Julian Assange: A vote for Hillary Clinton is a "vote for endless stupid war"

originally posted by: InTheLight
So were most of your other Presidents, so why is Assange focussing on Hillary (a woman with power) when other male candidates, who claim they can also be effective Chiefs of war, and who spew out more war mongering rhetoric? He is transparent in this instance.

Are you really going to play the gender card here?

There are plenty of things to criticise Hillary about without the need to attack her for being a powerful female.

But I have a suspicion you dislike Assange chiefly because of the farcical rape allegations thrown his way. Could that be why you are so dismissive of his views?

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: ExNihiloRed

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: ExNihiloRed
a reply to: InMyShell

The irony of a man who made his career leaking classified information complaining about a woman alleged to have leaked classified information.

Please remind me again why any of us should care what Julian Assange has to say? I chalk this up to a sad attempt to make himself relevant again.

He's a hero. What he does is distribute documents and information to the masses that should never have been classified or hidden from us in the first place. He' forces governments to be more transparent. Why would you not want that?

I was reading about all of this and uncovered something truly ironic that I am sure many people here would love to see.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton decried immediately the illegal publication of classified documents from government computers, and defended the need for “confidential space” for diplomatic conversations. In addition, she noted that people’s lives could be endangered by confidential data disclosures.

Source

And that should show you that Hillary Clinton is a corrupt war monger. She is part of the problem.

So were most of your other Presidents, so why is Assange focussing on Hillary (a woman with power) when other male candidates, who claim they can also be effective Chiefs of war, and who spew out more war mongering rhetoric? He is transparent in this instance.

The most likely alternative for people who would consider voting for Hillary Clinton would be Bernie Sanders, and he isn't much of a war hawk (although he isn't a pacifist, either).

It's not like most people who would have considered voting for Clinton but decided against it would instead vote Republican.

originally posted by: InMyShell
Hi



She is a “war hawk with bad judgment” who gets an “emotional rush out of killing people.”

Hillary is a Globalist Puppet so I would not be surprised if the outcomes of all her actions are intentional.
When she said we came, we saw, he died about Gaddafi, that told me all I needed to know about her humanity.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: ExNihiloRed

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: ExNihiloRed
a reply to: InMyShell

The irony of a man who made his career leaking classified information complaining about a woman alleged to have leaked classified information.

Please remind me again why any of us should care what Julian Assange has to say? I chalk this up to a sad attempt to make himself relevant again.

He's a hero. What he does is distribute documents and information to the masses that should never have been classified or hidden from us in the first place. He' forces governments to be more transparent. Why would you not want that?

I was reading about all of this and uncovered something truly ironic that I am sure many people here would love to see.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton decried immediately the illegal publication of classified documents from government computers, and defended the need for “confidential space” for diplomatic conversations. In addition, she noted that people’s lives could be endangered by confidential data disclosures.

Source

And that should show you that Hillary Clinton is a corrupt war monger. She is part of the problem.

So were most of your other Presidents, so why is Assange focussing on Hillary (a woman with power) when other male candidates, who claim they can also be effective Chiefs of war, and who spew out more war mongering rhetoric? He is transparent in this instance.

The most likely alternative for people who would consider voting for Hillary Clinton would be Bernie Sanders, and he isn't much of a war hawk (although he isn't a pacifist, either).

It's not like most people who would have considered voting for Clinton but decided against it would instead vote Republican.

It may be that the American people would prefer continual war. Where is Assange's opinions on other candidates, such as Bernie Sanders' flouncing?

www.mintpressnews.com...

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: ExNihiloRed

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: ExNihiloRed
a reply to: InMyShell

The irony of a man who made his career leaking classified information complaining about a woman alleged to have leaked classified information.

Please remind me again why any of us should care what Julian Assange has to say? I chalk this up to a sad attempt to make himself relevant again.

He's a hero. What he does is distribute documents and information to the masses that should never have been classified or hidden from us in the first place. He' forces governments to be more transparent. Why would you not want that?

I was reading about all of this and uncovered something truly ironic that I am sure many people here would love to see.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton decried immediately the illegal publication of classified documents from government computers, and defended the need for “confidential space” for diplomatic conversations. In addition, she noted that people’s lives could be endangered by confidential data disclosures.

Source

And that should show you that Hillary Clinton is a corrupt war monger. She is part of the problem.

So were most of your other Presidents, so why is Assange focussing on Hillary (a woman with power) when other male candidates, who claim they can also be effective Chiefs of war, and who spew out more war mongering rhetoric? He is transparent in this instance.

The most likely alternative for people who would consider voting for Hillary Clinton would be Bernie Sanders, and he isn't much of a war hawk (although he isn't a pacifist, either).

It's not like most people who would have considered voting for Clinton but decided against it would instead vote Republican.

It may be that the American people would prefer continual war. Where is Assange's opinions on other candidates, such as Bernie Sanders' flouncing?

www.mintpressnews.com...

Like I said, Sanders isn't either a war-hawk or a pacifist dove. He is somewhere in between. Perhaps Assange personally has no real problem with this in-between position, so he hasn't called Sanders out on the issue. On the other hand, Assange may feel that Hillary Clinton is more of a war hawk, thus he did call her out.

Assange's feelings about Hillary Clinton could have everything to do with Sanders and Clintons' respective feelings about the uses of military might and nothing to do with their respective genders.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Perhaps, but not likely from the opinions of those who know Assange.

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Perhaps, but not likely from the opinions of those who know Assange.

Well, if the Dali Lama or Mahatma Gandhi were running for the Democratic Party nomination, then Assange would probably criticize Sanders' Senate record on voting for military intervention.

However, it's down to two specific candidates, and Assange knows one will be the winner, so he will back the one with whom he agrees the most (even if he does not agree with everything about that candidate). If he feel's Hillary Clinton is the more dangerous of the two candidates when it comes to the possibility of military intervention, then he would probably find reasons to criticize that aspect of her and be silent on Sanders' record -- a record which may still involve supporting the use of military intervention, but less so than what he feel's Clinton's record indicates of her.

Again, it seems a real stretch to imply that Assange criticized Clinton but was silent in Sanders only because Clinton is a woman.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

I would expect, of an informed person, to post negative criticism of one candidate then also to include a counter argument as to why the favoured candidate is the best choice when presenting one's opinion, however in Assange's case, it seems acceptable for him and others here to post criticism of one candidate without any real study or research behind the others; as I presented with a flouncing Sanders. One-sided opinions filled with hatred (read link on first page - where does this hatred stem from?) coupled with Assange's reputation speak otherwise.

He has the politics of a teenage boy who has read too much Chomsky (which is any Chomsky).

That is what some of his social behaviour (including political commenting) strikes me as being - that of a teenage boy.

www.spectator.co.uk...

a reply to: InTheLight

Assange may simply feel that Sanders in the lesser of two evils, so while he paints Clinton as a war hawk, he may feel that being silent on Sanders' record of military intervention is the most positive way to support that lesser evil, rather than by providing double-speak in an attempt to show support Sanders' less-hawkishness, when Assange clearly does not fully support Sanders' record, either.

Assange may feel it is intellectually dishonest to offer waffle words that show back-handed support for Sanders' historical record on military intervention to contrast him from Clinton, so he doesn't say anything.

Granted -- it may be more eloquent of Assange if he were to find positive words on Sanders' record of voting on matters of military intervention, but Assange is far from a perfect individual, and he may not always be as eloquent as you think he should be. But his lack of eloquence in finding a positive thing to say about Sanders' views on the use of military force doesn't mean his words against Clinton were due to her being a woman.



As for your remark about Chomsky, I tend to agree that Assange acts as if he has read too much Chomsky and has yet to live in the real world enough to realize that human nature creates a real world that is slightly different than the world in which Chomsky says we should be living. However, not everyone who reads Chomsky is the ultra idealist that has yet to grow up. My Political Science major daughter reads Chomsky, but she does so to just explore other opinions, not because she necessarily agrees with him (nor does she necessarily disagree with all of Chomsky's views).

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Did you read the link on the first page? Why all the hate and childish name calling for Hillary? There is more there than meets the eye here in regards to Assange's agenda and what drives it.

time.com...

a reply to: InMyShell

If anything the GOP are all for endless wars just look at Ted Cruz the Harper boy. And his endless spending for the military

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Did you read the link on the first page? Why all the hate and childish name calling for Hillary? There is more there than meets the eye here in regards to Assange's agenda and what drives it.

time.com...

So what? So he has a deep hatred for Hillary Clinton. Assange can have a deep hatred for Clinton, but still not because she's a woman. People are allowed to have deep hatreds for others (other men and other women), but still not hate them JUST BECAUSE they are a man or a woman.

I don't get where you are connecting the dots in "he hates Hillary Clinton because she is a woman". Are you basing that opinion solely on the fact that he hasn't called out Sanders as he has called out Clinton? Like I said, that may not be due to Assange agreeing with Sanders' views, but instead because maybe Assange is in his mind supporting the lesser of two evils.

Maybe he has a "dislike" for Bernie based on Bernie's public record, but he may have a "hatred" for Hillary based on her public record.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

My deduction is his focus and venom directed at only one candidate who happens to be female and who is no worse than her male counterparts, comments from people who know him, and him being an alleged rapist.

a reply to: InTheLight

I knew that was the hand you were playing.

Do you think it's possible that the rape allegation and anecdotes from supposed friends of his could be an orchestrated effort by an enemy (e.g. US government) to smear his reputation and get the average person to negatively judge his character and motivations?

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

My deduction is his focus and venom directed at only one candidate who happens to be female and who is no worse than her male counterparts, comments from people who know him, and him being an alleged rapist.

See there I disagree she is worse there's a lot when dealing with her. You can look at Benghazi it falls squarely on her shoulders. Libya was mostly her baby I think Obama trusted her judgement . Remember this was Hillary's war as it was called. And remember this statement “We came, we saw, he died,” wheb announcing Gaddafis death. Statements she has made takes hawk to new levels. She's even discussed invading Iran like we need to open that can of worms. And in Syria she wants to increase support for Syrian rebels never mind the fact we can't tell them from Isis. She was pushing for every major conflict and we know how that's gone so far its so bad if she thinks using force is a good idea we should probably do the exact opposite.




hillarys war

www.theatlantic.com...

a reply to: dragonridr

At this stage I have to wonder if the popular vote will mean anything..

Sanders current has a 36-32 lead in delegates won in primaries and caucuses, having seen a razor-thin loss in Iowa and an overwhelming victory in New Hampshire.

Since the New Hampshire’s February 9 primary, however, Clinton has picked up endorsements from 87 superdelegates – Democratic party insiders who get to cast votes as normal delegates do, but aren’t required to follow will of voters. This brings her count to 449, or 63 percent of the superdelegate total. Meanwhile, Sanders has picked up 11 superdelegates, with his total currently at 19, according to AP.

When superdelegates are totaled up with those won in primaries, establishment favorite Clinton shows a commanding lead of 481 to Sanders’ 55.

www.rt.com...

and for those who think RT is full of it...video.foxnews.com...=show-clips

If Assange, a non-American, is the freedom of speech activist he claims to be, then why isn't he opining on the bigger fish that need to be fried; Hillary is a little fish in this regard.

The only comments I want to hear/read from Assange are those he makes in a Swedish courtroom addressing the rape allegations against him, otherwise, to me, his opinions and comments are of no consequence. All research points to the U.S. not taking steps for his extradition if he returns to Sweden, so Assange is just a fugitive from justice.

www.amnestyusa.org...

September 21, 2016

In an interview with "Democracy Now", Julian Assange says that documents to be released between now and the November 8th election, will demonstrate these actions by (then) Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.

"So, for example, the disastrous, absolutely disastrous intervention in Libya, the destruction of the Gaddafi government, which led to the occupation of ISIS of large segments of that country, weapons flows going over to Syria, being pushed by Hillary Clinton, into jihadists within Syria, including ISIS, that’s there in those emails."

Full Article: www.thepoliticalinsider.com...

BTW.. Why did Hillary Clinton serve only one Term as S.O.S.? Did Obama ask her to go because she was as incompetent there, as she's been at other jobs?