• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Someone tried to frame Assange of being a pedo/taking money from Russia

The CIA, NSA and Congressional Intelligence Committees, all say the Russians are feeding Assange the intel. He is complicit with a foreign government trying to take down an American election. But bob and others here are OK with that.

This has nothing to do with whistleblowing. Anyone who thinks it does is being willfully stupid or outright lying. You are supporting acts of terrorism and espionage against our nation.
 
BarcaDeac said:
Some grade A shilling from bsf in here
Click to expand...

If I thought any of you had informed opinions about Assange/Wikileaks and were familiar with the case in Sweden I might be bothered. Cue the shills rushing to the criticism section of his Wikipedia article (assuming there is one) and posting on here like they're suddenly informed.
 
BobStackFan4Life said:
If I thought any of you had informed opinions about Assange/Wikileaks and were familiar with the case in Sweden I might be bothered. Cue the shills rushing to the criticism section of his Wikipedia article (assuming there is one) and posting on here like they're suddenly informed.
Click to expand...

I'm well aware of the allegations against Assange. I have a very low tolerance for sexual assault allegations. If the allegations are as shaky as Assange claims they are, then he should go to Sweden and defend himself. If he has as much valuable information as he claims to have, then that should be enough leverage to keep his head above water if the allegations are actually untrue. The more that I have learned about his character, however, the less I believe that he is being persecuted in this instance.

Your alt-right heel turn over the last four months aside, you act like there aren't overlaps between our politics. As a far lefty, I appreciate a lot of the work that Wikileaks has done around the world. I think that the anti-Clinton work is serving the interests of powerful actors in influencing an American presidential election rather than exposing corruption. At least release the Trump tax returns or n-word tape if you want to pretend to be impartial, rather than just a shill for the fascist right that is keeping your ass out of jail.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ONW
Strickland33 said:
I'm well aware of the allegations against Assange. I have a very low tolerance for sexual assault allegations. If the allegations are as shaky as Assange claims they are, then he should go to Sweden and defend himself. If he has as much valuable information as he claims to have, then that should be enough leverage to keep his head above water if the allegations are actually untrue. The more that I have learned about his character, however, the less I believe that he is being persecuted in this instance.

You act like - your alt-right heel turn over the last four months aside - that there aren't overlaps between our politics. As a far lefty, I appreciate a lot of the work that Wikileaks has done around the world. I think that the anti-Clinton work is serving the interests of powerful actors in influencing an American presidential election rather than exposing corruption. At least release the Trump tax returns or n-word tape if you want to pretend to be impartial, rather than just a shill for the fascist right that is keeping your ass out of jail.
Click to expand...

If you don't believe the documents reveal corruption, they aren't doing much good influencing the election on behalf of "powerful actors". And if I'm right and the documents do reveal corruption, you and every other patriot should be glad they're being released. Why don't they release the stuff you want to see about Trump? Because they can only release what they are given and can confirm.
 
So they have no say in the info they receive to put out? They're just intrepid reporters sitting around waiting for a hot tip? What are you basing this on?
 
BarcaDeac said:
So they have no say in the info they receive to put out? They're just intrepid reporters sitting around waiting for a hot tip? What are you basing this on?
Click to expand...

They don't hack. Please don't ask me to explain the basics of Wikileaks to you. Assange has publicly asked for info on Trump- if they had the stuff you wanted and could confirm it was legit (there are plenty of people constantly trying to set them up and misrepresent what they do- so they have to be careful) they'd release it. Again, they've also released plenty of info that made Republicans/the Bush administration look bad. I get it. You and the other Hillshills prefer to remain in denial about how corrupt your candidate is and are opposed to transparency. Fine. I just happen to disagree.
 
BobStackFan4Life said:
If you don't believe the documents reveal corruption, they aren't doing much good influencing the election on behalf of "powerful actors". And if I'm right and the documents do reveal corruption, you and every other patriot should be glad they're being released. Why don't they release the stuff you want to see about Trump? Because they can only release what they are given and can confirm.
Click to expand...

I'm fine with the documents being released if they're released with a similarly coordinated hack of Trump's campaign and his various industries. What has been released is not surprising to me, though. Check my posts from the primary season: it's more or less what us "Bernie bros" thought was happening during the primaries.

Ultimately, though, I'm not convinced that anything in these documents is actually corruption. This is just what happens when the Supreme Court lets wealthy people and corporations buy elections. Citizens United may have been motivated by the spectre of union involvement in elections, but it's utterly compromised representative democracy in the United States.

I'll ask you again - what in these emails is proof of corruption? What is your operative definition of corruption? That matters in this case, I think.

And gtfo about discretion. Assange is releasing this information (and acting) like he works at TMZ, for maximum exposure. He could release everything he has right now in a .txt file if he wasn't in it for the notoriety.
 
Strickland33 said:
I'm fine with the documents being released if they're released with a similarly coordinated hack of Trump's campaign and his various industries. What has been released is not surprising to me, though. Check my posts from the primary season: it's more or less what us "Bernie bros" thought was happening during the primaries.

Ultimately, though, I'm not convinced that anything in these documents is actually corruption. This is just what happens when the Supreme Court lets wealthy people and corporations buy elections. Citizens United may have been motivated by the spectre of union involvement in elections, but it's utterly compromised representative democracy in the United States.

I'll ask you again - what in these emails is proof of corruption? What is your operative definition of corruption? That matters in this case, I think.

And gtfo about discretion. Assange is releasing this information (and acting) like he works at TMZ, for maximum exposure. He could release everything he has right now in a .txt file if he wasn't in it for the notoriety.
Click to expand...

The people who supply him with leaks do so at great personal risk. He has an obligation to them to see that as many eyes look at these documents as possible. You're right he's going for maximum exposure. If the documents are valid, so what? That's a good thing, unless you prefer the truth remain hidden and the public remain ignorant. I don't think an ignorant and compliant public are a recipe for success when it comes to democracy.
 
Who cares about Assange's issues with Sweden now? We know he's too much of a coward to face the court.

The ONLY issue that matters now is that Assange is conspiring with the Russian government to bring down an American election. This is an act of cyber war.

bob fully supports an act of war against our democracy and nation. His irrational, demented, driven hatred of Hillary Clinton has led to turn his back on America. Unless he's just so stupid that he doesn't get what's going on at this point.

And it goes beyond just playing with our election. Putin is attempting to put a Russian puppet regime the White House. Given the people around Trump this is indisputable.

But bob hates Hillary more than he loves America and supports this act of war against all of us. His compulsive, batshit crazy antics are one thing, but supporting an adversary taking over our Executive Branch is a bridge too far.
 
Strickland33 said:
I'm fine with the documents being released if they're released with a similarly coordinated hack of Trump's campaign and his various industries. What has been released is not surprising to me, though. Check my posts from the primary season: it's more or less what us "Bernie bros" thought was happening during the primaries.

Ultimately, though, I'm not convinced that anything in these documents is actually corruption. This is just what happens when the Supreme Court lets wealthy people and corporations buy elections. Citizens United may have been motivated by the spectre of union involvement in elections, but it's utterly compromised representative democracy in the United States.

I'll ask you again - what in these emails is proof of corruption? What is your operative definition of corruption? That matters in this case, I think.

And gtfo about discretion. Assange is releasing this information (and acting) like he works at TMZ, for maximum exposure. He could release everything he has right now in a .txt file if he wasn't in it for the notoriety.
Click to expand...

As far as what's been released is not surprising- since when does something have to be surprising to you for it to reveal corruption? If you or anyone else wants to get informed on what's in the documents start here. It's a partisan take but it's pretty thorough. There have been 11 parts so far, so to get a sense of what's been released you need to click on each part.
https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/583hpd/new_wikileaks_podesta_emails_part_11_2000_more/?ref=share&ref_source=link
 
BobStackFan4Life said:
You're right he's going for maximum exposure.
Click to expand...

I think that you're misreading my post. I think that Assange is in it for Assange at this point. The best thing that he does is put his face in front of all of the information that he shares (to protect the people who share it with him and also build his "brand").

Again, I agree with the aim of Wikileaks in general, but I think that Assange is an awful messenger. I interpret what he is doing to be in the interest of a lot of foreign governments and think that he is playing politics at the expense of actually helping people. I agree with you that an ignorant and compliant public is a recipe for disaster. The Trump campaign is a good example of how that plays out. Additionally, we've had much worse presidents over the last 40 years than what I expect from Hillary Clinton (Bill, W, Ronny, Carter). The next 8 years may suck, but we've been through worse as a country.

The American people - even your beloved Hillshills - are well aware of how career politicians like the Clintons conduct themselves. It's not corruption in a legal sense (unless you can argue otherwise - I'm open to hearing your argument, but you haven't shared one yet). This is the politics "we the people" empowered with crap like Citizens United and an uninformed, easy-to-manipulate electorate.
 
I support the concept of keeping governments honest. I think Chelsea Manning did, too. However, Assange deceived her into stealing massive amounts of intel that put US troops and our allies at risk. By doing so Assange got famous and Manning got 35 years.

Snowden could have done a great service for our nation. Once again, Assange's ego and narcissism got in the way. Snowden stole materials that put many lives in danger. Anyone who thinks Putin is allowing Snowden to stay in Russia with giving Putin information is deluding themselves.

Assange is in this with the Russians to enhance his own fame. But he should watch his back. If he ever gets out of the Ecuadorian Embassy, Putin is not above murdering him if he's of no further use to the former KGB leader as he did to the journalist and his most recent contender in Russian elections.
 
Strickland33 said:
I think that you're misreading my post. I think that Assange is in it for Assange at this point. The best thing that he does is put his face in front of all of the information that he shares (to protect the people who share it with him and also build his "brand").

Again, I agree with the aim of Wikileaks in general, but I think that Assange is an awful messenger. I interpret what he is doing to be in the interest of a lot of foreign governments and think that he is playing politics at the expense of actually helping people. I agree with you that an ignorant and compliant public is a recipe for disaster. The Trump campaign is a good example of how that plays out. Additionally, we've had much worse presidents over the last 40 years than what I expect from Hillary Clinton (Bill, W, Ronny, Carter). The next 8 years may suck, but we've been through worse as a country.

The American people - even your beloved Hillshills - are well aware of how career politicians like the Clintons conduct themselves. It's not corruption in a legal sense (unless you can argue otherwise - I'm open to hearing your argument, but you haven't shared one yet). This is the politics "we the people" empowered with crap like Citizens United and an uninformed, easy-to-manipulate electorate.
Click to expand...

So well said. To me these Wikileaks and much of this other crap are like this video going around of how gummy candies are made going backwards.


It tells me what I already know, but in more specific detail. Is it gross? Yeah. Am I going to stop eating gummies? Hell no. Gummies are delicious, especially compared to the shittier candies out there.
 
Strickland33 said:
I think that you're misreading my post. I think that Assange is in it for Assange at this point. The best thing that he does is put his face in front of all of the information that he shares (to protect the people who share it with him and also build his "brand").

Again, I agree with the aim of Wikileaks in general, but I think that Assange is an awful messenger. I interpret what he is doing to be in the interest of a lot of foreign governments and think that he is playing politics at the expense of actually helping people. I agree with you that an ignorant and compliant public is a recipe for disaster. The Trump campaign is a good example of how that plays out. Additionally, we've had much worse presidents over the last 40 years than what I expect from Hillary Clinton (Bill, W, Ronny, Carter). The next 8 years may suck, but we've been through worse as a country.

The American people - even your beloved Hillshills - are well aware of how career politicians like the Clintons conduct themselves. It's not corruption in a legal sense (unless you can argue otherwise - I'm open to hearing your argument, but you haven't shared one yet). This is the politics "we the people" empowered with crap like Citizens United and an uninformed, easy-to-manipulate electorate.
Click to expand...





so, why vote for it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top