$20.00
Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
73 Posts
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Assange/Wikileaks promises an October surprise rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
J.D. Hall
msg tools
To give him his due, Assange apparently doesn't like either candidate for president.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/26/assange-slams-inc...

Two points:

1. The headline above the article...(m)edia for politicizing the election. Uhm, it's a political election. How do the networks unpoliticize an election? I know what the headline writer meant, but he/she messed it up.

2. Assange's line about not finding anything worse about Trump than what Trump himself says is classic.

And, as always, the comments below any Fox News article are the best part. RSP comes off like the Alquonquin Roundtable (no idea how to speel that LOL) next to the comments at Fox.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
He really wants to be relevent again.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Assange/ìWikileaks promises an October surprise
He also holds the u.s. directly responsible for ruining his life. Which it is.

And it's going to continue to do so under clinton. So he can only hope a successful attack on Clinton will earn him some good will from trump. Which it won't because trump isn't wired that way.

But even if it doesnt, he has nothing to do with his life except fuck the u.s. any way he can until he dies or goes to prison for a few years so he can get on with his life.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
remorseless1 wrote:
To give him his due, Assange apparently doesn't like either candidate for president.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/26/assange-slams-inc...

Two points:

1. The headline above the article...(m)edia for politicizing the election. Uhm, it's a political election. How do the networks unpoliticize an election? I know what the headline writer meant, but he/she messed it up.

2. Assange's line about not finding anything worse about Trump than what Trump himself says is classic.

And, as always, the comments below any Fox News article are the best part. RSP comes off like the Alquonquin Roundtable (no idea how to speel that LOL) next to the comments at Fox.
Yet most (if not all) of his recent leaks have been about damaging Hillary.

Even in this interview condemning political bias it is "Clinton this" and "Clinton that".

The only mention of Trump is a defense.

"I hate Bacon just as much as cats"

"Bacon is really vile and evil and disgusting and I will son be telling you all how much more vile and disgusting it is. I also do not like cats, but they are not dogs"

Se I hate cats just as much as bacon
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Foy
United States
Ellicott City
Maryland
flag msg tools
mb
maxo-texas wrote:
He also holds the u.s. directly responsible for ruining his life. Which it is.


Huh? How is the US responsible for any of the decisions this guy has made? He really has some mental health issues.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
BFoy wrote:
maxo-texas wrote:
He also holds the u.s. directly responsible for ruining his life. Which it is.


Huh? How is the US responsible for any of the decisions this guy has made? He really has some mental health issues.


The U.S. used their influence to get Assange pursued for alleged criminal acts that occurred in private and would have been impossible to prove so Assange could be brought into custody so he could extradited.

The fact Britain spent 12 million pounds on an edge case (consensual sex that became nonconsensual during sex and consensual sex where the consent was given under false premises) that would have been almost impossible to prove in court (the original swedish prosecutor dropped the case) and sweden reopening the case under a different prosecutor made it clear that massive U.S. influence was in play.

Multiple countries do not spend millions of dollars to pursue cases like this. It never happens.

Even if you don't agree, it's clear Assange and many of his supporters (and some countries) believe this way and are concerned about his human rights being violated.

So yea, he's going to dick with the U.S. any chance he gets the rest of his life.

Here's a timeline from a neutral source (BBC).

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-11949341
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/07/rape-claims-ju...
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Sex-accusers-boa...

Finally, Snowden- the gift that just keeps on giving--
http://www.gpedia.com/en/gpedia/Julian_Assange
Quote:
Moreover, some Snowden documents published in 2014 show that the United States government put Assange on the "2010 Manhunting Timeline",[141] and in the same period they urged their allies to open criminal investigations into the editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks.[142]



Is Assange a low life? Probably. Maybe. Hard to say tho. When the full power of the U.S. government is brought to bear on one person, it's pretty easy to paint a bad picture. It smells bad.

I'm not saying the case that the u.s. used it's influence to persecute Assange is provable. I'm saying there is more than enough for Assange to feel bitter about it and act maliciously towards the U.S. the rest of his life.
13 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Vincent Perry
United States
La Jolla
California
flag msg tools
Woot!
badge
I have overtext!
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
remorseless1 wrote:
To give him his due, Assange apparently doesn't like either candidate for president.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/26/assange-slams-inc...

Two points:

1. The headline above the article...(m)edia for politicizing the election. Uhm, it's a political election. How do the networks unpoliticize an election? I know what the headline writer meant, but he/she messed it up.

2. Assange's line about not finding anything worse about Trump than what Trump himself says is classic.

And, as always, the comments below any Fox News article are the best part. RSP comes off like the Alquonquin Roundtable (no idea how to speel that LOL) next to the comments at Fox.
Yet most (if not all) of his recent leaks have been about damaging Hillary.

Even in this interview condemning political bias it is "Clinton this" and "Clinton that".

The only mention of Trump is a defense.

"I hate Bacon just as much as cats"

"Bacon is really vile and evil and disgusting and I will son be telling you all how much more vile and disgusting it is. I also do not like cats, but they are not dogs"

Se I hate cats just as much as bacon


Well, as far as I know, a massive cache of Trump's emails has not been leaked. So why would Assange even bother mentioning him? He is a member of Wikileaks...not Opinions on American Presidential Candidates Incorporated. Give him some leaks on Trump and I'm sure he'll be plenty happy to share them with the world.

On a related note, I find it annoying that in my Facebook feed full of (justified) Trump bashing, I feel like every time I post an article about something terrible Clinton did, I feel like I have to make clear that I do not support Donald Trump.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Foy
United States
Ellicott City
Maryland
flag msg tools
mb
maxo-texas wrote:

BFoy wrote:
Huh? How is the US responsible for any of the decisions this guy has made? He really has some mental health issues.


Finally, Snowden- the gift that just keeps on giving--
http://www.gpedia.com/en/gpedia/Julian_Assange
Quote:
Moreover, some Snowden documents published in 2014 show that the United States government put Assange on the "2010 Manhunting Timeline",[141] and in the same period they urged their allies to open criminal investigations into the editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks.[142]


What is this gpedia crap? First I drilled into the footnotes and got a 404 error and this:

Quote:
U.S. Urges Allies to Crack Down on WikiLeaks

The Obama administration has asked Britain, Germany, Australia and other allies to consider criminal charges against Julian Assange for his Afghan war leaks.

The Obama administration is pressing Britain, Germany, Australia, and other allied Western governments to consider opening criminal investigations of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and to severely limit his nomadic travels across international borders, American officials say.

Officials tell The Daily Beast that the U.S. effort reflects a growing belief that WikiLeaks and organizations like it threaten grave damage to American national security, as well as a growing suspicion in Washington that Assange has damaged his own standing with foreign governments and organizations that might otherwise be sympathetic to his anti-censorship cause.

“It’s amazing how Assange has overplayed his hand,” a Defense Department official marveled. “Now, he’s alienating the sort of people who you’d normally think would be his biggest supporters.”

American officials confirmed last month that the Justice Department was weighing a range of criminal charges against Assange and others as a result of the massive leaking of classified U.S. military reports from the war in Afghanistan, including potential violations of the Espionage Act by Bradley Manning, the Army intelligence analyst in Iraq accused of providing the documents to WikiLeaks.

Now, the officials say, they want other foreign governments to consider the same sorts of criminal charges.

“It’s not just our troops that are put in jeopardy by this leaking,” said an American diplomatic official who is involved in responding to the aftermath of the release of more than 70,000 Afghanistan war logs—and WikiLeaks’ threat to reveal 15,000 more of the classified reports.

“It’s U.K. troops, it’s German troops, it’s Australian troops—all of the NATO troops and foreign forces working together in Afghanistan,” he said. Their governments, he said, should follow the lead of the Justice Department and “review whether the actions of WikiLeaks could constitute crimes under their own national-security laws.”

Last month, a prominent pro-military group in Australia suggested that Assange may have violated Australian law through the release of the Afghan war logs, given the threat the leak may have posed to the lives of Australian troops serving in the NATO-led force.

The Obama administration was heartened by the call this week by Amnesty International and four other human-rights groups for WikiLeaks to be far more careful in editing classified material from the war in Afghanistan to be sure that its public release does not endanger innocent Afghans who may be identified in the documents.

The initial document dump by WikiLeaks last month is reported to have disclosed the names of hundreds of Afghan civilians who have cooperated with NATO forces; the Taliban has threatened to hunt down the civilians named in the documents, a threat that human-rights organizations say WikiLeaks should take seriously.


So the US is asking its allies to investigate the actions Assange says he has committed. That's a far cry from what is in the gpedia article.

I did a search on the verbiage of the footnote that gave me the error and this article was on top:

https://theintercept.com/2014/02/18/snowden-docs-reveal-cove...

Quote:
The U.S. attempt to pressure other nations to prosecute Assange is recounted in a file that the intelligence community calls its “Manhunting Timeline.” The document details, on a country-by-country basis, efforts by the U.S. government and its allies to locate, prosecute, capture or kill alleged terrorists, drug traffickers, Palestinian leaders and others. There is a timeline for each year from 2008 to 2012.


Most of the stuff is related to discussions about what to do about Assange. I'm seeing much ado about nothing in this piece of the narrative. I didn't go through the entire article though. I will go through the rest of your stuff in the future.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chapel
United States
Round Rock
Texas
flag msg tools
"32 inches of Plexi....for your pleasure"
mbmbmbmb
Shoot, if I was Assange, I would try and dig up anything I could about Clinton too before the election. Because he knows once Clinton is in the white house, he's going to mysteriously disappear...Efficient like.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
theodorelogan wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
remorseless1 wrote:
To give him his due, Assange apparently doesn't like either candidate for president.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/26/assange-slams-inc...

Two points:

1. The headline above the article...(m)edia for politicizing the election. Uhm, it's a political election. How do the networks unpoliticize an election? I know what the headline writer meant, but he/she messed it up.

2. Assange's line about not finding anything worse about Trump than what Trump himself says is classic.

And, as always, the comments below any Fox News article are the best part. RSP comes off like the Alquonquin Roundtable (no idea how to speel that LOL) next to the comments at Fox.
Yet most (if not all) of his recent leaks have been about damaging Hillary.

Even in this interview condemning political bias it is "Clinton this" and "Clinton that".

The only mention of Trump is a defense.

"I hate Bacon just as much as cats"

"Bacon is really vile and evil and disgusting and I will son be telling you all how much more vile and disgusting it is. I also do not like cats, but they are not dogs"

Se I hate cats just as much as bacon


Well, as far as I know, a massive cache of Trump's emails has not been leaked. So why would Assange even bother mentioning him? He is a member of Wikileaks...not Opinions on American Presidential Candidates Incorporated. Give him some leaks on Trump and I'm sure he'll be plenty happy to share them with the world.

On a related note, I find it annoying that in my Facebook feed full of (justified) Trump bashing, I feel like every time I post an article about something terrible Clinton did, I feel like I have to make clear that I do not support Donald Trump.
As far as you know, which means you have no idea what he is siting on.

But does it not strike you as odd that it is only Clinton's e-mails being hacked?

Maybe it is just coincidence, maybe he is an unwitting stooge, or maybe he is a knowing agent.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jeremy cobert
United States
cedar rapids
Iowa
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
As far as you know, which means you have no idea what he is siting on.

But does it not strike you as odd that it is only Clinton's e-mails being hacked?

Maybe it is just coincidence, maybe he is an unwitting stooge, or maybe he is a knowing agent.


Trump does not use email, from what I read he never has because of this very issue of being hacked.

The October surprise , we should take bets on what it is.

My guess is a direct link to another pay-to-play dictator.
But at this point, the Democrats don't really care. she can rig elections, make deals for money and break laws and they still defend her.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
Cleveland Heights
Ohio
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I didn't even know Assange knew my birthday was in October. I wonder what it is? A surprise party?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
jeremycobert wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
As far as you know, which means you have no idea what he is siting on.

But does it not strike you as odd that it is only Clinton's e-mails being hacked?

Maybe it is just coincidence, maybe he is an unwitting stooge, or maybe he is a knowing agent.


Trump does not use email, from what I read he never has because of this very issue of being hacked.

The October surprise , we should take bets on what it is.

My guess is a direct link to another pay-to-play dictator.
But at this point, the Democrats don't really care. she can rig elections, make deals for money and break laws and they still defend her.
http://gizmodo.com/has-donald-trump-ever-used-a-computer-176...
Quote:

By 2013, Mr. Trump was still not sold on email. “Very rarely, but I use it,” he said under questioning.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
mbmbmbmbmb
The Clinton campaign is now using Moxie Marlinspike's app Signal, instead of email:

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/08/how-the-clinton-campa...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Dearlove
United Kingdom
Isleworth
Middx
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
maxo-texas wrote:


The fact Britain spent 12 million pounds on an edge case (consensual sex that became nonconsensual during sex and consensual sex where the consent was given under false premises) that would have been almost impossible to prove in court (the original swedish prosecutor dropped the case) and sweden reopening the case under a different prosecutor made it clear that massive U.S. influence was in play.


The UK was responding to a European arrest warrant from the Swedes.
Once this was downgraded the police outside were removed.
If he leaves the embassy and comes into contact with the police he will be arrested and there will be a court case, probably concluding with him being extradited to Sweden, but that is up to the courts.
Of course there might be US leverage on the Swedes, but I think they are probably more resistant to that than the UK is. If he got extradited directlyfrom the UK to the US then you can allege US pressure.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
BFoy wrote:
maxo-texas wrote:

BFoy wrote:
Huh? How is the US responsible for any of the decisions this guy has made? He really has some mental health issues.


Finally, Snowden- the gift that just keeps on giving--
http://www.gpedia.com/en/gpedia/Julian_Assange
Quote:
Moreover, some Snowden documents published in 2014 show that the United States government put Assange on the "2010 Manhunting Timeline",[141] and in the same period they urged their allies to open criminal investigations into the editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks.[142]


What is this gpedia crap? First I drilled into the footnotes and got a 404 error and this:

Quote:
U.S. Urges Allies to Crack Down on WikiLeaks

The Obama administration has asked Britain, Germany, Australia and other allies to consider criminal charges against Julian Assange for his Afghan war leaks.

The Obama administration is pressing Britain, Germany, Australia, and other allied Western governments to consider opening criminal investigations of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and to severely limit his nomadic travels across international borders, American officials say.

Officials tell The Daily Beast that the U.S. effort reflects a growing belief that WikiLeaks and organizations like it threaten grave damage to American national security, as well as a growing suspicion in Washington that Assange has damaged his own standing with foreign governments and organizations that might otherwise be sympathetic to his anti-censorship cause.

“It’s amazing how Assange has overplayed his hand,” a Defense Department official marveled. “Now, he’s alienating the sort of people who you’d normally think would be his biggest supporters.”

American officials confirmed last month that the Justice Department was weighing a range of criminal charges against Assange and others as a result of the massive leaking of classified U.S. military reports from the war in Afghanistan, including potential violations of the Espionage Act by Bradley Manning, the Army intelligence analyst in Iraq accused of providing the documents to WikiLeaks.

Now, the officials say, they want other foreign governments to consider the same sorts of criminal charges.

“It’s not just our troops that are put in jeopardy by this leaking,” said an American diplomatic official who is involved in responding to the aftermath of the release of more than 70,000 Afghanistan war logs—and WikiLeaks’ threat to reveal 15,000 more of the classified reports.

“It’s U.K. troops, it’s German troops, it’s Australian troops—all of the NATO troops and foreign forces working together in Afghanistan,” he said. Their governments, he said, should follow the lead of the Justice Department and “review whether the actions of WikiLeaks could constitute crimes under their own national-security laws.”

Last month, a prominent pro-military group in Australia suggested that Assange may have violated Australian law through the release of the Afghan war logs, given the threat the leak may have posed to the lives of Australian troops serving in the NATO-led force.

The Obama administration was heartened by the call this week by Amnesty International and four other human-rights groups for WikiLeaks to be far more careful in editing classified material from the war in Afghanistan to be sure that its public release does not endanger innocent Afghans who may be identified in the documents.

The initial document dump by WikiLeaks last month is reported to have disclosed the names of hundreds of Afghan civilians who have cooperated with NATO forces; the Taliban has threatened to hunt down the civilians named in the documents, a threat that human-rights organizations say WikiLeaks should take seriously.


So the US is asking its allies to investigate the actions Assange says he has committed. That's a far cry from what is in the gpedia article.

I did a search on the verbiage of the footnote that gave me the error and this article was on top:

https://theintercept.com/2014/02/18/snowden-docs-reveal-cove...

Quote:
The U.S. attempt to pressure other nations to prosecute Assange is recounted in a file that the intelligence community calls its “Manhunting Timeline.” The document details, on a country-by-country basis, efforts by the U.S. government and its allies to locate, prosecute, capture or kill alleged terrorists, drug traffickers, Palestinian leaders and others. There is a timeline for each year from 2008 to 2012.


Most of the stuff is related to discussions about what to do about Assange. I'm seeing much ado about nothing in this piece of the narrative. I didn't go through the entire article though. I will go through the rest of your stuff in the future.


When you do, remember that you don't have to believe it for Assange to be bitter. Only Assange has to believe it for Assange to be bitter.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Vincent Perry
United States
La Jolla
California
flag msg tools
Woot!
badge
I have overtext!
mbmbmbmbmb
jeremycobert wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
As far as you know, which means you have no idea what he is siting on.

But does it not strike you as odd that it is only Clinton's e-mails being hacked?

Maybe it is just coincidence, maybe he is an unwitting stooge, or maybe he is a knowing agent.


Trump does not use email, from what I read he never has because of this very issue of being hacked.

The October surprise , we should take bets on what it is.

My guess is a direct link to another pay-to-play dictator.
But at this point, the Democrats don't really care. she can rig elections, make deals for money and break laws and they still defend her.


No, it doesn't strike me as odd. Whoever did the hacking wanted to hack CLinton. Maybe that person doesn't like Clinton, or maybe she was just a target of opportunity. Especially as people have mentioned above the Trump uses email very rarely, so there probably isn't much to hack there.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
theodorelogan wrote:
jeremycobert wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
As far as you know, which means you have no idea what he is siting on.

But does it not strike you as odd that it is only Clinton's e-mails being hacked?

Maybe it is just coincidence, maybe he is an unwitting stooge, or maybe he is a knowing agent.


Trump does not use email, from what I read he never has because of this very issue of being hacked.

The October surprise , we should take bets on what it is.

My guess is a direct link to another pay-to-play dictator.
But at this point, the Democrats don't really care. she can rig elections, make deals for money and break laws and they still defend her.


No, it doesn't strike me as odd. Whoever did the hacking wanted to hack CLinton. Maybe that person doesn't like Clinton, or maybe she was just a target of opportunity. Especially as people have mentioned above the Trump uses email very rarely, so there probably isn't much to hack there.
Maybe he does not use them as often, what about his doctors records?

Or (as we were promised) his tax returns?

How about others in his campaign?

How about the RNC, why was that not hacked?

To add to this is their twitter feed, which seems to be heavily anti-Clinton.


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Vincent Perry
United States
La Jolla
California
flag msg tools
Woot!
badge
I have overtext!
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't know the answer to the question, "Why weren't other people hacked?" And I can't fathom what type of answer you are expecting since the only people who know the answer are the people who didn't hack Trump(?) who likely have a wide variety of different answers.

I didn't hack Trump because I don't know how to, and I wouldn't want to get in trouble for doing it.

As far as the wikileaks twitter feed, again, they are talking about Clinton because Clinton emails were leaked. What would an organization dedicated to leaking documents have to say about Trump?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
theodorelogan wrote:
I don't know the answer to the question, "Why weren't other people hacked?" And I can't fathom what type of answer you are expecting since the only people who know the answer are the people who didn't hack Trump(?) who likely have a wide variety of different answers.

I didn't hack Trump because I don't know how to, and I wouldn't want to get in trouble for doing it.

As far as the wikileaks twitter feed, again, they are talking about Clinton because Clinton emails were leaked. What would an organization dedicated to leaking documents have to say about Trump?
I am pointing out why I (and others) see it as odd.

By the way, the tweets are not talking about the e-mails, they are attacking Clinton, not the same thing. Even many of Wikileaks former supporters view their actions as partizan and biased.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area / Currently I sponsor gaming groups in Monroe & Alexandria, LA.
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb


jeremycobert wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
As far as you know, which means you have no idea what he is siting on.

But does it not strike you as odd that it is only Clinton's e-mails being hacked?

Maybe it is just coincidence, maybe he is an unwitting stooge, or maybe he is a knowing agent.

Trump does not use email, from what I read he never has because of this very issue of being hacked.

I don't believe that. You have to have an email address to register with Twitter, Facebook, and other online services. Trump probably only uses email selectively and for the most part, spews his views via Twitter.


1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Vincent Perry
United States
La Jolla
California
flag msg tools
Woot!
badge
I have overtext!
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
theodorelogan wrote:
I don't know the answer to the question, "Why weren't other people hacked?" And I can't fathom what type of answer you are expecting since the only people who know the answer are the people who didn't hack Trump(?) who likely have a wide variety of different answers.

I didn't hack Trump because I don't know how to, and I wouldn't want to get in trouble for doing it.

As far as the wikileaks twitter feed, again, they are talking about Clinton because Clinton emails were leaked. What would an organization dedicated to leaking documents have to say about Trump?
I am pointing out why I (and others) see it as odd.

By the way, the tweets are not talking about the e-mails, they are attacking Clinton, not the same thing. Even many of Wikileaks former supporters view their actions as partizan and biased.


Who else sees it as odd that Trump wasn't hacked? There is nothing odd about a person not being hacked. Being hacked is the odd thing. Not being hacked is the usual, completely normal thing.

They are talking about Clinton because Clinton emails were leaked. Their organization has spent a lot of time reading Clinton emails, talking about Clinton to the media, and thinking about Clinton. It seems to me that it is perfectly natural that Clinton would be on their minds. Not to you?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area / Currently I sponsor gaming groups in Monroe & Alexandria, LA.
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb


theodorelogan wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
theodorelogan wrote:
I don't know the answer to the question, "Why weren't other people hacked?" And I can't fathom what type of answer you are expecting since the only people who know the answer are the people who didn't hack Trump(?) who likely have a wide variety of different answers.

I didn't hack Trump because I don't know how to, and I wouldn't want to get in trouble for doing it.

As far as the wikileaks twitter feed, again, they are talking about Clinton because Clinton emails were leaked. What would an organization dedicated to leaking documents have to say about Trump?

I am pointing out why I (and others) see it as odd.

By the way, the tweets are not talking about the e-mails, they are attacking Clinton, not the same thing. Even many of Wikileaks former supporters view their actions as partizan and biased.

Who else sees it as odd that Trump wasn't hacked? There is nothing odd about a person not being hacked. Being hacked is the odd thing. Not being hacked is the usual, completely normal thing.

Correction: It is indeed odd that a foreign enemy government would hack only the computers and websites of one political party. What's not so odd is that it's Russia hacking Democratic-Party computers because we already know that Vladimir Putin supports Donald Trump.

And this news just in: Russian hackers have hacked some states' voter-registration websites, garnering the names and registration of a 100,000-or-more citizens' voter registration.


1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
theodorelogan wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
theodorelogan wrote:
I don't know the answer to the question, "Why weren't other people hacked?" And I can't fathom what type of answer you are expecting since the only people who know the answer are the people who didn't hack Trump(?) who likely have a wide variety of different answers.

I didn't hack Trump because I don't know how to, and I wouldn't want to get in trouble for doing it.

As far as the wikileaks twitter feed, again, they are talking about Clinton because Clinton emails were leaked. What would an organization dedicated to leaking documents have to say about Trump?
I am pointing out why I (and others) see it as odd.

By the way, the tweets are not talking about the e-mails, they are attacking Clinton, not the same thing. Even many of Wikileaks former supporters view their actions as partizan and biased.


Who else sees it as odd that Trump wasn't hacked? There is nothing odd about a person not being hacked. Being hacked is the odd thing. Not being hacked is the usual, completely normal thing.

They are talking about Clinton because Clinton emails were leaked. Their organization has spent a lot of time reading Clinton emails, talking about Clinton to the media, and thinking about Clinton. It seems to me that it is perfectly natural that Clinton would be on their minds. Not to you?
No, there is nothing off about not being hacked, that is what is odd.

Clinton was targeted, that is what is odd.

It looks like deliberate and calculated targeting by a group or body that seeks to undermine her, with (at best) Wikileaks being a stooge.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Foy
United States
Ellicott City
Maryland
flag msg tools
mb
maxo-texas wrote:
remember that you don't have to believe it for Assange to be bitter. Only Assange has to believe it for Assange to be bitter.


It doesn't make a lot of sense though. The UK was sending him to Sweden. Sweden isn't a US ally. I have no idea what the justice system is like there but I doubt it is that bad. The US could have gotten the UK to extradite him to the US, if they had a case. Now he is suffering a self-imposed jail sentence. It isn't a healthy situation for him. The only real way forward for him is to clear his name in Swedish court.

But instead of doing that, he is hiding in the embassy because of some irrational fears.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.