Already the enemy of most national governments, with a personal vendetta from the most powerful secret agencies in the world... Yeah, Julian is probably going to be captured and tortured if he hasn't already been.
There's strong anti trade sentiment in the US right now, with much of it being among people who are not especially partisan (so they are more likely to vote the issue rather than a party).
It's probably not the pro-trade stance so much as the spotlight that's on the $26 million she was paid for those speeches. It conveys the impression that she is beholden to Wall Street financial interests.
It may not damage the Clinton campaign, though, because Trump's womanizing talk came out the same day and is attracting more attention.
This election season has a scandal-of-the-week feel to it, and many Americans are looking forward to it being over already.
There is a rapidly growing group of people that are tired of the status quo. They are reacting strongly against the neoliberal and technocratic establishment. To the very large masses of blue collar workers, globalism means watching their jobs move to cheaper markets.
This is the environment where populist movements arise, which are not tied to traditional right/left politics. Hence the rise of populists like Trump, anti-establishment reactions like brexit, and a long list of similar movements that have been popping up around the world.
For a good explanation of this (with charts!), see Mark Blyth's recent lecture[1].
The history of various trade pacts is that they've not much lived up to their promises. They're universally opposed by the rank-and-file of both the Democrat and Republican parties now.
There are very strong arguments that what's holiding back economic potential and equality is not more itereations of NAFTA or WTO talks -- global import/export trade is already a phenomenal amount of all commerce. Price savings, where they're realised, seem to be based more on wage depression and raping the environment than real gains in per-worker prodictivity or comparative advantage. Worse, the current round of international agreements being shopped as "trade pacts" are far more in the style of power grabs for corporate and oligarchical interests, including ever more regressive copyright, trademark, and patent laws, a two-tier courts system through ISDS, and numerous actions which will raise prices through increased corporate profits rather than wages.
There's a long list of economists and other experts opposed to the TPP, TTIP, BITS, and TiSA treaties, including Nobel Prize laureate Joseph Stiglitz, Tony Atkinson, former US Labour Secretary Robert Reich, and anti-poverty crusader Jeffrey Sachs, among many others. I've been making something of a sport of posting TPP and related items to my G+ profile over the past few months -- Google support the TPP.
One could ask a similar question about most media vendors, replacing Trump with Clinton. WikiLeaks, whether deliberately or not, is simply doing its part to redress the balance in negative and scandalising news coverage.
It should be made clear that I am neither a US citizen nor a Trump supporter. Huge emphasis on the latter!
There may be some truth to your assertion that recent Trump coverage has become more negative. This is primarily for two reasons.
Admittedly, coverage during the primaries hailed Trump as the anti-establishment political maverick that would redefine the GOP. At the time, the coverage was nauseatingly positive and, at the very worst, ambivalent. The media coverage on Clinton, on the other hand, was clearly confrontational (perhaps because she was the "incumbent" candidate). This sort of coverage has elicited some soul-searching among journalists and mass media based on the logic that the media infatuated with The Donald and gleefully collaborated in his political ascendance (yes, Trump is a colorful man, but, truth be told, he is far worse things as a person, a subject that has been prominently covered).
And this brings me to the second point. The recent turn in Trump's media coverage (in terms of tone at least) is also fueled by his numerous scandals, mistakes, and missteps. It is beyond me when the tone really became adversarial (perhaps after the nomination when the attention shifted to him and there was a long overdue re-calibration in how the media engages with his campaign). In truth, this is a referendum for or against Trump and this argument is further compounded by the fact that staunch and prominent Republicans are abandoning their party's flag bearer in support (more or less) of Clinton (this is unprecedented considering the vitriolic opposition that the party and its supporters have for the Clintons.
While it can be argued that media coverage has shifted in Clinton's favor (mostly due to Trump's own fault as an individual and presidential candidate), the same cannot be said of Wikileaks whose agenda from the very beginning has been admittedly pro-Trump. Wikileaks is partisan and this, while not a disqualifier in of itself, says a lot about its motivations in releasing leaks that paint a non-flattering picture of the Clinton campaign.
That said, these transcripts do not reveal a lot that is new about Clinton as has been noted by other commenters here (except, perhaps, for the fact that she says political leaders need to have private and public positions on policy matters) and her campaign has already been vindicated by the administration's admission that there is a political motive behind the leaks. The political ramifications of these leaks may not be as dramatic (the fodder that they afford her opponents has been unsuccessfully utilized by her foe-turned-apologist Sanders) as Trump's recent bombshell video leak of supposed "locker room banter."
That's based on a flawed notion of balance, the idea that news media should publish equal amounts of "negative and scandalizing news".
It's flawed in that it assumes that equal amounts of such information exist. When Trump shoots some grandmother in the face, people expect equal prominence for "Hillary came to my house and left the bathroom light on".
Parts of the news media have been bending over backwards to avoid the appearance of partisanship, which gave us the endless faux-scandal regarding her mailserver.
The same principle leads to news media sometimes creating the impression that global warming is some sort of scientific debate, because they feel the need to give equal billing to the doubters while reality is 99-1 lopsided.
Trump may actually have a positive impact in the end, in that he may stretch the concept until it breaks. Indeed we can see it breaking down in the last few weeks with, for example, newspapers publishing harsh editorials and endorsements against him whereas they remained quite in previous elections.
If the current trend could continue for another six months, we'd see every article in every newspaper end with "cetero censeo Trump delende est"
Wikileaks tends to have a history of publish everything worthwhile. It is very possible that there is simply more far more data on Clinton. I remember years ago when all the republicans were so against wikileaks, and HN type progressives being for them. Now that its more the other way around all of the sudden wikileaks is a Kremlin shill organization.
Assange has publicly stated that he doesn't want HRC to become president. He hasn't officially supported Trump, considering the choice between Clinton & Trump the same as choosing between cholera and gonhorrea.
It looks like anyone with stuff to leak about Trump is choosing to send it to either the mainstream press or the Clinton campaign at the moment, both of which can be relied on to use it for maximum damage. Even if Wikileaks was willing to publish anti-Trump documents and spin them as evidence of the most dastardly deeds possible, why send them there when the NYT will do the same with a much bigger, more trusting audience?
Because they have it? I'm sure if they had Trump's tax returns they would leak them.
Why does it have to be a conspiracy that they're trying to help Trump? He's beaten up in the news everyday. He doesn't seem to need any help getting into trouble.
Julian Assange has stated publicly that he has a vendetta against Clinton because of her attempts to prosecute Wikileaks while Secretary of State[0], and that he intends to destroy her campaign.
>Are they in-directly supporting Trump ?
Yes. I doubt that Wikileaks, Trump and Russia are actively conspiring towards Trump's election, it just happens that the goals of the Republican Party, Russia and Julian Assange all happen to neatly correlate - Trump wants to be elected, Russia would rather Trump than Clinton was elected, and Assange wants Clinton to not get elected.
All that requires is from Wikileaks is a willingness to publish anything that even appears damaging to one party and nothing damaging to the other. Luckily for Trump, anything published by Wikileaks appears damaging by default, because people assume a level of impartiality and due diligence on their part that they may not really be engaged in.
The fact alone that there are leaks related to the Democrats and not the Republicans will lead people to assume that the Democrats are more corrupt, and the Republicans more trustworthy.
While you're right on with Trumps close ties with Russia, it's not accurate to say that the Republican party is. In fact, senators like McCain and others have long pushed for arming Ukraine to combat the Russian incursion and there was bipartisan support to sanction Russia over Crimea. It's really just Trump.
Trump is now the standard bearer for the Republicans, and the party's de facto leader. If he's elected, the Republicans are going to have to learn to at least pretend to share his views or else be divided against themselves.
But Clinton has more power over media than Trump and I have seen more positive bias in media towards Clinton than towards Trump. The media is creating more noise and publishing their opinions rather than doing good old journalism of bringing news to public without their personal bias. Well, I thought Trump was racist and didn't like him at all. But then I looked into what Clinton has done, Trump looks like better option than Clinton on ethical grounds of who is cleaner politician. Clinton was in power, and what did she do with that power. I think she has been in power long enough and that Trump should be given a chance. My personal reason for not liking Clinton is that video about "we came, we won" comment about Gadaffi getting killed, Clinton getting protected eventhough there is evidence that she carelessly handled confidential email, but since she has power she got away. Why should she be treated different than any govt employee that mishandles confidential info? And the thing about those giving donations to Clinton foundation getting more meetings with her while she was secretary of state than others who didn't get that preferential treatment from her. I think Trump has more integrity than Clinton.
I'm not sure the Russians need to be involved in any way, given how much Hillary and Assange detest each other. Obsessive tweets in his case; a reported sardonic suggestion to "drone the guy" and more serious consideration of prosecuting him in hers.
The trouble with @Wikileaks obsessively and indiscriminately tweeting anti-Hillary leaks of greatly varying significance is that it tends to do a lot less damage than one or two really big revelations. I mean, it's really not Hillary's message and target audience I'm worried about when @Wikileaks tweets about her "private Jewish speech" when she - shock, horror - apparently observed that Saudis had exported a lot of extreme ideology in recent years...
> The trouble with @Wikileaks obsessively and indiscriminately tweeting anti-Hillary leaks
It also reduces peoples' trust in Wikileaks and the veracity of the information they release.
Wikileaks' reputation as a (mostly) "impartial" actor was one of their greatest assets, and they seem to be throwing that away simply to sate Assange's desire for revenge...
They don't show anything like that at all. Shame that Trump advocates sexually assaulting women though - perhaps that's his common ground with Assange?
So it's your opinion that because Trump is extremely bad, Clinton is immune to criticism? It doesn't matter if she also has problems?
Criticizing Clinton does not necessarily mean support for Trump. They are both terrible candidates, just in different ways. While Russia does seem to be pushing for Trump, criticism of Clinton's ties to Wall Street are another matter.
(That also does not imply some sort of false equivalency. When it's time to vote, a strategic vote for the lesser evil may be necessary, but that doesn't mean Clinton shouldn't be criticized for her own problems.)
I think he's saying that when you are locked down to a choice between a shit sandwich and a total shit storm with like 1 month to go throw away your grievances till 2020 and suck it up.
Doesn't mean I agree with this, tho I mostly do, at some point you need to realize that there is a time and place for criticism and this isn't it.
Then when IS it time to criticize her? Voting for her because she is the lesser evil doesn't mean she gets as free pass on criticism. That kind of dogmatic devotion is always a terrible idea and against the very idea of democracy. If Clinton doesn't want criticism, maybe she should expand her platform a bit and earn her votes.
Probably not a month before the election, there isn't dogmatic devotion, I'm not an American (I would be terribly concerned if I was).
But not now, it's too late to expand her platform to earn her votes, especially considering that if we face it everything that any politician will promise a month before the election is bollox, even Bernie would resort at the final mile to promising the world to win as anything else is irresponsible especially in this election.
If the majority of tweets on an entity's Twitter feed is dedicated to attacking Clinton for months on end whilst refraining from attacking the other candidate with a non-zero probability of becoming the next President, it's probably reasonable to assume they're indirectly supporting that other candidate, even if it's only because they consider the other candidate a lesser evil. It's not exactly as if many other sources for commentary and information on the US election that aren't explicitly supporting Trump have struggled to find archives of unfortunate things he's said or others have said about him either.
Every single media outlet in the US has been publishing at least one negative article about Trump/day and you want more?
I actually want to see less-biased media. I rarely see negative articles about Clinton and when the mainstream media covers something up, it's like they are all reading from the same playbook. The words are very similar.
The last set of wikileaks showed us that most of the mainstream media are an extension of the DNC. They first destroyed Sanders (an enemy of Clinton) and now they are trying to destroy Trump.
I also find it interesting that nobody cares that the majority of these Trump leaks are the result of illegal wiretapping. Yet, when there are wikileaks, we nees to focus on illegal russian hackers and not the content of the leaks.
It's scary to think that illegal activity is perfectly acceptable...as long as it is hurting someone you don't like.
Well, if wikileaks had any thing that shows Trump in a different light, like if he isn't what he claims to be, then am certain they would release damaging reports about Trump too. Wikileaks is not creating these evidences. Some people who sees discrepancy in what a politician says and what that politicians do in private(that concerns people being governed, not private things about their personal life), then people will release evidence of that discrepancy. If they have such discriminating evidence about Trump, then that will come out too. If Clinton is bad person than trump, then Clinton will have more skeletons in closet and chances of skeletons coming to public view is greater for Clinton than for Trump
I've only seen a few quotes from these leaked transcripts, but they've been in articles claiming very damaging statements. Instead, the quotes seem to be mostly benign comments and nothing shocking.
I've noted several negative reactions toward Clinton based on prior leaks from people who had simply inferred wrong-doing on the basis that the most notable leaks tend to reveal duplicity. This handful of people whom I have observed felt it unnecessary to actually delve into the documents before passing judgment.
Anecdotal, but I'm convinced I'm not the only person with this experience.
Did Clinton take money (either for herself or for her campaign or for her foundation, it doesn't matter which) from businesses that are canonical symbols of Wall Street money and power? Then she's tainted in the eyes of everybody that is against corporate influence on politics. The contents of the speech isn't particularly important, because it is the influence of money that matters.
Stop looking for traditional political "scandals", and start noticing the anti-corporate-power, anti-globalism revolt that is causing a lot of people to vote "anybody but the usual bribed politicians".
It is clear she took money from many people because they hired her to give a speech. This isn't really in debate. The core question is whether the money will influence her policies. Giving a speech doesn't mean you're bribed or influenced by default. The content of the speech is very important, so it's good we are seeing what was said.
> Giving a speech doesn't mean you're ... influenced by default.
No, but taking a large amount of money does. Even if you believe you aren't taking money for a "bribe" and maintain some level of independence in the actual content of your speech, there is a significant unconscious bias. If you want to get that kind of job again, you might not be as critical of the people paying you.
> The core question is whether the money will influence her policies.
Approach the question from the other side. No for-profit business is going to give large sums of money out without some expectation of a return on that investment. Someone is betting that they will be able to get more money having the ear of a politician than their other investment opportunities.
The anti-globalism revolt, for better or worse, has definitely been noticed by great many people here in the UK in the wake of the unfortunate referendum result in June!
Regarding corporate influence in politics, I'm a combination of too cynical, too ill-informed and too jaded to offer you any worthwhile thoughts on the matter, and therefore fear I will be wasting your time! It seems to me that entities who generate immense wealth have and will always wield influence in society and the mechanism by which it is brought into order (i.e. politics).
Human politics require the support of the governed. Democracies make this even more relevant, but it's always been true; no leadership can long survive being loathed by its people, even if particularly skillful ones have at times managed to stretch that time out. As a result, there is always a bit of stage play element to politics in which the politically active actors play to what they imagine the common audience will think, with varying levels of success depending on how well the people who are putting on the play manage to guess how the public will see the news, despite the fact that they are all almost by definition profoundly disconnected from the public.
Is anyone here really willing to stand up and say, "Yes, I was shocked by this recent news of Trump's comments?" Powerful men have always had access to pretty much whatever women they want. That's not unique to politics, it's not unique to our culture, it's not unique to the 20th or 21st century, it's literally the whole of human experience. (And beyond; it's true of all the primates, and quite a bit of mammalia.) The media frenzy isn't actual outrage... heck, the ringleaders of the outrage probably have personal direct experience that that is the case, and have probably at one moment of indiscretion or another said the same things themselves. But a show is put on, because it might sway the people.
Is there anyone here who is shocked, shocked by the idea that politicians have "a public and a private position", one of the leaked phrases from the putative transcripts? There may be some people out in the masses of voters who will be shocked by this, but by the same token that they would be shocked by this idea, they'll probably never hear about that quote either, so it's not much of an attack.
If you're being consistent, you really ought to admit that neither of these things is very interesting, and that there's not much about either of these thing that will change anybody's mind. The true believers on the relevant side will confirmation-bias their way through whichever of these stories tickles them, but it's very unlikely to sway much either way.
The most dangerous thing the Wikileaks story is merely that it might puncture the public persona of Clinton. The only remotely interesting email that I've seen pop up is this one: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/927 which goes a long way towards explaining why those speeches have not been released. There's nothing in there that ought to surprise an even remotely careful observer... but there are things in there that puncture the public persona of Clinton. Imagine Clinton reading the excerpt about being out-of-touch with the middle class this weekend. Of course she's out of touch with the middle class. The entirity of Washington DC's political class, Democrat and Republican, and of course Donald Trump are out of touch with the middle class. It can't really be any other way; there's no scenario where the leadership of the sole superpower of the world is living a middle-class life, the idea they can or should is basically absurd. But it's not quotes the campaign wants floating around for the voting masses to see.
I am equally sure that the Trump campaign would not care to see transcripts of its internal strategy sessions floating about either. The public is not meant to see the sausage being made.
It's not clear to me that the recent Trump news punctures much at all about his persona, what it gives people is a "fake because" to drop support if that's what they wanted: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/138214308881/the-fake-because (first bit, you can skip the rest if you like, havi...
"Mrs Clinton told bankers that they were best-placed to help reform the US financial sector" - which is true, but she failed to mention that was also the problem.
Bankers are in the best position to reform, but the most unlikely to provide meaningful reform.
So.. what is the worst that has come out of these speeches? Clinton probably withheld the speeches to disarm her opponents, not because she said something so outrageous that in itself would destroy her chances of presidency.
She needs Bernie Sanders' supporters but for these people the transcripts show that Clinton is the devil, friends with Wall Street, not trustworthy, etc.
So this is the result of a pretty recent hack. Publishing the speeches would've done a lot more harm early in the primaries, making it harder for Clinton to shift her emphasis (and occasionally positions) in response to Sanders.
You're assuming that whoever leaked this primarily wanted to harm Clinton but the alternative is that they want to help Trump, which is not the same thing. In the latter case, the timing is perfect.
It's pretty clear to me that Trump is the ideal Putin-like character. He just took out an entire political party like it was nothing. When he destroyed Jeb Bush with almost no effort, I was convinced that he would win the presidency, easily. My liberal friends thought I was crazy. But, at this point, there's nothing that can be done but enjoy the ride.
The US is an economic and military superpower that has been ripe for the taking for decades. It has a weak, fractured, and anemic culture and political environment. And, while internally its citizens bicker about the edge cases of wedge issues, it has been easy to inject Trojan horses and more political instability.
If Hillary had gotten knocked off in the primaries, there could be someone that is actually appealing running against him, rather than someone with near record unfavorability ratings. All the projections I've seen showed Bernie or even other darkhorse candidates like Biden polling much better in a head-to-head matchup against Trump.
I like Bernie, but he had absolutely no chance of winning the primary. In the few states that he won, he only won because of how the primaries were structured. The democrats never took him seriously.
Does anyone think that if the corporate news media, owned almost exclusively by avid Clinton supporters, would hold anything back on Trump if they had it? Maybe there's just more data on Clinton, dirty or clean.
It's amazing how quickly they blame Russia. Russia may be a shrewd international manipulator, but that doesn't mean that every time data come out on the Clintons, they're from some 400 pound dude in the Kremlin.
Have people considered that Trump has had considerably less public interaction, and is not tied to as many organizations as Hillary is? I mean, there could be lots of good reasons why all the dirt we can find is on her.
"Does anyone think that if the corporate news media, owned almost exclusively by avid Clinton supporters, would hold anything back on Trump if they had it? Maybe there's just more data on Clinton, dirty or clean.".
It is all a matter of timing releases for maximal impact or damage control, so yes, they hold back data until it is needed. Do you think the timing of the Trump sexist video release is coincidental and unrelated to these Clinton speech releases?
What I've seen of the Trump soundbites is pretty tame, if people are going to be honest and cut the hypocritical faux outrage. Moreover, it seems like an idiotic angle to play if it was orchestrated by Clinton's camp, given old Billy's escapades over the years.
>Have people considered that Trump has had considerably less public interaction, and is not tied to as many organizations as Hillary is? I mean, there could be lots of good reasons why all the dirt we can find is on her.
Trump is a billionaire globalist, an elite among elites. He's been a celebrity for decades, embroiled in countless public scandals and lawsuits, and this isn't even his first Presidential run. His attack surface is as vast as his ego.
> I mean, there could be lots of good reasons why all the dirt we can find is on her.
I think your apparent conflation of "all the dirt Wikileaks publishes" with "all the dirt we can find" is in error, or at least can't be substantiated.
Perhaps some people are simply dismissing what "dirt" there is on Trump (there's plenty) as being smear tactics and lies manufactured by the "Clinton owned news media," and assuming the "dirt" on Clinton is far more damaging than it actually is?
Or perhaps Trump and his supporters are simply more effective at propagandizing through social media than Clinton?
Meta-question, is this considered on-topic for HN? I wonder how it is distinguished from another notable leak about another candidate that hasn't made the front page.
It just depends on the amount of user flags and whether there is a relative lot of comments (when points < comments "flame war" detector is usually triggered).
Nothing game changing, but she's obviously very happy with the current status of this--great economy, and our wonderful foreign leaders. These fair, moralistic, truthful, immune to corruption Foreign leaders.
"My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders,"
Yes--it worked well for her, and the wealthy.
It hasen't helped me much? Oh, wait----I'm waiting on 6 X 6v halogen bulbs for my microscope. They are coming from China. It's been 26 days. They cost me $9.99. Free shipping picked up by the Chinese government. If I get them; I will have benefitted! Yea!
"Mrs Clinton told bankers that they were best-placed to help reform the US financial sector."
Oh really? Banks won't lend to me. They raised my fees to jaw dropping levels. I sometimes wonder why I even have a bank account.
I probally won't vote this year. I don't think it will matter who gets into office. Part of myself is hoping for Trump. He will throughly piss everyone off, and maybe we can regain some democtractic congressional seats?
As to the all important Supreme Court nominees; just because they go in conservative, doesn't mean they won't do a bed flip while in office? History has proved this, or at least that's what Dr. Helbright said in political Science 101 in that hot classroom years ago. I did double check his claim, at the time. Why did that conservative justice (Robert's) save Obamacare? They are not robots. They seem to get more understanding with age? It's not so black/white when in their glory days, with the exception of Clarance Thomas. He is quite the consistent guy?
I'm not a Rebublican, or Democrat. I'm still waiting for the right party/person. And it's not that other idiot. Forget his name, but my goodness--is he fried, or just ------?
"After the dust has settled in this election, the divisions within the Democratic ranks will likely re-emerge" -- as a lifelong democract/progressive I can say honestly that the divisions have NOT been mended for this election.
I'm supporting Jill Stein even though I feel she's a little over the top personality wise and a little odd. Bernie was the right amount of crazy progressive while working within the confines of what he was given. I will never support another Democrat until the party is ripped a part or totally reformed. Case closed. The only exception are ones that run under against trade, have strong climate change policies, and are against corporate money and corruption in politics.
We desperately need to pass the anti-corruption act on a national level getting all corporate donations out of politics. Money is a 'vote' and corporations should not have a say it's "we the people" not "we the corporations and a few people who we allow to matter".
71 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 126 ms ] threadAs far as I can see the leaks are not corruption evidence of some sort.
Disclaimer I'm away from politics and US.
It's not quite the same faultlines as the classic Slatestarcodex Blue and Red tribes, but it's the same principle
It may not damage the Clinton campaign, though, because Trump's womanizing talk came out the same day and is attracting more attention.
This election season has a scandal-of-the-week feel to it, and many Americans are looking forward to it being over already.
This is the environment where populist movements arise, which are not tied to traditional right/left politics. Hence the rise of populists like Trump, anti-establishment reactions like brexit, and a long list of similar movements that have been popping up around the world.
For a good explanation of this (with charts!), see Mark Blyth's recent lecture[1].
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bkm2Vfj42FY
There are very strong arguments that what's holiding back economic potential and equality is not more itereations of NAFTA or WTO talks -- global import/export trade is already a phenomenal amount of all commerce. Price savings, where they're realised, seem to be based more on wage depression and raping the environment than real gains in per-worker prodictivity or comparative advantage. Worse, the current round of international agreements being shopped as "trade pacts" are far more in the style of power grabs for corporate and oligarchical interests, including ever more regressive copyright, trademark, and patent laws, a two-tier courts system through ISDS, and numerous actions which will raise prices through increased corporate profits rather than wages.
There's a long list of economists and other experts opposed to the TPP, TTIP, BITS, and TiSA treaties, including Nobel Prize laureate Joseph Stiglitz, Tony Atkinson, former US Labour Secretary Robert Reich, and anti-poverty crusader Jeffrey Sachs, among many others. I've been making something of a sport of posting TPP and related items to my G+ profile over the past few months -- Google support the TPP.
For tech issues, see the EFF's explainer: https://eff.org/issues/tpp
Are they in-directly supporting Trump ?
I am far from USA and although who will be the next president most likely will affect everyone, I do not care that much for either one of them.
It is just strange for the russians to push so much for Trump and WikiLeaks are somehow assisting them.
It should be made clear that I am neither a US citizen nor a Trump supporter. Huge emphasis on the latter!
Admittedly, coverage during the primaries hailed Trump as the anti-establishment political maverick that would redefine the GOP. At the time, the coverage was nauseatingly positive and, at the very worst, ambivalent. The media coverage on Clinton, on the other hand, was clearly confrontational (perhaps because she was the "incumbent" candidate). This sort of coverage has elicited some soul-searching among journalists and mass media based on the logic that the media infatuated with The Donald and gleefully collaborated in his political ascendance (yes, Trump is a colorful man, but, truth be told, he is far worse things as a person, a subject that has been prominently covered).
And this brings me to the second point. The recent turn in Trump's media coverage (in terms of tone at least) is also fueled by his numerous scandals, mistakes, and missteps. It is beyond me when the tone really became adversarial (perhaps after the nomination when the attention shifted to him and there was a long overdue re-calibration in how the media engages with his campaign). In truth, this is a referendum for or against Trump and this argument is further compounded by the fact that staunch and prominent Republicans are abandoning their party's flag bearer in support (more or less) of Clinton (this is unprecedented considering the vitriolic opposition that the party and its supporters have for the Clintons.
While it can be argued that media coverage has shifted in Clinton's favor (mostly due to Trump's own fault as an individual and presidential candidate), the same cannot be said of Wikileaks whose agenda from the very beginning has been admittedly pro-Trump. Wikileaks is partisan and this, while not a disqualifier in of itself, says a lot about its motivations in releasing leaks that paint a non-flattering picture of the Clinton campaign.
That said, these transcripts do not reveal a lot that is new about Clinton as has been noted by other commenters here (except, perhaps, for the fact that she says political leaders need to have private and public positions on policy matters) and her campaign has already been vindicated by the administration's admission that there is a political motive behind the leaks. The political ramifications of these leaks may not be as dramatic (the fodder that they afford her opponents has been unsuccessfully utilized by her foe-turned-apologist Sanders) as Trump's recent bombshell video leak of supposed "locker room banter."
1. News Coverage of the 2016 Presidential Primaries: Horse Race Reporting Has Consequences (http://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-presidential...)
2. A deep dive into the news media’s role in the rise of Donald J. Trump (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/06/2...)
It's flawed in that it assumes that equal amounts of such information exist. When Trump shoots some grandmother in the face, people expect equal prominence for "Hillary came to my house and left the bathroom light on".
Parts of the news media have been bending over backwards to avoid the appearance of partisanship, which gave us the endless faux-scandal regarding her mailserver.
The same principle leads to news media sometimes creating the impression that global warming is some sort of scientific debate, because they feel the need to give equal billing to the doubters while reality is 99-1 lopsided.
Trump may actually have a positive impact in the end, in that he may stretch the concept until it breaks. Indeed we can see it breaking down in the last few weeks with, for example, newspapers publishing harsh editorials and endorsements against him whereas they remained quite in previous elections.
If the current trend could continue for another six months, we'd see every article in every newspaper end with "cetero censeo Trump delende est"
https://theintercept.com/2016/08/06/accusing-wikileaks-bias-...
As to why there's nothing on Trump, it may be anything. Actual support indeed, or just no documents coming up on the republic party.
Why does it have to be a conspiracy that they're trying to help Trump? He's beaten up in the news everyday. He doesn't seem to need any help getting into trouble.
Is there any real, substantial proof the Russians support Wikileaks?
>Are they in-directly supporting Trump ?
Yes. I doubt that Wikileaks, Trump and Russia are actively conspiring towards Trump's election, it just happens that the goals of the Republican Party, Russia and Julian Assange all happen to neatly correlate - Trump wants to be elected, Russia would rather Trump than Clinton was elected, and Assange wants Clinton to not get elected.
All that requires is from Wikileaks is a willingness to publish anything that even appears damaging to one party and nothing damaging to the other. Luckily for Trump, anything published by Wikileaks appears damaging by default, because people assume a level of impartiality and due diligence on their part that they may not really be engaged in.
The fact alone that there are leaks related to the Democrats and not the Republicans will lead people to assume that the Democrats are more corrupt, and the Republicans more trustworthy.
[0]https://theintercept.com/2016/08/06/accusing-wikileaks-bias-...
The trouble with @Wikileaks obsessively and indiscriminately tweeting anti-Hillary leaks of greatly varying significance is that it tends to do a lot less damage than one or two really big revelations. I mean, it's really not Hillary's message and target audience I'm worried about when @Wikileaks tweets about her "private Jewish speech" when she - shock, horror - apparently observed that Saudis had exported a lot of extreme ideology in recent years...
It also reduces peoples' trust in Wikileaks and the veracity of the information they release.
Wikileaks' reputation as a (mostly) "impartial" actor was one of their greatest assets, and they seem to be throwing that away simply to sate Assange's desire for revenge...
So it's your opinion that because Trump is extremely bad, Clinton is immune to criticism? It doesn't matter if she also has problems?
Criticizing Clinton does not necessarily mean support for Trump. They are both terrible candidates, just in different ways. While Russia does seem to be pushing for Trump, criticism of Clinton's ties to Wall Street are another matter.
(That also does not imply some sort of false equivalency. When it's time to vote, a strategic vote for the lesser evil may be necessary, but that doesn't mean Clinton shouldn't be criticized for her own problems.)
Doesn't mean I agree with this, tho I mostly do, at some point you need to realize that there is a time and place for criticism and this isn't it.
I actually want to see less-biased media. I rarely see negative articles about Clinton and when the mainstream media covers something up, it's like they are all reading from the same playbook. The words are very similar.
The last set of wikileaks showed us that most of the mainstream media are an extension of the DNC. They first destroyed Sanders (an enemy of Clinton) and now they are trying to destroy Trump.
I also find it interesting that nobody cares that the majority of these Trump leaks are the result of illegal wiretapping. Yet, when there are wikileaks, we nees to focus on illegal russian hackers and not the content of the leaks.
It's scary to think that illegal activity is perfectly acceptable...as long as it is hurting someone you don't like.
Anecdotal, but I'm convinced I'm not the only person with this experience.
Did Clinton take money (either for herself or for her campaign or for her foundation, it doesn't matter which) from businesses that are canonical symbols of Wall Street money and power? Then she's tainted in the eyes of everybody that is against corporate influence on politics. The contents of the speech isn't particularly important, because it is the influence of money that matters.
Stop looking for traditional political "scandals", and start noticing the anti-corporate-power, anti-globalism revolt that is causing a lot of people to vote "anybody but the usual bribed politicians".
No, but taking a large amount of money does. Even if you believe you aren't taking money for a "bribe" and maintain some level of independence in the actual content of your speech, there is a significant unconscious bias. If you want to get that kind of job again, you might not be as critical of the people paying you.
> The core question is whether the money will influence her policies.
Approach the question from the other side. No for-profit business is going to give large sums of money out without some expectation of a return on that investment. Someone is betting that they will be able to get more money having the ear of a politician than their other investment opportunities.
Regarding corporate influence in politics, I'm a combination of too cynical, too ill-informed and too jaded to offer you any worthwhile thoughts on the matter, and therefore fear I will be wasting your time! It seems to me that entities who generate immense wealth have and will always wield influence in society and the mechanism by which it is brought into order (i.e. politics).
Is anyone here really willing to stand up and say, "Yes, I was shocked by this recent news of Trump's comments?" Powerful men have always had access to pretty much whatever women they want. That's not unique to politics, it's not unique to our culture, it's not unique to the 20th or 21st century, it's literally the whole of human experience. (And beyond; it's true of all the primates, and quite a bit of mammalia.) The media frenzy isn't actual outrage... heck, the ringleaders of the outrage probably have personal direct experience that that is the case, and have probably at one moment of indiscretion or another said the same things themselves. But a show is put on, because it might sway the people.
Is there anyone here who is shocked, shocked by the idea that politicians have "a public and a private position", one of the leaked phrases from the putative transcripts? There may be some people out in the masses of voters who will be shocked by this, but by the same token that they would be shocked by this idea, they'll probably never hear about that quote either, so it's not much of an attack.
If you're being consistent, you really ought to admit that neither of these things is very interesting, and that there's not much about either of these thing that will change anybody's mind. The true believers on the relevant side will confirmation-bias their way through whichever of these stories tickles them, but it's very unlikely to sway much either way.
The most dangerous thing the Wikileaks story is merely that it might puncture the public persona of Clinton. The only remotely interesting email that I've seen pop up is this one: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/927 which goes a long way towards explaining why those speeches have not been released. There's nothing in there that ought to surprise an even remotely careful observer... but there are things in there that puncture the public persona of Clinton. Imagine Clinton reading the excerpt about being out-of-touch with the middle class this weekend. Of course she's out of touch with the middle class. The entirity of Washington DC's political class, Democrat and Republican, and of course Donald Trump are out of touch with the middle class. It can't really be any other way; there's no scenario where the leadership of the sole superpower of the world is living a middle-class life, the idea they can or should is basically absurd. But it's not quotes the campaign wants floating around for the voting masses to see.
I am equally sure that the Trump campaign would not care to see transcripts of its internal strategy sessions floating about either. The public is not meant to see the sausage being made.
It's not clear to me that the recent Trump news punctures much at all about his persona, what it gives people is a "fake because" to drop support if that's what they wanted: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/138214308881/the-fake-because (first bit, you can skip the rest if you like, havi...
Bankers are in the best position to reform, but the most unlikely to provide meaningful reform.
edit: formatting, emoticon removal
I dislike conspiracy theories, but lately I've actually been wondering if something really heavy has been brewing in the basement of the illuminati.
The US is an economic and military superpower that has been ripe for the taking for decades. It has a weak, fractured, and anemic culture and political environment. And, while internally its citizens bicker about the edge cases of wedge issues, it has been easy to inject Trojan horses and more political instability.
edit 1: It is however on their websites. The Clinton campaign was smart to counter attack. I still would expect them to cover this on tv, though.
edit 2: CNN is covering it now.
It's amazing how quickly they blame Russia. Russia may be a shrewd international manipulator, but that doesn't mean that every time data come out on the Clintons, they're from some 400 pound dude in the Kremlin.
Have people considered that Trump has had considerably less public interaction, and is not tied to as many organizations as Hillary is? I mean, there could be lots of good reasons why all the dirt we can find is on her.
Trump is a billionaire globalist, an elite among elites. He's been a celebrity for decades, embroiled in countless public scandals and lawsuits, and this isn't even his first Presidential run. His attack surface is as vast as his ego.
> I mean, there could be lots of good reasons why all the dirt we can find is on her.
I think your apparent conflation of "all the dirt Wikileaks publishes" with "all the dirt we can find" is in error, or at least can't be substantiated.
Perhaps some people are simply dismissing what "dirt" there is on Trump (there's plenty) as being smear tactics and lies manufactured by the "Clinton owned news media," and assuming the "dirt" on Clinton is far more damaging than it actually is?
Or perhaps Trump and his supporters are simply more effective at propagandizing through social media than Clinton?
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/784572142444740615
P.S. I recommend https://news.ycombinator.com/active for the biggest discussions.
"My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders,"
Yes--it worked well for her, and the wealthy.
It hasen't helped me much? Oh, wait----I'm waiting on 6 X 6v halogen bulbs for my microscope. They are coming from China. It's been 26 days. They cost me $9.99. Free shipping picked up by the Chinese government. If I get them; I will have benefitted! Yea!
"Mrs Clinton told bankers that they were best-placed to help reform the US financial sector."
Oh really? Banks won't lend to me. They raised my fees to jaw dropping levels. I sometimes wonder why I even have a bank account.
I probally won't vote this year. I don't think it will matter who gets into office. Part of myself is hoping for Trump. He will throughly piss everyone off, and maybe we can regain some democtractic congressional seats?
As to the all important Supreme Court nominees; just because they go in conservative, doesn't mean they won't do a bed flip while in office? History has proved this, or at least that's what Dr. Helbright said in political Science 101 in that hot classroom years ago. I did double check his claim, at the time. Why did that conservative justice (Robert's) save Obamacare? They are not robots. They seem to get more understanding with age? It's not so black/white when in their glory days, with the exception of Clarance Thomas. He is quite the consistent guy?
I'm not a Rebublican, or Democrat. I'm still waiting for the right party/person. And it's not that other idiot. Forget his name, but my goodness--is he fried, or just ------?
I'm supporting Jill Stein even though I feel she's a little over the top personality wise and a little odd. Bernie was the right amount of crazy progressive while working within the confines of what he was given. I will never support another Democrat until the party is ripped a part or totally reformed. Case closed. The only exception are ones that run under against trade, have strong climate change policies, and are against corporate money and corruption in politics.
We desperately need to pass the anti-corruption act on a national level getting all corporate donations out of politics. Money is a 'vote' and corporations should not have a say it's "we the people" not "we the corporations and a few people who we allow to matter".