His casual, flippant statements about not honouring NATO treaties could have real-world implications. It could easily embolden Russia to pull a Ukraine on a NATO ally.
Blustery inanities about renegotiating public debt could easily result in major financial repercussions through credit agency downgrades, divestment in US notes, etc.
There is a host of examples where his troll-based verbal recklessness could have dramatic, severe consequences.
His comments about Russia releasing the missing emails are repugnant for a number of reasons. But stopping well short of actual collusion or other shenanigans, other than being an affront to the standards of decorum held by major party candidates and the office, what practical harm could such comments lead to? Practical consequences that differ from his general penchant for trolling the media?
Is it plausible that Russia or other state actor would not have committed further acts of espionage but for his statements? How are charges of ‘recklessness’ and ‘irresponsible’ being supported? Charges that imply these comments rise to a different tier than his usual 4chan-inspired tomfuckkery?
It may not enable them to do it again, but it makes them a lot less likely to worry about consequences the next time around. It’s not what he’s done, it’s that he’s advocating something entirely reprehensible for a POTUS candidate.
The Russians also aren’t waiting on anyone’s permission to spy on the U.S. I would say “reckless” and “irresponsible” can be supported because even as a joke it shows a little too blasé an attitude towards the issue. Even as a joke, we can all be pretty sure the sentiment behind it is he wouldn’t be sad if the Russians really did find and release more emails i.e. wouldn’t be sad if Russia actively meddled in a U.S. election.
Either the Russians already have Clinton’s deleted email, or they don’t; they’re not going to be able to go get it now. Trump was yet again calling out what he portrays as Clinton’s recklessness in using an insecure private server. The Clinton campaign of course wants to turn this back on Trump, but of course there would be no issue but for her choices.
The nuance of it is that he’s OK with anyone hacking a political opponent and OK with a foreign government doing it. Given his posturing and the “lock her up” chants at the RNC, the implications are that he’s capable of doing the same or worse to political opponents.
Add his “joke” to the Democratic party hacking–probably done by Russia & released as the DNC began. And his willingness to disassemble NATO for Putin’s convenience. And hislong financial links to Russia. And his admiration of Putin…
At that, there’s Colbert’s take on this: building a wall? Like, a literal wall, thousands of miles long, and it just got ten feet higher, and Mexico is going to pay for it? I was clearly joking! Nobody in their right mind would believe I could make that happen! It was pure performance art! Remember when I made the obviously-outlandish claim about banning all Muslims from entering the country? You all got that that was a joke, so why play coy now? Hmm? What’s that? Oh, come on; there’s no way you took that seriously!
So what. If Hillary hadn’t hidden these emails from the government then there’d be no emails to “hack”.
Everyone needs to come to reality and understand that every country that can spy is spying on everyone else. That includes cyber-spying and hacking.
Hell we hacked Mexico’s Presidents email.
Russia and China have been spying and hacking us for as long as they’ve had the capabilities. No matter what Trump has said or will say is going to change what they do.
The only thing that has and will come out of this is the media and Democratic leaders pretending to outraged by this to whip up the base.
So we should be fine with Russian hackers because it’s her fault anyways and besides we do it to? That’s not how it works. His own VP candidate said, at almost the same time Trump was joking about it, that there should be serious consequences for whoever did it.
Im not sure there is an inherent contradiction here. I for one welcome these type of hacks and data dumps, but I would fully expect(and support) the US state to prosecute any who are guilty of such hacks.
Well, Trump calls for new information to be released, Wikileaks promptly responds with a data dump of DNC phone calls. That’s one obvious practical item that’s already happened.
The Democratic party base doesn’t need whipping or further convincing that Trump is a buffoon. Likewise, the die hard Trump supporters will not be budged.
The unintended practical implications of this make it harder for those on the margins of Trump’s supporters to vote for him. That’s not to say they will rush to vote for Hillary, but they might just be more inclined to stay home come November. The other good thing to come out of Trump’s inability to keep his feet out of his mouth is give the GOP leaders insomnia and ulcers they so richly deserve.
No practical effect beyond whatever the comment or Democratic counterspin might have on the election. The comment calls attention again to Clinton’s careless handling of classified info. But maybe the D counterspin of Trump as ‘traitor’ might have some effect. I doubt either is significant though.
The effect on any government sponsored hacking attempts is zero by any common sense, and I doubt a causal connection between wikileaks’ activities and anything Trump says.
Trump’s comments on NATO, especially the ones about not necessarily helping the Baltics against Russian aggression (as the US is treaty bound to do) could have an effect on Russia. It could be a reason for them to take more risk of exposure in meddling in the US election to help Trump. And it would be part, though only part, of the information they used to judge Trump’s intentions if he wins. It’s in contrast to the ‘I hope they find the emails’ which is a practical zero outside the world of political spin.
I’ll put it this way: Vladimir Putin has already basically thrown down the gauntlet with the last two presidents. He got militarily involved in South Ossetia, daring outgoing President George W Bush and our allies to do anything to stop him. He threw down the challenge to the West again in 2014. Putin is 2 for 2 – and that’s with strong international diplomatic opposition and economic sanctions. At a time when you have Brexit and the possibility of a fractured Europe and a rift in the NATO alliance, the idea that an American president could propose unconditional normalized relations that would recognize Crimea as Russian-held territory is courting disaster. Even if Vladimir Putin isn’t our modern day Hitler, Donald Trump is almost certainly our Neville Chamberlain.
Really? I don’t think it is. As a private individual I can see the benefits of such a hack and data dump, but if the state has one job it is to protect it’s secrets. And if a state does not protect it’s secrecy then it has no business calling itself a state bureaucracy. Trump is not quite in my position as a private individual. However, he is probably within his rights to make a flippant comment such as the one he made but also to legitimately head a state which fully prosecutes such hackers.