Riots breaking out all over US due to Trump winning

[Fargus]

The leaks re: the War in Iraq were damaging to the Bush Administration. Not a GOP electoral candidate. Do you really need me to explain to you the difference between leaking information on abuse of power by an elected government, and a one-sided smear on a political candidate during an election? The former is what wikileaks is supposed to stand for, the latter is straight up electoral meddling.

Ah, so it's okay to leak wrong-doing then but for some reason unacceptable to do the same when it comes to a presidential candidate? Bollocks. There were no calls of Wikileaks being partisan at the time of those leaks critical to the Bush administration (except for the hardliner Republicans). But suddenly they reveal corruption on the DNC side and all of a sudden they're being partisan? This "it was a one-sided smear" stuff is nonsense. You would not give a flying fuck if the shoe was on the other foot (that is, if it were Trump and the GOP being under the gun). You are only complaining because the information is inconvenient to you, for whatever agenda you have.

What do you want them to do, wait until after the election? Not release anything at all? If the information is there of wrong-doing and/or corruption, they're going to be leaking it, regardless who it affects.

Oh a random guy on the internet guarantees me, you've totally sold me there.

Maybe put down the Kool-Aid and think about the situation objectively.

If they end up getting him, watch it happen. And I'll be back, telling you "I told you so".

You're not looking at it objectively at all. You're clearly falling for this "Assange is a criminal, he is trying to influence the election with Russia" garbage. If anyone's drinking the kool-aid, it's people like you who believe the same old regurgitated nonsense from the legacy media. Let's be clear on this: Assange is not a Russian spy, he is not working for the Kremlin. And if it weren't for him, we would not know shit about how the DNC colludes with media outlets like CNN, and just how corrupt the Clinton Foundation really is. You can thank their sloppy security practices for that. But no, Russia Russia Russia, sexual predator.

Don't call yourself objective and pretend it's not a joke.

[Mormolyce]

The Bush administration were still Republican - having a Republican majority. This "it was a one-sided smear" stuff is nonsense. You would not give a flying fuck if the shoe was on the other foot (that is, if it were Trump and the GOP being under the gun).

Are you dense? Again, there is a difference between reporting an abuse of power by an elected government and meddling in partisan electoral politics. If you don't know that I don't know what to say to you.

How but some examples for the hard of understanding? If wikileaks released an email showing the Obama administration attempting to use its power behind the scenes to "rig the election" as Trump liked to boast, that would 100% be a legitimate use of a leak to expose an abuse of power. Releasing some semi-embarrassing emails about Hillary's campaign is just garden variety muckraking.

Converse example: releasing the Iraq War logs (Manning) was a legitimate effort to expose abuses of power and quantify the civilian cost of the War in Iraq. It's fucking immaterial that the GOP was in power at the time, I would support it regardless. Snowden's leaks on NSA surveillance uncovered extensive violations of civil liberties going on behind closed doors. I fully support that and the Democrats were in power when that happened in case this isn't sufficiently through your thick skull yet.

If they end up getting him, watch it happen. And I'll be back, telling you "I told you so".

You're not looking at it objectively at all. You're clearly falling for this "Assange is a criminal, he is trying to influence the election with Russia" garbage. If anyone's drinking the kool-aid, it's people like you who believe the same old regurgitated nonsense from the legacy media. Let's be clear on this: Assange is not a Russian spy, he is not working for the Krelim. And if it weren't for him, we would not know shit about how the DNC colludes with media outlets like CNN, and just how corrupt the Clinton Foundation really is. You can thank their sloppy security practices for that. But no, Russia Russia Russia, sexual predator.

Don't call yourself objective and pretend it's not a joke.

Let's go over this again. I never said I think he is guilty, I told you a handful of posts ago that I don't know if he's guilty or not, because he's hidden in an embassy for six years, refusing to even be questioned on it let alone going to trial. You seem to have forgotten this already.

And I don't know where you're getting the "Russian spy" thing from either. I mean, I don't even believe he's a spy... that would require him to actually leak some documents himself. Once again: Snowden and Manning leaked real information. Assange is just a middle man who likes to blow his own horn. He doesn't actually do any of the leaking or, you know, take any of the risks.

I love how Trump was hinting he'd "pardon" Assange for crimes he isn't even wanted for let alone convicted of, while Chelsea Manning rots in prison on a 35 year sentence. Why are we even talking about a shitheel like Assange? How about he pardon Manning and Snowden?

[Fargus]

Are you dense? Again, there is a difference between reporting an abuse of power by an elected government and meddling in partisan electoral politics. If you don't know that I don't know what to say to you.

That's the second time you're being a condescending twat.

Wikileaks are there to report corruption and/or wrong-doing that would otherwise be kept secret - whether it's reporting an elected government doing something wrong or a presidential candidate doing the same thing. The difference between the two positions does not fucking matter one iota, if the intention is to get to the truth of the matter.

How but some examples for the hard of understanding? If wikileaks released an email showing the Obama administration attempting to use its power behind the scenes to "rig the election" as Trump liked to boast, that would 100% be a legitimate use of a leak to expose an abuse of power. Releasing some semi-embarrassing emails about Hillary's campaign is just garden variety muckraking.

Hey, knobjockey - if you stopped treating people like idiots and stopped downplaying the actual leaked material as "garden variety mudracking", maybe people would take you more seriously on this issue. As it stands, Wikileaks has revealed plenty of corruption involving the dnc and her own staff. Not to mention the Clinton Foundation stuff, which more will come to light... especially when you have the FBI and IRS investigating them.

Converse example: releasing the Iraq War logs (Manning) was a legitimate effort to expose abuses of power and quantify the civilian cost of the War in Iraq. It's fucking immaterial that the GOP was in power at the time, I would support it regardless. Snowden's leaks on NSA surveillance uncovered extensive violations of civil liberties going on behind closed doors. I fully support that and the Democrats were in power when that happened in case this isn't sufficiently through your thick skull yet.

Oh please. If Wikileaks were leaking stuff about Donald Trump and what his campaign were doing behind closed doors, you would not be here complaining about Wikileaks and Julian Assange. Don't pretend otherwise, you're full of shit.

Let's go over this again. I never said I think he is guilty, I told you a handful of posts ago that I don't know if he's guilty or not, because he's hidden in an embassy for six years, refusing to even be questioned on it let alone going to trial. You seem to have forgotten this already.

Another load of bollocks:

Do the criminal charges not relate to his personal life? Are you trying to say that sexually assaulting women is part of his wikileaks duties?

Is he or is he not a fugitive from justice?

You basically said, right here, that he has criminal charges, sexually assaults women and is a fugitive from justice. You then linked that this term actually means:

An individual who, after having committed a criminal offense, leaves the jurisdiction of the court where such crime has taken place or hides within such jurisdiction to escape prosecution.

Don't you bullshit me mate, you do think he's guilty.

And I don't know where you're getting the "Russian spy" thing from either. I mean, I don't even believe he's a spy... that would require him to actually leak some documents himself. Once again: Snowden and Manning leaked real information. Assange is just a middle man who likes to blow his own horn. He doesn't actually do any of the leaking or, you know, take any of the risks.

Now you're arguing what Wikileaks has revealed isn't real information? Do you even know Assange's role in Wikileaks? Holy shit, you are deluded.

I love how Trump was hinting he'd "pardon" Assange for crimes he isn't even wanted for let alone convicted of, while Chelsea Manning rots in prison on a 35 year sentence. Why are we even talking about a shitheel like Assange? How about he pardon Manning and Snowden?

What makes you think they're not going to be pardoned, but Assange will? You talk about being objective, then you come out with this ripper of a comment. You must have some sort of personal vendetta with him, did you meet him face to face once and he snubbed you or something? Holy hell, you are particularly nasty about him and you don't offer any real proof that he's doing this just in spite of Clinton.


[Infracted - Flaming]

[shrunken]

You speak like you know what minorities plan to vote for.

You have to understand that in Tennisace's view, we're just beasts that are good for rap music, interracial porn & occasionally votes.

[Post]

Yeah sure, just ignore the police report and this news story:
http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/educ...al_school.html

Also I live in one of the city that a riot happened in, and I watched it happen live. It was a group of local anarchists here, and they do this for every protest, no matter what the issue is. The police chief here even said this, and every news station did, as well. They have no opinion of Donald Trump, they just like to smash things.

Then I wake up the next morning and national media is suddenly like "Anti Trump protesters riot in Portland!" when that wasn't the case at all. Wasn't Donald Trump the one who said not to always believe what the media says?

And you link something that has nothing to do with Trump.

[Mormolyce]

DONALD Trump has issued an order to those of his supporters bullying minorities, telling them to “stop it.”

“I hate to hear that, I am so saddened to hear that and I say, stop it,” he said, when asked about the reports of violence during his first televised interview as President-elect on CBS’s 60 Minutes. “If it helps, I’ll say it right to the cameras: ‘Stop it’.”
He told journalist Lesley Stahl: “I would say, don’t do that, ‘cause I’m going to bring this country together.”

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment...3afb45ee1e16fe

Oh god, I think I just wet myself laughing.

[Celista]

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment...3afb45ee1e16fe

Oh god, I think I just wet myself laughing.

I can't stand Trump but I think that saying attacks on minorities is not OK and that he'll bring this country together is 100% OK to me. It is infinitely better than egging them on, and even if it was his rhetoric that was behind what is happening in the first place. The damage has been done, at least he's not trying to make things worse.

I care about the welfare of this country and I want Trump to succeed. I'm not anywhere near convinced that he's going to, but one can hope.

[Mormolyce]

I can't stand Trump but I think that saying attacks on minorities is not OK and that he'll bring this country together is 100% OK to me. It is infinitely better than egging them on, and even if it was his rhetoric that was behind what is happening in the first place. The damage has been done, at least he's not trying to make things worse.

I care about the welfare of this country and I want Trump to succeed. I'm not anywhere near convinced that he's going to, but one can hope.

If you don't like attack dogs biting people maybe you shouldn't whip them into a frenzy.

[Spectral]

If you don't like attack dogs biting people maybe you shouldn't whip them into a frenzy.

That's the advice I would have given to the people like Loretta Lynch and Stephanie Rawlings-Blake when they were tacitly encouraging riots, so I definitely see where you're coming from.

[Bajaber]

Hmmm an intresting news thing just came out I wonder..

- - - Updated - - -

Soo when I am able to post it from this silly thing is not allowing me to post it at the moment.

[Celista]

If you don't like attack dogs biting people maybe you shouldn't whip them into a frenzy.

Yes, I know this was your point. My point is that the damage has been done, at least he's not overtly attempting to cause more of it.

- - - Updated - - -

Hmmm an intresting news thing just came out I wonder..

- - - Updated - - -

Soo when I am able to post it from this silly thing is not allowing me to post it at the moment.

I think you need to make 10 posts in order to link. It's been awhile so I forget.

[Zeek Daniels]

lets not forget that people are attacking trump supporters just for voting for him.

[cymraeg13]

But the post you were replying to wasn't about the situation today, but in the future.

But Trump had an increase in minority votes, not decrease.

[Ghostpanther]

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment...3afb45ee1e16fe

Oh god, I think I just wet myself laughing.

It is better than what Obama has said about it, Which is nothing.

Obama will be remembered in history as the most divisive president ever.

[cymraeg13]

The leaks re: the War in Iraq were damaging to the Bush Administration. Not a GOP electoral candidate. Do you really need me to explain to you the difference between leaking information on abuse of power by an elected government, and a one-sided smear on a political candidate during an election? The former is what wikileaks is supposed to stand for, the latter is straight up electoral meddling.

I see more similarities than differences.

For example,

The Wikileaks release of Iraq War documents exposed corruption, and was embarrassing to people in power.

The Wikileaks release of Clinton emails exposed corruption, and was embarrassing to people in power.

I don't think Wikileaks recognizes any other nuance than that, but its fascinating watching you invent new things they should care about.

[Mormolyce]

It is better than what Obama has said about it, Which is nothing.

Obama will be remembered in history as the most divisive president ever.

By the hard right maybe :P

I'm pretty sure that if he wasn't already on course to be remembered as a great President, four years of Trump should set that in stone.

The Wikileaks release of Iraq War documents exposed corruption, and was embarrassing to people in power.

The Wikileaks release of Clinton emails exposed corruption, and was embarrassing to people in power.

Clinton was running to be elected to get into power.

[cymraeg13]

Clinton was running to be elected to get into power.

Clinton was running to be elected to get even more power.

fxd

[oxymoronic]

riots are only breaking out in horrible cities that are a drain on america. protests are happening in a few cities like portland but these people are so brainwashed that we understand their frustration. their whole world and everything they thought they knew has been tossed out the window and now they have to deal with reality. but the fact remains most cities have nothing but business as usual.

[volkanik]

[kail]

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment...3afb45ee1e16fe

Oh god, I think I just wet myself laughing.

Not seeing a problem with that statement. He acted far more mature in that interview than he has throughout his campaign.