6 ms·

> Is there something really damaging in Wikileak emails? That's my main problem with all these arguments «false equivalency» in their pursuit of seeming and so

> Is there something really damaging in Wikileak emails? 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.

skylan_q 10y ago
These are completely different things. What's in those emails is FAR more damming than some foul-mouthed quips. Gross FCC violations, for one.
- brainfire 10y ago
  You're literally proving the grandparent comment's point- the best you can come up with is a baseless accusation.
- slg 10y ago
  You say that without linking to any real source. Every time I have seen someone link "evidence", it is just a Rorschach test of an email that depending on where you fall on the political spectrum you might view as signs of criminal activity or view as politics as usual.
  - TaylorAlexander 10y ago
    Can't it be criminal activity and politics as usual?
- revscat 10y ago
  Which email(s) are you speaking of?
- xenadu02 10y ago
  Two things: 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.
  - DominikR 10y ago
    > 1. Having read the emails I disagree that there is anything damning in them. So you have read _all_ the emails and thanks to your superior judgement you can now explain to us peasants how it all doesn't matter. Whats interesting is that your deflection contains zero substance, you just call it a nothing burger.
  - bduerst 10y ago
    Definitely agree on #1 - even Assange knew there was nothing in the emails which is why there was no "October surprise." 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 http://i.imgur.com/eRRc02n.png?1
    - EdHominem 10y ago
      > they're releasing the emails in parcels to manipulate the 24 hour news cycle That's be the tail wagging the dog. They release daily to participate in the 24h news cycle.
      - bduerst 10y ago
        Yes, semantically speaking, manipulating the 24 hour news cycle does require participating. 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.
forgetsusername 10y ago
>It's just not right and unfair for Hillary and her campaign. 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.
- gotchange 10y ago
  No, I disagree. 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.
  - forgetsusername 10y ago
    >Trump is the Republican nominee for the 2016 US presidential elections which means that he's as much a politician as as Hillary or Obama is 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?
    - gotchange 10y ago
      I am the one here who's advocating for equal and fair treatment for both candidates not the usual prevailing one for Hillary and a more lenient and almost non-existent for Trump because he's a newbie to the world of politics. 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.

skylan_q 10y ago

These are completely different things. What's in those emails is FAR more damming than some foul-mouthed quips. Gross FCC violations, for one.

brainfire 10y ago
You're literally proving the grandparent comment's point- the best you can come up with is a baseless accusation.
slg 10y ago
You say that without linking to any real source. Every time I have seen someone link "evidence", it is just a Rorschach test of an email that depending on where you fall on the political spectrum you might view as signs of criminal activity or view as politics as usual.
- TaylorAlexander 10y ago
  Can't it be criminal activity and politics as usual?
revscat 10y ago
Which email(s) are you speaking of?
xenadu02 10y ago
Two things: 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.
- DominikR 10y ago
  > 1. Having read the emails I disagree that there is anything damning in them. So you have read _all_ the emails and thanks to your superior judgement you can now explain to us peasants how it all doesn't matter. Whats interesting is that your deflection contains zero substance, you just call it a nothing burger.
- bduerst 10y ago
  Definitely agree on #1 - even Assange knew there was nothing in the emails which is why there was no "October surprise." 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 http://i.imgur.com/eRRc02n.png?1
  - EdHominem 10y ago
    > they're releasing the emails in parcels to manipulate the 24 hour news cycle That's be the tail wagging the dog. They release daily to participate in the 24h news cycle.
    - bduerst 10y ago
      Yes, semantically speaking, manipulating the 24 hour news cycle does require participating. 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.

forgetsusername 10y ago

>It's just not right and unfair for Hillary and her campaign. 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.

gotchange 10y ago
No, I disagree. 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.
- forgetsusername 10y ago
  >Trump is the Republican nominee for the 2016 US presidential elections which means that he's as much a politician as as Hillary or Obama is 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?
  - gotchange 10y ago
    I am the one here who's advocating for equal and fair treatment for both candidates not the usual prevailing one for Hillary and a more lenient and almost non-existent for Trump because he's a newbie to the world of politics. 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.