rigorousintuition.ca

3 days before to 3 days after the full Moon.

The spirits are agitated in anticipation of this Halloween.

In my classrooms, over the years, I could divide students into two categories: teenagers that annoyed me and teenagers who were pleasant to be around. That isn't a judgement on either group of student's worth, as many annoying students have emotional problems or are just exercising their teenage rebellion in a way that disrupts my classroom. Still, those are the two basic groups.

Now, what would I do if one of the annoying kids came to me with information (proof!) that one of my pleasant kids was doing something wrong? What if I knew the annoying kid didn't care about fairness or classroom and only cared about getting another kid in trouble? What if the annoying kid with evidence of wrong-doing was ONLY giving me information to be . . . annoying?

It wouldn't matter. I'd have an ethical, professional obligation to take the evidence, no matter its source. I'd be obliged to investigate that other student, even my favorite, and apply consequences as needed. I can't choose to ignore evidence just because it comes from a kid that annoys me, who frustrates me, or who breaks classroom rules every day. It doesn't matter. Nor does it matter if my favorite student has to suffer consequences; it'd be unethical to let them off when real evidence came to light.

What are we talking about again?

foreigners interfering in U.S. elections

I appreciate you asking, MacCruiskeen.

My problem with the leaks (of which the Clinton/Goldman Sachs parts are one portion) is that some of them are bogus, such as the "recent Blumenthal quote" that was actually a Kurt Eichenwald article from a year ago. I'm not sure at this juncture if the full measure of blame for this bungling lies with Assange or the Russians. But yeah, I have a problem with all of that.

But as far as if Julian Assange was a US citizen, I'd still have a problem with him using the First Amendment as a pretext to try to tip the election in Trump's favor under the charade of keeping US citizens informed. But yes, it would be a different measure of criticism because he's doing it to his own country under our laws. I don't think anyone from a foreign country should influence the election of another country. And yes, that cuts both ways, when Americans do it to other countries, I stand against that too.

So if anyone here is cool with foreigners fucking with the US election because....I really don't understand the possible rationale. Assange is cool? The USA sucks and needs a colonic spanking? Even if the leaks were truly providing "informed" details, no, fucking with a sovereign nation's election is...kinda fascist. A little bit.

ON EDIT: Yes, I have been busy at work. Sorry for the delayed response.

The foreigner messing with elections to which I, myself, object, is NOT Assange (who is merely the middle portion of the Human Centipede of Disinformation funneling shit from Putin to Trump), but PUTIN. I don't much care about Assange, and don't see him having his internet cut off by Ecuador as any kind of horrific abuse of justice.

J

SLAD, Jerky and 4B have all been granted some sabbatical time as a result of this richly nuanced, high-info thread.

Remember What Our First Lady Said: "They Go Low, We Go High"

Don't you all see what this election is doing to us?! It's tearing us apart!

About Wikileaks providing fraudulent material, it actually came out that it was a Russian news source. The Newsweek writer who's quotes were misrepresented as Blumenthal has a breakdown here:

http://www.newsweek.com/vladimir-putin-sidney-blumenthal-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-benghazi-sputnik-508635

But the Russians had faked it all, taking a real document released by WikiLeaks and altering it to create a bogus story—one that ultimately was picked up by Trump himself. Since Newsweek first broke the story online, some journalists have speculated that the misrepresentation of the email may have merely been an error by an overworked Russian news agency. However, according to a government official with direct knowledge of the American intelligence agencies’ inquiry into the Russian hacking campaign, and who spoke on condition of anonymity, that theory is “absurd.”

I just don't buy the excuse that, because it's foreigners, we are obliged to ignore the truth. If Ho Chi Man's ghost came to use with pictures of either candidate drowning kittens, wouldn't we be obligated to look into it? The source of a Truth is irrelevant to the Truth itself.

Interestingly enough, my concern for the lives of foreigners is partially what is influencing my vote. I kind of feel bad for all those dead Libyans, Syrians, and Yemenis . . . even though they are just foreigners.

Ok what the actual fuck is happening in this thread...

I don't get the original premise about the supposed sanctity & inviolability of the US electoral process... I mean that people here would...

Clinton is going to be president, calm down.

I'm just...

Yeah, I'll catch some Zs.

stillrobertpaulsen » Mon Oct 17, 2016 11:02 pm wrote:some of them are bogus, such as the "recent Blumenthal quote" that was actually a Kurt Eichenwald article

Have you asked why such an apparently rookie mistake? If you took the trouble to verify that it actually was in an email from the Wikileaks archive, was Blumenthal simply quoting or forwarding the Eichenwald article? So when you say "some" is there more? Or is that the basis of this evidence?

stillrobertpaulsen » Mon Oct 17, 2016 5:02 pm wrote:I appreciate you asking, MacCruiskeen.

My problem with the leaks (of which the Clinton/Goldman Sachs parts are one portion) is that some of them are bogus, such as the "recent Blumenthal quote" that was actually a Kurt Eichenwald article from a year ago. I'm not sure at this juncture if the full measure of blame for this bungling lies with Assange or the Russians. But yeah, I have a problem with all of that.

But as far as if Julian Assange was a US citizen, I'd still have a problem with him using the First Amendment as a pretext to try to tip the election in Trump's favor under the charade of keeping US citizens informed. But yes, it would be a different measure of criticism because he's doing it to his own country under our laws. I don't think anyone from a foreign country should influence the election of another country. And yes, that cuts both ways, when Americans do it to other countries, I stand against that too.

So if anyone here is cool with foreigners fucking with the US election because....I really don't understand the possible rationale. Assange is cool? The USA sucks and needs a colonic spanking? Even if the leaks were truly providing "informed" details, no, fucking with a sovereign nation's election is...kinda fascist. A little bit.

ON EDIT: Yes, I have been busy at work. Sorry for the delayed response.

Robert, thanks. Fwiw, I'm v. busy too right now. So, three points briefly:

1. Snopes says:

WikiTweaks
A speculative game of telephone led to the false assertion WikiLeaks had published forged anti-Clinton documents in their October 2016 e-mail dump.

Claim: WikiLeaks was caught by Newsweek fabricating e-mails with the intent of damaging the campaign of Hillary Clinton.

Status: FALSE.

Kim LaCapria
Oct 12, 2016

[...]

http://www.snopes.com/newsweek-proves-t ... on-emails/

If you know of any other (actual) "bogus quotes" from WikiLeaks, please do post them here. I know of none. The objection to WikiLeaks is not that it spreads lies but that it spreads truths.

2. Keith Olbermann is an insufferable blowhard. Is his voice for real? He makes Sam the Eagle look and sound, not just human, but humble by comparison.



3. A US election campaign lasts at least two years. So: a) Almost anything said by any furriner about any candidate at almost any time could be interpreted as "interfering in the election"! (Where there's a will there's a way.) b) The double standards at work in this particular case are a sight to behold. Both British and German journos and pundits, just for instance, have been all over Trump's behaviour towards women. Do we see anyone, anywhere, complaining about those furriners "interfering in the US election"? Of course we do not.

PS: Does Trump use email at all? Or even a cellphone? Apparently not. Nor has he ever held political office.. So it's hardly surprising if Wikileaks have far less on him than on HClinton.

Harvey » Mon Oct 17, 2016 6:37 pm wrote:

stillrobertpaulsen » Mon Oct 17, 2016 11:02 pm wrote:some of them are bogus, such as the "recent Blumenthal quote" that was actually a Kurt Eichenwald article

Have you asked why such an apparently rookie mistake? If you took the trouble to verify that it actually was in an email from the Wikileaks archive, was Blumenthal simply quoting or forwarding the Eichenwald article? So when you say "some" is there more? Or is that the basis of this evidence?

See my above post. I won't blame SRP for hearing this information and wondering. I had several friends and family talking about this, so I did some digging and found the Newsweek writer in question. I found a pro-Clinton website spreading the story that Wikileaks was providing false documents. The interesting thing about this article was that it was outright lying. It even linked to the Newsweek article, but it's like they either didn't read it, or read it, and then spread a false story . .. which is what they were accusing (falsely) Wikileaks of doing.

http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/newsweek-publishes-proof-that-wikileaks-is-leaking-fake-hillary-clinton-emails/26271/

In other words WikiLeaks took a journalist’s words that were critical of Hillary Clinton and falsified them to make it appear that those words had come from within the Clinton camp itself. This represents absolutely proof that WikiLeaks is in fact leaking phony “Hillary Clinton emails” in an attempt to make her look bad. Or as Eichenwald puts it, “WikiLeaks is compromised.” Read his full expose here.

This was a complete lie. And when you click the link at the end of the article, it goes to the Newsweek article I quoted earlier:

But the Russians had faked it all, taking a real document released by WikiLeaks and altering it to create a bogus story—one that ultimately was picked up by Trump himself.

http://www.newsweek.com/vladimir-putin-sidney-blumenthal-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-benghazi-sputnik-508635

So it seems that some pro-Clinton groups are guilty of trying to influence the election through false stories :p

Novem5er » Mon Oct 17, 2016 5:28 pm wrote:About Wikileaks providing fraudulent material, it actually came out that it was a Russian news source.

Thanks for clarifying that. That point was muddled for me earlier.

Novem5er » Mon Oct 17, 2016 5:28 pm wrote:I just don't buy the excuse that, because it's foreigners, we are obliged to ignore the truth.

For me, it's not about ignoring truth but questioning motive. I don't buy that Assange has received this amazing treasure trove of Clinton documents (I don't know if they're predominantly from Russia, but anyone suggesting Russia has nothing to do with this, considering the slight of hand you just pointed out, is a bit naive) but hasn't received anything about Trump. I think Assange has taken the position that friend and Wikileaks collaborator Angela Richter ascribes to him:

“For him, the choice of Trump and Clinton is bad and bad,” Richter says. “Of course, he’s taking the chance to intervene. He might think Trump is terrible, but it might be more interesting to have Trump. If Hillary becomes president, it’ll all be the same.”

It's an extraordinarily cynical and self-serving position. But it's probably pretty close to the truth.

If by "interesting" of course, he means watching 11 million undocumented Mexicans rounded up, a ban on travel to the US based on wrong answers to religious questions, shutting off parts of the internet in the event of a terror attack, "bomb the shit out of ISIS"....I could go on, but it's not that "interesting."

Novem5er » Tue Oct 18, 2016 12:01 am wrote:

Harvey » Mon Oct 17, 2016 6:37 pm wrote:

stillrobertpaulsen » Mon Oct 17, 2016 11:02 pm wrote:some of them are bogus, such as the "recent Blumenthal quote" that was actually a Kurt Eichenwald article

Have you asked why such an apparently rookie mistake? If you took the trouble to verify that it actually was in an email from the Wikileaks archive, was Blumenthal simply quoting or forwarding the Eichenwald article? So when you say "some" is there more? Or is that the basis of this evidence?

See my above post. I won't blame SRP for hearing this information and wondering. I had several friends and family talking about this, so I did some digging and found the Newsweek writer in question. I found a pro-Clinton website spreading the story that Wikileaks was providing false documents. The interesting thing about this article was that it was outright lying. It even linked to the Newsweek article, but it's like they either didn't read it, or read it, and then spread a false story . .. which is what they were accusing (falsely) Wikileaks of doing.

http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/newsweek-publishes-proof-that-wikileaks-is-leaking-fake-hillary-clinton-emails/26271/

In other words WikiLeaks took a journalist’s words that were critical of Hillary Clinton and falsified them to make it appear that those words had come from within the Clinton camp itself. This represents absolutely proof that WikiLeaks is in fact leaking phony “Hillary Clinton emails” in an attempt to make her look bad. Or as Eichenwald puts it, “WikiLeaks is compromised.” Read his full expose here.

This was a complete lie. And when you click the link at the end of the article, it goes to the Newsweek article I quoted earlier:

But the Russians had faked it all, taking a real document released by WikiLeaks and altering it to create a bogus story—one that ultimately was picked up by Trump himself.

http://www.newsweek.com/vladimir-putin-sidney-blumenthal-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-benghazi-sputnik-508635

So it seems that some pro-Clinton groups are guilty of trying to influence the election through false stories :p

Waaaaay too much "somebody said" going on. I fall for it too often myself. In the spirit of not shooting messengers here's the email in full: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/2038

It's clear that the email from Blumenthal to Podesta is him quoting an article, in full, with a link to the article at the top. That's it. Period. Not sure how "The Russians" is a worthwhile characterisation for Newsweek to make, apart from Sputnick International propagating sloppy and/or mendacious journalism.

MacCruiskeen » Mon Oct 17, 2016 5:56 pm wrote:Robert, thanks. Fwiw, I'm v. busy too right now. So, three points briefly:

1. Snopes says:

WikiTweaks
A speculative game of telephone led to the false assertion WikiLeaks had published forged anti-Clinton documents in their October 2016 e-mail dump.

Claim: WikiLeaks was caught by Newsweek fabricating e-mails with the intent of damaging the campaign of Hillary Clinton.

Status: FALSE.

Kim LaCapria
Oct 12, 2016

[...]

http://www.snopes.com/newsweek-proves-t ... on-emails/

If you know of any other (actual) "bogus quotes" from WikiLeaks, please do post them here. I know of none. The objection to WikiLeaks is not that it spreads lies but that it spreads truths.

I stand corrected. Since I know of no other instances where this occurred, I concede the point to you.

MacCruiskeen » Mon Oct 17, 2016 5:56 pm wrote:2. Keith Olbermann is an insufferable blowhard. Is his voice for real? He makes Sam the Eagle look and sound, not just human, but humble by comparison.

Well, this is where you and I will have to agree to disagree. Living in the US during the Dubya years, Olbermann's voice was like a beacon of light against a sea of darkness. Especially after the theft in Ohio in 2004, Olbermann was the only voice on mainstream media speaking out about the obvious irregularities. He may bellow and he may bray, but if that makes him Keith the Eagle, I salute him. Doesn't mean I agree with him all the time, but he sure knows how to call out a tyrant.

MacCruiskeen » Mon Oct 17, 2016 5:56 pm wrote:3. A US election campaign lasts at least two years. So: a) Almost anything said by any furriner about any candidate at almost any time could be interpreted as "interfering in the election"! (Where there's a will there's a way.) b) The double standards at work in this particular case are a sight to behold. Both British and German journos and pundits, just for instance, have been all over Trump's behaviour towards women. Do we see anyone, anywhere, complaining about those furriners "interfering in the US election"? Of course we do not.

PS: Does Trump use email at all? Or even a cellphone? Apparently not. Nor has he ever held political office.. So it's hardly surprising if Wikileaks have far less on him than on HClinton.

As far as point a) is concerned I want to make one slight distinction: there's a difference between an original expose and rewrites of stories already broken in the US. Which goes to point b) If the British and Germans are breaking original exposes on Trump's behavior, I agree that's a double standard. If not, well they're still dog-piling but I wouldn't classify it as interference.

Now if the British or Germans published Trump's tax returns from the past 20 years, that would be interference.

For the record, Trump has an Android.

I'll be back tomorrow.

if Russia did hack those emails and try to influence the election that is very naughty

please could someone point me to the solid evidence that proves this claim

here is something to see,

https://getpocket.com/a/read/1430016954

I sit OK for the media, the state department, the FBI, the incumbent government and all the billionares to select a chosen candidate?

is that democracy?

is democracy not OK if one of the candidates a scumbag?

Is wikileaks getting knocked out for printing untruths?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-1 ... net-outage

is this statement true if its against Trump, "It doesn’t matter what the friggin’ legal and ethics people say, we need to win this motherfucker."
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-1 ... mp-rallies