US Presidential Election - What's your take?

[fastpitch17]

Assange clearly favors Trump over Clinton. So much for being an impartial guy fighting against all government corruption.

Ecuador seems to be tiring of Assange. I can see an attempted move to the Russian Embassy next. Of course, if he tries there will be people waiting for him to exit the Ecuador Embassy. Not the Russians.

 

[Puspawarna]

Assange clearly favors Trump over Clinton. So much for being an impartial guy fighting against all government corruption.

Trump and Assange can bond over the misery of sexual assault accusations by lying bitches women.

 

[jstar]

^
^
It seems the cars are protected as wel?!

The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.

 

[jstar]

^
^
You're a nasty woman.

 

[fastpitch17]

Who knows? Once Russia if finished with him they could very well throw him under the bus. Being Putin, that could be literally.

 

[Nimbus]

Trump and Assange can bond over the misery of sexual assault accusations by lying bitches women.

Now I get it, they're kindred spirits. Gropers of the world unite!

 

[Puspawarna]

^
^
You're a nasty woman.

I hear t-shirts are already available that say "Nasty Woman Voter." And since the 2nd debate, there have been shirts with a picture of a hissing cat and the caption "November 8: Pussy Grabs Back."

If I were in America I would have ordered both shirts as soon as they became available.

 

[Supir Angkot]

Who knows? Once Russia if finished with him they could very well throw him under the bus. Being Putin, that could be literally.

now that's a bad hombre.

 

[Puspawarna]

Tweet from George Takei: "I hear the restrooms in Trump Towers are being relabeled 'bad hombres' and 'nasty women.'"

 

[Nimbus]

Who knows? Once Russia if finished with him they could very well throw him under the bus. Being Putin, that could be literally.

There was a report that a guy was spotted trying to break into the Ecuadorian embassy. London police took 2 hours to respond. I think it's the Russians sending a warning to Assange: don't forget who you're dealing with. Americans might not have the willingness to get rough, but Russkies don't follow the same playbook.

He needs to buy a geiger counter and begin scanning his food.

 

[sumyunggai]

Trump and Assange can bond over the misery of sexual assault accusations by lying bitches women.

Assange also has to deal with people trying to frame him for molesting a child over the internet using a fake dating site.
https://www.dailykos.com/story/2016...raordinary-Proof-The-Assange-Pedophilia-Claim

 

[jstar]

That is all rather far fetched, yes. If I were him I would be more concerned about the Swedish rape accusations.

 

[sumyunggai]

That is all rather far fetched, yes. If I were him I would be more concerned about the Swedish rape accusations.

The rape allegations are not exactly what most people would understand as rape.

http://observer.com/2016/02/exclusi...-on-julian-assange-rape-charges-in-stockholm/

 

[Puspawarna]

The rape allegations are not exactly what most people would understand as rape.

http://observer.com/2016/02/exclusi...-on-julian-assange-rape-charges-in-stockholm/

..and your link is not exactly what most people would understand as "journalism." Of the neutral kind, at least (which probably doesn't exist in this era).

one must be familiar not only with the Swedish language, but also “Sweden,†which does not refer to the land mass east of Norway, and north of Denmark, so much as to a constructed society obsessed with the elimination of risk.

Yeah, no agenda there!

(Not that I'm saying that the charges against Assange are legit. I really don't know.)

 

[sumyunggai]

..and your link is not exactly what most people would understand as "journalism." Of the neutral kind, at least (which probably doesn't exist in this era).



Yeah, no agenda there!

(Not that I'm saying that the charges against Assange are legit. I really don't know.)

Agreed that the article is written from a rather biased point of view - note, as an aside, that site is owned by by Donald Trump's son-in-law.

However it appears to be the case, as you allude to, that the left is no longer interested in investigative journalism, except when it exposes its enemies. Julian Assange was beloved by the left (or the Democrats) and hated by the right, now that he is releasing documents on the left the position is reversed. Facts are only important so far as they further the respective parties' agendas. (or if they don't, they can be ignored)

 

[Puspawarna]

^^ Hey, don't go putting words in my mouth! I'm willing to concede a certain amount of bias on the left, in terms of the amount of coverage they give to different news items or the headlines they choose, but right-wing media like Fox News have been repeatedly caught not only in those somewhat unavoidable behaviors, but also in deliberate dirty tricks like misidentifying the political party of political wrong-doers (who mysteriously have been called Democrats even when they were actually Republicans).

No way is "the left" an exclusively guilty party here. And FTR, I'm a good lefty and I always thought Assange was a creep. Somethin' ain't right with that boy, and it shows.

 

[sumyunggai]

The narrative was always that Fox News was biased, and that remains true; however what has become more apparent is that BOTH sides are biased in ways that are disturbing (indifference to facts).

 

[Puspawarna]

The narrative was always that Fox News was biased, and that remains true; however what has become more apparent is that BOTH sides are biased in ways that are disturbing (indifference to facts).

I think truly unbiased news sources, particularly in our 24/7 news cycle, are too much to ask for. We're all human. Journalists, of all people, should be expected to have opinions on political issues - after all, shouldn't they be the best informed, given the nature of their jobs?

A better solution, to me, than striving for some unattainable ideal, is for EVERYONE to admit their biases, and for major news outlets to strive for "regular" coverage to be as factual as possible - but to give platforms for clearly labeled, well argued and factually supported opinion pieces from across the spectrum. Prominent, ongoing roles for ombudsmen (ombudspeople? bleh!) who review their employers' offerings for signs of bias, and are expected to publish their analyses on a regular basis, would also be good.

 

[fastpitch17]

I think truly unbiased news sources, particularly in our 24/7 news cycle, are too much to ask for. We're all human. Journalists, of all people, should be expected to have opinions on political issues - after all, shouldn't they be the best informed, given the nature of their jobs?

A better solution, to me, than striving for some unattainable ideal, is for EVERYONE to admit their biases, and for major news outlets to strive for "regular" coverage to be as factual as possible - but to give platforms for clearly labeled, well argued and factually supported opinion pieces from across the spectrum. Prominent, ongoing roles for ombudsmen (ombudspeople? bleh!) who review their employers' offerings for signs of bias, and are expected to publish their analyses on a regular basis, would also be good.

That may be difficult with the media needing to give equal time to candidate unless it is reporting them in the news. If they come out with which side they are one the other side may want equal time. Fox has offered equal time to Hillary but she has declined. I don't blame her. They would probably put her on Hannity or O'Riely.

 

[Nimbus]

Facts have a liberal bias.

I don't consider myself either a liberal or a conservative, but if I stick closely to the facts, most of the time they favor liberal views.