Julian Assange is finally free

[Jarhyn]

I think that sec

I think Hillary contributed more to her own defeat than Assange did, but he still played a role.

Hillary got many more votes than Trump. The votes were just in the wrong places. I think that's totally fucking stupid.

If I recall correctly, Hillary struggled to connect with voters, and the DNC's tactics against Sanders, along with her downplaying them in the name of "Party Unity," didn't help. Many understandably frustrated individuals chose either to stay home or vote for independent candidates. Her overconfidence and apparent dismissal of Trump as a serious contender gave the impression that she believed her credentials alone would prevent America from voting for him. It also seemed as though she didn't think she needed Sanders' voters to secure her victory either.

Moreover, black and Latino voters didn't support her as strongly as they did Obama or even her husband. There was something about Hillary that people just didn't like. Personally, I never felt she had my back earlier in her political career. In fact, many policies she supported contributed to the increased incarceration of black (and Latino) people. It takes more than fluffy speeches, emotionless eyes & a bloviating TV personality to convince people to let go of grudges. Biden was and remains in a stronger position now due to the actual impact of Trump's presidency. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that even Hillary might have a chance of winning against him now.

That's just my unsupported by any evidence take.

For my own part, I voted for her, but I held my nose while I did it because of her sheer fucking entitlement through the whole process, plus her shitty treatment of the Sanders campaign, like you said. Her utter inability to respect her opponent in a real election (and the DNC's thumb in a great many scales) put a terrible taste in my mouth. All she had to do was treat him like a serious candidate and none of that shit would have happened and she would have won!

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I'm not a fan of Hillary's ties to Kissinger.

Hillary and Henry: Clinton's Relationship With Kissinger

Trump is the one meeting him today, but Clinton is the one with stronger ties

abcnews.go.com

Still voted for her because of the alternative, which is theocratic fascism (yes I'll keep saying it).

 

[Gospel]

I think that sec

I think Hillary contributed more to her own defeat than Assange did, but he still played a role.

Hillary got many more votes than Trump. The votes were just in the wrong places. I think that's totally fucking stupid.

If I recall correctly, Hillary struggled to connect with voters, and the DNC's tactics against Sanders, along with her downplaying them in the name of "Party Unity," didn't help. Many understandably frustrated individuals chose either to stay home or vote for independent candidates. Her overconfidence and apparent dismissal of Trump as a serious contender gave the impression that she believed her credentials alone would prevent America from voting for him. It also seemed as though she didn't think she needed Sanders' voters to secure her victory either.

Moreover, black and Latino voters didn't support her as strongly as they did Obama or even her husband. There was something about Hillary that people just didn't like. Personally, I never felt she had my back earlier in her political career. In fact, many policies she supported contributed to the increased incarceration of black (and Latino) people. It takes more than fluffy speeches, emotionless eyes & a bloviating TV personality to convince people to let go of grudges. Biden was and remains in a stronger position now due to the actual impact of Trump's presidency. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that even Hillary might have a chance of winning against him now.

That's just my unsupported by any evidence take.

For my own part, I voted for her, but I held my nose while I did it because of her sheer fucking entitlement through the whole process, plus her shitty treatment of the Sanders campaign, like you said. Her utter inability to respect her opponent in a real election (and the DNC's thumb in a great many scales) put a terrible taste in my mouth. All she had to do was treat him like a serious candidate and none of that shit would have happened and she would have won!

I forgot to mention she downplayed the importance of Bernie Sanders' message, arguing that we should be practical and focus on what's achievable rather than be swayed by his promises of economic justice.

Edit: Assange had nothing to do with any of that.

 

[Jarhyn]

I think that sec

I think Hillary contributed more to her own defeat than Assange did, but he still played a role.

Hillary got many more votes than Trump. The votes were just in the wrong places. I think that's totally fucking stupid.

If I recall correctly, Hillary struggled to connect with voters, and the DNC's tactics against Sanders, along with her downplaying them in the name of "Party Unity," didn't help. Many understandably frustrated individuals chose either to stay home or vote for independent candidates. Her overconfidence and apparent dismissal of Trump as a serious contender gave the impression that she believed her credentials alone would prevent America from voting for him. It also seemed as though she didn't think she needed Sanders' voters to secure her victory either.

Moreover, black and Latino voters didn't support her as strongly as they did Obama or even her husband. There was something about Hillary that people just didn't like. Personally, I never felt she had my back earlier in her political career. In fact, many policies she supported contributed to the increased incarceration of black (and Latino) people. It takes more than fluffy speeches, emotionless eyes & a bloviating TV personality to convince people to let go of grudges. Biden was and remains in a stronger position now due to the actual impact of Trump's presidency. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that even Hillary might have a chance of winning against him now.

That's just my unsupported by any evidence take.

For my own part, I voted for her, but I held my nose while I did it because of her sheer fucking entitlement through the whole process, plus her shitty treatment of the Sanders campaign, like you said. Her utter inability to respect her opponent in a real election (and the DNC's thumb in a great many scales) put a terrible taste in my mouth. All she had to do was treat him like a serious candidate and none of that shit would have happened and she would have won!

I forgot to mention she downplayed the importance of Bernie Sanders' message, arguing that we should be practical and focus on what's achievable rather than be swayed by his promises of economic justice.

I suspect this is a root cause of the symptoms we saw: that she didn't want to have to be progressive in any way.

Her whole campaign was made of plastic and Styrofoam, a shitty cobbled-together skin mask not even made of actual skin.

The email server leaks were just red meat to those who already felt disregarded and disenfranchised by "refusal to represent". It was an excuse to give action to a number of much more obscure and difficult-to-quantify patterns of behavior.

 

[Gospel]

Her whole campaign was made of plastic and Styrofoam, a shitty cobbled-together skin mask not even made of actual skin.

This was hilarious and well said.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

We've got one heck of a derail going.

 

[ZiprHead]

I know I'm committing sacrilege by equating the second greatest saint in US politics to the second greatest sinner in US politics, but I really do see "bomb them all" as the same as "bomb them all", even if the party affiliation is different.

I’m I the only one who sees this as some babbling diversion?

Yes. Everyone else understands what I mean by "even if the party affiliation is different."

That is the only part that is not babble. Try again.

You admitted my post is not babble, and so you want me to try again. That's weird.

Wow. Talk about a bad faith response.

 

[ZiprHead]

Ah, isn't this actually bad news for journalism? He's pleading guilty to a felony charge for conspiring to unlawfully obtain classified information, which sounds like our government got what it wanted—a precedent to charge journalists for obtaining classified information unlawfully.

Yes it very much is. It sets a precedent for persecuting journalists for reporting information embarrassing to the government.

Even if Assange could have gotten a fair trial, and freed on First Amendment grounds, this sets a very strong precedent for lawfare. Assange has suffered enough so I don't blame him for taking the easy way out, but it also sets a precedent that it is criminal to receive information from government whistle blowers.

You seem to not understand what he was charged and plead guilty to.

 

[Gospel]

We've got one heck of a derail going.

What Hillary? I was explaining that Assange had little to do with her losing the presidential election.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I know I'm committing sacrilege by equating the second greatest saint in US politics to the second greatest sinner in US politics, but I really do see "bomb them all" as the same as "bomb them all", even if the party affiliation is different.

I’m I the only one who sees this as some babbling diversion?

Yes. Everyone else understands what I mean by "even if the party affiliation is different."

That is the only part that is not babble. Try again.

You admitted my post is not babble, and so you want me to try again. That's weird.

Wow. Talk about a bad faith response.

LD is good at bad faith responses.

Ah, isn't this actually bad news for journalism? He's pleading guilty to a felony charge for conspiring to unlawfully obtain classified information, which sounds like our government got what it wanted—a precedent to charge journalists for obtaining classified information unlawfully.

Yes it very much is. It sets a precedent for persecuting journalists for reporting information embarrassing to the government.

Even if Assange could have gotten a fair trial, and freed on First Amendment grounds, this sets a very strong precedent for lawfare. Assange has suffered enough so I don't blame him for taking the easy way out, but it also sets a precedent that it is criminal to receive information from government whistle blowers.

You seem to not understand what he was charged and plead guilty to.

He plead guilty to a bullshit charge. If Woodward and Bernstein had been held to the same standard as Assange, Nixon would have finished his second term in peace.

 

[Gospel]

It's not a baseless charge if communications prove that he attempted to help Chelsea find a password to gain unauthorized access to a profile for retrieving and sharing classified documents. The USA has a case, and our media remains protected as long as they don't provide such assistance when obtaining information from whistleblowers.

 

[ZiprHead]

I know I'm committing sacrilege by equating the second greatest saint in US politics to the second greatest sinner in US politics, but I really do see "bomb them all" as the same as "bomb them all", even if the party affiliation is different.

I’m I the only one who sees this as some babbling diversion?

Yes. Everyone else understands what I mean by "even if the party affiliation is different."

That is the only part that is not babble. Try again.

You admitted my post is not babble, and so you want me to try again. That's weird.

Wow. Talk about a bad faith response.

LD is good at bad faith responses.

Ah, isn't this actually bad news for journalism? He's pleading guilty to a felony charge for conspiring to unlawfully obtain classified information, which sounds like our government got what it wanted—a precedent to charge journalists for obtaining classified information unlawfully.

Yes it very much is. It sets a precedent for persecuting journalists for reporting information embarrassing to the government.

Even if Assange could have gotten a fair trial, and freed on First Amendment grounds, this sets a very strong precedent for lawfare. Assange has suffered enough so I don't blame him for taking the easy way out, but it also sets a precedent that it is criminal to receive information from government whistle blowers.

You seem to not understand what he was charged and plead guilty to.

He plead guilty to a bullshit charge. If Woodward and Bernstein had been held to the same standard as Assange, Nixon would have finished his second term in peace.

Woodward and Bernstein tried to break into a top secret server??? Perhaps we should alert the media?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Woodward and Bernstein tried to break into a top secret server??? Perhaps we should alert the media?

It is your position that Assange himself, not Manning, was the one trying to break into a top secret server? Assange himself was collecting the data he was reporting? Even the U.S. Government didn't go that far in what they were trying to charge him with before the plea bargain. They accused him of conspiracy to assist Manning, but not of being the one doing the hacking. They accused him of espionage for daring to publish data embarrassing to the U.S., which is of course a huge crime. One must not offend the image of the monarch.

 

[ZiprHead]

Woodward and Bernstein tried to break into a top secret server??? Perhaps we should alert the media?

It is your position that Assange himself, not Manning, was the one trying to break into a top secret server? Assange himself was collecting the data he was reporting? Even the U.S. Government didn't go that far in what they were trying to charge him with before the plea bargain. They accused him of conspiracy to assist Manning, but not of being the one doing the hacking. They accused him of espionage for daring to publish data embarrassing to the U.S., which is of course a huge crime. One must not offend the image of the monarch.

Assange gave Manning instructions on how to break into the server. That makes him just as guilty as Manning.

 

[steve_bank]

If you go all the way back he selectively released hacked governed communications to areas where it would cause trouble which it did. He is responsible for inciting violence.

He was not just releasing information in the nae of transparency, he was actively working against us.

Note as far as I know never released Russian, Chinese, or Israeli information. He actually had a show on Russian TV.

According to a bio his anti system feelings had something to do with his mother and mescal issues leading him to hacking government data bases as a teen.

He is a damaged adolescent who ever grew up. He thought he could sew chaos without consequences.

In contrast the Bergigan brothers and Daniel Ellsberg's release of the Pentagon Papers. He released classified information that showed the Pentagon by around the mid 60s had determined the VN was not winnable, and the government was lying about the war. He did no run , faced up to his decision, went to court, and seed no jail tome.


Assange is a stupid childish fool. He got off on playing cloak and dagger until it got real as did the others in his network. He found it was not a game.

Daniel Berrigan - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Berrigan's protests against the Vietnam War earned him both scorn and admiration, especially regarding his association with the Catonsville Nine.[1][2] He was arrested multiple times, sentenced to prison for three years for destruction of government property, and was listed on the Federal Bureau of Investigation's "most wanted list" after flight to avoid imprisonment (the first-ever priest on the list)[3] and was sentenced to prison for destruction of government property.[4]

For the rest of his life, Berrigan remained one of the United States' leading anti-war activists.[5] In 1980, he co-founded the Plowshares movement, an anti-nuclear protest group, that put him back into the national spotlight.[6] Berrigan was an award-winning and prolific author of some 50 books, a teacher, and a university educator.[4]

Pentagon Papers - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Pentagon Papers, officially titled Report of the Office of the Secretary of Defense Vietnam Task Force, is a United States Department of Defense history of the United States' political and military involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1968. Released by Daniel Ellsberg, who had worked on the study, they were first brought to the attention of the public on the front page of The New York Times in 1971.[1][2] A 1996 article in The New York Times said that the Pentagon Papers had demonstrated, among other things, that Lyndon B. Johnson's administration had "systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress."[3]

The Pentagon Papers revealed that the U.S. had secretly enlarged the scope of its actions in the Vietnam War with coastal raids on North Vietnam and Marine Corps attacks—none of which were reported in the mainstream media. For his disclosure of the Pentagon Papers, Ellsberg was initially charged with conspiracy, espionage, and theft of government property; charges were later dismissed, after prosecutors investigating the Watergate scandal discovered that the staff members in the Nixon White House had ordered the so-called White House Plumbers to engage in unlawful efforts to discredit Ellsberg.[4][5]

In June 2011, the documents forming the Pentagon Papers were declassified and publicly released.[6][7]

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Woodward and Bernstein tried to break into a top secret server??? Perhaps we should alert the media?

It is your position that Assange himself, not Manning, was the one trying to break into a top secret server? Assange himself was collecting the data he was reporting? Even the U.S. Government didn't go that far in what they were trying to charge him with before the plea bargain. They accused him of conspiracy to assist Manning, but not of being the one doing the hacking. They accused him of espionage for daring to publish data embarrassing to the U.S., which is of course a huge crime. One must not offend the image of the monarch.

Assange gave Manning instructions on how to break into the server. That makes him just as guilty as Manning.

That is what is alleged. However, in your post you accused him of trying to break into the server, not assisting Manning in doing so. Guilt as an accomplice is still guilt, that much is true, but that's not what you wrote.

 

[ZiprHead]

Woodward and Bernstein tried to break into a top secret server??? Perhaps we should alert the media?

It is your position that Assange himself, not Manning, was the one trying to break into a top secret server? Assange himself was collecting the data he was reporting? Even the U.S. Government didn't go that far in what they were trying to charge him with before the plea bargain. They accused him of conspiracy to assist Manning, but not of being the one doing the hacking. They accused him of espionage for daring to publish data embarrassing to the U.S., which is of course a huge crime. One must not offend the image of the monarch.

Assange gave Manning instructions on how to break into the server. That makes him just as guilty as Manning.

That is what is alleged. However, in your post you accused him of trying to break into the server, not assisting Manning in doing so. Guilt as an accomplice is still guilt, that much is true, but that's not what you wrote.

I said:

Specifically he helped Chelsea Manning attempt to break into a secure server containing classified materials.

So I'm confused as to where you got the idea I said something differant.

 

[ZiprHead]

Cheney - Invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan
Clinton - Destruction of Libya

Note, I wrote "Libya", not "Bengazi". Bengazi is only one town in the entire country of Libya, and I'm talking about Libya.

Yeah, Hillary did it all by herself.

On 19 March 2011, a multi-state NATO-led coalition began a military intervention in Libya to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 (UNSCR 1973), in response to events during the First Libyan Civil War. With ten votes in favour and five abstentions, the intent of the UN Security Council was to have "an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute 'crimes against humanity' ... [imposing] a ban on all flights in the country's airspace — a no-fly zone — and tightened sanctions on the Muammar Gaddafi regime and its supporters."[20]

Wiki

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Cheney - Invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan
Clinton - Destruction of Libya

Note, I wrote "Libya", not "Bengazi". Bengazi is only one town in the entire country of Libya, and I'm talking about Libya.

Yeah, Hillary did it all by herself.

By that token, Bush is hereby absolved of the entire war on terror. After all, he only gave the orders, he didn't fly any of the jets, drop any of the bombs, or shoot any of the guns.

The lengths you will go to in order to excuse your patron saint.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Woodward and Bernstein tried to break into a top secret server??? Perhaps we should alert the media?

It is your position that Assange himself, not Manning, was the one trying to break into a top secret server? Assange himself was collecting the data he was reporting? Even the U.S. Government didn't go that far in what they were trying to charge him with before the plea bargain. They accused him of conspiracy to assist Manning, but not of being the one doing the hacking. They accused him of espionage for daring to publish data embarrassing to the U.S., which is of course a huge crime. One must not offend the image of the monarch.

Assange gave Manning instructions on how to break into the server. That makes him just as guilty as Manning.

That is what is alleged. However, in your post you accused him of trying to break into the server, not assisting Manning in doing so. Guilt as an accomplice is still guilt, that much is true, but that's not what you wrote.

I said:

Specifically he helped Chelsea Manning attempt to break into a secure server containing classified materials.

So I'm confused as to where you got the idea I said something differant.

Oh, you forgot about this post.

He plead guilty to a bullshit charge. If Woodward and Bernstein had been held to the same standard as Assange, Nixon would have finished his second term in peace.

Woodward and Bernstein tried to break into a top secret server??? Perhaps we should alert the media?

By implication you are saying Manning did try to break into ... whatever, you aren't bothered by your own double standards, why should I be bothered by your double standards. He hurt your patron saint, he embarrassed the holy government. The sinner must be destroyed.