Induveca wrote:montestewart wrote:Induveca wrote:
So revealing corruption is.....inconvenient? Those angered by the shocking level of institutionalized corruption within the DNC are crackpots?
This seems to be the stance of most Clinton supporters I know, I'll ask you the same question. Is your "shoot the messenger" stance on the leaks/videos purely because you find Trump to be too toxic for the presidency?
Genuinely curious if this would have been the same response if Kasich were the nominee.
Not sure if it was you or maybe another mod who blocked me for talking about Wikileaks, I'm just genuinely curious how Clinton supporters would handle these leaks if Trump wasn't the nominee (open to anyone).
The thing about using green font is...PS: First I've ever heard of any status called "blocked" or any actions taken against you for anything. Blocking you from talking about Wikileaks doesn't sound like something any of the mods here would do.
Actually sorry it was Ruzious I believe. Regardless I was/am legitimately curious if your stance towards the leaks/videos are so dismissive just due to Trump being toxic in your view?
If it were Kasich would the leaks give you more pause? I can't imagine in any previous election where a candidate could endure the sheer amount of corruption scandals.
My response to the leaks is a combination of the following:
1) Most of them don't really show anything, contain a great volume of private communications that, while sharp and distasteful at times, are probably about what you'd see behind the scenes in any big party campaign (and that might be a shock to some people) or imply
possibly bad but possibly nothing at all.
2) Much of the hysteria surrounding the emails is stirred by a Republican muckraking machine whose goal is not the truth, but is rather to take down Clinton and defeat Democrats.
3) Trump is a
horrible candidate and would in my opinion be the
worst president ever. To me, he makes almost
any opponent seem the desirable alternative.
4) I've never really had a problem with Assange (Snowdon, etc) exposing dirty secrets, regardless of which party or person was exposed. But the timing of these revelations makes me wonder whether the goal is to tell the truth or to alter the course of the election. The dump of so much information, so late in the game, seemed more likely than not to have little effect on the outcome, so I can only speculate exactly what the goal was: help Trump win, undermine the legitimacy of a Clinton presidency or of US democracy, enhance Assaange's sense of power, create chaos, just tell the truth, who knows?
5) As noted above, it is a lot data dumped late in the game, in the middle of a bile-driven campaign. For true believers, it is accordingly absolutely true and damning or most definitely either false or irrelevant. For the rest of us, there's some pretty bad stuff among the mostly (to me) innocuous documents, but the sources, veracity, and timing raise questions and temper hasty conclusions.
I live in DC and generally don't vote Democratic. Doesn't matter, the Democrat wins just about everything every time. If I lived in a swing state, I might vote otherwise (I probably would have voted for Obama in 2008 if I lived in Virginia). Clinton is not a desirable candidate to me, and some of these emails reinforce my view of her and her husband. But my description of Trump stands, and I would easily vote for her even if I thought the worst allegations about her were true (well, maybe not the Satan stuff).
I can't see supporting Cruz, and I've never voted for a conservative Republican, but I certainly understand people rejecting the Democratic party, and Kasich at least talks like an adult. It's all sort of hypothetical though, since I'm registered DC Statehood Green Party and vote that way. I was a Sanders fan, as was my wife, and I'll be voting for Stein, crackpot that she is, because that's how I use my vote to say I'm looking for something different. Despite the revelations about Clinton, she still inspires many women and (more than any past major party candidate) gives a voice to many of their concerns. I think my wife might vote for her, and I can understand that,
especially considering her opponent.
I have a feeling we'll be talking about the Wikileaks long past the election.
PS: Don't forget, Nixon won in a landslide as the Washington Post was reporting on the Watergate scandal.
