3 ms·

No intention to flame, I genuinely find this case fascinating. So Devils advocate - the dnc was polarized before assange leaked anything. It was straight up co

No intention to flame, I genuinely find this case fascinating. So Devils advocate - the dnc was polarized before assange leaked anything. It was straight up controlled by Hillarys camp. If Hillary were some grassroots candidate or hell, if the dnc had just not deliberately sided with one specific candidate when their bylaws are crystal clear that that is wrong (not to mention common sense agreeing) - then yeah I'd say assange was playing presidential chess (though we don't know his actual impact) and that's bad. But that said - the dnc was corrupt as hell. I see assange having a metric fuck ton of moral wiggle room here. Personally it didn't matter what candidate did what Hillary got away with in that election - whoever it was deserved to be exposed and too bad if other incriminating shit came out too. My two cents. Further, what I've seen is that ppl who dislike assange seem to base it on "well he did something illegal" (giving Manning instructions for hacking). Well, Manning then chose to hack and was pardoned after way less than assange has been through, so how can assange possibly be so bad? I'm still awaiting more details. I have no problems changing my views. But as everything stands now, I cannot help but think this whole anti assange business is fueled by the exact same propaganda machines that were running on behalf of Hillary in 2016. The ones that mysteriously shut off or slowed down the moment she lost. The ones that insisted that she didn't receive debate questions ahead of time. The ones that convinced so many that there was no server hacking. The ones that made trump look like an incompetent loser with no chance of winning.

spiralx 7y ago
The DNC supported the candidate that won the primary, that's true. I've yet to hear what actual wrong=doing was exposed by the leaked emails though, what bylaws are you referring to? > Well, Manning then chose to hack and was pardoned after way less than assange has been through, so how can assange possibly be so bad? Maybe if Assange hadn't have been in hiding for the last seven years he would already have been through the same process of trial, conviction, prison and pardon that Manning has. He made the choice to do what he did, so you can't really compare the outcome of his situation with Manning's at all; I agree that his crime seems less serious than Manning's was, maybe it would all be over now had he not entered the embassy? It's entirely possible he would never have been charged with any crimes at all.

spiralx 7y ago

The DNC supported the candidate that won the primary, that's true. I've yet to hear what actual wrong=doing was exposed by the leaked emails though, what bylaws are you referring to? > Well, Manning then chose to hack and was pardoned after way less than assange has been through, so how can assange possibly be so bad? Maybe if Assange hadn't have been in hiding for the last seven years he would already have been through the same process of trial, conviction, prison and pardon that Manning has. He made the choice to do what he did, so you can't really compare the outcome of his situation with Manning's at all; I agree that his crime seems less serious than Manning's was, maybe it would all be over now had he not entered the embassy? It's entirely possible he would never have been charged with any crimes at all.