Jump to content


Click to shop at Royal Queen Seeds
Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Julian Assange Statement On The U. S. Elections




  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#21 Aerianne

Aerianne

    Super Moderator

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 23,963 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

gallery_213103_7209_563.jpg


#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 and Sssshhhhhhh like this

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


#23 Meliai

Meliai

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 11,787 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
  • 11,787 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
  • 6,487 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
  • 7,302 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
  • 11,787 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

    Genderfluid Muslim gaythiest

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,690 posts
  • LocationInvading your echochamber

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

 


#31 penguinsfan13

penguinsfan13

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 11,669 posts

Posted November 10 2016 - 03:22 AM

lets just assume it was the russian government that was behind the wikileaks and lets just assume that it was enough to sway the election.

so russia was doing its part to do what it thought was best for its own interest.

 

USA WOULD NEVERRRRRR MEDDLE WITH FOREIGN COUNTRIES ELECTIONS OR TRY TO GET THE LEADERS THAT ARE IN OUR BEST INTEREST ELECTED! 


  • storch likes this

doo be doo be doo, beware of the penguins.


#32 MeAgain

MeAgain

    Dazed and Confused

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,969 posts
  • LocationDobbstown, Malaysia

Posted November 10 2016 - 03:46 AM

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?

No.

A sexual predator is someone who seeks out individuals and attempts to sexually abuse them, for example they use force to kiss them or grab their genitals.

 

Bill Clinton engaged in consensual oral sex with a willing adult. In addition he wasn't a candidate, so I don't know what your point is.

 

Also I don't know why you bring up emails that have already been thoroughly investigated and fully covered ad nausea by the media.


 

"Acclinis Falsis Animus Meliora Recusat"

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

~ Horace

 

 


#33 Vanilla Gorilla

Vanilla Gorilla

    Go Ape

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 12,512 posts
  • LocationDown Under

Posted November 10 2016 - 04:06 AM

:rofl:


Assange tries to claim impartiality, then in that letter talks about his bias for the Obama administration for its dealings with Chelsea Manning.

If Russian hackers, or whoever it was, but most likely Russian hackers, hadn't supplied him with all those Clinton related emails...what would Wikileaks have reported over the last 12 months, how would they have gotten their brand in the headlines.

As if his organisation isn't subject to the same forces of supply and demand every other is


He is a hero to trump supporters in 2016, but it won't be long before he digs in and upsets even some good trump may try to do.

Assange is a slime bucket. Probably did Russia's work for them. not knowingly, but becuase he didn't have much else at the time and he didn't want his little project to fade into oblivion

Edited by Vanilla Gorilla, November 10 2016 - 04:08 AM.

  • GLENGLEN and NoxiousGas like this

#34 MeAgain

MeAgain

    Dazed and Confused

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,969 posts
  • LocationDobbstown, Malaysia

Posted November 10 2016 - 04:09 AM

 

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?

You have a point in that the press is free to take sides about any issue.

 

I have no problem with Fox News existing, for example, I think they are a terrible source of information, but they have a right to exist.

Wikileaks on the other hand does not report news, they don't just write opinion articles or present arguments for or against certain issues. 

 

They provide a service for the presentation of data illegally stolen from private and governmental sources. They invade privacy. In addition they don't vet this data, they dump it. They have no regard for private information such as phone numbers, social security numbers, etc. They take no actions to see if the data they dump may result in danger to anyone's person or any Western nation's national security, and they are willingly or unwillingly being manipulated by the Russians.

 

Also they exist above the law. They can't be sued for libel or slander as they exist in "hyperspace" only. So they are free to present any material at will. Some one can hack your medical records, your private email server, your private photo logs, driving record, bank account, anything...and Wikileaks can post that out to the net without fear of  legal jeopardy.

 

There is no cable news network, no magazine or newspaper that can do that without legal ramifications. 

 

Even if we disregard all of the above and assume that Wikileaks is just like any other news source and they can legally publish anything they want in regard to a political candidate. That doesn't make it right nor does that prevent me from criticizing them for doing it.

 

If Fox news gets hold of Podesta's emails and starts leaking them in the manner that Wikileaks did that doesn't mean they are right or ethical. It doesn't mean that I can't say that they are trying to influence the election. They are. And they are doing it in an underhanded way. Nothing wrong with me calling that to your attention. All I'm doing is saying, "Hey, look at what they are doing."

 

I am free to condemn them for that action, just as you are free to say Bill Maher  is bias and only presenting one side of an issue.


 

"Acclinis Falsis Animus Meliora Recusat"

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

~ Horace

 

 


#35 MeAgain

MeAgain

    Dazed and Confused

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,969 posts
  • LocationDobbstown, Malaysia

Posted November 10 2016 - 04:11 AM

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.

It's called evidence and admission by the Russians.


 

"Acclinis Falsis Animus Meliora Recusat"

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

~ Horace

 

 


#36 Scratched

Scratched

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted February 18 2017 - 01:39 AM

I think Foghorn Leghorn should have been on the ballot this time. Better than what we had to choose from.



#37 penguinsfan13

penguinsfan13

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 11,669 posts

Posted February 19 2017 - 12:04 AM

There was better than what we had to choose from. Well kind of...there are more than 2 parties. And there is a write in line.

doo be doo be doo, beware of the penguins.





Click to shop at Sensi Seed Company