Wikileaks: Multiple US sources tell us John Kerry asked Ecuador to stop Assange from publishing Clinton docs during FARC peace negotiations.
Multiple US sources say Trump is the anti christ.
Multiple US sources say Assange is a false flag placed by the Reptilians.
Wow, this is easy!
Do you have other evidence to bring to the table? Do you have reason to doubt a.) or b.)?
The New York Times and The State Department are both putting their reputation (however much that means to you) on the line with their quotes, whereas WikiLeaks and its anonymous source, aren't putting anything on the line since a large part of their business model depends on making claims that can only be proven in their favor, but never in reverse.
Example, this claim about who is responsible for cutting Assange's internet access. Let's say the US did not cut his internet. There is absolutely nothing The State Department can say to make WikiLeaks supporters believe them. Whereas, anything WikiLeaks says about the US government will be eaten up by their supporters since the only people that can provide evidence to the contrary, WikiLeaks supporters don't trust. It's the same approach taken by Alex Jones (They want to take your guns, they want to put you in fema camps, etc...), Trump (A lot of people are saying...)
Oh and btw, I'm not saying you should just blindly believe what the government tells you, but until any actual evidence is provided to support another explanation, there is no reason to assume it is true.
Bonus hypocritical Trump tweet: https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/78183870603031347...
I think the disconnect here is just how much weight you put on this statement here. For a significant number of people a lot of recent news has severely damaged the reputations of these institutions as well as shown that their reputations really wouldn't be impacted by their claims being shown to be false.
It used to be a saying that geeks can't do politics. And now after what I've seen of years of slashdot, digg, Reddit, and HN I think its fair to say that saying is true. The problem I see is that people who think they're smart think they must automatically be immune to propaganda, bias, etc because, well, they're so smart. I find the techie personality to be unusually vulnerable to propaganda and conspiracy theories. I think this type of thinking gives simple answers and black and white thinking that are intellectually satisfying and dismiss the incredible complexity of human interactions. Its very easy to just eat up anti-US college identity politics and make the US be the devil in all things. Its simple and is emotionally satisfying. The problem is that its also incorrect, especially when your "good guys" are Russia, China, and Iran.
We cannot have any sort of meaningful dialog when the opposition on both sides is painted into a caricature.
George W. Bush had an amazing quote during the memorial service for the fallen Dallas PD officers. Paraphrasing but: "We judge other groups by their worst and ourselves by our intentions"
How so?
If ecuador was going to give in to US demands, why wouldnt they just let the US extradite Asssange?
Clearly the US doesnt have the type of pull with Ecuador to force their hand, why would you think this is any different?
you believe that john kerry alone was able to convince them to cut the internet, but the fact that 3 separate countries want him arrested is meaningless to them?
Doesnt sound believable to me at all. so yes, i have reason to doubt a)
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&searc...
Given that the English (/Germanic) is "name" and the French is "nom", I would have expected the PIE for name to be some sort of "nVm"-ish thing, whence I expected the Greek to render it is some sort of "non"-ish thing. The actual Greek is ónoma, with the PIE being something like *hnómn. (So my PIE guess was right-ish, but the transition to Hellenic was wrong).
edit: getting source
Here you are:
https://theintercept.com/2016/08/06/accusing-wikileaks-bias-...
People talk a lot about how Putin is an opportunist. I think he saw how bitter Assange was becoming and understood if he gave him the documents, he could step back and let him carry out his vengeance against a woman who had a huge role in forcing him to ground in the embassy ("can't we just drone this guy?"). I'm told this is a Rule of Power. But that is speculation.
In any case, here's Assange himself discussing this exact thing recently:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6mARUrPtXk&feature=youtu.be...
Doesn't seem like much of a vendetta according to him.
"There’s been a lot of misquoting of me and WikiLeaks publications. In this particular case, the misquoting has to do with that we intend, or I intend, to harm Hillary Clinton or that I don’t like Hillary Clinton. All those are false. They come about as a result it seems of this campaign and those who are trying to personalize our publications."
Not "for maximum impact", or if threatened, or "if something happens to me", or any other variation.
If nothing else, it frees (or minimizes) accusations of you being bribed, blackmailed, extorted, having an agenda beyond "releasing information".
"Not only the denigration of the ((())) symbol but also the use of the term ‘tribalist’ to imply Jews is, of course, base racism, a particular racism that Putin shares."
The idea that the "denigration" of an anti-semitic symbol is itself "base racism" is bizarre. Saying that he's using the word "tribalist" to refer to Jews is just incorrect, because the vast majority of the people who surround their names with parens are not Jewish, just doing it in sympathy. Using this accusation to associate him with Putin is just propaganda.
I think the tweet was a bit of pointless adhominem after noticing that a lot of their prominent critics seem to be a monoculture of very similar types of people. It annoys me when Wikileaks tries to act cute and smartassy (which is often), and this tweet bit them in the ass. It was this same hubris that made Assange think he had suddenly become a hot guy when he was in Sweden. Watching the video of him dancing, you can see a guy who thinks that he's finally turned into a butterfly.
And it gets even harder to defend the @Wikileaks Twitter account from pandering to anti-Semitism after looking at several of the other tweets unearthed by this search... https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3Awikileaks%20jewish&src=t...
Oh yeah they are just rabid anti-semites. http://www.twitlonger.com/show/92hpnj
Your link shows completely normal use of the word "Jewish".
No idea on the glasses. Maybe a reference to the stereotypical g-man? i.e. he was trying to say that Jews control the government?
Regardless, the parentheses are pretty straightforward.
So it seems to boil down to, "It seems like most of our critics are those upwardly-mobile Jews." Another sad chapter in the descent of WikiLeaks from a journalistic organization that was a reason to hope for humanity into a the Daily Mail for the Kremlin instead of GCHQ.
They really aren't, as the tweets hint they've recently been some sort of an anti-anti-semitism symbol, with lots of jewish people on twitter putting them around their names.
The FARC deal is now dead as it seems since the referendum has failed but if there was anything in those emails that could have jeopardized the deal it should not have been released.
Everyone comes to the table with points that would make the other side walk away, and everyone has their initial redlines.
These change during the negotiations, premature release of information backs one or both parties into a corner in which further negotiations are no longer possible.
This is the real world, not some fairy tale.
Indeed. And in this world now, information asymmetry is greatly reduced. Politicians can live with it.
The fairy tale is you can hide your dirty laundry until you've fleeced your negotiating opponent.
Look at how many deals with Iran and N. Korea blew up early own because one side leaked (usually intentionally to tank the negotiations) some information that meant no further negotiations would be possible.
If say there was an email from hilary saying that "The US would back X amount of billions in guaranteed loans to provide funding for infrastructure informer FARC controlled zones" one party now knows exactly how much to ask for, one party now knows a limit, one party now has more power... Or here is another example say on day 2 of the negotiations there would be some preliminary agreement on how many and what type of sentences would be commuted that's just one small point of the negotiation it hasn't been finalized but if leaked it can blow up the entire deal. FARC can say it's too little, the Colombian government/people can say it's too much, and all over something that haven't been finalized or agreed upon, on something that is likely to change 50 times over during the negotiations. You seem to think for some reason that leaking things prematurely isn't using you as pieces, it is you are a puppet of your emotions and feeding you specifically tuned information is effectively playing you like a string.
People are irrational because they are irrational.
So let's fix that first instead of continuing to manipulate the flow of information; the rest will follow.
Because our few pounds of gray matter will never be rational. Us techies tend to think we are, which is exactly why we're even more prone to act irrational in some situations!
It has become (and assuming we are still here in the future, it will become even moreso) easier to broadcast more. The primary reason people don't go around broadcasting everything is because they can't. Most people have been capable of broadcasting very little.
Consider what you are arguing (or at least, appear to be): "Yeah, we fucked you over in the past (and we may do so again in the future) and we didn't want to tell you about it (and tried not to [and will try to not tell you about it in the future]), but just play nice and give us this stuff we want, please?"
I see this argument continuing to be rejected wholesale.
Imagine trying to end WWII if every citizen of every nation in that war were sitting at the negotiating table.
A good modern example would be the middle east peace process, every time there are negotiations and a deal is on the table it blows up more often than not because of premature and selective release of information.
The selective part doesn't have to be intentionally i.e. in one side only releasing part of the information but simply because the other points were not settled upon yet.
Negotiations are like trying to balance an egg on a point of a needle, if they aren't they are often one sided.
http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Mark-Zuckerberg-s-mor...
"When you can borrow at a rate below inflation, you're borrowing for free," McBride said. "This is the concept of using other people's money and it preserves financial flexibility for the borrower."
If you're borrowing at under market rates, we, the market are effectively subsidizing you. Does Zuckerberg need subsidies in order to have a mortgage?
The mortgage was likely only one piece of the deal negotiated. It costs the bank nothing to write an at-cost mortgage, but gives Zuckerberg value though additional liquidity. Items that cost nothing yet provide value to the other side are excellent things to throw on the table during negotiations to help seal the deal. One example: The bank may have the adjustable rate tied to the balance in an asset management account -- if Zuckerberg takes his money elsewhere, the mortgage also becomes profitable.
Stores in the US generally don't price negotiate at the register, but they do have coupons that discriminate shoppers into loyal shoppers (those that take the time to track down the coupons or join the store's particular flavor of loyalty program) and ordinary shoppers.
So how does your income play into house prices? We had many houses on offer when I bought last year. We spoke with experts and offered slightly below market. If they countered above market, we would have walked.
> Stores in the US generally don't price negotiate at the register, but they do have coupons that discriminate shoppers into loyal shoppers (those that take the time to track down the coupons or join the store's particular flavor of loyalty program) and ordinary shoppers.
Isn't that more to do with advertising than income discrimination? I know wealthy housewives who have the time to clip coupons, my working class wife and I do not.
I'm not denying these practices exist, but its always sleazy businesses that engage in them and most consumers end up moving on once they catch wise. Grocery store vs. Amazon for example.
If the seller knows you are making a million a year, it's a fact that balances against their desire to sell. While their desire to sell could be greater and they might capitulate anyway, they may very well hold faster to their asking price because they know you're able to afford it.
If Warren Buffet makes an offer on my house and tries to negotiate me down on price, I'll hold out and even sell to someone else who also negotiates down on price, but isn't him; all things being equal, I'd rather feel like I helped someone out than was taken advantage of. This is among the reasons people with wealth will often use intermediaries to close deals.
> I'm not denying these practices exist, but its always sleazy businesses that engage in them and most consumers end up moving on once they catch wise. Grocery store vs. Amazon for example.
Amazon owns woot.com, which allows them precisely to engage in price discrimination and the benefits of time-scoped deals while simultaneously offering a more "supercenter" experience on their main site. They capture both sides of the market---people who like to feel they are getting a special deal, and people who prefer the simplicity of one price.
(Besides, since Amazon brokers trades between buyers and sellers who are selling at different prices, they don't even practice "one product, one price" on their main site, really. And they have Amazon Prime, which is a loyalty program).
I would understand if Kerry asked Ecuador to stop Assange from publishing Clinton docs until she has been elected or until after the next presidential debate. That would make a lot of sense. But this FARC <--> Clinton doc connection doesn't.