Hillary Clinton Declares 2016 Democratic Presidential Bid 676
An anonymous reader writes In a move that surprised no one, Hillary Clinton has officially announced she is entering the 2016 race for the White House. According to the Times: "Ending two years of speculation and coy denials, Hillary Rodham Clinton announced on Sunday that she would seek the presidency for a second time, immediately establishing herself as the likely 2016 Democratic nominee. 'I'm running for president,' she said with a smile near the end of a two-minute video released just after 3 p.m. 'Everyday Americans need a champion. And I want to be that champion,' Mrs. Clinton said. 'So I'm hitting the road to earn your vote — because it's your time. And I hope you'll join me on this journey.'"
Hell No Hillary (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hell No Hillary (Score:4, Interesting)
Nope, I'm going to vote for Hillary because unlike most other person running, she isn't overly corrupt and she's not bat shit crazy. She may not be perfect, but I have more faith in her ability to lead this nation then any other candidate currently.
Re:Hell No Hillary (Score:4, Informative)
By all means, you may vote for whomever you choose but please don't lie about it.
Hillary Clinton is one of the most corrupt politicians who has ever been on the national scene. Her job during her husband's administration was to orchestrate the harassment and character assassination of the women who were sexually assaulted by her husband.
LK
Re:Hell No Hillary (Score:4, Insightful)
By all means, you may vote for whomever you choose but please don't lie about it.
Hillary Clinton is one of the most corrupt politicians who has ever been on the national scene. Her job during her husband's administration was to orchestrate the harassment and character assassination of the women who were sexually assaulted by her husband.
LK
You got an proof with that? Because what I hear is the same old bullshit I've hear republicans say since Clinton was in office. And I don't actually care much, because the sex shit with Clinton was no fucking big deal at all, it's like when you are arguing with someone and they start picking on your grammar. You have nothing else on the Clintons, 'cept this one minor sex shit and it's blown out of proportion. Fuck, the VP is way the fuck more creepy then Clinton ever was, at least Clinton has the decency to not hit on women during their husbands speech.
So unless you have some real proof of bad shit, fuck off. I'm tired of the weak excuses you people bring.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hell No Hillary (Score:4, Insightful)
How about the fact that she was in charge when a U.S. Ambassador was killed for the fist time in 30 years?
How about the fact that she has zero accomplishments as Secretary of State? (Feel free to refute this by listing her accomplishments.)
How about the fact that she has zero important accomplishments as Senator?
How about the fact that she was put in charge of health care as First Lady and accomplished nothing?
If you're weighing her pros and cons, what are the pros?
Re:Hell No Hillary (Score:4, Insightful)
I think conservatives/libertarians/Republicans are making a mistake just focusing on the death of the Ambassador and three others. To most people, it just looks like a tragic mistake.
Better would be to focus on cover-up that followed and was used manipulate the 2012 election and resulted in the jailing of an innocent film-maker.
Everyone makes mistakes. Blaming someone else who is then jailed just to make yourself look better is sinister.
Focus on that.
Re:Hell No Hillary (Score:4, Insightful)
Or we could focus on how she would run the country.
While I think the Affordable Care Act is a mess (I'd prefer some sort of true UHC), I do enjoy the expanded Medicaid. And I hope she would be forceful by vetoing anything that would remove the expanded Medicaid.
I am concerned about SNAP being cut. While it would be cut come later this year (state waivers will be no more), I'm afraid she won't push to expand the SNAP program back to post-recession levels. I mean, didn't her husband cut a lot of people from welfare back in the 90s?
But the biggest issue I have with her is that it feels like she is pro-war. That she wouldn't try cutting the DoD and try focusing on domestic social issues, such as helping the poor, etc. to the extent that is needed.
To me, the top two parties, the Republicans and Democrats, feel like poison. That anyone who runs will end up being in the interest of someone other than the people. I'd rather vote for someone I wanted, rather than the lesser of two evils.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
30 whole years? There have been seven US ambassadors killed in the line of duty. That works out to one every thirty years.
I have no love for Hillary Clinton, but I hate the dishonesty of the jackoffs on the Right even more.
Dynasties (Score:5, Insightful)
You know that this period of the US will read about in history books as such an obvious time of corruption. The occurrence of dynasties is not a good sign of a healthy democratic republic. Save the last two terms, there has been a Bush or a Clinton as President since 1989. Counting VP, they've occupied those two offices since 1981. If you start to count Secretary of State and such, these two families have held top offices continuously for nearly 35 years. And the next race may well be a Bush vs a Clinton, again.
Of the more than 100 million eligible citizens in the US, is the best candidate for President another Bush or Clinton? Really???
Re:Hell No Hillary (Score:4, Insightful)
Ambassadors killed:
We lost 3 under Nixon and Ford, Republicans Win!
Accomplishments:
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/... [usnews.com]
Her health care initiatives did poorly for the same reason Obama is embattled, Bill and Hillary were outsiders (sometimes referred to as 'trailer park trash') who want to help all Americans, not just a few rich ones.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, ok, for one example, it was specifically the HIllary 2008 campaign that started the rumor that Obama was not born in the US.
Re:Hell No Hillary (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not just with the Clintons, either. Obama has been subjected to the same stream of crap, trying to put together some sort of scandal or conspiracy, or even flat out making things up ("Obama is coming for your guns!") when they've got nothing better to go on. During the 2008 primaries, I even thought at one point "Better Obama win than Clinton, because he doesn't have that baggage, and it's better if we don't have to relive that whole deluge of minor non-scandals and animosity." It was such a ridiculously naive thought, because it had nothing to do with the Clintons personally, and everything to do with there being a Democrat in the White House.
Re:Hell No Hillary (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't care about Bill Clinton's consensual sex life.
I'm not talking about Monica.
I'm talking about Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones and Juanita Broaddrick, not to mention the other women who recanted their allegations after Hillary's forces put pressure on them.
She victimized women who were assaulted by her husband.
That's far worse than Bill's hanky-panky with an intern.
LK
Re:Hell No Hillary (Score:5, Insightful)
And a google search on "Bush stupid" really does return fifty-two million, eight hundred thousand results.
That means, by your reasoning, that George Bush (and by extension his entire family, since the "clinton corruption" search is going to return more than just items on Hillary) is more than 40% more stupid than Clinton is corrupt.
In fact, since you got me started down this road, it turns out that the search "stupid Republican" yields thirty eight million, eight hundred thousand results (with nice pictures of George Bush, Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann right across the top, indicating that the entire Republican party, all of them are seven million search results more stupid than the Clinton family is corrupt.
To take your moronic statement one step further, shall we compare the results of the search "corrupt Republican" (21,100,000 search results) with "corrupt Democrat" (7,660,000 search results). That means, by your own logic, that Republicans, who have only existed as a party for a little more than half as long, account for THREE MOTHERFUCKING TIMES more corruption than the Democratic Party. Wow, that's a lot.
Seriously, for a group of people that are in technology, there are a lot of Slashdot users who are some stupid sonsabitches when it comes to basic reasoning. I get that it's a tribal thing resulting from an AM talk radio cargo cult and probably some incest, but geez louise.
Re:Hell No Hillary (Score:4, Informative)
That wasn't my point.
I have no love for either. I just objected to the idea that the number of search results has any meaning regarding the truth of a claim.
For example, I'm seeing 43,500,000 search results for "real UFO". Does that mean UFOs are real?
Personally, I would rather not see Hillary Clinton as president.
Re: (Score:3)
Waco Texas, where some child raping religious lunatic who thought he was Jesus Christ reborn locked himself and a pack of swirley eyed followers in a compound filled with weapons. Oh yes, that evil Clinton and his evil FBI, taking on that evil fucking maniac and his equally maniacal followers.
Re: Hell No Hillary (Score:4, Insightful)
Nice job there of covering for the Federal Troops.
Are you out of your fucking mind?
Clinton and his FBI weren't evil. Just really incompetent. There was little evidence for the stuff you're slandering that cult over. But it protects 'your boy' to slander them.
History will sort it all out, and if you want to be one of the dudes who bootlicked the Feds, that's fine. Speak out loudly and often and maybe your descendents can know.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
What corruption has she done? Going to point out that way the republicans hate the Clintons, if she did anything illegal, they would have her up on charges so quick.
The email stuff? With the NSA spying into everything, and you know she knew about it before we did, it suddenly looks smart to keep your email server private from the government.
Benghazi was a tragedy that the Republicans used to try discredit Clinton, because she's a threat to their plans. Benghazi was horrible and the Republican
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
it suddenly looks smart to keep your email server private from the government.
yes... as a PRIVATE citizen. as a GOVERNMENT official, it screams shady
Re:Hell No Hillary (Score:5, Insightful)
Ollie North did time for less under paragraph (b): https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... [cornell.edu]
Of course, even if it was legal to have a home server to intercept all official communications, destroying it while under subpoena is the type of shitty move that can get you 20 years if you do that when the IRS or SEC demands info. It doesn't matter if it was legal to keep the info, once it is demanded, destruction of that info is the crime.
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2... [csmonitor.com]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/... [washingtonpost.com]
http://theadvocate.com/news/12... [theadvocate.com]
Jeb Bush, Bobby Jindal, Scott Walker, Rand Paul, Rick Perry, Chris Christie all used private email as GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.
Re: (Score:3)
You didn't read the links either. Like Clinton, Jeb Bush, Bobby Jindal, Scott Walker, Rand Paul, Rick Perry and Chris Christie released some of their private emails. The ones they said were pertinent.
Just as Clinton is doing.
Pot, kettle, I don't care. Just don't bullshit yourself.
Re:Hell No Hillary (Score:4, Interesting)
if you can show me any of them (or anyone else) who was running their own mail server, and keeping it away from government oversight, im keen to listen and change my opinion, but based on those links, there is a HUGE difference between them and hillary
Re: (Score:3)
Google is a third party -- you just go ahead and see if they will actually delete your emails when you ask them. That's totally different than self-hosting and if you don't know that, you don't belong on /.
Secondly, if she wiped the server after she got the subpoena, that's a crime.
The most awesome thing in the world would be for her to be charged under the same law that took Ollie North down because part of the punishment is a permanent ban from all public office.
Re:Hell No Hillary (Score:4, Insightful)
The truth is, the Republicans are scared to death of Clinton.
I don't think they are anymore. Hillary is looking a lot like Romney did last election.......not too great, but the party couldn't find anyone to beat him (although a Gengrich campaign would have been much more interesting, it would have been awful if he'd won).
Hillary looks beatable.
Re:Hell No Hillary (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would any Republican be afraid of HRC? She is one in all but name. Iraq War cheerleader, surveillor, wall street's best friend. Seriously, what is there for the GOP to hate policy wise? Yeah, we know they hater her personally, but from a policy perspective, she's the dream GOP candidate.
Re: (Score:3)
That's precisely why. The core of tribal politics is that the results don't matter as much as who gets them. A Republican in all but name could potentially steal some of their supporters, weakening the Party.
Re: (Score:3)
It's a trap or a diversion to silence the utter disgust liberals have when thinking of HRC.
Re: (Score:3)
While not taking a personal position on this matter, I would ask you to read this and see if it influences your opinion of Ms. Clinton's qualification for the office of POTUS:
http://www.truthorfiction.com/... [truthorfiction.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Check out that picture. The real shocker is that Hillary Clinton's boss was Michael Caine!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I certainly hope you don't take an ambassadorships under her. P.S. Funny how her brothers got that Haiti mining contract.
Ya, it's funny how when people get in positions of power they give people they know contracts and other positions of power. Too bad this is something that every administration does, so by trying to call out Hillary on it only shows how limited your knowledge is. While it may not seem fair to us, then why haven't we gotten our Senators to write a law limiting that sort of useage of that power?
In other words, this is along standing problem, longer then the last 10 years, longer then 100 years. If you don
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget her cozy relationship with Tyson.
And how Vince Foster dragged himself to a park after committing suicide...at the exact same time Hilary went to her office to remove documents.
Re: (Score:2)
Lol you forgot Sandy Berger the Clinton Stooge who was stuffing classified documents down his freaking pants
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]
Really their whole administration was like a bad episode of Bewitched.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Lol you forgot Sandy Berger the Clinton Stooge who was stuffing classified documents down his freaking pants
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]
Really their whole administration was like a bad episode of Bewitched.
And yet, the 8 years Clinton was in office, shit was good in America. Really fucking good. Then Bush came in and fucked shit up. And shit has been fucked up since Bush was in office. The only "Change" Obama brought to office is the loosening of the Marijuana laws.
It will be nice to see a Clinton in office, someone who does give a fuck about the people also, and maybe we can end the Twenty10's in decent economic shape for the first time since the 1990's.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, the 8 years Clinton was in office, shit was good in America. Really fucking good. Then Bush came in and fucked shit up.
If you believe that Clinton was personally responsible for the prosperity, and had nothing to do with the economic problems that hit just as he was leaving office, there is very little hope for you.
Re:Hell No Hillary (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, it's possible. It was during the Clinton administration that regulation of Credit Default Swaps was deemed unnecessary. We all saw how that worked out.
Re:Hell No Hillary (Score:5, Informative)
unlike most other person running, she isn't overly corrupt and she's not bat shit crazy.
What the fuck? Whitewater? Travelgate? Filegate? Character assassinations during the Lewinsky scandal? (which she said was a just a big right wing conspiracy right up until Bill admitted to it) Benghazi? Doing official government business on a private email server?
And those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.
Benghazzzzzzzzi (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing came of all the Benghazi investigations, and most of the others. Innocent until proven guilty. And the laws about email at the time were vague. Yes, what she did is a bad practice, but many other politicians made the same error in judgement.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe that should become Hillaries campaign slogan, it would really fit.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't forget all the people associated with her who "committed suicide".
If she was guilty of arranging their deaths, the way it works is that the police/prosecutors get some evidence and charge her with conspiracy to murder.
Otherwise, it's just meaningless "when did you stop beating your husband" hot air.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
, she isn't overly corrupt and she's not bat shit crazy
really??? not overly corrupt???? have you not been paying attention to the email debacle??? have you not payed attention to the clintons as a whole for the past 20 years???? corrupt is the clinton middle name. as for not crazy, ill agree with you. calculated and cold is more accurate*
being in NY and having met the woman, as well as been a new yorker while senator, I feel that I can say safely that she did NOTHING for NY as senator
Re:Hell No Hillary (Score:5, Funny)
I'm going to vote for Hillary because....she isn't overly corrupt and she's not bat shit crazy.
That's quite a ringing endorsement.
Re: (Score:3)
Nope, I'm going to vote for Hillary because unlike most other person running, she isn't overly corrupt and she's not bat shit crazy.
Even if you think there was a time she wasn't over[t]ly corrupt, you really have got to recognize that time is over. There was the single-payer health care era, but that was followed immediately by the massive contributions from big pharma and big insurance era.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
How do you explain her hosting a private email server, and deleting all documents without government oversight???
Re:Hell No Hillary (Score:4, Insightful)
She's a LAWYER, she was ordered to turn over emails, she had a "neutral" 3rd party decide what to turn over, then trashed the rest. She knew what she was doing looked shady and she kept her own server for exactly the reason of wanting to make sure no one could see what she didn't want them to see. Shady from the word go on this one, that single act alone cost her my vote for sure. If she makes it as far as public debate I cannot wait to see her drilled for this. Want private emails? Sure, use your own server but OFFICIAL emails shouldn't be mixed. If she thought this was okay, as a lawyer, when official email services were available, then I'm sorry she's too stupid for my vote in that case either.
Re:Hell No Hillary (Score:5, Informative)
Totally Agree here.
You have to be Nuts and Stupid to vote for Hillary in 2016. Especially if you're a democrat voting in a primary.
She is easily one of the most corrupt politicians I've seen in recent memory. Hell, just looking at Wikipedia alone gives me these entries and I've probably missed a couple of them:
Whitewater Controversy [wikipedia.org]
FBI Files Controversy [wikipedia.org]
Travel Office Controversy [wikipedia.org]
Cattle Futures Controversy [wikipedia.org]
Email Server Controversy [wikipedia.org]
The last one is the straw breaker. She knowingly hosted her Email on purpose so that she had full control over what people can see or not see regarding federal government correspondence. Her wiping the box when it was under investigation is no different to what Nixon did with the audio tapes and should disqualify her right there.
There are better presidential candidates [wikipedia.org] out there. Hell, there are better potential democrat candidates [wikipedia.org] out there.
Re:Hell No Hillary (Score:4, Informative)
The first four of those are tired right wing BS - which is ironic, given how Hill is a hard core right winger. There's plenty of legit criticism of her, but it all comes from the left:
Her support for nasty dictatorships a la Mubarak in Egypt
Supporting the coup in Honduras
Supporting the coup in Ukraine
Supporting coup attempts in Venezuela
Writing the TPP
Pushing the Keystone pipeline
Draconian sanctions on Iran for the nuclear weapons program both the CIA and Mossad say Iran doesn't have
Re:Hell No Hillary (Score:5, Insightful)
Please don't vote for Hillary just because she is a woman.,
This election won't be about gender or any substantive issues. The only choice is going to be between Crazy and Not Crazy and Hillary wins that going away.
The GOP doesn't have any policies to run on, they've turned into an endless fountain of negativity. Benghazi! Tax cuts! Email server! Job creators! They're anti-science, anti-abortion, anti-everything except starting another war in the Middle East.
No one that isn't as batshit crazy as they are is going to vote for a GOP presidential candidate.
Re: (Score:3)
You're right, GOP is nutz and I don't want them in office. I also do not want Hillary in office. Server mess sealed that deal for me. Dems had better find someone else to have a chance of getting my vote...
Re: (Score:3)
This election won't be about gender or any substantive issues. The only choice is going to be between Crazy and Not Crazy and Hillary wins that going away.
Yeah. It's not like there are third parties or anything. First-past-the-post is an awesome electoral system!
Re:Hell No Hillary (Score:5, Informative)
Please don't vote for Hillary just because she is a woman. We can't continue the oligarchy that is the US government leadership.
Let me break the bad news to you now. Your choices in the presidential vote will be:
1. Hillary Clinton,
2. Jeb Bush,
3. An independent candidate that will not win.
There. Now you can ignore all of the primary drama and spend a long time thinking about who you will vote for. Note that you will be supporting an oligarchy either way!
Look at the bright side! At least Hillary is not actually related by blood to Bill. Unlike George Sr., George Jr. and Jeb!
Re:Hell No Hillary (Score:5, Interesting)
She will raise revenue for more war and more surveillance.
Look at this clip at 13:29 (better with context starting around 11:00) where HRC is cheerleading for the Iraq War. Her ONLY beef w/ GWB was doing tax cuts at the same time -- she openly says she wouldn't and that would leave more money for national and homeland security -- code for random foreign wars and a burgeoning NSA budget:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
So yeah, you are totally right. When she gets us into a useless random war for no fucking reason at all, she'll raise taxes. Talk about a reason to vote for her! Yummy! /sarc
Hmmmmm (Score:2, Interesting)
Not sure where to go with this. I truly doubt I'll want the Republican candidate, but I don't particularly want Hilliary for President either. That doesn't leave much other choice. You heard me Libertarians/Greens/RonPaulFans
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Hmmmmm (Score:2)
Much as I'd love to see Rand Paul as the Republican nominee, I doubt he'll be nominated. He doesn't appeal to the Christian right and nowadays you need their blessing to be the GOP nominee.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you kidding? Rand Paul may have started out as a libertarian like his dad, but now he's in line with the establishment republican stance on virtually every issue. He has lost all personal integrity.
Re: (Score:2)
remember all the crazy things obama said when running?? being transparent, and no continuing the ways of bush??? we all see how that happened....
Re: (Score:3)
"He has lost all personal integrity."
You already said he was a Republican.
Re: (Score:2)
Rand Paul could get the nomination. He's a whole lot better than anyone else with half a chance.
The only way Rand Paul can get the Republican nomination in 2016, is to abandon many of his Libertarian principles, and become more of a generic right wing kook. Instead, he should bide his time. He is much more popular among younger Republicans, so he should just wait for the gay-hating, drug-banning, war-mongering oldsters to die off.
Re: (Score:3)
He's *already* become a generic right-wing kook. He occasionally spouts something sensible, like his recent comments on the War on Drugs, but overall is just another Republican. Even his dad disagreed with him recently; Ron said the Republicans who signed onto something against the peace deal with Iran were "afraid that peace would break out"; Rand was one of the Republican signers, along with the typical wackos like Cruz.
Re: (Score:2)
A party that promises to stop meddling in the Middle East*, and otherwise has a centrist domestic agenda would have a pretty good chance. Neither of the two big parties is offering much.
Ron Paul got many excited about non-meddling, but his domestic agenda put many off.
Meddling has got us nothing, and appears to make problems worse because we get the blame for a
Re: (Score:3)
If Saddam was still in power, ISIS wouldn't have been a threat to them. We weakened Iraq.
It's not merely that subtle. The USG actively funded and trained the groups that became ISIL. Now that Iran is funding their opposition, the USG can fund both sides of the conflict and be both allies and cold-war opponents with several of the participants.
Did somebody mention "stop meddling"?
Re: (Score:2)
I do not understand American politics in this sense. Where are the alternatives? Is it always the choice of either a 90% guaranteed wackjob on the Republican side (you know who), or a massively (Emperor-grade) corrupt Democrat?
Because of the electoral college system, it actually doesn't matter if there is an alternative.
Everyone in my city, everyone in my county can vote Democrat and we'll still even up having voted for the republican candidate in the end.
Unless you live in a swing state, your vote pretty much doesn't count.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you live in a swing state, your vote pretty much doesn't count.
It counts if you vote in the primaries.
Re:Hmmmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless you live in a swing state, your vote pretty much doesn't count.
There's so little chance that your vote will count that it's pretty much not worth being informed on the issues. This causes an obviously bad cycle, which is easily exploited by concentrated interests.
If somebody was selling a product with a code-base that operated on rules this good, they'd scrap it for a rewrite. At least in a market that offers anything but a monopoly product.
Re:Hmmmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
In America you need a huge amount of money to run for president. It's essentially impossible unless you're a billionaire or have mega campaign donations. On the republican side, only the far-right whackjobs get the campaign donations, and on the democrat side, only the corporate whores get them. Hence the results we see.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's never going to happen; our voting system makes it impossible for third parties to get elected, due to the first-past-the-post voting system plus the Electoral College.
What we need to do is hold a new Constitutional Convention of the states, and toss out the Constitution. We need a new Constitution where we basically adopt the government that Germany or France has: a parliamentary republic. Presidential republics are rare, and for good reason: they don't work. There's too much infighting in governm
Re:Voting For Hillary is Voting For China (Score:5, Insightful)
All you say is true, but you should interweave into that that Clinton's penchant for free trade deals with unequal economies meant the decimation of good paying manufacturing jobs in America in exchange for low pay service jobs. Free trade between comparable economies is totally fine because they are competing on a level playing field -- free trade where the workers think 50 cents/day wage is awesome is a recipe for disaster for most people, and massive profit for a very select few.
Re:Voting For Hillary is Voting For China (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, I forgot to mention that part. NAFTA was a very bad deal for lower-income, lower-skill workers, because it meant moving a lot of their jobs to Mexico. This is the problem with Democratic voters: they buy into the party's free-trade dogma, and then tout the stock market performance as proof that the economy is great for everyone, while ignoring the fact that stock market performance doesn't mean squat to some guy with a high school education who has a low-skilled job.
And this is news for nerd how exactly? (Score:2, Interesting)
Is this even news at all? I mean there is no chance she was not going to run. She has been in the running for 2016 since the lost the 2008 primary.
In Depth Analysis (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Hooray! (Score:5, Funny)
After almost 7 years of implications that I'm racist when I disagree with the surveillance and foreign policies of the current administration, I can look forward to now being called a sexist instead!
Free at last!
News for nerds how? (Score:2)
Much though I enjoy the multi-hundred-comment threads where we all scream at each other about politics, why is this here?
How is this 'news for nerds'? I mean, even the summary has given up on trying to even mention technology/nerdy stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Much though I enjoy the multi-hundred-comment threads where we all scream at each other about politics, why is this here?
How is this 'news for nerds'? I mean, even the summary has given up on trying to even mention technology/nerdy stuff.
Slow News Sunday is my guess. Though the new rulers can of course be doing a check to see where people are in the political beliefs to file that info away to be used against us later.
Re:News for nerds how? (Score:5, Informative)
Much though I enjoy the multi-hundred-comment threads where we all scream at each other about politics, why is this here?
How is this 'news for nerds'? I mean, even the summary has given up on trying to even mention technology/nerdy stuff.
Just realized I have some good tech new for ya instead.
First 4 episodes of Game of Thrones current season (5) have been leaked. You can find them at your favorite torrent sites, or on usenet.
Holding the nose again? (Score:4, Insightful)
Hillary does have presidential ambitions, yes. There is a good chance that 8 years older, less attractive, bruised by most recent fuckups such as BenGhazi, Email and her recently exposed Bosnia sniper fire falsification, will lose to younger W. Warren.
From Republican side Rand Paul, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz will be rolled out. There is a chance that Rand Paul and Ted Cruz will be on one ticket.
I wish there was a third choice...
same weight class rule (Score:3, Funny)
Whatever one party comes out with, the other party has to approximately match. Think of it as weight class in sports. That keeps it at least mildly competitive. Hillary has a lot of baggage so the Republicans now must choose someone in the same weight class, which means a candidate as detestable as Hillary. Then the public can complain about how bad the candidates are but at least there candidate is not as bad as the other.
Personally I'm hoping that we see Bush III vs Clinton II, only so the public can see how silly and corrupt the whole thing is.
Vote third party or don't bother.
Nerds care about politics too (Score:5, Insightful)
Nerds care about politics too...
I'm Liberal. I want clean government, an end to shitty subsidies, no corruption, representatives that actually represent me, equality and justice for all... All the usual.
I can't stand Hillary. I actually turned myself into a Democrat (You can easily switch parties in Oregon. There's a website. it takes just a few moments.) so I could vote AGAINST Hillary in the primary. I think she's a giant tool, and a bit of a war monger. I think she'll be the same bank and war friendly President that we got out of Clinton, Bush, Bush, Obama, and Obama. She's not a progressive. She doesn't care about the little guy. She's a career politician.
If Warren won't run, I'll vote for Bernie Sanders, the only Independant in Congress.
To end this, I would say to you all that our country is having some problems and it's OUR fault. Large swaths of the US citizenry are political morons who vote for hot button issues (And really, when did the R's ever get rid of abortion? When did the D's ever really help the poor? They just SAY that shit, they don't mean it.) or for the "character" of a candidate. Voter turnout is really low, making it possible for candidates to play to the base instead of playing to the swing voter.... Don't blame Washington. Blame yourself. And don't give me that "I don't vote so it's not my fault" B.S. You give them your taxes and then don't hold them responsible for what they do with them. Those people make me sick....
Re:Nerds care about politics too (Score:4, Interesting)
If Warren won't run, I'll vote for Bernie Sanders, the only Independant in Congress.
I sympathize with your view, but I hope you're not fooling yourself that someone who actually wants to stand up for the little guy has any chance of being nominated. Warren is demonized as a left-wing nut, and the most extreme thing she tried to do was to lower the student loan rate to match that the Fed is giving to the banks. Someone should import a few real left-wing nuts, put them up in some reality TV show, just so people get some sense as to what that really means.
meet the new boss (Score:3, Insightful)
same as the old boss
We Americans will get the government we deserve, once again. I'm too jaded to be disappointed.
No front page for Rand Paul? (Score:5, Interesting)
Please, not another Clinton (Score:5, Insightful)
Or another Bush. We founded this nation to get ourselves out from the rule of royal families. Of all the people that the Democrats could come up with they put her forward.
what a disaster (Score:3)
Hillary is much worse than Richard Nixon (Score:3)
Unlike Benghazi, nobody was killed because of the Watergate scandal.
Hillary's email scandal is much worse than Nixon's Watergate cover-up.
Whereas Nixon was forced to resign in disgrace, Democrats are swooning over a candidate who make Nixon look like a boy scout.
Seriously, why would anyone... (Score:3)
Why would anyone vote for the democrat or republican candidates? You can't possibly believe that either candidate has any concept of what your life or concerns are like. These candidates are funded by private industry and will act on values they are directed to act on, after they are elected. Their campaign platforms mean nothing. Just like Obama, just like Bush, just like Clinton, on and on. The data is no longer hidden. Step 1. Pander to the public for votes. Step 2. Ignore the public after that with periodic press releases telling the vocal majority, what they want to hear. Step 3. The media supports these half-truths. Step 4. Repeat. This corruption is ingrained all the way to the state level in most of the US of A (Maryland is not too bad, iirc). The federal government, alone, is attacking freedoms DAILY in a myriad of ways. You think Net Neutrality was won? Hah. You think either party is interested in progressive taxation? Hah. What about that section 702 of the Patriot Act? How many cycles before these issues are quietly readdressed? At some point, you need to decide if you have a responsibility to protect your own self-interests. Even if this means something as appalling as choosing a different box.
I remember her first run (Score:3)
but never could figure out what her qualifications were. Sure, she was the president's wife, but did she participate in decision making?
It seems to me that the press has elevated the status of the first lady to co-president. I don't buy it. Being married to a president doesn't make you presidential material any more than being married to an engineer makes you an engineer.
If there was something wrong with my car I wouldn't call the mechanic's wife/husband, I'd call the mechanic.
No surprise at all... (Score:3)
Hillary is now the official front runner for the Democrats. She will raise a ton of money do doubt. But she was also the front runner back in 2008 until this obscure Senator named Obama came out of nowhere...and the rest is history.
For many Democrats, Clinton is too centrist. Certainly to the right of Obama. They see her as being just a little to cozy with business types. She has a lot of well documented baggage - past and present. Democrats are torn between supporting someone they believe can win (Clinton) and a less flawed candidate with a lesser chance of winning.
Her resignation from the Clinton Foundation is quite timely. I'm sure that we are going to hear about questionable donations from foreign heads of state to her foundation and allegations of pay-for-play. It all ties in with the secretive email server and the subsequent disappearance of thousands of email messages that were not only never turned over they were willfully destroyed.
I think that some in the Democratic party fear there is a smoking gun and that if someone manages to get to the bottom of it their chances of retaining control of the White House drop to nearly zero. It would not surprise me to suddenly see Elizabeth Warren emerge as a candidate, despite her repeated denials that she is running.
Having said all of that I don't think that Jeb Bush is the answer. We need someone new and fresh ideas.
Re: (Score:2)
Yawn.
Benghazi?
If you can't get the citizenry outraged over the 9/11 fuckup what makes you think they'll even wake up for that nothingburger?
Monica Lewinsky?
Who?
Re: (Score:2)
Never understood this. A country attacked from within, thousands dead, hundreds of billions of associated costs, but not a single government official, was to blame? No-one?
You can see why the nutters think it was an inside job.
Re:So... (Score:5, Interesting)
How about all them deleted emails?
Yawn.
I am pretty liberal and I can hardly imagine voting Republican again for a while, but even I cannot understand why the email thing isn't a bigger deal. I guess that is because I am not a lawyer. From what I can tell, deleting potential evidence that you even think might be subpoenaed later is a crime. A pretty serious one. And the Republicans have been threatening to subpoena for those records since the scandal started.
This doesn't seem like some little transgression to me. I think the Benghazi nonsense is just that, nonsense. But the email deletions literally seem like a jail-able offense to me. And honestly I think they should be. As far as I can tell the only reason she isn't in more trouble is because Eric Holder is a very political attorney general.
I would love for someone to convince me this isn't a big deal, and considering the media doesn't cover this more I am probably just wrong about how bad it is. I thought the email scandal was ridiculous when it was just about using her private server, but the second she admitted to deleting the emails things just became far less trivial.
Re: (Score:2)
Monica Lewinsky?
Hillary Clinton was responsible how exactly?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you honestly think any democrat is better? Look where all the Wall Street campaign donations are going. In 2012, most went to the democrats. Do you think they did that because the democrats were going to rein in corporate malfeasance? Or maybe because the Obama administration and democratic leadership are a subsidiary of Goldman Sachs?
Re: (Score:2)
If it ends up being Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush, I will conclude it is time to flee the U.S. for a free country. Unfortunately I don't know of any countries out there that are both free enough to go to and yet stupid enough to let Americans in.
Oh well. There is always the safety of the grave to look forward to.
In both of the last elections there were a bunch of high profile people who claimed they would leave the US if Obama was (re-)elected. But when push came to shove they stayed in the US.
I'm betting that people like you will be making the same vociferous claims, and like those other people will stay in the country regardless of who wins the election. Lets face it, if you were so dis-enamored with the country that you are going to leave, then basing your decision to stay or go on something that only comes aro
Re:Almost Time (Score:5, Interesting)
If it ends up being Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush,
Who would move the US more to the right: Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush?
My current thinking is that Hillary would.
Re: (Score:2)
Would the media care the same way?
Re: (Score:3)
Fuck tech news, post everything that could generate clicks!"
Oh piss off. Slashdot has always been "news for nerds, stuff that matters". I'm pretty sure that the US presidential race is "stuff that matters". Politics has always been on slashdot. If you don't like it, demand your subscription money back.