Chapo has been real hit-or-miss since then.
Their last 2 episodes were pretty good though.
Listened to True Anon a bit more. Liz is basically Amber but more genuine and with better takes. Don’t agree with everything she says but she doesn’t seem to try to be an edgelord like Amber. Way more likable.
Can’t really objectively compare anyone to Queen Liz 
Some really really really bad takes from Chapo, like Glenn Greenwald level idiocy, on the last episode. Libs are hypocrites for complaining about the Hunter Biden article because they aren’t complaining about Trump’s tax returns leaking.
They’re great at making fun of Republicans but they simply can’t accept that Bernie lost fair and square and it’s made them crazy.
idk why you’d listen to Chapo and expect “the Dem Party is cool and good and does things well and fairly” lol
“Agenda driven” is kind of a tell because a lot of libs loved Assange when he was leaking stuff about the W administration and then did a complete 180 when he did the same during Obama’s. I’m a believer that truth is an absolute defense, myself.
They came way further around on Biden than they did with Hilary though
“Hey Don. We have an unusual idea,” WikiLeaks wrote on October 21, 2016. “Leak us one or more of your father’s tax returns.” WikiLeaks then laid out three reasons why this would benefit both the Trumps and WikiLeaks. One, The New York Times had already published a fragment of Trump’s tax returns on October 1; two, the rest could come out any time “through the most biased source (e.g. NYT/MSNBC).”
It is the third reason, though, WikiLeaks wrote, that “is the real kicker.” “If we publish them it will dramatically improve the perception of our impartiality,” WikiLeaks explained. “That means that the vast amount of stuff that we are publishing on Clinton will have much higher impact, because it won’t be perceived as coming from a ‘pro-Trump’ ‘pro-Russia’ source.” It then provided an email address and link where the Trump campaign could send the tax returns, and adds, “The same for any other negative stuff (documents, recordings) that you think has a decent chance of coming out. Let us put it out.”
Trump Jr. did not respond to this message.
WikiLeaks didn’t write again until Election Day, November 8, 2016. “Hi Don if your father ‘loses’ we think it is much more interesting if he DOES NOT conceed [sic] and spends time CHALLENGING the media and other types of rigging that occurred—as he has implied that he might do,” WikiLeaks wrote at 6:35pm, when the idea that Clinton would win was still the prevailing conventional wisdom.
Not sure I would characterise this as trying to impartially present true information to the public. I’m strongly against the Assange prosecution, obviously, but he’s a shithead and I have little sympathy for him on a personal level.
Edit: “Truth is a defense” is a weird thing to say btw. A defense against what? Selectively obtaining and releasing information is clearly engaging in propaganda, it doesn’t matter if the information is true.
Against “You shouldn’t have said that true thing because the outcome could be contrary to my interest.”
I should clarify; everyone has a political agenda. I don’t mean the idea of someone having a political agenda is a tell; I mean the idea I followed up on with the 180, of framing something as brave truth-telling or good reporting if it provides positive press for one’s side, and as agenda-driven propaganda if it results in negative press.
Can’t accept any support of Assange at this point. Sure it was good when he was exposing hidden secrets for the public good but once he started feeding Trump knowing that it was not in the public interest my sympathy for him was gone.
Disagree strongly with the True Anon peeps for their support of him
I guess if you define fair and square as everybody else in the primary colluding to make sure Biden gets the nod then sure that’s what it is.
Right but I think you’re mischaracterising the reasons why people say “agenda driven”. Something like Wikileaks should be hostile to the people in power, that’s fine. Was the liberal left, broadly speaking, hostile to Assange during the Obama administration? That’s not how I remember it.
When people say Wikileaks is/was “agenda-driven” they’re talking about doling out things like the Podesta emails in a manner designed to cause maximum damage to the Clinton campaign, and coordinating with the Trump campaign to do this more efficiently, and shit like this, four days before the fucking election:
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/794450623404113920
I’m not mad about that because they’re delivering too many TRUTH BOMBS and holding the ruling class just way too accountable. I’m mad because they were a partisan actor during an election campaign and were trying fervently to get a fascist elected, presumably because Assange thought it would be personally good for him.
Yeah just to spell things out, I don’t think Assange is a good guy, but I don’t think anything should happen to him.
I think personal feelings towards Assange are close to irrelevant now. Personally I thought he should have answered to the charges in Sweden at the start of all this, and I’m not sure that’s changed. But by the time he was making decisions on the Podesta emails he was already trapped in a situation where I dread to think what my mental state would be, and what I’d grasp at to try and get out.
Lol. The primary was rigged for corporate interests and against the poor. The Biden campaign told people to vote during a pandemic to coerce a concession. Congratulations Obama, Warren, and Pete, you fucked over a bunch of poor people in exchange for your guy being in office, a big money bag from a Joe Arpaio donor, and personal advancement within the Democratic party respectively.
Only a complete doof thinks that shit was on the level. Congratulations
I really don’t get this argument. Like, you’re saying someone should have forced them to stay in the race? People in this forum are pissed off that Lieberman didn’t drop out of the GA senate special election, is that any different?
Of course not, but its pretty clear they considered Bernie a major threat and considered it more important to stop him than have a small shot at winning themselves. They also realized the Dem party would reward them with cushy jobs if they did that.
I blame liz as much as anyone for not dropping out.
That said I think the media was the worst of all of it. It was super, super obvious how biased they were against Bernie. Even my mom saw that shit and stopped trusting CNN/MSNBC which she’s watched her whole life.
All that said I still think its clear Bernie didn’t win because the progressive movement isn’t strong enough yet. Like yeah Edems did some shady stuff to help Biden, and yeah the media put their thumb of the scale, but the majority of people wanted Biden and I’ve accepted that. The youngs didn’t turn out like they needed too and thats why we lost. Even if dems/media didn’t do that, we didn’t get the turnout we would have needed from the demographics we needed.
But honestly who knows, would Bernie really be crushing in polling places like Florida, PA, MI, and WI? I kind of doubt it. I know the polling showed Bernie as doing as well as Biden in national elections, but it looks like this election is going to come down to older midwest white dudes who would not have voted for Bernie.
Conceded that they are corporate whores. By rigged, do you mean that people with the common ideology of corporate whorism banded together and supported each other? Is that not allowed in a democracy?
I mean, I didn’t like it either but the battle lines were clear and the voters chose the side they preferred.
I think there’s a pretty big difference, electorally, between winning by convincing people to come together and vote for you and winning by convincing your opponents to drop out. Like Biden really only had to persuade a couple people to support him, instead of persuading the actual voters.
But it probably doesn’t matter in this election because you can’t downplay an disease and then be stupid enough to have it land you in the hospital.
I’m disappointed that the rest of the candidates strongly preferred Biden to Bernie but that’s not riggage. Bernie got to go toe to toe against Biden and Co. with his anti-establishment message, and voters responded by saying they actually preferred the establishment.
Yea, I don’t think it’s riggage, I just think it’s dumb as fuck to nominate someone who can’t actually outright win a contest.
Who knows who would have won if it had played out, but at least that person would be good at running for president.
It’s going to be interesting to see if the liberals here will go back to cosplaying as progressives after the election. Speaking only for myself, emphatic yes
He did outright win the contest. Convincing ideologically similar spoiler candidates with no shot to drop out and endorse is part of winning an election. How do you square this line of argument with the fact that most Bernie supporters were demanding Liz drop out and endorse? Why weren’t they saying that she should stay in to prove that Bernie could win a real contest?