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.
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.