What will President Trump disclose ....

  On 11/10/2016 at 5:12 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

Yeah, it's true. Hillary was an awful candidate and she almost won. Imagine if the candidate wasn't so fucking terrible. I'm partly happy that we didn't get another political elite family, but I think that is exactly what Trumps family will morph into. If he puts any of his kid in the administration...

She and her cronies "leveraged" Sanders and called in favors and generally did everything they could to subvert the American people's democratic will. If anyone can say with a straight face "hey, that's just how the game is played" well then it's exactly that complacency that rewarded us with president-elect Trump.

  On 11/10/2016 at 5:12 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

Yeah, it's true. Hillary was an awful candidate and she almost won. Imagine if the candidate wasn't so fucking terrible. I'm partly happy that we didn't get another political elite family, but I think that is exactly what Trumps family will morph into. If he puts any of his kid in the administration...

He's not elite already? He's moving from a solid gold penthouse into the White House.

He weren't amongst the *political* elite tho. 

I've seen former campaign managers argue that those podesta mails were fairly tame, btw. Moreover, they showed how they actually tried to move Clinton to being more transparant.

My take on those emails is that it's mostly blown out of proportion. Much is taken out of context and interpreted in some self-serving way.

Yeah, they wrote something about having leverage over Sanders. But what does that actually mean? You can read it like blackmail. Sure. It could also be about some negotiation about a shared political agenda. Who knows. I don't know. I do know though, that if they would have been negotiating, it would not have had the dark meaning that's currently being cast onto it.

The only crap from those mails, that I'm aware of, was about some practices of Bill making money with his name. And the irony of those leaks was that it showed how some people inside their organisation were actually explicitly against this.

  On 11/10/2016 at 6:41 PM, doublename said:

He weren't amongst the *political* elite tho. 

now he is tho

  On 11/10/2016 at 6:47 PM, goDel said:

I've seen former campaign managers argue that those podesta mails were fairly tame, btw. Moreover, they showed how they actually tried to move Clinton to being more transparant.

 

My take on those emails is that it's mostly blown out of proportion. Much is taken out of context and interpreted in some self-serving way.

 

Yeah, they wrote something about having leverage over Sanders. But what does that actually mean? You can read it like blackmail. Sure. It could also be about some negotiation about a shared political agenda. Who knows. I don't know. I do know though, that if they would have been negotiating, it would not have had the dark meaning that's currently being cast onto it.

 

The only crap from those mails, that I'm aware of, was about some practices of Bill making money with his name. And the irony of those leaks was that it showed how some people inside their organisation were actually explicitly against this.

  On 11/10/2016 at 6:41 PM, doublename said:

He weren't amongst the *political* elite tho. 

 

now he is tho

The DNC stuff is pretty damning I think, but yeah, there is nothing explicit about the emails which is why it's weird that people keep talking about emails, but not about some specific goings on within them.

  On 11/10/2016 at 2:16 PM, Squee said:

So here's what I don't get... so that moron, Assange, leaked all kinds of shit about Clinton which put her in a bad situation. I don't know if it actually had any influence on the outcome of the election, but why would you leak stuff that puts the only glimpse of a hope of the country in a bad position and which then puts the loose cannon in charge?

I must be missing something...

this might be worth a read:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jamesball/heres-what-i-learned-about-julian-assange?utm_term=.onGNrLj9d7#.buvAXB2kzW

Yeah, the DNC stuff was pretty f-ing stupid. 

  On 11/10/2016 at 6:51 PM, marian said:

 

  On 11/10/2016 at 2:16 PM, Squee said:

So here's what I don't get... so that moron, Assange, leaked all kinds of shit about Clinton which put her in a bad situation. I don't know if it actually had any influence on the outcome of the election, but why would you leak stuff that puts the only glimpse of a hope of the country in a bad position and which then puts the loose cannon in charge?

I must be missing something...

this might be worth a read:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jamesball/heres-what-i-learned-about-julian-assange?utm_term=.onGNrLj9d7#.buvAXB2kzW

Good article, though I find the effort to link the psychologies of assange with trump unconvincing.

  On 11/10/2016 at 6:51 PM, marian said:

 

  On 11/10/2016 at 2:16 PM, Squee said:

So here's what I don't get... so that moron, Assange, leaked all kinds of shit about Clinton which put her in a bad situation. I don't know if it actually had any influence on the outcome of the election, but why would you leak stuff that puts the only glimpse of a hope of the country in a bad position and which then puts the loose cannon in charge?

I must be missing something...

this might be worth a read:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jamesball/heres-what-i-learned-about-julian-assange?utm_term=.onGNrLj9d7#.buvAXB2kzW

That was quite a read. I wonder how much of it is true? I mean... buzzfeed?

  On 11/10/2016 at 8:07 PM, Squee said:

 

  On 11/10/2016 at 6:51 PM, marian said:

 

  On 11/10/2016 at 2:16 PM, Squee said:

So here's what I don't get... so that moron, Assange, leaked all kinds of shit about Clinton which put her in a bad situation. I don't know if it actually had any influence on the outcome of the election, but why would you leak stuff that puts the only glimpse of a hope of the country in a bad position and which then puts the loose cannon in charge?

I must be missing something...

this might be worth a read:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jamesball/heres-what-i-learned-about-julian-assange?utm_term=.onGNrLj9d7#.buvAXB2kzW

That was quite a read. I wonder how much of it is true? I mean... buzzfeed?

 

i wouldn't know either. i guess we'll never find out.

in a way this whole situation feels a bit like some sort of mindgame - how many seemingly conflicting statements can one take in without resorting to blatant simplification, conspiracy theory or populist/demagogical rhetoric?

i for one find it easy to believe that assange might be a chauvinist, antisemite, pro-putin, whatever. that doesn't necessarily mean that wikileaks didn't do some good at some point. and neither does it imply that "hillary = good", that hillary clinton was a good choice for a candidate, or a particularly sympathetic one. that, on the other hand, doesn't mean that she is hawkish, less trustworthy than any of the other candidates or any other of the adjectives that got stuck to her in the past months. idk, maybe sanders would have won this thing because less frustrated dems would have jumped ship - but he lives in a weird 20th century fantasy world of his own, where EVERYTHING bad can just magically be attributed to wall street. 

and that's really the thing that is scary to me in this. because its the same behavioural structure that drove the brexit vote. we live in an extremely complex, global, networked society, yet people demand a) easy answers and b) easily identifiable culprits. 

  On 11/10/2016 at 1:16 AM, Bechuga said:

Whatever happens, there will be hell toupee

irl lol