This is one of those weird arguments I hear all the time from WL supporters that I don't understand why I'm supposed to even take it seriously; it's gaslighty in the same way Mike Pence's claim that Trump hadn't said those things about Syria and Russia are.

Obviously, he doesn't have to say anything positive about Trump at all to support him, and in fact the kind of support he's offering (a drip-drip feed of the products of Russian hacking calculated to create an "October Surprise") is far more valuable than any verbal support he could give Trump directly.

I mean here to be dismissive without being too disrespectful. But I'll be candid: people who say Assange isn't supporting Trump sound pretty silly. Like, the claim says more about them than it does about the election.

You're asserting that Assange supports Trump because of the fact he's opposing HRC on the basis of "if you're not with us you're against us" mentality.

Believing that sort of dichotomy is "pretty silly" and says plenty about you.

I think it says that I have at least an 8th grade civics level of understanding about how elections in the US work.

To be fair, it also presupposes that Assange has such an understanding.

do you entertain the idea that he might not

I entertain many ideas, though I don't see that one as particularly likely. I was just pointing to an unstated assumption, not one that I saw as likely to be false.

To be equally candid, I find people silly who proclaim that every time someone say a negative about something they are promoting something else.

Through I must say, it does making viewing news more interesting. Someone say a negative about a product, I wonder which competitor paid them? Someone released a security vulnerability, I wonder what competing product they are trying to sell.

It basically makes all negative statements into a conspiracy, which honestly is silly, but fun thought experiment.

There actually is what I believe a credible alternate explanation to Wikileaks supporting Trump, and it's that Wikileaks (or perhaps just Assange) is fighting for relevance, and is willing to be the obvious pawn of others to keep that relevance. What if it's not Wikileaks that's drip-feeding the information, but the source itself? One would think Assange would be smart enough to not promise what he hasn't already gotten hold of, but perhaps he agreed to a release schedule before getting all the information, and is following through on his promise. Not that I think that excuses being a pawn for what is most likely a state actor trying to meddle in the national election of another country.

Neither case really paints a good picture of Wikileaks as an impartial journalistic organization.

> a drip-drip feed of the products of Russian hacking calculated to create an "October Surprise"

And the proof is...

Assange is an Anarchist who was to end America's constant war with the rest of the world. Trump and Clinton are the last people he would want to see in the Whitehouse. You know who make perfect sense for Assange to Support? Gary Johnson, the only anti-war candidate and Libertarian. But continue on with your mental gymnastics to turn the anti-war Assange into a capitalist, warhawk republican.