Julian Assange calls for leaks on Trump after claims Wikileaks attacked Hillary Clinton
WIKILEAKS has hit back at claims the group was biased against Hillary Clinton - insisting no damaging information about Donald Trump had been sent to them.
The online group was grilled by users of Reddit in a questions and answer session on the online debating forum.
WikiLeaks became a focal point during the election campaign.
It published thousands of internal Democrat National Council emails, and more recently thousands more from the hacked email account of the Hillary Clinton campaign manager John Podesta.
Some Reddit users appeared suspicious Wikileaks had an agenda to get Donald Trump elected.
ne user asked: "Why do you only seem to have information on Democrats?
"If you were as noble as you say you would believe in government accountability at all levels, not just for one party."
Another said: "Why did you choose to expose Clinton and not Trump?"
A third said: "Why did you want Donald Trump to be elected president?"
Read the rest of the full article here: http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/731316/Wikileaks-Julian-Assange-Donald-Trump-Hillary-Clinton
Make sure to follow this profile @contentjunkie to stay up to date on more great posts like this one.
the way this whole thing is framed is just weird. to start off, the article title is kind of misleading, because assange himself didn't say ANYTHING about calling for leaks on Trump. i think this is a new form of propaganda, that's trying to exploit the fact that many people today get their news by skimming headlines (e.g. feeds, tweets, etc.). if you go through the whole article itself, this is what assange says:
this is incredibly misleading and needs to be called out.
the other problem is the way the media is trying to frame the issue. what's much more important than who these leaks incriminate, is the issue of whether they are reliable enough to press/pursue criminal charges against the parties involved. because the implications are pretty fucking huge, so maybe instead of this election bullshit, we should be asking stuff like:
WHAT PERCENTAGE OF OUR GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS ARE INVOLVED IN THE TRAFFICKING OF CHILD SEX SLAVES?
WILL OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES ACTUALLY ENFORCE OUR LAWS CONSISTENTLY AND EQUALLY WITHOUT REGARD TO SOCIAL STATUS/POLITICAL POWER?
IS THE AMERICAN PUBLIC TOO DESENSITIZED TO CARE ABOUT SOMETHING AS HEINOUS AS TRAFFICKING CHILD SEX SLAVES??
it's just fucking mind-blowing how far we've fallen in just a few generations, to prioritize diversionary bipartisan bullshit over the investigation of an entire industry that profits from exploiting children in unimaginably horrifying ways. i mean, just read the goddamned emails, and it very fucking quickly becomes obvious that the people in the highest offices of our country are actually fucking children. i'm sorry that i even need to be this graphic to get the point across in a way that won't be forgotten in 8 seconds. THE PEOPLE THAT REPRESENT US ARE RAPING LITTLE BOYS AND GIRLS BECAUSE WE LET THEM GET AWAY WITH IT. alright? so to all the fucktards whining about trump, get the dicks out of your eyes long enough to stop crying and pay attention to something worth caring about. jesus fucking christ.
Your username makes sense, bigly. Everything you wrote amounts to hyperbole. Very well done.
can you be more specific? i'm not sure where in my comment you're referring to...in the first half of my comment, i only refer to the article itself. in the second half, i didn't link to any sources but i can if you're interested. of course i intentionally worded it to be harsh, but i don't think hyperbole would be an accurate description of my comment? though i can see how it might seem like it if you haven't actually looked over the primary sources yourself...
The first part I find to be hyperbolic. While it may be a bit sensational I don't see the headline as misleading propaganda.
The ending was just an alt-right fabricated non-story. I read the emails you spoke of and no reasonable person would interpret them the way you are espousing. It's a big non sequitur that requires a jump to conclusions mat to reach the end.
no, but look at the title. "Julian Assange calls for leaks on Trump after claims Wikileaks attacked Hillary Clinton" NOWHERE in the entire article, does it say anything about julian assange calling for leaks on Trump. the message he was conveying was very clear, and in context, the title is very clearly equivocation. when this tactic is used repeatedly, in combination with the recently uncovered information regarding the collusion of almost all major mainstream media outlets with a political party, i don't think it's an exaggeration at all to label it as propaganda.
as for your response to the second half, I'm not sure what to think. either you didn't actually read them, or are intentionally being dense, in which case i'm not going to waste anymore of my time. you say that no reasonable person would interpret them in the way i've described...but a lot of these are very obviously written in code. and i think most reasonable people will agree with the conclusion that's already been drawn by many people.
"The realtor found a handkerchief (I think it has a map that seems pizza-related. Is it yours? They can send it if you want. I know you’re busy, so feel free not to respond if it’s not yours or you don’t want it."
"Do you think I’ll do better playing dominos on cheese than on pasta?"
I consider ice cream, its purchase, and its consumption a rather serious business. We can’t just willy-nilly toss it out and about in casual references, especially linked with the word “free”.
“hotdog” = boy
“pizza” = girl
“cheese” = little girl
“pasta” = little boy
“ice cream” = male prostitute
“walnut” = person of colour
“map” = semen
“sauce” = orgy
again, pretty sure most reasonable people would draw the same conclusion, especially considering that Anthony Weiner’s laptop had info on the trips that bill and hillary took to Jeff Epstein's island of child sex slaves, the tons of other emails between other well-known democrats that use strange and coded language, the NYPD detectives, prosecutors and NYPD chief that came out to confirm all this, etc. etc.
so again, either you aren't very well informed, despite your username, or you're just wasting everyone's time and diverting attention from more important issues which is a pretty shitty thing to do considering the circumstances.
The last paragraph perfectly describes your reply as well. Well done.
hah nice...very clever. thanks!
In his response, my post or the original article? The last paragraph of what?
I sense another apt username here.
right...that's why you need to resort to ad hominem attacks in literally every reply you've made. well i dunno, maybe that's normal in your world of "reasonableness", where there are hankerchief maps that are pizza-related, and you play dominos on cheese (or is pasta better?), but shhhh don't talk about the ice cream, that's serious business. it's pathetic and desperate to have to sink to this level just to, what, win an argument? but i suppose if you did feel the need to go this far, then your ego must need it badly, so take it. congrats you win! loser
You don't understand what an ad hominem is. If you feel your comments being labeled hyperbole is an insult, I suggest you pick a new username.
zzz...2 other people agree with me, and no one else agrees with you so i win :D
sorry no time to watch too busy winning :D
He said he didn't have any daming info on trump and that is why.
This post has been ranked within the top 50 most undervalued posts in the first half of Nov 13. We estimate that this post is undervalued by $7.64 as compared to a scenario in which every voter had an equal say.
See the full rankings and details in The Daily Tribune: Nov 13 - Part I. You can also read about some of our methodology, data analysis and technical details in our initial post.
If you are the author and would prefer not to receive these comments, simply reply "Stop" to this comment.