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

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

#851

Post by bimr » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 10:07 PM UTC

grey-area wrote: post #526

JohnStrange wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

Such an apologist. NY Times sent stories to Hillary for pre-approval. I worked in journalism. In my time, this was a scarlet-letter offense. The conspirators should be black-balled from journalism.

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

#852

Post by r_smart » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 10:08 PM UTC

spaceheeder wrote: post #831

pdx wrote: post #819

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why don't you debate this? http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-17/politicos-chief-pol... Glenn Thrush, Politco's Chief Political Correspondent, decided to make it crystal clear in the following email to Podesta back in April 2015 in which he admits that he has "become a hack." The email below from Thrush was sent to get guidance related to an article he published the very next day entitled "Hillary's Big-Money Dile…

This isn't disproving my thesis that people on political beats sacrifice impartiality and independence on the altar of access.

But how is that a defense? Surely by that token you have no complaints about anything in the world. Just because a person does something unethical for a reward doesn't mean their actions are justified, just rational.

The whole purpose the press existence is to be an independent check on government and to pose to politicians the questions that the electorate cares about.

edit: Just to be clear, nobody (or nearly so) finds your claim controversial or new. It's flaw isn't that it's incorrect, it's that it isn't useful*.

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

#853

Post by retromario » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 10:08 PM UTC

grandalf wrote: post #730

linkregister wrote: post #723

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NYT is the publication that originated the story about the HRC external email server during her tenure at the State Department. The NYT frequently publishes articles critical of Hillary Clinton. Here are several hundred: https://www.reddit.com/search?q=subreddit%3Athe_donald+site%... I'm using this example as an internet community that curates information critical to Hillary Clinton and Democratic Party campaigns…

Many of these are old and do not address the content of the emails. There are perhaps 100 significant stories that could have been written based on the information leaked in the past 10 days. We got zero. The paper has also declined to collaborate with Assange to release stories about many other leaks. The NYT is America's Pravda. By the establishment and for the establishment... the definition of conservative. To th…

> Many of these are old and do not address the content of the emails. There are perhaps 100 significant stories that could have been written based on the information leaked in the past 10 days. We got zero.

The Post has three stories based on emails in the last 48 hours:

- State pressuring FBI: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/docum...

- Goldman Transcripts: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/10/17/...

- Foreign Government Donations (story originated on Reuters): https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hacked-emails-show-e...

It's disingenuous to pretend the mainstream media is not covering the email leaks.

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

#854

Post by ghurtado » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 10:09 PM UTC

slg wrote: post #820

ghurtado wrote: post #698

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see anything ignorant about expecting that the burden of proof in cases of rape requires more evidence than a statement from the victim, specially when all the circumstantial evidence goes directly against said statement. "Rape can happen under complex emotional mechanics, therefore the word of the victim is sufficient to prosecute and jail the accused, as this overrides any other objective evidence" isn't a…

You are disagreeing with an argument I didn't make. The burden of proof is always on the accuser/state. That is what makes sex crimes so hard to prosecute. I never made any statement regarding that or suggested anything should change with sex crimes compared to other crimes. I simply stated that the ideas someone can't be raped if they have previously had consensual sex with their rapist or that they must immediately…

> You are disagreeing with an argument I didn't make.

> I simply stated that the ideas someone can't be raped if they have previously had consensual sex with their rapist or that they must immediately end contact with their rapist are ignorant ideas.

Agreed. Luckily the commenter you were calling "ignorant" never claimed anything of the sort, so I'm afraid you're the one that started this particular straw man (perhaps unknowingly)

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

#855

Post by jshevek » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 10:10 PM UTC

artursapek wrote: post #747

angry-hacker wrote: post #707

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the point. Is it only left or right in America? Both candidates are rubbish and if you support Hillary you're no better than your average Trump's redneck.

I'm seeing a lot of people deciding who to vote for by deciding which candidate they dislike less - not which they like more. Is that normal in US presidential elections? This is the first one I've followed.

I recently discussed this topic with some U.S. citizens in their sixties. It is their impression, and mine as well, that this is the worst election in our lifetimes in that way. Of course there are always some people that vote according to which candidate they dislike less, but this election does seem to be an extreme case.

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

#856

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 10:10 PM UTC

pdx wrote: post #819

spaceheeder wrote: post #719

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You and I must understand entirely different things when we read the phrase "premeditated collusion with the media." Those media organizations and those journalists may have editorial and personal opinions on who they would prefer to win the election, but there's one thing they care more about than any of those preferences: access . The idea that the press wouldn't or shouldn't care about vacuuming up every talking p…

Why don't you debate this? http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-17/politicos-chief-pol... Glenn Thrush, Politco's Chief Political Correspondent, decided to make it crystal clear in the following email to Podesta back in April 2015 in which he admits that he has "become a hack." The email below from Thrush was sent to get guidance related to an article he published the very next day entitled "Hillary's Big-Money Dile…

[deleted]

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

#857

Post by dragonwriter » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 10:11 PM UTC

pdx wrote: post #839

the_duke wrote: post #572

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't need the media's opinion on Donald Trump. Watching a video of one of his rallies or a debate is sufficient to form my own opinion. He (is) - lies or distorts the truth almost everytime he opens his mouth - extremely authoritarian - very anti free media (at his rallys, media is cordoned off and he gets the crowd to yell at them for minutes. that is if the outlet hasn't been banned for reporting the truth. I wo…

>racist (again, no more evidence needed, he said it all) You're wrong, and I think you know it. Liberals have used the racist word against anybody who was winning an argument with them for too many years. It ends now. Trump has more support of black and hispanic people than any other Republican presidential nominee. [1] He has that because the ones who speak English (not getting their news only from Univision) unders…

Trump is not doing better than other recent Republicans among blacks or Hispanics according to most polling, which shows him doing far worse than other recent GOP nominees with these groups.

The only way you can defend this kind of claim is cherry picking a high outlier poll against the comparable-time polling consensus (or low outliers) for previous GOP nominees.

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

#858

Post by fazzone » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 10:12 PM UTC

spaceheeder wrote: post #831

pdx wrote: post #819

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why don't you debate this? http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-17/politicos-chief-pol... Glenn Thrush, Politco's Chief Political Correspondent, decided to make it crystal clear in the following email to Podesta back in April 2015 in which he admits that he has "become a hack." The email below from Thrush was sent to get guidance related to an article he published the very next day entitled "Hillary's Big-Money Dile…

This isn't disproving my thesis that people on political beats sacrifice impartiality and independence on the altar of access.

I thought your thesis was that there was no actual collusion between politicians and the media, just aligned incentives. I agree with your point about the incentives, but don't you agree that this email shows that there was in fact actual collusion going on as well? The evidence seems pretty compelling to me.

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

#859

Post by pavlov » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 10:14 PM UTC

tomp wrote: post #767

pavlov wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

He seems to be interested more in internal issues. Less wars abroad and de-escalation of tensions with Russia. He also seems to be quite anti-globalization, anti-TPP etc. Slapping Wall St banks would be cherry on top. In any case a change of "elites" (if not economical, at least political) would be welcome. Probably won't be less corruption, but different corruption instead. Re: Trump's speeches - mostly non-sensical…

He seems to be interested more in internal issues.

It seems extremely generous to characterize Trump as being interested in anything at all except himself. All accounts suggest that he doesn't read. On his private plane he watches his own TV appearances. He has put his name on a hundred products, but he's not an entrepreneur and doesn't care at all about developing the actual products.

Trump claims to be an expert on taxes, at least... But his former accountant Jack Mitnick says he did all the work, and when Trump visited once a year, his wife was actually asking more questions than Trump himself.

Really the best-case scenario for a Trump presidency is that his quantum-sized attention span moves to something else and he leaves the United States to run itself, like he did with the Trump University. That means Vice President Mike Pence would be the effective president, supported by a Republican Congress... And you can look at Pence's track record to see whose interests he represents: ultraconservative fundamentalist Christian Republicans. Pence is as much part of the establishment as Clinton. Is that really the change America needs?

Trump's speeches - mostly non-sensical, yes, but at least he's not pretending to be truthful.

What do you mean by that? He is definitely pretending to tell the truth. For example, since last week he has been saying that the election is rigged against him and there will be widespread vote fraud. There is not a shred of evidence of this. Republicans all over the country are actively countering the notion that the election is somehow being rigged. Yet Trump persists. That's not a harmless white lie -- no candidate has questioned the legitimacy of US elections since before the Civil War.

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

#860

Post by r_smart » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 10:15 PM UTC

spdustin wrote: post #844

r_smart wrote: post #710

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Ooh, me, me, I debate it. This is a dumb thing to say and you should feel dumb for saying it. It makes no sense and is not based on anything. Insults do not qualify as debate. His claim is based on, or should include, the portions of the Podesta emails that have showed a dismaying amount of coordination with the press. Approving quotes, approving stories, printing talking points. Compare their behavior against the g…

> Insults do not qualify as a debate. "She’s saying Russia, Russia, Russia… It could also be China… It could also be somebody sitting on their bed who weighs 400 pounds." "If I were running ‘The View’, I’d fire Rosie O’Donnell. I mean, I’d look at her right in that fat, ugly face of hers, I’d say ‘Rosie, you’re fired’" "I have never seen a thin person drinking Diet Coke." "She doesn’t have the look [...] She doesn’t…

To review, the point of this sub-thread where I posted:

>> This level of premeditated collusion with the media is not even up for debate at this point.

>Ooh, me, me, I debate it. This is a dumb thing to say and you should feel dumb for saying it. It makes no sense and is not based on anything.

To which you respond with a bunch of Trump quotes. How did they address at all the point of media collusion with the Clinton campaign? How is this not just an attempt at ideological bickering used to redirect the conversation to something you presume I'm interested in arguing about rather than focus on something pretty damning?