Toronto Escorts

Ecuador to turf Assange

kkelso

Well-known member
Apr 27, 2003
2,472
28
48
Seriously? The same amount of negative coverage?

That's awesome. That wopper will get you a job as Trump's press secretary if you have the balls.
Negative coverage was very similar as a percentage. Granted it felt like there was more negative coverage of Trump simply because there was more coverage of him overall.

The press has been, rightly in my opinion, criticized for covering Trump more because he tailored his message to the needs of journalists (smart).

If the liberals want to be mad at anybody it should be news media. They consistently failed to report on issues, because they're in it for fame & fortune, not some higher calling like mere truth. Fourth estate indeed.

KK

https://www.politico.com/blogs/on-m...verage-overwhelmingly-negative-in-tone-232307
 

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
46,710
7,988
113
Toronto
But you and no one else within the greater scheme can determine if it affected the outcome.
It was the intent not the effectiveness that is the point.
 

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
28,711
3,408
113
It was the intent not the effectiveness that is the point.
Ok. Clinton tried to interfere in a Russian election to the detriment of Putin. So in light of that I'm happy to trade her for the dozen GRU. Are you?

I can show Intent by numerous US administrations to interfere in elections. Hell to kill leaders. Are you calling for their extradition?

Sanction them, hurt them, call them out. But don't try to play the innocent victim. The only way the USA is a victim it's of the previous govt's and Intel agencies incompetence in seeing and preventing the interference. And the DNC for failure to have basic security in place and higher ups to be self aware of vulnerabilities. They got Phished. All that says to me is they shouldn't be handed any real security intel.
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
69,905
68,405
113
Ok. Clinton tried to interfere in a Russian election to the detriment of Putin. So in light of that I'm happy to trade her for the dozen GRU. Are you?

I can show Intent by numerous US administrations to interfere in elections. Hell to kill leaders. Are you calling for their extradition?

Sanction them, hurt them, call them out. But don't try to play the innocent victim. The only way the USA is a victim it's of the previous govt's and Intel agencies incompetence in seeing and preventing the interference. And the DNC for failure to have basic security in place and higher ups to be self aware of vulnerabilities. They got Phished. All that says to me is they shouldn't be handed any real security intel.
Buddy, get over Clinton and stop obsessing about her! It's high time! You're a joke!
 

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
28,711
3,408
113
Buddy, get over Clinton and stop obsessing about her! It's high time! You're a joke!
Buddy. Understand she WAS THE REASON for the hack. Her actions as SoS both in Russia and in Syria was a catalyst for it. And until you accept the fact of this I guess I will have to keep hammering it home.

The hack occured well before Trump was the nominee. It was solely to hurt her. Any Gop candidate would have been the beneficiary.

And that's no joke.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,747
17,571
113
Seriously? The same amount of negative coverage?

That's awesome. That wopper will get you a job as Trump's press secretary if you have the balls.
Clinton didn't get favourable coverage.
Trump was on the headlines almost daily because he said incredibly stupid things almost daily.
That's on Trump, not the press.

Clinton was smarter and didn't say really stupid things very often, other then 'deplorables'.
But with Trump it was and is still, a daily idiocy.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,747
17,571
113
Buddy. Understand she WAS THE REASON for the hack. Her actions as SoS both in Russia and in Syria was a catalyst for it. .
You mean her actions when she was part of the government?
Which makes the attacks on her attacks on the US, right?

And therefore you think its better to have a Russian puppet in power so that the US won't get hacked again?
That's a joke.
 

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
46,710
7,988
113
Toronto
But you and no one else within the greater scheme can determine if it affected the outcome.
Stick to the topic instead of trying to deflect. The discussion is about Russia's intent to interfere with U.S. democratic elections and only targeting Clinton. Once again, that was their intent, whether they were successful or not. So you are obviously OK if Russia keeps doing it since you just slough it off. You have proved that trump and his supporters do not care about democratically free elections, democracy in general and in specific to the U.S. Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing.

Ok. Clinton tried to interfere in a Russian election to the detriment of Putin. So in light of that I'm happy to trade her for the dozen GRU. Are you?

I can show Intent by numerous US administrations to interfere in elections. Hell to kill leaders. Are you calling for their extradition?
That is up to those countries and a separate topic.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Clinton didn't get favourable coverage.
Trump was on the headlines almost daily because he said incredibly stupid things almost daily.
That's on Trump, not the press.

Clinton was smarter and didn't say really stupid things very often, other then 'deplorables'.
But with Trump it was and is still, a daily idiocy.
Trump managed the media brilliantly. He used their disdain of him against them and controlled the conversation. They now realize they, not Russia, put him in the White House and they hate him for it.

The media was pro-Clinton, if you couldn’t see that I can’t really help you. She got 90% of political donations by reporters. I’m sure you can find negative reporting stats for 2016 if you care to go look.

The media has marginalized itself by abdicating it’s unbiased reputation.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Stick to the topic instead of trying to deflect. The discussion is about Russia's intent to interfere with U.S. democratic elections and only targeting Clinton. Once again, that was their intent, whether they were successful or not. So you are obviously OK if Russia keeps doing it since you just slough it off. You have proved that trump and his supporters do not care about democratically free elections, democracy in general and in specific to the U.S. Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing.


That is up to those countries and a separate topic.
Russia targeted Clinton because they thought, like everyone else, that she would win. They wanted to weaken a US President, oddly enough the Dems and Media are doing a better job of that than the Russians could.

They also supported BLM, again, to disrupt US society.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,747
17,571
113
Trump managed the media brilliantly. He used their disdain of him against them and controlled the conversation.
Then don't complain about Trump's negative press, since you're now saying that Trump did this on purpose to get media attention.
 

Bud Plug

Sexual Appliance
Aug 17, 2001
5,069
0
0
I can understand why Ecuador might feel that it shouldn't be up to them to shield Assange from the rest of the world, whether those world forces are good or evil. Further, Assange should not continue to be, effectively, held prisoner. For the sake of Assange and the world, it would actually be healthy to get to the bottom of the claims made about him.

My problem is, how would Assange ever get a fair trial in the US? Take the DNC Wikileaks issue as an example. Assange has been vehement that his sources for those documents are not Russian. The US intelligence community has committed themselves, publicly, to the opinion that the hackers were Russian to "a high degree of confidence". They have formed this opinion without conducting their own forensic review of the server, or by securing the server for forensic review by any potential defendant to hacking charges (including Assange (accessory after the fact charges, presumably)). They formed this opinion without interviewing Assange, or running down any of the information he might give them in an investigation interview.

Further, If an open minded judge gets the file, I'm not sure that the US intelligence community really wants their competence to go on public trial.

Unless the US could actually make out a case that Assange is a Russian operative, this is a can of worms they should hope remains unopened.
 

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
28,711
3,408
113
Stick to the topic instead of trying to deflect. The discussion is about Russia's intent to interfere with U.S. democratic elections and only targeting Clinton. Once again, that was their intent, whether they were successful or not. So you are obviously OK if Russia keeps doing it since you just slough it off. You have proved that trump and his supporters do not care about democratically free elections, democracy in general and in specific to the U.S. Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing.


That is up to those countries and a separate topic.
Obviously you didn't read what here I said sanction them condemn them et al.

Just don't make the USA out to be innocents.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,773
3
0
. . . a sleazeball called Assange to pose as a crusader and post stuff that embarrasses rich and powerful people. . . .
Recall when I pointed out years ago that Wikileaks seemed amazingly anti-Western and in reply a number of posters said I was just a reactionary and that Assange and Snowden and Manning were all heroes of civilization.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,773
3
0
Assange is not wanted for anything in Sweden.
Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that he has been hiding in the Ecuadorean Embassy? and that Sweden has a strange legal code such that if you deliberately make yourself unavailable the statute of limitations continues to run, rather than being suspended for the time you have made it impossible for the case to proceed.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,747
17,571
113
Recall when I pointed out years ago that Wikileaks seemed amazingly anti-Western and in reply a number of posters said I was just a reactionary and that Assange and Snowden and Manning were all heroes of civilization.
Yes, when wikileaks ran as a whistleblower, exposing US illegal acts I supported it.
And now that its turned into a political agent intent on screwing up US democracy I don't support it but it appears that you do.
Funny how that works, eh?
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,353
4,776
113
Recall when I pointed out years ago that Wikileaks seemed amazingly anti-Western and in reply a number of posters said I was just a reactionary and that Assange and Snowden and Manning were all heroes of civilization.
You are a fascist, and they are.
 

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
46,710
7,988
113
Toronto
Obviously you didn't read what here I said sanction them condemn them et al.

Just don't make the USA out to be innocents.
Oagre said this: Whether it's true or not is not relevant. The whole point is that the playing field was tilted through the illicit activities of a foreign power, which targeted, spied on and outed ONLY ONE OF THE TWO CANDIDATES.

You countered by saying that Russia's meddling did not influence the outcome. You sloughed off their attempts. As such you are endorsing future Russian attempts at affecting a democratic election and a democracy.

I then said that your comment was irrelevant. It was the fact that they intended and attempted to influence the outcome is the main issue, not whether they were successful.

You bringing up what the U.S. may or may not have done is a deflection. BTW, do you consider Russian elections to be democratic?
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts