Top 10 revelations from Shillary email dumps (so far...)

[DMC]

I don't necessarily question the veracity of most of this stuff, but if this is as real as depicted, I have to question what the is the GOP doing?

Are they asleep at the wheel? Are they doing it too and their emails don't leak? It's not like they don't have their own 'soros' in the likes of the Kochs and Adelsons...

This is utter political domination. Then again, maybe a lot of these outlets realized a long time ago that Trump is just another unelectable candidate and are hurrying to gain favor with the likely next administration.

You see something that indicates group X is corrupt, so you are concerned about the corruption instead of group Y. I don't get it. Why not worry about group Y when you get some reports or evidence group Y has done something?

I mean, I get the likely symmetry of the two parties where corruption is concerned.

Media has a liberal bias and with Trump it's liberal bias on steroids because Trump represents an unknown with no party control over him. He's ing dangerous as , and I think the media organizations realize it. Kicking a press member out because they wrote about you is a good way to endear yourself to the press.

Plus Hillary has spent her life sucking up to the media. Donald has spent his life sucking up to people like Hillary.

[ElNono]

You see something that indicates group X is corrupt, so you are concerned about the corruption instead of group Y. I don't get it. Why not worry about group Y when you get some reports or evidence group Y has done something?

I mean, I get the likely symmetry of the two parties where corruption is concerned.

Media has a liberal bias and with Trump it's liberal bias on steroids because Trump represents an unknown with no party control over him. He's ing dangerous as , and I think the media organizations realize it. Kicking a press member out because they wrote about you is a good way to endear yourself to the press.

Plus Hillary has spent her life sucking up to the media. Donald has spent his life sucking up to people like Hillary.

My analysis is from the optics of a game to take over power. I don't doubt for a minute there's money exchanging hands, favors, made up bull , and a lot of the stuff mentioned in the article, and then some. The stakes are huge, only the naive would think either side won't do anything in their power, bordering the illegal, and if necessary even stepping through that line. I don't doubt it for a minute. The concern is probably more about what can come out and how it would look than actually the fact that was done.

I mentioned this before, but Shillary is such at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to trustworthiness and respectability, both as a politico and a person, I don't even think stories that try to further diminish her on that aspect hurt her anymore.

I'm actually pretty mad at the GOP for picking a guy that's probably one of the very few candidates that can actually manage to lose to her. And reading stories like this take me back to their 2012 election post-mortem, when they talked about building a serious IT department and digital infrastructure (and many other things they likely forgot about, like catering to women and minorities). I said a few years ago I wanted the GOP to win this election merely in the interest of democracy. Pendulum swings are healthy for it, it removes power entrenchment, but I continue to get baffled by the sheer incompetence of the GOP when it comes to something as basic as picking an electable candidate. Like I said before, stories like this also cast doubt if they actually listen or will ever learn from their own criticism. And that's really my concern. Barring major news, we're now looking at 12 years in the executive for the Dems, and I'm actually seriously wondering if the GOP is actually going to get their together for the next run, because 8 years of Shillary would be just too much.

(And BTW, the Democratic party should also be learning a lesson about this, even if they manage to win)

And apologies if this sounds like an empty take on media bias. I've talked about it before, and my opinion was always largely that media won't outright win you or lose you an election, if you have a solid candidate that hit the right notes (or you have a terrible in bent that casts a long shadow over you or your party), those are probably way bigger tipping points in the overall, IMO. Now this election in particular, with the amazing suckitude and low bar of candidates, you could sell me that the media might be the tipping point.

[rmt]

Remember that the majority of Americans are not following the news the way this board is. Most probably don't even know who Pence and Kaine are and have just been tuning in these past few weeks (just in case for Trump's bad weeks :-)

IMO, government (both sides) has been so bad and so corrupt - you can see it as #1 fear in the other post - that's what has carried (an honest/sincere) Bernie and an outsider like Trump so in that sense it's not the repub establishment's fault - the voters just voted against them.

[mingus]

I'm happy to have a long discussion over the role of journalists and what cons utes collusion.

My point here is that this is common practice with politicians, athletes, celebrities, basically anyone who is interviewed for news content. So it's not much of a story as far as Hillary is concerned (though it will probably cast doubt on the neutrality of the journalist.)

I get athletes & celebrities but I can't believe you'd lump politics in there with them.

Also, IMO there's collusion whether intended or unintended on the part of politicians & "journalists" everywhere. Pundits on the left & right (usually far right/left) have their own bases that they regurgitate into the ass of their headless listeners/watchers, the Limbaughs, the Coulters, & too many to name on the left. The news media is supposed to make sense of the complexities of the world politics in this sense, but all it's doing is rendering it black & white.

[boutons_deux]

"GOP to win this election merely in the interest of democracy"

holy GOP? democracy?

democracy is, has been totally dead in USA.

holy GOP? democracy?

GOP is ripped now by its own decades-long cultivated, lied-to base of assholes who are REVOLTING because the GOP has not delivered what they want, "democratically" voted for.

[pgardn]

I get athletes & celebrities but I can't believe you'd lump politics in there with them.

Also, IMO there's collusion whether intended or unintended on the part of politicians & "journalists" everywhere. Pundits on the left & right (usually far right/left) have their own bases that they regurgitate into the ass of their headless listeners/watchers, the Limbaughs, the Coulters, & too many to name on the left. The news media is supposed to make sense of the complexities of the world politics in this sense, but all it's doing is rendering it black & white.

So you don't think any news outlet has any journalists that want to get an accurate story. You don't think there is any reason to attempt to give the most accurate description possible? I think you are wrong. In an age of information, it is a compe ive advantage to give and seek accurate information. Everyone has some internal bias...But seeking accuracy,rather than an agenda, is a huge advantage. If you wish to be correct.

Even news outlets that have an agenda attempt to give accurate information that fits their agenda on occasion. Giving accurate information damning to the opposition is very useful.

This is one of many subjects that people wish to repeat because it is popular now. One candidate has tried to make the story of America falling apart and totally biased into a blanket theme that is hugely inaccurate. The other candidate has clearly tried to project power to hide her process of muscling a system. Of purposefully using lawyers to push boundaries of legality and feigning ignorance.

Many people are perfectly aware of the above but choose to emphasize one or another. And of course the paragraph above could use additions... They have been and will be supplied.

[DMC]

My analysis is from the optics of a game to take over power. I don't doubt for a minute there's money exchanging hands, favors, made up bull , and a lot of the stuff mentioned in the article, and then some. The stakes are huge, only the naive would think either side won't do anything in their power, bordering the illegal, and if necessary even stepping through that line. I don't doubt it for a minute. The concern is probably more about what can come out and how it would look than actually the fact that was done.

I mentioned this before, but Shillary is such at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to trustworthiness and respectability, both as a politico and a person, I don't even think stories that try to further diminish her on that aspect hurt her anymore.

I'm actually pretty mad at the GOP for picking a guy that's probably one of the very few candidates that can actually manage to lose to her. And reading stories like this take me back to their 2012 election post-mortem, when they talked about building a serious IT department and digital infrastructure (and many other things they likely forgot about, like catering to women and minorities). I said a few years ago I wanted the GOP to win this election merely in the interest of democracy. Pendulum swings are healthy for it, it removes power entrenchment, but I continue to get baffled by the sheer incompetence of the GOP when it comes to something as basic as picking an electable candidate. Like I said before, stories like this also cast doubt if they actually listen or will ever learn from their own criticism. And that's really my concern. Barring major news, we're now looking at 12 years in the executive for the Dems, and I'm actually seriously wondering if the GOP is actually going to get their together for the next run, because 8 years of Shillary would be just too much.

(And BTW, the Democratic party should also be learning a lesson about this, even if they manage to win)

And apologies if this sounds like an empty take on media bias. I've talked about it before, and my opinion was always largely that media won't outright win you or lose you an election, if you have a solid candidate that hit the right notes (or you have a terrible in bent that casts a long shadow over you or your party), those are probably way bigger tipping points in the overall, IMO. Now this election in particular, with the amazing suckitude and low bar of candidates, you could sell me that the media might be the tipping point.

The majority of Americans never attend a rally. They get all of their information about a candidate from the media. Of course they can swing an election. Otherwise these candidates wouldn't spend years gathering funds to pay for advertising. When large media outlets paint a candidate in a negative or positive light more often than not, they are basically giving free political ads away for one candidate. After all, political ads are mostly bashing a compe or and elevating the candidate.

Hillary was the first lady, and that somehow qualified her for a State Department job and got her elected senator. She had enough free press over the past 30 years to not even need to campaign. Trump had his own show, a reality TV type thing, and he's a figure that is often in the press. Like Hillary he has basically zero qualifications to be the POTUS. No one knows who the 3rd and 4th party goobers are. That's because they get no press.