Originally posted by HandyAndymy goodness, you want me to do your homework for you? Fine, I'll quote one.
Quote one.
1. Attitude towards ‘everyday Americans’
One email has in particular generated much debate, revealing that Clinton hates “everyday Americans” – or that particular phrase, anyway.
“I know she has begun to hate everyday Americans, but I think we should use it once the first time she says I'm running for president because you and everyday Americans need a champion,” Podesta wrote to Clinton's Director of Communications Jennifer Palmieri in April 2015.
https://www.rt.com/usa/362590-podesta-emails-wikileaks-clinton/
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe stolen 2015 email quotes John Podesta, her campaign chairman, stating that Hillary had begun to hate the phrase "everyday Americans."
my goodness, you want me to do your homework for you? Fine, I'll quote one.
1. Attitude towards ‘everyday Americans’
One email has in particular generated much debate, revealing that Clinton hates “everyday Americans” – or that particular phrase, anyway.
“I know she has begun to hate everyday Americans, but I think we should use it once the ...[text shortened]... nifer Palmieri in April 2015.
https://www.rt.com/usa/362590-podesta-emails-wikileaks-clinton/
It's trite. I hate it too.
Got any more?
Originally posted by HandyAndyAndy,
The stolen 2015 email quotes John Podesta, her campaign chairman, stating that Hillary had begun to hate the phrase "everyday Americans."
It's trite. I hate it too.
Got any more?
My Dad use to say: Stay out of arguments that have religion or politics involved! Was he ever correct on that one!!!
Regards,
-VR
Originally posted by HandyAndyThe email does not contain the word 'phrase', you simply made that up although I understand that it could be implied from the context. Yes there are lots more, about 22,000 where she failed to recognise that they were confidential but you have already been unable to account for that.
The stolen 2015 email quotes John Podesta, her campaign chairman, stating that Hillary had begun to hate the phrase "everyday Americans."
It's trite. I hate it too.
Got any more?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt's obvious that Podesta is referring to the term "everyday Americans" used in speeches and press releases.
The email does not contain the word 'phrase', you simply made that up although I understand that it could be implied from the context. Yes there are lots more, about 22,000 where she failed to recognise that they were confidential but you have already been unable to account for that.
Did you realize that RT, your "news" source, is funded by the Russian government?
Originally posted by HandyAndyGee i never knew that, the BBC that you love is funded by the Uk government, did you have a point?
It's obvious that Podesta is referring to the term "everyday Americans" used in speeches and press releases.
Did you realize that RT, your "news" source, is funded by the Russian government?
Originally posted by HandyAndyoh dear, neither does RT, you will of course have evidence that the Russian government hacked Podestas email or shall we consider you another victim of Western propaganda? As for the British secret services GCHQ, a court ruled only last week that they have illegally gathered mass amounts of data for the past 17 years. Not a single prosecution will ensue.
The BBC doesn't hack into our servers and steal emails.
Here are the most revealing emails included in the first half of the Podesta releases.
Clinton’s Goldman Sachs talks, and excerpts from other highly-paid transcripts, which the campaign refused to release during the primaries, were included. The speeches exposed Clinton’s concern for the welfare of Goldman Sachs, Wal-Mart, and other dubious corporate entities. She claimed the financial industry should regulate itself, and dubbed the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill a took for politically pacifying the public.
“You need both a public and a private position” on issues, she said in one speech, reaffirming suspicions that Clinton’s stances are primarily crafted to maximize political expediency.
Several disturbing foreign policy ideas were suggested by Clinton throughout the speeches. Clinton confirmed a no-fly zone in Syria would kill a lot of civilians, and require boots on the ground. She reminisced about discussions with Chinese diplomats, in which she used imperialistic threats from claiming the U.S. could “ring China with missile defense,” to retorting that the United States has the right to rename the Pacific Ocean the American Sea if it feels like it.
In a separate speech, Clinton denigrated environmentalists as losers who need to get a life, and affirmed her support for fracking.
A memo attached to an email from April 2015, two months before Donald Trump announced his campaign publicly, cited Trump as a “Pied-Piper” candidate who the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee (DNC) would strategize to use the mainstream media to elevate.
A separate April 2015 email outlines strategy to rig the debate schedule for the Democratic primaries in a way that will benefit Clinton the most.
Current DNC interim chair Donna Brazile is implicated in the emails several times. In a 2014 interview with The Washington Post, Brazile confessed she would favor Clinton in the primaries despite her then-position as DNC vice chair, which in theory demands neutrality. In the Podesta emails, Brazile also tipped off the Clinton campaign to the exact wording of a difficult question to be asked at a CNN town hall the next day, forwarded info about a Sanders campaign outreach program to Clinton staff, and was actually cited as a surrogate for Clinton by staff members.
Emails from 2008 reveal that President Barack Obama received advice from Citigroup Banker Michael Froman on who to include in his administration before he won the election. Froman was appointed U.S. Trade Representative by Obama. In May 2016, via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, emails released to the Huffington Post revealed that Froman spoke with Wall Street firms and lobbied to include certain provisions in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement for the financial industry.
The Clinton Foundation’s shady dealings were well-documented in Podesta’s emails. The COO of the foundation nearly committed suicide because of Bill Clinton’s behavior. Other staff members express their frustration in dealing with demands from Bill and Chelsea Clinton at the non-profit.
Clinton aide Huma Abedin blamed Hillary Clinton for actions she refused to take responsibility for regarding a Clinton Foundation pay-to-play in a January 2015 email to Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook and Podesta. In another email, the government of Qatar solicited a five minute meeting with Bill Clinton to present him a birthday check for $1 million. Qatar has given millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation, and subsequently received an over 1000 percent increase in weapons exports from the United States during Clinton’s service as secretary of state.
Media collusion with the Clinton campaign was long suspected by Sanders supporters and Republicans, with several emails now confirming it. Though some emails are benign back and forth between reporters, several journalists and media outlets offered themselves to be used as propaganda tools to prop up the Clinton campaign agenda.
A January email lists Guardian columnists Jessica Valenti and Sady Doyle, and MTV News correspondent Jamil Smith, among others, as individuals who attended a conference call to discuss “Bernie Backlash” with the Clinton campaign. The campaign saw “friendly” journalists as extensions of their campaign staff to be manipulated into supporting their agenda, rather than autonomous and relatively-objective journalists.
The Clinton campaign planted stories in The New York Times, including a “heroine” article about a Clinton campaign volunteer who voted for Obama over her in 2008. A New York Times contributor and CNBC correspondent emails Podesta back and forth, desperately seeking his approval. [?]
In July 2015, the Times’ Mark Leibovich offered the Clinton campaign a transcript of an interview he conducted with Clinton to edit and amend as they saw fit, which goes way beyond journalistically reasonable fact-checking.
“We have has a very good relationship with Maggie Haberman of Politico over the last year,” noted one Clinton campaign staff email. Haberman moved to the Times shortly after the email, which praised her highly; “We have had her tee up stories for us before and have never been disappointed. While we should have a larger conversation in the near future about a broader strategy for reengaging the beat press that covers HRC, for this we think we can achieve our objective and do the most shaping by going to Maggie.”
A January email shows the Times’ Jason Horowitz emailing Podesta, asking for his thoughts on the relationship between Obama and Bernie Sanders—which Podesta, off the record, says does not exist. If Horowitz wanted an objective opinion on the relationship between Obama and Sanders, he wouldn’t be soliciting it from the Clinton campaign.
The Associated Press, Boston Globe, Business Insider, Univision, NBC, and other media outlets are implicated in the Podesta emails as well. The Clinton even campaign held an off the record party for the journalists in mainstream media who support their campaign.
Contrary to Clinton cheerleaders who have amended their initial arguments that the WikiLeaks emails are fabricated, and are now trying to ignore them, the revelations from these leaks are concerning to the integrity of democracy in America.
The emails from Podesta reveal a scripted, calculated, and Machiavellian campaign apparatus that circumvents legal loopholes, freedom of the press, and conflicts of interests in the service of Hillary Clinton’s political agenda. Clinton partisans can no longer claim that this election was fair, or that the press, or the DNC were unbiased, as they did throughout the Democratic Primaries to Bernie Sanders supporters who suspected the deck was stacked against them the whole time. Turns out the Sanders supporters were right.
http://observer.com/2016/10/corruption-recap-the-first-half-of-wikileaks-podesta-emails/
Are you prepared to re-evaluate your assessment of Mrs Clinton? at very least I think you should amend it, We have so far,
smart (but not intelligent enough to recognise a confidential document), tough (like an old boot), liberal (like a warmongering neo-con) and two-faced.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo you are becoming just another Russian mouthpiece.
Here are the most revealing emails included in the first half of the Podesta releases.
Clinton’s Goldman Sachs talks, and excerpts from other highly-paid transcripts, which the campaign refused to release during the primaries, were included. The speeches exposed Clinton’s concern for the welfare of Goldman Sachs, Wal-Mart, and other dubious corpor ...[text shortened]... ential document), tough (like an old boot), liberal (like a warmongering neo-con) and two-faced.
Again, we have no evidence that the Russians did not alter these emails. Wikileaks, using a tainted source, has lost credibility.
What's next? Are you going to start telling us what a "great guy" Putin is?
Originally posted by SuziannePretty damning aren't they. Is that why you could not bring yourself to reference the actual content other than to attempt a rather pathetic ad hominem. Now when I get home I will lay the facts of the matter before you, not that I think you are capable of assimilating reality simply to demonstrate why you are a victim of anti Russian propaganda as is self evident from your text.
So you are becoming just another Russian mouthpiece.
Again, we have no evidence that the Russians did not alter these emails. Wikileaks, using a tainted source, has lost credibility.
What's next? Are you going to start telling us what a "great guy" Putin is?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI take great umbrage to this. The Neoconservatism of the 1950s and 1960s is not the neoconservatism we see today. Today's neocon has no relation to liberals. They are far more akin to Libertarians. They are what should be called ultra-conservative, and they are not liberal in any form of the word. These are the "George W. Bush" conservatives, like Rumsfeld and Cheney. Today we see them as Paul Ryan, John Bolton, Paul Wolfowitz, Max Boot, William Kristol and John McCain. This constant labeling of neoconservatism as a kind of liberalism is a feature of so-called paleoconservatives such as Ron Paul, Paul Krugman, John McGowan, Joe Klein and Pat Buchanan, who rightfully want nothing to do with their ideology.
liberal (like a warmongering neo-con)
Anyway, my point is that yes, "the beards have all grown longer overnight", but they're long now, and have no relation to the way things used to be. Neoconservatism today is just ultra-conservatism, very nearly becoming libertarianism. Liberalism just doesn't enter into it any longer.