Julian Assange to Hold Major Press Conference @ 10AM Berlin Time - Polidicks

[QUOTE=DogGunn;51150429]So was Assange trolling, or did someone actually lie about there being big information?[/QUOTE] Assange has been saying the next leak will end Clinton for months now, there is a supposed "October surprise", and when he announced a press conference and moved it to Berlin people assumed this was it.

[QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;51149183]It's not just about Clinton. This stuff is released in hopes that our democratic process is finally exposed as corrupt to the public at large and we see some meaningful change.[/QUOTE] Not really, it is about taking down Clinton. If they wanted to make a real change, they'd actually do some effort to do changes. Exposing corruption isn't good enough, in fact doing only that and constantly only makes the people cynical and change things for the worse. And the fact they are not trying at all to expose Trump's corruption and had declared Panama Papers a US stage scandal because it was hitting Putin, just goes to show they have a political agenda against the Western world establishment, not that they are trying to expose corruption. [editline]4th October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51149339]Hahaha that article the wikileaks account linked was such a wonderful read. A friend and I read the entire thing and they did not label their sources. So is Julian Assange an attention whore, misguided, or just really fucking dumb?[/QUOTE] All of the above.

[QUOTE=CroGamer002;51150498]Not really, it is about taking down Clinton. If they wanted to make a real change, they'd actually do some effort to do changes. Exposing corruption isn't good enough, in fact doing only that and constantly only makes the people cynical and change things for the worse. And the fact they are not trying at all to expose Trump's corruption and had declared Panama Papers a US stage scandal because it was hitting Putin, just goes to show they have a political agenda against the Western world establishment, not that they are trying to expose corruption. [editline]4th October 2016[/editline] All of the above.[/QUOTE] Are you sure you've actually read or followed what the intended purpose of Wikileaks is? [url]https://wikileaks.org/What-is-Wikileaks.html[/url] What do you think they should do as opposed to what they currently do? More to the point, how exactly is "exposing corruption" not good enough? Do you honestly think of all the documents they've released there has been no affect? When it comes to Trump vs Clinton (which invariably are the two boxes that most people seem to want to throw bias into around this time of the year) its probably relevant to mention that Clinton is an actual politician who had a role in recent history as well as a now-known track record of disregarding the classified nature of documents. Donald Trump hosted a TV show, marketed some steaks and ran a chain of hotels and likes to talk about the weight of various females. There is a bit of a difference. [quote]just goes to show they have a political agenda against the Western world establishment, not that they are trying to expose corruption[/quote] If you watched the entire video you would see that they admit there is a bias to English-language leaks because that it was they receive. English-language most likely puts out a lot of regions that may be of interest. Even if there were a goal to get rid of Clinton, the end-result would probably show people that the democratic process is completely flawed. I still find it unbelievable that there is an actual election going on between those two clowns--the question is does it speak about their character or the nature of the country that is actually discussing putting them in a power seat?

What if the media just made the big whoo harr about "wikileaks releasing info the CRUSH Hillary" so everyone would get their expectations up and when nothing is shown it damages the reputation of wikileaks? Yeah. Think about it. I saw it on /pol/ so it must be true

[QUOTE=Firetornado;51149170]Why is this the time to release this shit...Like It probably wont do anything but better safe then sorry. I mean I hate her but she is wayyyy better than trump and I think this will only hurt her chances. This guy seems like he just has a vendetta, he isnt really a vigilante like snowden was.[/QUOTE] He's just got a vendetta because he's revealing dirt on someone you like. How much of a sheep can you be, this is pathetic. Too bad he's more of a vigilante than Snowden who was only interested in his 15 minute of fame.

Just woke up Whats the scoop

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51150660]What if the media just made the big whoo harr about "wikileaks releasing info the CRUSH Hillary" so everyone would get their expectations up and when nothing is shown it damages the reputation of wikileaks? Yeah. Think about it. I saw it on /pol/ so it must be true[/QUOTE] Isn't that exactly what's happening? It seems Wikileaks never indicated there would be a leak tonight, so why are people blaming them for media hype?

[QUOTE=srobins;51150719]Isn't that exactly what's happening? It seems Wikileaks never indicated there would be a leak tonight, so why are people blaming them for media hype?[/QUOTE] Despite the pol thing I do think it is the case. Maybe not to explicitly spoil wikileaks name but perhaps to get more clicks/views/ad revenue.

[QUOTE=srobins;51150719]Isn't that exactly what's happening? It seems Wikileaks never indicated there would be a leak tonight, so why are people blaming them for media hype?[/QUOTE] Who do you mean specifically when you say media

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51150736]Who do you mean specifically when you say media[/QUOTE] Probably the media in general, which as time goes on and the ability to react to world events becomes quicker and quicker has only become more and more deplorable. Its not about having a considered response, its about having the first tweet/SEO optimized article or having a 24/7 videostream of some bored dude sitting on a street trying to expand on the latest school shooting with the information they actually have available (i.e. none). There are thousands upon thousands of friggin journalists and people who are interested in media on twitter who do pretty much nothing but hyperbolis the smallest events. The number of journalists and actual media outlets that contribute anything is an extremely low proportion. The revenue from newspapers and printed media is down, without even looking for sources the same can easily be said about news channels (CNN i.e. Cable News Network; who is going to have Cable TV in 5 years time?). Most "journalists" are solely concerned with driving a ridiculous amount of traffic/retweets/views to any story they can get their hands on, and often times its just them rehashing what other journalists have said or using really shit sources. Like Fortune, remember Fortune? [url]http://fortune.com/2016/09/27/note-7-defecting-iphone/[/url] Title: [B]"Some Samsung Galaxy Note 7 Buyers Are Defecting to the iPhone"[/B] Subtitle:[B] "Turns out more of them want an Apple device over other Samsung offerings."[/B] Body: "Now, a survey finds than 26% of Note 7 owners plan to use their refunds to switch to the competition and buy iPhones—more than the 21% who said they would swap from a different Samsung model, such as the Galaxy S7. Only 18% said they planned to get rectified versions of the Note 7, according to the online poll of 507 adults by [B][U]SurveyMonkey[/U][/B]." [B][U]SurveyMonkey[/U][/B] The idea of what a journalist was 10-20 years ago has already eroded so much that the media in general has very little standing any more. Wikileaks at least seems to have made an effort in working with some reputable journalists. But because it easy for anyone to have a voice on the internet you can see a vast number of people who claim the organization has achieved nothing, seeming to miss the vast number of leaks Wikileaks has been part of.

Honestly can't take Assange seriously at this point, it's so clear to me that he/wikileaks are Russian stooges that any credibility they once had is out the window.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51150358]This. If WikiLeaks are political activists rather than genuine journalists it stands to reason they would sit on info.[/QUOTE] The Guardian sat on Snowden's leaks and released headlines on specific parts one at a time, correctly guessing that if they did a single huge dump it wouldn't have as much impact. Just curious, do you consider them political activists by the same logic? I mean, if you say yes I wouldn't necessarily disagree- but I think the idea that journalism can exist completely separately from activism is a little idealistic. The job of any journalist is to make people aware of the truth, and that often overlaps with what could reasonably be considered activism.

I wanted a release so we can get over the suspense and I don't even get that

[QUOTE=catbarf;51151434]The Guardian sat on Snowden's leaks and released headlines on specific parts one at a time, correctly guessing that if they did a single huge dump it wouldn't have as much impact. Just curious, do you consider them political activists by the same logic? I mean, if you say yes I wouldn't necessarily disagree- but I think the idea that journalism can exist completely separately from activism is a little idealistic. The job of any journalist is to make people aware of the truth, and that often overlaps with what could reasonably be considered activism.[/QUOTE] I just thought WikiLeaks was above that sort of thing, for some reason. I'd like to imagine if they did have information that was seriously incriminating they would release it ASAP rather than waiting for maximum political impacted

So, was his press conference just an announcement that he was going to drop some information?

[QUOTE=The_J_Hat;51151510]So, was his press conference just an announcement that he was going to drop some information?[/QUOTE] He was also shilling t-shirts and a new book.

[QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;51149183]It's not just about Clinton. This stuff is released in hopes that our democratic process is finally exposed as corrupt to the public at large and we see some meaningful change.[/QUOTE] why now, why explicitly clinton? Invalidating her will just be a win for trump and won't progress much of anything because the public is incapable of voting third party en masse, and it's WAY too fucking late to start any other process up

[QUOTE=CroGamer002;51151541]He was also shilling t-shirts and a new book.[/QUOTE] Jesus Christ. Can't we just drone the guy?

[QUOTE=The_J_Hat;51151676]Jesus Christ. Can't we just drone the guy?[/QUOTE] Nice try Hillary!

I half knew that little shit would release nothing. I'm saying half knew because I expected him to release something but that something ended up being insignificant like Clinton insulting millennial Gary Johnson supporters. I'm going to make a prediction that he's going to release something appearing to be damning but not actually damning 0-7 days before election day. It will appear to damning because the release will either be full of shit with little or no time to fact-check and to get that fact-checking information around, and/or blown way out of proportion like that whole parent's basement comment because of misinformation. If Wikileaks had damning evidence to convict Clinton of a crime right now, they would've released it ages ago. [sp]Or the conspiracy theories are true and Julian Assange is just another Russian puppet who wants to assure a Donald Trump victory.[/sp]