2016 Democratic Thread

[Quin]

WikiLeaks protects their sources as best they can. What you define as reckless I would define as a check to the overbearing elites and their power in this country. You seem to have an agenda here though.

 

I'm talking about this.

 

But soon she noticed that her fellow Turkish and Turkey-focused activists and researchers were tweeting that the WikiLeaks emails weren’t actually from the AKP or the government at all — and, worse, they contained private citizens’ personal information.

 

http://nymag.com/selectall/2016/07/why-did...population.html

 

Or are random female Turkish citizens overbearing elites?

[bmags]

Out of curiosity did Wikileaks have an agenda when they tried to whitewash Russian Oligarchs from the panama papers or was that just their integrity? Do they have an agenda when they routinely tweet anti semitic things or is that their fight to bring down the "elites"?

 

The leakers of the panama papers sent them to Journalists to vet and protect innocent peoples personal information and uncover crime. Edward Snowden used journalists to do the same. Wikileaks just releases all of it without often understanding what things are, as seen by their numerous tweets from the DNC scandal accusing foul play when they often just don't understand English or context.

 

The thing I love about conspiracy theories is how they loop along rough coincidences and say "that's the truth", but the overwhelming evidence that Wikileaks has been acting largely as a prop wing of the Russian government is so quickly dismissed.

[Quin]

It has been entertaining to see the opinions on him flip since the topic moved from the Iraq War to Hillary and the DNC.

 

 

He'll be good again once an informant has some damning info on Trump. Bipartisanship team players breed hypocrisy.

 

I've long thought Assange and Snowden are reckless. It's one of the few issues I've sided with the right on.

 

I've always thought Snowden's heart was in the right place, but he was reckless in his leaks (in regards to putting US agents at risk).

 

Assange I've always thought of as a political player with an agenda at play, hiding behind "journalistic integrity."

[Quin]

Let's also remember that Assange is in exile because he's wanted for rape.

[bmags]

It has been entertaining to see the opinions on him flip since the topic moved from the Iraq War to Hillary and the DNC.

 

Wikileaks has always been more controversial, as seen by the early Colbert interview where he comes hard at Assange. But also, when wikileaks first came out it was very new, and arising from a time in internet history pushing for transparency. As soon as it became apparent how often these were entrapping innocent people and being used as tools of other powerful people, there was more of a snap back.

 

If you are going to leak something, have some sense of decency and respect for the information.

[bmags]

I've long thought Assange and Snowden are reckless. It's one of the few issues I've sided with the right on.

 

I've always thought Snowden's heart was in the right place, but he was reckless in his leaks (in regards to putting US agents at risk).

 

Assange I've always thought of as a political player with an agenda at play, hiding behind "journalistic integrity."

 

Snowden had one leak which he truly did not understand, but for the most part, Greenwald and, I forgot the other source, were very good about vetting what was released.

[illinilaw08]

I could be wrong, but aren't political contributions public to begin with or are you referring to credit card numbers?

 

They leaked credit card numbers and social security numbers if I remember right - and this wasn't just donors giving hundreds of thousands of dollars (which still would be bad!) - it was DNC contributors who provided as little as $100. There's not a lot of "journalistic integrity" in dumping that information.

[Quin]

I know your political agenda considers everything rape but Assange isn't a rapist. He had sex with a girl with a condom on and then took the condom off once it started to dry up and broke. Then reentered without a condom. If he's a rapist, so is a great number of sexually active college students.

 

Neither woman claimed she was raped by Assange before being approached by officials with the agenda of bringing down Assange. One of the woman even went out to breakfast after sleeping with her alleged rapist after the incident.

 

http://observer.com/2016/02/exclusive-new-...s-in-stockholm/

 

 

I said that journalistic integrity in regards to the protection of their sources. Admittedly if what you're talking about is true, and I have heard the same in passing, that's not responsible.

 

I am probably in the minority, but if there's some unintended consequences due to these data dumps, I still think it's far worth the value of the transparency and the exposing of the political elite scum.

 

With a legal/journalistic eye, he's alleged of rape. That's what he's currently wanted for. And I why I said "in exile because he's wanted for rape."

 

I didn't say violent rape, but he's currently an alleged rapist and in exile for that.

[Quin]

Yeah that whole "endangering agents" stuff was disproven. That was the crux of the media's initial attempt at character assassinating Snowden. The other source was Laura Poitras. She's an amazing journalist. So good, she can't live in America. Just like Greenwald.

 

That would be because he's gay.

 

Given Greenwald's intellectual fecundity and argumentative ferocity, being gay may be the least interesting thing about him. But even Greenwald doesn't claim that his sexual orientation doesn't matter. After all, if he were straight he would be living in Manhattan, his home for most of the last 20 years. Instead, he lives in Rio de Janeiro, barred from moving to the United States with his Brazilian boyfriend, David Michael Miranda.

 

"Brazil recognizes our relationship for immigration purposes, while the government of my supposedly 'free,' liberty-loving country enacted a law explicitly barring such recognition," says Greenwald, referring to the Defense of Marriage Act with the disdain he typically shows for policies he believes are eroding Americans' freedoms. Greenwald's attacks on the powerful make him a tempting target for reprisals. So it's no surprise that, soon after he started blogging, critics sometimes tried to out him in a game of "gotcha." But what upset Greenwald was the implication that he had been closeted in the first place. "There was nothing to out," he says. "I've been as out as I can be since I was 20."

 

http://www.out.com/news-commentary/2011/04...orders?page=0,0

[Quin]

Shocking that a news source on "gay and lesbian perspective" would report that.

 

Greenwald has made several forms of communication to authoritatives bodies to confirm that he wouldn't be arrested in the United States and he has yet to get a response saying as much. The authorities want him for his role in leaking the information Snowden took. This isn't some happy fairytale where he's a martyr for the gays. He f***ed with the political elite and now they want him silenced.

 

Yet they returned unimpeded in 2014?

 

Mr. Greenwald and Ms. Poitras returned to the United States for the first time since their articles broke in June. They arrived at Kennedy Airport in New York from Berlin, where Mr. Greenwald had given a speech on Thursday and where Ms. Poitras lives and is making a documentary on surveillance.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/12/business...he-us.html?_r=0

[bmags]

Shocking that a news source on "gay and lesbian perspective" would report that.

 

Greenwald has made several forms of communication to authoritatives bodies to confirm that he wouldn't be arrested in the United States and he has yet to get a response saying as much. The authorities want him for his role in leaking the information Snowden took. This isn't some happy fairytale where he's a martyr for the gays. He f***ed with the political elite and now they want him silenced.

 

That is from 2011, so no, I don't think Big Gay is conspiring against anyone.

[Quin]

Note: My whole stance here is that people have agendas - politicians, publications and leakers. There are few news sources I'll take at face value when it comes to politics without hard evidence immediately backing it up like the New York Times or Washington Post (sans their War on Trump, which I need to see paper trails for).

 

American Conservative, Fox News, The Intercept, MSNBC, WikiLeaks all have agendas they they try to push from the left and right and all usually hide behind "pushing the truth" forward.

[bmags]

They reported the story when it was relevant. How does that change anything?

 

I don't disagree, Greenwald both exiled himself for as long as I can remember due to his partners legal status but also is facing new pressure...but

Shocking that a news source on "gay and lesbian perspective" would report that.

 

That's not arguing that. I don't know why a gay-focused magazine would be trying to obscure the reason for Greenwald being overseas. It's just an unfair handwaving to both the source and the person who is taking time to backup their argument.

[Dick Allen]

The Secret Service say you're wrong.

Yep. Here's the quote. The spin they put on it makes no sense. But his sheep will buy anything he sells. Although it could be assassinate the judges.

 

"If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know," Trump said.

Edited August 10, 2016 by Dick Allen

[bmags]

Yep. Here's the quote. The spin they put on it makes no sense. But his sheep will buy anything he sells. Although it could be assassinate the judges.

 

"If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know," Trump said.

 

Yeah, the most charitable reading you could make of that sentence is that he's actually implying murdering scotus judges.

[greg775]

The Secret Service say you're wrong.

Then have an investigation and throw him in jail. It's illegal to make such threats. He doesn't want to be President anyway. That's pretty obvious. But if he did mean this, then throw him in jail. He deserves jail if he said it. Threatening the life of a presidential candidate.

And then I hope they throw Hillary in jail as well and somebody else is President.

[bmags]

Gotta give Greg credit for taking it to an extreme none of us would.

[StrangeSox]

They leaked credit card numbers and social security numbers if I remember right - and this wasn't just donors giving hundreds of thousands of dollars (which still would be bad!) - it was DNC contributors who provided as little as $100. There's not a lot of "journalistic integrity" in dumping that information.

They also did this to a bunch of Brazilian political donors. Assange is a s*** head

 

[StrangeSox]

Young liberals and chauvinists have made a point of trying to change the definition of rape.

A libertarian with interesting thoughts on consent color me shocked

[Big Hurtin]

I don't know if it's politically motivated or not, but some nut is currently climbing up the Trump Tower.

[Soxfest]

I don't know if it's politically motivated or not, but some nut is currently climbing up the Trump Tower.

Police yanked him in the window like a rag doll.

[bmags]

Not sure rampant works there.

[bmags]

Cool. Still don't rampant fits.

[StrangeSox]

A rampant liberal succumbing to ad hominem instead of speaking on the topic at hand color me shocked.

 

Yes, I realize your behavior has made me a hypocrite.

lol learn to take a joke

[Soxbadger]

Young liberals and chauvinists have made a point of trying to change the definition of rape.

 

 

A libertarian with interesting thoughts on consent color me shocked

 

 

Technically he is right, without writing a narrative, the laws used to be that spouses were immune from raping each other. So for the better part of history rape excluded married people, which is just one of the ways that rape laws have changed since their common law inception.

 

Whether you think that is a good or bad thing, that is up to you. I personally think that changing the definition of rape over the last 5000 years is a good thing, but I also believe that women are equal, so again, personal preference. If you think that women are property and therefore they cant be raped, you may not be so happy about the change in rape laws.