United States Corrupt Twattery
- Thread starter ECA
- Start date
Wij
I am a FH squatter
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2003
- Messages
- 18,205
Job
The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 21,652
Can we just all take a moment to confirm its Scouse who has jumped to gassing people and then repeats the lie till it becomes the truth.
Bit like the democrats and Russians.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 36,048
You're the one who brought up turning on the "Enemy Within" and "Corporate Lackeys".
I've merely tried to get you to either A) Explain what you mean by using the language of recent mass-murderers to describe fellow UK citizens or B) say "sorry everyone, I was talking shit again".
Explain yourself. You use that language, the language of genocide, and refuse to state what you mean and what you want to happen to us.
I ain't letting it go.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 36,048
Wij
I am a FH squatter
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2003
- Messages
- 18,205
Job
The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 21,652
Jeaus christ.
Its just becoming beyond pathetic.
Their 2020 candidates are unelectable, so lets just change the narrative to conspiracy.
How long can they do this before Trump actually starts looking the sensible one.
He has said lets release the full report, a two year 30 million dollar report and its just a farce at the end.
'We've got nothing....oh well maybe something...Im not saying this..Im not saying that...release it then!
Oh well, there might be..but.
Just pantomime, all of it.
Its just becoming beyond pathetic.
Their 2020 candidates are unelectable, so lets just change the narrative to conspiracy.
How long can they do this before Trump actually starts looking the sensible one.
He has said lets release the full report, a two year 30 million dollar report and its just a farce at the end.
'We've got nothing....oh well maybe something...Im not saying this..Im not saying that...release it then!
Oh well, there might be..but.
Just pantomime, all of it.
Wij
I am a FH squatter
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2003
- Messages
- 18,205
Wij
I am a FH squatter
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2003
- Messages
- 18,205
Please be true. Please be true.
View: https://twitter.com/joncoopertweets/status/1113965948531367938
View: https://twitter.com/joncoopertweets/status/1113965948531367938
Job
The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 21,652
Ive forgotten what he did.
Was it rapey or revealing Clinton emails Russia..just say both words in a sentence and let everybody decide.
Anyway I've heard he can make it to the Russian embassy if he can off ground all the way
Was it rapey or revealing Clinton emails Russia..just say both words in a sentence and let everybody decide.
Anyway I've heard he can make it to the Russian embassy if he can off ground all the way
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 36,048
So we can find out if what he said was true all along? That we'll extradite him?
Regardless of his political motivations or sources people disregard one thing: he releases secrets about powerful people and agencies that we would otherwise not have known sbout.
Light > secrets. Especially when it comes to government. Because it makes our democracy healthier.
Even if he is found guilty of criminal activity I'd still wish for more people like that because, ultimately, he's against governmental secrecy. And if our governments can be so threatened by secrets people release about their activities then they probably shouldn't be doing it in the first place.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 36,048
Even if that's true, I don't care.
If we had more people like him, with their own agendas or not, then we'd be shining lights on more and more unsavoury parts of government that shouldn't exist in the first place.
Julian Assange may or may not be a giant asshat of the first order, but the only thing he can achieve is, ultimately, good for our democracy. The uncovering of unpalatable secrets.
You seem to be so wrapped up in the possibility of Russian interference that it's blinding you to the fact that if our government and the US government was acting in an ethical manner then Russia would have to continue to publish lies, rather than truth, to subvert our democracy.
Wij
I am a FH squatter
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2003
- Messages
- 18,205
It does. And wikileaks has altered its 'leaks' in the past to make them look worse.
Fuck him.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 36,048
What does what?
Wikileaks releases unredacted whole databases of information - so how can you make the base data look worse? They may put a spin on the front of their website - but name me a news organisation that doesn't.
Regardless - Wikileaks (not Assange) as an organisation has shone light on disgusting government activity. If Assange had shot someone in full daylight on the street and then released the sort of troves of info that he did I'd say "thanks very much for the info, good work, now - court for you".
How he gets the information, how he spins it, how he publishes it, yadda yadda yadda. Its doesn't matter - If. It's. True....
Wij
I am a FH squatter
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2003
- Messages
- 18,205
Sometimes it isn't and he helped elect Trump. Specifically. He wouldn't contemplate releasing anything about Trump or the GOP in the election cycle.
And he's a rapist.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 36,048
Two things:
I've already said it doesn't matter if the large amounts of information he did release IS true. That "trumps" any of the other shit you're complaining about. If our governments are doing bad shit - we need to know about it.
Our own governments are more dangerous than who's president, russia, smallpox, whatever. Transparency and ethical conduct is a requirement of democracy. Wikileaks performs a necessary function in that regard. And even if you *hate* the rest of it - bias, trump, election meddling - I've yet to see an even slight argument that beats the uncovering of actions that our governments shouldn't be doing from publishing secrets that government would like hidden.
You're almost as rabidly anti-trump as Job is pro-trump. There's a bigger picture to be seen.
If it's not true, fair enough. Auntie makes mistakes but you don't jumpt to deliberate conspiracy there. But you're showing your hand (Anti-anyone-who-helped-Trump, which comes above all other considerations, regardless if they're more important than the current, temporary, US president).
I've already said it doesn't matter if the large amounts of information he did release IS true. That "trumps" any of the other shit you're complaining about. If our governments are doing bad shit - we need to know about it.
Our own governments are more dangerous than who's president, russia, smallpox, whatever. Transparency and ethical conduct is a requirement of democracy. Wikileaks performs a necessary function in that regard. And even if you *hate* the rest of it - bias, trump, election meddling - I've yet to see an even slight argument that beats the uncovering of actions that our governments shouldn't be doing from publishing secrets that government would like hidden.
Now who's leaping to supposition to justify his own point of view.
You're almost as rabidly anti-trump as Job is pro-trump. There's a bigger picture to be seen.
Wij
I am a FH squatter
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2003
- Messages
- 18,205
How many times do I have to keep saying it? Wikileaks hasn't done that since 2012. Assange has served Putin's interests since he got his show on RT. Leaks are only directed at Putin's targets. What did it do for the Panama Papers or the 2016 leak of Russian data? Fuck all. Wouldn't touch them.
Partisan transparency isn't transparency at all.
And if transparency is fundamental to democracy why aren't you more up in arms about the dark facebook ads that were used heavily by the brexit and trump campaigns, like in the video I posted last night? A whole election campaign can be waged with no scrutiny whatsoever. Lies can only be seen by the intended target and can't be challenged by the opposing side or the media because they can't even know it exists. That is dangerous to democracy.
(and yes I would say the same thing if the other side used them).
Wij
I am a FH squatter
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2003
- Messages
- 18,205
No. That's just common sense. Trump is the worst US candidate in living memory and a criminal.
(also a rapist)
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 36,048
Respectfully, I disagree here.
It's at least part of the story. When previously we had none.
I know we dislike using the "if you've got nothing to hide you've nothing to fear" - and that's certainly true on a personal level. Populations should absolutely not be subject to that.
Governments, however? Not so much. If they don't want to be suceptible to evidence-based leaks making them look bad then they shouldn't be doing stuff that creates bad evidence in the first place.
If there's a partisan leak - and they've actually acted ethically - then they've the option to release the full story for public consumption and judgement. That cuts the balls off the problem. But if they can't do that - because they haven't acted ethically - then that leak, partisan or not - has scored a win for joe public.
It might also have scored a win for Russia. Or whoever. But if governments are to learn that they have to act ethically, or be caught with their pants down, then they need to learn that actually acting ethically is how you combat that.
Yep. It's dangerous. It's a separate issue from the above, of course (ethical actions of governments). You're looking at it from an electioneering standpoint - I'm looking at it from a "how do governments act" standpoint.
With the electioneering hat on, yep. But the cat is out of the internet bag. How do you combat dark money influencing elections in the data age without turning authoritarian on the people?
Oh. Wait. Transparency! Legally enforced transparency on election spending. On who spends what, with whom and for what purpose!
But, also wait! Joe Public have been calling for that for years. Because corporate funding has been distorting the electoral process long before the internet was invented. Our governments have been in bed with big business and shady donors for as long as they've existed - and they've resisted being transparent to their electorate at every turn, and on every front.
So, yes, it's not a great situation. But how to combat it is down to governments being transparent, open and honest. Transparency on spending on influencing elections could easily be legally mandated. They could rock up and follow the money. Job jobbed.
But our governments, our banking systems, large corporate actors and well-funded pressure groups are shrouded in secrecy. I wouldn't say they're any more criminal than average Joe, but the impact of their criminality is orders of magnitude more important.
Ironically, hence the existence of Wikileaks, and organisations that are levaraging the internet for that sort of information dissemination...
