Quote:In other words, they released some things that didn't favor your candidate (Hillary), so you have to discredit them somehow.
Wikileaks doesn't care if you're Republican or Democrat. If they have something worthwhile, they're going to release it.
You're delusional if you don't see bias in what is released. Assange had an extreme [BAD WORD REMOVED] for the Clintons, in particular, and I'm not saying this due to my political preferences. It's very evident.
Quote:You're delusional if you don't see bias in what is released. Assange had an extreme [BAD WORD REMOVED] for the Clintons, in particular, and I'm not saying this due to my political preferences. It's very evident.
Wikileaks posts documents regarding corrupt politicians.
Hilliary was a corrupt politician who wasn't very good at hiding it.
You're delusional if you think posting the abundance of evidence regarding her corruption is biased.
Did Wikileaks expose a secret sale of arms to Iran in order to finance a guerilla war in Central America with the full knowledge of the US president?
If not, come back to me with something actually scandalous. The bar's been raised pretty high.
Quote:Did Wikileaks expose a secret sale of arms to Iran in order to finance a guerilla war in Central America with the full knowledge of the US president?
If not, come back to me with something actually scandalous. The bar's been raised pretty high.
Shhh
Calling our their senile idol!
Quote:Wikileaks posts documents regarding corrupt politicians.
Hilliary was a corrupt politician who wasn't very good at hiding it.
You're delusional if you think posting the abundance of evidence regarding her corruption is biased.
Actually, in all fairness wikileaks posts information. That's it. There is no political bias involved. They are actually doing what the press
somewhat should be doing. I say that because they publish actual facts and content rather than "an anonymous source told me" kind of stuff.
The problem with wikileaks is that they don't hesitate to publish documentation that is classified or personal. Is that a crime? There is a fine line regarding that, especially since the website and authors are foreign nationals. Any reputable news organization would not publicly disclose
known classified information.
As I said before though, the real story is how they got the information that they're posting right now. Something like that can only be obtained from an inside source, The real crime in this case is the person that leaked the information, not the information itself. That's why Edward Snowden (the coward) won't set foot on U.S. soil. What he did was wrong, even though I understand what he was trying to do.
People might be "shocked" or "appalled" that the government is using tools like this. The fact of the matter is, it's been happening for decades. The immediate reaction is that the government has this "power" to conduct surveillance or hack certain things. People immediately equate that to a "big brother" scenario where a government uses these tools on their own people.. The truth is that these tools are used for operations that shouldn't be discussed.
I would recommend people research and understand exactly what the stuxnet virus was about. That piece of code was targeted, direct and very careful about what it did. What makes it even more interesting is the number of
zero day exploits that it used. Most typical "hacks" might exploit 1 zero day. Stuxnet used several.
Quote:You're delusional if you don't see bias in what is released. Assange had an extreme [BAD WORD REMOVED] for the Clintons, in particular, and I'm not saying this due to my political preferences. It's very evident.
You're delusional if you see bias in what is released.
Was information provided by Edward Snowden "biased" in any way?
Care to cite any evidence to back up your claim?
Personally, I think wikileaks should be shut down in some ways, but yet I am a supporter of free information. I wouldn't have a problem with the website if they redacted personal information and classified information. The problem is that they don't redact anything, and that could be damaging.
Quote:Wikileaks posts documents regarding corrupt politicians.
Hilliary was a corrupt politician who wasn't very good at hiding it.
You're delusional if you think posting the abundance of evidence regarding her corruption is biased.
I did not say she wasn't deserving of Assange's attention. Do you believe only Democratic email servers were hacked?
Quote:You're delusional if you see bias in what is released.
Was information provided by Edward Snowden "biased" in any way?
Care to cite any evidence to back up your claim?
Personally, I think wikileaks should be shut down in some ways, but yet I am a supporter of free information. I wouldn't have a problem with the website if they redacted personal information and classified information. The problem is that they don't redact anything, and that could be damaging.
I am talking specifically about what occurred during the last election season.
Quote:I am talking specifically about what occurred during the last election season.
The thing is, it doesn't show or "prove" bias in an way towards anyone (or any specific political party). Do you seriously think that if data was leaked from the GOP or more specifically the Trump campaign that it would have been held back?
Wikileaks just posts information, regardless of the origin. I have never seen any bias towards a political party, agenda, country, etc. whatsoever.
That makes wikileaks both good and bad. It's independent and neutral. Liberals despise what they post when it reveals bad things about the liberal agenda, the same way that conservatives despise it when they post things against them. What is troubling though is when they post documents that aren't meant for "public eyes". That goes for documents regarding national security as well as emails from the DNC.
As I've eluded to many times before though, wikileaks isn't the problem. The problem is HOW they get their information. Many times the information was obtained illegally (the DNC emails as an example) as well as classified documents from NSA or any of the other government entities. THAT'S the real problem.
The recent published release by wikileaks has data and documents that could have only been obtained by an inside source.
Quote:Wikileaks posts documents regarding corrupt politicians.
Hilliary was a corrupt politician who wasn't very good at hiding it.
You're delusional if you think posting the abundance of evidence regarding her corruption is biased.
Trump is a corrupt non politician
Quote:In other words, they released some things that didn't favor your candidate (Hillary), so you have to discredit them somehow.
Wikileaks doesn't care if you're Republican or Democrat. If they have something worthwhile, they're going to release it.
You see this argument doesn't work on me as I'm not affiliated to any side. I have been anti-hilary and anti-trump. I'm not a "Conservative" and certainly not a "Democrat" either.
Quote:The thing is, it doesn't show or "prove" bias in an way towards anyone (or any specific political party). Do you seriously think that if data was leaked from the GOP or more specifically the Trump campaign that it would have been held back?
Wikileaks just posts information, regardless of the origin. I have never seen any bias towards a political party, agenda, country, etc. whatsoever.
That makes wikileaks both good and bad. It's independent and neutral. Liberals despise what they post when it reveals bad things about the liberal agenda, the same way that conservatives despise it when they post things against them. What is troubling though is when they post documents that aren't meant for "public eyes". That goes for documents regarding national security as well as emails from the DNC.
As I've eluded to many times before though, wikileaks isn't the problem. The problem is HOW they get their information. Many times the information was obtained illegally (the DNC emails as an example) as well as classified documents from NSA or any of the other government entities. THAT'S the real problem.
The recent published release by wikileaks has data and documents that could have only been obtained by an inside source.
Yes, I seriously believe this is possible. Assange has particular disdain for the Clintons, perhaps deservedly so, and has expressed support for Trump.
Anybody check out this vault 7?
Quote:Did Wikileaks expose a secret sale of arms to Iran in order to finance a guerilla war in Central America with the full knowledge of the US president?
If not, come back to me with something actually scandalous. The bar's been raised pretty high.
Pretty sure :"Fast and Furious" evened it out. The fact that there was no internet let alone Wikileaks not withstanding.
Quote:Big wikileaks fan but its been compromised. The beauty of wikileaks for me was that it rarely showed political bias and I could trust it as a source of info. Now it seems there has been a real shift and is keeping Trump clean as can be during all of this. It does a huge resource still keeping citizens aware in a world of misinformation but its not the anti-government site it once was.
Could it be that despite the communist media vermin, Trump actually has not done anything wrong. If you listen to the psychopaths in the media and on the left long enough, it starts to sound real, but it doesn't make it real.
Quote:Could it be that despite the communist media vermin, Trump actually has not done anything wrong. If you listen to the psychopaths in the media and on the left long enough, it starts to sound real, but it doesn't make it real.
Hitler said if you're gonna tie a lie, tell a big one and tell it often. And the Left sure has taken up this Mantra
Quote:Hitler said if you're gonna tie a lie, tell a big one and tell it often. And the Left sure has taken up this Mantra
You can tell when a liberal is lying. It's when their little rat-like lips are moving.
Quote:You can tell when a liberal is lying. It's when their little rat-like lips are moving.
lol ... you are one insecure guy. Why are you so afraid?