6 ms·
>If you have damaging data on two people Do you have any reason to think that Wikileaks has the data on both sides, but only presents half?
by dandelion_lover 10y ago
>If you have damaging data on two people
Do you have any reason to think that Wikileaks has the data on both sides, but only presents half?
- Tomte 10y agoAssange said so himself.
- SixSigma 10y agoCare to provide a citation? I seem to recall him saying he had nothing on Trump.
- Tomte 10y agoChoose any link from a Google search for "assange trump worse" you deem trustworthy. All kinds of news sources across the political spectrum have reported it.
- SixSigma 10y agoFirst hit TheHill - the opposite of my trust pool - seems to agree with what I said. Not "Trump lied to the FBI and is funded by the same people who fund ISIS".
- Tomte 10y agoYou didn't claim "Trump lied to the FBI and is funded by the same people who fund ISIS" You claimed "he had nothing on Trump". And the links clearly counter that. That's my last reply to you. I don't like my discussion partners to sleazily try and retroactively change their claims to something nobody ever talked about when shown counter arguments. That's not an honest mistake, that's simply dishonest and a waste of time.
- SixSigma 10y agoI think "says stupid things" and "undermines the democratic process by using slush funds, illegal foreign donations and a slew of felonious crimes" is hardly a moral equivalent. So I double down on my assertion: Wikileaks has nothing on Trump.
- ZoF 10y agoHaha, remember SixSigma, you're the sleazy dishonest one here! Shame! Shame! Shame!
- tastythrowaway2 10y agowasn't assange's/WL's position that they couldn't really do any worse to Trump than he already does with his own words? something to that effect?
- pkinsky 10y agoBased on your inability to provide a citation my immediate assumption is that your assertion is untrue. This is generally a reasonable heuristic. If only for the sake of convincing bystanders, can you please provide a citation for this claim?