Democrat reformists finding out that Democrats will only play dirty against the left.
Democrat reformists finding out that Democrats will only play dirty against the left.
You're viewing part of a thread.
Show Context
351 comments
-
The Wikileaks releases are the only meat of election interference, which according to Julian, didn't come from Russia.
What are you talking about? Julian was on Russia's side.
Everybody has seen those pages, and reporting on the subject - but the impact was minimal during the 2016 elections and onwards, I'd argue.
On what basis would you argue that? The DNI disagrees:
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf
Russian operatives maintaining Facebook/Twitter accounts to organize small protests is truly insignificant and Russian-linked actors buying ads (that ultimately didn't reach many) to manipulate the election is a failure of the companies involved. If Facebook/Twitter algorithms widely promoted these accounts and ads, it's another failure.
Yes, many failures. Are you at least admitting it happened? That Russia used these failures to manipulate American elections?
-
Julian was not on anybody's side in particular, there is no evidence that Julian ever favored Putin or the government there. Go and actually listen to past recordings of the guy to get a handle on his beliefs and principles. What did Russia ever do for him?
I am admitting that some stuff happened, but that nothing truly significant occurred. Hillary won the popular vote by a wide margin. The only thing that occurred was Red Scare 2.0 with ample hysteria - tech company incompetence aside. What ensued was everybody accusing everybody of being a Russian actor, with no proof.
The push for Trump was multi-pronged, see my initial response for the meat of what created Trump.
-
Julian was not on anybody's side in particular, there is no evidence that Julian favored Putin or the government there.
They consistently concealed evidence against the GOP and Russia, they outright denied claims made against Russia on their official accounts, they repeated Russian propaganda... come on man. It was obvious.
What did Russia ever do for him?
Be enemies of his enemies.
Red Scare 2.0
I'm sorry, are you suggesting Russia is somehow communist? They're fascist, and they're spreading fascism throughout the world on the internet, and they need to be stopped.
What ensued was everybody accusing everybody of being a Russian actor, with no proof.
What are you talking about? Countless members of Trump's staff were arrested and sent to jail for being Russian spies. The NRA had a Russian spy funneling money. Right wing radio and youtube hosts across America were caught taking Russian money.
Why are you denying all of this?
-
They consistently concealed evidence against the GOP and Russia, they outright denied claims made against Russia on their official accounts, they repeated Russian propaganda… come on man. It was obvious.
Citation needed, citation needed, citation needed. Convince me.
Be enemies of his enemies.
Why did Assange see Clinton as an enemy?
I’m sorry, are you suggesting Russia is somehow communist? They’re fascist, and they’re spreading fascism throughout the world on the internet, and they need to be stopped. [...] Right wing radio and youtube hosts across America were caught taking Russian money.
I'm suggesting that what ensued was hysteria. With or without Russia's financial support, right-wing influencers and spaces have continued to prop up Trump.
What are you talking about? Countless members of Trump’s staff were arrested and sent to jail for being Russian spies. The NRA had a Russian spy funneling money.
I am talking about online discourse, not the failure of the state to protect itself from compromised individuals in high positions.
-
https://thedispatch.com/article/how-julian-assange-shaped-the-2016-election/
https://theintercept.com/2017/11/15/wikileaks-julian-assange-donald-trump-jr-hillary-clinton/
Why did Assange see Clinton as an enemy?
See above sources.
I'm suggesting that what ensued was hysteria.
Convince me. Because I've posted an overwhelming amount of evidence for you to suggest it was all "hysteria".
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf
That's every intelligence agency in the country saying you're wrong.
I am talking about online discourse, not the failure of the state to protect itself from its enemies.
Okay, good, we can agree that Russia is our enemy. That's some common ground we can work from.
-
See above sources.
“Assange, despite his claims to scientific journalism, emphasized to me that his mission is to expose injustice, not to provide an even-handed record of events.”
Why did he feel it was so imperative to fight Clinton? It wasn't simply because he thought she was a demon. It wasn't specifically because he was pro-Russia or pro-Trump, even if he did collude with the latter (and former if the Guccifer 2.0 source of leaks is to be believed). I want Buzzfeed's and whatever else's source for the leaked DMs between Wikileaks and Guccifer 2.0, and Roger Stone can fuck off - I don't believe a word he says.
That’s every intelligence agency in the country saying you’re wrong.
I don't see the state operating in my interest or anybody else's, including its own interest. Things have been quite dysfunctional. Intelligence agencies routinely do not properly cite their sources, does that link provide actual sources instead of "trust me bro"?
Okay, good, we can agree that Russia is our enemy. That’s some common ground we can work from.
Russia is hostile to the US, and the US is hostile to Russia. Everybody is in the crossfire of governments than do not represent or serve them.
-
-
-
-
-
351 comments