On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 00:23:17 +0000 (UTC)
jim bell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > yeah. good news, the clinton cunt lost. Bad news, trump won.
>
> Don't blame me! Blame the MSM, the DNC, Hillary Clinton herself, and the
> corrupt government stooges who supported her.
Haha, I don't blame you - as far as I know you didn't create the
american politcal system =P
>
>
> "I must admit that at first I was dumb enough to think that if the media were
> saying that trump was horrible then he must be marginally better than
> clinton. Problem is, that partisan line of thinking is nonsense and in
> reality the US has a one party system with both candidates being exactly
> equally bad."
>
> Perhaps you forget that Trump wasn't exactly a "Republican". Until a few
> years ago, he was actually on very good terms with the Democrats.
Oh I didn't know that. Thanks for mentioning it. It nicely underscores
the underlying unity of the political establishment.
>
> It's two years later. If nothing has come out which denounces Trump, even by
> today, why would anyone think that Assange could have come out with in in,
> say, October 2016?
Maybe. Kinda hard for me to believe, but I'll assume that's the case
for now.
>
> > At any rate, it seems to be a fact that assange favored trump and it is
> a fact that trump is even worse than obomba and now assange is a direct
> target of trump's.
> "assange favored Trump" is misleading. Assange had, at most, two choices.
> If it was his goal to cause Hillary Clinton to lose, I completely welcome his
> choice.
I don't mean to emphasize his siding with trump too much. So maybe I
should rephrase to something like : Assange was morally obliged to publish
clinton's dirty deals and by doing so he helped trump, who is his enemy. All
in all, pretty ironic.
>
>
>
> The MSM can't, and didn't, control everything. Arguably, the revelation
> about her illegally-used private server (caused by years Republican inquiries
> into Benghazi) probably swung the election to Trump. But, the hugely biased
> U.S. Government tried to swing it back: Comey and his thugs pretended that
> Hillary hadn't done anything illegal. ("extremely careless" v. "gross
> negligence" on July 5, 2016.). They didn't want to use the term "gross
> negligence" because that is the trigger-term which justified prosecution
> under various statutes.
well there obviously is a double standard in the 'justice' system. The
poorer and less powerful people are, the more likely they are to be abused by
the state. And conversely, powerful people can get away with murder.
>
> > Hm. That's a bit more convoluted. Regardless, elections in the US are
> completely irrelevant.
>
> That's a position to take. Someday, you should convince the American public
> of that.
Haha, doing that seems to be somewhat outside of my capabilities =P On
the other hand roughly half the american electorate doesn't vote so they seem
to be already convinced.
>
> > I guess another way to look at it is : had hitlery won assange would have
> >been lynched. And now that the other faction of the one party won, he's
> >being lynched.
>
> That's not as clear. One of the dangers of any criminal prosecution is that
> the defendant usually gets the right to access, and release exculpatory
> material. Exculpatory to Assange arguably means incriminating to Hillary,
> Obama, and each of their criminal crews.
Assange is likely to be tried in some sort of secret court with 'sealed
evidence' because of 'national security' and bla bla?
I've heard snowden says multiple times that one of his conditions to
return to the US is access to a fair trail, which clearly he knows he won't
get.
>
> >> Arguably, the MSM (and Hillary, etc) was mostly responsible for causing
> >> Trump to win the election. Those RINOs and Deep-State actors should
> >> understand that.
> > I am not aware that Assange did anything illegal,
>
> > lol - illegal as defined by the american nazi government?
>
> Do you have any alternative opinions? Do you believe that Assange did
> anything illegal by YOUR standards?
Assange didn't attack the property or person of any individual so by
libertarian standards he didn't commit any crime or did anything 'illegal'.
I'm just pointing out that the definition of 'i/legal' that governments
use has nothing to do with any libertarian standard.
> He basically acted as a journalist.
And went against the interests of the group of criminals who call
themselves "the government". And accordign to those criminals, going against
their interests is 'illegal'.
Anyway, I wish Assange luck, but his chances of winning a 'legal'
argument against organized crime seem slim to me.
>
> Jim Bell
