Julian Assange: Have more Hillary leaks, will release in stages.

[panamaican]

I guess it addreses it about as much as your refusal to acknowledge that no one has even insinuated it wasn't true does. Have ANYONE come out and officially said " Hey man , this stuff is altered/false/fabricated ?

I was attempting to shine some light on the guys motives with that link , which taken at face value are to destroy a conspiratorial groups ( which he most certainly considers the US regime to be ) ability to function by making it impossible for them to communicate in secrecy. Hell, he even specifically refered to the US democratic/republican parties in the 2nd part of that 2006 essay.

I feel we are going around in circles here dude so ill bow out now , and we'll just have to disagree to disagree. I will say though that as much as I generally respect your ability to post logically and cogently , and to consider more than one side of a coin ( maybe even one you consider yourself at odds with ) , you seem uncharacteristically invested here . Id probably write it off as intentionally obtuse if I didn't have a good reserve of respect for you in the bank.

I keep telling you that I understand the man's motives. This has nothing to do with Julian Assange or Wikileaks. Julian Assange and Wikileaks did not hack the information. They are not releasing it either. They are the conduit through which the people who did hack the information are releasing it.

You keep talking about Assange. I'm talking about whomever did the original hack. When Snowden stole information, Snowden came forward and talked about why he, Snowden, did what he did. You could vet Snowden. We can't vet the hackers in this case.

As for the truth of it. Forgive me for not believing that an unknown entity that hacks to obtain information to specifically manipulate something has strong morals that they would never alter the information they stole.

It's not even that unusual. You release something true to prime the pump as they say. Then once you've lowered people's guard as to the truth of what you're saying, you can then lie with impunity because people have stopped questioning if the next thing is true. To use a dating analogy: You hang out with girl on a completely platonic level and inform your gf/wife that you are doing so. You let her see just how platonic everything is. Once your gf/wife stops being suspicious then you can cheat because your significant other has been primed to view things from the platonic level.

Maybe I'm too suspicious but I can't take the word of manipulators as truth when I know they're trying to manipulate me. If they care enough to manipulate...why would they employ half measures? That's the point you're not addressing. This has nothing to do with Assange or Wikileaks.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I acknowledged his point repeatedly. I agreed with it in every post I typed and then moved to my point which is a different one altogether.

My larger point is that when someone is trying to manipulate our elections, we should be concerned with their motives. The act of manipulation does not guarantee truth. Choosing manipulation over full disclosure suggests that they are not revealing truth but trying to shape a narrative.

I'll take your word for it. Could be that when you say his point has nothing to do with yours that I don't take that as much of an acknowledgment.

Everyone is trying to manipulate elections, whether it's voting, campaigning, donating, etc. I do have a special distaste for non-citizens or residents getting involved. I'm far more concerned with foreigners contributing money than I am information. What moral obligation is there for other countries not to interfere? Would I prefer they just release what they have? Sure. But that's not how things generally work in reality. Politics. Promotions. Education. Information is generally presented in pieces. Wikileaks also has to look out for its own well-being and if they decide that includes milking this for attention then whatever. To me the most important aspect is whether the leaks are true. As has been pointed out, nobody is denying much of anything and people are resigning.

We can criticize wikileaks for not giving us what we want when we want it, but in the end what's their obligation to synch the leaks up so that it's most convenient for people looking to vote Democrat? The Snowden leaks happened over months even though all of the info (and more) was in the hands of the media from the start. Where you complaining then about the process of divulging?

I think your position is fair, but of little comparative importance such that it shouldn't be a discussion that crowds out those on the ramifications of the facts being revealed.

 

[panamaican]

I'll take your word for it. Could be that when you say his point has nothing to do with yours that I don't take that as much of an acknowledgment.

Everyone is trying to manipulate elections, whether it's voting, campaigning, donating, etc. I do have a special distaste for non-citizens or residents getting involved. I'm far more concerned with foreigners contributing money than I am information. What moral obligation is there for other countries not to interfere? Would I prefer they just release what they have? Sure. But that's not how things generally work in reality. Politics. Promotions. Education. Information is generally presented in pieces. Wikileaks also has to look out for its own well-being and if they decide that includes milking this for attention then whatever. To me the most important aspect is whether the leaks are true. As has been pointed out, nobody is denying much of anything and people are resigning.

We can criticize wikileaks for not giving us what we want when we want it, but in the end what's their obligation to synch the leaks up so that it's most convenient for people looking to vote Democrat? The Snowden leaks happened over months even though all of the info (and more) was in the hands of the media from the start. Where you complaining then about the process of divulging?

I think your position is fair, but of little comparative importance such that it shouldn't be a discussion that crowds out those on the ramifications of the facts being revealed.

As I said to him...I'm not criticizing Wikileaks or Assange. I'm questioning the people who provided the information to Wikileaks.

Like you said, in the Snowden situation, the information was in the hands of the media from the start. So it was vettable from the start. And Snowden put his face to the information so he was vettable.

When someone makes it clear that they are trying to manipulate me...I don't assume the information they're releasing is true. I assume that if manipulation of me is the goal, manipulation of the underlying information is within their acceptable code of conduct.

 

[Deleted member 409801]

I keep telling you that I understand the man's motives. This has nothing to do with Julian Assange or Wikileaks. Julian Assange and Wikileaks did not hack the information. They are not releasing it either. They are the conduit through which the people who did hack the information are releasing it.

You keep talking about Assange. I'm talking about whomever did the original hack. When Snowden stole information, Snowden came forward and talked about why he, Snowden, did what he did. You could vet Snowden. We can't vet the hackers in this case.

As for the truth of it. Forgive me for not believing that an unknown entity that hacks to obtain information to specifically manipulate something has strong morals that they would never alter the information they stole.

It's not even that unusual. You release something true to prime the pump as they say. Then once you've lowered people's guard as to the truth of what you're saying, you can then lie with impunity because people have stopped questioning if the next thing is true. To use a dating analogy: You hang out with girl on a completely platonic level and inform your gf/wife that you are doing so. You let her see just how platonic everything is. Once your gf/wife stops being suspicious then you can cheat because your significant other has been primed to view things from the platonic level.

Maybe I'm too suspicious but I can't take the word of manipulators as truth when I know they're trying to manipulate me. If they care enough to manipulate...why would they employ half measures? That's the point you're not addressing. This has nothing to do with Assange or Wikileaks.

like I said man well agree to disagree here. Though im not even sure we are disagreeing as talking in parallel. Youre dreaming about gorgonzola and its clearly brie time baby.

Youll never accept the information ( maybe rightfully so , you have voiced legit concerns) , not in a box , not with a fox , not in a house , not with a mouse , whatvever . That's fine man , be upset , be angry , its gonna happen anyway , Im just trying to help you better understand why it MAY be happening. Do with my 2 cents what you want........makes no diiference to me.

 

[panamaican]

like I said man well agree to disagree here. Youll never accept the information ( maybe rightfully so , you have voiced legit concerns) , not in a box , not with a fox , not in a house , not with the a mouse , whatvever . That's fine man , be upset , be angry , its gonna happen anyway , Im just trying to help you better understand why it MAY be happening. Do with my 2 cents what you want........makes no diiference to me.

So because I want it vetted I won't believe it? I believed the first round.

Your angle here doesn't make any sense. I believed the 1st round but that doesn't mean I'm automatically believing the 2nd round. You believed the 1st round and now you refuse to question the 2nd. Yet you're helping me understand something?

They've convinced you to stop critically analyzing the information that's coming. I'm trying to remind people that we shouldn't automatically believe everything people are telling us...especially when we already know that they're trying to manipulate us.

If this was Hillary or Trump saying this about Trump or Hillary, everyone would know that there's the possibility of spin coming. That what either person is about to reveal has probably been manipulated/fabricated/truncated to push us to do something. Yet...here...nothing? No concerns?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

As I said to him...I'm not criticizing Wikileaks or Assange. I'm questioning the people who provided the information to Wikileaks.

Like you said, in the Snowden situation, the information was in the hands of the media from the start. So it was vettable from the start. And Snowden put his face to the information so he was vettable.

When someone makes it clear that they are trying to manipulate me...I don't assume the information they're releasing is true. I assume that if manipulation of me is the goal, manipulation of the underlying information is within their acceptable code of conduct.

I thought one of your contentions was that wikileaks should be releasing all of the info at once. No?

Hacking is a crime. Would we find the info more valuable if the culprit chose to be a martyr as well? Maybe. Or maybe ad hominems would be employed to distract us from the truth.

I wouldn't assume the information is true either, but I wouldn't assume it's false. That's why I say that the response is giving credibility to the leaks. The hacker making themselves known isn't any more important than any other anonymous tipster, provided it's not fabricated.

 

[Deleted member 409801]

So because I want it vetted I won't believe it? I believed the first round.

Your angle here doesn't make any sense. I believed the 1st round but that doesn't mean I'm automatically believing the 2nd round. You believed the 1st round and now you refuse to question the 2nd. Yet you're helping me understand something?

They've convinced you to stop critically analyzing the information that's coming. I'm trying to remind people that we shouldn't automatically believe everything people are telling us...especially when we already know that they're trying to manipulate us.

If this was Hillary or Trump saying this about Trump or Hillary, everyone would know that there's the possibility of spin coming. That what either person is about to reveal has probably been manipulated/fabricated/truncated to push us to do something. Yet...here...nothing? No concerns?

Ill defer to the targets of the hacks reaction to help determine rather the information involved is true or not. What else do you suggest ? Who else could " Vet " a classified email other than the people who sent It? Seeing as they are mum on the subject , and" resignation "is the word of the day , im inclined to believe there is something there.

 

[panamaican]

I thought one of your contentions was that wikileaks should be releasing all of the info at once. No?

Hacking is a crime. Would we find the info more valuable if the culprit chose to be a martyr as well? Maybe. Or maybe ad hominems would be employed to distract us from the truth.

I wouldn't assume the information is true either, but I wouldn't assume it's false. That's why I say that the response is giving credibility to the leaks. The hacker making themselves known isn't any more important than any other anonymous tipster, provided it's not fabricated.

Yes, they should be releasing it all at once so that it can be vetted properly. Especially given the intended goal. This is an election so the effects of manipulating it have a timeline. There's no point vetting 90% of the information after the election.

I don't assume the info is true or false. That's why I can't give credibility to the leaks. If someone walks into court and hands me a piece of paper and says "That is a true account of the business relationship I had with your client." I say gtfo with that. I'm not losing a case by believing whatever random piece of paper someone puts in front of me. Because there is no 2nd day in court. You don't get a do over if it turns out that the paper wasn't true.

Our elections are of far more importance so we should expect far more credibility than unverified documents delivered to us from unverified sources.

 

[panamaican]

Ill defer to the targets of the hacks reaction to help determine rather the information involved is true or not. What else do you suggest ? Who else could " Vet " a classified email other than the people who sent It? Seeing as they are mum on the subject , and" resignation "is the word of the day , im inclined to believe there is something there.

So if I say to you, Al, I intend to get the court to give me your inheritance then you'll believe me if I showed up with a will from the deceased that says "We want Panamaican to inherit all of our belongings"?

Of course not. You'd want proof that the document I'm bringing to court is true.

Given that an election is only happening once every 4 years, we should demand greater scrutiny when someone says "I'm trying to swing your election in specific direction."

We shouldn't say "Oh you're trying to manipulate me into doing something therefore you must only have my best interests in mind. You couldn't possibly have your own motives and it's impossible that your goals for America and my goals for America don't align. "

We should say "Oh, you're trying to manipulate my decisions with these papers. Prove to me that they're true first and then I'll go along with you."

Surely, skepticism hasn't died in the electorate to this degree yet because of partisanship. It's like a chick who believes you when you say you're only going to put the tip in. How many times can someone fall for that before they stop believing random people on the street.

 

[Deleted member 409801]

So if I say to you, Al, I intend to get the court to give me your inheritance then you'll believe me if I showed up with a will from the deceased that says "We want Panamaican to inherit all of our belongings"?

Of course not. You'd want proof that the document I'm bringing to court is true.

Given that an election is only happening once every 4 years, we should demand greater scrutiny when someone says "I'm trying to swing your election in specific direction."

We shouldn't say "Oh you're trying to manipulate me into doing something therefore you must only have my best interests in mind. You couldn't possibly have your own motives and it's impossible that your goals for America and my goals for America don't align. "

We should say "Oh, you're trying to manipulate my decisions with these papers. Prove to me that they're true first and then I'll go along with you."

Surely, skepticism hasn't tied in the electorate to this degree yet because of partisanship. It's like a chick who believes you when you say you're only going to put the tip in. How many times can someone fall for that before they stop believing random people on the street.

You are free to believe it or not , everyone is . Just as anyone that's involved/a target of one of these hacks is entitled to dispute it . Its just information, and is only as useful/ vialble as the recipient wants it to be , Its not a cruise missle or a j-dam we're talking about here, and you can 100% choose to disregard it on the grounds you've cited if that is your prerogative. I guess your fear stems from the fact that others more gullible than yourself will be too naïve sort it all out.......probably a not unreasonable fear.

What else is there to say ? This isnt a person that can be diposed or held in contempt of court . Its an entity that's gonna release what they want and when they want to , the information then belongs to the public to do with what it wishes. It is what it is , as much as that offends your lawyerly sense of order.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Yes, they should be releasing it all at once so that it can be vetted properly. Especially given the intended goal. This is an election so the effects of manipulating it have a timeline. There's no point vetting 90% of the information after the election.

I don't assume the info is true or false. That's why I can't give credibility to the leaks. If someone walks into court and hands me a piece of paper and says "That is a true account of the business relationship I had with your client." I say gtfo with that. I'm not losing a case by believing whatever random piece of paper someone puts in front of me. Because there is no 2nd day in court. You don't get a do over if it turns out that the paper wasn't true.

Our elections are of far more importance so we should expect far more credibility than unverified documents delivered to us from unverified sources.

Sure, but that's not happening so then what? Ignore the info because the provider isn't willing to risk prosecution?

I'm not sure there's much practical difference between assuming the info false and giving it no credibility. This isn't a court of law and there's no real standard to what constitutes proof in the court of public opinion. Other than everyone (including the hacker) taking the stage to admit everything they've done what would you consider sufficient? Do you ignore corroborating evidence as strong as resignations?