If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
So what does Assange expect to get out of this whole situation? We know he is holed up in the Ecuador Embassy in the UK, with threat of arrest if he takes one step out of there. Is it possible that he expects Trump to grant him asylum in the US, should he become President? And what if Assange has the "death blow" for Hillary still waiting to be released maybe one week before the General Election? Does he just do it, or does he cut a deal with Trump first, assuring him he would grant him asylum when he becomes President? Or does Assange just spend the next 4 years in the Ecuador Embassy with the satisfaction that he made such a significant difference in US history until the statute of limitations in Sweden expires?
I was skeptical of the rumors of wikileaks ties to Russia, but it looks like RT managed to post their latest leak before they did.
I obviously am not cool with a foreign power trying to covertly influence an election but the complete lack of outrage from the right is flabbergasting. If the shoe was on the other foot it'd be on Fox News 24/7.
Is there even a way to do that without violating U.K. sovereignty?
Like... we'd need to violate U.K. airspace and land a black helicopter on the embassy lawn.
The timing might coincide with Brexit finally happening on March 2017. It could be part of Trump negotiating a new trade deal that they release Assange into US custody.
Well, if the shoe was on the other foot, Russia would be trying to sink the Republicans. Obviously they'd react differently.
That said, rewarding a foreign power who attacks domestic political opponents is twelve kinds of unforgivable.
You know what I'm saying, though. The democratic reaction to this is probably more subdued than it should be, but the reverse would make the GOP apoplectic. I'm constantly surprised how far they're willing to sell out their own principles for a weak shot at the presidency.
The timing might coincide with Brexit finally happening on March 2017. It could be part of Trump negotiating a new trade deal that they release Assange into US custody.
Which would **** Sweden over, who will cry bloody murder so loud it gets heard in Berlin and Paris.
You know what I'm saying, though. The democratic reaction to this is probably more subdued than it should be, but the reverse would make the GOP apoplectic. I'm constantly surprised how far they're willing to sell out their own principles for a weak shot at the presidency.
Even if you take principles out of it, "what goes around comes around" is Politics 101.
Perhaps the croc tears from the Clinton campaign is just MORE BS?
Who actually KNOWS who did the hack?
Claims from THIS administration WILL BE LIES.
Its been SOP for almost 8 years.
Which would **** Sweden over, who will cry bloody murder so loud it gets heard in Berlin and Paris.
Over this douchebag?
If we know Trump well, he doesn't trust anyone outside of his family, and he certainly doesn't trust Assange. I would speculate what would happen is this:
Assange will post the silver bullet on Hillary in trade for asylum in the US. Trump gets elected president, he arranges with UK and Sweden to give Assange asylum. The moment Assange steps foot on US soil, he will be promptly sent to a Federal prison (or Gitmo even) and be charged by Trump for espionage and a traitor, lock him up with no internet access for the rest of his life.
I had a though come to me. If Hillary gets elected there's a change she can make policy and be effective. This depends on the makeup of congress of course. If Trump gets elected the likely hood of him making any kind of effective policy on his own initiative is very small. Given the amount of support he has from the Republicans. So a vote for Trump is actually a vote for the status quo.
I had a though come to me. If Hillary gets elected there's a change she can make policy and be effective. This depends on the makeup of congress of course. If Trump gets elected the likely hood of him making any kind of effective policy on his own initiative is very small. Given the amount of support he has from the Republicans. So a vote for Trump is actually a vote for the status quo.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.33.173 with HTTP; Sat, 11 Feb 2012 05:45:45 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 08:45:45 -0500
Delivered-To: [email protected]
Message-ID: <CAE6FiQ_4Gt2cthzj52Kzii4K5unKwraAkKxS9MALzYHg=x4W [email protected]>
Subject: Re: opening for a Catholic Spring? just musing . . .
From: John Podesta <[email protected]>
To: Sandy Newman <[email protected]>
CC: Tara McGuinness <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
We created Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good to organize for a
moment like this. But I think it lacks the leadership to do so now.
Likewise Catholics United. Like most Spring movements, I think this
one will have to be bottom up. I'll discuss with Tara. Kathleen
Kennedy Townsend is the other person to consult.
On 2/10/12, Sandy Newman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, John,
>
> This whole controversy with the bishops opposing contraceptive coverage even
> though 98% of Catholic women (and their conjugal partners) have used
> contraception has me thinking . . . There needs to be a Catholic Spring, in
> which Catholics themselves demand the end of a middle ages dictatorship and
> the beginning of a little democracy and respect for gender equality in the
> Catholic church. Is contraceptive coverage an issue around which that could
> happen. The Bishops will undoubtedly continue the fight. Does the Catholic
> Hospital Association support of the Administration's new policy, together
> with "the 98%" create an opportunity?
>
> Of course, this idea may just reveal my total lack of understanding of the
> Catholic church, the economic power it can bring to bear against nuns and
> priests who count on it for their maintenance, etc. Even if the idea isn't
> crazy, I don't qualify to be involved and I have not thought at all about
> how one would "plant the seeds of the revolution," or who would plant them.
> Just wondering . . .
>
> Hoping you're well, and getting to focus your time in the ways you want.
>
> Sandy
>
> Sandy Newman, President
> Voices for Progress
> 202.669.8754
> voicesforprogress.org
>
>
>
>
It has to be a joke, he can't be that dense. If you have enough influence (or just pay them), Google will take other people's addresses to give you the one you want. You don't own your email address, it's their service.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
So all three of these people had their assistants take the time to track down someone at Google and bribe them for an email address each? Sounds very likely indeed.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
If you search for "gmail.com" there are loads of gmail addresses and almost all of them are conspicuously clean without numbers or initial tacked everywhere to make them unique. In the first two pages of results I think there are two with (low) numbers and more than a dozen clean ones. There is no way in hell all these people bribed Google officials for email addresses. They all have other addresses. Why would they bother? You guys are nuts. Wikileaks is just making shit up at this point. If their credibility didn't evaporate with Assange's book launch stunt, its sure gone now.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Hillary is such a "friend" to the black community:
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Top