t-dub
Vapor Sloth
Yes, and that is exactly what I meant.
The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread
- Thread starter CarolKing
- Start date
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
Hey, if it were up to me both Assange and Snowden would spend a generation in a federal prison. May I recommend that if Assange ever gets out of the Ecuadorian embassy he better not step foot on American soil, in America OR in an American possession.
Tho it is actually Sweden that has a warrant out for him.
Tho it is actually Sweden that has a warrant out for him.
lwien
Well-Known Member
Hence my edit posted right before you posted this.....lol.
ReggieB
Well-Known Member
@t-dub I got y
He's just another person in the queue trying to influence the way you think for his own personal reasons.
Right and when was it that you met him and got your personal assurances that he's not gunning for america and he has only your best interests at heart?Assange is beyond doubt a champion of people everywhere throughout the world --- that is just fact.
I think you are speculating far too much into the operation of wikileaks and especially the motivations of Mr. Assange. When was it that you met him? What wikileaks does is not only complicated but has inherent big league risk. Why he is held up in an Ecuadorian embassy in the UK speaks to the danger and risks of what he is doing.
As to how wikileaks releases information I think all the evidence points to this. Wikileaks releases information when it will have the most political impact. It is meant to inform the average citizens of the truth of their government so the people have a clue and are able to respond or protest if WE choose.
The word that comes to my mind regarding Julian Assange is noble. He is a king among men.
He's just another person in the queue trying to influence the way you think for his own personal reasons.
t-dub
Vapor Sloth
Well, I got "Z" then . . . I guess . . .
And what possibly could he have to gain? Look at what has happened to his life. What is the payoff exactly? Wikileaks, from the beginning, has been about disclosure. Its raw information that each and every one of us can use to make our own decisions about our civilization and how it operates. Remember the videos he posted of the civilians being shot by our helicopters in the middle east? Remember two of them were a Reuters reporter and his camera man? This is a new, golden age, of information. Nothing is secret anymore. The world has changed.
Last edited:
t-dub
Vapor Sloth
To what end? What does he have to gain? Either way he can't come back so what is the motive?
grokit
well-worn member
The democratic leadership's treatment of whistleblowers is hypocritical. At least republicans weren't originally for the whistleblower protection act. To his credit, obama did try to further protect them with PPD-19; in response the courts have continually narrowed the scope of these protections as to make them increasingly irrelevant. Which is too bad for truth, justice, and what used to be the american way 
t-dub
Vapor Sloth
If its unclear then why did you say:
What exactly are those personal reasons? If you don't know then you should refrain from making comments like that.
lwien
Well-Known Member
That statement is up to interpretation for it could be said, depending upon your perspective, that what was exposed was the government working FOR the American people.
One other thing that must be said. It is a fact that what they exposed has done extreme damage to the intelligence gathering community and that damage could very well put us at risk. I say this not from one who has been brainwashed by our news media but rather from one who has worked within the intelligence community.
ReggieB
Well-Known Member
I know as much as you do, which is precisely squat, about his intentions but you continue to profess some inside knowledge. If it was purely about giving you knowledge and allowing you to use it, it would be released, it would be presented but it's not, he's holding it back for some big reveal in the middle of the election.
t-dub
Vapor Sloth
I profess no inside knowledge. What I see is the raw information.
Actually if you had bothered to read my previous post, or go to Wikileaks, you would know that the 30k+ emails, and over 50k+ pages of text, have already been released in a searchable database which you can go and use RIGHT NOW. What Assange is presenting is work done on that database that has already been released.
Last edited:
t-dub
Vapor Sloth
Yes and a short discussion of the impact of these hacking/emails/revelations is germane to the discussion. I realize this has gone beyond short and will withdraw unless provoked further.
lwien
Well-Known Member
Ok, last statement from me on this issue and we really do need to get back to topic of this thread, but I feel compelled to respond.
When you say, "so far, it has helped far more than it hurts", the FACT is, is that you have no idea if that is true. You will never know how much and to what extent it has hurt. You will also never know the extensive effort that it has been taken to keep that sky from falling due to the fallout of those leaks. The biggest failure that is going on here is that we allowed this exposure to happen in the first place.
Last edited:
ReggieB
Well-Known Member
All countries colour outside of the lines, that doesn't excuse it but doesn't make america a special case that needs attacking for it constantly. It's not really released if it's buried in the middle of a 30k+ email dump, it's a needle in a haystack. Even he doesn't know the full extent of the contents of the emails so cannot possibly know or fully understand the consequences. Last statement from me too
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
I Ran the C.I.A. Now I’m Endorsing Hillary Clinton.
By MICHAEL J. MORELL AUG. 5, 2016
During a 33-year career at the Central Intelligence Agency, I served presidents of both parties — three Republicans and three Democrats. I was at President George W. Bush’s side when we were attacked on Sept. 11; as deputy director of the agency, I was with President Obama when we killed Osama bin Laden in 2011.
I am neither a registered Democrat nor a registered Republican. In my 40 years of voting, I have pulled the lever for candidates of both parties. As a government official, I have always been silent about my preference for president.
No longer. On Nov. 8, I will vote for Hillary Clinton. Between now and then, I will do everything I can to ensure that she is elected as our 45th president.
Two strongly held beliefs have brought me to this decision. First, Mrs. Clinton is highly qualified to be commander in chief. I trust she will deliver on the most important duty of a president — keeping our nation safe. Second, Donald J. Trump is not only unqualified for the job, but he may well pose a threat to our national security.
I spent four years working with Mrs. Clinton when she was secretary of state, most often in the White House Situation Room. In these critically important meetings, I found her to be prepared, detail-oriented, thoughtful, inquisitive and willing to change her mind if presented with a compelling argument.
I also saw the secretary’s commitment to our nation’s security; her belief that America is an exceptional nation that must lead in the world for the country to remain secure and prosperous; her understanding that diplomacy can be effective only if the country is perceived as willing and able to use force if necessary; and, most important, her capacity to make the most difficult decision of all — whether to put young American women and men in harm’s way.
Mrs. Clinton was an early advocate of the raid that brought Bin Laden to justice, in opposition to some of her most important colleagues on the National Security Council. During the early debates about how we should respond to the Syrian civil war, she was a strong proponent of a more aggressive approach, one that might have prevented the Islamic State from gaining a foothold in Syria.
I never saw her bring politics into the Situation Room. In fact, I saw the opposite. When some wanted to delay the Bin Laden raid by one day because the White House Correspondents Dinner might be disrupted, she said, “Screw the White House Correspondents Dinner.”
In sharp contrast to Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Trump has no experience on national security. Even more important, the character traits he has exhibited during the primary season suggest he would be a poor, even dangerous, commander in chief.
These traits include his obvious need for self-aggrandizement, his overreaction to perceived slights, his tendency to make decisions based on intuition, his refusal to change his views based on new information, his routine carelessness with the facts, his unwillingness to listen to others and his lack of respect for the rule of law.
The dangers that flow from Mr. Trump’s character are not just risks that would emerge if he became president. It is already damaging our national security.
President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia was a career intelligence officer, trained to identify vulnerabilities in an individual and to exploit them. That is exactly what he did early in the primaries. Mr. Putin played upon Mr. Trump’s vulnerabilities by complimenting him. He responded just as Mr. Putin had calculated.
Mr. Putin is a great leader, Mr. Trump says, ignoring that he has killed and jailed journalists and political opponents, has invaded two of his neighbors and is driving his economy to ruin. Mr. Trump has also taken policy positions consistent with Russian, not American, interests — endorsing Russian espionage against the United States, supporting Russia’s annexation of Crimea and giving a green light to a possible Russian invasion of the Baltic States.
In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.
Mr. Trump has also undermined security with his call for barring Muslims from entering the country. This position, which so clearly contradicts the foundational values of our nation, plays into the hands of the jihadist narrative that our fight against terrorism is a war between religions.
In fact, many Muslim Americans play critical roles in protecting our country, including the man, whom I cannot identify, who ran the C.I.A.’s Counterterrorism Center for nearly a decade and who I believe is most responsible for keeping America safe since the Sept. 11 attacks.
My training as an intelligence officer taught me to call it as I see it. This is what I did for the C.I.A. This is what I am doing now. Our nation will be much safer with Hillary Clinton as president.
By MICHAEL J. MORELL AUG. 5, 2016
During a 33-year career at the Central Intelligence Agency, I served presidents of both parties — three Republicans and three Democrats. I was at President George W. Bush’s side when we were attacked on Sept. 11; as deputy director of the agency, I was with President Obama when we killed Osama bin Laden in 2011.
I am neither a registered Democrat nor a registered Republican. In my 40 years of voting, I have pulled the lever for candidates of both parties. As a government official, I have always been silent about my preference for president.
No longer. On Nov. 8, I will vote for Hillary Clinton. Between now and then, I will do everything I can to ensure that she is elected as our 45th president.
Two strongly held beliefs have brought me to this decision. First, Mrs. Clinton is highly qualified to be commander in chief. I trust she will deliver on the most important duty of a president — keeping our nation safe. Second, Donald J. Trump is not only unqualified for the job, but he may well pose a threat to our national security.
I spent four years working with Mrs. Clinton when she was secretary of state, most often in the White House Situation Room. In these critically important meetings, I found her to be prepared, detail-oriented, thoughtful, inquisitive and willing to change her mind if presented with a compelling argument.
I also saw the secretary’s commitment to our nation’s security; her belief that America is an exceptional nation that must lead in the world for the country to remain secure and prosperous; her understanding that diplomacy can be effective only if the country is perceived as willing and able to use force if necessary; and, most important, her capacity to make the most difficult decision of all — whether to put young American women and men in harm’s way.
Mrs. Clinton was an early advocate of the raid that brought Bin Laden to justice, in opposition to some of her most important colleagues on the National Security Council. During the early debates about how we should respond to the Syrian civil war, she was a strong proponent of a more aggressive approach, one that might have prevented the Islamic State from gaining a foothold in Syria.
I never saw her bring politics into the Situation Room. In fact, I saw the opposite. When some wanted to delay the Bin Laden raid by one day because the White House Correspondents Dinner might be disrupted, she said, “Screw the White House Correspondents Dinner.”
In sharp contrast to Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Trump has no experience on national security. Even more important, the character traits he has exhibited during the primary season suggest he would be a poor, even dangerous, commander in chief.
These traits include his obvious need for self-aggrandizement, his overreaction to perceived slights, his tendency to make decisions based on intuition, his refusal to change his views based on new information, his routine carelessness with the facts, his unwillingness to listen to others and his lack of respect for the rule of law.
The dangers that flow from Mr. Trump’s character are not just risks that would emerge if he became president. It is already damaging our national security.
President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia was a career intelligence officer, trained to identify vulnerabilities in an individual and to exploit them. That is exactly what he did early in the primaries. Mr. Putin played upon Mr. Trump’s vulnerabilities by complimenting him. He responded just as Mr. Putin had calculated.
Mr. Putin is a great leader, Mr. Trump says, ignoring that he has killed and jailed journalists and political opponents, has invaded two of his neighbors and is driving his economy to ruin. Mr. Trump has also taken policy positions consistent with Russian, not American, interests — endorsing Russian espionage against the United States, supporting Russia’s annexation of Crimea and giving a green light to a possible Russian invasion of the Baltic States.
In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.
Mr. Trump has also undermined security with his call for barring Muslims from entering the country. This position, which so clearly contradicts the foundational values of our nation, plays into the hands of the jihadist narrative that our fight against terrorism is a war between religions.
In fact, many Muslim Americans play critical roles in protecting our country, including the man, whom I cannot identify, who ran the C.I.A.’s Counterterrorism Center for nearly a decade and who I believe is most responsible for keeping America safe since the Sept. 11 attacks.
My training as an intelligence officer taught me to call it as I see it. This is what I did for the C.I.A. This is what I am doing now. Our nation will be much safer with Hillary Clinton as president.
t-dub
Vapor Sloth
You just can't stop can you . . .
Actually the superpowers do more "outside of the lines" work so they do generate more info and require more scrutiny.
That release is a searchable database. That means anyone can do work on it and come up with their own results. That doesn't mean its easy. How else should Wikileaks have released the info to make you happy? Assange is presenting a summary as well, what else do you want?
If anyone knows the content of the emails it is Assange. I think Assange fully understands the consequences of his actions.
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
Most of us don't know enough about state classified secrets to really know about whatever and whoever this Assange info from wiki leaks could hurt.
At least Rob Riener will be on Real Time if things get too intense. Bill will cut through the crap and get to the point. What's the motivation of Assange? It's not to make America great or is it?
At least Rob Riener will be on Real Time if things get too intense. Bill will cut through the crap and get to the point. What's the motivation of Assange? It's not to make America great or is it?
Last edited:
ReggieB
Well-Known Member
I said I'd stopped but apparently you want to keep this going for some reason...
t-dub
Vapor Sloth
Without going back and editing your posts here you said NOTHING of the kind. Maybe you are confusing this conversation with private chat or you are thinking my words are your own?
In fact I said this:
grokit
well-worn member
What a difference a 5-day week makes... "the results suggest the race is roughly even"Clinton's lead over Trump narrows to less than three points: Reuters/Ipsos
"Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's lead over Republican rival Donald Trump narrowed to less than 3 percentage points, according to a Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll released on Friday, down from nearly eight points on Monday.
About 42 percent of likely voters favored Clinton, to Trump's 39 percent, according to the July 31-Aug. 4 online poll of 1,154 likely voters. The poll had a credibility interval of plus or minus 3 percentage points, meaning that the results suggest the race is roughly even.
Among registered voters over the same period, Clinton held a lead of five percentage points, down from eight percentage points on Monday, according to the poll.
The reasons behind the shift were unclear."
more:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-idUSKCN10G2BQ
Last edited: