Disclaimer: I've had a few beers. Please don't take what I'm about to say too seriously. I get that tone is hard to convey over the internet. Imagine me leaning heavily on your shoulder slurring words into your ear while looking wildly into the horizon and sloshing beer on you from time to time.

I pretty much agree with what Jib said. Only thing I'll add is in response to:

Quote
vortexmagus
Personally, I think its kind of telling that you trust wikileaks (run by a foreign national with heavy links to Russia) over US intelligence agencies. Now, I won't claim the US intelligence agencies are perfect or anything, they have been completely, utterly wrong before, but there's exactly zero oversight for wikileaks, period. We have no idea what they publish and what they don't, and why they do what they do.

What oversight do the U.S. intelligence agencies have? I'm asking this seriously. Why do you think they have more oversight than Wikileaks? When the United States Director of National Intelligence lies under oath to Congress, like James Clapper did, with no repercussions, it boggles my mind you would even bring up oversight. Oversight is not a winning argument when it comes to U.S. intelligence agencies. It is, for all intents and purposes, non-existent. I suppose one person could come along, like Trump, and overhaul the whole system. But that is about like Assange overhauling Wikileaks. I'd say they have similar oversight, but Wikileaks has a far, far, far better track record.

When you bring up such convoluted subjects, like oversight for U.S. intelligence agencies, that are clearly and unequivocally wrong, does it give you pause? Do you ever ask yourself, "Why am I trying so hard to defend this, going to the point of bringing up completely inapplicable ideas?"

I get that "oversight" is a kind of catch phrase for people who favor big brother government, and they sometimes default to that line of thinking when they have no real argument to stand on. Is that what happened with you? Are you just vomiting liberal talking points on the forums? It reminds me of a friend, years ago, who was arguing that green energy would bring jobs to America. He basically regurgitated the talking points that Obama had thrown up all over TV the weeks previous. No, despite what the President says and what we all hope for, green energy will not bring jobs to America. Solar panels and lithium batteries are increasingly made outside the U.S. No, despite what they teach in civics class and what we all hope for, there is no evidence for meaningful oversight of U.S. intelligence agencies.

Your blind trust and loyalty seem to be taken for granted. It's okay to be a doormat--as long as you know you're being a doormat. That's fundamental Christianity there: "Jean Valjean my brother you no longer belong to evil. With this silver, I have bought your soul."

I'm not saying you're wrong about the DNC hack. The Russians might be behind all of this. It is your arguments that are terrible. They lack substance. They are not grounded in reality. I'm not a Trump fanboy. I am open to being convinced. In all honesty, I want to be convinced one way or the other. I hate sitting in the gray area saying, "This is possible, but that is possible too." But I'm not willing to jump on bandwagons to ease this discomfort.

I get that Russians may have hacked the DNC. But even if they did, did they leak it to Wikileaks? Before you leap to that conclusion, think about the evidence we have and the repercussions of such a claim.

On the other hand, recent leaks suggest that even the biggest misconduct by Assange--allegations of rape--were trumped up by various government agencies.

- Paul