BruceVC

This seems like a rather reasonable assessment. Let me frame the question a different way " what is Julian Assange's reasons or motives around the USA " ? Imagine you want to buy a home in a nice neighborhood. It comes to your attention that the other prospective buyer is a pedophile and a sex offender. Your heart goes out to both the Real Estate Agent and the neighborhood, because whether the sex offender does any further crimes or no, there's already damage the moment he moves in in that investments and property values will drop, nevermind the horrors that would befall the neighborhood if he still partakes in criminal activity. You decide to inform the real estate agent of this and show her the police report about the other buyer, not so much in your own self-interest, but because you feel that she has a right to know. The Real Estate Agent then becomes highly suspicious and paranoid and asks "what are your motivations in showing me this? Why do you not want him to live in this neighborhood? Is there something you're not telling me...!?" The Real Estate Agent then - off of her wild suspicions alone and completely devoid of evidence - determines it's best to sell the home to the pedophile and not to you, out of fear that there's more to your story and your motivations. That's you. That's how crazy you sound. I'm not sure I understand your analogy Are you saying Assange is the person alerting the real estate agent about the USA? Is the USA suppose to be the pedophile? Can you not just answer the question simply " what do you think motivates Assange in his view of the USA " ?

The problem is that if he lost he was supposed to lose fair and square. The DNC giving Clinton an advantage nullifies any obligation he had to support Clinton. But irrespective of the favoritism shown towards Clinton from some in the DNC, Hilary still won the popular vote amongst Democrat supporters I'm not sure why this is ignored, the members of the DNC didnt tell or force Democrats to vote a certain way....we can see from the Trump victory if the political message resonates with people it doesnt matter what the established political institutions think This election was bought. There is no debate on this anymore. And to potentially add icing on the cake, wikileaks claims to have even more damning info coming. I recently saw an article interviewing Kim Dotcom back in May 2015 where Kim said Julian Assange was going to be Clinton's worst nightmare during the 2016 election. Realize that May 2015 is long before things like the email scandal came to light with the general public. Why would Kim Dotcom needlessly bluff on behalf of another person/organization regarding an issue that was not yet widespread? We have every reason to believe Wikileaks when they claim the worst is yet to come. But LK you cannot say with absolute certainty " the election was bought " ....this is your opinion. There are things about this election we can say with certainty but thats not one of them Also why do you still think Julian Assange is an objective observer when it comes to the USA? Let me frame the question a different way " what is Julian Assange's reasons or motives around the USA " ?

The problem is that if he lost he was supposed to lose fair and square. The DNC giving Clinton an advantage nullifies any obligation he had to support Clinton. But irrespective of the favoritism shown towards Clinton from some in the DNC, Hilary still won the popular vote amongst Democrat supporters I'm not sure why this is ignored, the members of the DNC didnt tell or force Democrats to vote a certain way....we can see from the Trump victory if the political message resonates with people it doesnt matter what the established political institutions think And there were a lot of people crying foul about either not being able to vote or having their votes not counted in the Dem primary. There were several posts about it in previous incarnations of this thread Yes I am aware of this Can I ask you a question, do you think Hilary won the popular vote because more people voted for her or do you think she won because the DNC cheated to make her win?

The problem is that if he lost he was supposed to lose fair and square. The DNC giving Clinton an advantage nullifies any obligation he had to support Clinton. But irrespective of the favoritism shown towards Clinton from some in the DNC, Hilary still won the popular vote amongst Democrat supporters I'm not sure why this is ignored, the members of the DNC didnt tell or force Democrats to vote a certain way....we can see from the Trump victory if the political message resonates with people it doesnt matter what the established political institutions think

I absolutely agree, I have always liked Sanders. He means well but as we have discussed before some of the things Bernie wanted to implement didnt really make economic sense But he believes what he says about a fair and more tolerant world and he would always be opposed to some of the more divisive rhetoric from the Trump campaign . Its not a betrayal for him to support Hilary

You right he did have very loyal almost fanatical supporters But many of supporters still believe in the Democratic party and will vote for Hilary ..and Sanders did give a glowing endorsement of Hilary so I dont think its fair to say he betrayed his supporters, yes he disappointed some people But Hilary did win the popular vote against Sanders so you do expect the Democratic party to unite behind the candidate who won?

Volo do you feel Sanders betrayed you?

I know Trump can be offensive at times but he also makes me laugh sometimes I just dont know if he realizes how some of the things he says come across or what the consequences of what he says are if he could implement them But he makes me laugh at times, for example his latest speech on Russia hacking the DNC he said something like " Russia...if you listening please find the 30 k emails Hilary deleted. The press will appreciate your efforts " .... Of course this is just another attack on Hilary, its politics, but its now been interpreted by some as " Trump is encouraging Russia to commit cyber espionage " ...people do love to vilify him and at times they do exaggerate what he says or read too much into his motives

Two days ago I finished the main story of W3....the game was better than I could have ever imagined. It was superlative The Witcher series has now become my favorite RPG of all time, W3 has surpassed my normal favorite RPG which is BG2: TOB What an amazing game and I loved the ending....I was very worried about what I thought might happen Anyway well done CDPR, you have loads to be proud about ...I'm now playing the W3 expansions

Thank you LK for finally acknowledging I'm not troll, I have been telling you that for ages

Except for me hey Hurlshot, I know how to look at a story critically...thats has to be something you have noticed about me

Mate... I sometimes wonder if we live in the same world? There is no such thing as "independent" media. Even the BBC which is probably less bad than most have a bias. The only thing I would trust them to report truthfully and objectively is she soccer results after the final whistly. You want to know the truth, you need to do your own digging for it. Don't ever trust "truths" served to you by others. It's just, most people don't care. It's easier to whinge about the state of things than taking responsibility for your own life. Gorhtie you being naughty, your post is defeatist talk...its reeeeeeeeeeks of archaic and anachronistic conspiracy theories But of course you make some good points, there will always be a degree a bias but is it biased or just reasonable views on certain global matters and events that the global media houses report on ...and these matters dont really have much leeway around what they mean, they not subjective. They happen for a real reason and other justifications for them are just a distraction. I can give you literally hundreds of examples ISIS is not a creation of the CIA, they are exactly who people say they are .. " Islamic Extremists with a reprehensible and barbaric view of how to implement political change around the world " The annexation of Crimea by Russia was illegal and was correctly condemned by The West

Michelle Obama's speech was truly inspirational....I was very impressed. Best speech for me so far

Strange that they are not getting into US, they probably have better immigration policies. There is also truth/lie detectors (I know they are not 100% correct) but surly its not that inhuman to ask immigration on detector if he thinks that killing apostates is ok, if its ok to beat your wife etc. Also as we know that most radicals are from poor background so maybe let in only these which have assumptions that will find decent job? I dont have all answers but its still better to do something than just sit on our hands and turn a blind eye on all of these problems. I dont want to end up in situation where I have to choose between dictator or islamic ruler "Islamic ruler " ... That is never going to happen in established Western democracies....there is no chance of that. Power of the plebs and poor? that's never going to happen in our established Monarchy (EU A.D. 1400) But the only realistic and conceivable way you will ever have Islamic governments in Western countries like the EU is if the citizens of those countries vote for an Islamic political party And generally the only time citizens of particular country would vote for an Islamic political party is if the citizens are Muslims or believe in the Islamic rule of law, so we are talking about Sharia Law And if you consider just the push back on these forums from people living in the EU against the perceived threat of the Islamification of the EU its highly unlikely the average citizens of the EU will convert or support Islamic law It would be like me asking you " Dark why dont you convert to Islam "? Of course you wont for a variety of reasons

I also use a variety of sources, I use media houses like CNN, Al-Jazeera and BBC ( we dont get Fox in SA) but also websites what I consider are credible mediums of news like The Economist and Wall Street Journal. I have links to the financial sector through work and historically what my family does for a living so I admit I am always concerned about any political or economic decisions from the USA that could impact the global financial market which is directly influenced by what happens in the USA So my constant objective and support is global market financial stability But there is a degree of biased from some towards " the media " , for example many people on this forum will tell you CNN is biased towards the Democrats and has an agenda to ensure Hilary Clinton wins the presidency and that Trump is always portrayed in a negative light Yes I would agree there is a leaning from CNN towards the Democrats but its not some kind of consensus that all of CNN is behind the Democrats and there is no orchestrated or surreptitious attempt to only show Trump badly For example after the RNC CNN was very vocal that Trump was ahead of Clinton in there latest poll..they never hide this polling information or tried to dismiss it http://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/07/25/cnn-trump-clinton-poll-newday.cnn

Behold the consequences of 3 decades spent telling the voters that they can't trust media organizations! (And, you know, the internet killing the economic viability of local investigative reporting.) Well, you can't, it's just a fact. You can still find everything you need on the internet, like the voting record, you don't need investigative reporting for that. I'm not claiming he did anything underhanded that needed to be investigated, but most people don't even bother to check how their Congressman actually votes. You can trust the media on most things, the same stories get told on Al-Jazeera, CNN, Sky, BBC etc. So if the media was indeed untrustworthy that would mean all independent global media houses are complicate in some kind of global deceit and conspiracy theory....and I reject that idea It worries me immensely that you feel you can't trust international media houses yet you seem to believe any other link from far less credible sources....especially when they suit a particular narrative

Hastur I may not necessarily agree with everything you say but you make some interesting points in a constructive manner and I appreciate the effort you put into your posts I hope you stay and continue to be active, we dont seem to keep many new members on the Off Topic section

Strange that they are not getting into US, they probably have better immigration policies. There is also truth/lie detectors (I know they are not 100% correct) but surly its not that inhuman to ask immigration on detector if he thinks that killing apostates is ok, if its ok to beat your wife etc. Also as we know that most radicals are from poor background so maybe let in only these which have assumptions that will find decent job? I dont have all answers but its still better to do something than just sit on our hands and turn a blind eye on all of these problems. I dont want to end up in situation where I have to choose between dictator or islamic ruler "Islamic ruler " ... That is never going to happen in established Western democracies....there is no chance of that.

But no one is denying this wasnt an issue and there was bias towards Clinton from some members of the DNC Thats why Debbie Wasserman resigned. But to suggest the global media houses, and thats what CNN is, are complicate in some dishonesty against Sanders is surly going too far ? Unless there is real evidence ?

Okay I apologize if that is the impression I created, I dont think every opposing view to mine is rooted in stupidity But this serious accusation you making that the media is complicate in dishonesty is simply not true Are you suggesting CNN was biased towards Sanders during the many months of the candidacy race? I watch CNN extensively and there was no bias towards him or attempts to destroy him

This is true, there would be Muslim informants and members of the Muslim community who do work with authorities around information gathering and extremist attacks Yes work needs to be done but it is true

I have a good suggestion: Stop doing shady crap you want to keep secret so that wikileaks becomes pointless. So you happy that Wikileaks becomes the selective arbiter of personal and confidential emails, Diplomatic cables and anything else relevant to the USA that the rest of the world is not suppose to see? For me the real issue is the hacking and the external foreign powers trying to get involved in the US elections....surly this is much more of concern than the support members of the DNC had for Hilary Clinton? It doesn't bother you at all that this has exposed a genuine corruption at the very heart of one of only two principle parties in the US? It doesn't bother you to learn they are deliberately subverting one of the most important institutions of Republican or Parliamentary Democracy: free and fair elections. And worst that they are colluding with major media outlets to do it? I dont believe the reality is as bad as you say, I think most of what you guys are saying is hyperbole and more an emotional reaction or is intentionally biased like what people who are anti-Western on this forum would say. So always remember GD there are people on this forum who want the USA to fail But for example, how exactly are media houses implicated in this scandal? I dont mean the normal anti-CNN rhetoric, I mean the actual evidence that CNN did something illegal or subversive towards the US elections ? And please dont tell me you using Wikileaks as your source

I have a good suggestion: Stop doing shady crap you want to keep secret so that wikileaks becomes pointless. So you happy that Wikileaks becomes the selective arbiter of personal and confidential emails, Diplomatic cables and anything else relevant to the USA that the rest of the world is not suppose to see? For me the real issue is the hacking and the external foreign powers trying to get involved in the US elections....surly this is much more of concern than the support members of the DNC had for Hilary Clinton?

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/techtank/posts/2016/07/25-what-does-us-know-russia-dnc-hack-hennessey?utm_campaign=Brookings+Brief&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=32073053&_hsenc=p2ANqtz--XxRZ5il5E44YA925pKUYZ-h9E4egvgjLeO4_UIQmQaSwI797Yq9EOo1y-rKesHys5ChwYYEzwg_8gPMvaqgFIoNMygQ&_hsmi=32073053 More information about Russian interference in the US election, the part below I find particularly interesting The leaked DNC emails have already cost Debbie Wasserman Schultz her chairmanship of the DNC. Julian Assange threatened in a June interview that the leaks would lead to Hillary Clinton’s arrest. There is certainly nothing close to that in this batch of emails, and there is reason to doubt the validity of Assange’s claim; he has wildly exaggerated about the content of leaks in the past and there are strategic reasons to lead major leaks with the most damaging information. But we are almost certain to see a number of leaks aimed at damaging Hillary Clinton over the coming weeks and months. This means, put simply, that actors outside the U.S. are using criminal means to influence the outcome of a U.S. election. That’s a problem. The question before us now is how to construct a response to mitigate damage to our democratic institutions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/america-would-be-trumps-banana-republic/2016/07/21/f652820a-4f57-11e6-a422-83ab49ed5e6a_story.html Here some interesting insights into the Republican Convention and Trumps general comments and views