Jump to content


Click to shop at Weed Seed Shop
Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Julian Assange Statement On The U. S. Elections




  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#1 Aerianne

Aerianne

    Super Moderator

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 23,261 posts
  • LocationMetro Atlanta

Posted November 08 2016 - 03:08 PM

I support WikiLeaks and Julian Assange.  

 

I think the American people owe him a debt of gratitude.

 

Assange Statement on the US Election
8 November 2016

By Julian Assange

In recent months, WikiLeaks and I personally have come under enormous pressure to stop publishing what the Clinton campaign says about itself to itself. That pressure has come from the campaign’s allies, including the Obama administration, and from liberals who are anxious about who will be elected US President.

On the eve of the election, it is important to restate why we have published what we have.

The right to receive and impart true information is the guiding principle of WikiLeaks – an organization that has a staff and organizational mission far beyond myself. Our organization defends the public’s right to be informed.

This is why, irrespective of the outcome of the 2016 US Presidential election, the real victor is the US public which is better informed as a result of our work.

The US public has thoroughly engaged with WikiLeaks’ election related publications which number more than one hundred thousand documents. Millions of Americans have pored over the leaks and passed on their citations to each other and to us. It is an open model of journalism that gatekeepers are uncomfortable with, but which is perfectly harmonious with the First Amendment.

We publish material given to us if it is of political, diplomatic, historical or ethical importance and which has not been published elsewhere. When we have material that fulfills this criteria, we publish. We had information that fit our editorial criteria which related to the Sanders and Clinton campaign (DNC Leaks) and the Clinton political campaign and Foundation (Podesta Emails). No-one disputes the public importance of these publications. It would be unconscionable for WikiLeaks to withhold such an archive from the public during an election.

At the same time, we cannot publish what we do not have. To date, we have not received information on Donald Trump’s campaign, or Jill Stein’s campaign, or Gary Johnson’s campaign or any of the other candidates that fufills our stated editorial criteria. As a result of publishing Clinton’s cables and indexing her emails we are seen as domain experts on Clinton archives. So it is natural that Clinton sources come to us.

We publish as fast as our resources will allow and as fast as the public can absorb it.

That is our commitment to ourselves, to our sources, and to the public.

This is not due to a personal desire to influence the outcome of the election. The Democratic and Republican candidates have both expressed hostility towards whistleblowers. I spoke at the launch of the campaign for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, because her platform addresses the need to protect them. This is an issue that is close to my heart because of the Obama administration’s inhuman and degrading treatment of one of our alleged sources, Chelsea Manning. But WikiLeaks publications are not an attempt to get Jill Stein elected or to take revenge over Ms Manning’s treatment either.

Publishing is what we do. To withhold the publication of such information until after the election would have been to favour one of the candidates above the public’s right to know.

This is after all what happened when the New York Times withheld evidence of illegal mass surveillance of the US population for a year until after the 2004 election, denying the public a critical understanding of the incumbent president George W Bush, which probably secured his reelection. The current editor of the New York Times has distanced himself from that decision and rightly so.

The US public defends free speech more passionately, but the First Amendment only truly lives through its repeated exercise. The First Amendment explicitly prevents the executive from attempting to restrict anyone’s ability to speak and publish freely. The First Amendment does not privilege old media, with its corporate advertisers and dependencies on incumbent power factions, over WikiLeaks’ model of scientific journalism or an individual’s decision to inform their friends on social media. The First Amendment unapologetically nurtures the democratization of knowledge. With the Internet, it has reached its full potential.

Yet, some weeks ago, in a tactic reminiscent of Senator McCarthy and the red scare, Wikileaks, Green Party candidate Stein, Glenn Greenwald and Clinton’s main opponent were painted with a broad, red brush. The Clinton campaign, when they were not spreading obvious untruths, pointed to unnamed sources or to speculative and vague statements from the intelligence community to suggest a nefarious allegiance with Russia. The campaign was unable to invoke evidence about our publications—because none exists.

In the end, those who have attempted to malign our groundbreaking work over the past four months seek to inhibit public understanding perhaps because it is embarrassing to them – a reason for censorship the First Amendment cannot tolerate. Only unsuccessfully do they try to claim that our publications are inaccurate.

WikiLeaks’ decade-long pristine record for authentication remains. Our key publications this round have even been proven through thecryptographic signatures of the companies they passed through, such as Google. It is not every day you can mathematically prove that your publications are perfect but this day is one of them.

We have endured intense criticism, primarily from Clinton supporters, for our publications. Many long-term supporters have been frustrated because we have not addressed this criticism in a systematic way or responded to a number of false narratives about Wikileaks’ motivation or sources. Ultimately, however, if WL reacted to every false claim, we would have to divert resources from our primary work.

WikiLeaks, like all publishers, is ultimately accountable to its funders. Those funders are you. Our resources are entirely made up of contributions from the public and our book sales. This allows us to be principled, independent and free in a way no other influential media organization is. But it also means that we do not have the resources of CNN, MSNBC or the Clinton campaign to constantly rebuff criticism.

Yet if the press obeys considerations above informing the public, we are no longer talking about a free press, and we are no longer talking about an informed public.

Wikileaks remains committed to publishing information that informs the public, even if many, especially those in power, would prefer not to see it. WikiLeaks must publish. It must publish and be damned.

 

 

 

https://wikileaks.or...S-Election.html



#2 Okiefreak

Okiefreak

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,706 posts

Posted November 08 2016 - 07:19 PM

I support WikiLeaks and Julian Assange.  

 

I think the American people owe him a debt of gratitude.

 

Assange Statement on the US Election
8 November 2016

By Julian Assange

In recent months, WikiLeaks and I personally have come under enormous pressure to stop publishing what the Clinton campaign says about itself to itself. That pressure has come from the campaign’s allies, including the Obama administration, and from liberals who are anxious about who will be elected US President.

On the eve of the election, it is important to restate why we have published what we have.

The right to receive and impart true information is the guiding principle of WikiLeaks – an organization that has a staff and organizational mission far beyond myself. Our organization defends the public’s right to be informed.

This is why, irrespective of the outcome of the 2016 US Presidential election, the real victor is the US public which is better informed as a result of our work.

The US public has thoroughly engaged with WikiLeaks’ election related publications which number more than one hundred thousand documents. Millions of Americans have pored over the leaks and passed on their citations to each other and to us. It is an open model of journalism that gatekeepers are uncomfortable with, but which is perfectly harmonious with the First Amendment.

We publish material given to us if it is of political, diplomatic, historical or ethical importance and which has not been published elsewhere. When we have material that fulfills this criteria, we publish. We had information that fit our editorial criteria which related to the Sanders and Clinton campaign (DNC Leaks) and the Clinton political campaign and Foundation (Podesta Emails). No-one disputes the public importance of these publications. It would be unconscionable for WikiLeaks to withhold such an archive from the public during an election.

At the same time, we cannot publish what we do not have. To date, we have not received information on Donald Trump’s campaign, or Jill Stein’s campaign, or Gary Johnson’s campaign or any of the other candidates that fufills our stated editorial criteria. As a result of publishing Clinton’s cables and indexing her emails we are seen as domain experts on Clinton archives. So it is natural that Clinton sources come to us.

We publish as fast as our resources will allow and as fast as the public can absorb it.

That is our commitment to ourselves, to our sources, and to the public.

This is not due to a personal desire to influence the outcome of the election. The Democratic and Republican candidates have both expressed hostility towards whistleblowers. I spoke at the launch of the campaign for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, because her platform addresses the need to protect them. This is an issue that is close to my heart because of the Obama administration’s inhuman and degrading treatment of one of our alleged sources, Chelsea Manning. But WikiLeaks publications are not an attempt to get Jill Stein elected or to take revenge over Ms Manning’s treatment either.

Publishing is what we do. To withhold the publication of such information until after the election would have been to favour one of the candidates above the public’s right to know.

This is after all what happened when the New York Times withheld evidence of illegal mass surveillance of the US population for a year until after the 2004 election, denying the public a critical understanding of the incumbent president George W Bush, which probably secured his reelection. The current editor of the New York Times has distanced himself from that decision and rightly so.

The US public defends free speech more passionately, but the First Amendment only truly lives through its repeated exercise. The First Amendment explicitly prevents the executive from attempting to restrict anyone’s ability to speak and publish freely. The First Amendment does not privilege old media, with its corporate advertisers and dependencies on incumbent power factions, over WikiLeaks’ model of scientific journalism or an individual’s decision to inform their friends on social media. The First Amendment unapologetically nurtures the democratization of knowledge. With the Internet, it has reached its full potential.

Yet, some weeks ago, in a tactic reminiscent of Senator McCarthy and the red scare, Wikileaks, Green Party candidate Stein, Glenn Greenwald and Clinton’s main opponent were painted with a broad, red brush. The Clinton campaign, when they were not spreading obvious untruths, pointed to unnamed sources or to speculative and vague statements from the intelligence community to suggest a nefarious allegiance with Russia. The campaign was unable to invoke evidence about our publications—because none exists.

In the end, those who have attempted to malign our groundbreaking work over the past four months seek to inhibit public understanding perhaps because it is embarrassing to them – a reason for censorship the First Amendment cannot tolerate. Only unsuccessfully do they try to claim that our publications are inaccurate.

WikiLeaks’ decade-long pristine record for authentication remains. Our key publications this round have even been proven through thecryptographic signatures of the companies they passed through, such as Google. It is not every day you can mathematically prove that your publications are perfect but this day is one of them.

We have endured intense criticism, primarily from Clinton supporters, for our publications. Many long-term supporters have been frustrated because we have not addressed this criticism in a systematic way or responded to a number of false narratives about Wikileaks’ motivation or sources. Ultimately, however, if WL reacted to every false claim, we would have to divert resources from our primary work.

WikiLeaks, like all publishers, is ultimately accountable to its funders. Those funders are you. Our resources are entirely made up of contributions from the public and our book sales. This allows us to be principled, independent and free in a way no other influential media organization is. But it also means that we do not have the resources of CNN, MSNBC or the Clinton campaign to constantly rebuff criticism.

Yet if the press obeys considerations above informing the public, we are no longer talking about a free press, and we are no longer talking about an informed public.

Wikileaks remains committed to publishing information that informs the public, even if many, especially those in power, would prefer not to see it. WikiLeaks must publish. It must publish and be damned.

 

 

 

https://wikileaks.or...S-Election.html

When is he going to give us Trump's tax returns? What we have is half-truth, supplied by a hostile foreign power to assure the election of its preferred candidate. He is a Russian errand-boy, and those who support him are, in KGB terminology, "useful idiots".


Edited by Okiefreak, November 08 2016 - 07:29 PM.


#3 Aerianne

Aerianne

    Super Moderator

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 23,261 posts
  • LocationMetro Atlanta

Posted November 08 2016 - 07:43 PM

When is he going to give us Trump's tax returns? What we have is half-truth, supplied by a hostile foreign power to assure the election of its preferred candidate. He is a Russian errand-boy, and those who support him are, in KGB terminology, "useful idiots".

 

:rofl:



#4 storch

storch

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,425 posts

Posted November 08 2016 - 07:56 PM

When is he going to give us Trump's tax returns? What we have is half-truth, supplied by a hostile foreign power to assure the election of its preferred candidate. He is a Russian errand-boy, and those who support him are, in KGB terminology, "useful idiots".

What half-truths did he tell?



#5 Okiefreak

Okiefreak

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,706 posts

Posted November 09 2016 - 05:36 AM

What half-truths did he tell?

Only one side of the story. Nothing leaked about Trump.



#6 penguinsfan13

penguinsfan13

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,507 posts

Posted November 09 2016 - 06:15 AM

Maybe he dosnt have anything on trump.
I could name a thousand things that I would like to be leaked. But if the info isn't there then how can he do it.

doo be doo be doo, beware of the penguins.


#7 storch

storch

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,425 posts

Posted November 09 2016 - 06:23 AM

Only one side of the story. Nothing leaked about Trump.

WikiLeaks publishes information that it receives from whistleblowers.  The media has put Trump's crap up for all to see.  What would you have WikiLeaks publish?



#8 Okiefreak

Okiefreak

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,706 posts

Posted November 09 2016 - 10:26 AM

WikiLeaks publishes information that it receives from whistleblowers.  The media has put Trump's crap up for all to see.  What would you have WikiLeaks publish?

If wikileaks publishes all the negative information that it receives from Russian hackers, with full knowledge that it will have a substantial impact on the election, even though it knows there is negative infomation about the other side the Russian hackers haven't gone after, it is complicit in rigging the election.  



#9 penguinsfan13

penguinsfan13

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,507 posts

Posted November 09 2016 - 10:33 AM

That isn't rigging that is influencing.

doo be doo be doo, beware of the penguins.


#10 neonspectraltoast

neonspectraltoast

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,423 posts

Posted November 09 2016 - 12:30 PM

Maybe now that the election is over we can actually pay attention to what these WikiLeaks are saying.  People need to be held accountable for this.


  • Aerianne and storch like this

#11 MeAgain

MeAgain

    Dazed and Confused

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,651 posts
  • LocationNutopia

Posted November 09 2016 - 12:37 PM

What half-truths did he tell?

If Wikileaks wanted to be fair they would have withheld the "Clinton" emails so as to not sway the election. They could have been released the day, week, or month after the election, there was no immediate reason to release them when they did, and we don't know how long they were in their possession. Did they release them immediately upon receipt, or have they been sitting on them waiting for an opportune moment? There was nothing illegal presented in those documents, nothing to disqualify a candidate, nothing to point to any wrong doing or illegality. It was not a case of whistle blowing...it was a data dump released over a period of time calculated to keep it in the news day by day at a critical point in the election cycle so as to influence that election.

 

There supposedly was no information on Trump because Clinton was the one targeted, not Trump. Further, we only have Wikileaks word that it has no information on Trump, the GOP, or anyone else. Why should we take them at their word?


  • Lynnbrowngreen likes this

HYZx5b8.gif

 

"Acclinis Falsis Animus Meliora Recusat"

(A mind that is charmed by false appearances refuses better things.)

~ Horace

 

 


#12 The Walking Dickhead

The Walking Dickhead

    Pie Fingers

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,504 posts
  • LocationScotland

Posted November 09 2016 - 12:40 PM

How is it fair to withhold evidence of criminality about someone who could be about to become the most powerful person in the world?

 

It would be downright criminal to withhold such information from the public!


  • Meliai, 6-eyed shaman, Aerianne and 2 others like this

#13 penguinsfan13

penguinsfan13

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,507 posts

Posted November 09 2016 - 02:25 PM

If NBC wanted to be fair they would have held the Billy bush tape till after the election
  • Meliai likes this

doo be doo be doo, beware of the penguins.


#14 MeAgain

MeAgain

    Dazed and Confused

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,651 posts
  • LocationNutopia

Posted November 09 2016 - 03:05 PM

How is it fair to withhold evidence of criminality about someone who could be about to become the most powerful person in the world?

 

It would be downright criminal to withhold such information from the public!

There was no criminal evidence.


HYZx5b8.gif

 

"Acclinis Falsis Animus Meliora Recusat"

(A mind that is charmed by false appearances refuses better things.)

~ Horace

 

 


#15 MeAgain

MeAgain

    Dazed and Confused

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,651 posts
  • LocationNutopia

Posted November 09 2016 - 03:06 PM

If NBC wanted to be fair they would have held the Billy bush tape till after the election

In the Billy Bush tape Trump admits to being a sexual predator, that's the difference.


HYZx5b8.gif

 

"Acclinis Falsis Animus Meliora Recusat"

(A mind that is charmed by false appearances refuses better things.)

~ Horace

 

 


#16 penguinsfan13

penguinsfan13

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,507 posts

Posted November 09 2016 - 03:13 PM

Fuck that. If it was a big deal they would have released it years ago. There is no difference. The scumbags in the monkey suits at 30 rock wanted to sway the election. They did not want to be fair.

doo be doo be doo, beware of the penguins.


#17 MeAgain

MeAgain

    Dazed and Confused

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,651 posts
  • LocationNutopia

Posted November 09 2016 - 03:15 PM

We have confirmation from the Deputy Chairman of the Russian Public Forum of International Affairs that they were the source of the anti Clinton Wikileaks.

 

Sergei Markov, a pro-Kremlin political analyst, was jubilant at the result and said a Trump presidency would make it more likely the US would agree with Russia on Syria, where the two powers back different sides and Moscow has intervened decisively on behalf of the president, Bashar al-Assad. 

Markov also said it would mean less American backing for “the terroristic junta in Ukraine”. He denied allegations of Russian interference in the election, but said “maybe we helped a bit with WikiLeaks.” ~ Peacock

 

In addition the ultra-nationalist Boris Chernyshev added “Tonight we can use the slogan with Mr. Trump; Yes We Did.” ~ Peacock

Russian Osmk govenor Viktor Nazarov stated, “It turns out that the United Russia has won the elections in the United States!” ~ Peacock


HYZx5b8.gif

 

"Acclinis Falsis Animus Meliora Recusat"

(A mind that is charmed by false appearances refuses better things.)

~ Horace

 

 


#18 storch

storch

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,425 posts

Posted November 09 2016 - 03:23 PM

If wikileaks publishes all the negative information that it receives from Russian hackers, with full knowledge that it will have a substantial impact on the election, even though it knows there is negative infomation about the other side the Russian hackers haven't gone after, it is complicit in rigging the election.  

What negative information about Trump are you talking about?



#19 storch

storch

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,425 posts

Posted November 09 2016 - 03:43 PM

There was no criminal evidence.

If you would like, I could present proof that Clinton is a national security risk because of her illegal use of her personal email server over which classified information passed.  Even though you've seen this proof over and over, I would be happy to put it in front of your eyes again.  In fact, I think I will.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

 

From Comey:

 

"While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.

 

"With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account."

____________________________________________________________________________________________

 

The former bolded part is an ever so polite way of saying that Hillary was a high security risk.

 

The latter bolded part is a straight forward statement that confirms that the risk she posed through her gross negligence eventuated into a fucking incident.


Edited by storch, November 09 2016 - 04:14 PM.

  • orison likes this

#20 Tyrsonswood

Tyrsonswood

    Senior Moment

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,747 posts
  • LocationThe Woods

Posted November 09 2016 - 03:46 PM

We have confirmation from the Deputy Chairman of the Russian Public Forum of International Affairs that they were the source of the anti Clinton Wikileaks.

 

 

In addition the ultra-nationalist Boris Chernyshev added “Tonight we can use the slogan with Mr. Trump; Yes We Did.” ~ Peacock

Russian Osmk govenor Viktor Nazarov stated, “It turns out that the United Russia has won the elections in the United States!” ~ Peacock

 

 

And the Trumpettes worried about Bernie being a "commie"... lol


  • Meliai likes this

"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti


"there was something big happening that night, decisions were made and destiny was cast..."~jfw~



~ I chop wood, I carry water, I tend the Earth, This is my prayer. ~


.

#21 Aerianne

Aerianne

    Super Moderator

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 23,261 posts
  • LocationMetro Atlanta

Posted November 09 2016 - 05:26 PM

Hillary Clinton would have lost the election without the WikiLeaks.  


  • storch, penguinsfan13 and OldDude2 like this

#22 OldDude2

OldDude2

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 776 posts
  • LocationSouth East Asia

Posted November 09 2016 - 06:31 PM

In the Billy Bush tape Trump admits to being a sexual predator, that's the difference.


Being a sexual predator isn't a crime, although some feminists would like it to be. (If it were a crime Bill 'blowjob' Clinton would be in jail)
Deleting government emails is a crime (since 2009).

Do you see the difference?

Edited by OldDude2, November 09 2016 - 06:34 PM.

  • storch likes this

 Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic.


#23 Meliai

Meliai

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 11,487 posts

Posted November 09 2016 - 06:32 PM

If Wikileaks wanted to be fair they would have withheld the "Clinton" emails so as to not sway the election. They could have been released the day, week, or month after the election, there was no immediate reason to release them when they did, and we don't know how long they were in their possession. Did they release them immediately upon receipt, or have they been sitting on them waiting for an opportune moment? There was nothing illegal presented in those documents, nothing to disqualify a candidate, nothing to point to any wrong doing or illegality. It was not a case of whistle blowing...it was a data dump released over a period of time calculated to keep it in the news day by day at a critical point in the election cycle so as to influence that election.

 

There supposedly was no information on Trump because Clinton was the one targeted, not Trump. Further, we only have Wikileaks word that it has no information on Trump, the GOP, or anyone else. Why should we take them at their word?

 

In the Donald Trump thread, on October 14th, you said:

 

 

 

Political parties have always influenced the press. 

 

I agree about some parts of the media being controlled by small factions.

 

 

 

The DNC the RNC and every other political organization always try to influence the public, that's how they get votes. They give speeches, have interviews, press releases, debates, etc. etc. the press is free to join one side or the other or remain neutral...that's why it's called the free press. They are free to report in any manner they wish as long as they don't commit slander or libel. 

 

I don't see much of the media attacking Trump, I see them reporting what he said and what others are saying about him. Same with Clinton. Trump however is attacking the press. Watch his latest rally in Florida.

 

When the coverage was to Trump's advantage he never complained about the disproportionate air time he was getting, but now that he's in trouble it's all the medias fault!

 

 

Could you please clarify your position, please. It seems a bit contradictory to defend the right of the free press to choose a political side in one thread, but condemn WikiLeaks for the same thing.

 

Also I'm a little bit sorry because I do hate when people dig up old posts to prove a point, but your comments above have stuck with me because I didn't really understand how you could defend the obvious influence the DNC had over the mainstream media this election. And in light of your comments regarding Wikileak's bias, I understand even less.

 

I couldn't find your post regarding this, but (please corrent me if I'm mistaken) I believe you al;so pointed out that there is a long history of political parties using the press for their own political gain and the press in turn favoring one candidate over the other.

 

How is WikiLeaks different, exactly?


Edited by Meliai, November 09 2016 - 06:34 PM.

  • storch likes this

Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens ~Tolkien


#24 Meliai

Meliai

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 11,487 posts

Posted November 09 2016 - 06:38 PM

Being a sexual predator isn't a crime, although some feminists would like it to be.
Deleting government emails is a crime (since 2009).

Do you see the difference?

 

what are you on about? what is your definition of sexual predator, because I consider it someone who makes nonconsensual advances which very definitely falls under the definition of sexual assault or rape, depending on the severity. And those are most definitely crimes.

 

you're just a troll, right? I just have no other explanation


Edited by Meliai, November 09 2016 - 06:40 PM.

  • Tyrsonswood likes this

Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens ~Tolkien


#25 OldDude2

OldDude2

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 776 posts
  • LocationSouth East Asia

Posted November 09 2016 - 06:50 PM

what are you on about? what is your definition of sexual predator,


Someone who uses his position of wealth or authority to bed someone who would normally say no.
Like Bill 'blowjob' Clinton did with Monica. Not a crime, just a bit nasty.


You might try to refute the post and not insult the poster ........ anyone you don't agree with you just insult, are you not capable of a reasoned response.
How many of my posts have you responded with an insult? It's getting to be a bit of a problem for you, why not add your definition? If it appears to differ from mine.

Edited by OldDude2, November 09 2016 - 06:53 PM.

 Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic.


#26 Lynnbrowngreen

Lynnbrowngreen

    Firecracker

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,403 posts
  • LocationTwilight Zone in southern US

Posted November 09 2016 - 06:55 PM

what are you on about? what is your definition of sexual predator, because I consider it someone who makes nonconsensual advances which very definitely falls under the definition of sexual assault or rape, depending on the severity. And those are most definitely crimes.

 

you're just a troll, right? I just have no other explanation

 

 

The ONLY reason I didn't "like" this is because I have run out of likes...

 

You are 100% right...and you are NOT the only one that finds the post you referred to as trolling.  

 

Surely even Trump supporters would agree that being a sexual predator is a crime.  


Edited by Lynnbrowngreen, November 09 2016 - 06:59 PM.

  • Meliai likes this

#27 NoxiousGas

NoxiousGas

    Old Fart

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,123 posts
  • LocationIn the bowels of all mankind

Posted November 09 2016 - 06:56 PM

Someone who uses his position of wealth or authority to bed someone who would normally say no.
Like Bill 'blowjob' Clinton did with Monica. Not a crime, just a bit nasty.


You might try to refute the post and not insult the poster ........ anyone you don't agree with you just insult, are you not capable of a reasoned response.
How many of my posts have you responded with an insult? It's getting to be a bit of a problem for you, why not add your definition? If it appears to differ from mine.

 

 

Damn, not fast enough, I see you removed the "feminazi" remark,


  • 6-eyed shaman and penguinsfan13 like this
"Do the walls close in and suffocate ya,
you ain't got no friends and all the others they hate ya,
does the life you been leading gotta go?"

"get your shoes and socks on people,
it's right around the corner"

"the poodle bi-i-ites,
the poodle chews it"

#28 Meliai

Meliai

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 11,487 posts

Posted November 09 2016 - 06:56 PM

Someone who uses his position of wealth or authority to bed someone who would normally say no.
Like Bill 'blowjob' Clinton did with Monica. Not a crime, just a bit nasty.


...... and you're just a feminazi ........ anyone you don't agree with you just insult, not capable of a reasoned response.

 

first of all, I'm not a feminazi, I quite frankly think such labels are idiotic, but I know it is easier to put people into boxes with these neat little insulting labels, rather than view them as a three dimensional human being with nuanced thoughts and opinions. I get it.

 

anyways, thanks for clarifying. Someone who uses their authority to lure someone into consensual sex is indeed not a crime, happens all the time.

 

Also, in response to your edited remarks ( I see you also recognized the idiocy of terms like feminazi, so that's wonderful) I am not picking on you, its nothing personal, I just generally don't agree with you and I find your views on women unsettling. but this isn't the thread to get into that.


Edited by Meliai, November 09 2016 - 06:59 PM.

Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens ~Tolkien


#29 OldDude2

OldDude2

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 776 posts
  • LocationSouth East Asia

Posted November 09 2016 - 06:57 PM

Damn, not fast enough, I see you removed the "feminazi" remark,


I'm capable of reasoned response to an insulting poster ........... no need to lower myself to their level.

 Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic.


#30 6-eyed shaman

6-eyed shaman

    ; ; ; P

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,531 posts
  • Locationwouldn't beleive me if I told ya

Posted November 09 2016 - 06:59 PM

If wikileaks publishes all the negative information that it receives from Russian hackers, with full knowledge that it will have a substantial impact on the election, even though it knows there is negative infomation about the other side the Russian hackers haven't gone after, it is complicit in rigging the election.  

 

How is everyone so certain that the hackers were Putin's insiders? You do realize that the Clintons have amassed so many enemies that span much much further than Trump's cronies. I find it disgusting how the media uses its manipulation tactics to try to distort the story to make it sound like it's all Russia's fault the DNC hated Bernie Sanders. The real villains were the corrupt individuals who stacked the deck and forced a candidate down the throats of their voters. Heck, if I knew how to get away with it (alive), I too would have hacked and released the Podesta files, and I'd have done it all for free. I mean Podesta's email password was "p@ssword" all along FFS.


  • Meliai and storch like this

Pardon Julian Assange

 

9e48d74a-9037-431f-a117-7763e16bed79_zps

 





Click to shop at Sensi Seed Company