Posted on 10/23/2016 10:09:32 AM PDT by oblomov
Re: POLITICO Playbook, presented by Boeing – DIG-OUT EDITION – EXCLUSIVE: Hillary prepares to run against Trump! DAVID BROCK ‘now thinks Hillary will face The Donald,’ and that he’ll be tough – TRUMP PLANS outreach to African Americans – B’DAY: Eric Schultz
From:ntanden@gmail.com
To: john.podesta@gmail.com
Date: 2016-01-24 13:07
Subject: Re: POLITICO Playbook, presented by Boeing – DIG-OUT EDITION – EXCLUSIVE: Hillary prepares to run against Trump! DAVID BROCK ‘now thinks Hillary will face The Donald,’ and that he’ll be tough – TRUMP PLANS outreach to African Americans – B’DAY: Eric Schultz
I truly believe he's an unhinged soulless narcissist. Because I'm not actually a conspiracy theorist like David Brock.
Though given Hillary's conspiracy theories - she would probably get some doubts if the Manchurian candidate idea was raised.
On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 9:55 AM, John Podesta wrote:
> Do you really believe that or do you think he's just an unhinged
> narcissist? >
>> On Sunday, January 24, 2016, Neera Tanden wrote:
>> David Brock is like a menace. I can think of no worse message for
>> Hillary right now than she's preparing for the general.
>> I continue to believe he's the manchurian candidate of the GOP - secretly
>> out to tank her.
(Excerpt) Read more at wikileaks.org ...
The glue comment really hurt your cause.
But I’ll suspend disbelief and answer you, like you’re serious.
It doesn’t matter at all whether we can list all the active, deliberate conspirators. To call for such a list would be another method used by the establishment to distract from the main point. So be very careful.
If you’re a real conservative American member of this forum, you’ll go on about your business and forget about our conversation.
But if you’re a leftist mole, in the interest of maintaining your cover you’ll want as few people as possible to read our exchange on this thread.
The touchstone I’ve been using is: who does W hate or love? After seeing that pic of him and Hillary hugging down in his Dallas mancave, obviously I had to re-think everything.
I guess I need a new touchstone now.
I support your interpretation of this email exchange.
Note who Neera’s antecedent for “he” seems to be:
“David Brock is like a menace. I can think of no worse message for Hillary right now than she’s preparing for the general. I continue to believe he’s the manchurian candidate of the GOP - secretly out to tank her.”
Antecedent for “he” is Brock here, (A) grammatically.
And (B) stylistically — the description of Brock as a “menace” is followed by the reference to a “Manchurian Candidate,” an iconic menace.
And (C) logically: why would Trump be out to tank her “secretly”? Wouldn’t he be out to tank her openly? Brock, on the other hand, would be in a position to tank her “secretly.”
And then Neera keeps the conversation on Brock, when questioned. It’s an attempt at humor:
“I truly believe,” she responds, “he’s an unhinged soulless narcissist. Because I’m not actually a conspiracy theorist like David Brock.”
— when asked if which is more likely — (a) he (brock) is a “Manchurian Candidate,” or (b) he’s an unhinged soulless narcissist.
She chooses (b) because she says she’s not as crazy as Brock.
But if you’re a leftist mole, in the interest of maintaining your cover you’ll want as few people as possible to read our exchange on this thread.
Some, like George H W Bush, George Soros and the Clintons, have a geopolitical interest intertwined with personal gain. This interest manifests in their active perpetuation of the rigged system.
Others, people like Megan Kelly, Erin Burnett and most politicians, have a lower-level, personal, socioeconomic interest. They do whatever they can to follow others who will sign their check, win them status at cocktail parties, and make them think they are assets to the “visionaries.” Meanwhile, they don’t really recognize that they have about as much value to the visionaries as an ordinary pawn.
That “secretly out to tank her” thing is referring to Brock (who is so abominably bad at what he does, the charge is worth consideration).
Good try, sort of.
The problem with your idea is the word “candidate” which means it can only be Trump.
The term “secretly” simply means they think some in the gop might not be completely on board the Hillary wagon.
In other words, secret within the rigged system, not secret to the public.
No, it refers to Trump who they speculate might be working for some rare, fringe anti-Hillary faction in the gop.
But it does make sense to have a list of those not involved in the rigged system:
1. regular people (see our nation’s founding documents)
2. Trump
3. wikileaks
4. James O’Keefe
5. Edward Snowden
6. very few politicians and media personalities
Full disclosure: Ted voter here, left when the bashing of him became intolerable. Ted’s the only guy who regularly retweets wikileaks and O’Keefe. Rubio cautions that repubs may well find *themselves* in the leaks soon. Are Ted & Donald deep cover allies?
Full disclosure: Ted voter here, left when the bashing of him became intolerable. Ted’s the only guy who regularly retweets wikileaks and O’Keefe. Rubio cautions that repubs may well find *themselves* in the leaks soon. Are Ted & Donald deep cover allies?
“Good try, sort of.”
Dismissive; condescending. Not a conservative tone.
“The problem with your idea is the word “candidate” which means it can only be Trump.”
The word “Candidate” is in the name of the movie.
It is also in name of the cliché.
If I refer a disloyal coworker is a “Manchurian Candidate,” I do not imply that the coworker is running for office. It only means they are disloyal, possibly due to brainwashing.
I realize this is an election year. Therefore, I excuse your focus on the word “candidate.”
But rather than the word, you ought to consider thought that she is referencing.
If she called him “Dr. Strangelove,” you would not confine your thoughts to only people who are doctors. Would you?
Would you write:
“The problem with your idea is the word “doctor” which means it can only be X”?
.
I do not understand the logic of:
“The term “secretly” simply means they think some in the gop might not be completely on board the Hillary wagon.”
Secretly means clandestinely.
The GOP is not Hillary’s party.
When you say “some in the gop might not be completely on board the Hillary wagon,” is that a statement you intend to be a revelation?
Therefore, I excuse your focus
I like this email.
I do.
I am against Hillary; I like Trump.
I just see it as a logical inference that it is an email bashing Brock rather than Trump.
maybe out to tank her so she would lose nomination to Sanders? email was back in January according to date.
so every single email released today can be posted as “breaking” news?
Can you not see the republican leadership is anti Trump and largely in favor of Hillary?
I really think you’re not reading it well.
Look at the sentence “I can think of no worse message for
Hillary right now than she’s preparing for the general.” Her use of “manchurian candidate” follows this, tying it in with the subject of the election and Trump.
Reference to Brock in the email make it clear the premise is they see him as trying to help Hillary but not entirely competent in this endeavor.
Agreed. The republican leadership is anti-Trump and largely in favor of Hillary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.