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 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.