. Of course CNN lied. It's what they do.
Funny too because the argument is that Hillary wasn't negligent with classified data, thus why would Podesta emails be unlawful to read? Either information is classified and Hillary was criminally negligent or it's not and therefore nothing 'unlawful' about WikiLeaks. More interesting that CNN thinks they can read them but the public can not. Media organizations have no security clearances and thus are subject to the…
Oh CNN.
Proving that those who say the media thinks they're above the rest of us are right.
My guess is that the US is applying pressure on Ecuador. They want the leaks to stop. Ecuador already has incentives to stop helping Trump, as Trump has recently taken a hard line against Latin American strongmen, of which Correa, President of Ecuador, is one. Some assurances from Hillary, and threats from Obama, could have been enough to push him over. I imagine that one of the currently unspoken fears that the Demo…
I don't necessarily agree that Obama himself was fine with Wikileaks, but it's certainly true that many on the American left loved the leaks when they revealed ostensibly embarrassing details about things they do not support (the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) and then suddenly got rather upset when the leaks revealed ostensibly embarrassing details about things they do support (Clinton). Of course the same could be s…