6 ms·

Buzzfeed? Like seriously? Next should be CNN with their 'technical problems'. Does someone there really think this kind of propaganda piece will make anything i

by jsf666 10y ago

Buzzfeed? Like seriously? Next should be CNN with their 'technical problems'. Does someone there really think this kind of propaganda piece will make anything in the Podesta e-mails less real? Can you get anymore obvious? This is some Soviet-level shit

akhilcacharya 10y ago
> Podesta e-mails less real As we can see from the polls, if there was something damaging here people don't really care.
- jsf666 10y ago
  > The polls The new emails show they're rigged Besides could You show me any major news outlet that covered them really throughly (considering how damaging they are)?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- crdoconnor 10y ago
  People were distracted by the pussy thing - which was not coincidentally released on the same day. Most people have no idea what was even in those emails and most of the media I read made a point to say that there was nothing damaging in there (cherry picking the most mundane things they could). There wasn't anything too surprising to people who hate Hillary Clinton (yes, she's in the pocket of wall street) and supporters and most of the mainstream media (MSNBC, CNN, NYTimes, etc.) didn't pay any attention.
  - xenadu02 10y ago
    I read a bunch of the emails and there wasn't anything significant in there unless you count cherry-picking quotes and willful misunderstanding. At best there are some ambiguous things that could be interpreted certain ways. tl;dr: There is no smoking gun. People say things in private emails they wouldn't discuss in public, NEWS AT 11!!!!! P.S. It wasn't "that pussy thing". It was Trump bragging that he pushes women into sexual encounters he knows they don't want and gets away with it because he's famous and rich. I like how the right pretended everyone was upset about some foul language though or that it was just "locker room" talk. If Trump had said "oh she's so hot, I'd love to fuck her" no one would have cared because that is locker room talk. What Trump said was in a different league.
    - crdoconnor 10y ago
      Smoking guns: * She admitted to having a "private" (real) policy position and a "public" one (lies). * Bits of her speeches to Goldman came out and she basically said "we were way too hard on you guys" and "we need to listen more to you guys to help prevent another crisis". * She mentioned that she basically wanted a hemispheric free trade & freedom of movement zone. Of course, apparently it's not the done thing these days to talk about policy scandals that actually affect us during a Presidential election.
      - yongjik 10y ago
        * She mentioned that she basically wanted a hemispheric free trade & freedom of movement zone. ...That sounds wonderful, if a bit too good to be true. Is it supposed to be bad?
        crdoconnor 10y ago
        That depends. Are you a fan of NAFTA, CAFTA, the TPP and TTIP?
        mcv 10y ago
        I think she's more alluding to something like the EU common market. NAFTA, CAFTA, TPP and TTIP don't do anything about freedom of movement, and do a lot about a ton of other things that have nothing to do with that.
      - mcv 10y ago
        How is the first one a smoking gun? She was quoting someone else. Lincoln, I think. Her ties to Wallstreet are hardly a surprise. It sucks, but we already knew that she's probably not going to do what needs to be done to Wallstreet. But there's no reason to believe that Trump is going to do any better, and on almost everything else, Clinton is still a lot better, or at worst less bad.
    - CptJamesCook 10y ago
      You don't think that cheating in the debate by providing one candidate with questions in advance is significant?
  - shalmanese 10y ago
    The pussygate tape came out before the Wikileak emails [1] which argues, if you're rational, that the timing was co-incidental or, if you're conspiratorial, that the Clinton campaign had a mole inside of Wikileaks who had just enough access to make them aware of the leak but not enough to stop it. [1] https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/784484823717011456 https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/784484823717011456 & https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/784491543868665856 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/784491543868665856
- rahrahrah 10y ago
  > people don't really care Exactly, and that's worrying.
- CptJamesCook 10y ago
  The head of the DNC (and Hillary's former campaign manager) giving debate questions to the Clinton campaign is truly outrageous, and it is only the media's extreme hate for Trump that is keeping this from getting more attention. But I agree with your point that it is not damaging her.
  - mcv 10y ago
    The media's extreme hate for Trump? They used to love him. He was, and still is, great for ratings. And his free media attention is a big part of why he won the primaries. But he keeps saying increasingly shocking, vile and dangerous things, and it's the people working for the media, as well as everybody else (even people from his own party) who are getting extremely disgusted with him. Don't paint this as if it's just the media. It's Trump.
danso 10y ago
FWIW, the author wrote critically of Assange and Israel Shami in 2011 [0], so it's not as if he's changing his mind in order to support the Clinton regime. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/08/israel-shamir-julian-assange-cult-machismo https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/no...
- rahrahrah 10y ago
  Hey, good catch, thanks for sharing. In my view that increases the credibility of the Buzzfeed article.
  - danso 10y ago
    That said, nothing wrong with pointing out that it's an unfair attack now as it may have been in 2011. (I didn't know Ball has written about Assange extensively until googling it after reading the BuzzFeed piece). Since it's a piece by someone who has a personal dispute with Assange, it has to be taken with a grain of salt. I think its most interesting contribution at this time is its argument that Assange, for better or worse, hasn't changed, it's the world.
    - XorNot 10y ago
      Every single person who works with Assange ends up having a personal dispute with him. The old saying is still true - "if you think everyone's an asshole, chances are it's just you". Wikileaks collaborators and repeatedly walked away on bad terms. At this point I'd be curious to know if there's anyone who actually gets along with him.
      - rahrahrah 10y ago
        I can't wrap my mind around why people are so concerned about whether he's an easy guy to get along with or not. If you don't have to work him personally, why do you care? Surely you can hear his message and separate that from his personal character?

by jsf666 10y ago

akhilcacharya 10y ago

> Podesta e-mails less real As we can see from the polls, if there was something damaging here people don't really care.

jsf666 10y ago
> The polls The new emails show they're rigged Besides could You show me any major news outlet that covered them really throughly (considering how damaging they are)?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
crdoconnor 10y ago
People were distracted by the pussy thing - which was not coincidentally released on the same day. Most people have no idea what was even in those emails and most of the media I read made a point to say that there was nothing damaging in there (cherry picking the most mundane things they could). There wasn't anything too surprising to people who hate Hillary Clinton (yes, she's in the pocket of wall street) and supporters and most of the mainstream media (MSNBC, CNN, NYTimes, etc.) didn't pay any attention.
- xenadu02 10y ago
  I read a bunch of the emails and there wasn't anything significant in there unless you count cherry-picking quotes and willful misunderstanding. At best there are some ambiguous things that could be interpreted certain ways. tl;dr: There is no smoking gun. People say things in private emails they wouldn't discuss in public, NEWS AT 11!!!!! P.S. It wasn't "that pussy thing". It was Trump bragging that he pushes women into sexual encounters he knows they don't want and gets away with it because he's famous and rich. I like how the right pretended everyone was upset about some foul language though or that it was just "locker room" talk. If Trump had said "oh she's so hot, I'd love to fuck her" no one would have cared because that is locker room talk. What Trump said was in a different league.
  - crdoconnor 10y ago
    Smoking guns: * She admitted to having a "private" (real) policy position and a "public" one (lies). * Bits of her speeches to Goldman came out and she basically said "we were way too hard on you guys" and "we need to listen more to you guys to help prevent another crisis". * She mentioned that she basically wanted a hemispheric free trade & freedom of movement zone. Of course, apparently it's not the done thing these days to talk about policy scandals that actually affect us during a Presidential election.
    - yongjik 10y ago
      * She mentioned that she basically wanted a hemispheric free trade & freedom of movement zone. ...That sounds wonderful, if a bit too good to be true. Is it supposed to be bad?
      - crdoconnor 10y ago
        That depends. Are you a fan of NAFTA, CAFTA, the TPP and TTIP?
        mcv 10y ago
        I think she's more alluding to something like the EU common market. NAFTA, CAFTA, TPP and TTIP don't do anything about freedom of movement, and do a lot about a ton of other things that have nothing to do with that.
    - mcv 10y ago
      How is the first one a smoking gun? She was quoting someone else. Lincoln, I think. Her ties to Wallstreet are hardly a surprise. It sucks, but we already knew that she's probably not going to do what needs to be done to Wallstreet. But there's no reason to believe that Trump is going to do any better, and on almost everything else, Clinton is still a lot better, or at worst less bad.
  - CptJamesCook 10y ago
    You don't think that cheating in the debate by providing one candidate with questions in advance is significant?
- shalmanese 10y ago
  The pussygate tape came out before the Wikileak emails [1] which argues, if you're rational, that the timing was co-incidental or, if you're conspiratorial, that the Clinton campaign had a mole inside of Wikileaks who had just enough access to make them aware of the leak but not enough to stop it. [1] https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/784484823717011456 https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/784484823717011456 & https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/784491543868665856 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/784491543868665856
rahrahrah 10y ago
> people don't really care Exactly, and that's worrying.
CptJamesCook 10y ago
The head of the DNC (and Hillary's former campaign manager) giving debate questions to the Clinton campaign is truly outrageous, and it is only the media's extreme hate for Trump that is keeping this from getting more attention. But I agree with your point that it is not damaging her.
- mcv 10y ago
  The media's extreme hate for Trump? They used to love him. He was, and still is, great for ratings. And his free media attention is a big part of why he won the primaries. But he keeps saying increasingly shocking, vile and dangerous things, and it's the people working for the media, as well as everybody else (even people from his own party) who are getting extremely disgusted with him. Don't paint this as if it's just the media. It's Trump.

danso 10y ago

FWIW, the author wrote critically of Assange and Israel Shami in 2011 [0], so it's not as if he's changing his mind in order to support the Clinton regime. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/08/israel-shamir-julian-assange-cult-machismo https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/no...

rahrahrah 10y ago
Hey, good catch, thanks for sharing. In my view that increases the credibility of the Buzzfeed article.
- danso 10y ago
  That said, nothing wrong with pointing out that it's an unfair attack now as it may have been in 2011. (I didn't know Ball has written about Assange extensively until googling it after reading the BuzzFeed piece). Since it's a piece by someone who has a personal dispute with Assange, it has to be taken with a grain of salt. I think its most interesting contribution at this time is its argument that Assange, for better or worse, hasn't changed, it's the world.
  - XorNot 10y ago
    Every single person who works with Assange ends up having a personal dispute with him. The old saying is still true - "if you think everyone's an asshole, chances are it's just you". Wikileaks collaborators and repeatedly walked away on bad terms. At this point I'd be curious to know if there's anyone who actually gets along with him.
    - rahrahrah 10y ago
      I can't wrap my mind around why people are so concerned about whether he's an easy guy to get along with or not. If you don't have to work him personally, why do you care? Surely you can hear his message and separate that from his personal character?