3 ms·
Assange/Wikileaks nemesis is secrecy and corruption, not HRC specifically. Now if they view her as the most corrupt, they would naturally be against her, and i
by dpweb 10y ago
Assange/Wikileaks nemesis is secrecy and corruption, not HRC specifically. Now if they view her as the most corrupt, they would naturally be against her, and inevitably that supports Trump. But that is not the same as the rabid right wing supporter of Trump.
Assange is savvy enough to know their position inevitably supports Trump, but there isn't any reason to think if they viewed Trump as more corrupt they would be against him. So it is possible they take a principled position while wrongly accused of having a preference in who wins the election.
- tptacek 10y agoThis argument depends on Trump being "less corrupt" than HRC. If you believe Trump is the anti-corruption candidate, you can plausibly argue that Assange is somehow justified in supporting a candidate who is calling for the death penalty for leakers. It won't be a strong argument, but it'll be coherent. But very few observers of US politics believe Trump is the anti-corruption candidate. A more widely held belief is that he's the most corrupt major party nominee in the history of US politics.
- ovidnis 10y agoI hear people saying the 'most corrupt candidate ever!' about both candidates. More about HRC than Trump though. For some reason I doubt both assertions.
- tptacek 10y agoLook, if you're a Trump supporter, I exempt you from criticism about support for Wikileaks. As a Trump supporter, your support for Wikileaks is totally coherent.
- ovidnis 10y agoI'm not a Trump supporter, I just don't think Trump is any more corrupt than HRC
- throwaway729 10y agoTrump's corruption and naked greed is overt and out-in-the-open. He's even proud of it. Clinton's happens in secret and is masked by insincerity, lies, etc. I think there's a brain glitch at play here -- corruption in the style of Clinton feels more corrupt because it's secretive, even if the out-in-the-open corruption is just as bad or worse.
- effie 10y agoGeorge Carlin explained this phenomenon in a brilliant way: https://youtu.be/bu3hy4OMX38?list=RD07w9K2XR3f0&t=265 https://youtu.be/bu3hy4OMX38?list=RD07w9K2XR3f0&t=265 Only this time, it seems the Clintons were trumped...
- tanderson92 10y agoWidely held beliefs are not necessarily correct; it's strange to hold to that as the standard of what is a reasonable argument for Trump.
- tptacek 10y agoIf you believe Trump is less corrupt than Hillary Clinton, further support for Wikileaks makes sense.
- tanderson92 10y agoIt depends what you consider to be corruption. I don't have any confidence that they will enact the policies they describe. Trump is a well-known charlatan and liar. Clinton, however, comes closer to corruption via corporate interests and wealthy friends. Disclosure: I support neither candidate and will probably vote the Party for Socialism and Liberation this cycle.
- tptacek 10y agoFair enough. Sharpen the contradictions!