US Presidential Race 2016

[TonyM]

Twitter twats? Are you equating WikiLeaks with the likes of IndyKaila haha?

I can only presume the rigged 'pied piper' refers to Trump, in which case I'm not sure what the basis for that is but they have revealed evidence (proof if documents proven unaltered) of dodgy issues in the primary to cut Sanders out the picture (I haven't seen the actual info. on this so not sure what the details are) and a case with Donna Brazile where I think she asked Clinton a question given to her by CNN/The Clinton Campaign in an email exchange beforehand. In the video Ricster posted on the previous page - she doesn't deny it, she just repeatedly trots out that she was the victim of cyber theft which does more to verify the validity of the leaked documents.

WikiLeaks is an organisation that loses credibility when they present bias, so their policy is to publish everything "as is." So whilst that tweet may appear opinionated - they would know better than most outsiders.

From what I can tell the Wikileaks folks have an agenda. My point is that as soon as some fools see something on twitter the retweet it like it's fact rather than opinion.

 

[TonyM]

Im curious what your background is in political science fella....??

lol

 

[hjm1962]

lol

like I thought..

 

[west didsblue]

HHmmmm.... seems a very similar statement to mine a week ago ..but then again, what would I no

Not a great deal judging by how you've spelt "know".

 

[CitizenTID]

From what I can tell the Wikileaks folks have an agenda. My point is that as soon as some fools see something on twitter the retweet it like it's fact rather than opinion.

Everyone has an agenda. I wouldn't criticise you for remaining cautious/suspicious but I would criticise you if you automatically sided with the narrative of the US/UK/NATO governments (or mainstream media) because you'd be using flawed logic without having enough of the context and information at hand. That may seem a rather vague comment, but in determining your support or criticism of an organisation it comes down to percentage of trust and I can understand why most would hold a high percentage of trust in their government and in turn, be liable to criticising those that government representatives criticise.

WikiLeaks is a journalistic organisation, founded by an Australian, whose contributing "workforce" is comprised of various nationalities, therefore the organisation itself has no allegiance. Their aim is simply to expose corruption and things they feel is in the public's interest, to the public - the public that diplomatic government is meant to represent. They have no intention of publishing matters of national security (putting populations at risk), for example documents on military capabilities and do not work with any governments. There are inevitably grey areas where governments may have programmes they deem to be of national security but to which WikiLeaks deem public interest. Like how US government is meant to be a system of checks and balances of power in congress, the presidency and judicial systems (a complete failure in my view as it does not account for vested interests such as campaign funding from corporations and has clearly been abused/ignored as proven), you can think of WikiLeaks as factoring the public into the equation in that checks and balances system. Their agenda can be summarised as protecting internet and technology freedoms such as privacy, which has many implications if not protected, regarding things such as right to free-speech.

WikiLeaks helped Edward Snowden, whose revelations I'm sure will prove a very important part in the history of mankind (unless he's wiped from the record at some point), escape the clutches of American intelligence services, gain temporary asylum whilst also getting him legal support; if they hadn't he very well could have been assassinated if US intelligence had the opportunity to stop the leaked info at a single source, or caught whereby he has been unfairly (but legally) charged with the old espionage act despite not being a spy for another nation (I don't believe the act accounts for whistleblowers). In similar cases in the past, whistleblowers did not receive a fair trial in the U.S. which is why he has sought asylum.

If you want to see an example of the kind of work WikiLeaks does and facilitates and why it is so extremely important to people such as yourself (whether you know it or not) and the implications I allude to above, I am about to post another Off-topic thread soon that will be of interest.

 

[TCIB]

Vote Quimby 'corruptus in Extremis'

 

[west didsblue]

Everyone has an agenda. I wouldn't criticise you for remaining cautious/suspicious but I would criticise you if you automatically sided with the narrative of the US/UK/NATO governments (or mainstream media) because you'd be using flawed logic without having enough of the context and information at hand. That may seem a rather vague comment, but in determining your support or criticism of an organisation it comes down to percentage of trust and I can understand why most would hold a high percentage of trust in their government and in turn, be liable to criticising those that government representatives criticise.

WikiLeaks is a journalistic organisation, founded by an Australian, whose contributing "workforce" is comprised of various nationalities, therefore the organisation itself has no allegiance. Their aim is simply to expose corruption and things they feel is in the public's interest, to the public - the public that diplomatic government is meant to represent. They have no intention of publishing matters of national security (putting populations at risk), for example documents on military capabilities and do not work with any governments. There are inevitably grey areas where governments may have programmes they deem to be of national security but to which WikiLeaks deem public interest. Like how US government is meant to be a system of checks and balances of power in congress, the presidency and judicial systems (a complete failure in my view as it does not account for vested interests such as campaign funding from corporations and has clearly been abused/ignored as proven), you can think of WikiLeaks as factoring the public into the equation in that checks and balances system. Their agenda can be summarised as protecting internet and technology freedoms such as privacy, which has many implications if not protected, regarding things such as right to free-speech.

WikiLeaks helped Edward Snowden, whose revelations I'm sure will prove a very important part in the history of mankind (unless he's wiped from the record at some point), escape the clutches of American intelligence services, gain temporary asylum whilst also getting him legal support; if they hadn't he very well could have been assassinated if US intelligence had the opportunity to stop the leaked info at a single source, or caught whereby he has been unfairly (but legally) charged with the old espionage act despite not being a spy for another nation (I don't believe the act accounts for whistleblowers). In similar cases in the past, whistleblowers did not receive a fair trial in the U.S. which is why he has sought asylum.

If you want to see an example of the kind of work WikiLeaks does and facilitates and why it is so extremely important to people such as yourself (whether you know it or not) and the implications I allude to above, I am about to post another Off-topic thread soon that will be of interest.

That may be true when talking about the origins of wikileaks, however it's now all about Assange doing his best to influence the US election in favour of Trump so that he won't get extradited and incarcerated in the USA.

 

[CitizenTID]

That may be true when talking about the origins of wikileaks, however it's now all about Assange doing his best to influence the US election in favour of Trump so that he won't get extradited and incarcerated in the USA.

That's wildly speculative. There's a lot more at play with his case than that. Whilst it's not unfair to say both Assange and Hilary Clinton probably see each other as a foe, Assange is certainly not leaking stuff to do Trump a favour. Criticism of Clinton is not support of Trump.

Of course the sections of the media that support Clinton would paint it that way though.

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

That's wildly speculative. There's a lot more at play with his case than that. Whilst it's not unfair to say both Assange and Hilary Clinton probably see each other as a foe, Assange is certainly not leaking stuff to do Trump a favour. Criticism of Clinton is not support of Trump.

Why does Assange not go and face this sex crime allegation instead of holing up like is doing? Its not going to go away

 

[west didsblue]

That's wildly speculative. There's a lot more at play with his case than that. Whilst it's not unfair to say both Assange and Hilary Clinton probably see each other as a foe, Assange is certainly not leaking stuff to do Trump a favour. Criticism of Clinton is not support of Trump.

Of course the sections of the media that support Clinton would paint it that way though.

It's not particularly speculative when the leaks are being released steadily during the month before the election to try and maintain interest in Clinton's supposed wrongdoings. Trump's said he loves Wikileaks and he's hardly going to push for Assange to be prosecuted if he gets in.