I've noticed a contradiction

[BainsBane]

89. LOL

Lots of arguments aren't serious. 90 percent of the arguments made aren't serious. A strawman is an argument that does not exist. You don't get to change the meaning of the term. Clearly the argument does exist. The reason I didn't provide more quotes is that I don't have an infinite amount of time. This thread has already taken way too much of it.

Yes, there is a range of options on the issue of transparency. But support for the Wikileaks dump means that people believe Assange and Manning were right in exposing ALL of those documents on a wide range of issues. People do not know or even care what the majority of documents released were. They decided it was all good because of some of the information and beyond that declared Assange a hero who could not be criticized or subject to the laws of mere mortals for sexual assault. They fucking canonized the guy. How is that kind of position possible if one believes that government communications should be secure, kept from hackers?

Here is what I observe. Too much of what people believe rests in their views on particular individuals. They despise Clinton, therefore this is bad. They adore Assange, therefore he can do no wrong, or vice versa. I seek to explore what I see as an ideological consistency, and I have observed that people really do not like that.