6 ms·

> The simple fact is that Assange is campaigning for Donald Trump. This is classic US politics. This A vs B mentality is what leads to such a fierce two party

> The simple fact is that Assange is campaigning for Donald Trump. This is classic US politics. This A vs B mentality is what leads to such a fierce two party system. If you don't support choice A, then you are assumed to support choice B. Any attack on Hillary is viewed as support for Trump and vice versa. I don't think that's a fair interpretation.

tptacek 10y ago
You're entitled to think whatever you want, but I am entitled to remind you that 2 + 2 = 4. We have an "A vs B mentality" because that's the design of our political system: it is structured to favor two dominant parties, which are themselves coalitions of interests. Assange is many things, but "stupid" isn't one of them. Running Wikileaks as a year-long oppo research firm for Trump has the obvious impact of helping Trump, which is why the Trump campaign claims to coordinate with him.
- belorn 10y ago
  That is really dangerous way to view people. I hope we have more common sense when we view security researchers that publish security vulnerabilities, rather than see them as campaigning for the competitor. Every published security vulnerability for windows is not an advertisement for apple, or vice versa. "If you are not in favor of Microsoft, you are in favor or Apple" is unhealthy way to view the world. And it's not because I think security experts are stupid and don't realize the obvious commercial impact that a security vulnerability has.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    I mean, you've made it clear how you feel, but not so much what that feeling has to do with the facts of this election. The choices are Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. To oppose Clinton is to support Trump. It is a zero-sum contest. If Assange wishes a pox on both parties, he could stay out of the election altogether. But of course, that's not what he's doing.
    - belorn 10y ago
      In a election that has the lowest ever recorded public opinion of the two candidates, my feeling of the election is this. The what ever allowed this situation to happen is proof that it is broken. If I was to favor the majority opinion, to oppose both Trump and Clinton is to campaign for democracy. If I had to guess what motivities Assange, if Clinton win people won't trust the government and if trump win people will fear the government. It is possible that the later will slightly produce more Snowden's.
      - tptacek 10y ago
        "Public opinion of the candidates" doesn't mean anything. Hillary Clinton crushed Bernie Sanders, beating him by ten times the number of votes Obama beat HRC with in 2008. Similarly, Trump demolished his Republican opponents in the GOP primary. The voters made a clear choice.
        belorn 10y ago
        Douglas Adams joked about this phenomenon by describing that people will vote for lizards they hate so long it means that the wrong lizard won't win. In a zero-sum game, that result is a Nash equilibrium. It is still a lizard that get voted into office at the end of the day.
        tptacek 10y ago
        None of this is responsive to my comment. Hillary Clinton did not win in a squeaker over Sanders; she crushed him. The voters made a clear choice, and it wasn't for "the right kind of lizard". This is the Democratic primary we're talking about, and it wasn't a "lesser of two evils" race there.
        belorn 10y ago
        If you are asking why Clinton won over sander, while sander has a higher opinion rating, feel free to write your suggestion. Popularity opinion is shared between the left and right while same can't be said when talking about the vote for party candidates. Some would point to the political events that the dc leaks talked about.
- fluentintypo 10y ago
  Why would Assange, a confirmed Anarchist, support conservative, capitalist Republicans? That doesn't make any sense. If anything, Assange would want the third party libertarian to win since he is the only guy advocating to stop the wars and reduce American involvement overseas, which is what Assange wants. He sees America as a menace and wants to stop the brutality of American "peace" in countries they have no business being in.
  - krapp 10y ago
    Assange doesn't support Trump or the Republicans. He supports Hillary Clinton not becoming President, because of his personal vendetta against her. It just happens that his efforts to undermine the Clinton campaign help Trump. As an anarchist, Assange probably wouldn't care about the libertarians more than any other candidate, since any candidate would only futher the existence and legitimacy of a state which he would rather see destroyed. If he did support Trump, it would be because he believes a Trump Presidency would only hasten America's demise.
- admax88q 10y ago
  > Trump campaign claims to coordinate with him. Citation please. I haven't heard anything about that. > Running Wikileaks as a year-long oppo research firm for Trump Wikileaks can only leak what they've been given. Maybe people are feeding them more info about Hillary, but I would respect Wikileaks far less if they withheld information during an election year to protect a candidate. The voters deserve to know everything there is to know about their candidates. It's an assault against the voters to withhold negative information about a candidate because you don't want their opponent to win.

tptacek 10y ago

You're entitled to think whatever you want, but I am entitled to remind you that 2 + 2 = 4. We have an "A vs B mentality" because that's the design of our political system: it is structured to favor two dominant parties, which are themselves coalitions of interests. Assange is many things, but "stupid" isn't one of them. Running Wikileaks as a year-long oppo research firm for Trump has the obvious impact of helping Trump, which is why the Trump campaign claims to coordinate with him.

belorn 10y ago
That is really dangerous way to view people. I hope we have more common sense when we view security researchers that publish security vulnerabilities, rather than see them as campaigning for the competitor. Every published security vulnerability for windows is not an advertisement for apple, or vice versa. "If you are not in favor of Microsoft, you are in favor or Apple" is unhealthy way to view the world. And it's not because I think security experts are stupid and don't realize the obvious commercial impact that a security vulnerability has.
- tptacek 10y ago
  I mean, you've made it clear how you feel, but not so much what that feeling has to do with the facts of this election. The choices are Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. To oppose Clinton is to support Trump. It is a zero-sum contest. If Assange wishes a pox on both parties, he could stay out of the election altogether. But of course, that's not what he's doing.
  - belorn 10y ago
    In a election that has the lowest ever recorded public opinion of the two candidates, my feeling of the election is this. The what ever allowed this situation to happen is proof that it is broken. If I was to favor the majority opinion, to oppose both Trump and Clinton is to campaign for democracy. If I had to guess what motivities Assange, if Clinton win people won't trust the government and if trump win people will fear the government. It is possible that the later will slightly produce more Snowden's.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      "Public opinion of the candidates" doesn't mean anything. Hillary Clinton crushed Bernie Sanders, beating him by ten times the number of votes Obama beat HRC with in 2008. Similarly, Trump demolished his Republican opponents in the GOP primary. The voters made a clear choice.
      - belorn 10y ago
        Douglas Adams joked about this phenomenon by describing that people will vote for lizards they hate so long it means that the wrong lizard won't win. In a zero-sum game, that result is a Nash equilibrium. It is still a lizard that get voted into office at the end of the day.
        tptacek 10y ago
        None of this is responsive to my comment. Hillary Clinton did not win in a squeaker over Sanders; she crushed him. The voters made a clear choice, and it wasn't for "the right kind of lizard". This is the Democratic primary we're talking about, and it wasn't a "lesser of two evils" race there.
        belorn 10y ago
        If you are asking why Clinton won over sander, while sander has a higher opinion rating, feel free to write your suggestion. Popularity opinion is shared between the left and right while same can't be said when talking about the vote for party candidates. Some would point to the political events that the dc leaks talked about.
fluentintypo 10y ago
Why would Assange, a confirmed Anarchist, support conservative, capitalist Republicans? That doesn't make any sense. If anything, Assange would want the third party libertarian to win since he is the only guy advocating to stop the wars and reduce American involvement overseas, which is what Assange wants. He sees America as a menace and wants to stop the brutality of American "peace" in countries they have no business being in.
- krapp 10y ago
  Assange doesn't support Trump or the Republicans. He supports Hillary Clinton not becoming President, because of his personal vendetta against her. It just happens that his efforts to undermine the Clinton campaign help Trump. As an anarchist, Assange probably wouldn't care about the libertarians more than any other candidate, since any candidate would only futher the existence and legitimacy of a state which he would rather see destroyed. If he did support Trump, it would be because he believes a Trump Presidency would only hasten America's demise.
admax88q 10y ago
> Trump campaign claims to coordinate with him. Citation please. I haven't heard anything about that. > Running Wikileaks as a year-long oppo research firm for Trump Wikileaks can only leak what they've been given. Maybe people are feeding them more info about Hillary, but I would respect Wikileaks far less if they withheld information during an election year to protect a candidate. The voters deserve to know everything there is to know about their candidates. It's an assault against the voters to withhold negative information about a candidate because you don't want their opponent to win.