Author Topic: Wikileaks once again delivers what traditional media couldn't/wouldn't.  (Read 15388 times)

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37595047

Transcripts of Clinton Wall Street speeches.

In a shocking turn of events, Clinton thinks we really need to listen to the bankers on how to fix their industry.


AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
So far much ado about very little.  First, there is the strong possibility that the Podesta emails weren't authentic, or had been tampered with, so they are not credible on their face.  Snippets of what she is purported to have said taken out of context don't carry a lot of weight, either.  Why are we trying to make this into a real story?

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Honestly the fact that she is talking about their industry as needing fixing to them is somewhat a good thing.  That a politician says we are going to listen to you as to how to fix the problems, the isn't a much softer promise from a politician than that.  I don't see to much that is going to significantly damage her there.  It's not like she said that 47% percent of the country are a bunch of moochers or that I often sexually assault women but its ok b/c I'm a celebrity.  Had the content of her speeches been great job guys just wait til I'm president then you'll really be able to rake in the big bucks, that would be really damaging.  There is a problem here I want to listen and work with you to fix it is basically good people/management skills.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
I have been somewhat surprised that if transcripts existed they weren't released in full. I had previously assumed she never gave any concrete speeches, as such, but if she has and they were recorded what's with this weird release?

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
I never doubted that she had made speeches, I just figured that the reason she refused to release transcripts was because the things she had said would be more likely to be appreciated by right wingers then left, and when the issue came up in the primaries she was having trouble with progressives already.

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Clinton could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and it would be much ado about nothing to you, Al.

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
So far much ado about very little.  First, there is the strong possibility that the Podesta emails weren't authentic, or had been tampered with, so they are not credible on their face.  Snippets of what she is purported to have said taken out of context don't carry a lot of weight, either.  Why are we trying to make this into a real story?

Why do you say there is a strong possibility? Because the Clinton camp tried to imply it? Or because it's so very unlikely that Clinton is sympathetic to the financial industry? *laughs*

Nobody has to try to make this a story. It IS a story. You may want to try and sweep it under the rug and talk about how there is nothing to see here, but it matters to plenty of people.

Once again, the financial industry and the 1 percent have the full backing of both presidential candidates. Considering the damage that the financial sector has done, I'm not going to ignore that, and I'm not going to let it fade into the background noise.

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
"In April 2015 the New York Times published a story about a company called "Uranium One" which was sold to Russian government-controlled interests, giving Russia effective control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for the production of nuclear weapons, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of US government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off the deal was the State Department, then headed by Secretary Clinton. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) comprises, among others, the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy.

As Russian interests gradually took control of Uranium One millions of dollars were donated to the Clinton Foundation between 2009 and 2013 from individuals directly connected to the deal including the Chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer. Although Mrs Clinton had an agreement with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors to the Clinton Foundation, the contributions from the Chairman of Uranium One were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons."

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
The general reaction to the Uranium One story seems to generally be something like "huh, whatever." I've always found that odd, considering the minutiae some people do think is important.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks once again delivers what traditional media couldn't/wouldn't.
« Reply #10 on: October 09, 2016, 07:37:03 AM »
Clinton could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and it would be much ado about nothing to you, Al.
Is Yossarian tainted because he says basically the same thing I am?  FWIW, I think some Republicans would thank her if she shot Trump.

I guess I can't say how "strong" the question about authenticity is, but here is one commentary on that:
Quote
The latest release from WikiLeaks, a collection of emails supposedly hacked from the account of Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, is getting very little public attention due to the fact that it contains nothing particularly scandalous to begin with, and the fact that it was released just as Donald Trump’s campaign was imploding in a sexual assault scandal. But those who have examined the Clinton email dump have found something fascinating: several of the emails aren’t real, and aren’t even good forgeries.

Malcolm Nance, a U.S. intelligence expert and MSNBC analyst, has issued what he’s calling an “official warning.” He’s reporting that the emails in question “already proving to be riddled with obvious forgeries” and goes on to add that they’re “not even professionally done.” Nance announced his conclusion via Twitter just a few hours after the supposed emails were released. MSNBC host Joy-Ann Reid retweeted his warning, adding “FYI” to her own audience.
I don't know what an "official warning" is, either.  But assuming the emails are completely authentic, they don't contain all that much, so there isn't much to ado about.

Has anyone else noticed that all of the hacks are against Democrats?  Why are there no hacked peeks behind the curtains of the RNC or any Republicans?
« Last Edit: October 09, 2016, 07:46:33 AM by AI Wessex »

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks once again delivers what traditional media couldn't/wouldn't.
« Reply #11 on: October 09, 2016, 08:23:06 AM »
I would be just as pleased if the RNC and Republicans were also getting hacked. It's a shame that they're not. But half a good thing is better then none.

Yossarian gets a pass because he's not nearly as quick to go into partisan hack mode whenever someone so much as mutters a negative thing about HRC. Those voters Trump was talking about in that quote? The ones who would vote for him literally no matter what? You're an example of the liberal version.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks once again delivers what traditional media couldn't/wouldn't.
« Reply #12 on: October 09, 2016, 09:02:20 AM »
Has anyone else noticed that all of the hacks are against Democrats?  Why are there no hacked peeks behind the curtains of the RNC or any Republicans?

Because the Republican emails aren't news. Chances are good it would prove the RNC hates Trump and had been working to try to undermine him. Much like what happened with Bernie. But as the Republicans were pretty open about that in the first place, along with everything else Trump, it does nothing in terms of meaningfully changing the situation. Therefore, the Russians gain nothing by demonstrating they have access to both sides, so they don't.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks once again delivers what traditional media couldn't/wouldn't.
« Reply #13 on: October 09, 2016, 09:49:28 AM »
Quote
The ones who would vote for him literally no matter what? You're an example of the liberal version.
In a contest against Trump you are exactly correct.  It's likely that I would vote for any Democrat who would have run against any of the 17 original Republican contenders, but that doesn't mean that I always vote Democrat.  I did vote for Snyder in Michigan the first time around, and I can think of one or two other Republicans who I could consider voting for.  But bearing in mind that any and all Republicans are tied to their own Party by loyalty and the Republican Party itself has policies that are destructive to the country's well-being, it's a hard press to get me to opt for one of them in a head-to-head race against a tolerable Democrat.  Hillary is tolerable, and even much better than that, but far from perfect.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks once again delivers what traditional media couldn't/wouldn't.
« Reply #14 on: October 09, 2016, 09:52:57 AM »
Has anyone else noticed that all of the hacks are against Democrats?  Why are there no hacked peeks behind the curtains of the RNC or any Republicans?

Because the Republican emails aren't news. Chances are good it would prove the RNC hates Trump and had been working to try to undermine him. Much like what happened with Bernie. But as the Republicans were pretty open about that in the first place, along with everything else Trump, it does nothing in terms of meaningfully changing the situation. Therefore, the Russians gain nothing by demonstrating they have access to both sides, so they don't.
I don't buy this.  There are incredible connections between members of the GOP, their donors, Wall Street, foreign adventurism and violations of our so-called principles of democracy.  Trump is a buffoon, but you haven't answered the question of why aren't surreptitious actors exposing those things like they are working so hard to do about Clinton?

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks once again delivers what traditional media couldn't/wouldn't.
« Reply #15 on: October 09, 2016, 10:53:50 AM »
It's one thing to say that you're going to vote for someone no matter what, because of the alternative. It's another thing to go into "even her *censored* doesn't stink," mode over it. I support Clinton over Trump. I just have no illusions that based upon what I would like in a candidate, that she is desirable.

And if some GOP connected group was found out to be behind the hacks, what difference would it make? The things in them are true or they're not, and if they are, then I don't really care who put them out there.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks once again delivers what traditional media couldn't/wouldn't.
« Reply #16 on: October 09, 2016, 11:01:02 AM »
Was anyone shocked or even a little surprised by what was leaked of Clinton's speeches?  Granted I've only read a few highlights, but it didn't seem that "bad".  If it's going to do any damage it's to further disillusion the anti-wall street Sander's supporters who were still on the fence about voting for her. 

While it confirms some of what I think about her, there was no "October surprise" in that leak.  If it wasn't for the challenge from Sanders, I think they would have released these long ago so that the grumbling had passed by now. 

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks once again delivers what traditional media couldn't/wouldn't.
« Reply #17 on: October 09, 2016, 11:07:37 AM »
The biggest reveal to me was Hillary's notion that it is fine to have "private and public positions".

Donald Trump is a pig but you pretty much know what you are getting. He is also a liar but he's not lying about most of his important positions like the wall, deporting criminal illegals, being for fair trade and not free trade, his Supreme Court list, etc.

Hillary on the other hand is point blank lying about what she intends to do once elected, at least to a greater extent than Trump. She even admits it in her secret speeches. I suppose for most of her followers it's not a big deal but she is trying to fly under the radar with the independent and undecided vote and not telling them what they are really getting.

For instance, Al and others have been saying for a long time that she has never said anything about taking our guns away but one secret speech revealed that she in fact said the Supreme Court got it wrong in the Heller decision, meaning she believes you don't have a 2nd Amendment right to own a handgun in your home. To a lot of people that's kind of a big deal.

Most of her voters understand she is a gun grabber and love her for it and that's fine, but it's not right to try to trick the ones to whom the issue matters into voting for her and then give them a huge surprise after the election by turning them all into criminals for doing something that is perfectly legal right now.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2016, 11:12:22 AM by cherrypoptart »

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks once again delivers what traditional media couldn't/wouldn't.
« Reply #18 on: October 09, 2016, 11:11:12 AM »
It's a LITTLE interesting that she was naive enough to say that out loud with the expectation it wouldn't get out. 

That is fact, not opinion as far as I'm concerned.  But, as I think she put it elsewhere in the leaks, "nobody likes to see how the sausage gets made."

And as a gun owner, I'm not all that frightened of her.  SHE can't take them away.  She can push for a lot of (most likely useless) new regulations (that will likely fail).  She may even be able to appoint a justice who will agree with her.  Even then, any "gun grab" would be decades off.  Maybe she'll be seen as the one who got the ball rolling?  /shrug
« Last Edit: October 09, 2016, 11:14:14 AM by D.W. »

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks once again delivers what traditional media couldn't/wouldn't.
« Reply #19 on: October 09, 2016, 02:06:28 PM »
Quote
For instance, Al and others have been saying for a long time that she has never said anything about taking our guns away but one secret speech revealed that she in fact said the Supreme Court got it wrong in the Heller decision, meaning she believes you don't have a 2nd Amendment right to own a handgun in your home. To a lot of people that's kind of a big deal.

Most of her voters understand she is a gun grabber and love her for it and that's fine, but it's not right to try to trick the ones to whom the issue matters into voting for her and then give them a huge surprise after the election by turning them all into criminals for doing something that is perfectly legal right now.
This is an abstract concern for (at least) a couple of reasons.  Until Heller, states and cities did have the authority to restrict guns in the home, and now (in theory, at least for the moment) they don't.  What irreparable harm had been done to potential gun owners during the 200+ years before the Heller decision?

For another, as DW says, it will be decades before a dedicated push would in fact "grab" your guns.  In the meantime the SC will turn over more justices, so you can hope that the recent historically long stretch where the SC has been dominated by conservatives won't be matched by a similar span of liberal-leaning justices.  You can hope or, as your icon Donald Trump suggests, you can exercise your 2A power and take matters into your own hands.  Since he's now on a trajectory to lose the election by a massive margin, I think you know what that means.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks once again delivers what traditional media couldn't/wouldn't.
« Reply #20 on: October 09, 2016, 03:29:24 PM »
When you can't stand up for your "principles" you can at least blame someone else for not saying out loud what you and they knew all along:
Quote
As scores of Republican leaders rescinded their support for Mr. Trump this weekend, Mr. Cruz said he was still deciding what to do about his endorsement.

In the meantime, Mr. Cruz took to Twitter on Sunday to criticize the news media for failing to uncover such damning material about Mr. Trump sooner.

“NBC had tape 11 yrs,” Mr. Cruz wrote, accusing the mainstream news media of bias. “Apprentice producer says they have more & worse. So why not release in 2015? In March?”

Cruz is in a bit of a bind.  At least two dozen mainstream Republicans have disavowed Trump over this latest revelation.  Can he afford to test his brand by agreeing with them?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks once again delivers what traditional media couldn't/wouldn't.
« Reply #21 on: October 09, 2016, 03:59:55 PM »
I have to admit, given what was written in the leaked email the other day about the DNC plans to bolster Trump and Cruz above the others, and then Cruz's logical objection in the previous post about why they didn't release these things during the primaries, I am inclined to entertain the conspiracy theory that the TV networks colluded with the DNC to make Trump the candidate in order to ruin the GOP. If so, good job.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks once again delivers what traditional media couldn't/wouldn't.
« Reply #22 on: October 09, 2016, 04:03:35 PM »
While their goals may align, I don't think conspiracy fits.  The amount of eyeballs Trump puts on screens is ridiculous.  Love him or hate him... it's all ratings to the news media.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks once again delivers what traditional media couldn't/wouldn't.
« Reply #23 on: October 09, 2016, 04:47:36 PM »
While their goals may align, I don't think conspiracy fits.  The amount of eyeballs Trump puts on screens is ridiculous.  Love him or hate him... it's all ratings to the news media.

Wouldn't you call that a happy synergy? They prop him up, it makes for great ratings, and then he can be trashed when so desired if that kind of footage is available. That they benefit on their own terms by plastering Trump everywhere doesn't mean they weren't playing ball with anyone else, it just means they'd have done so as willing partners rather than as puppets taking orders.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks once again delivers what traditional media couldn't/wouldn't.
« Reply #24 on: October 09, 2016, 05:12:15 PM »
Possible.  I just don't think they'd need any convincing or prompting.  He is every bit as much a gift to the media industry as he was to the DNC.  Probably more so.  Then again, Hillary IMO needed someone this bad to actually win.

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks once again delivers what traditional media couldn't/wouldn't.
« Reply #25 on: October 09, 2016, 05:50:58 PM »
Honkey please.

You're really going to try to tell me all of these networks didn't know that they had ratings fireworks hidden in their archives? This is it. This is the October "surprise." And it's not even the last one. Trump is Trump and he's not a career politician so he's been comfortable saying these types of things for decades. Most of it is on tape. We'll get to hear the worst of it during the next three weeks.

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks once again delivers what traditional media couldn't/wouldn't.
« Reply #26 on: October 09, 2016, 05:54:43 PM »
Possible.  I just don't think they'd need any convincing or prompting.  He is every bit as much a gift to the media industry as he was to the DNC.  Probably more so.  Then again, Hillary IMO needed someone this bad to actually win.

Oh, for sheezy. Even Hitler agrees, literally anyone other then Trump wins the presidency in a landslide lol.

https://youtu.be/V9FCSDo_t_Y

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks once again delivers what traditional media couldn't/wouldn't.
« Reply #27 on: October 09, 2016, 08:34:54 PM »
Possible.  I just don't think they'd need any convincing or prompting.  He is every bit as much a gift to the media industry as he was to the DNC.  Probably more so.  Then again, Hillary IMO needed someone this bad to actually win.

Oh, for sheezy. Even Hitler agrees, literally anyone other then Trump wins the presidency in a landslide lol.

https://youtu.be/V9FCSDo_t_Y
Right, the GOP's chances would be better right now if they replaced him with a ham sandwich.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks once again delivers what traditional media couldn't/wouldn't.
« Reply #28 on: October 09, 2016, 09:02:39 PM »
Oops, bad copy-paste.  The last sentence was mine.

scifibum

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks once again delivers what traditional media couldn't/wouldn't.
« Reply #29 on: October 10, 2016, 02:37:58 PM »
Was anyone shocked or even a little surprised by what was leaked of Clinton's speeches?  Granted I've only read a few highlights, but it didn't seem that "bad".  If it's going to do any damage it's to further disillusion the anti-wall street Sander's supporters who were still on the fence about voting for her. 

While it confirms some of what I think about her, there was no "October surprise" in that leak.  If it wasn't for the challenge from Sanders, I think they would have released these long ago so that the grumbling had passed by now. 

No, not surprised or shocked at all.  If this is all there is, it's not going to move any needles.

We already knew she was establishment, and we already knew establishment is all about the corptocracy. In fact, she's probably safer for the billionaire class than Trump. 

Sanders was the only candidate who would have seriously gone after big banks and tried to turn around the growing wealth gap. 

I'd be upset about this Clinton stuff if it wasn't so infinitely preferable to the possibility that Trump might win.  You don't worry about aiming for the right port until you make sure the ship isn't going to hit that iceberg.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks once again delivers what traditional media couldn't/wouldn't.
« Reply #30 on: October 10, 2016, 02:42:26 PM »
You don't worry about aiming for the right port until you make sure the ship isn't going to hit that iceberg.

Good image. But what if the iceberg was the boat's real destination all along? It all depends on who you see as the iceberg, and whether you believe in conspiracy theories about the Titanic ;)

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks once again delivers what traditional media couldn't/wouldn't.
« Reply #31 on: October 11, 2016, 02:08:16 AM »
How would you describe Spielberg's movie Lincoln with respect to the actions that Lincoln took to get the 13th Amendment passed? That was literally the topic of discussion quoted in discussing taking public and private positions.

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks once again delivers what traditional media couldn't/wouldn't.
« Reply #32 on: October 11, 2016, 02:10:01 AM »
And my classmate from Swarthmore, Kurt Eichenwald, discovers that the wikileaks inputs on Clinton include Russian forgeries (in part because they plagiarized his article and put it in a Sidney Blumenthal email).

http://www.newsweek.com/vladimir-putin-sidney-blumenthal-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-benghazi-sputnik-508635

Oh, and there's an implication that those doing this have a direct link to Donald Trump's campaign.


Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks once again delivers what traditional media couldn't/wouldn't.
« Reply #33 on: October 11, 2016, 02:48:23 AM »
How would you describe Spielberg's movie Lincoln with respect to the actions that Lincoln took to get the 13th Amendment passed? That was literally the topic of discussion quoted in discussing taking public and private positions.

I'd like to see the complete context of the quote, if you have it on hand. Even if what you say is accurate, it surely sounds conspicuous Hillary speaking of having public vs private positions, when addressing Wall Street. It's not even stretch to say that we already know she does have a private and public stance here: public, to take some of Bernie's concerns and 'go after Wall Street', and to 'keep them in line.' But private: to make sure they remain as powerful as ever, and to stop any party that threatens them in any way. This is one case of the private policy actually contradicts the public policy, which it's why it's such a big deal.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks once again delivers what traditional media couldn't/wouldn't.
« Reply #34 on: October 11, 2016, 06:46:08 AM »
Quote
I'd like to see the complete context of the quote, if you have it on hand. Even if what you say is accurate, it surely sounds conspicuous Hillary speaking of having public vs private positions, when addressing Wall Street. It's not even stretch to say that we already know she does have a private and public stance here: public, to take some of Bernie's concerns and 'go after Wall Street', and to 'keep them in line.' But private: to make sure they remain as powerful as ever, and to stop any party that threatens them in any way. This is one case of the private policy actually contradicts the public policy, which it's why it's such a big deal.
It's certainly possible that she is utterly two-faced about this. But since we don't know the full context it's also possible that she was talking to an especially sophisticated audience that understands nuance and complexity on their level.  Her comment about Lincoln would suggest the latter.  If it turns out that she used the Lincoln analogy in the actual speech she made, it could mean that she was signalling them that she would protect their interests while still protecting the public's interests with new regulations.  Those people want electing a President to be no more a "contest" than hunting deer from a blind.

For some reason, people don't seem to want to acknowledge that she is highly intelligent and is able to construct complex policy ideas that serve multiple interests.  If people had realized how smart Bill was they probably wouldn't have wanted to vote for him, either.  Republicans in particular are highly suspicious of that sort of politician.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2016, 06:57:15 AM by AI Wessex »

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks once again delivers what traditional media couldn't/wouldn't.
« Reply #35 on: October 11, 2016, 07:15:00 AM »
Lately I am having trouble with some of the forum's editing features.  This sentence:
Quote
Those people want electing a President to be no more a "contest" than hunting deer from a blind.
was added in the edit and intended to appear at the end of the post, but somehow showed up where it is now.  Most likely my error...

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks once again delivers what traditional media couldn't/wouldn't.
« Reply #36 on: October 11, 2016, 09:32:05 AM »
I've done that.  More often on facebook than here.  A rogue click in the body of the text, typically when trying to post from my phone gets me.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks once again delivers what traditional media couldn't/wouldn't.
« Reply #37 on: October 11, 2016, 12:19:00 PM »
Speaking of Trump's Russian connection, Trump apparently got one of his recent talking points/lies  directly from Sputnik, a Russian on-line news service.

Who in the Trump campaign is looking at Russian news services for stories?  And why?  Do they rely on them more than others?  Or are they so indiscriminate that they will repeat any story, regardless of the source or validity?

And almost half the voters want this jerk for President??  ::)

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks once again delivers what traditional media couldn't/wouldn't.
« Reply #38 on: October 11, 2016, 12:29:47 PM »
While a direct Russian connection would be juicy as hell, it seems perfectly in character for this guy (and his campaign) to release ANYTHING that shows his opponent in a bad light.  He/they couldn't care a lick if it ends up being true.  This guy is the avatar of shock and awe.  Doesn't matter to him if it's all false.  It's not like HE wrote it.  And even if he did, he would deny having ever done so.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks once again delivers what traditional media couldn't/wouldn't.
« Reply #39 on: October 11, 2016, 12:42:34 PM »
Speaking of Trump's Russian connection, Trump apparently got one of his recent talking points/lies  directly from Sputnik, a Russian on-line news service.

Who in the Trump campaign is looking at Russian news services for stories?  And why?  Do they rely on them more than others?  Or are they so indiscriminate that they will repeat any story, regardless of the source or validity?

While I am always wary about taking Russian news reports at face value, generally what I'm on the lookout for is how they will aggradize Russia in any way possible. But that doesn't mean they are lies; that much must be vetted by some other means than by merely dismissing it because it's in Russian media. In fact I've been struck at times as how many accurate (and subversive) things are reported in Russian news (such as Sputnik, RT, etc) that are not reported in the West at all. One trick they really like over there is to release accurate facts that make them look good; propaganda, but couched in truths. That's the most effective kind, really. Now, the truths may be out of context, or cherry picked, or whatever else, but in that sense they're no different from Western MSM. I rarely encounter anything I would call blatant lies in places like RT. Often it's overblown stuff or editorializing based on suspect evidence. Oh wait, still the same as Western MSM.

So yes, trust nothing from them, but I also don't ignore it. For a politician to quote something from there is about as meaningful to me as him quoting CNN. I think quoting either is stupid, but if you're looking for sound bites then either will do.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks once again delivers what traditional media couldn't/wouldn't.
« Reply #40 on: October 11, 2016, 12:46:27 PM »
While a direct Russian connection would be juicy as hell, it seems perfectly in character for this guy (and his campaign) to release ANYTHING that shows his opponent in a bad light.  He/they couldn't care a lick if it ends up being true.

Not sure this is a distinguishing characteristic between the two candidates.  Honestly, the anti-Trump campaign has floated just as many half-truths and fake stories, with far less justification (cause you know, the actual stuff he says is damaging enough on its own).

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks once again delivers what traditional media couldn't/wouldn't.
« Reply #41 on: October 11, 2016, 12:50:08 PM »
I've seen a few truncated statements to make flashy headlines on the anti-trump side.  I may be too partisan to have noticed the fake stories though...  Or they just meshed too well with the possibly worse verifiable stories for me to bother fact checking.

FWIW, the story in question appears to have taken some VERY selective editing in order to attribute copied text to the person quoting it as opposed to it's author.  I agree that dismissing a story just because of the source is an awful practice but sometimes there is only smoke and no fire.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks once again delivers what traditional media couldn't/wouldn't.
« Reply #42 on: October 11, 2016, 06:36:27 PM »
While a direct Russian connection would be juicy as hell, it seems perfectly in character for this guy (and his campaign) to release ANYTHING that shows his opponent in a bad light.  He/they couldn't care a lick if it ends up being true.

Not sure this is a distinguishing characteristic between the two candidates.  Honestly, the anti-Trump campaign has floated just as many half-truths and fake stories, with far less justification (cause you know, the actual stuff he says is damaging enough on its own).

Hey, could you point out a few?  Preferably from a fact-check site, so we don't have to verify it ourselves?

It'd be cool to see some of Hillary's dirt, too. :)

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks once again delivers what traditional media couldn't/wouldn't.
« Reply #43 on: October 12, 2016, 09:47:52 AM »
How about two, that are strikingly similar to what happened here.

Trump was attributed with claiming that we should profile on race, when his actual quote, "Israel has done an unbelievable job, and they’ll profile. They’ll profile. They see somebody suspicious. They will profile," was about Israel profiling based on suspicion.  This involves the similar dynamic of attributing a third party's views (and in this case they are imputed views, rather than a quote that was forwarded by the person in question) to the person in question.  In fact this was a worse attribution error as he described the basis on which he thought profiling makes sense (and it is the same basis on which we have a friggin national campaign, "See something, say something," which is about seeing something suspicious and acting), and was deliberately reconstrued into the most offensive reconstruction possible.

Or how about the whole "conclusion" from the release of three pages from his tax returns (hello! if you think its immoral to release hacked emails, its probable that this release was an illegal one (notwithstanding unsubstantiated claims that his wife did so)), that he's paid no taxes for 20 years.  There's absolutely no evidence of that being true, in fact its clearly false, yet that false "story" gets stated and played over and over.

That's just two off the top of my head.  The fact that people label themselves as fact checkers doesn't add much weight to the opinions they then put forward.

If you want to get into things like simple bias, how many times, while defending Obamacare has Hillary cited to things like kids staying on their parents plans or the bar on preventing people with pre-existing conditions from joining plans.  Have you ever heard one single person ask her the logical follow up question?  Ms. Clinton, couldn't those popular provisions be separated from the law and kept?

I've also noted, more than once, how as breaking items on the Mrs. Clinton came out we saw the major media outlets do soft sell headlines, and now its come out that there was deliberate coordination involved.  Why would you trust a media that would do that for a candidate to give you objective news about the other candidate?

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks once again delivers what traditional media couldn't/wouldn't.
« Reply #44 on: October 12, 2016, 10:00:08 AM »
Don’t suppose you have a bit more context on the profiling issue?  If they asked, “Do you believe we should be profiling” and he begins talking about how Israel profiles (as a response to a question) then it depends a lot on how the statement came off.  Was he being particularly condescending of Isreal or reprimanding the practice as he saw it?  Or was he applauding their methods which suggest it’s fine if we do so as well?

There is a big difference between seeing something suspicious and acting vs. racial profiling…

I’ll give you the “conclusion” on the tax returns.  I don’t think it’s in the same ballpark as what I thought we were talking about but it’s obvious bait to try and force him to prove their conclusions wrong.  It’s playing dirty maybe, but most of their language makes clear they don’t know for sure and that it’s speculation.  Speculation I may add even Trump reinforced with his answers during the debate.

Quote
couldn't those popular provisions be separated from the law and kept?
At which point she would agree and begin talking about fixing the portions that don’t work and how her opponent wants to scrap the whole thing and start over. 

For me any response that starts with “my opponent would do X, Y, and Z” is the worst type of answer, but there it is.

Listen trump is a boisterous egotistical macho dinosaur who gives a (typically entertaining) reaction every time he's prodded.  This is like Christmas every day to the news media.  Clinton either ignores allegations or denies them and moves on.  Far less exciting.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks once again delivers what traditional media couldn't/wouldn't.
« Reply #45 on: October 12, 2016, 11:41:01 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Seriati:
In fact this was a worse attribution error as he described the basis on which he thought profiling makes sense (and it is the same basis on which we have a friggin national campaign, "See something, say something," which is about seeing something suspicious and acting), and was deliberately reconstrued into the most offensive reconstruction possible.

If we are talking about the "mainstream media"tm what I saw from CNN, at least, was an analysis of how the way Israel "profiles" may not work as effectively in the USA as in Israel.  Also, that what Israel does is not what is normally considered as "profiling".  Do you have specific quotes that actually "[reconstrue it] into the most offensive reconstruction possible"?

Quote
"Or how about the whole conclusion" from the release of three pages from his tax returns (hello! if you think its immoral to release hacked emails, its probable that this release was an illegal one (notwithstanding unsubstantiated claims that his wife did so)), that he's paid no taxes for 20 years.
Again, what I have seen (limited to CNN) is the following guarded statement or equivalents: that Mr. Trump a) could have earned income of almost a billion dollars b) over a period of up to 15 years after 1995 c) without paying any federal (and sometime state) income tax.

So your summary of what CNN is saying (at least) is incorrect on several levels.  It isn't 20 years, but rather 15; the word "could" in the CNN wording is relevant - your characterization of it as a statement of fact changes the meaning significantly; the CNN position also pointed out that the exemption would only have affected earned income of up to a billion dollars - granted, Mr. Trump almost certainly would not have had enough earned income to matter; the CNN statement is clear that this would only affect income taxes, whereas your characterization of not paying any taxes whatsoever changes the meaning completely.

In fact, CNN had regularly quoted the Trump campaign's response, which is that the candidate "has paid hundreds of millions of dollars in other taxes, including property and real estate taxes"

Do you have links to media organizations that claim Mr. Trump paid no taxes whatsoever for 20 years?  I wouldn't surprised if there was somebody making that claim, but if CNN is any barometer, I would be surprised if it was a major player.



cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks once again delivers what traditional media couldn't/wouldn't.
« Reply #46 on: October 12, 2016, 12:08:23 PM »
Drudge has a lot of stuff up now about the leaks including video that the press concealed to protect Obama when he sexually harassed a plane full of female reporters during his campaign. Maybe we'll find out more about what the media is concealing now to protect Hillary when her second term is almost over too. But there is plenty up there at the moment too, though just a small fraction of what they are getting away with.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks once again delivers what traditional media couldn't/wouldn't.
« Reply #47 on: October 12, 2016, 12:32:05 PM »
Drudge has a lot of stuff up now about the leaks including video that the press concealed to protect Obama when he sexually harassed a plane full of female reporters during his campaign. Maybe we'll find out more about what the media is concealing now to protect Hillary when her second term is almost over too. But there is plenty up there at the moment too, though just a small fraction of what they are getting away with.
So if I understand what you're saying, because the Drudge Report (pillar of objective and fair reporting) claims to have a story about Obama harassing people at Harvard when he was a student, we therefore have reason to have suspicions that claims will be revealed about Hillary near the end of her term, though we don't know what they will be about or how serious they will be.  Therefore (again, using the logical connector), we should reject her now to save ourselves from finding out about those things later.  Do I understand your argument correctly?  This is a further example of where there's no smoke there still is fire, in fact, the fire is YUGE!

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks once again delivers what traditional media couldn't/wouldn't.
« Reply #48 on: October 12, 2016, 12:39:11 PM »
The argument is the press conceals info when it suits them and releases it when it suits them.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks once again delivers what traditional media couldn't/wouldn't.
« Reply #49 on: October 12, 2016, 12:40:26 PM »
Well that wasn't what I was referring to. It's actually a video of him on a plane with reporters. It's kind of funny that you should mention YUGE though...

It's something that I don't want to refer to too directly or link to either because I don't want to be responsible for causing anyone to see something that I wish now I could unsee.