SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Some people were wondering (well, I was at least), why Julian Assange seems to take such an active role in the USA presidency election (by publishing delicate emails at a sensitive point in time). While both candidates are somewhat controversial, the current leaks seem to be quite focused on the democrats candidate, Hillary Clinton. A tweet sent from wikileaks twitter-account, referencing this story on truepundit, might shed some light on these animosities between Hillary Clinton and Julian Assange: Allegedly, Clinton suggested in 2010 to kill Assange with a drone:
"Can't we just drone this guy?" Clinton openly inquired, offering a simple remedy to silence Assange and smother Wikileaks via a planned military drone strike, according to State Department sources. The statement drew laughter from the room which quickly died off when the Secretary kept talking in a terse manner, sources said. Clinton said Assange, after all, was a relatively soft target, "walking around" freely and thumbing his nose without any fear of reprisals from the United States.
This might heat up expectations and speculations regarding the announced upcoming leaks. Another interesting question might be, how neutral will the Ecuadorian government stay in this struggle. Afterall, Julian Assange does rely on their hospitality at the moment. Will they stay out of it? Or might they have some vested interest to make sure the future US-president is from the democrats? Or would they actually be interested to see Trump being elected?
takyon: WikiLeaks' Assange signals release of documents before U.S. election
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said on Tuesday the group would publish about one million documents related to the U.S. election and three governments in coming weeks, but denied the release was aimed at damaging Hillary Clinton. Assange, speaking via a video link, said the documents would be released before the end of the year, starting with an initial batch in the coming week. Assange, 45, who remains at the Ecuadoran embassy in London where he sought refuge in 2012 to avoid possible extradition to Sweden, said the election material was "significant" and would come out before the Nov. 8 U.S. presidential election.
[...] "The material that WikiLeaks is going to publish before the end of the year is of ... a very significant moment in different directions, affecting three powerful organizations in three different states as well as ... the U.S election process," he said via a video link at an event marking the group's 10th anniversary. He said the material would focus on war, weapons, oil, mass surveillance, the technology giant Google and the U.S. election, but declined to give any details. "There has been a misquoting of me and Wikileaks publications ... (suggesting) we intend to harm Hillary Clinton or I intend to harm Hillary Clinton or that I don't like Hillary Clinton. All those are false," he said.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @05:11PM
We all live in fear, it is the most twisted psychological warfare tactic. At the very least those in power have become comfortable enough to say shit like this and let everyone know what kinds of people they really are. Sure this shit has happened before, but generally behind closed doors. To have the secretary of state say such things.... the US is really far gone. Though, according to more accurate historical records the US has always been a class based nation and just pays lip service to freedom. So, after two centuries we are finally waking up, but will a better system arise from the ashes?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @05:36PM
So, after two centuries we are finally waking up, but will a better system arise from the ashes?
History called. It says it has a lesson to teach you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @06:18PM
At the very least those in power have become comfortable enough to say shit like this and let everyone know what kinds of people they really are.
Except there's absolutely no evidence she ever said any such thing. It's nothing more than yet another baseless accusation that will probably, like the vast, vast majority of such allegations, be thoroughly debunked (perhaps once again at enormous taxpayer expense if the alt-right/republican/libertarian contingent gins it up enough) But don't let that stop you, Assange, or the rest of the alt-right from just making shit up out of whole cloth, and don't let it stop the hopelessly gullible from swallowing it hook, line, and sinker.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @06:43PM
Alt-right: wants sodomy and bathroom laws, wants their religion's commandments posted outside of the court house, wants to lynch blacks if they get uppity, wants women back in the kitchen making babies so the moooooooooslims don't win the womb war, wants to double down on doubling down on doubling down on the drug war, wants to turn the country into a prison if you won't follow their brand of Sharia law.
Libertarians: wants lgbt equality, wants Lady Justice outside of the court house, wants police to fucking stop shooting blacks already, wants each individual woman to find her own way whether that's career or motherhood, wants to repeal the drug war, wants freedom to ring.
Republicans: can't decide if they're the alt-right or libertarian and don't care, just care that the military/prison industrial complex is growing and making their buddies rich.
I don't see what these viewpoints have in common.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @06:50PM
I don't see what these viewpoints have in common.
The three groups are pretty unified in trying to get a malignant narcissist (Donald Trump) elected to office. Yes, the libertarian party has a candidate, but most libertarians I know are voting for Trump (a few thankfully not). If we judge a group's members by their behavior, and not the platform of the party they self-identify with, one finds little to differentiate the alt-right, so-called "mainstream" republicans like Mike Pence, and so-called libertarians (with a small 'L'). Yes, the core "elite" of the parties may be different, but the masses following them are pretty difficult to tell apart.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05 2016, @04:14AM
If they're voting for a fascist like Trump, they're obviously not libertarians.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday October 04 2016, @06:52PM
Except if you follow her, this is exactly the kind of thing she does!
She is looking for power ABOVE ALL!
Fuck Hillary... your problem is "fuck Trump" as well.
But if I were American, i'd vote for the clown (Trump) over the serious, psychotic serial killer (Hillary.... duh)!
Better the town drunk then the freaking psychotic sociopath, who will sell your soul and then arrest you as a terrorist and hold you without benefit of council or with your family even knowing what happened to you.
You Americans are sooooo fucked. Just leave the rest of us the FUCK alone!!!!!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Tuesday October 04 2016, @07:19PM
Most Americans would prefer to leave the rest of the world alone it is just we are a big country and as such have a lot of sociopaths and they are better at ladder climbing that the rest of us. For me I am somewhat torn in how I should vote this year as I can do my usual and vote 3rd party but at the same time I want to see both major parties burn. The state I live in is about as likely to go for Trump as would for Johnson so voting for either would be a wasted vote and I don't like Clinton either. So in the end I will probably vote Johnson and have a clean conscious. If I were in a swing state I might vote Trump just to burn down the Republican party.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @07:21PM
> Except if you follow her, this is exactly the kind of thing she does!
Except its not.
Name two non-conspiracy theory based examples.
It simply does not pass the laugh test that a seasoned professional politician would say something so obviously ludicrous. The only reason you believe it is because you so terribly want to believe it. You've got zero skepticism, zero critical thought. You are like a child believing in santa claus.
Also, it was debunked yesterday. [nymag.com]
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday October 04 2016, @07:51PM
One:
". And what was actually in those Top Secret emails found on Hillary’s “unclassified” personal bathroom server was colossally damaging to our national security and has put lives at risk"
http://observer.com/2016/02/breaking-hillary-clinton-put-spies-lives-at-risk/ [observer.com]
http://nypost.com/2016/02/01/hillary-clinton-voters-dont-care-about-my-emails/ [nypost.com]
Two?
Let me have some time to Google a second
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday October 04 2016, @07:54PM
http://nypost.com/cover/covers-for-october-4-2016/ [nypost.com]
You know it's true.
She's a criminal.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @08:34PM
> E-mails
The fact that civilians outside the government mailed classified documents to her across the internet is proof that she's a power hungry killer?
Really?
Really?
> nypost cover
You linked to a page about kim kardashian getting robbed.
Thanks for erasing all doubt that you are a delusional nutter.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05 2016, @04:17AM
Except one problem: Trump is also a psychotic sociopath. So, better the psychotic sociopath than the narcissistic, thin-skinned, psychotic sociopath?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by quintessence on Tuesday October 04 2016, @06:19PM
but will a better system arise from the ashes?
Yes, actually.
One reasonable thing about government is that it generally strides towards improvement. It just takes a l-o-n-g time between model changes, and there is usually some strife with ushering in the new.
We've learned a lot about the operation of government in the past two hundred years, and have a pretty detailed account of what works and what doesn't. Not to mention policy wonks have gone over the problems with a fine tooth comb, and definitely have some improvements in mind for Constitution 2.0. It's just impossible to get them implemented under the current regime.
I could easily envision citizen juries overseeing the operation of government (much like selective service) with tighter controls on the passing of legislation, popular vote on administrative regulations, and even judicial review prior to any implementation.
The tools for better governance are all there. It just a question of when will they get a chance to make a showing.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday October 04 2016, @06:31PM
Intelligence tests maybe?
I know that idea is loaded, because what would the test be and what qualifies as intelligence. That alone can start all sorts of flamewars.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by quintessence on Tuesday October 04 2016, @06:40PM
One of the things studies have pointed to is that individual intelligence is less important than group intelligence (hence citizen juries), not to mention trustworthiness is a more important trait than intelligence in administration.
Put another way, do you had any doubt that Clinton or Trump are intelligent? Do you believe they are trustworthy?
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday October 04 2016, @07:09PM
Hillary is intelligent, or at least Bill is...
Trustworthy?
Hahaha!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @07:14PM
but will a better system arise from the ashes?
Yes, actually.
History would suggest otherwise.
Violent "revolutions", especially "top-down" revolutions like the kind Donald Trump and his ilk would lead, almost never result in a better situation for anyone other than the despots taking over the government, overturning the democracy, and destroying the remaining tatters of the country's reputation. As for elected despots, look no further than the National Socialist Party in Germany in the 1930s. At the risk of invoking Godwin, the personality traits and rhetoric of Hitler and Trump are difficult to distinguish. Take random quotes from one or the other, or from the followers of one or the other, and you 'll be hard pressed to tell the difference. Should Trump be elected, you should expect similar results.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Tuesday October 04 2016, @10:21PM
If I had time and a whole bunch of money, I might try the following social experiment: Select 1 registered voter at random from each congressional district, and 2 other registered voters at random from each state, and offer them a job as a "shadow Congress", where they would get paid to vote on all the bills that came before actual Congress (either as a representative if picked by district, or a senator if picked by state), and could also work with their fellow shadow legislators to craft new policy proposals if they so chose. If one of the randomly selected people didn't accept the gig, just take their name out of the hopper and pick somebody else.
Obviously, their decisions wouldn't have any legal force, but it would be interesting to see what they came up with. And yes, I know full well that we might randomly select some complete idiots, criminals, and drug addicts, but since we have those in Congress now I'm not seeing the problem.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday October 05 2016, @07:16AM
You used too many words in your original version.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday October 05 2016, @02:15PM
It's a different sort of democracy than the one we have right now in the US though: Instead of electing representatives, they would be selected randomly from the population at large. In other words, instead of the most effective liars we'd have the luckiest person who was willing to do the job.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Informative) by t-3 on Wednesday October 05 2016, @04:44PM
I believe the proper term is demarchy.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Joe Desertrat on Tuesday October 04 2016, @08:35PM
To have the secretary of state say such things.... the US is really far gone.
Anyone remember "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."?