Assange is going in hard on Clinton(s) the past few days. Hillary really ballsed up when attacking him on Australian television at the beginning of the week.
What did Hillary do wrong and what's next for her?
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
I'm far from a Clinton fan, but who cares what that Russian puppet Assange says?
Like people still listen to him.
It's obvious who care and it gives me pleasure to see how much they care. They can't stop talking about him, and always with the same smears and lies.
Its pretty obvious what Assange's grand strategy is - help get Trump elected, make himself into a right wing information provider, meet with Farage and Hannity and have them lobby Trump to allow him to leave the Embassy.
His Twitter account post mostly material from left wing websites like the intercept. Must be some kind of opposite strategy.
Assange admitted during/after the election he didn't release info on Trump because he didn't find it interesting enough. Obviously that doesn't necessarily mean the stuff he's revealed about Clinton isn't true, but it's clear what side he is pulling for, and who he's deliberately not trying to compromise.
Assange was a hero to the Left when he released incriminating material on the Bush administration, yet he's ostracised now and his credibility called into question by those very same people today.
I sincerely wish people would stop approaching politics like it's a sport and they are rooting for their favourite team. Political malpractices deserve to be outed no matter whom the political party or candidate.
I sincerely wish people would stop approaching politics like it's a sport and they are rooting for their favourite team. Political malpractices deserve to be outed no matter whom the political party or candidate.
He was largely despised by politicians on all sides, hence Obamas treatment of him. The new found criticism from the common left winger is because wikileaks has since been hijacked by the Kremlin. Not because he's releasing information about Clinton. You'll notice other Clinton critics like The Intercept don't attract the same criticism.
Exactly. Which is why Assange's decision to deliberately not release info on Trump and the Republicans has been met with criticism.
This just demonstrates that Assange is an apolitical self-aggrandizing opportunist who is in it for himself and not out of some altruistic desire to expose bad things. His day will come sooner or later.
Ask Greenwald if he has ever been accused of being a Russian puppet or what other accusations he's had thrown at him. Some americans use these smear tactics on anyone who challenges the idea of America as a benevolent force in the world.
Yeah but that's primarily from the political class. Assange was also not a hero for the left political class in America either. Your average political nerd is pro the likes of Greenwald.
Fair play to her, she is quite lovely on the Graham Norton show. Never seen her quite this relaxed.
The hate Assange gets is astonishing. He helped uncover worldwide stasi methods (that's exactly what they are to anyone outside the 'five eyes', and just in time before a suitable president for them took office too...) and is forced into isolation with fabricated claims because of it, yet he's the villain 
.
.The hate Assange gets is astonishing. He helped uncover worldwide stasi methods (that's exactly what they are to anyone outside the 'five eyes', and just in time before a suitable president for them took office too...) and is forced into isolation with fabricated claims because of it, yet he's the villain
You're talking about Snowden/Greenwald/Poirtas more than Assange I think. Though of course Chelsea Manning's leaks to Assange's Wikileaks (especially the helicopter shooting video) might have inspired Snowden.
I laughed at the weirder CT nuts on this but they've won something:
Where's the thread on this Uranium One thingy with Clinton etc?
I remember reading about these voter roll purges at the time of the primaries, but thought it was conspiracy stuff being spread around.
The fact that a voter purge of over 100,000 people did take place is troubling.
The fact that a voter purge of over 100,000 people did take place is troubling.
Its been mentioned in the Trump thread.
Why? You want to embrace this week being conspiracy theory week?
Oh of course, something you don’t like the potential sound of = conspiracy. Got it!
Snopes is not impartial, neither is Politifact. Nothing pisses me off more than organisations that pretend to be completely unbiased but are actually very political. Like the BBC for example.... No problem with bias but at least admit where you are coming from so we can put it in context. The fact that Facebook have taken Snopes on to pick out "fake news" is scary - they will attack anything right leaning with vigour but will let lefty propaganda go unchecked.
It's worth noting that the criticism of Hillary's role in the uranium deal with Russia came initially during the primary, when she was being attacked from the left.
To be honest I haven't looked into the Uranium deal so I have no comment on the veracity of that story- but any time I hear someone referencing Snopes I can't stop myself from commenting.
Please provide some evidence of Snopes delivering an inaccurate report. Not just some article with a right winger whining about who they're linked to, but an actual Snopes report than is provable untrue.
It's not just inaccuracy (although there's plenty of that) it's deliberately presenting things in a way to make brilliant, thoroughly researched articles from intellectuals like Ben Shapiro seem debunked.
IIRC, this was the 1st report of the deal: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/...s-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html
Did you even read your own link?
Snopes report facts and the evidence they have found to support those facts. Obviously right wing rags like the Daily Wire hate them for this. This isn't anything new, it's just even more relevant in this age of GOP blatant lying and 'fake news'.
Ben Shapiro brilliant? Jesus H Christ..
I'm not sure that article is the best evidence for supporting your assertion here. Quick timeline:
1) Dailywire publishes an article titled “AWFUL: Top Democrats Refuse to Stand, Clap for Navy SEAL Widow Honored by Trump”
2) Snopes refutes this and provides evidence that the Dems in question did stand and applaud
3) Dailywire publishes the article you linked claiming Snopes is splitting hairs
That's not exactly cast iron proof that Snopes is biased. If anything it proves the Dailywire is biased given their original misleading headline and that Ben Shapiro is very thin skinned.
If you've got some better examples of Snopes being biased and deliberately inaccurate I'd be interested in seeing them.
I've brought up this before re: Snopes and Politifact and was ridiculed for it, but the issue is much wider than that. There is an astonishing bias towards everything deemed liberal/progressive in the media and it's undoubtedly a one-way ticket to trouble. The fact that most are a) refuting it, and b) denying it will be a problem in the long run, is flabbergasting.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.4c3fa98cce52
http://amp.nationalreview.com/corne...ANTHEON_STRIPPED&utm_medium=PANTHEON_STRIPPED
Lovely little 'coincidences' emerging from the Clinton/DNC/Fusion GPS scandal...
http://amp.nationalreview.com/corne...ANTHEON_STRIPPED&utm_medium=PANTHEON_STRIPPED
Lovely little 'coincidences' emerging from the Clinton/DNC/Fusion GPS scandal...
Beautiful.
Is that Light Itself or Chelsea Clinton? I am *really* bad at faces. And either one makes the tweet horrible, so it's impossible to tell.