Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

681–690 of 1001 posts

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

#681

Post by gotchange »

forgetsusername wrote: post #649
gotchange wrote: post #608

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is there something really damaging in Wikileak emails? That's my main problem with all these arguments «false equivalency» in their pursuit of seeming and sounding fair, balanced and impartial, they resort to equate all the horrendous things that Trump said or did with these harmless details that Hillary or her chief of staff said behind closed doors or in private emails. It's just not right and unfair for Hillary…

> It's just not right and unfair for Hillary and her campaign. Wow. Trump is a buffoon; I'm sure you can scour the public record for innumerous idiotic things he's said over the years. What do you expect from the guy? Clinton, on the other hand, is a career politician and public servant. I think those behind-the-scenes dealings are far more dangerous.

No, I disagree.

Trump is the Republican nominee for the 2016 US presidential elections which means that he's as much a politician as Hillary or Obama is and should be held against the same set of standards like every politician does and this notion that since he's novice in this field he deserves to get preferential treatment and be forgiven for all his mistakes and wrongdoings is bit disingenuous.

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

#682

Post by stale2002 »

mejari wrote: post #457
wildmusings wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't twist my words. I said that they have never leaked fake documents. They clearly have an agenda in what they select for publishing. ================================================ In response to mejari (both of his replies) below, I'm rate-limited: ================================================ Did you even read that article? That's not what it says. They just didn't publish the documents. What it does say is…

They faked the documents by editing their contents to remove data they didn't want released. How is that twisting your words to show that your claim they've never leaked fake documents is false?

Sooo, then you agree that the documents are true and accurate?

You keep using the word fake, and I don't think you know what the work fake means.

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

#683

Post by engx »

sitic wrote: post #559
AvenueIngres wrote: post #363

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

Infowars is paying 5k USD for shouting “Bill Clinton is a rapist” on national TV, which has now happed serveral times during Clion campain events. Infowars itself has close ties to the Trump campain, as his surrogate Roger Stone appears often on Alex Jones show. [1] http://www.infowars.com/expose-rapist-bill-clinton-win-5k/

Yeah, that's the same as admitting to hiring mentally ill people, homeless guys and young kids to start violent interactions.

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

#684

Post by mejari »

stale2002 wrote: post #682
mejari wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They faked the documents by editing their contents to remove data they didn't want released. How is that twisting your words to show that your claim they've never leaked fake documents is false?

Sooo, then you agree that the documents are true and accurate? You keep using the word fake, and I don't think you know what the work fake means.

No? What part of my comment suggested I agreed they were true and accurate? I laid out what about them was false and inaccurate.

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

#685

Post by xenadu02 »

shireboy wrote: post #592
danielnaab wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As long as you hold Michael Moore to the same standard.

> As long as you hold Michael Moore to the same standard.

I know you're trying to be dismissive with your glib comment but let me tell you: I do hold him to the same standard and I find him to be a jackass.

That doesn't change the fact that James O'Keefe is a convicted criminal (attempted to wiretap Sen. Mary Landrieu's office).

It also doesn't change the fact that he heavily edited the ACORN video to skew the story, nor that they were humoring him and reported his nonsense to the police. Conservatives wanted to believe his lies so they did.

O'Keefe has zero credibility.

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

#686

Post by whamlastxmas »

cbr wrote: post #627
whamlastxmas wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That website is frankly misleading. Their classifications of "overhead" are ridiculous. Look at the actual filing from the Clinton Foundation itself: https://www.clintonfoundation.org/sites/default/files/clinto... Page 18 and 19. Out of a budget of $217 million, they spent $34 million on direct program expenditures. That's about 16%, not 88% as your link would lead us to believe. Additionally, what is this money spen…

If you read Dylan Matthews' investigation [1] a major takeaway is that the foundation's impact comes primarily from influencing corporations and governments. For example, to make AIDS drugs cheaper they convinced the manufacturers to accept much lower prices in exchange for much larger volume, and they convinced governments to make very large orders. If the foundation were trying to fight AIDS by directly funding the…

The headline quote being "The key question on the Clinton Foundation is whether it saved lives. The answer is clearly yes." is laughable. The Clintons do not give a flying fuck about saving lives. What has the cost of life been in the Middle East due to the US invasion that HRC voted for and wants to perpetuate? Literally tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of women and children, depending on which watchdog reports you believe.

HRC is the same woman that literally laughed and bragged on a television interview about killing Gaddafi. As shitty as he was, he was a real person. A living human, and she laughs about killing him. It's fine to have pride in protecting your country, but killing someone (much less a head of state) should never be a laughing matter.

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

#687

Post by forgetsusername »

gotchange wrote: post #681
forgetsusername wrote: post #649

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's just not right and unfair for Hillary and her campaign. Wow. Trump is a buffoon; I'm sure you can scour the public record for innumerous idiotic things he's said over the years. What do you expect from the guy? Clinton, on the other hand, is a career politician and public servant. I think those behind-the-scenes dealings are far more dangerous.

No, I disagree. Trump is the Republican nominee for the 2016 US presidential elections which means that he's as much a politician as Hillary or Obama is and should be held against the same set of standards like every politician does and this notion that since he's novice in this field he deserves to get preferential treatment and be forgiven for all his mistakes and wrongdoings is bit disingenuous.

>Trump is the Republican nominee for the 2016 US presidential elections which means that he's as much a politician as as Hillary or Obama is

I hope you're kidding when you say he's as much a politician as Hilary. He has very limited political experience. She's been doing it for 30+ years.

He's a candidate, but has held precisely zero public offices thus far.

>this notion that since he's novice in this field he deserves to get preferential treatment and be forgiven for all his mistakes and wrongdoings is bit disingenuous.

What preferential treatment are you talking about? Who said anything about "forgiving" him? I'm saying, "what on earth do you expect by nominating a TV personality"? I expect more from my politicians. Apparently you don't. Perhaps that's why your election is a mess?

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

#689

Post by ikeboy »

tptacek wrote: post #614
zzleeper wrote: post #611

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Assange doesn't care that much who is elected, as long as it's not Hillary (because of the things she did against him and the things she promised to do). In this case his only choice is Trump, but it could have been others.

To believe that Assange is motivated by a vendetta against HRC, you not only have to conjure up a plausible motive for that vendetta despite Clinton's marginal role in any of the US's dealings with Wikileaks, but also rationalize his efforts to put into power someone who has promised to put Edward Snowden to death. No, not buying it.

The obvious theory for Trump support would be:

He thinks Trump will severely harm America, and he really hates America.

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

#690

Post by tptacek »

fnordo wrote: post #688

According to Wikileaks it's the Ecuadorian Embassy that cut his access. "We can confirm Ecuador cut off Assange's internet access Saturday, 5pm GMT, shortly after publication of Clinton's Goldman Sachs speechs."

I'm absolutely just shocked that it was his own hosts that cut him off.
Post reply on HN