• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Assange on Hannity

You're begging the question as to whether he would receive unfair treatment. You cannot prove that he would.

No, I believe that he assumes as much.
If I were him, given the circumstances displayed thus far and I knew I was innocent, I wouldn't turn myself in either.

The police said there was no reason to charge, yet the "higher ups" still want to push it.
Something stinks.
 
No, I believe that he assumes as much.
If I were him, given the circumstances displayed thus far and I knew I was innocent, I wouldn't turn myself in either.

The police said there was no reason to charge, yet the "higher ups" still want to push it.
Something stinks.

Yes it does. Specifically, what stinks is that no matter how much of a messiah Assange may be to you and others, he is not above the law. Everybody must answer to the law.
 
Yes it does. Specifically, what stinks is that no matter how much of a messiah Assange may be to you and others, he is not above the law. Everybody must answer to the law.

Who said he was a "messiah?"
I just said that if I were him and I thought I was innocent, I'd do the same damn thing.

The whole incident stinks of state actors trying to get him.
People have called for his death before or at least hinted at it.
How can you be above or below the law, when you perceive it to be warped to get you regardless.
 
Who said he was a "messiah?"

You cannot seriously be asking me that question. There is a loud minority on the internet, some of whom are right here at DP, who practically worship the guy and believe that he can do no wrong.

I repeat what I said before: He is not above the law. Everybody must answer to the law.
 
You cannot seriously be asking me that question. There is a loud minority on the internet, some of whom are right here at DP, who practically worship the guy and believe that he can do no wrong.

I repeat what I said before: He is not above the law. Everybody must answer to the law.

I think he is human and reacting just like a human would, given the circumstances.
I would do the exact same thing.

You nor I really know if he is guilty or innocent.
Answering to the law is easy, when the law is being objectively applied fairly.
We don't know if it is this time, either.
 
You nor I really know if he is guilty or innocent.
Answering to the law is easy, when the law is being objectively applied fairly.
We don't know if it is this time, either.

In Sweden a conviction based on the accusers word alone is likely. Thus even if he is innocent that would not save him.

The penalties for all crimes in Sweden are much lower then in USA, but still.
 
you said:

I am of the opinion that because the other guy does something wrong it does not give me an excuse to do the same thing, must be my upbringing

those are the two wrongs i was talking about.

ok.......
 
I could be wrong and if I am, I'm sure you'll point it out, but the timing of her comments are significant here in your argument. If she was specifically talking about one incident as it involved Lybia and NATO that's one thing, but she was actually said to have made this same statement during the Benghazi hearings and in her explanation of the situation.
No, she didn't.

She also has made the same statement in this current campaign which is after her time as Secretary of State. Why would she do this?

Read the full statement. Context.

This isn't difficult.
 
I can't easily check the transcript of the Benghazi hearings, or her campaign, so I really can't comment on whether or not she's made similar claims in the past.

I will say if the complaint is that by specifically limiting her comments about loss of lives TO just the military campaign, and therefore intentionally omitting the deaths from the terrorist attacks in Benghazi, that's fine. I am pretty sure no candidate will voluntarily bring up their biggest foreign policy failure, at least in the eyes of the public, but it's true the approach is intended to put the best light possible on her record, which is what I expect we'd all do in what amounts to a job interview.

To me it's kind of like when Bush II or his surrogates and supporters say words to the effect that the War on Terror has kept us safe from domestic attacks, isn't actually claiming that 9/11 didn't happen and we lost no lives on that day. But that's how the right wingers in this discussion interpreted what she said, and it's just false, especially since she clearly limited her comment to "in that action."

And I wouldn't expect the Bush or his people to say, "Except for the thousands of lives we lost on 9/11, the War on Terror has been a success!" But that's what people are demanding of Hillary or else she's "lying" about Libya.

That's a fair stance. I think that you are just not understanding how so very many Americans are angry about her and our presidents lack of action to defend these men. Right or wrong with regards to her intent, she would be wise to address their lives and their loss. She's owes them all that.
 
No, she didn't.



Read the full statement. Context.

This isn't difficult.

What is not difficult is her to acknowledge that lives were lost in Lybia during her time as SOS. That is the fact and a true leader would recognize that.
 
What is not difficult is her to acknowledge that lives were lost in Lybia during her time as SOS. That is the fact and a true leader would recognize that.

She did...four years ago.
 
I didn't see Hannity's interview, but I've heard that he said Assange had done a lot of good and hoped Assange would be free someday.

I'm sure he felt that way during the Bush Administration, too.
 
In Sweden a conviction based on the accusers word alone is likely. Thus even if he is innocent that would not save him.

The penalties for all crimes in Sweden are much lower then in USA, but still.

Don't be so sure SCitizen. The accusers are high profile feminists and so is the prosecutor Ny. If they can get the case tried before an equally feminist judge they may well get a conviction. Note: there are no juries in Sweden and it is the judge who decides on innocence or guilt. As others have noted what is called 'rape' in Sweden would not even be a crime anywhere else.
 
Don't be so sure SCitizen. The accusers are high profile feminists and so is the prosecutor Ny. If they can get the case tried before an equally feminist judge they may well get a conviction.

I do not see how this is considered guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt". If he is convicted on the accusers word alone with no evidence of absence of consent.
 
I do not see how this is considered guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt". If he is convicted on the accusers word alone with no evidence of absence of consent.


If a Swedish judge says he is guilty then Assange is guilty. What you or I or anyone else may think is irrelevant.
 
Back
Top Bottom