On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 21:16:43 +0000 (UTC)
jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:


>> In one sense, I was in a very similar position to Assange:  I very much wanted Hillary Clinton to lose the election.  That doesn't mean that I wanted Donald Trump to win, but in America's political duopoly, wanting the Democrat to lose means, if that want is provided, the Republican wins.   (How I wish that were not the case!!!)

>    yeah. good news, the clinton cunt lost. Bad news, trump won.

Don't blame me!   Blame the MSM, the DNC, Hillary Clinton herself, and the corrupt government stooges who supported her. 

"I must admit that at first I was dumb enough to think that if the media were saying that trump was horrible then he must be marginally better than clinton. Problem is,  that partisan line of thinking is nonsense and in reality the US has a one party system with both candidates being exactly equally bad."

Perhaps you forget that Trump wasn't exactly a "Republican".  Until a few years ago, he was actually on very good terms with the Democrats.  

>>  Assange, at least, publicized a lot of negative information that arguably caused Hillary to lose the election.  Which I very much liked, of course.   Even so, Assange didn't cause Hillary or the DNC to be corrupt:  They were corrupt before Assange publicized that fact.  Do you blame Assange for exposing political corruption?   

>    No I don't. But it seems he should have done the same thing for the rethuglicans. I think he said he didn't have anything to publish regarding trump but that sounds not completely credible. 

It's two years later.  If nothing has come out which denounces Trump, even by today, why would anyone think that Assange could have come out with in in, say, October 2016?

 >   At any rate, it seems to be a fact that assange favored trump and it is a fact that trump is even worse than obomba and now assange is a direct target of trump's.

"assange favored Trump" is misleading.  Assange had, at most, two choices.  If it was his goal to cause Hillary Clinton to lose, I completely welcome his choice.  


>> Also, I frequently point out that before Trump was even nominated, the news media itself recognized that it had given Trump $2 billion in free publicity.   https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring-donald-trumps-mammoth-advantage-in-free-media.html      Try google-searching for '$2 billion Trump media' to find many other references.    It wasn't 'positive' publicity, of course.  Naturally, the MSM wasn't trying to cause Trump to win the general election:

>    yeah - or if I switch to 'paranoid mode' then who knows? As mentioned, apparently the media was against trump because trump was so anti 'liberal' anti 'progressive' bla bla, but as a matter of fact the media failed to prevent trump from being elected. So maybe they were inept or maybe they didn't try too hard...

The MSM can't, and didn't, control everything.  Arguably, the revelation about her illegally-used private server (caused by years Republican inquiries into Benghazi) probably swung the election to Trump.  But, the hugely biased U.S. Government tried to swing it back:  Comey and his thugs pretended that Hillary hadn't done anything illegal.  ("extremely careless" v. "gross negligence" on July 5, 2016.).  They didn't want to use the term "gross negligence" because that is the trigger-term which justified prosecution under various statutes.  

And, the discovery of about 600,000 copies of emails on Anthony Weiner's laptop (and Anthony Weiner didn't a a security clearance for anything, as I understood it) pretty much destroy their credibility, the whole lot of them.  



>>  If they were honest, they would have admitted that they were trying to get Ted Cruz and Rand Paul to lose the nomination.  Which they did.  But they hoped that Trump would lose the general.  Which, due to Hillary's great scandals, he didn't.  So, I'd say that the MSM was primarily responsible for causing Trump to win the nomination.  Which they seemingly admit, or at least admitted, before Trump won the general election.  

 >   Hm. That's a bit more convoluted. Regardless, elections in the US are completely irrelevant. 

That's a position to take.  Someday, you should convince the American public of that.  

>   I guess another way to look at it is : had hitlery won assange would have been lynched. And now that the other faction of the one party won, he's being lynched.
    

That's not as clear.  One of the dangers of any criminal prosecution is that the defendant usually gets the right to access, and release exculpatory material.  Exculpatory to Assange arguably means incriminating to Hillary, Obama, and each of their criminal crews.  

>> Arguably, the MSM (and Hillary, etc) was mostly responsible for causing Trump to win the election.  Those RINOs and Deep-State actors should understand that. 
> I am not aware that Assange did anything illegal,

>    lol - illegal as defined by the american nazi government? 

Do you have any alternative opinions?   Do you believe that Assange did anything illegal by YOUR standards?  He basically acted as a journalist.