Quake3World

Doesn't really matter if it was Russia does it ?

Why was it leaked because of the dealings ?, seriously ?, you saying wikileaks didnt pick anything up in the previous elections cos there were no dodgey dealings or dirt big enough to scupper the result ?

It was leaked because someone (whoever) had an agenda and they presented that information accordingly, did they or more importantly Assange make any mention of how Trump channeled funds from his foundation into the pockets of republicans ?. Serious question cos I have no idea, but if the goal is transparency then youd think they would.

Oh aye, the NSA also claim not to hack every cunt in town.

Trumpanzee fails

losCHUNK wrote:I've attacked wikileaks before, on this board.

But seeing as you mentioned Trumpy and wikileaks, if wikileaks were considered a news agency you'd say they'd have an obvious agenda or bias seeing as they were giving Hillary shit for doing stuff that Trump did yet gave him a free ride ?. It's not like they present the information and let you come to your own conclusions either, not without Assange turning up with his little footnote anyway.

Wikileaks. the clue is very much in the name. they release stuff that people leak. people leaked stuff from HRC and the DNC. people haven't leaked anything from von Clownstick (unless you think they have and Assange is hiding it under his mattress, in which case: proof, please)

if they were a news agency they'd actively go looking for stories, not passively wait for people to send them stuff. that's like saying if they wore swastikas i'd call them nazis. yes i would - but they don't, so what's your point?

[lvlshot]http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/11/LadyGagaClinton2-640x480.jpg[/lvlshot]

seremtan wrote:

losCHUNK wrote:I've attacked wikileaks before, on this board.

But seeing as you mentioned Trumpy and wikileaks, if wikileaks were considered a news agency you'd say they'd have an obvious agenda or bias seeing as they were giving Hillary shit for doing stuff that Trump did yet gave him a free ride ?. It's not like they present the information and let you come to your own conclusions either, not without Assange turning up with his little footnote anyway.

Wikileaks. the clue is very much in the name. they release stuff that people leak. people leaked stuff from HRC and the DNC. people haven't leaked anything from von Clownstick (unless you think they have and Assange is hiding it under his mattress, in which case: proof, please)

if they were a news agency they'd actively go looking for stories, not passively wait for people to send them stuff. that's like saying if they wore swastikas i'd call them nazis. yes i would - but they don't, so what's your point?

which is why I said about assange leaving his little footnotes with a clear agenda, just like those who leak the information. Theres reasons theres laws about releasing un edited information, laws that I agree with due toto the invasion of privacy, it can be incredibly harmful.

You cant deny that they condone hacking either, yet if this was a government institutiin, like Russia interfearing with the politics of another country then they should be ashamed. So the line is drawn when its a person and not a government ?.

Wikileaks are not an active party. They are the passive platform. They might have an agenda, that is true. But they don't take activity in bringing things up. So they say.
What is Trump good for Assange? He might be the lesser evil for him as he does not seem to care about foreign policy, yet Trump is no way of letting him go, imo. Same goes for Snowden.

going back to page 1 of this thread is like a trip to a lost time of dreams and wishes and unicorns

Thats pretty much what ive been saying, if they have an agenda like youve acknowledged then they become no better than any of the news corps. The goal for them or Assange - the figurehead - isnt transparency, theyre anti establishment, which is why Trump wasnt treated with the same scrutiny. Assange also has a definate conflict of interest in all this too so as far as im concerned they cant be seen as reputable because of this bias, just the same way that I look at the torygraph reading about labour or fox news talking about the democrats. You cant trust whats behind the woodwork.

Its hardly passive, ive already gave anan example of this in the reply to memoh at the top of this page.

seremtan wrote:going back to page 1 of this thread is like a trip to a lost time of dreams and wishes and unicorns

I find there's actually quite a few people that are very seriously considering the chance of Trump winning the whole thing.

plained wrote:[lvlshot]http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/11/LadyGagaClinton2-640x480.jpg[/lvlshot]

Hillary and... Aehm.. Michael Jackson´s son ?

EDIT: Sorry, just saw that its Bill from Tokio-Hotel... My failure!

HRC looks like Chairman Mao

armband? collor?

[lvlshot]http://i.amz.mshcdn.com/l3mEt1KE5bjlsj0L7zKI_x1P9h0=/950x534/https%3A%2F%2Fblueprint-api-production.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fuploads%2Fcard%2Fimage%2F275487%2F6d9596e91bc746dd9eeea5d89068a7b6.jpg[/lvlshot]

he isnt taking the pres salary ey

I guess he's getting paybacks for the way NYC voted. He's living in his suite at Trump tower and the secret service has two square blocks shut down while he's there.

GGz Demonerds...

probly just grabbing his toothbrush and pajamas!

He's had 2 blocks in mid-town Manhattan shut down for two days now. It's causing traffic jams, restricted public access and problems for business operation.

A real mess for the people of NYC.

YourGrandpa wrote:I guess he's getting paybacks for the way NYC voted. He's living in his suite at Trump tower and the secret service has two square blocks shut down while he's there.

GGz Demonerds...

Really? What a total asshole Guess it's also a sign of how he's going to treat the presidency; not very seriously.

Anyway, after about a week of abstinence i've started to read some political stuff again and to no great surprise i see Rudy 9/11neverforgetexceptwhenitspoliticallyconvenient Guilliani is most likely getting Clinton's old job. The guy has zero experience and is just about the most undiplomatic figure you yanks ever produced except for von Clownstick himself. It's only most likely, because the other candidate is John ihateforeignersandwanttodestroytheUN Bolton, fucking hell!

Where's my shovel, i need to dig a giant hole to hide myself in.

4 years of comedy gold, heading our way

MAKE AMERICA A LAUGHING-STOCK AGAIN!

seremtan wrote:4 years of comedy gold, heading our way

MAKE AMERICA A LAUGHING-STOCK AGAIN!

Aye, i'd be positively giddy about it if the chance of ww3 and / or total unfixable climate fuckup wouldn't be so great.

if comedy gold means more played out jpg's then yea i guess so

Memphis wrote:Who would Trump start a war with?

Oh i could think of a few places he's been railing against or has been threatening. Can't you? It's been in the news rather extensively these past few months you know. Or do you simply consider every word out of his mouth bluster? Because even that is dangerous, he's enabling folks like Putin and while the Ukraine is quite far eastern europe isn't.

Memphis wrote:It was Clinton pushing for a Syrian no-fly zone / potential war with Russia remember, alongside blaming them for everything, even the FBI (yes, even the FBI - mull that over a bit)

It was, but (and here's the critical thing) she did so when it was a viable option. The Russians then proceeded to create facts on the ground that altered the situation in such a manner it ceased to be a viable option. And the FBI did play rather a strange manipulative role in this election, isn't Comey under investigation for violating the Hatch act by now?

Memphis wrote:The climate's already fucked btw. Unless you favour the depopulation idea, there's no fixing it and 4 years of coal isn't really gonna fuck it much more. Clinton was also pro-oil and pro-fracking, galavanting around the world flogging it, prior to the pres bid. Stein was the only choice for anyone with climate concerns, thus we can conclude than noone really cares. At least Trump's anti-globalisation stance would potentially keep it all in America and not be blowing up more of Africa and the Middle East over Saudi pipelines. 'Cos that's like, not a very green thing to be doing

That's a dark, depressing take on the situation. I'm very worried about the climate myself, but if that was what i thought i'd start looking for some cyanide.

Anyway, yes, Clinton was for it before she was against it. Haven't personally studied it, but i understand she had a big green program in the works. You seem to hold things against her she changed her mind about over time, seems kind of weird to me - especially since you don't seem to hold von Clownstick to the same standard. Perhaps you haven't noticed but the man is quite fond of changing his mind, does it twice in the same sentence with alarming regularity - yet you take seriously his America first thing for instance. What did he say or do for you to trust him on cherry picked positions?

don't encourage him

It's not like the Republicans haven't been involved in any warmongering before. Just because Trump hasn't been in a position where he could start a war before doesn't mean he won't now that he is. Memphis' logic is telling. Most people like the new guy until (on account of having a clean political rep) until it turns out the new guy is just like the old guy. Then they vote for the new-new guy that's diametrically opposed to the old-new guy and love him, until the new-new guy turns out to be too similar to the old-new guy. Repeat ad infinitum. That's american bipartisan politics for you.

Memphis wrote:What's wrong with Putin?