Anonymous Hacks Donald Trump's Voicemail and Leaks the Messages (betanews.com) 314
Mark Wilson writes: In the run-up to the presidential election, few days go by when Donald Trump isn't hitting the headlines for something he's said or done. The bombastic billionaire looks set to become the Republican candidate, and his journey towards the White House is littered with offense and controversy, and back in December Anonymous declared war on him. The loose collective of hackers and activist made its declaration after Trump announced plans to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. One of the first strikes in Anonymous' war sees the group hacking the businessman's voicemail and leaking the messages. The messages appear to show that Trump had a surprisingly cosy relationship with the more left-leaning section of the media than one might imagine.
Not really. (Score:4, Insightful)
There is very little "left-leaning" media in the USofA. Most of it would be corporate-leaning.
And they love him because (exactly as he says) he brings in the ratings for them. He's always ready for a friendly interview.
Re:Not really. (Score:5, Insightful)
The media has been hammering him from all sides. It's incredibly obvious that the establishment wants Hillary or Rubio.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If they really wanted to "hammer him", they wouldn't give him air-time, which is the opposite of what they do. Trump is a ratings magnet.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is of course the exact treatment Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein get. What this US election is clearly showing is the blatant and extreme bias of corporate media in America, they have stopped even trying to pretend to be news media and instead have gone whole hog on corporate propaganda. They are really starting to give of that stench of losing to the internet. The idiot box/TV versus the smart box/internet and the internet is kicking mains stream media arse and they are just really starting to lose it
Re: (Score:2)
Giving more air time to people who are well known and have very high unfavorable ratings should not be expected to be helpful to them. It rallies people against him; he eventually gets around to offending almost everybody. Turnout will be high.
It helps the Trump brand for whatever TV project he's doing after the election, but nobody is trying to stop him from that.
That's what they're doing, to go to convention. (Score:5, Interesting)
Kasich obviously can't win the nomination outright via the primaries. 99.5% chance Rubio can't either. What they CAN do is stash enough delegates to deny Trump the majority he needs to become the automatic nominee. When Kasich and probably Rubio drop out after the first convention vote, their delegates become free to vote for anyone else. That'll be the agreed non-Trump nominee. That's why they are still getting big-money donations and other support - because by dividing up the delegates four ways, Trump can't get a strict majority and the convention will be free to choose someone other than Trump. That's also why Ben Carson SUSPENDED his campaign rather than ended it- suspending means he can still select a few anti-Trump delegates. Most if not all of the drop outs suspended for that reason, and also if they had campaign debt.
If they all dropped out and supported Cruz NOW, Cruz might win 48% to Trumps 52%. By offering four primary candidates, hopefully Trump will get less than 50%, then at the convention the anti-Trump delegates (the majority) will choose the nominee.
Re: Not really. (Score:2)
If Trump wins (and that's a big if), the establishment most likely would form a coalition to get the delegates required. It would destroy both parties but the. There would finally be the true single party that rules the USA, perhaps a coup or riots would then reinstate democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
If they know they're going to lose the general, they might want to preserve their party delegate system and just distance themselves from the candidate, like they did with Goldwater.
Re:Truly... (Score:4, Interesting)
Her effort? Having your testicles removed and your penis mutilated does not make a man a woman.
Yeah, he won a decathlon before he went batshit crazy. Why should we celebrate mental illness?
Re: Truly... (Score:2)
Re: Not really. (Score:4, Insightful)
>Most of it would be corporate-leaning.
Establishment-leaning. Yes, pro- corporate, but also pro- State, banksters, regulators, NGO's, etc. Which isn't all that surprising since the corps pay them and the regulators don't shut them down if they dance on cue.
http://www.econlib.org/library... [econlib.org]
Are you separarting? (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't listen to just me, several studies and reports have said what I'm about to say, including an Ivy league school. The US has become almost text book fascism as defined by Mussolini. Meaning, you can not separate regulators from Corporations because the regulators work for the corporations. Regulatory capture has occurred in every sector of the economy. It is really easy to see, but you have to at least glance at it.
Main stream media simply works for those same interests. Again, it's easy to see if you care to look. "Money" and "Ratings" are a byproduct of the control the establishment has over the people using media.
Re:Are you separarting? (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't listen to just me, several studies and reports have said what I'm about to say, including an Ivy league school.
Cite?
Re: (Score:2)
The ivy league is not exempt from the issue you speak of. In fact, it has become a purveyor.
Re: (Score:2)
Until the French revolution happens. The problem is that the poor get poorer (debt and ladder rungs get further apart) and rich get richer (rent seeking while not producing anything of value). You're painting the rich elite as some technocratic power with decent foresight, but they're far from it.
Their power is more or less emergent, this whole system is and at some point i
You are both missing the middle (Score:2)
Sure, the uneducated give up votes for the best lie and can't measure up front. Sure, the best politicians are the best liars. Sure, money is power so the wealthy exert power in all possible ways. While those things are true, it's also true that revolutions are rarely driven by the uneducated and easily fooled. Revolutions come from the educated middle class. People who are smart enough to see the game, and not quite oppressed enough to be ignorant. These same people are often overlooked and underest
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget that period in the 70's when Bernstein exposed the CIA as controlling most of the mainstream news in the USA.
How Americas Most Powerful News Media Worked Hand in Glove with the Central Intelligence Agency and Why the Church Committee Covered It Up [carlbernstein.com]
And yes, that's the same Bernstein that broke Watergate.
Re: Not really. (Score:2)
Then you haven't seen the SJW's. (Score:2)
There is very little "left-leaning" media in the USofA. Most of it would be corporate-leaning.
If it's willing to sympathize with professional victims and smear their critics, it's not exactly corporate-leaning in the traditional sense.
Re: (Score:2)
You're joking right? ..or is this yet another no true leftist fallacy? I suppose the NYT and the WP dont' qualify? I suppose it is mild compared to the outright marxist crap they get in sweden, but they are still left leaning. ..and sure, there's plenty of corporate crap, too. Authoritarian regimes favor corporate interests as long as they've got the lobbying power.
Re: Not really. (Score:5, Informative)
The part you are missing is that the left in the US is often further to the right than the right in most other countries (assuming you ignore the fringes of both).
Yes, believe it or not left and right tend to be relative to local center, and in the US that has been drifting to the right since about 1492..
Nothing wrong with that of course, every country is free to want what it wants from politics, just dont fall in to the trap of thinking that
the USAs left and right align with most other countries left and right.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The part you are missing is that the left in the US is often further to the right than the right in most other countries
Absolutely! This site [politicalcompass.org] has a good overview of political leanings, showing the current trend towards the right/authoritarian.
Re: (Score:2)
The part you are missing is that the left in the US is often further to the right than the right in most other countries (assuming you ignore the fringes of both).
By "most other countries" you're probably referring to Europe. Most other countries should by definition include the entire middle east, as well as every autocratic nation in Asia (in other words, just about every Asian country, including the former iron curtain nations.)
But even then, Europe wouldn't be accurate either. There's been a very big fascist uprising in Europe as of late. That is to say, they fascist parties in France and Denmark have over 28% of the vote, and about 15 other European countries ha
Re: Not really. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Not really. (Score:2, Insightful)
There is no "left" in US mainstream politics....there's only "right wing" and "batshit crazy insane right wing".
Re: (Score:2)
I'm thankful.
Re: Not really. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That makes sense, he's a center-right "conservative democrat" here in the US.
Re: Not really. (Score:5, Insightful)
> Quick sanity test: is the New York Times a liberal newspaper?
Which definition of 'liberal' are you using? The word has been co-opted so many times, even in recent decades, that your question may not be useful.
If you mean 'authoritan-socialist' then say that. (My best guess, but who knows? They're certainly not classically liberal).
Re: Not really. (Score:2)
Yep authoritarian socialist is a good discription.
Re: (Score:3)
Apparently you are too illiterate to know the difference between left-leaning and liberal.
Re: (Score:3)
Google "Judith Miller". See how the New York Times presented her material vs opposing material regarding the Iraq War.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Quick sanity test: is the New York Times a liberal newspaper?
There is one and only one correct answer to this question. Fail it, and...well...you've failed comprehension.
it's a liberal-leaning establishment rag. they celebrate power, they celebrate wealth, they reject the fringe. they nominally lean left. On the dem side, they endorse hillary, on the repub side, they endorse kasich. that's how they roll.
i remember when US accidentally bombed a doctors without borders clinic. every paper in the world was like, "US bombs doctors without borders clinic!" NYT was like "Doctors Without Borders clinic is bombed; US investigating." It took them like a week to finally get around to
Re: (Score:2)
How about this?
It is "left-leaning" if you only consider a 1-dimensional "spectrum" with one side being "left" and the other being "right".
Now, change it to a 2-dimensional triangle with the vertices of "left", "right" and "centrist" and the placement changes.
Now make it a 3-dimensional model with "pro-corporate" and "anti-corporate" added and the difference should be obvious.
It also helps with the "anything that is to the left of me is leftist" and "anything that is to the right of me is fascist" tirades.
S
Re: (Score:2)
This makes no sense to me. so you agree it's a pro-corporate, pro-money left leaning rag?
Re: (Score:2)
How the hell can you have a pro-corporate, pro-money group and call them left leaning? By definition the left is for the people. So unless you're calling not quite as far right as most being left leaning...
No wonder the American revolutionaries started out by purging the right wingers. And yes, Torie is another name for Conservative.
Re: Not really. (Score:2)
Yeah just look at examples of left wing governments throughout the 20th century and how good they were for their people. You're an idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
One of these things is not like the other.
Nice! (Score:2)
I'll get the pop corn.
This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone (Score:5, Insightful)
The Donald got caught with a "hot mic" on a commercial break of the Morning Joe talk show on MSNBC, where Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski were VERY friendly with him. Hell, it almost like it seemed like they were giving him campaign advice during the chat.
I'd imagine that CNN loves him as well, simply for the ratings boost he's given to the Republican debates.
Re:This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone (Score:5, Insightful)
People seem remarkably naive about how this works. What you are looking at is people using each other to their advantages. Left wing or right wing have nothing to do with it.
For the record I don't think Trump is either. His ideology begins and ends with himself.
Conspiracy theory... (Score:3)
Trump is really in a conspiracy with Hillary so that he'll get the Republican nomination & then lose the election, ensuring Hillary's presidency
Hello (Score:5, Funny)
Hello America!
I'm Italian, pizza spaghetti & poor english, so don't grammar nazi me, please.
I'll go straight to the point.
Thank you all for Donald Trump, I mean it: thank you from the bottom of my heart.
For two decades, wherever I went, everyone who was not italian that I met around the world asked me a question, and I felt silently ashamed facing that simple question: "Why Berlusconi?".
Everywhere.
Italian? Why Berlusconi?
Even in Argentina, in a small gas station in the middle of nothing in Patagonia, a place without Internet, without sat channels, without newspapers: "Italianos? Berlusconi! Las fiestas con las ninas!".
That was awful.
Now, with Donald Trump you will receive from us the Olympic Torch of political silliness, you will rewrite THAT question, you will set us free, at last. Worldwide.
God bless America.
Francesco Lanza, 28 feb 2016
True story (Score:4, Interesting)
For two decades, wherever I went, everyone who was not italian that I met around the world asked me a question, and I felt silently ashamed facing that simple question: "Why Berlusconi?".
True story:
I was vacationing in Bulgaria in the early 'aughts, was chatting people up on the street and almost got mugged *twice* because I was American (and specifically because of Bush).
I went right back to the hotel and told my GF: "From now on, we are Canadian. If anyone asks, we're from Canada!"
Didn't have any problem after that.
Love Bulgaria, the people are nice, but don't tell them you're American...
Re: (Score:2)
Cheap beachside holidays on the black sea, what's not to love?
A Norwegian family I used to know used to spend annual vacations there.
Re: Remember George W. Bush? (Score:2)
Why don't you go take 5 minutes to read the aumf for iraq.
Donald Trump Rocks (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, Trump's a jerk. But he's also the only Candidate besides Bernie Sanders who thinks healthcare (not just "affordable" healthcare) is a right. Yes, he's said some racist things, but he's also said them out loud instead of dog whistling.
I'll take Trump over Rubio any day of the week. Rubio's the kind of guy who'd stab me in the gut, twist the knife and then smile; saying it's nothing personal, just business. If Trump's gonna stab me in the gut it's because he hates them. I can deal with Trumps Hate. Rubio's cold hearted unlimited greed? Not so much.
Worth repeating... (Score:5, Informative)
According to polls, though, if Hillary dropped out (perhaps because she was in jail) and it became a race between Bernie and any GOP person including Trump, Bernie would win. He's the least unfavorable candidate according to polls; lots of people despise Trump (on both sides), and lots of people despise Hillary (on both sides). Almost no one despises Bernie; they can't even come up with any real dirt on him. They can say stupid stuff about "socialism", they can say his policies won't work, they can say completely idiotic things about 90% tax rates (betraying a complete lack of understanding of marginal rates and also his actual policies), they can complain about his age (even though he's only 5 years older than Trump and 6 older than Hillary who's had a lot of health problems), but no one really *despises* him like they do all the other candidates. The other GOP candidates aren't as unliked, but they're not liked either: everyone thinks Cruz is a liar and a religious nut, and that Rubio is a robot and in the pocket of the establishment.
No one mentions charity? (Score:2)
Funny how no one is running with that story.
FYI (Score:2)
Anonymous was dismantled a couple years back, so now they are almost certainly a government operation.
That's it? (Score:2)
Trump has a cozy relationship with the media? A public media figure has a cozy relationship with the media. Trump plays the news media like a fidlle. Great work anonymous.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend (Score:2)
Trump is running against right-wing purists. The media doesn't get along with them. Oh, and BTW, there is very little right-wing media. Oh, you mean corporate media? Right, so basically, any media outlet that makes money including Gawker. Oh, wait, you mean internet media which is so well known for facts. But I digress. IMHO, Trump's strategy is quite effective. He talks to the people he needs to get results. He's not the type of person who says, "I won the election. They're going to have to shut
why? (Score:3)
President is in charge of Dept of Justice (Score:2)
However, the President controls the Dept of Justice, so can bring significant charges against the banking and medical industries. Imagine an SEC that actually does it's job. Ditto w/ the Dept of Treasury. A President should be able to cause significant disruption for the Federal Reserve.
Were either Sanders or Trump to win, to me the greatest threats are assassination and removal fro
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm... No condemnation of bullying...
No condemnation of hacking a system...
It's cool when it happens to non-politically approved persons... Right slashdot?
Morons.
Actually, becoming a politician does open up many aspects of your life to the public.
Everyone has known this for a long time. There are lines that are traditionally not crossed (family life), and the location of these lines is an issue of constant debate.
Re:I thought internet harassment was bad? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's cool when it happens to non-politically approved persons... Right slashdot?
Morons.
It's long been traditional to point and laugh when someone who supports something against others gets upset when that thing happens to him.
Trump Won't Rule Out Warrantless Searches for Muslims in the US [newsmax.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Seeing as Trump is well on his way to winning the presidency, he might qualify as "politically approved".
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that David Duke would be considered "left-leaning" by many.
Re: That's it? (Score:2)
And he's been involved with several socialist groups and political parties.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
NSA and all the other agencies are in the executive branch and work for obama. maybe you should shush.
Re: Indeed. (Score:2)
That's exactly what Democrats like to say.
Re:Let Me Guess... (Score:5, Interesting)
That isn't a problem. The President is free to resign at any time, and the Vice President will then take over as Acting President. It's exactly what Nixon did.
Honestly, I'd be OK with Trump doing that, as long as his VP isn't one of the existing or former GOP candidates. It couldn't be any worse than any of the other current GOP candidates, or Hillary. Trump is likely doing all this for his big ego anyway, but still that's a lot better than the other GOP candidates and Hillary who are really working for special interests.
Re:Let Me Guess... (Score:5, Interesting)
There's some merit in that idea. I did propose a solution which would result in my voting for Trump. Put him as VP alongside Sanders - it's just crazy enough to work. It's not like Congress is going to let either one of them do anything meaningful. We might as well give us the best entertainment money can buy, or something like that.
I'm not big on conspiracy theories or things of that nature. I'm really not... However! (You knew that was coming, didn't you?) I know this is probably *not* the case but I have wondered if Trump's actually a spoiler that has gone horribly wrong - or fantastically correct. He's completely disrupted the GOP. I don't watch television or see any ads online but I understand he hasn't even been paying for ads. (That's particularly clever and we were sort of discussing that in a journal post last night/this morning.)
What if Trump's not meant to win but is just meant to take enough votes from the Republicans to make the ride a bit easier for the Democrats? He is good friends with Hillary, after all. I'm pretty sure that's a complete bastardization of the political process but I'd not put it past them. I'm also guessing that we'd not hear about it until well after the deed is done and can no longer be undone.
To be clear, I'm absolutely NOT suggesting that is the case. (Sadly, this is Slashdot and I'm compelled to clarify that.) It's not even an accusation. It's just more of a, "What if?" It's probably not illegal. I'm thinking that it might be adequate for impeachment but this is a Clinton we're talking about. They could even be banking on it not becoming obvious until well after the fact. It really wouldn't even require a lot of other people to be involved and they could easily do it with leaving little to no information behind.
Hell, one or both of them could be in a position where they have either plausible deniability or no actual knowledge to begin with. Heh, almost Manchurian in nature. At the very least, it could be fairly easy to get someone in Trump's position motivated to run and convinced he thought it all up himself. It might actually make an interesting novel or movie.
At any rate, I'd absolutely have no choice but to vote for a Sanders/Trump ticket. I might even vote a Trump/Sanders ticket. Why? It's not that I don't like you but that it would be the most amusing four years in my life, collectively speaking. I bet not a day goes by that I'm not given cause to laugh like hell.
In the words of the immortal Chink: Ha ha, ho ho, he he! (Should not be an obscure reference on Slashdot.)
Re:Let Me Guess... (Score:5, Interesting)
I did propose a solution which would result in my voting for Trump. Put him as VP alongside Sanders - it's just crazy enough to work. It's not like Congress is going to let either one of them do anything meaningful. We might as well give us the best entertainment money can buy, or something like that.
A Trump/Sanders ticket would be hilarious; I've thought of that too. Even funnier would be if they both chose each other as running mates, and ran that way: Trump/Sanders vs Sanders/Trump.
However, I disagree about them doing anything meaningful. Even with an uncooperative Congress, the President does have a lot of power, and especially the power to say "no" and refuse action. If Congress wants to start a war in the middle east and the President says "no", that's the end of it: there's no military action without his approval. If Congress or other powers-that-be want to grab Snowden or Assange and torture them in Guantanamo, the President has the power to not do that, and even to pardon them. If Congress wants to pass TPP or SOPA/PIPA or whatever, the President has a lot of power to throw a wrench into the works there. If Congress wants the NSA to spy on all Americans, the President has the power to shut it down.
What if Trump's not meant to win but is just meant to take enough votes from the Republicans to make the ride a bit easier for the Democrats? He is good friends with Hillary, after all.
You're definitely not the first person to think of this. A LOT of people have suggested this for a while now. However, it seems that Sanders has thrown a wrench into that plan. A lot of Democrat voters despise Hillary and will vote for Trump instead of her (or just write Sanders in). According to polls, though, if Hillary dropped out (perhaps because she was in jail) and it became a race between Bernie and any GOP person including Trump, Bernie would win. He's the least unfavorable candidate according to polls; lots of people despise Trump (on both sides), and lots of people despise Hillary (on both sides). Almost no one despises Bernie; they can't even come up with any real dirt on him. They can say stupid stuff about "socialism", they can say his policies won't work, they can say completely idiotic things about 90% tax rates (betraying a complete lack of understanding of marginal rates and also his actual policies), they can complain about his age (even though he's only 5 years older than Trump and 6 older than Hillary who's had a lot of health problems), but no one really *despises* him like they do all the other candidates. The other GOP candidates aren't as unliked, but they're not liked either: everyone thinks Cruz is a liar and a religious nut, and that Rubio is a robot and in the pocket of the establishment.
Re: (Score:2)
We need to get some designs made up for Sanders/Trump and Trump/Sanders bumper stickers. Way back when, I got a bumper sticker made up that said, "Archie Bunker for President!" I got given the finger, a lot. It was hilarious.
Anyhow, the president has plenty of power, just not as much as most people think. We'll likely end up with a stalled Congress and maybe, just maybe, they'll learn to compromise and actually consider working for the people. Well, it *could* happen.
Re: Let Me Guess... (Score:4, Insightful)
Without an actual counter-argument you realize that it's more likely that your post will be modded "troll", right?
Re: (Score:3)
I don't really care if I get modded down so far I can't edit my hosts file for moo-ing. [..] Mod me down; label me a troll. But I used to be your neighbour. I used to be your friend.
Well if you really didn't care, then you would have just stated your case without the special pleading, because we all know that whenever you do this the opposite happens and you get modded +5.
Re: (Score:3)
the LESS the federal government does, the more free the people are to be free. Gridlock over passing stuff for the sake of passing stuff IS the right way.
the constitution is suposed to mkae it hard for congress to make changes at the federal level for a reason
Re: Let Me Guess... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: Let Me Guess... (Score:5, Interesting)
But you have to admit, politically speaking, your country is a fucking laughing stock right now isn't it?
Tough call, actually. We just put over half the government into jail for criminal bribery. Seriously. 14 out of 27 MPs were convicted. On the one hand. Bribery is so common and politicians are so shameless that they collectively walked right into a conviction. On the other hand, we actually showed that crimes among the ruling class have consequences.
Re: Let Me Guess... (Score:2)
But that's because you'd rather see people die in the gutter than hand over a penny, Scrooge. Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?
Re: (Score:2)
Americans already pay close to 40% of their income in taxes and the government STILL runs a deficit every year. The state is beggaring the taxpayers with interest and inflation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Let Me Guess... (Score:2)
Is the death rate significantly higher in Europe?
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense, just because you have a global health system doesn't mean you are a socialist country. Guess what? The world is not black an white, you can actually pick and choose which policies you want. In fact most 1st world countries, if not all, except the USA have one. It is cheaper to run than the US system, and all people live longer, including the rich. All the US system does is give money to the health insurance companies.
But don't let evidence cloud your judgement, the moment you get global health ca
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Ad hominem. Why won't you think of the children of the communist countries ? How many millions dead in the name of Bernies ideas? Oh, but sure, Scrooge, very compelling. Run along child, the cake is a lie.
Sanders' ideal are the Nordic countries. Care to expand on the millions of dead there?
Re: Let Me Guess... (Score:2)
You've stated on here before that you don't believe in charity. Humbug!
Re: (Score:2)
The President is the Commander-in-Chief of the military. So sure, Congress could impeach him, but the President could also direct the military and federal police to act against Congress and arrest them. It'd be an interesting situation for sure; who would the military follow? I think at that point, it'd depend on what the top military leaders believed, if a war was really necessary or if it was foolhardy or worse.
Re: Let Me Guess... (Score:2)
What if Trump's not meant to win but is just meant to take enough votes from the Republicans to make the ride a bit easier for the Democrats?
And... this is exactly how Billary v1.0 was elected the first time - Perot was used to steal votes from G.B. Senior.
* President, not acting. Big fight in 1841 (Score:5, Informative)
> Vice President will then take over as Acting President.
There was a big fight about that in 1841. John Tyler insisted that he was President, his political opponents insisted that he was merely Acting President. He refused to open the letters they sent him, addressed to Acting President. Tyler won the fight. He was President.
Later, the 25th Amendment removed all doubt. The 25th begins with these words:
In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
Re: (Score:2)
Anonymous is the GOP? No wonder they act all stern, strict, and that kind of crap about anonymous. It's like the most vocal anti gay voices seem to belong to closet homosexuals.
Re: Let Me Guess... (Score:2)
It's like the most vocal anti gay voices seem to belong to closet homosexuals.
And two thirds of 'em are Southern youth pastors.
Please tell that to the US Government (Score:2)
i'm so sick of anonymous. they may have strong opinions, but the US election is an internal matter. we'll sort it out ourselves. butt out.
Perhaps you would like to share that point of view with your current government which seems intent on telling Britain how it should vote in the upcoming EU referendum.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see the relation.I'm talking about the core principle of democracy. you're talking about international negotiations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Please tell that to the US Government (Score:2)
That makes sense. Democrats are dependent on foreigners votes, after all.
Re: (Score:2)
why? every election in the free world has this. obama has this. gwb has this. bill clinton has this. should foreign agents interfere in every single us election? if so, maybe we SHOULD bomb the world because they are literally trying to take away our freedom to choose our own leadership.
Re:Another worthless stunt from Anonymous (Score:4, Insightful)
The easiest way to get Americans to vote for someone the outside world does not like is to make it obvious they do not like them. Americans will hold their nose and elect Satan himself if a bunch of foreigners acted like we couldn't. The overwhelming vast majority of Americans agree on one thing, foreigners do not have the right to tell us what to do.
Keep it up and Trump will be president.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You really need to grow up, friends.
Yes, patronizing comments like these are so helpful. Keep it up, "friend".
Re:Another worthless stunt from Anonymous (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't really like being in the position of defending Trump but when has he said he'd attack foreign people and countries? Specifically?
I checked Google and the only thing I'm seeing is where he said he'd have opened fire on the Paris terrorists. I guess, with some mental gymnastics, one could construe that into saying that he'd attack foreign people and countries? However, I'm pretty sure that even some of the French said that. Actually, I think they did.
Re:Another worthless stunt from Anonymous (Score:4, Insightful)
Yet you're paraphrasing. Do you have a link to the transcript of that comment? I should think you'd have actually quoted what he said. I mean, it's Trump. There's a gazillion things wrong with him. There are countless reasons that people have to not want him to be the president. Some of them are even good reasons. It should be easy to find that quote - and, again, Google's not finding anything using those terms.
Re: (Score:3)
Yet you're paraphrasing. Do you have a link to the transcript of that comment?
“And the other thing is with the terrorists, you have to take out their families. They, they care about their lives. Don’t kid yourself. But they say they don’t care about their lives. You have to take out their families.” link [thinkprogress.org]
Asked about it later, he refused to back down [thinkprogress.org]
That's no dove. (Score:2)
That's an ostrich.
He's an isolationist who wants to believe that treating foreign policy as someone else's problem is a viable strategy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Another worthless stunt from Anonymous (Score:2)
Do you think any people has a right to enter a foreign country?
Apart from Bernie. (Score:2, Insightful)
Who, unlike Trump, is sane and has actual policy positions and ethics he's demonstrated for 30 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Anonymous didn't do this.... read the Gawker story... it was just some 4Chan users
The thing about Anonymous is they don't have an "official" head. Anyone that wants to use the banner can. That was always the biggest strength and weakness of the group. You cannot shut it down if you can't define it. But it cannot stand for anything either.
Yes it might be some 4Chan users, but what stops them being classified as being part of Anonymous?