The US Election 2016, Part IX

[BruceVC]

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

However, that does not make any of that information untrue.

 

 

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 

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

However, that does not make any of that information untrue.

 

 

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.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

However, that does not make any of that information untrue.

 

 

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 ?

[Meshugger]

Panic intensifies as he he realizes no control of the narrative. Or should i say, "triggered".

 

Suffice to say that Wikileaks release what is leaked to them and they have said since the very beginning that they are against current world order of power between governments, the military-industrial complex and the media that parades it. 

 

What a bunch of meanies.

[Longknife]

 

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

However, that does not make any of that information untrue.

 

 

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.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

However, that does not make any of that information untrue.

 

 

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

Edited November 6, 2016 by BruceVC

[BruceVC]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-Gudm2OUF4

 

 

 

Freedom of speech.

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 ?

Edited November 6, 2016 by BruceVC

[213374U]

So does Chippy think Pidesco works for Obsidian?   

 

 

That is awesome.

 

Plot twist: he really does work for Obsidian. The mod tag is part of a dastardly scheme to infiltrate the community by posing as part of the volunteer mod corps. It's just that so far only Chippy has seen through his clever façade!

 

We're onto you now, Pidesco.

[redneckdevil]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

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.

However, that does not make any of that information untrue.

 

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 basiclaly 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

KISS

The reason why U are not gonna find any Trump's emails is BECAUSE the emails that are being released are the ones HILlARY erased before the FBI and Law could see them. That's it. IF Hillary DIDNT delete and lie and hide these, hell used a SECURED server, this wouldn't be going on.

At all.

That's all these emails are, is emails that Hillary denied having on unsecured server BECAUSE they would be recorded.

 

So the agenda is a careless and incompentant presidential candiante deleted and lied about the emails and then scrubbed her server and hammered phones etc, and wilileaks are showing us that she lied AND what she is hiding. That is all.

Reason WHY Trump and whoever else isn't being "targeted" is BECAUSE they don't have top secret national security info AND if they did, are NOT using an unsecured server.

 

So IF trump gets elected or in office and has access to that info and then pulls a Hillary, then yes he should be targeted. Until then, it's Hillary who has done something that many people have lost their jobs and endangered many lives by being careless. Careless and incompenetant being the FBI directors own words.

 

Do you want someone who's by our national security head person own words careless? You seem to be forgetting the lesson Nixon taught us, if ur okay with what Hillarys doing then Nixon did no wrong whatsoever, and he did MUCH less than Hillary did.

Edited November 6, 2016 by redneckdevil

[Elerond]

 

 

Wikileaks is as it name suggest organization dedicated to leaking information. It isn't neutral, apolitical, centralized, principled, or following laws

 

When reading wikileaks leaks one should remember that those who leak information have agenda, political motivation and they don't necessary leak all the information, information in its full context, unedited information, verified information, and they often use information overflow to distract people seeing true nature of what they leaked and then they leakers usually highlight parts of leaked information that support their agenda. Meaning that they usually have political agenda that they want to achieve and they use distrust against governments, establishment, and traditional media as their weapons to give people information that they have picked and that fit their agenda.

 

Also it should be noted that there isn't just one party behind wikileaks but dozens after dozens and every leak usually comes from different source with different agenda behind it.  

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.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

Wikileaks is as it name suggest organization dedicated to leaking information. It isn't neutral, apolitical, centralized, principled, or following laws

 

When reading wikileaks leaks one should remember that those who leak information have agenda, political motivation and they don't necessary leak all the information, information in its full context, unedited information, verified information, and they often use information overflow to distract people seeing true nature of what they leaked and then they leakers usually highlight parts of leaked information that support their agenda. Meaning that they usually have political agenda that they want to achieve and they use distrust against governments, establishment, and traditional media as their weapons to give people information that they have picked and that fit their agenda.

 

Also it should be noted that there isn't just one party behind wikileaks but dozens after dozens and every leak usually comes from different source with different agenda behind it.  

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 

[Longknife]

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

However, that does not make any of that information untrue.

 

 

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

 

 

Bruce you are basically - without evidence - arguing that Trump must have illegal activity on the same level as Clinton, and yet Wikileaks refuses to release it because of bias. I cannot prove for you that Trump isn't involved in illegal activity because proving a negative is impossible, and that is exactly why burden of proof is on the accuser rather than the accused. The burden of proof would be on you and on others to prove Trump did something illegal.

 

Rationally speaking however, while I would not be surprised to see evidence of Trump being a tax dodger or perhaps involved with something akin to sexual harassment or domestic violence, those are nothing compared to what Clinton has done. Those would be criminal cases involved in his personal life, and while horrible and while being things I would welcome proper punishment for, would NOT really be topical for his candidacy or his ability to act as president. It's completely understandable that a voter would be less concerned about Trump walking in on a supermodel who's naked than they would be about knowing that Hillary knowingly accepted money from a nation funding terrorism while supporting a war effort that resulted from said terrorism. One of those just makes you a terrible human being, the other threatens to affect EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN and cost thousands of people their lives.

 

Likewise, based on what we do know...? If we attempt to approach the situation rationally and deduce if Trump could be responsible for equally awful/topical crimes...? Trump is not a politician. He lacks the influence neccesary to even achieve something as great as Hillary's little corrupt circle. She's the influential one with connections that has been involved in politics for decades, he's just some mediocre millionaire with weird hair. It would be difficult if not impossible for Trump to have any comparable sway over politicians, corporations or nations akin to Hillary Clinton. Likewise, Wikileaks has shown us clear evidence of media bias. The media provides a glowing view of Clinton and a terrible one of Trump. Despite this, the people still found out about all of the skeletons in her closet, even though the deck was heavily stacked in her favor.

 

Why on earth should we believe that Trump somehow magically has as much power and influence as Hillary, is just as corrupt, and yet despite the fact that the deck is stacked against Trump, we don't have evidence of his corruption but we do have evidence of Hillary's corruption, despite the fact the media is actively protecting her?? That's absurd. You may state the evidence that the media is in her favor is unreliable evidence as that itself stems from Wikileaks, but again, why do the actions of parties involved inadvertedly support or even confirm the accuracy of wikileaks' evidence? Why would CNN fire Donna Brazile if their claims about her are entirely false? Why is Colin Powell confirming their accuracy while supporting Clinton as the candidate? It would seem that evidence is indeed reliable.

 

You are basically - without evidence - claiming that Trump is somehow magically as corrupt and influential as Hillary Clinton is, and the fact that Wikileaks doesn't prove this is proof of their own bias. No Bruce, your train of thought is proof of your own bias. You do not read stories to help you cultivate opinions about candidates, you read stories to help you cultivate opinions about the stories, and that's precisely why you're bias. You don't change or revise your end result, you attempt to change the equation when you're not getting the result you want when using it.

Edited November 6, 2016 by Longknife

[IndiraLightfoot]

Attaching "leaks" to any bulk of information is deliberately suggestive of wrongdoing, of an assorted collection of conspiracies, of anything bad you wish to read into the stuff in question. People are hardwired that way. Our brains seek patterns in everything, which essentially is the same as subjective interpretation, an interpretation which in turn is steeped in a number of sociocultural contexts. 

How we use such information, the ways in which we approach it analytically, are pretty much the same issue as to what makes good science versus bad. How are we looking at the info as the results of subjective statements made, or numbers crunched, at specific sociocultural points in time? Are we taking into consideration all the aspects and perspectives possible? Obviously, we could relativize the contents of any such bits and pieces of info ad nauseam, but that would be overdoing it. Let's just settle with the obvious: each and every leaked email, for instance, is quite comparable to hearsay, and equally objective, i.e., not at all. 

[Guard Dog]

No, they are exactly what they seem to be. The internal correspondence of a political organization that is made up of very dishonest people trying to win an election by any means fair or foul.

 

If it makes any of you pro-Clinton types feel better there are three kinds of people:

 

1. Those who refuse to believe anything negative about her. Could be for any reason; gender, politics, stupidity, etc.
2. Those who know she is a liar and a snake and will vote for her anyway. 
3. Those who would never cast a vote for her no matter what. It's been common knowledge the Clintons were corrupt and dishonest since the early '90s. All the Wikileaks story had done is confirm what group 2 & 3 already knew.

 

For all Trump's flaws there is one thing he does not have. A two page long list of dead associates who died under mysterious circumstances. And for all his sexist behavior I don't recall ever hearing about him taking a bribe. Of course not of that mitigates his other flaws and they are many.

 

I'd just like to remind everyone of something Volo pointed out a few times now. And he's right. Trump has been a public figure since the USFL thing in the 1980's. He was never accused of sexual harassment/assault, or racism, or Klan association in all that time in the public eye until he ran for President against a Democrat. It makes you wonder.

 

But then both Romney & McCain could day the same so there is a pattern there. 

Edited November 6, 2016 by Guard Dog

[IndiraLightfoot]

No, they are exactly what they seem to be. The internal correspondence of a political organization that is made up of very dishonest people trying to win an election by any means fair or foul.

 

 

You do realize that this is exactly what I mean? Subjective, context-bound text statements - nothing more, nothing less.

 

I'm certainly not pro-Clinton, as you already know. I just lament that someone like Johnson or Mitt Romney isn't a candidate instead of neo-fascist Trump, which certainly makes me reluctantly preferring the lesser evil in this case: Clinton.

Edited November 6, 2016 by IndiraLightfoot

[Raithe]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1F9dKorFr4

[Raithe]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxH6bKNPBIA

[BruceVC]

 

 

I'd just like to remind everyone of something Volo pointed out a few times now. And he's right. Trump has been a public figure since the USFL thing in the 1980's. He was never accused of sexual harassment/assault, or racism, or Klan association in all that time in the public eye until he ran for President against a Democrat. It makes you wonder.

 

But then both Romney & McCain could day the same so there is a pattern there. 

Unfortunately volo is seldom right as his points lack context and consistency,  he  mostly ignores the historical precedent or the actual current reality , this point is no different

 

In 1970's, 80's, 90s and even early 2000's  a terrible culture existed in ostensibly Western countries where politicians, celebrities , musicians, actors and any other man who had influence could commit terrible crimes of sexual abuse and they were never charged or discovered  and there was rampant abuse of children

 

The authorities seemed to ignore it and cases of paedophilia were sometimes investigated  by the police  but then literally shut down from orders from a higher position of power, this occurred particularly in the UK    

 

This terrible injustice seemed to permeate many levels of society, for example the appalling initial response when the Roman Catholic Church sent priests known to have abused children to the USA  to continuing abusing children. Nowadays the RC has made amends for this and acknowledge it was a  terrible mistake  the church made,  so this is not a personal attack on the RC church 

 

Anyway the last 5-10 years more and more cases of abuse and child abuse are coming to light and people who could have committed these crimes. There have been cases of celebrities being investigated going back decades like Jimmy Savile and Cosby

 

Now Im not saying Trump is a child molester or rapist of women but if you consider that  type of sexual deviancy was ignored in the 1980s and onwards why would a  celebrity like Trump who groped and touched several women ever be charged around such a " mild " issue when there was real abuse ongoing all around

 

So in summary, its  a false dichotomy to say " Trump couldn't have abused all those women  because he has never been accused since the 1980

s " 

 

No one  was accused ...no one was really charged or prosecuted ...most people got away with it 

Edited November 6, 2016 by BruceVC

[BruceVC]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-donald-trump-could-never-be-a-normal-candidate/2016/11/03/68483dd4-a203-11e6-a44d-cc2898cfab06_story.html

 

 

Guys please take the time to read this post, I found it very instructive and insightful    

[Meshugger]

Thanks again to Wikileaks (he was mentioned at least 7 times in the Podesta-leak as an affiliate for "Global Intelligence Files"), it is shown that the guy who was thrown out of the Trump-rally was an agent provocateur to do some birddogging.

[Meshugger]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-donald-trump-could-never-be-a-normal-candidate/2016/11/03/68483dd4-a203-11e6-a44d-cc2898cfab06_story.html

 

 

Guys please take the time to read this post, I found it very instructive and insightful    

 

Aaaah, the fear of the press as their deceased corrupt temple is about to fall on their heads. It's a wonder to behold.

[IndiraLightfoot]

Thanks again to my subjective interpretation of purported leaks (he was mentioned at least 7 times in a test string I merrily rip out of context as an affiliate for "Global Intelligence Files"), I want to paint that guy who was thrown out of the Trump-rally as an agent provocateur to do some birddogging.

 

Sorry for using your post as an example, but see what happens when you shroud a few excerpts taken out of context in social reality? Pretty nasty, huh?

Edited November 6, 2016 by IndiraLightfoot

[Meshugger]

 

Thanks again to my subjective interpretation of purported leaks (he was mentioned at least 7 times in a test string I merrily rip out of context as an affiliate for "Global Intelligence Files"), I want to paint that the guy who was thrown out of the Trump-rally as an agent provocateur to do some birddogging.

 

Sorry for using your post as an example, but see what happens when you shroud a few excerpts taken out of context in social reality? Pretty nasty, huh?

 

 

Not at all. You are perfectly welcome to shield yourself and dismiss others as you wish.

 

The truth is that the guy has suspicious contacts, mentioned by personal name in the Podesta-leaks (Austyn Crites), and it is already been established that the DNC hire professional agent provocateurs thanks to the Project Veritas investigations, where they admitted to the Chicago and Arizona riots. 

[BruceVC]

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-donald-trump-could-never-be-a-normal-candidate/2016/11/03/68483dd4-a203-11e6-a44d-cc2898cfab06_story.html

 

 

Guys please take the time to read this post, I found it very instructive and insightful    

 

Aaaah, the fear of the press as their deceased corrupt temple is about to fall on their heads. It's a wonder to behold.

 

 

 

"My name is Legion," he replied, "for we are many."   

[BruceVC]

 

 

Thanks again to my subjective interpretation of purported leaks (he was mentioned at least 7 times in a test string I merrily rip out of context as an affiliate for "Global Intelligence Files"), I want to paint that the guy who was thrown out of the Trump-rally as an agent provocateur to do some birddogging.

 

Sorry for using your post as an example, but see what happens when you shroud a few excerpts taken out of context in social reality? Pretty nasty, huh?

 

 

Not at all. You are perfectly welcome to shield yourself and dismiss others as you wish.

 

The truth is that the guy has suspicious contacts, mentioned by personal name in the Podesta-leaks (Austyn Crites), and it is already been established that the DNC hire professional agent provocateurs thanks to the Project Veritas investigations, where they admitted to the Chicago and Arizona riots. 

 

Meshugger please stop arguing for the sake of arguing, you know Indira is right