Thank God that's over

[katqanna]

Glad I didnt vote early...more investigating by the FBI.

I am honestly speechless...nuff said.

If you have read any of the wikileaks releases you would have been able to see enough of the emails to make a decent decision, regardless of whether or not the FBI decided to investigate.

I am not an Assange fan, especially with the way he handled the releases or his bias in this election. Instead of advocating for transparency, he had a vendetta that bit him in the ass, showed his hand.

After I told Borgreen the other day, that I had walked to the courthouse and dropped my ballot off, he told me about a local case in Great Falls, just after he had dropped his ballot off early, the local candidate was caught with some child molestation or something. Borgreen said he always waits till a couple days before now. Made me think, I might start doing that just in case.

 

[James Riley]

I am not an Assange fan, especially with the way he handled the releases or his bias in this election. Instead of advocating for transparency, he had a vendetta that bit him in the ass, showed his hand.

Political bias is not necessarily inconsistent with transparency. This is especially true when the bias is expressed against a target who is against transparency; and even more so when the expression is related to that very issue. If Assange is for transparency and Clinton is not, then proving this out furthers transparency. It does not bite him in the ass. It bites her in the ass, or it should if she weren't so good at hiding.

In any event, she'll have the NSA in her back pocket and will use it against all *her* enemies, foreign and domestic.

Assange/Snowden, 2016!

 

[katqanna]

James, do you honestly think that there is nothing telling about Trump, his Putin connections or any of his campaign staff that would not be relevant to people making a decision about whether or not he was competent or worthy to be elected president? Yet somehow, "wikileaks" only has proof on Clinton? I don't buy it.

Assange called a press conference, made a big build up about documents to incriminate Clinton, an "October Surprise", then plugged his book, didn't release anything. A piss poor release Sat. and then the Ecuadorian Embassy cuts off his internet access (supposedly) on Sunday, no communication, no promised deadmans switch release of 89 encrypted compressed gigs of his best data contingency plan, then he trickles out another paltry batch of Podesta emails. On the 23rd, the Wikileaks editorial board makes a statement on Assange's well being, that yes the Ecuadorian Embassy cut off internet access citing it's policy of non-interfence. Why? - because Assange has only been targeting Clinton, check out wikileaks twitter feed, all Clinton, all the time. You want something on Trump and his Putin connections you have to get it from Pussy Riot. Which is very ironic when you think about that.

I believe in the principles of what wikileaks got started with, respect Snowden for shopping around for a responsible journalist that would follow his protocols, wouldn't sweep the data under the rug not turning it over to wikileaks. But Assange is an arrogant ass, increasingly loosing credibility with the tech community, botching the Clinton info releases. If he really wanted to arm the public with info, especially the voting public, well then bloody well get it out there in time for people to be able to review it, digest it and gather any corroborating information that would substantiate the situations.

"Assange/Snowden, 2016" ? Surely you jest. What makes you think either of those men are qualified for a presidency?

 

[BigHornRam]

Old Weiner is like a case of herpes.......he just never goes away!

 

[bobbydean]

katganna.

Lost a lot of respect for you.. If you are advocating Hiliary after her crimes are clearly shown, cannot agree. She belongs in prison. Probably got banned. but she deserves prison, not presidency.

I have always respected your advocacy. But see the truth in Hiliary Clinton, she deserves jail!

 

[Straight Arrow]

But she the truth in Hiliary Clinton

Huh?

 

[bobbydean]

I was agitated, and I edited.

I just wanted to add. I think many women are qualified for the presidency. Full support. Do not choose a candidate that deserves to be in jail. Too many dead people. Too many magical stock buys. Hiliary Clinton is corrupt!

 

[RobG]

The timing of the release is unfortunate, especially since we, by Comey's own admission, have no idea if the emails contain anything consequential. However, if he delayed it would have created an even bigger scandal.

Hillary may deserve prison. If so, every Republican holding those hearings deserves to be burned at the stake for being so incompetent as not to find anything real to hang her on. The Citizen's United decision was a direct result of trying to destroy her, and nothing will destroy the voice of the citizen more than that decision. It's been a smear campaign for 20+ years. I'm glad I only have to sit through 8 more years of this crap. Unless Trump wins. Then we will have to go through all this again.

 

[James Riley]

James, do you honestly think that there is nothing telling about Trump, his Putin connections or any of his campaign staff that would not be relevant to people making a decision about whether or not he was competent or worthy to be elected president? Yet somehow, "wikileaks" only has proof on Clinton? I don't buy it.

Assange called a press conference, made a big build up about documents to incriminate Clinton, an "October Surprise", then plugged his book, didn't release anything. A piss poor release Sat. and then the Ecuadorian Embassy cuts off his internet access (supposedly) on Sunday, no communication, no promised deadmans switch release of 89 encrypted compressed gigs of his best data contingency plan, then he trickles out another paltry batch of Podesta emails. On the 23rd, the Wikileaks editorial board makes a statement on Assange's well being, that yes the Ecuadorian Embassy cut off internet access citing it's policy of non-interfence. Why? - because Assange has only been targeting Clinton, check out wikileaks twitter feed, all Clinton, all the time. You want something on Trump and his Putin connections you have to get it from Pussy Riot. Which is very ironic when you think about that.

I believe in the principles of what wikileaks got started with, respect Snowden for shopping around for a responsible journalist that would follow his protocols, wouldn't sweep the data under the rug not turning it over to wikileaks. But Assange is an arrogant ass, increasingly loosing credibility with the tech community, botching the Clinton info releases. If he really wanted to arm the public with info, especially the voting public, well then bloody well get it out there in time for people to be able to review it, digest it and gather any corroborating information that would substantiate the situations.

"Assange/Snowden, 2016" ? Surely you jest. What makes you think either of those men are qualified for a presidency?

Kat, your two-valued orientation is showing. It reminds me of the “Yeah, well, he did it too” argument from the playground, as if Trump and Clinton are the only alternatives.

I stipulated to Assange's bias and thus, Trump is irrelevant. If Assange is biased against Clinton then why in the world would he want to spill on Trump? Duh! It's not his job to spill on Trump, especially if he doesn't have anything on Trump; not because Trump has nothing to get but, rather, because Assange is not looking at Trump. He's looking at Clinton.

Your contest of Assange's timing and methodology is just an attack on the messenger and discloses *your* bias.

Here is my bias: It is unfortunate, for me anyway, that all the words which come to mind as descriptors for Hillary Clinton can also have positive connotations. Can anyone help me find a word that is similar to “calculating”, “shrewd”, “conniving” or “scheming” but which cannot be spun as a good quality to have in a President? It's more than mere deceit. Evil, maybe?

Assange/Snowden are infinitely more qualified to be President than Hillary is. Hillary has experience but so does Bernie Madoff. Bernie knows way more about the markets than I'll ever know, because of his experience. But experience is not all it's cracked up to be. Assange may be arrogant, so what? If you are waiting around for someone totally lacking in human fallibility, you'll be waiting a long time. I'll take arrogance over . . . wait, what's that word I'm looking for? NoHarleyYet (walking thesaurus), help me out here.

 

[katqanna]

I am always astounded at people's inability to read or remember.

Bobby Dean, at no time did I say that I supported Clinton, in fact, on this forum, I have repeatedly stated that I will not, ever, vote for Clinton. I have also stated no way in hell I would vote for Trump. I did not vote for either of them.

James, check my comment history, when have I ever advocated for a two party system? My bias is against bullshit and a limited two party system. I want to be able to vote for a candidate because they have the capability, ethics and integrity to represent the diversity of our people, all of our people, not just white ones or rich ones or bigoted, angry, self entitled feeling ones, or politically connected corporate ones (edit: even the uneducated screamin' mimi voters, or the people who play the victim).

Assange's job, according to their goals is "to bring important news and information to the public... One of our most important activities is to publish original source material alongside our news stories so readers and historians alike can see evidence of the truth." Is truth ever so onesided? I don't have a problem with the Clinton email leaks, I have a serious problem with the bs manner in which he is orchestrating it. Orchestrating being the key word here. There is a difference between strategy and a media production. If truth is the goal, then get the bloody data released to stand the light of day. Unless his real objective is to give the tea party blue balls over the matter, while milking them of their contributions, people who not too long ago judged him a traitor and called for his extradition and execution - not even a US citizen. Another irony.

Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories. ~ Jefferson

 

[BigHornRam]

I want to be able to vote for a candidate because they have the capability, ethics and integrity to represent the diversity of our people, all of our people, not just white ones or rich ones or bigoted, angry, self entitled feeling ones, or politically connected corporate ones.

Kind of showing your bias here Kat. How about adding people that play the victim card to your list? Politicians, these two in particular, play that card well.

 

[katqanna]

Good one BHR, added

 

[James Riley]

James, check my comment history, when have I ever advocated for a two party system? My bias is against bullshit and a limited two party system.

You (unknowingly?) advocate for a two party system when your first response to an attack on one is to say "what about the other". If I were to attack, say, Saddam, would you call me out for failing to attack his sons?

If your bias is against bullshit then why heartburn with the attack on one side?

Assange's job, according to their goals is "to bring important news and information to the public... One of our most important activities is to publish original source material alongside our news stories so readers and historians alike can see evidence of the truth." Is truth ever so onesided? I don't have a problem with the Clinton email leaks, I have a serious problem with the bs manner in which he is orchestrating it. Orchestrating being the key word here. There is a difference between strategy and a media production. If truth is the goal, then get the bloody data released to stand the light of day. Unless his real objective is to give the tea party blue balls over the matter, while milking them of their contributions, people who not too long ago judged him a traitor and called for his extradition and execution - not even a US citizen. Another irony.

That's pretty rich. LOL! You are calling out his strategy and media production when his attack is on the one of the greatest strategists and media production manipulators of all time! And as I opined before, his attack is on that very point.

Assange and wikileaks are so out-gunned here that, rather than suspect them of collusion with Russia, I am more inclined to think they are just defaulting to the under-dog in the best traditions of all the myths we tell about ourselves. He's no great fan of Trump, or Russia. He's hating on the greatest threat to the stated goals you outlined above. She is the enemy of transparency. If Trump posed a serious threat then I'm sure he'd be after him too.

You can do what you want, Kat, but my recommendation to you is to quit worrying about how the messenger is orchestrating it and instead focus on the message. In logic, we focus on what was said, not who said it. Thus, I don't check your comment history or who you are. I focus on what you said. Or at least I try.

I've said this before and I'll say it again: Trump deserves the Presidential Medal of Freedom for single-handedly destroying the Republican Party; doing what so many have fought so long and hard to do. It's a gift that has been laid in our lap and we won't take yes for an answer. Instead, we push him into the camp we hate so much. WTF? Had he not been pushed to the right then he probably would not have gone there. He wouldn't have chosen Pence or moved so far in that direction. But he was left with no where to go. Is he an ass? Yeah, so what? Is Assange? Yeah, so what? But he could have been the people's ass. Instead, we'll be stuck with Hillary and we'll be her asses. He was left with no where to go because, whenever he gave us a gift, we called him out for it. We didn't like the way he orchestrated the message. So you see, that is how we play into the hands of the two party system: We, at the behest or one side, attack anyone who poses as threat to it. Now we are back to having a Republican vs a Democrat.

If only Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, et al had the ability to do the same to the Democrats. Then we'd be done with the two party system that rots our nation. We all play into that system when we attack those who successfully attack it.

 

[bobbydean]

Hey katganna,

Read your reply. From your answer, I assumed you were supporting Hiliary. I was wrong and was the ass.

Still believe that any criminal issues with political candidates should be seriously investigated.

Sorry for being an ass.

 

[katqanna]

Bobby, I did read my reply and I know what I wrote, I wanted all the releases at an early enough time for the public to be able to digest, process and potentially contribute to any possible evidence. Now, if I was for Clinton, why in the hell would I want all that released?

My statements were for equal opportunity truth. I Reddit, have been a redditor for almost 9 years now. Prior to reddit I was doing my own news aggregating from a lot of different independent internet news sites (I still have to do some of that). Reddit just helps with my news aggregating (you have to subscribe to certain subreddits to avoid all the juvenile bs). This is part of my researching personality - I have questions, I want answers.

Some redditors are parts of 4chan (some the dark web), some Anonymous, etc., so I know what the hackers/diggers are capable of and what they put out. In fact, it was reddit that exposed who and what company was responsible for deleting the Clinton emails and got that information public immediately, because one of them remembered a guy posting to one of the tech subreddits I am on, asking how to do it, saying his client was a VIP. His comment history was searched and they figured out where he came from, who he was. This is one of the things I love about reddit, a collective of curious minded people who will take the time to research (especially when it comes to computers, videos and graphics), can do awesome things.

So I equally see the Trump dirt and the Clinton dirt, their campaign employees, the DNC and RNC on my various political subreddits, which is why I know that Assange's releases are biased, onesided. I just want the unbiased truth and any releases to be made available to the public in a responsible manner, not like some some social media diva with a facebook feed, milking the attention for the spotlight.

I agree, I feel that alleged criminal situations should be properly investigated.

Apology accepted, thank you.

 

[bobbydean]

There is dirt on both sides,

I appreciate your reply.

You will always be a favorite on this forum. Again, I misread the post. I will have to google Riddit. I have a fine sense of vocabulary, but I am blank.

Love your advocacy. Do not let ignorant people (myself) dissuade you.

 

[bobbydean]

Katganna, I do not do social media. Riddit is a social media site. I do not do Facebook. I am old and am comfortable in my skin. You do well with the internet era.

Appreciate you.


Do what you do! It is good for all of us!

 

[James Riley]

I think we can all agree it is a mistake to assume Kat is pro-Clinton based upon her dislike of Assange.

Why then is it not a mistake to assume Assange is pro-Trump based upon his dislike of Clinton?

Clinton and Assange have their own history. An Assange bias against Clinton does not create an bias for Trump.

Assange has no duty to balance his attack on Clinton with an attack on Trump any more than Kat must balance her attack on Assange with an attack on Clinton. And thus Trump should have been irrelevant to this discussion.

In the end, Assange is about transparency and Clinton is not. Her demand the FBI Director spill in the name of transparency rings hollow in light of the emails. Thus, an Assange attack on Clinton is perfectly consistent with transparency.

 

[katqanna]

Bobby, Here is the link to Reddit it (like you "read it" here). You can read all you want without registering. Registering allows you to comment, save, and to subscribe to specific subreddits. When I first started they didn't have the default popular reddits when you subscribed. So now, you have to tailor what you want to filter out (unsubscribe) the popular bs. Like r/funny has some hilarious things, but it became over run with memes. And you can tailor your preferences so that you don't see all the images right off the bat. Then when you click on reddit, your entry page will show an aggregation of the various subreddits you have chosen. You can still go to each subreddit to see all the posts there.

For things that routinely affect our politics I subscribe to some basics like r/politics, r/POLITIC, r/energy, r/worldnews, r/technology, r/economics. Then I have the more diversity, like the specific science subreddits, specific environment/conservation subjects, specific political like anarchism, chomsky, occupywallstreet, internationalpolitics, usanews. There are a lot of practical interest and artsy subreddits, DIY or homestead for example, or your location, like I am subscribed to Montana and Bozeman. Be warned, you can loose yourself with all the stimulus and information. I have read of reddit addicts. Definitely beware of the trolls.

Edit: Bobby, saw that you had made another post while I was composing this one. Reddit is not social media like facebook, unless you want to subscribe to some of those subreddits, it is a news aggregator and forum, very similar to this one, but international and "huge".

James, suck it up, life is not a syllogism, there are far too many variables - hence the need for more data or QUESTIONS. Your reading comprehension is flawed. I never "assumed" or stated Assange was pro Trump.

 

[Gr8bawana]

Still believe that any criminal issues with political candidates should be seriously investigated.

Such as Trump's sexual misconduct. He's no different that Bill Cosby.