4 ms·
There's literal proof throughout this post. In fact, I posted some too. There are definitely levels of threats to American democracy. If DWS refers to Wasserma
by hnmonkey 8y ago
There's literal proof throughout this post. In fact, I posted some too.
There are definitely levels of threats to American democracy. If DWS refers to Wasserman-Schultz then it pales in comparison to an enemy foreign state's military intelligence corrupting the American government.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- wallace_f 8y agoSee you keep saying you can convince me, but still wont show me the proot that will. Do you really believe the Iraq Warlogs revealing death, torture, war crimes, and lying is somehow worse than literally subverting American democracy in a presidential primary? Now, I don't want to defend Assange's every single motive, but the DWS scandal was pure corruption, while for whatever bad Assange has done that you keep promising to show me, he has clearly shown bravery in doing some good along the way. And by the way, revealing war crimes is not anti-American. Liberty and justice are American principles. There will always be corruption and always a need to reveal it.
- hnmonkey 8y ago> Do you really believe the Iraq Warlogs revealing death, torture, war crimes, and lying is somehow worse than literally subverting American democracy in a presidential primary? It's interesting... you're asking me if I really believe something that I didn't ever say and implying I did. I actually compared the Wasserman-Schultz situation (which I think is incredibly overblown) to a sovereign foreign government's military intelligence corrupting the American government. And yes, when comparing those two things, the latter is far more worse.
- metildaa 8y agoCitations please? We should deal in fact, not allegations.
- nl 8y agoI'm not American, but.. I'm very confused. By "DWS scandal" do you mean the Debbie Wasserman Schultz issues[1]? I've read about that reasonable extensively, and they don't seem a huge deal to me at all. I mean it's good she resigned, but to me it looks more like a "perception of bias is as bad as bias itself" thing. She probably did some things that benefited Clinton in the primary, but these don't seem that big a deal in the scheme of things. The Wikipedia link I posted seems a reasonable summary. Which of them exactly is this big threat to democracy? For example, I thought the "removal of Sanders access to database" was a big deal until it became apparent that Sanders staffers had accessed private Clinton campaign information and it was restored in less than 24 hours[2]. What am I missing? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debbie_Wasserman_Schultz#2016_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debbie_Wasserman_Schultz#2016_... [2] https://www.npr.org/2015/12/19/460361192/dnc-restores-sanders-campaigns-access-to-voter-files-after-data-breach https://www.npr.org/2015/12/19/460361192/dnc-restores-sander...
- metildaa 8y agoPlease cite proof to back up the accusation leveled wrt Assange. That was all OP asked for, and instead you deflected.