6 ms·

They believe that partisanship makes them moral people, but really it just makes their party morally bankrupt. When the Democrats got to sit back and watch war

They believe that partisanship makes them moral people, but really it just makes their party morally bankrupt. When the Democrats got to sit back and watch wars they secretly liked, under cover of Republican administrations, Julian Assange was a hero who would speak truth to big bad Republican power. Now that they think Julian Assange's public service helped Americans choose the current President, they view him as a villain. A seeming majority of the mainstream press in the U.S. is staffed by Democrat partisans, so it's no wonder that they say whatever they can to defend it.

kbenson 8y ago
There may be some truth to that for some people, but let's not discount the amount of people (I think a majority) that distinguish between exposing government actions and meddling with an election and colluding with a foreign power in dosing so. To be clear, whether they are guilty of that or not is irrelevant to the point that people beleive they are, and that can explain a lot of the difference in how they are perceived now. Ignoring that in favor of narrative where all the Democrats are complete hypocrites is no different than what you were accusing others of in your comment.
- raxxorrax 8y ago
  The "meddling in elections" is neither quantifiable nor in any way an excuse for the issue at hand. You want to get someone behind bars because he leaked information about war crimes. Nothing else at hand matters to this case. "meddling in elections".... pff....
  - kbenson 8y ago
    I think you've missed the context within which I was speaking, which was in direct reply to someone. I was not speaking as to whether Assange is guilty or should be prosecuted. I was speaking to someone's assessment of how "the Democrats" opinion changed on Assange over time, and the reasons for which that happened. I think the perception that Wikilieaks and Assange in particular were not acting as the neutral third party they presented themselves as has a lot to do with that, and ignoring that in lieu of a simplistic narrative the denigrates others by reducing their thoughts and motives to base approximations and stereotypes is not useful.
    - raxxorrax 8y ago
      I know how the opinion changed. There was relentless push by media and other organizations to create a narrative that there were some wizards that influenced the US elections. We still don't have any evidence on that by the way. Using this as a justification to omit the governments responsibility in war crimes, people really shouldn't vote for anything associated with your politic platform. And maybe they just didn't. That would actually be an explanation that is far more probable.
- jonfw 8y ago
  Election meddling is not inherently bad. If your version of "election meddling" is just by sharing facts about a potential electee, than I would say that you have meddled in a positive manner by making americans more educated. If he was engaged in manipulating vote counts, or if he was spreading false information, I would see the problem. But wikileaks for the most part just shared accurate government secrets. You're just using "election meddling" as a negatively connotated buzzword, without supporting how this was negative to the american people. I also meddled with the election by sharing my opinion on the internet, or at least I attempted to. Does that mean I'm anti-american? What if a foreign person retweeted me, or vice versa? Have I now colluded with foreigners to meddle with the election? The support of foreigners is not evidence of wrong-doing, and the sharing of information in an attempt to influence an election is not wrongdoing. Free speech includes speech about the elections, in fact that's where it is MOST important.
  - belltaco 8y ago
    Selective leaking and delaying/timing leaks for maximum impact is election meddling. > if he was spreading false information https://our.wikileaks.org/Pizzagate https://our.wikileaks.org/Pizzagate Leading to https://rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/john-podesta-pizzagate-766489/ https://rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/john-pod... Also implying that Seth Rich was the real leaker and that the DNC had him killed for it. http://www.fox5dc.com/news/wikileaks-founder-addresses-death-of-dnc-staffer-seth-rich-in-fox-news-interview http://www.fox5dc.com/news/wikileaks-founder-addresses-death...
    - jonfw 8y ago
      I know that it intends to meddle with the election. Like I said, that isn't inherently a bad thing. I also fully intend on "election meddling" by sharing my opinions on the internet. As should you. It's on you to prove why this is bad for the american people. Here are quotes from the two conspiracy theories you were talking about. Did you even read the articles you linked? he specifically warned in both instances that he did not have damning evidence of either of these things. > WARNING: This investigation is a Speculative investigation which lacks clear and provable evidence, yet could be interesting should additional evidence be presented. > We're not saying that Seth Rich's death necessarily is connected to our publications – that's something that needs to be established Assange is not responsible for the conspiracy theories that other people generate from his information.

kbenson 8y ago

There may be some truth to that for some people, but let's not discount the amount of people (I think a majority) that distinguish between exposing government actions and meddling with an election and colluding with a foreign power in dosing so. To be clear, whether they are guilty of that or not is irrelevant to the point that people beleive they are, and that can explain a lot of the difference in how they are perceived now. Ignoring that in favor of narrative where all the Democrats are complete hypocrites is no different than what you were accusing others of in your comment.

raxxorrax 8y ago
The "meddling in elections" is neither quantifiable nor in any way an excuse for the issue at hand. You want to get someone behind bars because he leaked information about war crimes. Nothing else at hand matters to this case. "meddling in elections".... pff....
- kbenson 8y ago
  I think you've missed the context within which I was speaking, which was in direct reply to someone. I was not speaking as to whether Assange is guilty or should be prosecuted. I was speaking to someone's assessment of how "the Democrats" opinion changed on Assange over time, and the reasons for which that happened. I think the perception that Wikilieaks and Assange in particular were not acting as the neutral third party they presented themselves as has a lot to do with that, and ignoring that in lieu of a simplistic narrative the denigrates others by reducing their thoughts and motives to base approximations and stereotypes is not useful.
  - raxxorrax 8y ago
    I know how the opinion changed. There was relentless push by media and other organizations to create a narrative that there were some wizards that influenced the US elections. We still don't have any evidence on that by the way. Using this as a justification to omit the governments responsibility in war crimes, people really shouldn't vote for anything associated with your politic platform. And maybe they just didn't. That would actually be an explanation that is far more probable.
jonfw 8y ago
Election meddling is not inherently bad. If your version of "election meddling" is just by sharing facts about a potential electee, than I would say that you have meddled in a positive manner by making americans more educated. If he was engaged in manipulating vote counts, or if he was spreading false information, I would see the problem. But wikileaks for the most part just shared accurate government secrets. You're just using "election meddling" as a negatively connotated buzzword, without supporting how this was negative to the american people. I also meddled with the election by sharing my opinion on the internet, or at least I attempted to. Does that mean I'm anti-american? What if a foreign person retweeted me, or vice versa? Have I now colluded with foreigners to meddle with the election? The support of foreigners is not evidence of wrong-doing, and the sharing of information in an attempt to influence an election is not wrongdoing. Free speech includes speech about the elections, in fact that's where it is MOST important.
- belltaco 8y ago
  Selective leaking and delaying/timing leaks for maximum impact is election meddling. > if he was spreading false information https://our.wikileaks.org/Pizzagate https://our.wikileaks.org/Pizzagate Leading to https://rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/john-podesta-pizzagate-766489/ https://rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/john-pod... Also implying that Seth Rich was the real leaker and that the DNC had him killed for it. http://www.fox5dc.com/news/wikileaks-founder-addresses-death-of-dnc-staffer-seth-rich-in-fox-news-interview http://www.fox5dc.com/news/wikileaks-founder-addresses-death...
  - jonfw 8y ago
    I know that it intends to meddle with the election. Like I said, that isn't inherently a bad thing. I also fully intend on "election meddling" by sharing my opinions on the internet. As should you. It's on you to prove why this is bad for the american people. Here are quotes from the two conspiracy theories you were talking about. Did you even read the articles you linked? he specifically warned in both instances that he did not have damning evidence of either of these things. > WARNING: This investigation is a Speculative investigation which lacks clear and provable evidence, yet could be interesting should additional evidence be presented. > We're not saying that Seth Rich's death necessarily is connected to our publications – that's something that needs to be established Assange is not responsible for the conspiracy theories that other people generate from his information.