Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What specifically do you think is a problem in the contents of the emails? Obviously, we have no idea whether emails were altered or not. Guccifer 2.0, who claimed responsibility for the hack, has been linked by US intelligence to Russian spy agencies (though the public has no way to verify those links). If true, Russian spy agencies would obviously have potential motive to alter. But many of the emails do not appear to be altered, and there are no obvious signs of alteration (like malapropism or phrases lost in translation--Russia may be sophisticated enough to avoid . . . ?).
So what do you think is damaging in the leak? Particularly, what is so damaging that it makes Clinton worse than Trump? I've seen enough to say there's nothing in there that makes Trump the better option.
Politicians are politicians. They consider politics when they are making decisions. Their aides are in the trenches of a political fight to get their candidate elected. So what?
Five points & responses:
1) I don't see the Wall Street transcripts as particularly damaging. There's just not a lot there. Soundbytes that sound bad out of context? Sure. The most damaging piece is her suggestion that there was a political need to hold bankers accountable for the Recession (as opposed to legal or policy need).
2) Assuming the truth, that would be damaging to the reporter's reputation, but I can't fault Hillary Clinton for it.
3) Seriously? Look at the info obtained: "there is a status hearing in this case this morning, so we could have a window into the judge's thinking about this proposed production schedule as quickly as today." That's literally just a notification that there is a public hearing in open court (which you could find by going to the court's calendar) on the State Department email FOIA case. That's truly nothing.
4) Duh. A politician considers politics before taking a stand.
5) Once again, duh. A national political campaign is cautious about its public messaging.
As to "public/private" positions--you are merely repeating rhetoric from Trump's campaign. It appears quite clear that she's not talking about lying; she is talking about messaging for the target audience. What's more, we don't elect an absolute monarch who can make law at will. A President has to negotiate with Congress (filled with members who themselves are reliant on local & special interests for their election). While Barack Obama, the person, may think that a "Public Option" for healthcare is a good idea, President Obama had to negotiate with Congress, including the special interests represented there.
Hillary wouldn't be dropping in the polls if what you say is true.
The leaks are slowly eroding away Hillary's support, and the leaks just keep coming.
Heck Hillary's chairman of her campaign was just directly linked to a firm money-laundering in Russia.
What specifically do you think is a problem in the contents of the emails? Obviously, we have no idea whether emails were altered or not. Guccifer 2.0, who claimed responsibility for the hack, has been linked by US intelligence to Russian spy agencies (though the public has no way to verify those links). If true, Russian spy agencies would obviously have potential motive to alter. But many of the emails do not appear to be altered, and there are no obvious signs of alteration (like malapropism or phrases lost in translation--Russia may be sophisticated enough to avoid . . . ?).
So what do you think is damaging in the leak? Particularly, what is so damaging that it makes Clinton worse than Trump? I've seen enough to say there's nothing in there that makes Trump the better option.
Politicians are politicians. They consider politics when they are making decisions. Their aides are in the trenches of a political fight to get their candidate elected. So what?
Five points & responses:
1) I don't see the Wall Street transcripts as particularly damaging. There's just not a lot there. Soundbytes that sound bad out of context? Sure. The most damaging piece is her suggestion that there was a political need to hold bankers accountable for the Recession (as opposed to legal or policy need).
2) Assuming the truth, that would be damaging to the reporter's reputation, but I can't fault Hillary Clinton for it.
3) Seriously? Look at the info obtained: "there is a status hearing in this case this morning, so we could have a window into the judge's thinking about this proposed production schedule as quickly as today." That's literally just a notification that there is a public hearing in open court (which you could find by going to the court's calendar) on the State Department email FOIA case. That's truly nothing.
4) Duh. A politician considers politics before taking a stand.
5) Once again, duh. A national political campaign is cautious about its public messaging.
As to "public/private" positions--you are merely repeating rhetoric from Trump's campaign. It appears quite clear that she's not talking about lying; she is talking about messaging for the target audience. What's more, we don't elect an absolute monarch who can make law at will. A President has to negotiate with Congress (filled with members who themselves are reliant on local & special interests for their election). While Barack Obama, the person, may think that a "Public Option" for healthcare is a good idea, President Obama had to negotiate with Congress, including the special interests represented there.
Take it up with the article writers, I don't care to listen to Hillary Clinton excuse makers.
Hillary got a debate question leaked to her by Brazile (Dnc) because it was a question that worried her and wanted HRC to get a heads up. The first Presidential debate HRC talked like a pre programmed robot. It's safe to assume the same cheating went on for that debate.
This is a rare view inside OUR political system like we've never seen before. Why anyone would not take advantage of this RARE opportunity to see what OUR elected officials are really talking about and how warped this has become is beyond me.
How many times have people said "I'd like to be a fly on the wall in that room"? Well, HERE'S YOUR CHANCE TO BE THAT FLY.
USE IT!
Agreed!! Unfortunately, there are those whose minds are made up and would be confused by the facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
As to "public/private" positions--you are merely repeating rhetoric from Trump's campaign. It appears quite clear that she's not talking about lying; she is talking about messaging for the target audience. What's more, we don't elect an absolute monarch who can make law at will. A President has to negotiate with Congress (filled with members who themselves are reliant on local & special interests for their election). While Barack Obama, the person, may think that a "Public Option" for healthcare is a good idea, President Obama had to negotiate with Congress, including the special interests represented there.
Addressing this paragraph only...
Talking about a public position vs. a private position is not lying? I know, "lying" sounds harsh.
Would it make you feel better if we said it was deceptive and duplicitous?
"messaging for the target audience" is telling them what they want to hear, not what she thinks or intends to do. Empty words.
Example: Obama covered the country in efforts to convince the people, whose support he wanted and needed, telling them that all their hopes and dreams would be met in Obamacare. Nothing would change (he knows people don't like change), they would be able to keep their doctor and costs would go way down.
The people were calmed. They didn't know that Gruber was behind the calming veil, and in collusion with the administration to push this through. Now we know the truth -- the difference between 'public position' and 'private position'.
Hillary was most certainly saying that it's OK to tell some people one thing, and others something else - that the end justifies the means.
Heck Hillary's chairman of her campaign was just directly linked to a firm money-laundering in Russia.
You'e joking, right?
Trump's campaign manager for several months was Paul Manafort, notorious for his stint as campaign manager for Putinist puppet Viktor Yanukovych in the Ukraine, who pillaged the country of wealth before being ousted in the 2014 Euromaidan Revolution and fleeing to Russia.
Turns out Manafort helped the pro-Russian governing party in Ukraine secretly route at least $2.2 million in payments to two prominent Washington lobbying firms in apparent violation of U.S. laws. There is also the matter of $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments that remains under review.
As luck would have it, Manafort's reign as Trump's campaign manager was marked by Trump's shift towards a pro-Russia and anti-NATO foreign policy.
Trump has made favorable statements about Putin and even assured us that, "He's not going into Ukraine, OK, just so you understand. He's not going to go into Ukraine, all right? You can mark it down. You can put it down. You can take it anywhere you want." Trump said this in an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos on "This Week."
When Stephanopoulos responded with,"Well, he's already there, isn't he?" Trump quickly shifted to blaming Obama for this sorry state of affairs.
I'm not making this up. Google it for yourself.
Manafort resigned and the Breitbart guy is now campaign manager. However, the connection to Putin continues.
For example, the Kremlin-controlled Sputnik printed an article and within hours, Trump is quoting it at rally.
Roger Stone, a Trump ally, brags about his "back channel" connections to Wikileaks and how Assange will be releasing Podesta's emails. Weeks later, this indeed occurs.
Wikileaks is releasing Russian-hacked campaign emails. Strangely enough, none of these are Trump campaign emails.
You don't have to be John le Carré or Richard Condon (The Manchurian Candidate) to put this together.
And you honestly believe that a Russian-hacked email mentioning a Russian money-laundering firm is a big whoop.
Please.
If I was on the Trump team, God forbid, I'd stop talking about Russian connections right this minute.
Trump's campaign manager for several months was Paul Manafort, notorious for his stint as campaign manager for Putinist puppet Viktor Yanukovych in the Ukraine, who pillaged the country of wealth before being ousted in the 2014 Euromaidan Revolution and fleeing to Russia.
Turns out Manafort helped the pro-Russian governing party in Ukraine secretly route at least $2.2 million in payments to two prominent Washington lobbying firms in apparent violation of U.S. laws. There is also the matter of $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments that remains under review.
As luck would have it, Manafort's reign as Trump's campaign manager was marked by Trump's shift towards a pro-Russia and anti-NATO foreign policy.
Trump has made favorable statements about Putin and even assured us that, "He's not going into Ukraine, OK, just so you understand. He's not going to go into Ukraine, all right? You can mark it down. You can put it down. You can take it anywhere you want." Trump said this in an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos on "This Week."
When Stephanopoulos responded with,"Well, he's already there, isn't he?" Trump quickly shifted to blaming Obama for this sorry state of affairs.
I'm not making this up. Google it for yourself.
Manafort resigned and the Breitbart guy is now campaign manager. However, the connection to Putin continues.
For example, the Kremlin-controlled Sputnik printed an article and within hours, Trump is quoting it at rally.
Roger Stone, a Trump ally, brags about his "back channel" connections to Wikileaks and how Assange will be releasing Podesta's emails. Weeks later, this indeed occurs.
Wikileaks is releasing Russian-hacked campaign emails. Strangely enough, none of these are Trump campaign emails.
You don't have to be John le Carré or Richard Condon (The Manchurian Candidate) to put this together.
And you honestly believe that a Russian-hacked email mentioning a Russian money-laundering firm in a big whoop.
Please.
If I was on the Trump team, God forbid, I'd stop talking about Russian connections right this minute.
What are your thoughts about the contents of the emails? Do you support this type of behavior from within?
What are your thoughts about the contents of the emails? Do you support this type of behavior from within?
My thoughts?
If the candidate I was supporting hired a Russian operative as campaign manager, if my candidate was praising Putin and supporting his expansion plans, if my candidate was repeating items printed in the Kremlin-controlled Sputnik (and printed only there) at rallies, and if Russian-hacked emails supporting my candidate started appearing.... I would **** about Russians connections.
But that's just me.
Carry on.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
