THE WIKILEAKS

[betsy]

7 hours ago, Wilber said:

betsy, when people yell at me I tune them out.

Why is this suddenly about you?

I'm not asking about you, Wilber.  Do it your way, whatever....I don't care.   I'm not you.

Edited October 23, 2016 by betsy

[Wilber]

6 minutes ago, betsy said:

Why is this suddenly about you?

I'm not asking about you, Wilber.  Do it your way, whatever....I don't care.   I'm not you.

I was responding to a post where you quoted me and which contained large font red caps. The only reason I even read this post, let alone responded to it is because you didn't use them. Get it. 

 

[betsy]

6 hours ago, ?Impact said:

This thread is getting hard to follow on my laptop with it's small screen size. Could you dial down the big fonts please.

Sorry about that, ?Impact.  Will try to go for smaller fonts.

[cybercoma]

"Try"

[The_Squid]

13 minutes ago, cybercoma said:

"Try"

Smaller fonts are hard....

[cybercoma]

1 minute ago, The_Squid said:

Smaller fonts are hard....

I'm not really sure how to do it. Every time I quote a website, my posts end up being 26 pt bold red font and 18 pt green font. I've no idea why. I'm just glad it's not against the rules or anything.

Edited October 23, 2016 by cybercoma

[betsy]

WikiLeaks Document Shows Apparent Gender Pay Gap at Clinton Foundation


Email documents released in the latest WikiLeaks dump portray a pay gap between men and women employed at the Clinton Foundation, Abby Huntsman reported on Fox & Friends.

A hacked email released by WikiLeaks describes a payroll schedule in which male employees at the foundation averaged about $68,000 per year in salary, while women were paid about $64,000.

According to LifeZette, the 2011 email was sent by an employee to the foundation's chairman, Bruce Lindsey, as well as Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta.

The salary average accounted for 37 women and 25 men employed by the foundation.

Clinton has made equality in the workplace a hallmark of her campaign as well as during her tenure as senator from New York.

WikiLeaks Document Shows Apparent Gender Pay Gap at Clinton Foundation | Fox News Insider

[betsy]

Hillary Clinton Expresses Support For Fracking In Wikileaks Document

 

In one excerpt of a speech to Deutsche Bank in April 2013, according to the document, Clinton boasted about the federal government’s support for fracking and her own work to promote the process across the globe.

“Fracking was developed at the Department of Energy,” the document shows Clinton saying. “I mean, the whole idea of how fracking came to be available in the marketplace is because of research done by our government. And I've promoted fracking in other places around the world.”

In another excerpt of the same speech, Clinton outlines why she supports a continued push for fracking.

“The ability to extract both gas and oil from previously used places that didn't seem to have much more to offer, but now the technology gives us the chance to go in and recover oil and gas,” the document shows her saying. “Or with the new technology known as fracking, we are truly on a path -- and it's not just United States; it's all of North America -- that will be net energy exporters assuming we do it right."

She added: “We ought to be committed enough to ensure that we set the example for the world about how to do it with the minimal amount of environmental damage.”

In a purported excerpt of another speech in 2014, the document shows Clinton portraying some environmental groups’ opposition to fracking and pipeline construction as a Russian plot. 

 

The excerpts contrast with Clinton’s statements during the Democratic primary, in which she depicted herself as an opponent of fracking.

“By the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place,” she said during a March 2016 debate in Flint, Michigan. “We have to regulate everything that is currently underway, and we have to have a system in place that prevents further fracking unless conditions like the ones that I just mentions are met.”

Oil and gas industry donors have given more than $1 million to Clinton’s political campaigns and millions more to the Clinton Foundation. As a senator, Clinton broke with other Democrats such as then-Sen. Barack Obama to cast some key votes to expand offshore drilling. Later, the Clinton-led State Department promoted fracking, approved a tar sands pipeline, and cemented a pact to potentially expand drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Her 2016 campaign has been financially supported by those with ties to fracking, and her transition team chairman, Ken Salazar, has been an outspoken proponent of fracking.

http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/hillary-clinton-expresses-support-fracking-wikileaks-document-2428659

 

Edited October 23, 2016 by betsy

[?Impact]

2 hours ago, betsy said:

Hillary Clinton Expresses Support For Fracking In Wikileaks Document

 

Yes, her support for fracking has been long down, the Wikileaks didn't really reveal anything new in that regard. She has promoted it around the world while Secretary of State, and that was public knowledge. During the 2016 primaries she added some conditions to it: 

"I don’t support it when any locality or any state is against it, No. 1. I don’t support it when the release of methane or contamination of water is present. I don’t support it — No. 3 — unless we can require that anybody who fracks has to tell us exactly what chemicals they are using.

So by the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place. And I think that’s the best approach, because right now, there are places where fracking is going on that are not sufficiently regulated."

 

This would certainly stop fracking in many places in the US today, but not it would not eliminate it. This was a big part of the primaries debate, especially with Sanders who declared that he didn't support fracking - period.

[?Impact]

2 hours ago, betsy said:

WikiLeaks Document Shows Apparent Gender Pay Gap at Clinton Foundation

 

Again this was well known before from the public disclosures of the Clinton Foundation. The only thing the Wikileaks adds to the mix is that obviously they were concerned about it from an image standpoint. This is obviously an issue all around, the competition has a huge pay gap issue with his campaign team.

[cybercoma]

42 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Again this was well known before from the public disclosures of the Clinton Foundation. The only thing the Wikileaks adds to the mix is that obviously they were concerned about it from an image standpoint. This is obviously an issue all around, the competition has a huge pay gap issue with his campaign team.

betsy doesn't actually give a crap about the gender pay gap. She cares about painting Clinton in a negative light. If she had principles, as a Christian, she wouldn't be supporting an alleged unregistered sex offender and predator who makes sexual advances on children and forces himself on women.

[msj]

I agree that many people are discounting the wikileaks information. 

Part of it is that it is not giving us anything explosively revelatory and new. 

Part of it is just the stupidity or cowardice of wikileaks itself. 

Whether it is ideology or Assange's fear of getting radiation poisoning from the Russians, or revenge on the US/Clinton's or all of the above, wikileaks lacks credibility.  

Anytime I hear about a wikileak I groan and think "oh, another leak conveniently timed and  intended to weaken democracy around the world." 

I mean, if they came out with some dirt about the crap Russia and China do then they would actually regain some credibility.  

But, of course, can't attack the hand that feeds/holds the gun to their head thus wikileaks becomes irrelevant and discounted by many as just another propaganda agent for the west's enemies.  

Edited October 23, 2016 by msj

[cybercoma]

Assange is a tool for the Russians. His entire purpose is to sew discord and distrust of democracy in America, in order to weaken its position in the world. Trump is working overtime to delegitimize the entire political process, which probably has Putin laughing his ass off because it saves him the hassle of figuring out a way to do it himself.

[Wilber]

16 minutes ago, cybercoma said:

Assange is a tool for the Russians. His entire purpose is to sew discord and distrust of democracy in America, in order to weaken its position in the world. Trump is working overtime to delegitimize the entire political process, which probably has Putin laughing his ass off because it saves him the hassle of figuring out a way to do it himself.

Trump doesn't care, it is all about him not losing. Even more, not losing to a woman.

[sharkman]

1 hour ago, cybercoma said:

Assange is a tool for the Russians. His entire purpose is to sew discord and distrust of democracy in America, in order to weaken its position in the world. Trump is working overtime to delegitimize the entire political process, which probably has Putin laughing his ass off because it saves him the hassle of figuring out a way to do it himself.

I've never liked wikileaks and what it represents.  Any fool with access to classified or secret info(or hacking skills) can release it and cause deaths, bankruptcies and all kinds of damage to innocent people not even connected to their little revenge-at-all-costs tantrum.  But most people, and certainly everybody that posts here, hold wikileaks in high regard for some reason, like Assange is some kind of robin hood sticking it to the man.  

 

But it's funny how his halo has become tarnished over the document dumps that damage the Democrats, and Hillary's campaign.  Suddenly he's a puppet of the Russians, like he wasn't a puppet of whomever was handing him hacked data/emails before.  I don't even think it's the Russians doing this.  There's no way they'd prefer crazy man Trump over Hillary, that just doesn't add up.  But whatever, at least liberals are realizing that Assange is just another media whore.

[msj]

10 minutes ago, sharkman said:

... But most people, and certainly everybody that posts here, hold wikileaks in high regard for some reason, like Assange is some kind of robin hood sticking it to the man.  

 But whatever, at least liberals are realizing that Assange is just another media whore.

Um, go ahead and find my posts gushing about Assange in the past...

Make up whatever nonsense you want to create whatever straw man narrative you need but the point is there is a place for hackers in this world to the extent that they bring light to truly awful terrible things. 

But to play such an obvious and biased hand automatically leads to most people ignoring the leaks, and possibly ignoring even valuable leaks. 

That is, wikileaks is doing a huge disservice to whistleblowing and are part of the problem leading to less transparency than more.  

One would not have known of this development at the start so it is certainly understandable for people, at the beginning, to buy into the now known to be false narrative of wikileaks as good guy.

But now we are talking about hindsight  bias and you have proven over time to not comprehend this bias as you display this bias the most amongst your posts.  

 

Edited October 23, 2016 by msj

[Argus]

16 hours ago, betsy said:

Sorry about that, ?Impact.  Will try to go for smaller fonts.

Try? There is no try. There is do, and do not.

[eyeball]

7 minutes ago, sharkman said:

 

But most people, and certainly everybody that posts here, hold wikileaks in high regard for some reason, like Assange is some kind of robin hood sticking it to the man.  

It's the idea of sticking it to the man that is held in high regard.  Sycophants however love 'the man' and view sticking it to him as unpatriotic and wrong.  Wikileaks is the first real attempt to break through the opacity officialdom likes to cloak itself with and while it may have some problems it has at least tried.  I would say it's greatest success is how it has underscored the extent and biases of sycophantic tendencies in our society - tendencies that definitely point towards a right-wing bias.

What we really need is a time-viewer or chronoscope. Perhaps when we reach the technological singularity we'll have the means to build one.

[?Impact]

38 minutes ago, sharkman said:

But it's funny how his halo has become tarnished over the document dumps that damage the Democrats, and Hillary's campaign.

Besides the obvious partisan reaction you highlighted, it is also significant that the current leaks are obviously targeted at the democratic process itself. I think that a significant difference between exposing what the government is doing and trying to affect elections.

 

I should add that yes there is indeed the danger of exposing information that could lead to deaths, etc. It is also worth asking the question what is the danger of not exposing some of the stuff that goes on. There have been massive deaths caused by governments as well, could exposing what they do prevent or reduce that?

Edited October 23, 2016 by ?Impact

[sharkman]

Quote

Besides the obvious partisan reaction you highlighted, it is also significant that the current leaks are obviously targeted at the democratic process itself. I think that a significant difference between exposing what the government is doing and trying to affect elections.

Brother, the media has been targeting the democratic process during every election cycle for decades, trying to affect elections.  

[eyeball]

5 minutes ago, sharkman said:

Brother, the media has been targeting the democratic process during every election cycle for decades, trying to affect elections.  

Do you have any actual evidence of this conspiracy to target democracy? After decades of it there should be a trove of such evidence and there must have been thousands of these conspirators.  Any deathbed confessions or a trail of emails perhaps? 

[sharkman]

People that live in glass houses should not throw stones, oh conspiracy fan.

[eyeball]

Conspiring with yourself? That's pretty weird.

[cybercoma]

3 hours ago, sharkman said:

 I don't even think it's the Russians doing this.  There's no way they'd prefer crazy man Trump over Hillary, that just doesn't add up.  But whatever, at least liberals are realizing that Assange is just another media whore.

My point there is not that they support Trump; they're supporting civil unrest and political discord. This is a tactic the Kremlin has used in the past to destabilize nations. There was a news report about them engaging in this behaviour with the Scottish Referendum. There's all kinds of evidence of them doing this against the Ukraine. Hacking the DNC and interfering with the US election to sow discord is par for the course now. I have news stories saved but they're behind paywalls. You may be able to find free ones if you want to see reports about it. Suffice it to say this is the new Information Age assault that Russia is engaging upon NATO allies.

[kimmy]

10 hours ago, msj said:

I agree that many people are discounting the wikileaks information. 

Part of it is that it is not giving us anything explosively revelatory and new. 

 

I think that's the bulk of it... there's just nothing very exciting to come out so far.  Anti-Hillary people talk about THE WIKILEAKS~~! as if it's some kind of silver bullet that's going to strike down Crooked Hill... but they can't actually articulate anything that's come out that's so damaging.

8 hours ago, sharkman said:

I've never liked wikileaks and what it represents.  Any fool with access to classified or secret info(or hacking skills) can release it and cause deaths, bankruptcies and all kinds of damage to innocent people not even connected to their little revenge-at-all-costs tantrum.  But most people, and certainly everybody that posts here, hold wikileaks in high regard for some reason, like Assange is some kind of robin hood sticking it to the man. 

...well, I wouldn't say everybody. There's been some vocal critics of Assange here, right from day one. Argus in particular.

I agree with some of your point here. There's obviously a great potential for damage if Wikileaks were to release information that contained current data of strategic value. Obviously that could put lives in danger and undermine ongoing matters of national interest-- military operations and so on.  I don't believe that Wikileaks has ever actually release anything that contained current strategic information, although I could be wrong. I believe that they've erred on the side of caution in deciding what to release.

But alongside the potential for harm, I also believe there is a need for something like this... an avenue for whistleblowers to release information that's in the public interest. Despite promises of more transparency and accountability and openness and less secrecy, Obama has been harder on whistleblowers than any president in history. The idea that people of conscience who come forward with information in the public interest will receive protection is clearly on shaky ground, and I think that the existence of WikiLeaks provides at least one way for such information to be put in the public eye.  Whether emails from John Podesta and the other Democrat backroom types are in the public interest is somewhat debatable, but I think there's an argument to be made that it is. I was certainly interested in the "Guccifer 2.0" email hacks during the Democratic primaries. DNC staffers and Hillary's team cried about "the Russians!" at the time too, but be that as it may... the Russians didn't write those emails. DNC staffers did. Some of them were fired when their words were exposed. And deservedly so.

8 hours ago, sharkman said:

But it's funny how his halo has become tarnished over the document dumps that damage the Democrats, and Hillary's campaign. 

You may have a point here.

 -k