╌>

Who died and made Julian Assange God?

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  looser-too  •  8 years ago  •  231 comments

Who died and made Julian Assange God?

by John Russell

 

Julian Assange has decided that Hillary Clinton should not be president of the United States, mainly because he believes she is a war hawk. His next step was to acquire thousands of stolen emails from the Russians, and strategically dump many of them into the internetosphere on the eve of the Democratic National Convention. Because some of these emails reveal the "sausage making" of the current day presidential nominee selection process, and because the media cannot ignore a shiny new chew toy, the election scene is in an uproar. 

The curious thing is that Assange (and the Russians) is not an American, is in fact opposed to everything about America, and would like to destroy America as we know it. 

Is Trump a friend of America? Has he never heard the saying "the enemy of my friend is my enemy"?  Wikileaks and Assange are not friends of America. Why isn't Trump denouncing them, or at the least ignoring them? The same could be asked about everyone who is celebrating the damage this 'revelation' does to the Democratic Party.

What are the supposed disturbing revelations in these emails? That some people in a large organization hold backwards or at times even bigoted opinions about various things? LOL. You would find this in most if not all of the large organizations in America. Someone at the DNC questions whether "LaQueenia" is a real name and this is supposed to be proof that Democrats are racist?  Really? I know people who say things like that every day of their lives, and they are not Democrats by any stretch. Someone at the DNC suggested that Holocaust Day should not be acknowledged as a thing by the DNC unless there are also "days" for other genocides in history. I think the Armenian genocide was given as one example. My reply as an intelligent person who knows the way of the world is "so what?"  So there was an ignorant individual at the DNC who promoted this pointless idiocy?  What does this have to do with anything UNIQUELY indicative about the Democratic National Committee? 

The two "major" takeaways from the emails that are allegedly upsetting so many people are the favoritism shown to Clinton and the lists of donors and the favors that may be done for them.

Let's assume that the majority of the DNC personnel favored Clinton. There would be absolutely nothing surprising about this. From the time she announced her candidacy she was the heavy favorite among the media and almost all political pundits. At one point Sanders was in single digits in all the polls. People gravitate toward a winner .

 

In Dec of 2015, the DNC accused the Sanders campaign of cheating. 

"The emails include several stinging denunciations of Sanders and his organization before and after the DNC briefly shut off his campaign’s access to the party’s key list of likely Democratic voters.

The DNC temporarily curtailed Sanders’ access to the list in December 2015, after the party  accused his campaign of illegally tapping into confidential voter information  compiled by the Clinton campaign. The Sanders campaign  briefly sued the DNC  but the parties reached an accord, and the suit was dropped in April."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/23/dnc-emails-wikileaks-hillary-bernie-sanders

After this incident, relations between the DNC and the Sanders campaign seemed to become rocky. That is surely unfortunate, but why is it not considered a mutual feeling? 

What did the DNC DO to deprive Sanders the nomination? That is the pertinent question?

The Sanders campaign itself says that the DNC 'bias' did not decide the primary election. 

 

from the Sanders campaign former national press secretary



Now the contents of the leaked emails show individuals were definitely biased, but 7 folks on an email didn't "steal" the election.



---------------------------------

People who voted in the primaries and caucuses most likely had never heard of the DNC when they cast their vote. They voted on the basis of what they saw and heard during the campaign, not something written in obscure emails. 

The other "big " reveal is that money unduly influences the decisions of political organizations. 

Oh, ok. I had never heard that one before. /s. 

I would suggest with little fear of contradiction that every election in the past  30 or 40 years has been unduly influenced by money. It has actually been tracked that the candidates who raise the most money win most of the elections. Were we able to peer into the machinations of the RNC as well, we would see exactly the same machinations that we see at the DNC. Everyone knows this, and it is hypocritical to suggest otherwise. 

Which brings us to the problem with deciding this election on the basis of these email leaks. That is what one man, hiding for years in a South American embassy in London because he is afraid he will be put on trial for rape if he comes out, wants. 

Assange, a person of very dubious reputation, wants to ruin Clinton. This is just a small part of his plan for America, which is to take it down. He is an anarchist, who does not believe in the concept of nation states. 

The advancement of communications technology into a world of free for all transmissions and captures enables one anarchist and his associates to attempt to cripple the electoral decision making process of 320 million Americans. This should not only frighten people, but make them extremely angry. 

And why is Assange so cozy with the Russians?  Putin would love to see the west infected with anarchy and turmoil. It is not only his wish, it is also his plan. 

 

 


 


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
link   seeder  JohnRussell    8 years ago

1

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
link   Perrie Halpern R.A.    8 years ago

Julian Assange is pissed off because he has been stuck inside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for years now, because the Obama administration was going to try him for espionage. Hillary is part of that. It doesn't take an Einstein to figure out why he did it. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
link   seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A.   8 years ago

yes. 

He is also an anarchist who does not believe in nation states. Of course that is a more long range plan than simply defeating Clinton. If we are not careful as a people , all this hacking and the mindless celebration of it could be leading us to a very dark place. Hackers would just as soon mislead and manipulate you as look at you. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
link   1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell   8 years ago

John - you don't even know what an anarchist is -

noun
1.
a   person   who   advocates   or   believes   in   anarchy   or   anarchism .
2.
a   person   who   seeks   to   overturn   by   violence   all   constituted   forms   and  institutions   of   society   and   government,   with   no   purpose   of   establishing  any   other   system   of   order   in   the   place   of   that   destroyed.
3.
a   person   who   promotes   disorder   or   excites   revolt   against   any   established   rule,   law,   or   custom.
 
Get out of your Chicago tower and see the rest of the world.
 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
link   seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  1stwarrior   8 years ago

Comment removed for CoC violation [ph]

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
link   1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell   8 years ago

Name calling - CoC violation.

 
 
 
Spikegary
Junior Quiet
link   Spikegary  replied to  JohnRussell   8 years ago

Amazing how so many Dems are upset with him now, when they didn't have much of a problem with him when it was government/DoD information he was dumping out.  Pretty selective outrage.

 
 
 
Cerenkov
Professor Silent
link   Cerenkov  replied to  Spikegary   8 years ago

Hypocrisy. 

 
 
 
sixpick
Professor Quiet
link   sixpick  replied to  Spikegary   8 years ago

Amazing how so many Dems are upset with him now, when they didn't have much of a problem with him when it was government/DoD information he was dumping out.  Pretty selective outrage.

I agree.  In any case I've never been against whistle blowers telling the truth on either side.  If there has been espionage against the USA, I'd like to know for sure they were able to hack us, whether it is Democrat, Republican or classified information.

No one, by request, is going to make any country who has hacked our computers give up that information and make it public unless they already have intentions of doing so. 

If it is Russia, I bet they don't divulge the details of how Hillary Clinton gave 20% of our uranium to them, because we may just renege and kick their uranium companies out of the USA.

Giving 20% of our uranium to Russia who then sells it to Iran is the definition of traitor.

 
 
 
Randy
Sophomore Participates
link   Randy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A.   8 years ago

Julian Assange is pissed off because he has been stuck inside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for years now, because the Obama administration was going to try him for espionage. Hillary is part of that. It doesn't take an Einstein to figure out why he did it. 

 

He said on CNN this evening the both the DNC and RNC computer system are both made of Swiss Cheese, yet he only releases the DNC mails that the Russians gave him. Personally I think he deserves to be in prison, even if he were to release RNC emails too.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
link   Mark in Wyoming     8 years ago

Hmmm. so WikiLeaks is only as good  or bad as whose Ox ( or cow in this case) is being gored, dependant on how you look at it....

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
link   Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Mark in Wyoming   8 years ago

Mark,

Wikileaks sinks when it is an act of revenge. Both parties are dirty. Assange is mad because he can only walk around a courtyard in London, because he thought he was smarter than the rest of us and got called out on it.  

 
 
 
Randy
Sophomore Participates
link   Randy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A.   8 years ago

Assange is mad because he can only walk around a courtyard in London, because he thought he was smarter than the rest of us and got called out on it. 

No doubt. He hates Clinton and, with help from Russia and encouragement from Trump, he's going to try to do it. Not because he likes Trump, but strictly because he has a personally grudge against her. I think it'll backfire because people know about her emails, but what is being more and more disclosed and is still a building story, is how much in bed with the Russians and Putin Trump is.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
link   seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Mark in Wyoming   8 years ago

I don't think wikileaks  serves much useful purpose at all. 

This is a group operating on behalf of the beliefs of cyber -anarchists.  What is good about it?

The same information from other sources might be a different story. 

We can't have one person or one small group trying to effect elections by the selective leaking of embarrassing material. It is undemocratic. When a major newspaper writes an expose they provide background information, narrative, and the other side of the story. 

E-mail leaks do none of that and exist to create turmoil and dissension. 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
link   Kavika     8 years ago

If I remember correctly, when Assange first released Wiki Leaks our conservative brethren were calling it treason and that he should be tried and convicted of treason.

Now it seems that he's some kind of hero...

Guess it depends on whose ox is being gored.

 

 
 
 
Jonathan P
Sophomore Silent
link   Jonathan P  replied to  Kavika   8 years ago

Yes, indeed.

When he dumped on Bush during his Administration, it was ok.

Now the snowflakes are uncomfortable because one of their own is being sent through the gauntlet.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
link   Kavika   replied to  Jonathan P   8 years ago

I don't think that I'm a snowflake, Jonathan. I'm red if you hadn't noticed. Laugh

 
 
 
Jonathan P
Sophomore Silent
link   Jonathan P  replied to  Kavika   8 years ago

Sir,

I was not addressing you.

 I value your participation.

You have many qualities, mostly good.

Deep sensitivity in the debate mode is not one of them.thinking

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
link   Kavika   replied to  Jonathan P   8 years ago

Sir, I was addressing you

I value your participation

Your have many qualities, some of them good

Deep sensitivity in the debate mode is not one of them. You must have missed the emicon that followed my statement.

You are forgiven.

 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
link   Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Kavika   8 years ago

 

Jonathan,

I was not OK when Assange went after Bush. I feel that foreign espionage is always wrong and should be punished. And in any case, two wrongs don't make a right. 

 
 
 
Jonathan P
Sophomore Silent
link   Jonathan P  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A.   8 years ago

How do you propose we punish these "foreign" interlopers? We've been ineffective at all other means of containment.

And 2 wrongs seem to the be the only way to achieve any semblance of balance these days. If one side plays fair, they end up getting screwed.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
link   Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Jonathan P   8 years ago

And 2 wrongs seem to the be the only way to achieve any semblance of balance these days. If one side plays fair, they end up getting screwed.

The fact is that no side plays fair. There is just an illusion of fairness. And no interloper should be allowed to sway our elections. They stink enough as it is. 

 
 
 
Cerenkov
Professor Silent
link   Cerenkov  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A.   8 years ago

I suggest that the DNC invest in cybersecurity measures for their email. Don't ask Hillary for advice though.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
link   1stwarrior  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A.   8 years ago

If "two wrongs don't make a right", why are you advocating that the second wrong (hacking the GOP) be conducted?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
link   Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  1stwarrior   8 years ago

If "two wrongs don't make a right", why are you advocating that the second wrong (hacking the GOP) be conducted?'

I am suggesting nothing of the sort. Reread what I said. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
link   Sean Treacy  replied to  Kavika   8 years ago

s our conservative brethren were calling it treason and that he should be tried and convicted of treason

Well, yeah. The publishing of top secret and information classified by the US government is pretty much the definition of treason. 

Even under Barack Obama, the inner working of the Democratic Party are not state secrets. At least not yet. Last time I looked, Americans citizens do not swear to be loyal to the democratic party, again subject to King Barack's latest executive order.

It's amusing watching words like treason and espionage thrown around for the records of a political party. Funny how the same people didn't really mind the exposure of actual top secret government information to America's enemies. But the records of the Democratic party, TREASON!

 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
link   Kavika   replied to  Sean Treacy   8 years ago

I'm so happy that our conservative brethren were there to be sure that Assange was properly shown to be a traitor, Sean. The self proclaimed ''Patriots'' other wise known as conservatives are invaluable to our society.

I'm sure that when the bugles sound they are the first to be ''Johnny Got His Gun''...

In checking I actually found a couple of liberals that were patriotic and were quite upset about Assange and his leaks.

Amazing isn't it, liberal Americans that are actually patriotic...What are the odds?

 

 
 
 
sixpick
Professor Quiet
link   sixpick  replied to  Kavika   8 years ago

If I remember correctly, when Assange first released Wiki Leaks our conservative brethren were calling it treason and that he should be tried and convicted of treason.

Now it seems that he's some kind of hero...

Guess it depends on whose ox is being gored.

That was the Establishment Republicans.  The Establishment fights within itself, both Democrats and Republicans.  The people who are wanting the truth have always wanted the truth, no matter where it comes from or who it is about.

 
 
 
Spikegary
Junior Quiet
link   Spikegary  replied to  Kavika   8 years ago

And visa-versa, based on John's numerous seeds on this subject.  As a Military guy, I believe Assange should be tried and convicted and imprisoned, but he has been accepted into an Embassy, which applies it's rights to him.

The question still comes down to, if the DNC didn't mean all that stuff, why would they put it in e-mail and communicate it to others.  They were, as an organization, trying to undermine Bernie Sanders campaign.  If you don't leave the ammo out, no one else can use it.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
link   Sean Treacy    8 years ago

Waah! The mainstream media has been playing the role of "God" in Presidential elections working for the election of democrats for generations. Now it bothers you?

 

The difference is the information Assange has injected in the election is actually real. The media  doesn't bother with that when a Republican is running.

 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
link   seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy   8 years ago

he mainstream media has been playing the role of "God" in Presidential elections working for the election of democrats for generations.

 

That must be why for 28 of the past 50 years we have had a Republican president. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
link   Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell   8 years ago

hat must be why for 28 of the past 50 years we have had a Republican president. 

Assange or the media isn't everything. Clinton maybe elected despite the leaks. Look at the Assange leaks as an attempt  to balance the scales. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
link   Sean Treacy    8 years ago

What are the supposed disturbing revelations in these emails? That some people in a large organization hold backwards or at times even bigoted opinions about various things? LOL. 

With that, John just undercut the premise of 75% of the seeds the liberal contingent posts on this site.

 

 
 
 
Cerenkov
Professor Silent
link   Cerenkov  replied to  Sean Treacy   8 years ago

The hypocrisy is monstrous. By past liberal precedent, we can now conclude that the DNC is filled with bigots, racists, and influence peddlers. After attacking conservatives for ridiculous "dog whistles" and innocent metaphors, John doesn't get to dismiss his racist fellow travelers with a lame sausage factory allusion.

A large number of the DNC are racists and bigots. Own it, John.

 
 
 
ArkansasHermit
Freshman Silent
link   ArkansasHermit  replied to  Cerenkov   8 years ago

The hypocrisy is monstrous. By past liberal precedent, we can now conclude that the DNC is filled with bigots, racists, and influence peddlers

 

One guy puts a bogus thought in writing, ' What if we get a whisper campaign going that Bernie is more Atheist than Jewish?  That will really cost him votes in the South!"

Never went anywhere, never meant a thing to anyone besides the one who wrote it.

 

Full of bigots and racists ?  Stuff and nonsense.

 

Compare that little tweet with the decade of "Obama's not the right kind of Christian", (Rev. Wright).  Wait, wait, no he's not a Christian at all, he's a Muslim!!   Wait, wait - Obama's not a Christian nor is he just a Muslim, he's a Kenyan Muslim, not even an American one!!

"Hillary, is she REALLY Christian!?"  (Trump; "we don't know anything about Hillary in terms of religion.")

 

So, to sum up, we've got prof of a few guys, spit balling nauseous ideals around the office that never saw the light of day.

Kinda of like this;

 

Yes, trash that should not be overlooked.

 

VS

A decade of open hate from the leaders of the Republican party and down to the lowest court clerks.

Kinda of like this;

r;

 

 

 

The trash can be compared, the volume of trash cannot.

 
 
 
Cerenkov
Professor Silent
link   Cerenkov  replied to  ArkansasHermit   8 years ago

Spin it how you want, but the facts remain. The DNC is filled with bigots and racists who tampered with an election. 

 
 
 
Spikegary
Junior Quiet
link   Spikegary  replied to  ArkansasHermit   8 years ago

A lot like the 8 years of hate that preceded President Obama?  If you recall, it was the same form the other side of the fence, it's just gotten louder and uglier by everyone since.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
link   Hal A. Lujah    8 years ago

"... is in fact opposed to everything about America, and would like to destroy America as we know it."

That is a stretch.  He has an axe to grind, but the wholesale destruction of the US is not his intention.  No embassy is going to protect that level of chaos.  His goal is to force the transparency that naive Americans already believe exists in the US.  Had Bernie Sanders started his campaign as an independent third party, he could very well have capitalized off of this and taken the lead by now.  It pays to be honest.

 
 
 
1ofmany
Sophomore Silent
link   1ofmany    8 years ago

Who died and made Julian Assange God?

Nobody. Everybody knows we're God. We turn the world upside down whenever we feel like it -- invading countries, toppling regimes, meddling in their internal politics, and literally telling them what to think on social policy that is none of our business. Now the response is "how dare they" when Wikileaks posts some hacked DNC emails of democrats lying and stabbing each other in the back so that they can elect the greatest liar of them all. All Wikileaks did was pull an arrogant oaf's pants down and the rest of the world gets a good laugh. This is not a national security issue and I couldn't possibly care less that Wikileaks exposed lies. Don't want lies exposed? Stop lying! 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
link   seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  1ofmany   8 years ago

You take a serious matter (tampering with the US presidential election) and turn it into a throwaway line . 

 

Bad form. 

 
 
 
Jonathan P
Sophomore Silent
link   Jonathan P  replied to  JohnRussell   8 years ago

JR,

It must feel terrible to be married to a political party, where you have to force yourself to love the candidate, no matter how horrible or unqualified they are.

My party is not fielding a Republican this time around, which has given me an incredible increase in lucidity on all the events of this particular cycle.

Free yourself, John. Both candidates suck. And the sooner you realize that your candidate sucks, the sooner you can look at other people's statements, and view them with greater clarity, instead of pronouncing "bad form".

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
link   seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Jonathan P   8 years ago

People are not rational about Hillary Clinton. There are a number of reasons why this is so, but it is not my role to spend a lot of time reacting to decades worth of misconceptions. 

Even if we agree that Clinton is as corrupt and dishonest as Donald Trump, which I find a miniscule probability, Clinton is still by orders of magnitude more qualified and preferable to Trump. 

Clinton knows something about the world and it's problems and potential solutions , and Trump does not. 

Would you really see the election of the most uninformed candidate in history simply as a "payback" to "the bitch".? This is the prospect we are offered by those who want their hatred of Clinton to call the tune. 

This election is about the lack of qualifications of Donald Trump , and that is all it is about. Blame the Republican voters for all this. 

-

The issue of the leaks is only tangentially connected.  I would be against leaks being used to influence the election no matter who the candidates were. 

 
 
 
Jonathan P
Sophomore Silent
link   Jonathan P  replied to  JohnRussell   8 years ago

This election is about the lack of qualifications of Donald Trump , and that is all it is about.

To a hyperpartisan person such as yourself, yes. Yes, it's all about Donald Trump.

He's so much smarter than everyone around, it's not even funny. Look at all the oxygen he took up at the DNC last night. They rolled out all the big guns, and couldn't even get to what they were supposed to get to, because they had to give more free airtime to Trump.

Unqualified? Hardly. Out of all the things he wants to do, how many do you think he could actually do without a House majority, and without a rewrite, and without compromises? Zero? One? Maybe two? He can say what he wants, because in singleminded laser vision, he has one goal right now, and that's to get the most votes on 11/6, and he is going about it in a way that could very well be successful, and THAT is the most disturbing thing in the world today. Not these fucking emails. He is very qualified. Very qualified to lay out some of the most unorthodox policies this world has ever seen, and he might actually get away with some of them.

And your asshole party trotted out Hillary.

You should be ashamed.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
link   seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Jonathan P   8 years ago

He is very qualified.

 

lol. Very qualified for what? To bring the world chaos?  That is not in the job description of the president of the United States. 

Trump can't go more than a couple minutes without lying. Who could take his word for anything?

 

 

 
 
 
Jonathan P
Sophomore Silent
link   Jonathan P  replied to  JohnRussell   8 years ago

And how does that make him different from any other candidate, INCLUDING HILLARY?

Don't you get it, John? He's not smooth, so his bullshit is all over the place. Hillary is a seasoned liar, and you defend her every day here.

You should be ashamed.

 
 
 
1ofmany
Sophomore Silent
link   1ofmany    8 years ago

You take a serious matter (tampering with the US presidential election) and turn it into a throwaway line . 

 Bad form. 

Thank you Captain Hook. The DNC and the Hillary campaign tampered with a presidential election by colluding against Bernie Sanders. All Wikileaks did was expose their tampering.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Guide
link   Nowhere Man    8 years ago
(deleted)
 
 
 
Uncle Bruce
Professor Quiet
link   Uncle Bruce    8 years ago

1.  It's hypocritical of the Liberals to whine cry bitch piss moan and complain about foreign government influence.  Think Saudi donations to the Clinton Foundation.  Chinese donations to Clinton in 07.  But now, when a suspected foreign hack reveals the dirty deeds of the DNC, all of a sudden it's a bad thing to have foreign influence?  News flash:  WE influence the fucking world all the fucking time. 

2.  I remember during the 2008 Election, someone hacked Sarah Palin's email.  There was no outrage by the left then.  NOOOOOOOOoooooooo.  They scoured the fucking emails (the AP assigned 120+ reporters to comb through everything they could find, and turned it over to the DNC).  They then (the DNC) tried to have Palin up on ethics charges over stuff they found.  So it's okay to hack the Republicans.  But when the DNC gets hacked, well, that's just wrong on every level, including the bullshit level of foreign influence.

You know what you are John?  You're a Hillary W@#$e.  You're worse than an Obama Whore.  You know why?  It has been proven that Hillary broke the law.  She Lied.  She destroyed evidence.  She lied to Congress.  All of this has been PROVEN.  And now the DNC have been proven to be fake.  They are Racists.  They are Homophobic.  All this is borne out in the emails.  Yet you IGNORE ALL OF THAT.  Tell me you supported Bernie.  Tell me you're gonna vote for Jill Stein restore a little respect from me.  But if you tell me you support this party now, that you are IGNORING THE TRUTH, and you support Hillary, you're a damn fool.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
link   seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Uncle Bruce   8 years ago

Actually Bruce, the world cannot risk Donald Trump as president. 

Psychiatrists say he is an extreme narcissist, exhibiting nine out of the nine diagnostic traits. 

A columnist compared Trump statements and actions to the questions in a widely used standard sanity test and Trump failed. He may be medically off his rocker. 

We can't have such a person in the oval office. 

Come to your senses. 

 
 
 
Uncle Bruce
Professor Quiet
link   Uncle Bruce  replied to  JohnRussell   8 years ago

What's wrong with a narcissist?  We've had one for the past 8 years!

Obama mentioned himself 119 times last night in his speech...about Hillary Clinton.

I can list all the other speeches where he talks about himself, 50, 6, 100 times. 

Narcissism is not our problem.  Our problem is establishment politicians, criminals, liars, cheats who can get away with anything simply because of their name. 

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur  replied to  Uncle Bruce   8 years ago

The independent philanthropy watchdog CharityWatch analyzed Clinton Foundation funding and concluded that about 89 percent of it went to charity — higher than the 75 percent considered the industry standard.

"Simply put, despite its name, the Clinton Foundation is not a private foundation — which typically acts as a pass-through for private donations to other charitable organizations," FactCheck noted. "Rather, it is a public charity. It conducts most of its charitable activities directly."

 I have NOT defended Clinton nor the DNC … in fact, I have repudiated both.

But when allegations are flawed, I'll correct them.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur    8 years ago

Hey Jonathan … two sources, two accounts.

You assume the one you prefer is the correct one …who/what entity will be the final arbiter?

You didn't snap ant towel in Bruce's face.

 

 
 
 
Jonathan P
Sophomore Silent
link   Jonathan P  replied to  A. Macarthur   8 years ago

C'mon man, it's the Daily Kos.

Standard of journalism for guys like you & JR, no?

 
 
 
1ofmany
Sophomore Silent
link   1ofmany  replied to  Jonathan P   8 years ago

The IRS recently announced that it's opening an investigation into the Clinton foundation racket. If they rush, the IRS can clear Clinton before the election. I can write it for the IRS Commissioner now: "We have looked into all the books and records of the foundation and found that, although it might appear at first glance that the foundation morphed from a small operation to maintain Bill's presidential library into a lawless global slush fund devoted entirely to supporting the Clinton's already lavish lifestyle, in reality this was nothing more than extremely careless bookkeeping (from an already grossly negligent Secretary of State). The entire IRS agrees with the position Bill explained to me as we sat in my parked car at night outside Bill's home while I was blowing him and I apologize for any inconvenience this investigation may have caused. If you have any questions, please direct them to the back of my head as I walk out the door."

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur    8 years ago

C'mon man, it's the Daily Kos.

Standard of journalism for guys like you & JR, no?

And you're "Mr. Objectivity," right?

For the sake of argument, let's assume for a moment that Bruce's account is correct.

If you truly are offended by the failure of an entity to honor it's stated financial commitments, let's have your assessment of Trump's record of stiffing contractors, employees and the thousand of lawsuits and ruined businesses on his hands while he screwed them to make himself rich?

Feel free to debate me on any subject, but I don't appreciate your implications.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
link   1stwarrior  replied to  A. Macarthur   8 years ago

And this has what to do with the 33,000 e-mails leaked from the DNC showing their lying/shilling?

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur  replied to  1stwarrior   8 years ago

And this has what to do with the 33,000 e-mails leaked from the DNC showing their lying/shilling?

I have repudiated the DNC e-mails; I'm talking about the Clinton e-mails Trump wants Putin to send him.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
link   Kavika     8 years ago

I hope that Julain and Wiki leaks keeps going. I want to see Trumps tax returns. Laugh

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur    8 years ago

I meant to address this earlier …

Those content to assume the RNC hasn't been hacked "because it was astute enough to have a secure server may be exactly right. And because that idea suits conservatives just fine for obvious partisan reasons … let me give you an analogy that hopefully will at least make you think.

Let's say your house is burglarized … not your next door neighbor's house … YOUR house … although your neighbor's house, from the outside, appears just as likely to contain good burglar targets as your's.

So the day after the burglary at your place, you speak with your neighbor tell him he's lucky to not have been the victim.

You initially assume that "his security system must be superior to yours and that the burglars may have targeted his house as well, but couldn't defeat his system -- so, came to your house and defeated yours and stole important items.

… until you remember that he has mentioned on several occasions, that he both admires and claims to have spent some time with a known unsavory character from another neighborhood.

Suspicious are you then?

Acknowledged that I have created a hypothetical here … I'm no asking whether or not anyone thinks it's what happened in terms of the DNC/RNC … ONLY IF ANY think it's plausible …

Can we have a conversation?

 
 
 
Spikegary
Junior Quiet
link   Spikegary  replied to  A. Macarthur   8 years ago

Though it's funny, the neighbor's house, they left out all their S&M gear, Kiddie Porn DVDs and home videos having sexual congress with various farm animals.

So, the lesson, if you do that kind of stuff, you should either make sure all that stuff is more securely stored or that your overall home security is as good as it can be.  The best course of action is to not do it at all.  Hypothetically, of course. 

 
 
 
Cerenkov
Professor Silent
link   Cerenkov  replied to  Spikegary   8 years ago

Excellent analogy. 

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur    8 years ago

Whoa … and I was worried that we couldn't have an intelligent give-and-take on my hypothetical … but virtually in minutes … the first thumbs down joined the dialogue!

Keep that sharing of ideas coming gang.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur    8 years ago

One of the numerous dangers of hacking in the way Russian hackers/Wiki Leaks is a term associated with such espionage, namely "spoofing".

This entails disseminating fake "information" allegedly obtained via an actual hacking. 


Candidates are a likely target, for any form of attack

Elections tend to emphasize issues that people feel strongly about, providing an incentive to try winning the debate by simply hacking it. Attacks can disrupt the course of an election. Party sites can be shut down by denial of service (DDoS) attacks, preventing them from communicating and receiving funds. Attackers can use botnets, generating fraudulent traffic and artificial support or objection for a certain candidate. Hackers can also steal data from candidates, revealing strategy, voter data, and possibly even hidden skeletons. On top of that, a campaign can be severed by stealing its funds, just like a financial attack.

These kinds of attacks are already happening in election campaigns across the globe. Elections have been targeted by hacks in  Russia Philippines Bulgaria Nigeria  and even in  Fort Myers, FL . Recently, a hacker  claimed  he was hired to rig elections throughout Latin America for years by employing different tactics, including hacking into opponents’ computers and falsifying support for candidates.

 

Hacking and the 2016 U.S. elections

Anonymous has already declared war twice against Mr. Donald Trump’s campaign. Hackers acquired Trump’s voicemail messages and leaked them to the media, intending to embarrass him. In addition, hackers have taken down Trump’s website multiple times using DDoS attacks. According to allegations, the same hackers are also behind one of the two thefts of credit card credentials from Trump hotels.

Trump is not alone. Sanders’ campaign fired one of its employees after  he took advantage  of a software glitch allowing him to access Democrat voter data. To top that, a database containing 191 million voters’ records was  leaked online . Voter records are a valuable asset for campaign managers, but they are inadequately protected.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Guide
link   Nowhere Man  replied to  A. Macarthur   8 years ago

And they still have yet to prove that it was the "Russians" that did the hacking.

You know when I was posting my videos to the site, I was using a Finnish server cause it was a few dollars cheaper than the Russian server I was looking at. The Finnish Server I was using was accessed through Finland, but the server was actually physically located in Paris.

I could right now for around 50 bucks set up a Russian internet server and load email software on it and send you an email from Russia.

I'm almost to Colorado at this point and I could do it right now with my seven year old laptop, a hotels wireless internet connection and my credit card.

NO one has proven that the hacking originated in Russia. and the people that do know the source, are rejecting Russia as the source.

Nice to see facts being ignored to promote a political paradigm that is as false.

 

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur  replied to  Nowhere Man   8 years ago

It’s been a bad stretch for the Democratic National Committee.  Hackers broke into its servers  months ago, stealing private emails, opposition research, and campaign correspondence. Last Friday, Wikileaks made nearly 20,000 of those private emails public, revealing embarrassing details of the political machine’s inner workings. DNC official  allege  that the Russian government is behind the breach. The  New York Times  reports  that US intelligence agencies increasingly share that opinion. According to a number of top cybersecurity researchers, they’re probably right.

A Brief History of a Hack

News of the hack of the Democratic National Committee first broke in mid-June. That’s when Crowdstrike, a firm that analyzes threats to network security, revealed that the DNC had called it in to inspect the party’s servers, where it found “two separate Russian intelligence-affiliated adversaries present in the DNC network.” Crowdstrike  released a comprehensive report  of its findings on June 14, which accompanied a  Washington Post  article  detailing the attacks. One of the hacking groups, Crowdstrike found, had access to the DNC servers for almost a year.

A day after that report, someone calling themselves Guccifer 2.0 (an allusion to notorious hacker Guccifer) claimed responsibility for the hack in a blog  post . Through the blog and an accompanying  Twitter account , Guccifer 2.0 refuted Crowdstrike’s claims that this was a Russian operation, instead calling himself a “lone hacker.” He also claimed to have handed much of the DNC bounty to Wikileaks.

The following week, two cybersecurity firms,  Fidelis Cybersecurity  and Mandiant, independently  corroborated  Crowdstrike’s assessment that Russian hackers infiltrated DNC networks, having found that the two groups that hacked into the DNC used malware and methods identical to those used in other attacks attributed to the same Russian hacking groups.

______________________________________________________

NOTE" Regardless of who hacked the DNC, with the release of the hacked information is the revelation that the hackers/Wiki Leaks or any entity with a political agenda could create "spoof" information that blindly-partisan voters could use to "validate" their partisanship.

A dangerous situation; can we agree on that?

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Guide
link   Nowhere Man  replied to  A. Macarthur   8 years ago

Absolutely agree on the threat.

And yeah a perfect example of it from either side.

But I've been around the internet for way to long to accept that a couple of hired guns can say with specificity in any provable manner that it was the Russians.

Cause I know for an absolute fact that they cannot. Way to easy to spoof an email or series of e-mails from just about anywhere in the world.

One seriously has to question why are they using such insecure methods of transmission? Part of the fault lies with the Democrat party for such a low regard for security in the first place.

Also there is the known fact that all kinds of hacking has been going one for so long no one can claim that they do not know about the threat. Hell we even hack them ourselves for every scrap of info we can get.

But until I see definitive proof that it was the Russians. not some Clinton campaign paid for political hacks that "assess" that it came from Russia.

It doesn't fly with me.

As far as the Trump connection to Russia, that was a carefully crafted campaign hit piece, I'm sure they were not intending on using it this early, but it was a perfect piece to keep the diatribe going at Trump and away from the emails. Which are devastating to the democrats credibility.

I've also done politics for a long time brother. I learned to not listen to the media and look at where things are aimed and what their point is.

And this was a classic spin job to deflect away from the content of said e-mails.

And to a point it has succeeded. But the whole Trump slant/thing has backfired on them......

The supposed Trump connection has died down now and the discussion is over the threat.

but I suspect that the content of the e-mails is going to jump up and bite Hillary for a while to come.

My point comes from this....

Dan Goodin, the Security Editor at Ars, someone I actually know and have discussed this with, (I'm still a member there) said this in his June 16th article ..... (yeah June 16th a month ago, explain that one. a link in your article)

  Of course, it's still possible that the Russian fingerprints were left intentionally by someone who has no connection to Russia, or by a Russian-speaking person with no connection to the Russian government, or any number of other scenarios. The abundance of plausible competing theories underscores just how hard it is to accurately attribute attacks online and how perilous it is to reach summary conclusions.

Readers are once again advised to keep an open mind, and that means recognizing that Wednesday's leak by Guccifer 2.0 is merely consistent with what CrowdStrike has reported. On its own, the leak neither impeaches the veracity of the report nor does it prove it. If the government of Russia or any other country is using hacking in an attempt to influence the outcome of a US presidential election, that's an extremely serious development. But given the house of mirrors surrounding this entire episode, the evidence should be thoroughly investigated before anyone reaches that conclusion.

Of course his point stems from this....

  Dave Aitel, CEO of Immunity Security, a firm that provides advanced hacking tools to security professionals, agreed with the researcher's theory.

"I think his analysis is very believable when you look at what CrowdStrike is saying and when you look at what other people are not saying," Aitel told Ars. "You don't have the FBI or DHS coming out and saying: 'Hey we don't think it's Russia.' If it is Russia, a nation state, it's a pretty big deal. Otherwise the FBI would say: 'We're conducting an investigation.' But they're not saying that."

Which means if they knew it was Russia, the FBI wouldn't be saying only that they are doing an investigation. they don't know and it's all they could say.

Guess what?

That is EXACTLY what the FBI said when this story broke in the media. And it was predicted by an acknowledged security expert a month before the story ever broke in the media.

They (the democrats) knew this was coming a month before it happened. And had a plan in effect to deal with it before it did.

Not founded on speculation, using the same documents used to create the spin, the spin is revealed.

And that is even more insidious and needs to be questioned. (and worried about)

I agree the threat is real, but the democrats lying and spinning their way through it leaves way too many questions unanswered especially with a full month to get ready for it.

Until I see the hard proof, it wasn't the Russians. The lack of reaction from the government proves that beyond any doubt. According to Dave Aitel.

 

 
 
 
1ofmany
Sophomore Silent
link   1ofmany  replied to  Nowhere Man   8 years ago

James Clapper, head of national intelligence, recently issued a "not so fast" statement on the hacking saying that blaming the Russians is premature. It will get more press coverage as soon as the Hillary campaign gives the media the OK.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur    8 years ago

I agree the threat is real, but the democrats lying and spinning their way through it leaves way too many questions unanswered especially with a full month to get ready for it.

Lying and spinning by either party is among the many reasons why we are … as a country and a planet … where we are. And while you are correct to repudiate it on the part of democrats, when some foreign or domestic entity releases what has inevitably been hacked (but not revealed as yet) from Republican cyberspace, that Party (pun intended) will be over as well.

 

AND TOMORROW STARTS THE SAME OLD THING AGAIN!

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Guide
link   Nowhere Man  replied to  A. Macarthur   8 years ago

Yep another day, another corrupt dollar.

Democrat/Republican, two heads on the same coin.

 
 
 
1ofmany
Sophomore Silent
link   1ofmany    8 years ago

Hillary talks about transparency in government but if the government is peopled with liars and scoundrels, like Hillary, then it can't be transparent. The Freedom of Information Act was enacted to give the public access to information because we have a right to know what our government is doing on our behalf. Hillary set up a private server to keep her actions secret not just from the public but also from her own government. With people like her in power, the only way we may know what she is up to is through the release of hacked information. And to be clear, I have the same concern for a government run by an autocratic neo-fascist like Trump. Media owners are campaign donors and their media outlets are more of a propaganda arm of a particular party than anything resembling journalism. Since honesty in politicians seems to be an irrelevant quality to a growing number of people (who excuse a liar by saying everybody lies), then I see the release of hacked information through outlets like Wikileaks as one of the few means by which we can learn the truth and protect our democracy.  

 
 

Who is online



Kavika
Greg Jones
Drinker of the Wry
Eat The Press Do Not Read It


63 visitors