Re: Re: Re: Re: "Wikileaks is not explicitly anti-American."
"If he's preventing a corrupt politician from getting the presidency, he's doing the US and most likely the whole world a favour."
Clinton's 'corruption' is going to be far less damaging to the US and the rest of the world than Trump would be. It baffles me that you're so appalled by her fairly standard politician's behaviour that you'd accept a man so grossly incapable of doing the job. If he manages to do half the things he wants the damage will be shocking to behold. More likely he won't have enough support to do much and the USG will be completely impotent and become a world laughing stock.
"Heck, it's BETTER for him to influence the election than it would be to release outside of election time."
Absolutely not. As AC said above, releasing as early as possible give more people more time to properly process the info and avoid stupid over-reactions or missing stuff that's actually important. Advocating for less analysis goes completely against your claim that this info is important. The late release benefits Wikileaks only, not the public.
"I'd suggest that anyone upset about corruption being exposed might just be backing the wrong horse, and not liking it very much."
Nice strawman, but nobody has claimed they're upset about corruption being exposed. The criticism here is about when Wikileaks is choosing to release, and who actually benefits from there timetable.
It's always stunned me how police supporters use the 'few bad apples' line as a defence, seemingly completely ignorant of the whole expression and what it really means. People might have been ok with just a few bad apples, but instead they now see a spoiled barrel.
"Trump is not my preferred candidate, but he has not done anything like what Hillary and the DNC are doing."
You're right, because he's come from a completely different world to Hillary, so he's never been in a position to do what she's done. Instead he's done a whole lot of other things that make him a despicable human being and completely unfit for the job. A Clinton presidency will quite likely be more of the same shit, but a Trump presidency will cause far more damage, and unless you happen to be very wealthy and white, you will most likely suffer as a result.
"Yet it has been rigged up to this point and no reason to believe it isn't still."
You actually have no reason to believe it is rigged other than Trump's ranting. A claim this serious should be easy to prove, but nobody has provided any credible evidence. You're welcome to try.
Your whole comment makes no sense. Fee speech works perfectly well in the other direction, you don't even try to prove otherwise. And the press doesn't make you guilty, even if some choose to think you are.
"That's right Mike, defamation law is used when demonstrable lies have been foisted upon someone regardless of the medium."
True, now you need to demonstrate that they're actually lies. Go on, we'll watch.
"For example, there are some out there, you included, who will take some one else's words, like "when you're rich, they let you" (which refers to a set of instances in which consent is involved) and attempt to pass that off as "rape" or "sexual assault"."
Nobody with any credibility has claimed that making those comments is an act of rape or assault. You're conflating two completely different things, probably because it's hard for you to think about two complex issues at once.
"You're so immersed in sucking Clinton cunt to give a shit about the truth anymore."
I'm not sure you even realise how intellectually insignificant comments like this make you sound. If "sucking Clinton cunt" is the cleverest analogy you can come up with, you're only ever going to get laughed at.
Gun control laws are enacted to control people's access to guns and what people can do with guns. There are no laws specifially against manufacturing guns. So in fact it's exactly like Section 230, and your 'gotcha' fails miserably.
"...the majority of the article is always anti-Trump (and thus pro-Clinton)."
It takes a staggering lack of basic thinking skills to claim an anti-Trump position must be pro-Clinton. But since you're ok with making dumb leaps of logic, can we assume that since you're critical of this article then you must be against the First Amendment and free speech? What's your beef with that?
Your Truth won't Hurt much if you state falsehoods. Yahoo has neither broken the 4th Amendment nor committed treason. These things have actual definitions, you can't just make up your own you add drama to a legitimately concerning issue.