Yup. Abiding by primaries is not a law. They are done strictly for the benefit of the party. They could go back to how they did in the early 20th century and have a bunch of good ol' boys pick the nominee in a secret meeting rife with quid pro quo deals and bribes if they thought it would help them win the general election.

Yes, for the Russian intelligence services

it's probably at least anti-democratic, though

the "assange hides in embassy because the US is too evil" narrative is complete horse****

he only sought asylum after Sweden obtained an extradition order for the rape/assault charge

and afaict he is screwing over all of the people who put up his bond money, now forfeited due to his refusal to comply with his bond conditions

Gotta say right now I got WikiLeaks >>>> Wikipedia with all their fundraising going on that makes the site unreadable on mobile

Not really, as long as voters have a say on who wins. If you don't like shadowy cabals picking their buddies as nominees, don't vote for those nominees. I don't think that you could reasonably outlaw an insider nomination process without violating freedom of association.

It was a bad faith post.

No reason not to mock you.

Though it could be argued that the Democrats pretending the primaries meant something were defrauding their own base.

I'd say it's a public service to inform voters of the scam.

If I can find an example of something he leaked showing illegal US activity after my 10 hour plane flight tomorrow, would you recant your bad opinions on him?

In what way did he get "caught"? iirc he gave an interview to the Guardian and went public, A+ work by the US fingering him after that

Do try to keep up.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/16/u...wikileaks.html

I always feel like this is a very naive take. The thing with primaries and elections is that they aren't exercises in public service, they're contests between two sides and Assange was either willingly or naively being duped into putting the thumb on the scale of one of those sides via a nation state actor. It's not a coincidence nor public service that the information would drop right after something bad happened to Trump.

That isn't to say that the information shouldn't be out there, but one should have a head on their shoulders and realize when they're being played and for what reason. That Assange either didn't realize or worse did and didn't mind is a problem.

There is a philosophical problem regarding being opposed to exposing true information that is apt to influence an election even if the exposer is a bad guy. I personally did exactly that and it resulted in Dinah Titus getting elected thirty years ago. (I recount the incident in DUCY). Should voters have as much information as possible or not? This isn't the same as witholding information from a jury because their misevaluation of it will sometimes lead to an unfair conviction. Or because the info was illegally obtained and the public has to guard against those activities. This is voters choosing who will lead them and there is not supposed to be someone analogous to a trial judge deciding what they should know and what they shouldn't.

But before you started telling me why I am wrong you ought to know that I myself think that what I just wrote was wrong. Because of the obvious reason that voters are in fact unable to evaluate some information just like jurors are. And you all agree with me but are afraid to say it.

Wikipedia is my Amazon Smile donation target. I have also donated and bought a shirt. Wikipedia is strongly anti-commercial and is the culmination of an Enlightenment dream that began with the Encyclopedia of Diderot and D'Alembert.

Whether humans are too stupid to acquire and use accessible information and integrate it into their worldview is a separate question.

It would be a plus in his column, but I suspect it would still be outweighed significantly. However, this is not a subject I care to put in the effort required to have a fully informed opinion. The data the US Govt is mopping up is a fraction of the private sector and there are many more protections around its use and dissemination.

Meh. I see the 'Russia + Assange' meme to be rather naive.

But I do agree the information about the Dem leadership duping the party faithful should be out here instead of buried.

Works fine, goto atf or quote this post to see were you went wrong....

Lol, man, if you think that the preference of the Dem establishment for Hillary over Bernie was some sort of secret that needed exposing, then you are the one who had been dupes.

Please watch this video in which these arguments are thoroughly rebutted.

^^That's a great watch.... long but very informative.

Those Tom Laney videos are white supremacist, btw.

This is total bull****.



This is the garbage you Wikileaks dip****s are defending. Wikileaks basically started the ****ing Pizzagate nonsense and you guys are calling it JOURNALISM in the name of TRANSPARENCY. Wikileaks was very clearly trying to trick you morons into thinking the 99.9% banal Hillary emails contained scandalous stuff.

^^ That

That I did not know.