It's always funny to read anecdotal evidence like yours, because the experience is just so absolutely terrible that if it were somehow endemic to the entire platform there would be literal torches and pitchforks involved.
That said, unless you specifically bought an HP machine in the absolute top tier of the product lineup you're comparing a Camry to a Cadillac (Not the best analogy considering that Cadillac makes terrible SUVs these days) and Windows hardware tends to top out at the midrange for Apple's overpriced gear in the vast majority of cases.
And on top of all those things, it's also used to try and ensure that people get paid for the work they do writing software, making movies and other media. Did TFA even mention that at all?
It proves that those documents are legit, but nothing about any others. The longer documents are in the possession of wikileaks and unreleased, the longer they have to potentially manipulate data.
The media, including the "MSN" has reported heavily on every single claim and investigation on Hillary Clinton for the past 30 years. There has been no covering up anything, and every report about this election calls out how disliked she is. There's just nothing there that makes her corrupt in any way that the whole system isn't as well.
If we wanted him dead, he'd just get a dose of Polonium. It's not exactly hard for a government to kill someone whose location is always known and contained. Even if he's in an embassy.
I dunno. On one hand you've got a former first lady, successful senator and secretary of state, and on the other side you have a former reality TV show host that won't prove he's not broke or in debt to foreign powers. I think one of those choices is pretty damn good and it's not the guy that lost money in the casino business.
Bernie handled things well, it was sadly some of his supporters that didn't. I made several predictions during the campaign regarding how Bernie's run would go. And was right pretty much every time.
You hit the nail on the head there, but most of us trying to point out the moral issues with the way Wikileaks is conducting themselves now are getting modded trolls.
I don't imagine that Wikileaks has anything to do with causing the DDOS, but wouldn't be surprised at all if someone claiming to be behind it contacted Wikileaks to take credit as a sign of support.
Unless there's a conspiracy to alter the evidence on the part of the people whose information was leaked. Google can't get involved without protracted legal action and a forced reveal, otherwise they'd lose any shot at trying to be a trustworthy service for *anyone*.
If you send me an email, someone hacks into my computer and distributes it, and then we both go "Oh, shit, that shouldn't have gotten out there!" and modified our copies of the original mail - you get a complete stalemate, because it's an easy argument that the hacker is the one that changed the file.
Where does Wikileaks or Assange claim to operate as a neutral information broker? I think you'll find that newspapers across the world often have an editorial page, and even their headline stories, as you may have noticed, can seem to fortuitously appear at opportune times.
When Wikileaks made it big, they had a simple claim of "no filter" access to leaked documentation and at the time, there were no signs that Wikileaks sourced information from anyone other than insiders.
1. There's really no way to differentiate between the two, as a large proportion of hacks originate from someone with inside knowledge. If this was 20 years ago, it would have been a simple "leak", not a "hack". It's not like we're talking about nuclear launch codes here.
2. Cry me a fuckin' river. When it comes to peoples' privacy rights that I'm concerned about, a future POTUS is at the absolute bottom of that list. This disturbs me slightly less than leaks disturb the characters on Yes, Minister. May we never live in a world without political leaks (and/or "hacks") of this nature.
So you're saying that the motivation of a person distributing private documents has absolutely no bearing on whether or not those documents should be given scrutiny for truth?
Once again, I find it most disturbing that you choose to focus on the unspeakable crime of someone showing evidence that Hillary is a completely self-aware, unrepentant liar. I don't mean "caught in contradicting statements"; I mean, she was actually talking about the art and necessity of lying as a politician. And you really think the most damning and horrible thing in this situation is that this astoundingly frank little speech of hers wasn't hushed up for all eternity?
I'm sorry, but I haven't seen any actual evidence of what you're claiming. Do you know about politics at all? I mean that seriously, do you know how it works? Have you ever taken a PoliSci class? I haven't, but based on many years of studying politics and the history of the American political system for fun (yes, some people do that) I've found it pretty clear that such things happen *all the damn time*. Politics is a dirty, ugly business and in order to get even the greatest and most altruistic things done, you need to make deals with the devil.
Is that your roundabout way of saying you think it's fabricated? Even though the Clinton campaign refused to deny or comment on its authenticity? Because if someone called me a liar and put words in my mouth that were definitely unfavorable, I don't think I would hesitate to mention that it was a lie. Pleading the fifth is fine for an actual criminal court, but you cannot possibly expect any thinking person to take seriously the possibility that this was a fabrication if she and her people completely refused to comment on it, especially seeing as how Wikileaks is not particularly well known for publishing fabrications.
Honestly, at this point, I have no idea. I won't accuse Wikileaks of publishing *known* fabrications, at least. Given Assange's personality and the grudge he has against Clinton, I wouldn't entirely put it past him. But even saying that, I wouldn't make that accusation.
However, with the information we have about the *source* of this data? And the known history of Russian information warfare should lead anyone to being concerned about what they're taking at face value. See some of the links on this page for a bit of background on Russia's recent history in this area.
The way Clinton's campaign has responded to the information leaked so far, wouldn't lead me to think it was falsified in any large way. But, the risk is there and if people get into the habit of taking everything Wikileaks publishes at pure face value, what happens when somethi
Pretty much every media outlet that doesn't have implicit bias in its very DNA has endorsed Hillary, including ones that haven't endorsed a Democrat at all in over 100 years, ones that have only endorsed candidates two or three times in a century, and as of October 6th the number of endorsements for Donald Trump among major American newspapers sat at a big fat zero.
The only "conspiracy" that would be on par than that, if it were actually indicative of one, would be climate science. However, you can usually find maybe 2-3 people in every group of 100 climate scientists that will disagree.
There are a lot of evil things about Trump, but most of them don't need to be leaked because they're already public knowledge. He just lies about them with absolute conviction and for some reason, people believe him.
Hillary keeps being accused of corruption, but even in the wildest fantasies of the Republican opposition, they've never had a damn thing that she could actually be *charged* with, because she's just doing the same things politicians have done since the dawn of time. They're just mad because she does them far, far better than they do. Is she a manipulative person with her own agenda that will steamroll her opposition? Absolutely. But to many of us, she's *our* kind of steamroller. I don't know what your media is telling you about Hillary, or what sites on the internet you're reading, but many of us don't believe she's going to be a blank check for the financial industry by any means. Is she "cozy" with them? Maybe, but at least she knows what she's dealing with, and is in a position to challenge them from a position of authority and begrudging respect from most of them.
It's a terrible thing that your country has to deal with such problems due to sanctions, but unfortunately for you, Russia has really put themselves in a position to earn them. Seizing the Crimea through the "invasion of green men" as it's been called is a blatant assault on Ukraine, and they should absolutely be shunned for it.
Regarding the media in your country and how they report on Trump... well, that's pretty much what our media is saying, too. But at every turn, Trump has chances to say things to disprove those accusations and completely fails to even get close to it. He will quite literally say things like "I respect women, I respect women more than any other man alive." and then follow that up the next day by saying that a woman wasn't pretty enough to sexually harass or assault. He's a cartoon come to life, a terrible, terrible cartoon.
Except Trump's withheld tax returns, unknown business relationships, the use of his non-profit for personal gain, his importing of cheap Chinese steel which was dumped illegally on the market, his hiring and abuse of illegal immigrants used to build his projects (complain about being underpaid again and I'll have you deported!), his record of sexual harassment and assault, his history of racial bias in housing access, his multiple lies on stages contradicted by his own words as little as a few hours later and his longstanding history of forcing small businesses to settle for pennies on the dollar by refusing payment and threatening extended legal battles before he declares bankruptcy anyhow. Oh, and he claims to be worth ten billion dollars because he "feels" like that's his net worth, when independent estimates of his personal wealth range from 150 million to 3.5 billion, tops.
You've got a lot of things that make you want to think Hillary is evil that don't really surprise most observers that follow politics (and she's never even been properly charged with any of her supposed "evils"), and an absolute dirtbag lying to your face and saying he's perfect about everything and always succeeds.
Wikileaks should of course not issue instruction to anyone, that is a technical faux pas. The only thing allowed is an editorial with regard to how those working at Wikileaks feel about the digital conflagration. The only public response should be to send more secrets to Wikileaks to be exposed to the public, so the public can start acting upon them and investigate and prosecute the corrupt or at the very least embarrass the crap out of investigatory agencies failing to do their job, failing their oaths and failing their countries, shame, shame, shame.
In that light Wikileaks should send a copy of the information to the applicable agencies and record and display their response, each and every time, information is sent to them regarding corruption, so the public can watch as those agencies corruptly fail to act upon the evidence of corruption provided.
So, here's the problem with that.
How do we trust that the information from Wikileaks is valid information?
Back when most of what Wikileaks published was actually *leaks*, given to them by people who saw injustice from the inside and wanted to expose it such as Snowden and Manning's leaks, it was a lot easier to take them at face value. But now, you have outside entities stealing documents and handing them to Wikileaks as genuine. Those entities have motives for it, and those motives may not be as pure as you might like. So information can be doctored, information can be falsified, and how do you know when that happens?
There are markers for it, but those markers aren't always perfect and will almost certainly be overcome with time.
Additionally, you have Wikileaks making statements attacking the target of said hack, and publishing documents that have been shown to be modified. (a user toward the top of the thread mentioned one possible way to detect modified files, but was rated 0 as an anon or possibly brigaded down)
In principle, I agree with your idea of an approach for Wikileaks to take. Unfortunately, I don't think there's any kind of realistic way that anyone can trust the organization anymore. I half expect them to release something that says Hillary did 9/11. but have the metadata show it was created on a copy of Word registered to . They've just utterly and completely blown any pretense of unbiased work, and that was the shield that made the entire thing worth considering.
That 'cure' is going to be worse than the disease. Maybe most people around here are too young to remember, but the internet has had these growing pains before. What was it, MyDoom? Sasser? I forget. This was early 2000s, and there was a month or so when things were a lot worse than they were today.
In the early 2000s, it was possible to live life without worrying about whether the internet was down. Today, so many services of various degrees of sensitivity have moved to a place where they require the internet be up and running in order to function. In 2004 when those both hit, you also didn't have anywhere near the number of computers online 24/7 as you do today, given that many people were still on dialup services. 2004 was the year that broadband finally got close to surpassing dialup service for most users online, and everything was still quite new. The total population of internet users was also 1/3rd of today's total.
What the hell is there to leak about Trump that hasn't been leaked, and what would it matter even if Wikileaks had something extra to throw on that pile?
How about his tax records for the past 30 years, like Hillary made available in the same way every candidate has done in modern history?
Hillary's skeletons involve about policy and important governmental stuff. Trump's skeletons are about him being an airheaded flip-flopping womanizer.
Her "skeletons" are all in the open, and not a single thing from the hacked documents has shown anything that surprises anyone. There hasn't been anything of note from her, and very little of note that will matter for more than a few weeks from any of her aides and associates.
Also, Trump's skeletons are buried in his tax returns, which nobody has seen. Oh, and the hundreds of lawsuits against him for shady business practices ranging from failing to pay small businesses, all the way to fraud on multiple occasions. And his racist treatment of housing in the 70's. And his use of cheap illegal labor and foreign steel that was dumped on the market. He is also currently facing child sex charges, though even I'm a bit skeptical about that one. I'd hope to think that even he couldn't sink that low.
If your first reaction, upon seeing evidence that a candidate for the most powerful position in the world has not only been lying but is self-aware of her lies and has been openly talking with industry leaders about the necessity of these lies ("public" vs. "private" positions) and your first impulse is to vilify the messenger... then you, good sir, are up to no good.
If you don't believe any kind of negotiation requires public and private positions and presentations, you've obviously never been in any kind of negotiation worth a damn. When you're trying to make bargains with people who have a completely different viewpoint from yourself, you often need to juggle how you present things and how you work that presentation toward an end goal. And as has been pointed out many times, Clinton's quote wasn't about her doing that, it was about the way Abraham Lincoln pitched the 14th amendment by appealing to people in different ways.
I welcome any and all revelations about Trump that anyone is sitting on, but I sure as well want to hear about Hillary's policy on veracity regardless.
They didn't corrupt the process. I was a Bernie supporter from the start, and caucused for him at the neighborhood level and served half a day as an alternate at the county level until learning that there wasn't any reason to be there that day. There were procedural messes, particularly in my state of Nevada at the final statewide convention. That was a mess, and a disaster on all sorts of levels, but it wouldn't have changed the final outcome.
Did the people in the leadership of the party have a preference? Yes. Did most of the party know that going in? Absolutely, and so did Bernie. Hillary had spent eight years trying to build up her credentials and preparing for this run, and she absolutely stacked the deck in her own favor by courting superdelegates. Does that sting, as a Bernie supporter that sees his preferred candidate on the losing end? Yeah, it does. As much as I'll defend Clinton these days, I'll admit it still stings. But you know what?
If you want to see what happens to a party without superdelegates, look at the GOP nominee right now. Had the Democrats voted for someone less scrupulous than Bernie without superdelegates, the DNC would be in just as bad a spot if not worse.
The Democratic party would have been better off with Bernie in many ways, but Bernie wasn't perfect. His debate performances were lackluster at best, and I was really waiting for the red meat of in depth plans and policies every time he got up on stage, and it never showed.
When it became clear that Trump was going to be the GOP nominee, I was actually somewhat relieved he was going up against Hillary. She knows what it's like to deal with idiots having put up with the Republicans during their long slow slide into insanity, and knows exactly how to play them and give them all the rope they need to hang themselves. And honestly, I think Bernie would have been too good for that. I think he'd have been too nice to Trump, and not given Trump the reason to prove what his natural temperament was.
I don't think Bernie wanted to win. I think he wanted leverage to shape the future of the party, and I believe he got that 100%.
There's been absolutely nothing in the actual stolen data that's been released, which has shown any evidence of actually rising to corruption or anything criminal or destabilizing. What's destabilizing is the manner in which Wikileaks has been promoting and releasing the information, calculated to cause maximum disruption in the American press in the leadup to the election. If Wikileaks were operating simply as a neutral information broker, they'd have dumped it all at once.
A fundamental problem here is that these hacks actually fail the basic qualification for Wikileaks, that's right in the name of the organization. "leaks".
These aren't leaks, these are hacks. A leak is when someone on the inside of something puts information out there for public consumption, which actually has a completely different set of possible motivations. Hacks on the other hand, are frequently committed by people who have a real stake in hurting the target of the hacking, and the motivations involved mean that any reasonable person needs to be more careful about giving the results any actual weight because of the likelihood of modification.
Or just maybe Assange and Wikileaks are attacking her because they're trying to hurt someone that wants Assange punished for acts widely considered to be espionage?
Tweets above from the Wikileaks account are not the kind of commentary you would expect from any kind of unbiased source. Also, Wikileaks also published personal and financial information of people whose only "secret" was donating to a political organization which was going to publish their identities as part of public FEC filings anyhow.
And really, if you think Hillary wanted Assange dead, do you think he'd be alive to cry about it? He'd be dead as a doornail.
If Wikileaks had simply released everything at once after getting it, and not let Assange make his statements obviously made to be clear attacks on Clinton's campaign, you might have a point. But they didn't.
Slashdot Mirror
It's always funny to read anecdotal evidence like yours, because the experience is just so absolutely terrible that if it were somehow endemic to the entire platform there would be literal torches and pitchforks involved.
That said, unless you specifically bought an HP machine in the absolute top tier of the product lineup you're comparing a Camry to a Cadillac (Not the best analogy considering that Cadillac makes terrible SUVs these days) and Windows hardware tends to top out at the midrange for Apple's overpriced gear in the vast majority of cases.
And on top of all those things, it's also used to try and ensure that people get paid for the work they do writing software, making movies and other media. Did TFA even mention that at all?
These are all as obvious as my subject line.
It proves that those documents are legit, but nothing about any others. The longer documents are in the possession of wikileaks and unreleased, the longer they have to potentially manipulate data.
Bogus claim, no evidence that any such thing actually shaped policy or was involved in direct quid pro quo activities.
Counter: Running a foundation that illegally issues it's money to pay for court rulings against its named founder.
The media, including the "MSN" has reported heavily on every single claim and investigation on Hillary Clinton for the past 30 years. There has been no covering up anything, and every report about this election calls out how disliked she is. There's just nothing there that makes her corrupt in any way that the whole system isn't as well.
If we wanted him dead, he'd just get a dose of Polonium. It's not exactly hard for a government to kill someone whose location is always known and contained. Even if he's in an embassy.
I dunno. On one hand you've got a former first lady, successful senator and secretary of state, and on the other side you have a former reality TV show host that won't prove he's not broke or in debt to foreign powers. I think one of those choices is pretty damn good and it's not the guy that lost money in the casino business.
Bernie handled things well, it was sadly some of his supporters that didn't. I made several predictions during the campaign regarding how Bernie's run would go. And was right pretty much every time.
You hit the nail on the head there, but most of us trying to point out the moral issues with the way Wikileaks is conducting themselves now are getting modded trolls.
I don't imagine that Wikileaks has anything to do with causing the DDOS, but wouldn't be surprised at all if someone claiming to be behind it contacted Wikileaks to take credit as a sign of support.
Unless there's a conspiracy to alter the evidence on the part of the people whose information was leaked. Google can't get involved without protracted legal action and a forced reveal, otherwise they'd lose any shot at trying to be a trustworthy service for *anyone*.
If you send me an email, someone hacks into my computer and distributes it, and then we both go "Oh, shit, that shouldn't have gotten out there!" and modified our copies of the original mail - you get a complete stalemate, because it's an easy argument that the hacker is the one that changed the file.
Where does Wikileaks or Assange claim to operate as a neutral information broker? I think you'll find that newspapers across the world often have an editorial page, and even their headline stories, as you may have noticed, can seem to fortuitously appear at opportune times.
When Wikileaks made it big, they had a simple claim of "no filter" access to leaked documentation and at the time, there were no signs that Wikileaks sourced information from anyone other than insiders.
1. There's really no way to differentiate between the two, as a large proportion of hacks originate from someone with inside knowledge. If this was 20 years ago, it would have been a simple "leak", not a "hack". It's not like we're talking about nuclear launch codes here.
2. Cry me a fuckin' river. When it comes to peoples' privacy rights that I'm concerned about, a future POTUS is at the absolute bottom of that list. This disturbs me slightly less than leaks disturb the characters on Yes, Minister. May we never live in a world without political leaks (and/or "hacks") of this nature.
So you're saying that the motivation of a person distributing private documents has absolutely no bearing on whether or not those documents should be given scrutiny for truth?
Once again, I find it most disturbing that you choose to focus on the unspeakable crime of someone showing evidence that Hillary is a completely self-aware, unrepentant liar. I don't mean "caught in contradicting statements"; I mean, she was actually talking about the art and necessity of lying as a politician. And you really think the most damning and horrible thing in this situation is that this astoundingly frank little speech of hers wasn't hushed up for all eternity?
I'm sorry, but I haven't seen any actual evidence of what you're claiming. Do you know about politics at all? I mean that seriously, do you know how it works? Have you ever taken a PoliSci class? I haven't, but based on many years of studying politics and the history of the American political system for fun (yes, some people do that) I've found it pretty clear that such things happen *all the damn time*. Politics is a dirty, ugly business and in order to get even the greatest and most altruistic things done, you need to make deals with the devil.
Is that your roundabout way of saying you think it's fabricated? Even though the Clinton campaign refused to deny or comment on its authenticity? Because if someone called me a liar and put words in my mouth that were definitely unfavorable, I don't think I would hesitate to mention that it was a lie. Pleading the fifth is fine for an actual criminal court, but you cannot possibly expect any thinking person to take seriously the possibility that this was a fabrication if she and her people completely refused to comment on it, especially seeing as how Wikileaks is not particularly well known for publishing fabrications.
Honestly, at this point, I have no idea. I won't accuse Wikileaks of publishing *known* fabrications, at least. Given Assange's personality and the grudge he has against Clinton, I wouldn't entirely put it past him. But even saying that, I wouldn't make that accusation.
However, with the information we have about the *source* of this data? And the known history of Russian information warfare should lead anyone to being concerned about what they're taking at face value. See some of the links on this page for a bit of background on Russia's recent history in this area.
https://epthinktank.eu/2015/12...
The way Clinton's campaign has responded to the information leaked so far, wouldn't lead me to think it was falsified in any large way. But, the risk is there and if people get into the habit of taking everything Wikileaks publishes at pure face value, what happens when somethi
Pretty much every media outlet that doesn't have implicit bias in its very DNA has endorsed Hillary, including ones that haven't endorsed a Democrat at all in over 100 years, ones that have only endorsed candidates two or three times in a century, and as of October 6th the number of endorsements for Donald Trump among major American newspapers sat at a big fat zero.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/don...
The only "conspiracy" that would be on par than that, if it were actually indicative of one, would be climate science. However, you can usually find maybe 2-3 people in every group of 100 climate scientists that will disagree.
The idea behind Wikileaks was a great one, and managed correctly, it could have been extraordinarily useful. But they pissed it all away.
There are a lot of evil things about Trump, but most of them don't need to be leaked because they're already public knowledge. He just lies about them with absolute conviction and for some reason, people believe him.
Hillary keeps being accused of corruption, but even in the wildest fantasies of the Republican opposition, they've never had a damn thing that she could actually be *charged* with, because she's just doing the same things politicians have done since the dawn of time. They're just mad because she does them far, far better than they do. Is she a manipulative person with her own agenda that will steamroll her opposition? Absolutely. But to many of us, she's *our* kind of steamroller. I don't know what your media is telling you about Hillary, or what sites on the internet you're reading, but many of us don't believe she's going to be a blank check for the financial industry by any means. Is she "cozy" with them? Maybe, but at least she knows what she's dealing with, and is in a position to challenge them from a position of authority and begrudging respect from most of them.
It's a terrible thing that your country has to deal with such problems due to sanctions, but unfortunately for you, Russia has really put themselves in a position to earn them. Seizing the Crimea through the "invasion of green men" as it's been called is a blatant assault on Ukraine, and they should absolutely be shunned for it.
Regarding the media in your country and how they report on Trump... well, that's pretty much what our media is saying, too. But at every turn, Trump has chances to say things to disprove those accusations and completely fails to even get close to it. He will quite literally say things like "I respect women, I respect women more than any other man alive." and then follow that up the next day by saying that a woman wasn't pretty enough to sexually harass or assault. He's a cartoon come to life, a terrible, terrible cartoon.
Except Trump's withheld tax returns, unknown business relationships, the use of his non-profit for personal gain, his importing of cheap Chinese steel which was dumped illegally on the market, his hiring and abuse of illegal immigrants used to build his projects (complain about being underpaid again and I'll have you deported!), his record of sexual harassment and assault, his history of racial bias in housing access, his multiple lies on stages contradicted by his own words as little as a few hours later and his longstanding history of forcing small businesses to settle for pennies on the dollar by refusing payment and threatening extended legal battles before he declares bankruptcy anyhow. Oh, and he claims to be worth ten billion dollars because he "feels" like that's his net worth, when independent estimates of his personal wealth range from 150 million to 3.5 billion, tops.
You've got a lot of things that make you want to think Hillary is evil that don't really surprise most observers that follow politics (and she's never even been properly charged with any of her supposed "evils"), and an absolute dirtbag lying to your face and saying he's perfect about everything and always succeeds.
Wikileaks should of course not issue instruction to anyone, that is a technical faux pas. The only thing allowed is an editorial with regard to how those working at Wikileaks feel about the digital conflagration. The only public response should be to send more secrets to Wikileaks to be exposed to the public, so the public can start acting upon them and investigate and prosecute the corrupt or at the very least embarrass the crap out of investigatory agencies failing to do their job, failing their oaths and failing their countries, shame, shame, shame.
In that light Wikileaks should send a copy of the information to the applicable agencies and record and display their response, each and every time, information is sent to them regarding corruption, so the public can watch as those agencies corruptly fail to act upon the evidence of corruption provided.
So, here's the problem with that.
How do we trust that the information from Wikileaks is valid information?
Back when most of what Wikileaks published was actually *leaks*, given to them by people who saw injustice from the inside and wanted to expose it such as Snowden and Manning's leaks, it was a lot easier to take them at face value. But now, you have outside entities stealing documents and handing them to Wikileaks as genuine. Those entities have motives for it, and those motives may not be as pure as you might like. So information can be doctored, information can be falsified, and how do you know when that happens?
There are markers for it, but those markers aren't always perfect and will almost certainly be overcome with time.
Additionally, you have Wikileaks making statements attacking the target of said hack, and publishing documents that have been shown to be modified. (a user toward the top of the thread mentioned one possible way to detect modified files, but was rated 0 as an anon or possibly brigaded down)
In principle, I agree with your idea of an approach for Wikileaks to take. Unfortunately, I don't think there's any kind of realistic way that anyone can trust the organization anymore. I half expect them to release something that says Hillary did 9/11. but have the metadata show it was created on a copy of Word registered to . They've just utterly and completely blown any pretense of unbiased work, and that was the shield that made the entire thing worth considering.
That 'cure' is going to be worse than the disease. Maybe most people around here are too young to remember, but the internet has had these growing pains before. What was it, MyDoom? Sasser? I forget. This was early 2000s, and there was a month or so when things were a lot worse than they were today.
In the early 2000s, it was possible to live life without worrying about whether the internet was down. Today, so many services of various degrees of sensitivity have moved to a place where they require the internet be up and running in order to function. In 2004 when those both hit, you also didn't have anywhere near the number of computers online 24/7 as you do today, given that many people were still on dialup services. 2004 was the year that broadband finally got close to surpassing dialup service for most users online, and everything was still quite new. The total population of internet users was also 1/3rd of today's total.
What the hell is there to leak about Trump that hasn't been leaked, and what would it matter even if Wikileaks had something extra to throw on that pile?
How about his tax records for the past 30 years, like Hillary made available in the same way every candidate has done in modern history?
Hillary's skeletons involve about policy and important governmental stuff. Trump's skeletons are about him being an airheaded flip-flopping womanizer.
Her "skeletons" are all in the open, and not a single thing from the hacked documents has shown anything that surprises anyone. There hasn't been anything of note from her, and very little of note that will matter for more than a few weeks from any of her aides and associates.
Also, Trump's skeletons are buried in his tax returns, which nobody has seen. Oh, and the hundreds of lawsuits against him for shady business practices ranging from failing to pay small businesses, all the way to fraud on multiple occasions. And his racist treatment of housing in the 70's. And his use of cheap illegal labor and foreign steel that was dumped on the market. He is also currently facing child sex charges, though even I'm a bit skeptical about that one. I'd hope to think that even he couldn't sink that low.
If your first reaction, upon seeing evidence that a candidate for the most powerful position in the world has not only been lying but is self-aware of her lies and has been openly talking with industry leaders about the necessity of these lies ("public" vs. "private" positions) and your first impulse is to vilify the messenger... then you, good sir, are up to no good.
If you don't believe any kind of negotiation requires public and private positions and presentations, you've obviously never been in any kind of negotiation worth a damn. When you're trying to make bargains with people who have a completely different viewpoint from yourself, you often need to juggle how you present things and how you work that presentation toward an end goal. And as has been pointed out many times, Clinton's quote wasn't about her doing that, it was about the way Abraham Lincoln pitched the 14th amendment by appealing to people in different ways.
I welcome any and all revelations about Trump that anyone is sitting on, but I sure as well want to hear about Hillary's policy on veracity regardless.
They didn't corrupt the process. I was a Bernie supporter from the start, and caucused for him at the neighborhood level and served half a day as an alternate at the county level until learning that there wasn't any reason to be there that day. There were procedural messes, particularly in my state of Nevada at the final statewide convention. That was a mess, and a disaster on all sorts of levels, but it wouldn't have changed the final outcome.
Did the people in the leadership of the party have a preference? Yes. Did most of the party know that going in? Absolutely, and so did Bernie. Hillary had spent eight years trying to build up her credentials and preparing for this run, and she absolutely stacked the deck in her own favor by courting superdelegates. Does that sting, as a Bernie supporter that sees his preferred candidate on the losing end? Yeah, it does. As much as I'll defend Clinton these days, I'll admit it still stings. But you know what?
If you want to see what happens to a party without superdelegates, look at the GOP nominee right now. Had the Democrats voted for someone less scrupulous than Bernie without superdelegates, the DNC would be in just as bad a spot if not worse.
The Democratic party would have been better off with Bernie in many ways, but Bernie wasn't perfect. His debate performances were lackluster at best, and I was really waiting for the red meat of in depth plans and policies every time he got up on stage, and it never showed.
When it became clear that Trump was going to be the GOP nominee, I was actually somewhat relieved he was going up against Hillary. She knows what it's like to deal with idiots having put up with the Republicans during their long slow slide into insanity, and knows exactly how to play them and give them all the rope they need to hang themselves. And honestly, I think Bernie would have been too good for that. I think he'd have been too nice to Trump, and not given Trump the reason to prove what his natural temperament was.
I don't think Bernie wanted to win. I think he wanted leverage to shape the future of the party, and I believe he got that 100%.
There's been absolutely nothing in the actual stolen data that's been released, which has shown any evidence of actually rising to corruption or anything criminal or destabilizing. What's destabilizing is the manner in which Wikileaks has been promoting and releasing the information, calculated to cause maximum disruption in the American press in the leadup to the election. If Wikileaks were operating simply as a neutral information broker, they'd have dumped it all at once.
A fundamental problem here is that these hacks actually fail the basic qualification for Wikileaks, that's right in the name of the organization. "leaks".
These aren't leaks, these are hacks. A leak is when someone on the inside of something puts information out there for public consumption, which actually has a completely different set of possible motivations. Hacks on the other hand, are frequently committed by people who have a real stake in hurting the target of the hacking, and the motivations involved mean that any reasonable person needs to be more careful about giving the results any actual weight because of the likelihood of modification.
Or just maybe Assange and Wikileaks are attacking her because they're trying to hurt someone that wants Assange punished for acts widely considered to be espionage?
https://theintercept.com/2016/...
Tweets above from the Wikileaks account are not the kind of commentary you would expect from any kind of unbiased source. Also, Wikileaks also published personal and financial information of people whose only "secret" was donating to a political organization which was going to publish their identities as part of public FEC filings anyhow.
And really, if you think Hillary wanted Assange dead, do you think he'd be alive to cry about it? He'd be dead as a doornail.
A lot of major sites were also down, I couldn't get to The Verge for most of the morning and afternoon today. West coast here as well.
Start here, and you'll see plenty of source links.
http://www.politifact.com/trut...
If Wikileaks had simply released everything at once after getting it, and not let Assange make his statements obviously made to be clear attacks on Clinton's campaign, you might have a point. But they didn't.
If America was in orbit, we wouldn't have to deal with the bullshit China and Russia spread around the globe.