So Wikileaks is fulfilling its role in the modern world of informing the rest of us what our elitist would-be-masters really are thinking and doing behind the scenes. There’s like 30,000 emails and I can’t go through them all because I’m not a professional journalist.
I would actually LOVE that job, if I didn’t have a family to feed and novels to write.
Trump’s problems with women are self-inflicted. I feel sorry for people like my husband who wanted to believe they were supporting a “good guy”. I suspect at least half of these accusations are made up and some of them that appear legitimate sound like consensual sex that would be considered perfectly acceptable if they had involved a celebrity … which Trump was back then. Somehow Arnold Schwarzenegger overcame the same sort of accusations to go on to be a two-term governor of California. But I’m voting for Gary Johnson in part because I don’t generally feel the need to apologize for his personal life.
But, I digress.
The accusations against Trump come at a convenient time to obscure a very real danger uncovered by Wikileaks. If Hillary were running against anyone else, these very damaging emails would be great ammunition that ought to cost her the election. Hillary doesn’t confess to anything, but the emails do betray the institutional attitude that surrounds her … the mindset that she might well bring to the White House in January.
There’s that view of ethnic minorities as constituencies to be bought and sold: Latino politicians are bracketed as “needy Latinos” in need of a kind word. Sanders supporters were, in the words of former party official Mark Alan Siegel, “sometimes self-righteous ideologues” who should be allowed to think they had an impact at the convention so that they “go home happy and enthusiastic in working their asses off for Hillary.” Clinton shifted to the Left in the primaries in order to court these ideologues. Speechwriter Dan Schwerin wrote to Cheryl Mills, a top adviser, to say that they were trying to find a way “to leak her opposition” to an oil pipeline “without her having to actually say it and give up her principled stand.” No stand is principled if you’re thinking about contradicting it through backchannels.
Then there’s her relationship with the media. It’s pretty adversarial in some places, but there’s an implication that the campaign has a good relationship with individual journalists that can be put to use. Conservatives will doubtless be anxious about the New York Times inviting the Clinton campaign to edit a transcript of a Clinton interview (the communications director signs off with “Pleasure doing business!”) and the implication that the campaign might have helped place stories in the NYT’s pages. Again, Democrat-sympathizers might call it business as usual – but the WikiLeaks emails have been interpreted by some to show that Clinton received warning about a primaries debate question in advance.
In March 2015, Clinton’s team also appeared to strategize the release of emails requested by a congressional subpoena. And in May of last year, Brian Fallon, a spokesman who previously worked at the Department of Justice, wrote that “DOJ folks” had informed him about an upcoming status hearing, suggesting he was in touch with them.
Thank you, Daily Mail, for the links because I really don’t have time to track this stuff down myself. Yeah, that’s the English who think Trump is a joke, but also seem to recognize better than us that Hillary is a would-be tyrant. Ironic, eh?
Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta’s emails are revealing of a mindset that we the people ought to be terrified of. The most damning for me was one from Bill Ivey of Global Cultural Strategies:
Date: 2016-03-13 17:06
Subject: From Bill Ivey
Well, we all thought the big problem for our US democracy was Citizens United/Koch Brothers big money in politics. Silly us; turns out that money isn’t all that important if you can conflate entertainment with the electoral process. Trump masters TV, TV so-called news picks up and repeats and repeats to death this opinionated blowhard and his hairbrained ideas, free-floating discontent attaches to a seeming strongman and we’re off and running. JFK, Jr would be delighted by all this as his “George” magazine saw celebrity politics coming. The magazine struggled as it was ahead of its time but now looks prescient. George, of course, played the development pretty lightly, basically for charm and gossip, like People, but what we are dealing with now is dead serious. How does this get handled in the general? Secretary Clinton is not an entertainer, and not a celebrity in the Trump, Kardashian mold; what can she do to offset this? I’m certain the poll-directed insiders are sure things will default to policy as soon as the conventions are over, but I think not. And as I’ve mentioned, we’ve all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry. The unawareness remains strong but compliance is obviously fading rapidly. This problem demands some serious, serious thinking — and not just poll driven, demographically-inspired messaging.
Rubio’s press conference yesterday AM was good and should be repeated in its entirety, not just in nibbles. I will attend the Clinton fundraiser here next week but as I can only afford the low level of participation may just get to wave without a “hello.”
I fear we are all now trying to navigate a set of forces that cannot be simply explained or fully understood, so it is and will reamin interesting!
Sent with a handshake,
“[W]e’ve all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry. The unawareness remains strong but compliance is obviously fading rapidly. This problem demands some serious, serious thinking — and not just poll driven, demographically-inspired messaging.”
I don’t hold with Infowars and some other web sites that this reveals a Clinton “master plan” for maintaining political control, but I do think the elites in general (Left and Right) has enjoyed that the American public are generally uninformed and therefore easily manipulated, but since the coming of the Internet which makes becoming informed so much easier than it used to be, they are becoming terrified that we are not as herdable as we used to be. We should have known this was their attitude … some of us did … but we all ought to be real-world woke up now, aware that the elitists hold an arrogant mindset that pervades the Clinton campaign in which we the people are viewed as dumb sheep who must be herded in the right direction.
Snopes.com didn’t believe that the words meant what they meant, so they reached out to Bill Ivey to allow him to clarify his intended meaning. So he rephrased it.
If these three sentences had appeared in a letter or essay, as opposed to a quick e-mail, they would read like this:
“And as I’ve mentioned, Washington Republicans, Independents, and Democrats have been quite content to sit quietly as pundits and candidates demean government and elected leaders, quite content to let the study of education fade from our schools, and all-too comfortable as our citizenry then becomes unaware and compliant. Unawareness remains rampant, but as the Sanders and Trump campaigns demonstrate, compliance is obviously fading rapidly. This problem demands some serious, serious thinking…”
No “master-of-the-universe” conspiracy; just a lament that leaders and policy makers have not been sufficiently attentive to some of the basics that make our democracy great.
Yeah … That is ABSOLUTELY NO BETTER!
It still comes out as – “the people of America are sheep who need us elites to guide them and the public schools ought to do a better job at indoctrinating them so that they stop rebelling.”
Rebel, folks! I honestly believe that Trump has always been a plant of the elites to assure Hillary the victory because they need another Obama term to lock in the fundamental changes they’re making in our country. That these changes will result in a loss of liberty and eventually the inevitable socialist decline in living standards doesn’t matter to them. It’s all about them staying in power. So, for me, I was never going to vote for Trump because even if he won, I suspect the elites will be behind that too. Throw the elites into a total tumble and vote for someone they aren’t expecting to win. The only thing keeping a third party from winning the Presidential election is votes … your vote, my vote, our neighbors’ votes.
We’re being manipulated, folks … convinced to believe that we have only two choices. We have more and that third choice of the Libertarian Party represents a departure from the plans the elites have for us.
Just look at the Preamble and Principles of the Libertarian platform:
As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.
We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.
Consequently, we defend each person’s right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.
In the following pages we have set forth our basic principles and enumerated various policy stands derived from those principles.
These specific policies are not our goal, however. Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands.
We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.
We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.
Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.
We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life—accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action—accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property—accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.
Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.