wikileaks

[Guest Matt]

Has anybody been following all this wikileak stuff being released.  I have only read a little bit, and it is very concerning to me to say the least.  I have my doubts about her honesty at this point.

Edited October 11, 2016 by Matt

[DanielaS]

Hi Matt. I haven't had time yet to ready all the wikileak stuff. What are some examples that makes you uneasy about Hillary?

 

I do know that one of the "Sidney Blumenthal" emails about Benghazi is fake, planted by Russian hackers and that Trump read this email at a rally as if it were true. This brings up all kinds of scary questions about Russia's involvement in trying to influence the US election. THAT Makes me more uneasy than anything I've seen so far from Hillary

Newsweek journalist discovers his words used in a fake "Sidney Blumenthal" mail

Edited October 11, 2016 by DanielaS

[Troy]

Now that we know WikiLeaks is in a known alliance with Russia and that the end-game is only to influence U.S. Politics for the benefit of a dictator, I have written WikiLeaks off as no better than the Right-wing nut jobs. I agree that it's all disheartening, but I will take an imperfect candidate over one with an agenda to destroy and oppress us anyday. It's a no-brainer to me. The rest is up to us to fix through accountability, local elections, and more conscious participation in our politics. I'd have to see something *really* devastating about Hillary to make me concede to the idea that this is a level playing field of equal sources of evil. 

[Guest Matt]

the main ones concerning me at this point is her talking about issues in private and changing her position in public to gain votes.  That shows a lack of integrity to me.  Your right though Troy, about how bad it would be with the other guy. Russia being involved in this is scary to me, talk about a spark that could lead to war if we find they are behind the leaks.  

[DanielaS]

3 minutes ago, Matt said:

the main ones concerning me at this point is her talking about issues in private and changing her position in public to gain votes.  That shows a lack of integrity to me. 

 

That's politics!

 

Barack and Hillary both came out publically against Same Sex Marriage way back. But do you think they really held those views privately? I have no proof, but I don't think so. So, you privately believe that Same Sex Marriage should be no big thing but you CAN'T say that in the current political climate. And then when the climate begins to shift and you have more political power, you come out in support of Same Sex Marriage and help to turn the tide. This is how politics works. It may seem dishonest but this is how you strategically make change in a population.  As long as the private views are on the side that I consider "Good" I'm all for the good guys saying what they need to in public to gain votes.

[Guest Matt]

 It's dishonest, and lacks integrity.  Politicians wonder why nobody trusts them.   There needs to be a revolution if that is the way politics work, and everyone is ok with it. I can speak for myself, i would rather stay true to myself and my beliefs and not be elected, than to be elected based on lies, but i guess thats why i am no politician.  

 

The latest wiki leak stated Hillary is against same sex marriage in private, but she went along with it to get the votes.  

[Troy]

30 minutes ago, Matt said:

the main ones concerning me at this point is her talking about issues in private and changing her position in public to gain votes.  That shows a lack of integrity to me. 

 

 

I'm not really concerned about this except when the private side is plotting harm. I see a higher vision from those who straddle the fine line between honesty and strategy as a means to implement something for the greater good. When it's for the opposite reason, it needs to be a concern, but if the public face is only to help find common ground to give footing to a greater good, I'm all for it.

[DanielaS]

2 minutes ago, Matt said:

The latest wiki leak stated Hillary is against same sex marriage in private, but she went along with it to get the votes.  

 

Interesting! Do you have a link to that? I'd love to check it out for myself.

[Guest Matt]

i think my problem with politics could have to do with my life task, LoL

 

LIFE TASK/TRUE WORK ”to cultivate and encourage authenticity and integrity in behaviors and communication

[Guest Matt]

here is 1 link i found, but i have no idea about the credibility of this site.  

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/hillary-lgbt-community/

[DanielaS]

3 minutes ago, Troy said:

 

I'm not really concerned about this except when the private side is plotting harm. I see a higher vision from those who straddle the fine line between honesty and strategy as a means to implement something for the greater good. When it's for the opposite reason, it needs to be a concern, but if the public face is only to help find common ground to give footing to a greater good, I'm all for it.

 

dude, we are saying the same stuff but you are saying it better. ;)

[estoy]

3 minutes ago, Matt said:

 It's dishonest, and lacks integrity.  Politicians wonder why nobody trusts them.   There needs to be a revolution if that is the way politics work, and everyone is ok with it. I can speak for myself, i would rather stay true to myself and my beliefs and not be elected, than to be elected based on lies, but i guess thats why i am no politician.  

 

The latest wiki leak stated Hillary is against same sex marriage in private, but she went along with it to get the votes.  

 

it's not dishonest too me, it is only importand what do a politician says and what he is doing afterwards and not what his private belief/opinion is

 

only to say your opinion kills you in politics normaly and it seems this is happening to Trump right now

[Troy]

3 minutes ago, Matt said:

 It's dishonest, and lacks integrity.  Politicians wonder why nobody trusts them.   There needs to be a revolution if that is the way politics work, and everyone is ok with it. I can speak for myself, i would rather stay true to myself and my beliefs and not be elected, than to be elected based on lies, but i guess thats why i am no politician.  

 

The latest wiki leak stated Hillary is against same sex marriage in private, but she went along with it to get the votes.  

 

 

Ideally, I agree with you, and I am not okay with the reality as it is if this is where it will remain, but we have to get to the ideal place by putting people in office who foster that kind of environment. We just don't have that reality right now, so I understand the tactics, but I want what you want, too.  

 

I haven't read the wikileaks, so I'm not sure how the emails read, but I am all for someone overriding their personal beliefs for the upholding of Constitutional Law and Equality. If Hillary is privately against Marriage Equality, but fights tireless for that same Equality, I would think that says far more about her integrity in a good way than in a bad way.

[Heidi]

Disclaimer: I know nothing about politics, however..

 

I think what's scary is the possibility that the "less enlightened" ones who can't or won't read between the lines will take this new information on Hillary as a reason to vote for Trump. Hopefully America is awake enough to see through the bs.

Edited October 11, 2016 by Heidi

[Troy]

Okay, I just read the entire wikileaks thread directly quoting all of the emails. Once again people are assigning characteristics to the emails through the headline rather than actually reading the content of the article (or emails). There is *nothing* in them that indicates a false move on the subject only to garner votes. Nothing. If there is, I missed it, and would love for someone to point it out. We end up in these long debates about integrity and honesty and we rarely have all of the facts or truth to begin with. We are arguing for our viewpoint, not about the truth. To tell you the truth, I am more relieved now that I read the emails. The emails are really no different from much of the dialog among the characters of West Wing. It's fascinating to see how they handle public repositioning on a subject that has had past public positions different from where one is now. I read an email chain that only discussed how best to publicly reposition so that it honored the past positions from a different political climate. The Clintons have never taken an anti-Equality stance. They have expressed their personal beliefs in the past, and then still went on to champion the greater causes despite personal beliefs.  There's a reason the Human Rights Campaign endorses Hillary.

[NickG]

37 minutes ago, Troy said:

Okay, I just read the entire wikileaks thread directly quoting all of the emails. Once again people are assigning characteristics to the emails through the headline rather than actually reading the content of the article (or emails). There is *nothing* in them that indicates a false move on the subject only to garner votes. Nothing. If there is, I missed it, and would love for someone to point it out. We end up in these long debates about integrity and honesty and we rarely have all of the facts or truth to begin with. We are arguing for our viewpoint, not about the truth. To tell you the truth, I am more relieved now that I read the emails. The emails are really no different from much of the dialog among the characters of West Wing. It's fascinating to see how they handle public repositioning on a subject that has had past public positions different from where one is now. I read an email chain that only discussed how best to publicly reposition so that it honored the past positions from a different political climate. The Clintons have never taken an anti-Equality stance. They have expressed their personal beliefs in the past, and then still went on to champion the greater causes despite personal beliefs.  There's a reason the Human Rights Campaign endorses Hillary.

This.This. a 100x this. 

[ckaricai]

At this point all this political stuff is running together in my head. At some point I read or saw something where someone asked if it was okay for a politician to have a public stance that is different from their private stance. Can they hold two opposing views at once. I think the answer is yes. It's kind of necessary if you want to get anything done because politics is often a quid pro quo system. That's how people are. We do it in our personal lives too: "Can you help me move? Sure, I like X beer and X pizza."  "Will you go with me to X movie? But you know I hate that genre, so why would you ask me? I'm feeling kinda blue, and I really just don't want to be alone tonight. Well, I like spending time with you and we're friends and I hate to see you sad, so yeah, I'll sit thru your crappy movie with you." Am I lacking integrity for watching a movie in a genre I hate if it means I'm comforting my friend? No. Will I remind her I sat thru a crappy movie next time she doesn't want to do something I want to do? Probably so. 

 

As a politician, you make compromises hopefully that will benefit the whole. I can decide I hate bread, never liked it and find it vile, but if the general populace likes bread and has built up an entire economy around bread and that keeps people clothed, housed, and fed, then I'm going to say I like bread. I might say I like bread for what it has done for our people. I think bread has been great for providing people's needs, and that wouldn't be a lie. I might even say focaccia is my favorite even tho it's really just the least objectionable to me and it still wouldn't be a lie. I might even have family members who love the stuff, but I wouldn't eat it. I don't think that would make me lacking in integrity if I'm doing what is best for the whole by supporting big bread. 

 

Integrity is a worthwhile quality to have but the issues are never black and white and context has to be considered. 

Consider this too: according to the Ms we have a public set of overleaves and a private set. They could be really different but they still represent the whole. Are we lying about who we are if we pick one set over the other?

 

[DanielaS]

Brilliant, @ckaricai. Thank you.

[Bobby]

1 hour ago, Troy said:

There's a reason the Human Rights Campaign endorses Hillary.

 

Not to mention that HRC stands for both Human Rights Campaign and Hillary Rodham Clinton!  ;)

[Guest Matt]

4 hours ago, Troy said:

Once again people are assigning characteristics to the emails through the headline rather than actually reading the content of the article (or emails). 

 

 

I can say i am guilty of this, like i said in my first comment, i haven't read a lot about it, so i am glad i can come here and get a more educated opinion on all this stuff. Especially since you don't know what media outlets you can believe. I can honestly say, i am not going to read through hundreds or thousands of emails so i end up relying on those quick stories or headlines. I don't dislike Hillary, i am just skeptical of all politicians when it comes to who is telling the truth.   

Thats funny Bobby, good comment to lighten the mood, Thank you for that.   

Edited October 11, 2016 by Matt

[estoy]

I must say, the more I think about wikileaks the more I don't like it, throwing endless stuff out there and claiming that they have a higher moral ground in doing so (at least I got the impression) when all this stuff should be perused by journalists and released in context of a "classical newspaper"...

 

in the end have wikileaks done anything good at all?

[Connor]

Depends on how you define 'good'. Whether or not Wikileaks has a higher moral ground is certainly up for debate, especially since morality is entirely relative to each individual. Regardless of the ethics of their conduct, Wikileaks is contributing to the paradigm shift into Mature. Secrecy and privacy are concepts of a Young Soul world, and although they will not vanish with the transition to Mature, they will no longer be a primary emphasis for humanity. It is difficult to hold a government accountable for actions the populace knows nothing about, and any effort to shed light on clandestine operations I think is a step towards accountability. When we are anchored in the new paradigm, I would imagine classified information would be largely a thing of the past. By that point it would likely be very difficult to keep anything hidden on a large scale, even if that were desired.

[estoy]

3 minutes ago, Connor said:

Depends on how you define 'good'. Whether or not Wikileaks has a higher moral ground is certainly up for debate, especially since morality is entirely relative to each individual. Regardless of the ethics of their conduct, Wikileaks is contributing to the paradigm shift into Mature. Secrecy and privacy are concepts of a Young Soul world, and although they will not vanish with the transition to Mature, they will no longer be a primary emphasis for humanity. It is difficult to hold a government accountable for actions the populace knows nothing about, and any effort to shed light on clandestine operations I think is a step towards accountability. When we are anchored in the new paradigm, I would imagine classified information would be largely a thing of the past. By that point it would likely be very difficult to keep anything hidden on a large scale, even if that were desired.

 

good point.... but I'am not sure about "contributing" just giving information out for the sake of informing the masses is a bit odd, I don't like having news without something like an news anchor which summary the news and I've got a feeling that the people which are regularly in the web can't handle all the informations that they are getting so wikileaks adding to the confusion 

 

and it is also difficult to hold a goverment accountable for actions you know of and it adds to the frustration but maybe I'am a bit to disillusioned...

 

[Guest Matt]

I started thinking that if these leaks actually turn out to be something, i could envision a scenario where Bernie Sanders is back on the ticket for democrats.  Either because of legal issues, or a deal made where she drops out of race and they drop charges against her, and maybee they claim she is leaving due to health issues.  I am just thinking of different scenarios here for this election. I lean towards the idea she will pull through all this fine, but you never know at this point in our time here.  Everything is so crazy right now.  

[estoy]

5 hours ago, Matt said:

I started thinking that if these leaks actually turn out to be something, i could envision a scenario where Bernie Sanders is back on the ticket for democrats.  Either because of legal issues, or a deal made where she drops out of race and they drop charges against her, and maybee they claim she is leaving due to health issues.  I am just thinking of different scenarios here for this election. I lean towards the idea she will pull through all this fine, but you never know at this point in our time here.  Everything is so crazy right now.  

 

dunno, but I think that Assange is blowing it out of proportion, it is more a personal thing then the surch for the truth imo (must say I don't like Assange too much, so I'am biased)