US Presidential Race 2016

[west didsblue]

Serious question aren't you worried? either Donald will win and you will kill yourself, or hillary will win and you'll be drafted to Syria where a jihadi will fire a rocket at you.

Why don't you leave the forum to the grown ups.

 

[west didsblue]

None of that says anything about the validity of WikiLeaks though. Everyone agrees Nelson Mandela did a significant amount of good for the world, but nobody uses the fact that he had several affairs to discredit that (can't remember if definitely true, but let's use the example). If Franco was a fan of Real Madrid, you can't assume Real Madrid would have used it's resources to promote Franco/push a propaganda campaign. Trump I would guess made that statement in mind of the transparency Wikileaks provides that is otherwise not there - I'm sure he'd have a different view if he was actually President.

I don't agree with your analogies. There's more shit on Trump than practically anyone but you don't see any of that on Wikileaks.

 

[Paul Lake's Left Knee]

Ah peace and fucking quiet at last,please don't let him back till after the election

There were a number of people who stopped posting on this thread because of him, I stopped quoting him a couple of weeks ago hoping if he was ignored he'd go away but his attacking anyone who didnt agree was getting boring to say the least. He was more abusive than anyone else on this thread and acted like a spoilt child if anyone said anything slightly against him.

@stony you can come back now, he's gone

 

[Paul Lake's Left Knee]

Thank fuck for that.

People can disagree and not take offense or be offensive @CitizenTID is the perfect example of that.

 

[CitizenTID]

I don't agree with your analogies. There's more shit on Trump than practically anyone but you don't see any of that on Wikileaks.

I've addressed the paedophilia, sexual abuse, xenophobic/racist stuff - anything else I'm not aware of? I haven't followed as closely recently. Wikileaks might not have found anything on him, might not have looked, might not want to look, might have their hands full with the stuff on Clinton. Obviously in terms of their credibility, they should be weighing up what they need to balance since it's election time, everything they're releasing is doing much to influence the election but it could be any of those possible reasons I've just listed or others - you can't assume any. I think Assange might have been questioned about this topic in a recent interview but I haven't watched it yet - any Wikileaks/Assange comments would be useful in determining the answer to this matter.

 

[kaz7]

There were a number of people who stopped posting on this thread because of him, I stopped quoting him a couple of weeks ago hoping if he was ignored he'd go away but his attacking anyone who didnt agree was getting boring to say the least. He was more abusive than anyone else on this thread and acted like a spoilt child if anyone said anything slightly against him.

@stony you can come back now, he's gone

Hopefully we can get back to a proper discussion,what is with posting here during the barca game? strange

 

[BimboBob]

Apparently I'm an American agent but I posted the last match programme, and? silence? thought so.

You called yourself an American agent.

Mad as a bag of frogs.

 

[Eebo]

The funniest thing is that Trump clearly has the support of America's biggest enemy. You have to ask yourself why and the answer has to be either
- because they want the US to be lead by someone who is a World Class Buffoon (making even Nigel Farage look like an amateur in the arsehole stakes), or
- he is beholden to them in some way or controlled by them

 

[west didsblue]

I've addressed the paedophilia, sexual abuse, xenophobic/racist stuff - anything else I'm not aware of? I haven't followed as closely recently. Wikileaks might not have found anything on him, might not have looked, might not want to look, might have their hands full with the stuff on Clinton. Obviously in terms of their credibility, they should be weighing up what they need to balance since it's election time, everything they're releasing is doing much to influence the election but it could be any of those possible reasons I've just listed or others - you can't assume any. I think Assange might have been questioned about this topic in a recent interview but I haven't watched it yet - any Wikileaks/Assange comments would be useful in determining the answer to this matter.

I think the proven xenophobia, racism and mysoginy of Trump should be enough to put anyone off. The paedophilia allegations are not as clear cut but his recorded comments to teens and small children are fairly creepy.
As for Hillary, it seems that she's had that much shit thrown at her that some of it has stuck in most people's minds. She's probably done and said things that would put many people off but she's not in the same league as Trump when it comes to lying, hypocrisy and general stupidity.
It's a shit choice for the yanks but seriously how can anyone with a brain even consider Trump?

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Wiki's sources aren't all hacks as you probably know. Your later post about the potential of people forging documents and then leaking them to WikiLeaks (they'd have to verify who the person was, but let's use a Russian Govt. hacker they know and who they believe hacked it reliably) - I don't know what measures they'd have in place to check validity in such circumstances other than retrace the hack and do it themselves to verify (if possible). In most whistleblowing cases due to private servers etc. they must have to trust the source but, with all the accusations of them having links with Russia I'm sure they'd be wary of hacks. They could very possibly have a policy of not publishing hacked documents they can't hack again to verify if from a 3rd party and may only publish first-hand leaks (i.e. someone who works for the organisation with legal possession of the document). As far as I'm aware they haven't revealed that level of detail.

So, the 100% reliable claims can't be proven but what i can say in response to that is that when Clinton was questioned about these leaks in the debates, such looked awkward, never denied their validity and only resorted to accusing Russia of cyber attacks and trying to influence the US election, which actually does the most to verify to the public that they are indeed kosher.

The problem, of course, is that it is a game of Whack-a-Mole. Even if she bats away one, another pops right up in its place, which is why I pointed out the political mantra of if you are explaining/defending, then you are losing. This is why Republicans simply give a one sentence answer, dismiss it out of hand, and move on. Sadly, thoughtful people and liberals feel the need to explain the what, whys and wherefores of every accusation....and here I am as living proof! ;-)

Additionally, one always seems to assume that Wiki is Switzerland when it comes to these issues...as in neutral and just sharing all the unvarnished truth. As has been explained already, most people believe that is NOT the case, in this instance especially.

So, in short, the issue is covered...it came from Wiki...they have an agenda. Conversely, it came from an adulterated source either to Wiki, or under the guise of Wiki. In addition, there are THOUSANDS of emails etc, being released en masse, which means no one really knows everything in every one of them, or is willing to speak to each indivdually just through sheer logistics!

I voted early. I voted straight Democrat for the Presidency, Congress and my state races, while being slightly more varied in the over races. For instance, I voted Green Party for my Water District, because they are more interested in clean & green than anyone else...and that's how I like my water: clean! So, this is purely an academic exercise for me at this point, but I've enjoyed the discussion.

Now, three points tomorrow is of distinctly greater concern to me right now!