For instance, the comment about public/private positions is one of the most common ones you hear people complain about (and Clinton was asked about it during the debate). Here's the full statement:
"You just have to sort of figure out how to -- getting back to that word, "balance" -- how to balance the public and the private efforts that are necessary to be successful, politically, and that's not just a comment about today. That, I think, has probably been true for all of our history, and if you saw the Spielberg movie, Lincoln, and how he was maneuvering and working to get the 13th Amendment passed, and he called one of my favorite predecessors, Secretary Seward, who had been the governor and senator from New York, ran against Lincoln for president, and he told Seward, I need your help to get this done. And Seward called some of his lobbyist friends who knew how to make a deal, and they just kept going at it. I mean, politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position. And finally, I think -- I believe in evidence-based decision making. I want to know what the facts are. I mean, it's like when you guys go into some kind of a deal, you know, are you going to do that development or not, are you going to do that renovation or not, you know, you look at the numbers. You try to figure out what's going to work and what's not going to work."
I would encourage everyone to look at the original source anytime someone makes a claim about what was said in the e-mail.
That's my main problem with all these arguments «false equivalency» in their pursuit of seeming and sounding fair, balanced and impartial, they resort to equate all the horrendous things that Trump said or did with these harmless details that Hillary or her chief of staff said behind closed doors or in private emails.
It's just not right and unfair for Hillary and her campaign.
1. Having read the emails I disagree that there is anything damning in them. Even when campaign staffers suggested bad things they got shot down. The email releases have been one big nothing-burger after another. The media is like a toddler... unless you have something interesting going on their attention wanes quickly.
2. The Trump sexual assault tape is not bad because he had a foul mouth. In some cases focusing on that is a deliberate effort at mis-direction. Trump can swear all he likes and no one except a few pearl-clutching grandmas care. What is gross is Trump boasting that he commits sexual assault against women and they let him get away with it because he's rich and famous. That's what was so offensive about that video.
Now they're releasing the emails in parcels to manipulate the 24 hour news cycle - e.g. "More Hillary Emails leaked!"
There's no smoking gun in those emails, and the majority of the "There's a lot there" statements boil down to examples like this: http://i.imgur.com/eRRc02n.png?1
That's be the tail wagging the dog.
They release daily to participate in the 24h news cycle.
If there was any actual news in the emails, released each day, then it wouldn't be manipulation. It would be news, like how WashPo released the Trump sex assault tape the same day they got it.
As it is now, they're withholding empty, hacked information and timing the releases to participate and manipulate headlines during the U.S. election period.
Empty information? What does that even mean?
So you think it was fine for the current head of the DNC to leak questions from CNN to hillary during the primary?
And you think it's fine for the under secretary of state to be trying to bribe the FBI to reduce the classification of emails found on her server? Personally I don't see how that isn't a crime.
A subpoena was already in place for those documents, it's tampering with evidence.
Wow.
Trump is a buffoon; I'm sure you can scour the public record for innumerous idiotic things he's said over the years. What do you expect from the guy?
Clinton, on the other hand, is a career politician and public servant. I think those behind-the-scenes dealings are far more dangerous.
Trump is the Republican nominee for the 2016 US presidential elections which means that he's as much a politician as Hillary or Obama is and should be held against the same set of standards like every politician does and this notion that since he's novice in this field he deserves to get preferential treatment and be forgiven for all his mistakes and wrongdoings is bit disingenuous.
I hope you're kidding when you say he's as much a politician as Hilary. He has very limited political experience. She's been doing it for 30+ years.
He's a candidate, but has held precisely zero public offices thus far.
>this notion that since he's novice in this field he deserves to get preferential treatment and be forgiven for all his mistakes and wrongdoings is bit disingenuous.
What preferential treatment are you talking about? Who said anything about "forgiving" him? I'm saying, "what on earth do you expect by nominating a TV personality"? I expect more from my politicians. Apparently you don't. Perhaps that's why your election is a mess?
This is not a game. This is a real and serious national election for a superpower, and this levity when dealing with these matters is not helpful.
Your position seems to be along those lines above. If not, please clarify.
Unless your single source of news is the Trump sub-reddit, most of the mainstream media does nothing but rip Trump.
>This is a real and serious national election for a superpower, and this levity when dealing with these matters is not helpful.
Don't lecture me, my country isn't having this issue. You put a bizarre TV personality up for president, not me. Citizens get the government they deserve.
> Who said anything about "forgiving" him? ... I expect more from my politicians.
gotchange's point is that some people give Trump a lower bar of expectations because he's an 'outsider' or 'new at this' - that difference in expectations is forgiving him to a certain degree. Like a handicap at sport.
gotchange's whole point is about expecting more from politicians, and asking why the expectations are lowered on the Trump side.
To argue that he's remotely as experienced as Hilary Clinton is simply disingenuous.
>gotchange's whole point is about expecting more from politicians, and asking why the expectations are lowered on the Trump side.
gotchange's whole point was that somehow, something (not sure what) is biased against Hilary here. Trump is being skewered about this on every channel, on every website. What more do you want? This is a massive scandal, and I'm sure there's more to come.
>gotchange's point is that some people give Trump a lower bar of expectations because he's an 'outsider' or 'new at this'
No, my expectations are lower for Trump because he has a history of being a buffoon. But you do realize there's a difference between "expectation" and "acceptance"?
For what it's worth, I think they are both terrible candidates. I have no idea how Trump got this far, but I don't think there's another candidate that Hilary could have possibly beat.
No-one is saying that. I just said that he's not "very limited".
> Trump is being skewered about this on every channel, on every website. What more do you want? ... my expectations are lower for Trump because ... realize there's a difference between "expectation" and "acceptance"
The fact that despite all his mess, he is still a serious contender in the competition, and that means plenty of people are forgiving him and accepting him, despite the media coverage, and regardless of your personal opinion. It's actually a pretty shameful indictment on the American public, that so many of them support such a candidate.
I'm not sure why that's a bad thing?
Not saying it is.
https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/57vefh/podesta_...
Some of the things found were:
1. The Goldman Sachs speeches, showing that Hillary has a "public and private position", is still against gay marriage, wants open borders, wants to enact gun bans, and wants to establish a hemispheric common market.
2. John Podesta (Hillary's campaign chair) giving a list of "needy latinos" to call.
3. The DNC planning fake Trump assault scandals
4. Clinton Campaign Discusses Which Emails To "Hold" Hours After Subpoena
...all among many, many other things. We still have another 10k Podesta emails to go.
With the exception of a common market I must strongly disagree with your assessments.
I'll also point out that everyone has public and private positions and everyone except the most socially inept tries to tailor what they say to their audience to get a better reception. That's half of being a politician: glad-handing and smooth-talking your constituents and colleagues into going along with your plan.
> 2. John Podesta (Hillary's campaign chair) giving a list of "needy latinos" to call.
What's your point? Is that supposed to compare to calling Mexicans rapists, saying more countries should have nuclear weapons, calling for a ban on muslim immigrants, saying you want veto-power over the press, claiming US elections are illegitimate, attacking a Gold Star family, ... I mean I could go on and on and on here.
> 3. The DNC planning fake Trump assault scandals
I haven't seen anything legit on this. Care to elaborate? I know some campaign staffers have occasionally proposed really stupid ideas but they were always shot down. If there is proof that anyone actually carried out such a plan please let us know.
> 4. Clinton Campaign Discusses Which Emails To "Hold" Hours After Subpoena
This is standard practice. It's called a document retention notice and every single company in the US follows this exact procedures. The court orders you to deliver evidence and you must figure out which documents are covered under that order. If you just backed up all your servers and dumped them on the court wholesale you'd be held in contempt.
2. Current DNC chair (then CNN analyst) Donna Brazile giving Hillary Townhall questions early http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/10/roland-martin...
3. Hillary admitting that our greatest allies Qatar and Saudia Barbaria fund ISIS https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3774
4. Bill Clinton getting a $1m birthday gift from Qatar for access http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/13/wikileaks-em...
But I guess who can use the toilet where is more important than spying on people, taking away their freedom, being habitual liar and hypocrite by taking money from the people who are supposed to be everything you believe in against.
How is Trump any worse? He is just smart enough to think what he's saying, all in all they would make a great team with Hillary.
In the end, I've been voting Libertarian and/or "not the incumbent" for a few years now, and wish more people would do so.
I found this site which summarizes the finding (tweeted by a Trump supporter): http://www.vaskal.ca/podestafiles
The Clinton Foundation is the new SuperPAC.
At what point is a $1 million birthday gift seen as a gift from a friend? Or a "charitable donation" ?
Sure, there's no evidence of pay for play in explicit terms. Doing so would be tantamount for a legal definition of bribery. However, consider the natural progression of the PAC if it were to use the same loophole of charity instead. Would a charity request for money be considered access, at the same level as PAC influence?
At some point, the foundation should be considered a profitable business rather than a charity, given the immense staffing and expenditures of operation in a billion dollar+ charity organization.
It's not trivial to ignore the oddities that abound when it does not operate like any other charity organization. Plane tickets for Hillary and Chelsea, car expenses, six figure living expenses, etc.
The grey area of having ~70 year billionaires running for president is when you see just how they live and work, and how they got there... It's usually disgusting or disappointing. It almost always has to be.
If you disagree, examine what it is you believe is good about the process of allowing, then choosing between the richest of egomaniacs, to lead a nation with a sense of morality or ethical standards. The democratic process is acutely broken by any standard if you believe that PACs and now, "charity organizations" is a net benefit.
Considering all of the organizations affiliated with the Clinton Foundation, he said, CharityWatch concluded about 89 percent of its budget is spent on programs. That’s the amount it spent on charity in 2013, he said.
We looked at the consolidated financial statements (see page 4) and calculated that in 2013, 88.3 percent of spending was designated as going toward program services — $196.6 million out of $222.6 million in reported expenses.
We can’t vouch for the effectiveness of the programming expenses listed in the report, but it is clear that the claim that the Clinton Foundation only steers 6 percent of its donations to charity is wrong, and amounts to a misunderstanding of how public charities work.
> Would a charity request for money be considered access, at the same level as PAC influence?
Is it pay of play in the same way if a donation was made to a completely unaffiliated charity, such as the American Red Cross? What if the donation is made first, and the politician notices and it happens to make them look favorably on a meeting because it bodes well for the character of the person in question?
> At what point is a $1 million birthday gift seen as a gift from a friend? Or a "charitable donation" ?
It's a gift to you when it's actually to you, and not to a separate organization that spends it on things that aren't for your own benefit.
> At some point, the foundation should be considered a profitable business rather than a charity, given the immense staffing and expenditures of operation in a billion dollar+ charity organization.
I'm not sure you understand how charities work. They are generally rated by how much money donated goes back out in programs, services or donations to other organizations to achieve the same.
> It's not trivial to ignore the oddities that abound when it does not operate like any other charity organization. Plane tickets for Hillary and Chelsea, car expenses, six figure living expenses, etc.
You should substantiate statements like that with references. Preferably to trusted sources.
> The democratic process is acutely broken by any standard if you believe that PACs and now, "charity organizations" is a net benefit.
I don't believe charity organizations working as a PAC is beneficial, but I haven't seen any evidence of that either.
As some one coming to US from mainland China, I find this collusion between the media and the Democratic party familiar, yet the case with US is much more disturbing. Because in China, the relationship between CCP and the press is out in the open, people knew the press is the mouthpiece of the party and treat the information they receive from the press accordingly. Here in US, people do not know. This is truly frightening.
If you have some time, scroll through the Wikileaks Twitter. Very little noise, mostly content. https://twitter.com/wikileaks
Why does this canard keep coming up? This isn't 1973. The Middle East does not have the West by the balls with respect to energy anymore. We're invested in Saudi Arabia to keep it from imploding, not for natural resources. Not directly, at least, since oil money is one of the few things keeping it from imploding.
The US may well be largely energy independent but a large number of significant client states within its sphere of influence are not. The viability of those client states goes directly to the global effectiveness of US hegemony.
Is evidence of financial ties of Clinton and foundation aides to Russian oligarchy damaging? Depends on whether you think being financially tied to Putin and claiming Trump is in Putin's pocket in the same time is something bad to do or a clever game?
Is evidence of pay-for-play arrangements between State Dept., Clinton foundation and foreign investors - including same persons working for both at the same time - damaging or just a successful charity that nobody has to be ashamed of?
Is revelation that the president knew what he claimed to have no knowledge of damaging or just a clever tactic to defeat attacks?
Is revelation that Supreme Court was (successfully) pressured into making certain decisions by threatening to make it a campaign issue otherwise damaging or just a successful management?
Is calling your voters "needy latinos"[2] and Catholics "amazing bastardization of the faith"[3] damaging or just funny banter?
Is telling "we've all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry"[4] and complaining "compliance is obviously fading rapidly" damaging or accurate assessment of their electoral strategy?
It all depends on your point of view, I guess.
[1] https://theintercept.com/2016/10/09/exclusive-new-email-leak...
[2] https://theintercept.com/2016/10/09/exclusive-new-email-leak...
[3] http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/12/hillary-clinto...
For my part, I do both. I have bitched and kvetched at times about my clients being cripplingly needy, aggressively brain dead, and the like. I certainly wouldn't say it to their faces, and it doesn't mean I don't rely on their dollars to support my business. Nor either does it mean I am producing lesser-quality work for them.
This is a non-issue. People everywhere bitch about the outsiders they have to deal with in language that would never be used in business proper.
It is a massive chasm of difference between calling a group "needy" and categorizing them as illegals, rapists and murderers.
Now, if I were talking one on one with peers over beers, that's a different matter. There is much more freedom and it would allow some things said which are not meant to be heard by anybody not in the audience.
> People everywhere bitch about the outsiders they have to deal with in language that would never be used in business proper.
This is not exactly business - those are people that pretend to be champions of those "needy latinos" and represent them. It's a higher bar than just business transaction - I would have no problem doing business with a person I disagree with on everything and who maybe secretly hates me, as long as the business end is fine I'm fine. But I probably prefer to choose somebody else to represent me and speak for me.
The most damaging thing at the moment would have to be the attempted bribery from the under secretary to the FBI. Even in their excuse they are kind of admitting they attempted to bribe, but it just failed so we shouldn't worry.
The other part that really gets me is the death penalty question that the head of the DNC smuggled out of CNN when she was working there. I don't know how she hasn't resigned when you have been caught working within the media to manipulate things to benefit your prefered candidate.
And that skips over the whole issue of how the DNC was bias against bernie, it's just pilling on now how rigged the system was against him.
The Trump tapes? You mean that one 11-year-old video that shows him talking very crudely about sexual escapades?
Sure, that's reprehensible. Is it worse than what past presidents have done while in office? If not, why is it a problem now?
Why is one candidate's personal sex life a bigger problem than collusion with the media during the campaign and using a cabinet-level position to enrich oneself? That is, why is his sex life a bigger problem than her corruption exhibited while in public office, as well as her criminal mishandling of classified material, which directly harmed U.S. interests abroad, when many have been jailed for less (including since Comey's press conference)?
> PS: As far as voting is concerned, I'm still in information collection mode and don't support any candidate at this point.
That's nice. A suggestion: if you really care about who wins, look less at the candidates and more the platforms of them and their parties. The media makes it appear that this election is a contest between two people--but it's actually a contest between two competing worldviews which are vastly different from one another. You could swap any other Democrat for her and any Republican for him (though any actual Republican would differ much more from Trump than any other Democrat would differ from Clinton), and the underlying issues would be the same. The individual candidates are virtually a facade, a distraction from the real issues at stake.
a) mishandling of classified information
b) insisting that as commander-in-chief, you will order the US military to commit war crimes
Which do you think more directly harms US interests abroad?
If you're prepared to dismiss allegations of (and supporting boasts about) sexual molestation to simply be "his personal sex life" you have a very screwed up idea of sex and personal space.
Did you see the Project Veritas stuff? You know, where the Democratic campaign staffers confess to having hired mentally ill people to commit acts of violence at Trump rallies? And to hiring people to vote out-of-state, specifically using their own cars or rentals to avoid the obvious concern that would be generated by busing them in?
So think about this: if you have at least one of the campaigns having confessed to criminal electioneering, why would you believe anything they say? Why would you believe anyone they bring forward to slander the opposing candidate?
I don't support any such boasts. I support healthy skepticism. NBC didn't have any problem with Trump's conduct when he was a TV star raking in millions for them, but now that he's opposing Dear Leader, the evidence must be brought forward.
And you try to turn this around and make it about me? You're clearly not interested in truth of any kind.
PS: As far as voting is concerned, I'm still in information collection mode and don't support any candidate at this point.