Not much of a “trick”. I think you are confusing perceived rudeness for a rhetorical “trick”. You are right in thinking I don’t really respect your debating position. Hence the perceived rudeness. But hey, you don’t really respect mine!
Feel free to give me someone else’s PR. Like the prosecutors or the complainant. My understanding is that the complainants story matches the one I have given. If it doesn’t you should correct me.
Assange had committed no crime in the UK. The Swedes want to talk to him but he has not been found guilty of a crime in Sweden. So the UK could not arrest him. They could however pick him up if the Swedes ask for his extradition. Which is why he is in the Ecuadorian embassy now. Why do you think he is there?
I think your ultimate point is that he might be guilty of a crime which they did not charge him for in Sweden while he was there. They could interview him in London but they decline to so do. So it doesn’t seem the sex crime allegations really motivates them. But he should go to Sweden anyway even though he could get locked away for life if the extradite him to the US just because you think he might have committed a crime which is not a crime in the uk or the us although maybe it should be.
And therefore he is probably lying about the source of the wikileaks.
Straighten me me out if I misunderstood anything. And feel free to factually correct me anywhere I made a mistake.
Did you conveniently forget he was under house arrest on an estate in the U.K. at the direction of their government? You don’t count this U.K. Court order following his arrest as arrest then? He could have been extradited then if the US was gunning for it. This fake fear of extradition is just him justifying fleeing Sweden ahead of prosecution for being a molesting creep.
How do you know the story of either or both of the complainants? Feel free to link to these statements by them to bolster your claim that the charge against him devolves to “he didn’t wear a condem?” Statements by third parties outside of the complaintants or the Swedish justice system will be disregarded.
My ultimate point is that Assange is an unreliable narrator and notably self-promoting to justify his behavior. Just because he says something, doesn’t mean anyone should believe it without other evidence. Assange exists to promote Assange. At this point, Wikileaks is Assange. All the other original folks are long gone. It is the Assange show.
I think they cover most of the facts. Hope they help. It turns out that one of the condoms broke naturally according to swedish forensics.
I was a little confused because you talk about arrests and charges referring to several countries but without being specific.
He couldn’t have been extradited to the US cos the US needed to charge him first. I would guess they hadn’t the time.
And yeah, Assange may be an unreliable source. But that doesn’t constitute proof he is lying. And you still havn’t pointed to anything he has published which was false. Quite the opposite.
What you have managed to prove is that I’m an unreliable source. Not surprising cos I was trying to cook a butternut squash risotto while arguing with you.
You seem to be obsessing about a broken condom being the sum total of the case against Assange even though both links make it clear that it is more than just that, no matter what spin people put on it. At the end of the day, he has multiple things for which he is wanted for questioning.
[Quote]The warrant was appealed to the Svea Court of Appeal which upheld it but lowered it to suspicion of rape of a lesser degree, unlawful coercion and two cases of sexual molestation rather than three,[19][20] and the warrant was also appealed to the Supreme Court of Sweden,[21] which decided not to hear the case. [/Quote]
This isn’t simple “a condom broke and two women got mad.”
As to his falsehoods, I really don’t have a time to make a list. Either he, wikileaks, or their sources have edited the data in the dumps. You can find many links to that.
Whatever he’s doing, it seems to be serving Russian interests and his high ground, personally and as the organization, seems pretty nonexistent.
We could have had Sanders and some real positive change…if the DNC hadn’t f*cked with the primaries.
Now we have a possibility that Trump might become president. For f*ck sake. Whatever the outcome of this election it is on the heads of both the Dem. and the Rep. parties.
“As to his falsehoods, I really don’t have a time to make a list. Either he, wikileaks, or their sources have edited the data in the dumps. You can find many links to that.”
Feel free to link. But I don’t agree with that argument and I think it’s easy to dismantle. I note that of those whose email was released no one has pointed to one email as false. The closest to it was Donna Brazile. And she didn’t point to a specific email but spoke in generalities. Please link to prove me wrong. I would consider it a favor. The email meta data analysis I have seen suggests the emails are all real.
Some edits may be substantive. But some might not. Redaction for escape is meant to take place. As I said, feel free to show me.
“This isn’t simple “a condom broke and two women got mad.””.
Excellent example at a rhetorical trick. I never described it as such so you are demonstrating “straw-manning”. Arguing against a weak position which was never presented. I pointed out that the the circumstances involved non use of condoms - the ladies had never made a rape claim. They originally only visited the police station to ask if it was possible to compel an HIV test. The document I linked to made that clear. You did ask how I knew that so you could have at least looked at the link. Effectively this case hinges on condom use. Read it yourself and see. Either way, a
“Whatever he’s doing, it seems to be serving Russian interests and his high ground, personally and as the organization, seems pretty nonexistent.”
I’m sorry. How does wikileaks serve Russian interests? You think the Russians care about Clinton or Trump? Why? I can’t see why the Russians would care either way? Or how even if they cared, that this kind of intervention would do anything but hurt russian interests. I don’t mean to be rude but I have never seen a case made for Russian intervention that made any sense. Feel free to try. As for Assange high ground, well couldn’t he just say that while he is not a moral exemplar he did publish true stories/leaks. If he does, isn’t that what makes a democracy work?
If he falsified emails then you are right. But here you are demonstrating “Petitio Principii” another rhetorical trick. You assume that which you wish to prove - that Assange is publishing falsified emails from the Russians.
I see you are a fan of the their rhetorical trick!
I see I hit a nerve when I called you out on cheap debate tricks.
I also see that you aren’t above constructing your own straw men with which to argue. I didn’t say a number of the things you pretend I did above. Since I’m doing this on a phone while on a business trip, I can’t muster the energy to care much.
I caucused for Sanders twice, but I don’t see how they “fucked with” the primaries. Do you have a explanation here, because nothing was poorly done besides the massive turnout fucking over anyone who wasn’t able to stay from 7 until nearly fucking 2AM in some areas of the city.
Caucusing sounds great but works better in rural nowheresvilles than denser cities. Caucusing just doesn’t scale, even if I appreciate some aspects of
*community engagement
*networking with likeminded leftists
*meeting your block
*meeting your local politicians
*knowing what plans are being put forth for local initiatives
It does seriously sadden me that in practice these caucuses put such an unfair burden on those that aren’t retired and/or can’t stay up late enough due to health or children.
Also, Parks and Rec became really real when everyone decided to take the mic and ramble on, at some point persons began to boo when useless opinions started flowing free. Like, I agree liberals, I just don’t care to hear you preach to the choir, you’re not informing me of anything.
I think this is a conversation worth having after we make sure Trump doesn’t become president. I’m not going to put on a tinfoil hat or blinders right now because it isn’t really the time, too much is at stake, I don’t write off the opposing view 100%, the truth is typically somewhat more complex and muddy, imho.
Lol. Of course. I’m sure you could have proved all the things you asserted but provided no evidence for. Sorry the margin was too small. Hope you had a good evening.
I did. I had dinner with a friend of 25 years and his wife at their home. We hadn’t seen each other in person for probably two years and have had two other friends from that same era die (stroke and cancer) in the meantime. I met him when I was young and he was about my age and now…I am middle aged and he is retired.
I’ll agree, nuancewise I don’t see our political parties as fully democratic to begin with, and persons should not fool themselves. I also don’t see favoritism of specific candidates as “foul play”.
grrrrrrr. \rant
