Discussion in 'The Red Room' started by Zombie, Apr 11, 2019.
"It's not for nothing that I "sat it out" by voting third-party. But this time, I will vote for whoever the Democrat candidate is (with the possible exception of Bloomberg), because I don't see how anyone could be worse than Donald Trump. The man (I use the term loosely here...) is a total disgrace and a disgrace to the country." - Asuckingus
You sat it out? Your vote could have made the difference! If you had the opportunity to vote but you chose not to you can respectfully shut your fucking pie hole about Trump. So you can talk the talk but not walk the walk - color me surprised! So Trump isn't "your" president? But you didn't even vote?
He literally said he voted third party. Which might be as good as not voting in your shithole two party system, but it's not "you didn't even vote", you hopeless twatting fuckwomble.
Look Oldfella, even though I disagree with many of your opinions and know you aren't an intellectual genius, I had always thought of you as a nice person. Until now. Here, you not only show your childishness (by resorting to name-calling) and your meanness (by the nasty insults), you also show you can't read very well. I posted clearly that I did indeed vote. A vote for a third party is a vote.
Or are you so stuck in the system that you think no one has a right to vote other than for the two "approved" parties?
You just went way down in my esteem.
And by the way, you just earned my first negrep in the history of Wordforge. But you richly deserved it.
So would you rather he hadn't released them and she had won?
Assange is hentai!
Um....yes? What kind of question is that?
TR is Assange a hentai?
An honest one.
You'd rather corruption was kept quiet? I don't see why you'd see that as a good thing.
Trump may well be a dreadful POTUS but Assange revealed information that was in the public interest and cannot be held responsible for the election result.
There is a deep hole over in the corner where we all eventually throw our opinion of oldfella. It is right next to the gaping pit that has my name on it.
What corruption was exposed with Hillary's emails?
SORRY! I did NOT see the "third party" disclaimer. Third party is not "sitting it out" it is a legitimate vote. I can't believe I didn't see that third party bit. Hey, I can't turn back time but I am sorry for not seeing that part - damn I need to stop reading things when I'm in a hurry!
it was an accident! I did not see the part where he said he voted third party - nothing wrong with that. I just didn't see that part when I read it - reading too fast or "distracted reading" maybe.
SORRY! I honestly did not see where you said you voted third party. I totally agree there's nothing wrong with that - I honestly only saw the "I sat it out" part of the sentence. 90 percent of the time I read much better than I listen to people talk in "real time" but I dropped the ball this time. Again, humblest apologies!
Oldfella will they do a svu episode about Assange?
The guy was on record saying that he didn't want a Hillary presidency.He wanted to stop Hillary from being president and that's why the emails were released right after the Access Hollywood fiasco. Enough with the "public interest" baloney. He wanted to interfere in our elections to stop a candidate from being elected, nothing more.
Assange has never been about serving the public interest. His primary function and overarching goal has been to harm the United States, which is also why he supported Trump.
The corruption may have been minor but he believed it was real and he believed it was in the interest to reveal it. Whether classified information should be held on a private server is open to debate, even if it was only classified in a technical sense.
Nonetheless Assange and Wikileaks revealed a great deal else (including footage of war crimes by US troops, pressure put on German authorities not to investigate extraordinary renditions of their citizens, files containing evidence of abuses at Guantanamo) and I'm sorry to say it's difficult for me as a non American to really see why the US should be in a position to prosecute him for revealing classified documents when other nations cannot. He did not target the US in particular, he acted as a broker for information which was leaked and that came from many countries. Had he only released information from Kenya and Iran or Syria I doubt very much you'd be so quick to call him a criminal, but when the US is in the frame it becomes another matter altogether.
I stand by my position in our previous dispute, that you have shown a double standard whereby the US and it's representatives are given far more leniency than those of other nations, especially where those nations are your opponents. What is heroism or national security for an American is murder, terrorism and criminality when committed by your rivals. Likewise revealing information about the US is "criminal" yet I don't see you condemning him for the information he released about the incident in Natanz.
Put another way, are you so glad to see Gui Minhai jailed? after all, he revealed classified information about the Chinese government and private information about it's officials.
Are you willing to be consistent and support them for silencing him?
What corruption? I'm still waiting for what was so corrupt about those emails that he had to release them during an election.
Bullshit. It was in HIS interest because his goal was stop Hillary from being President. Stop pretending that this was some noble act
But that was only a small part of what he revealed. He also revealed a bunch of DNC files. These included the personal info of ordinary citizens who had contacted the DNC for a number of reasons that no reasonable person would think to be worthy of notice. You know, things like saying that they didn't agree with the DNC on this or that position or here's a contribution of some sort. Those people wound up getting harassed and put at risk of identity theft due to this. One nutbag decided that he needed to go shoot up a pizza place in DC because he thought that the emails contained encoded messages about a child sex abuse ring.
While one can make the case that some of the information he released was actually beneficial to society (as befits a journalist) dumping the unredacted information of people who were collaterally connected to the DNC was not. We also know that the RNC has been hacked, yet, strangely, their files have never been released. Bit puzzling that. Even if Assange never got those things, you'd think that someone would have dumped them. I'm 100% certain that no matter what those files contained, Glenn Greenwald would have been more than happy to publish them if he was given them.
None of which has anything to do with the stuff that came out as a result of the DNC hack, I must point out.
No, you're not.
Balls. He had the information and knew that it would impact the US elections. Now, I can fully understand why he doesn't like Hillary, but let's not pretend for a moment that he didn't know that the information would, at the very least, hamstring her if she was elected President. He may not have known that it would have led to Trump getting elected, but there's no way he could not have known that it would have a negative impact upon her ability to act if she had become President.
None of those other states have the same level of presence on the world stage that the US does. Let's look at a hypothetical for a moment. Suppose that Assange kept the DNC stuff secret until after the election was over and Hillary had won. It still would have damaged her Presidency and kept her from having the kind of agency that Trump does now. Do you think that the world is better off now? Because that's what this boils down to. No matter what one might think of Hillary, if you believe that the world would be worse off with her in the White House, you've no idea of just how much damage has been done to this country and the planet.
Okay, I'll bite.
When has the UK been better?
The same is true of the UK and the IRA. Now, imagine if Labour's loss in your recent elections was due to something that a journalist had leaked, which was only incidental to the issue of Brexit (which is akin to what Assange did with the DNC leaks). You gonna be thrilled with him? What if you knew that there was a good chance that he had equally damaging information about Johnson but kept that quiet?
And nobody is going to care if someone releases classified information from the government of Trinidad unless it harms their own country.
It has always been thus. Do you defend the Rosenbergs because they leaked US nuclear secrets to the USSR and thus, potentially, enabled the Soviet Union to gain parity with the US in terms of nuclear weapons? Sure, it might have prevented the US and the USSR from going to war until the Soviet Union collapsed, but a number of bad things happened during the Cold War which are a direct result of it. The best one can say is that it is too early to tell the full impact of their actions. After all, some historians blame WWII on the Peace of Westphalia, which happened almost 300 years before.
There's a whole lot of things about the prosecution of Assange that are squirrely. The rape charges which were brought against him, then dropped, and then suddenly reopened are chief among them, but let's not pretend for a moment that he didn't have any idea when he released the DNC stuff that it would have an impact on the US election. And to propose that this "somehow" would have led to someone other than Hillary or Trump being elected President is to have such a naive misunderstanding of American politics as to be criminal.
How, exactly, was preventing Hilary from being elected in his personal interest? He didn't want her elected because he saw her as a corrupt, that's not about personal gain. Did he also reveal information about the Syrian government to further some personal agenda?
Again, you are focusing on actions which impact the US as being inherently wrong but glossing over the material which targeted anyone else.
As for the emails, I've already acknowledged the issue was minor but having classified information on a private server is an issue. Doubtless there was tactical timing in the release, but no one's denying that.
No argument here. The man is not a hero.
No one has claimed he is, or that the consequences to his actions were uniformly positive.
Who said it did?
Then should he be extradited to Iran? How about Kenya?
Which is not a response to my post. He targeted many nations during his tenure at Wikileaks, the US was only one of them and enjoys no special position except for the fact of having great reach and being discussed here primarily by Americans.
Again, you are putting words into my mouth, I detest Trump and would dearly love to see someone else in his place but you cannot put that specifically on Assange. We have no way of knowing the extent to which he influenced the election.
As for the "level of presence", do you realise how that statement comes across? You are literally endorsing a position where the US's interests and laws should supersede those of other nations. Maybe that sounds reasonable to you, maybe it's a sensible position for a US citizen to take, but in no way does it explain why a non American should concur. What reason should I have for placing your laws and sovereignty on a higher pedestal than anyone else's?
Honestly we are no better, but I wasn't making a sweeping statement about a country, it was an observation specifically aimed at T.R and our past exchanges.
With regard to your hypothetical question I'd support anyone who came forward with information about wrong doing, no matter who it damaged. Believe it or not there are some of us who can look past partisanship.
So why should I care about him releasing information about the US?
Were those nuclear secrets in some way related to wrongdoing?
The question has not been answered. Should we support the Chinese authorities for silencing Gui Minhai?
Jesus, Dayton, fix your quote tags if you want anyone to respond to you. I'm not about to sort out that mess.
Done, that's what I get for posting at four in the morning when I can't sleep, but Dayton? Puhleeease, you're the one basing a case on American exceptionalism, that's your gig. Messing up the quote tags makes me oldfella....
Never thought I'd see @T.R defending Hillary
I don't imagine any of us were actually under the impression Hillary was or is a shining light. Not sure how we can say with any certainty how events would have turned out sans the email scandal but the idea we're supposed to bear him ill will simply for attacking someone on the left is interesting in what it suggests about some of @T.R 's underlying assumptions about people's thought processes.
Does having targeted her in some manner make him by default an enemy of the left? I thought integrity was supposed to be a non partisan virtue.
Sorry, but that doesn't cut it with me. You are basically saying that you stand by your post, except that you wouldn't have made it if you had read my post correctly. But if I hadn't voted, you still would have thought it appropriate to respond that way to someone.
IOW, you think that childish name-calling, vulgar insults, and accusations of "you talk the talk but don't walk the walk" are acceptable, if someone chooses a course of action with which you disagree. That doesn't make you a nice person. It simply makes you someone who realized that, in this particular case, you shouldn't have been so nasty.
The fact of the matter is that when someone is faced with a selection of bad enough choices, choosing not to vote at all is a valid option. That in no way removes that person's right to express an opinion. And it certainly doesn't justify the kind of abuse you think appropriate to heap on such a person.
Like I said, I had always thought you were a nice guy, even when I disagreed with your religious and political opinions. But you have caused me to revise that to "You are a nice person when others do what you think they should do." That is not at all the same thing.
sorry you feel that way! I just wanted to clear up that I don't think voting third party is a bad thing. But I'm not a fan of sitting it out completely and I won't change that position. And I apologize for over reacting and any personal insults - that was just wrong and I accept that and will indeed work on it.
You have a right to your opinion, and in general I agree that those who don't vote are a problem. But that applies, in my mind, only to those who don't vote because they simply don't care enough to bother. It does not apply to those who, when offered a slate of bad enough candidates, simply choose "none of the above". Such people do not deserve to be abused the way you did. Disagreeing with them is fine; that's what Wordforge is all about.
And the right to be disagreeable is also part of Wordforge. But those who choose that option cannot at the same time hope to be classed with the "nice people" who post here. (And there are quite a few of them, even among those with whom I have serious disagreements.)
I care about our elections being tampered with by foreign douchebags. Naturally, Rick and Spot are fine with that, but why are you?
Separate names with a comma.