Assange Timed WikiLeaks Release of Democratic Emails to Harm Hillary Clinton
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
This does little justice to what actually is said in those emails
I mean I don't get why they talk about him timing it to hurt her, he literally said that the next emails he releases will contain “enough evidence” for the Department of Justice to indict Hillary Clinton. [0]
I guess it gets the most media attention now, albeit limited from mainstream publications. I find it annoying that the most coverage from mainstream American publications have been about the leaks and not the content. More people have opinions on whether the Russians were the source for Wikileaks than about the content of the emails.
[0]: http://www.itv.com/news/update/2016-06-12/assange-on-peston-...
I'm sure they don't understand that releasing the DNC emails during the DNC makes perfectly good sense.
$1,000,000-$5,000,000
Carlos Slim
Chairman & CEO of Telmex, largest New York Times shareholder
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/05/clinton-foundati...
Notice how they've been caught during this cycle fighting Clinton's battles against Sanders.
Notice how there isn't a single direct quote from Assange regarding an intention to "harm hillary"... there are only quotes about how he dislikes her platform.
Nothing talking about the msm collusion with dnc? We all noticed.
So many things to notice here.
A few months ago there was still a chance to get a non-criminal, not-lying nominee who would have had a chance against Trump. Now it's too late already. The only outcome was Wasserman Schultz being promoted and Trump leading the polls. All this was entirely expected.
Schultz wasn't promoted, she was removed from a position of substantive power and moved to one that's basically a zero-responsibility-and-power position traditionally used to recognize people have given notable support to a candidate.
Benghazi is a pretty much settled issue after 8 or so enquiries failed to turn up anything of substance.
I'm guessing that the rest of the stuff is the usual small potatoes politics that just happens because it has to happen.
Nothing really; its not like the fact that the DNC leadership in general, and DWS in particular, were all-in for Clinton was news (it had been talked about from very early on in the campaign, including when at least one DNC official that disagreed with that resigned because of it.)
> Benghazi is a pretty much settled issue after 8 or so enquiries failed to turn up anything of substance.
And, anyway, its not like the DNC's emails were going to reveal anything about that.
B: I can't believe you went through my phone, A, how can I trust you ever again, it's over.
A well informed voter is a good voter.
any time now...
More information does not necessarily lead to a better vote (where "better" is defined as the vote that the voter would pick were they in possession of all relevant information).
To illustrate, imagine two candidates: candidate A, who looks like a regular politician, and candidate B, who looks like a serial killer. In the absence of any further information, you vote for candidate A.
Now imagine you read an entirely truthful pamphlet detailing guy A's trust fund excesses and other misdemeanors, while helpfully mentioning that guy B volunteers in a homeless shelter in his spare time. You switch your vote to guy B.
But it transpires that guy B occasionally abducts and murders the odd homeless person. He really is a serial killer! So your initial, "uninformed" vote was correct, and moreover correct for the right reasons, despite being strictly better informed after reading the pamphlet.
Trump will certainly have skeletons in his closet too.
P.S: Not a Killary supporter (just making sure I'm not misunderstood ;-)
As a German, I find it very weird that so many americans support politicians who boast about assassinating people.
How is it correct for the right reasons? If I were to follow this "logic", then what you're saying is I should go with my first instinct, which has been molded and influenced by my own life experiences and by the people/community that I've interacted with.
What if that person was a radical xenophobe? will he be correct for the right reasons?
Incidentally, I'm not sure what else you can base your opinions on, other than some weighted average of your life experiences and the opinions of those around you. Whether a radical xenophobe is correct for the "right reasons" or not depends on whether they came to that perspective by rational observation, and for a functioning democracy we have to assume on good faith that's the case, as distasteful as it may seem. The alternative is declaring their opinions wrong and forbidding them from voting.
This article talks about the shy trump vote. http://praxis.ink/2016/07/democrats-fear-secret-trump-vote-t...
How much of this shy vote is true in Silicon Valley?