If anyone has any factual dirt on any candidate or any product or anything else pleas share it.
I actually like making my choices knowing all the factual information so that I can use my franchise in a manner that is aligned with my personal ethical beliefs.
I’m weird in that I value truth, even if it forces me to re-evaluate my positions.
The gift that keeps taking, you mean.
Rather like a white elephant, in more ways than one.
On the flip side, might not actual gotchas be framed as mere jokes? It is worth noting even if only to highlight the double-standards of conservative media. I can appreciate jokey rhetoric in politics, but I also don’t doubt that the same people laughing at the joke would also lambaste Clinton for any perceived impropriety or unprofessional remark. I agree that some allow political correctness to undermine their sense of humor, but people are cautious for a reason. How often do bigots make racist, sexist, homophobic, etc remarks hiding behind the pretense that “it was just a joke”?
When he was asked directly if he was serious, he refused to answer the question at first, then clarified that any country who could find the emails should turn them over. So, not a joke.
I would not. I don’t trust Wikileaks. They have a vindictive and antagonistic agenda. I’m not interested in the information they convey, because I distrust them deeply.
Yep, and that’s why Bernie’s speech won’t be closing out the convention tomorrow night.
I’ll never vote for Trump, but it’s sure an education watching the man at work.
He got Hillary (or her mouthpiece, I guess) to say clearly that there were national security issues involved with her deleted emails - something she has explicitly denied scores of times in the past year!
I suspect that during the next three months, he is going to get under her skin in ways she can’t even dream of.
And if Bernie Sanders had been willing to go one-fourth of the way Trump is going to go, he’d be the nominee tonight.
Fair enough, but I would like that information and a ton of other information shared with the American public.
yep. He brought it up. Lots of Heckling though. It’s being drowned out by jingoism.
So is Trump in favor of amnesty for Snowden?
Is there something in it for him?
Oh, absolutely. I’d love a Wikileaks-style group who maintains neutrality, whose credo is freedom of information, not picking and choosing targets.
No. Bernie was courting liberal voters. If he had made comments about “blood coming out of Hillary’s. . . wherever” that would have been the end of him, like Howard Dean’s “yeehaw” scream, only much much worse.
The GOP has the sexist, racist, mouth-breather vote locked up.
touché. 
There’s a lot more to it than that.
Trump has ties to Russian money, he’s made weirdly pro-Putin comments, and implied he didn’t think it was important to protect some NATO allies if Russia invaded. Even if you think releasing the missing emails (if Russia even has them-- everyone seems to be jumping to that conclusion) is a good thing, there’s something very improper about a Presidential candidate asking a foreign adversary to get involved in US politics.
Jesus. It was only about a month ago that Trump’s campaign was sending emails to foreign politicians asking for donations. You think Hillary could have gotten away with that? As craven as the GOP has gotten over the years, I don’t see how they can let this stand, but chances are Trump will say something even more outrageous in a week or two. Those GOP candidates who would not endorse Trump are being smart, they don’t want to carry that endorsement around like an albatross for the rest of their political lives.
I’m the white half of an interracial couple and I’ve spent my entire life in the deep South. Parsing subtext is something that I’ve had a lot of experience with. A lot of assholes say a lot of shitty things without explicitly stating them. This is undeniable. This is especially true in politics. So much of politics (and working with the media in general) is a dance between statement and intent. Trump is great at this.
Trump’s statement was an attempt to control the narrative. He wanted to make sure people were focused on something that hurts Clinton, while simultaneously mocking the notion that the Russians did this (if they in fact did) because they think he’d be weaker/easier to manipulate. He wanted to make sure we’re talking about what he wants us to talk about, instead of what the Democrats want us to talk about (such as the fact that we have the fist woman presidential candidate ever, the awesome speeches the last couple of nights, and the fact that the DNC is actually not falling into civil war). To some degree, it worked.
You are right that the conservative media would have a field day if Clinton said something like this. My point is that a hyperbolic response - of the type that Fox News is built on - only undermines criticisms of the legitimately horrible things he says and does.
I disagree. That means he made a joke/jab, then when pressed on it, reluctantly gave an honest answer (I don’t think sincerity comes easily to Trump because he’s vulnerable when he’s honest). If someone has the emails, they should turn them over. I think that’s something most reasonable people agree with.
I’m a pretty reasonable person, and I’m not okay with a presidential candidate asking for any foreign county available to turn over or find intelligence on my opponent.
Dude, this is Hilary Clinton we’re talking about. Remember how she faced down that Congressional Inquiry into Benghazi and made Darrell Issa look like an idiot? Yeah, she’s dealt with repubs a lot brighter and patient than Trump for 25 years.
She’s the one whose campaign will be getting under Trump’s skin. If she doesn’t do it herself, Elizabeth Warren will.
