BruceVC

Excellent assessment, I wish I could make points in this way. I try but sometimes I just cant articulate my view in the way you have done In summary this is my view of Wikileaks, exactly how you have summarized it I agree with you and Elrond there is an adgenda behind all this. And yes Wikileaks is showing the whole world private information that it's agents stole by hacking into private server's and e-mail accounts. However, that does not make any of that information untrue. And there is so much data the argument that the information lacks context just does not hold water. The problem lies in that there is just too much data. By leaking hundreds of thousands emails that mostly contain nothing of importance, they create data block than isn't verifiable by any common person, because it take month probably years for person just to read all that information let alone alone check if all those emails are real. And then when somebody highlights one email from that pile, it is very difficult to check if if it is only email about subject or tone of earlier and later correspondence between same parties or parties from same circles. In other words there is so much information that for most people that read about wikileaks emails, it would be same if emails that aren't highlighted by somebody didn't exist because they will never read them. Drowning people on too much information is what big law firms nearly always do in tv series (and probably in some extent in real life) all the time by sending every unnecessary document with documents that opposition actually wants in order to hide those documents from their opposition. So one could ask why people use tactics that are meant to obscure and hide information if they want to inform people. Drowning people in too much information gives impression that you don't hide anything from them even though you are doing just opposite, because if people can't get information because there is too much noise then people are just in same place when there was just silence. Again another indubitably insightful and accurate post around Wikileaks and its true nature

I have just been to gym, first time in 2 months so I'm clearly not that fit But it went well, I did my 60 minutes of cardio. I'm not pushing it on the cardio disciplines and for the next 7 sessions I'll just be getting back into the training regime

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/05/politics/trump-rushed-off-stage-at-campaign-rally/index.html volo this is going to shock you, some innocent poor guy was assaulted at a Trump rally just because he raised a sign that said " Republicans against Trump " and initially he was detained because someone said he had a gun. Yet he has NO gun volo its clear the Trump campaign doesnt care about freedom of speech and will blame innocent people for trying to assassinate Trump ....what are you going to do about this ?

Wikileaks doesn't have agents. It just acts as a dead/ drop box for other people's info. Which may or may not have been obtained illegally. That's the problem for the US, much as they'd love to go after WL overtly they cannot since they definitely don't do any hacking or similar directly illegal stuff; they just distribute information that is leaked to them. eg Manning didn't illegally obtain the info he gave to wikileaks, he illegally distributed information he had legitimate access too- similarly Snowden (albeit not WL related) didn't hack the NSA, he had legit access to information he then distributed. If Mark Rich gave WL the DNC leaks- as Assange has repeatedly hinted at- then it wasn't hacked either, since he had legit access to it. The only election relevant stuff that was likely hacked is the Podesta emails where he fairly clearly got phished. Yep, and that's the crux of the matter. They're real documents and emails, and there's never been a serious effort to discredit WL information as being false or altered, all the effort has gone into obfuscation rather than denial. If they were false that would be the defence, and it would be a complete one that would discredit WL far more than any amount of neo Red Scare McCarthyism and claims of bias could. Gee what a surprise, Zora defending Wikileaks. As usual you present a subjective and biased view of the reality of political developments around the world. For example you say things like " It just acts as a dead/ drop box for other people's info" and " they just distribute information that is leaked to them " , someone who believed you and had no knowledge of Wikileaks would think " so its just a benevolent organisation that just seeks to share information with the global information , whats wrong with that " Nothing would be wrong with that if that is what Wikileaks does....but they absolutely dont do that. They selectively target the Democrats and have ensured they release certain emails strategically to achieve the maximum disruption to the US election..nothing negative about Trump ...nothing So please stop suggesting Wikileaks is about " distributing information that is leaked to them ". They have a political agenda and only release information that aligns to that agenda That is the crux of matter Two things: 1) Nothing Zora said was subjective. He just laid out how the organization works. That's it. 2) You lack proof that Wikileaks is targeting the Democrats so much as Wikileaks may be targeting the biggest criminal. That's the issue, that's why no one buys your narrative. There's a very important difference between targeting someone due to personal bias and targeting someone because they've broken the law or done something wrong. When Nixon was thrown out, it was not because he was a Republican and the administration was targeting Republicans, but because Nixon legitimately broke the law. We lack proof that Wikileaks has an agenda against the Democrats for being Democrats or against any particular philosophy. Wikileaks itself has gone on record to say it has something against corruption and illegal activity, and thusfar their leaks do indeed match that claim. Given that we have 100% proof that Clinton and people within her campaign (Donna Brazile for example) have lied multiple times, and seeing as there's not one confirmed story of Wikileaks releasing bogus information, clearly evidence would suggest it's time to trust the latter group. Interestingly, Project Veritas' videos and Wikileaks inadvertedly confirm each other as true (forget exactly how, but information that came forward in one of the parts inadvertedly aligns perfectly with info from one of the wikileaks emails), as does Colin Powell when he simply came forward and stated his involvement in the leaks 100% happened and every email involving him is 100% legitimate. I am a registered Democrat, or was. At this point I'd like new parties. If I felt the media, Wikileaks or anyone else was unfairly targeting Democrats due to a difference in policy or a belief Democrats are idiots that deserve no respect or what-have-you, I would be up in arms. That's not happening here though. Wikileaks is not targeting Democrats, it's targeting CRIMINALS. And while few would deny the Republican party currently faces a sort of identity crisis and a whole wagon full of problems, if anyone's being unfairly represented or unfairly treated, it's them. The media is outrageously bias against Trump and Republicans at the moment (save for FOX news of course, who does the same to Democrats) that it feels like many carry the attitude that Republicans deserve no respect. That likewise disgusts me, so here I am up in arms about it and Clinton cannot rely on my vote this election. Okay lets keep this simple, thousands of emails of have released during the election that have negatively impacted the Democrats and they all basically about Clinton and DNC Please provide me with links and or emails released by Wikileaks that have negatively targeted Trump and his campaign , I'll give you time to research this but I want to see the evidence that Wikileaks has been doing this...just find me two examples? There should be many if Wikileaks is this objective organisation and dont suggest that there has been nothing untoward or controversial or possibly illegal about the Trump campaign and numerous emails that would have been sent by them? So in summary, I want to see evidence that suggests Wikileaks is not only targeting the Democrats in their " quest to stop corruption and criminal behavior " and this pertains to the last 8 months and the US election

Wikileaks doesn't have agents. It just acts as a dead/ drop box for other people's info. Which may or may not have been obtained illegally. That's the problem for the US, much as they'd love to go after WL overtly they cannot since they definitely don't do any hacking or similar directly illegal stuff; they just distribute information that is leaked to them. eg Manning didn't illegally obtain the info he gave to wikileaks, he illegally distributed information he had legitimate access too- similarly Snowden (albeit not WL related) didn't hack the NSA, he had legit access to information he then distributed. If Mark Rich gave WL the DNC leaks- as Assange has repeatedly hinted at- then it wasn't hacked either, since he had legit access to it. The only election relevant stuff that was likely hacked is the Podesta emails where he fairly clearly got phished. Yep, and that's the crux of the matter. They're real documents and emails, and there's never been a serious effort to discredit WL information as being false or altered, all the effort has gone into obfuscation rather than denial. If they were false that would be the defence, and it would be a complete one that would discredit WL far more than any amount of neo Red Scare McCarthyism and claims of bias could. Gee what a surprise, Zora defending Wikileaks. As usual you present a subjective and biased view of the reality of political developments around the world. For example you say things like " It just acts as a dead/ drop box for other people's info" and " they just distribute information that is leaked to them " , someone who believed you and had no knowledge of Wikileaks would think " so its just a benevolent organisation that just seeks to share information with the global information , whats wrong with that " Nothing would be wrong with that if that is what Wikileaks does....but they absolutely dont do that. They selectively target the Democrats and have ensured they release certain emails strategically to achieve the maximum disruption to the US election..nothing negative about Trump ...nothing So please stop suggesting Wikileaks is about " distributing information that is leaked to them ". They have a political agenda and only release information that aligns to that agenda That is the crux of matter It's afraid. Who is afraid of what ?

Wikileaks doesn't have agents. It just acts as a dead/ drop box for other people's info. Which may or may not have been obtained illegally. That's the problem for the US, much as they'd love to go after WL overtly they cannot since they definitely don't do any hacking or similar directly illegal stuff; they just distribute information that is leaked to them. eg Manning didn't illegally obtain the info he gave to wikileaks, he illegally distributed information he had legitimate access too- similarly Snowden (albeit not WL related) didn't hack the NSA, he had legit access to information he then distributed. If Mark Rich gave WL the DNC leaks- as Assange has repeatedly hinted at- then it wasn't hacked either, since he had legit access to it. The only election relevant stuff that was likely hacked is the Podesta emails where he fairly clearly got phished. Yep, and that's the crux of the matter. They're real documents and emails, and there's never been a serious effort to discredit WL information as being false or altered, all the effort has gone into obfuscation rather than denial. If they were false that would be the defence, and it would be a complete one that would discredit WL far more than any amount of neo Red Scare McCarthyism and claims of bias could. Gee what a surprise, Zora defending Wikileaks. As usual you present a subjective and biased view of the reality of political developments around the world. For example you say things like " It just acts as a dead/ drop box for other people's info" and " they just distribute information that is leaked to them " , someone who believed you and had no knowledge of Wikileaks would think " so its just a benevolent organisation that just seeks to share information with the global information , whats wrong with that " Nothing would be wrong with that if that is what Wikileaks does....but they absolutely dont do that. They selectively target the Democrats and have ensured they release certain emails strategically to achieve the maximum disruption to the US election..nothing negative about Trump ...nothing So please stop suggesting Wikileaks is about " distributing information that is leaked to them ". They have a political agenda and only release information that aligns to that agenda That is the crux of matter

Excellent assessment, I wish I could make points in this way. I try but sometimes I just cant articulate my view in the way you have done In summary this is my view of Wikileaks, exactly how you have summarized it I agree with you and Elrond there is an adgenda behind all this. And yes Wikileaks is showing the whole world private information that it's agents stole by hacking into private server's and e-mail accounts. However, that does not make any of that information untrue. And there is so much data the argument that the information lacks context just does not hold water. Yes I agree. The reality is Im sure many of the emails were sent by people within the Clinton campaign. The issue I have is based on the fact Wikileaks is trying to undermine the entire US election process. So this is about the principle as far as Wikileaks is concerned, its not about Trump or Clinton its about a foreign entity interfering in the view US citizens have around the legitimacy of their own election Thats my main criticism of Wikileaks

Oh, my bad. What point have I missed? Is this around Wikileaks or celebrities supporting Clinton or something else? I make so many points and at times I am unclear about what point I may be missing Not that Jay-Z & Beyonce were supporting Clinton. That's not big news. The funny part was after they did their sets Clinton came out to speak and the crowd left. THAT'S what's funny. The artists are there for Clinton, the crowd was just there for a free Jay Z & Beyonce concert. Okay, I see what you mean ..shame that must have been a little embarrassing but for me fans in crowds at music concerts can be fickle creatures

Excellent assessment, I wish I could make points in this way. I try but sometimes I just cant articulate my view in the way you have done In summary this is my view of Wikileaks, exactly how you have summarized it

Oh, my bad. What point have I missed? Is this around Wikileaks or celebrities supporting Clinton or something else? I make so many points and at times I am unclear about what point I may be missing

There is huge support for Clinton from many famous celebrities and musicians especially over the 2-3 weeks around the whole efforts the various surrogates are putting into the final election This whole Beyonce event was targeted at getting more African Americans to vote for Hillary, I'm not sure why people would listen to any celebrity when it comes to politics but apparently they do have influence But musicians openly supporting Hillary is fairly common http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/singers-miley-cyrus-katy-perry-campaign-hillary-clinton/story?id=42991480 http://www.ew.com/article/2016/10/25/adele-endorses-hillary-clinton-miami-concert

Immediately rejected, its Wikileaks Again I will repeat this point because some of you guys keep using Wikileaks as a credible and or authoritative source of information Wikileaks is like a group of people gossiping, similar to Reddit..its hearsay. It should not be used a foundation of valid information. If there is no way to verify or proof check something from Wikileaks why would you concern yourself ? Anything released from Wikileaks that cant be corroborated from another source I cannot in good conscience read and or consider Wikileaks is sending out THEIR e-mails to each other. They are not posting rumors they heard third hand. Lets focus just on this argument, who is Wikileaks ? Where is there HQ, who is there official spokesman, where do they get the actual emails they release , what are there structures throughout the world, how do we sue Wikileaks for defamation? My list of questions are many but if you could start with those questions that would be much appreciated I can give you the answers to all other institutions in the world that are part of the election process that would be reasonable , some I support and I some I support on some issues but they all at least credible in the legal sense. Like the NRA or Clinton Foundation

what Its true alum, the Hungarians have been trying to control the world's financial market for decades and implement a new social order .....EVERYONE know this. There machinations start with polluting the world's water and end with control of the Obsidian forums

I went and checked the Soros thing. http://www.snopes.com/george-soros-controls-smartmatic-voting-machines-in-16-states/ Geddit? About the only credit I'd give you now is if you went down this route to provoke me into insulting you to get me banned. So I'll be clear in insulting you here: go and ask Obsidian to send you on a professional development course in undoing binary thinking styles (that way when people like me show you some courtesy and humour as I have in the past, you don't just ignore them), and when everyone else in the room is bantering with each other and having polite debate's (kinda the way people do on this forum, even when they're poles apart politically) and your the only one with a crash helmet on your head, being asked to walk from one side of the room to the other - think about that impact on you face as the days and weeks go by, and try to relate it to your foot, the garden rake, and your mouth. Chippy these forums are different to other forums you may have frequented Moderators are allowed and encouraged to share their opinions and often get into debates and this has nothing to do with Obsidian rules. Its a good thing, the Mods here dont insult people and saying something like " people who support Brexit are racist " is not an uncommon view, many people have this misunderstanding So in other words just because a Mod gets into a debate and has an opinion that doesnt mean they automatically right or there view is credible but it also doesn't mean we dont debate with them in a normal way or they have some agenda to get people banned Its not like that, I hope this makes sense

Immediately rejected, its Wikileaks Again I will repeat this point because some of you guys keep using Wikileaks as a credible and or authoritative source of information Wikileaks is like a group of people gossiping, similar to Reddit..its hearsay. It should not be used a foundation of valid information. If there is no way to verify or proof check something from Wikileaks why would you concern yourself ? Anything released from Wikileaks that cant be corroborated from another source I cannot in good conscience read and or consider

Had another excellent dinner evening with Bronwynn, she is very fit and is doing a 5 km fun run tomorrow. Its good she is into fitness because that will help motivate me around my own cardio training

Listen, I don't know if you're playing dumb or legitimately so, but do not joke about such a thing with someone who mentions they're depressed. I'm not someone that would act on that (at least I don't think), but plenty would. If someone were to kill themselves because you or someone else made a comment like that? That's negligence at it's absolute worst, so I don't care how seriously you take someone when they talk about depression or suicide, do not make remarks like that. If you can't say anything else, don't say anything period. Why shouldn't he joke about it ? Does Malc have such impact on your life that if he says " you must kill yourself " then you may do it? Is he that influential in your decisions ? Really ? People have been telling me to kill myself since 2001, its just words and it should be irrelevant. Toughen up son, its the Internet " and the whole Internet is a stage and all people mere actors "

Let's break this dumb list down... Ok, so there are three examples here. They aren't clear which party the dead people voted for. Ok, this has more potential. Although it sounds like whoever was behind this fraud messed up by not letting the fraudulent voters know what there job was. How many of them successfully lobbied a democratic vote? 700 people cast two ballots! That's terrible. Who did they vote for? Who organized this? I'm going to stop there, but Pennsylvania actually come up two more times, so it is clear that they've got issues. But are they rigging it for one side? I mean, sure, you could assume allowing illegals to vote is clearly an attempt to get more Democrat votes. Except no one seems to have let those illegals know what their role is in this. It is also pretty clear that the registration is tied to driver's licenses, which is more of an example of dumb bureaucratic paperwork practices than actual fraud. So basically all of these examples don't clearly favor one party, they seem highly disorganized, and in a nation of 300 million, they are still a drop in the bucket. I'm going to go with stupidity over fraud. I didn't say that Hillary is rigging the elections, that link was for Bruce who doesn't think theirs ANY going on. No I never said there was no rigging, in a country the size of the USA that has such a complex political system it would be impossible there was no attempts to manipulate some voting results in some parts of the election I said the elections aren't rigged, meaning the final result is not due to cheating and or rigging as the real rigging that occurs will have a negligible impact to the final results

....this sounds like something I might say

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...the Democrats are going to rig the election....waaaaaaaaaaaaaa Stop whining LK, the election isn't rigged. Its a very tight race based on two very different ideological views of what " makes America great " Its almost impossible to predict who will win, well I wouldnt try in this current climate. But the result will be the fair result. Either Trump or Clinton will be legally elected , you must learn to accept this Bruce I'm having an awful day so how about you take your ignorant bias stance and shove it up your ass so no one has to sit through and deal with another episode where we spend two pages highlighting how outrageously stupid and bias you are again? LK you seem like you in a bad mood? What happened ...do tell

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...the Democrats are going to rig the election....waaaaaaaaaaaaaa Stop whining LK, the election isn't rigged. Its a very tight race based on two very different ideological views of what " makes America great " Its almost impossible to predict who will win, well I wouldnt try in this current climate. But the result will be the fair result. Either Trump or Clinton will be legally elected , you must learn to accept this

Because you make this argument (I think) that a logical person sees Alex Jones talking about human>animal splicing by reptillian overlords as just as ridiculous as CNN making an excuse for Hillary Clinton not knowing that 'C' meant classified. That we should see the facts of Alex Jones reporting that the president of Haiti accuses the Clinton foundation of attempting to bribe him, and defrauding the people of Haiti as just as valid as CNN reporting on the 'hot mic'of Trump saying he can grab a woman by the _____ So you make the case that people have lost the ability to present and acknowledge facts, that views are discredited that don't align with a persons narrative, that facts should be based on profession/life experience. Then you pivot, and say that Hillary Clinton (is perfectly suited for the role) or just as bad as other presidents, and on her worse day/scandal is leagues above Trump???. Do you work for the FBI? Have a way of sifting the facts that support that opinion from those that don't? The real wikileaks and emails that haven't been planted by the Russians?. You seem to be so far to the left, that it doesn't occur to you that people may not see Trump as worse than any other candidate in lifetimes of voting - in fact, take that opinion to any migrants that have come to America from Haiti to vote and see what they think of it. Let me just set the record straight....again for the umpteenth time around my view of Hillary Clinton There are only 2 choices for US president. It becomes a subjective debate about who is better and who is worse IMO and the view of many economists, world leaders and political commentators Hillary Clinton is the better choice for president. I agree and support this view. No this does not mean people who support her think she is perfect or that she doesn't have a degree of controversy around her. It is highly unlikely there is any politician in this world who someone doesn't have an issue with or is the target of legitimate criticism But again the issues people have with Hillary Clinton compared to what Trump says, thinks or his constant demagoguery are not in the same league. So in summary Trump is a much worse candidate for the US presidency Finally why would I take anything Wikileaks says when its clear they have an agenda to undermine the spirit of the US elections by their selective release of emails that ONLY seek to undermine the Democrats and therefore make some people constantly question the legitimacy of the overall election process. Just for the record how many emails have been released by Wikileaks that undermine Trump and or the Republican political campaign? Does this not seem strange to you or are you happy to support a movement that only targets one side. And yes Russian hackers are absolutely involved in these attacks on the US election I hope that clears up any misunderstandings you may have about my support for the Democrats Plus I think the suppression of free speech, property rights, privacy, and big government hubris all enforced at gunpoint appeals to you. Well, the Democrats are definitely your team there. GD it hurts my feelings when you say nasty things There is a role and function for big government. It just mustn't be gratuitous or too intrusive so that it leads to a dictatorship

Vice president takes over, no crisis

But the theme is Western? You can't really expect that to change can you, for me the whole Western theme is just an aspect of the narrative....the real excitement are the other plot developments like ... " what is the Maze" " how influential is Arnold " " how much consciousness and sentience do the clones\robots have in RL " ...I'm sure we all watched the last episode and the awakening at the end, very exciting

Because you make this argument (I think) that a logical person sees Alex Jones talking about human>animal splicing by reptillian overlords as just as ridiculous as CNN making an excuse for Hillary Clinton not knowing that 'C' meant classified. That we should see the facts of Alex Jones reporting that the president of Haiti accuses the Clinton foundation of attempting to bribe him, and defrauding the people of Haiti as just as valid as CNN reporting on the 'hot mic'of Trump saying he can grab a woman by the _____ So you make the case that people have lost the ability to present and acknowledge facts, that views are discredited that don't align with a persons narrative, that facts should be based on profession/life experience. Then you pivot, and say that Hillary Clinton (is perfectly suited for the role) or just as bad as other presidents, and on her worse day/scandal is leagues above Trump???. Do you work for the FBI? Have a way of sifting the facts that support that opinion from those that don't? The real wikileaks and emails that haven't been planted by the Russians?. You seem to be so far to the left, that it doesn't occur to you that people may not see Trump as worse than any other candidate in lifetimes of voting - in fact, take that opinion to any migrants that have come to America from Haiti to vote and see what they think of it. Let me just set the record straight....again for the umpteenth time around my view of Hillary Clinton There are only 2 choices for US president. It becomes a subjective debate about who is better and who is worse IMO and the view of many economists, world leaders and political commentators Hillary Clinton is the better choice for president. I agree and support this view. No this does not mean people who support her think she is perfect or that she doesn't have a degree of controversy around her. It is highly unlikely there is any politician in this world who someone doesn't have an issue with or is the target of legitimate criticism But again the issues people have with Hillary Clinton compared to what Trump says, thinks or his constant demagoguery are not in the same league. So in summary Trump is a much worse candidate for the US presidency Finally why would I take anything Wikileaks says when its clear they have an agenda to undermine the spirit of the US elections by their selective release of emails that ONLY seek to undermine the Democrats and therefore make some people constantly question the legitimacy of the overall election process. Just for the record how many emails have been released by Wikileaks that undermine Trump and or the Republican political campaign? Does this not seem strange to you or are you happy to support a movement that only targets one side. And yes Russian hackers are absolutely involved in these attacks on the US election I hope that clears up any misunderstandings you may have about my support for the Democrats