Julian Assange: Google is 'Directly Engaged' In Hillary Clinton's Campaign (infowars.com) 477
An anonymous reader writes from a report via Infowars: Speaking to the "New Era of Journalism: Farewell to Mainstream" symposium, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange stated Google is "directly engaged" with the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton. Assange said, "The chairman of Google, Eric Schmidt, set up a company to run the digital component of Hillary Clinton's campaign." As reported by Quartz in late 2015, an under-the-radar startup known as "The Groundwork" was funded by Schmidt "to ensure that Clinton has the engineering talent needed to win the election." Assange went on to say that "[...] once Hillary Clinton becomes president, those people in Google, like Jared Cohen, will be placed into positions around the new Clinton presidency." Controlling the majority of the world's smart phones, Assange adds, raises even more serious concerns in light of the company's growing and monopolistic influence. "Google controls 80 percent of the smart phone market through its control of Android and if you control the device itself -- that people use to read -- then anything that they connect to through that device you have control over as well. [...] Google has gotten into bed with the Obama administration in a very significant way," Assange stated. "It is the company that visits the White House more than any other -- averaged once per week in the last 4 years."
Democracy? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds more like monopoly than democracy
Re:Democracy? (Score:2)
The trick is to get hotels on some of the more expensive addresses. Unfortunately they are all occupied by big property tychoons.
Re:Democracy? (Score:5, Funny)
Go directly to jail, do not pass Go(ogle)
Re:Democracy? (Score:2)
Re:Democracy? (Score:5, Interesting)
What we have is corporate plutocracy. Google will push it towards technocracy, which is probably a good thing. Furthermore, Google receives its revenue through targeted advertising, which requires making sure people have at least some disposable income and communication channels which make it possible to profile them.
You'll always have a corporate overlord as long as you have capitalism, so why not a reasonably enlightened one?
Re:Democracy? (Score:3)
You'll always have a corporate overlord as long as you have capitalism, so why not a reasonably enlightened one?
Not if we properly enforced the anti-trust laws. Monopolistic behavior is not capitalism. And enforcement of that is required to actually have competition, which is one of the primary goals.
Re:Democracy? (Score:3)
Well, in their defense, they did promise to do no evil.
Re:Democracy? (Score:5, Funny)
He is hiding from Sweden. The country known for neutrality.
Ummm... Did you perhaps mean Switzerland? Then again, I don't think Assange is hiding from the Swiss.
That 'sw' combination at the beginning of a word can be confusing. Of course, so can that 'wh' combination. You know, as in whore...
Re:Democracy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sweden has been known before to do as the US commands. Like in the scientology case: http://merlin.obs.coe.int/iris... [coe.int] The government was corrected by the courts, but the documents in question could not be requested anymore as before.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Democracy? (Score:3)
The Swedish criminal justice system is different from ours. They have different terms, and they don't really line up. Sweden wants to bring Assange to Sweden to stand trial, which is pretty much equivalent.
The UK does not extradite for offenses that are not crimes under UK law. Assange challenged the extraditions in UK courts, and they found that what he was accused of would be a serious crime in the UK. I think you're again working with mistranslations. (FWIW, my state doesn't have laws against rape. It has laws against criminal sexual conduct. That doesn't mean it's OK to hold a woman at gunpoint and rape her.)
Nope. Assange is wanted to face normal criminal charges, nothing political about it. He's wanted for a trial on rape charges (or the equivalent) in Sweden, and he's a fugitive from justice in the UK. There's absolutely nothing in international law that says a wanted criminal gets to leave the country.
First, you're paranoid. There's no evidence for a sealed indictment, and I don't know what he could be charged with. Second, extradition from Sweden when extradited from the UK would require approvals from both the UK and Sweden, so it would have been easier to do it earlier. Third, Assange voluntarily went to Sweden, apparently thinking that he wasn't likely to be extradited to the US, and this specter of extradition or extraordinary rendition didn't seem to come up until after the incidents with the women.
Of course not. He wouldn't get a trial. He wouldn't get punished or anything without a trial in the US. The US simply doesn't want him. He never entered the US, and is not a US citizen. He published leaked information, which is perfectly legal in the US. (The person who violated US law in this affair has been convicted and sentenced.) Now, if he were to enter the US (and we'd probably refuse him entry) and commit a crime, he would get a reasonably fair trial, unless he went for a plea bargain.
Which is perfectly legal in the US, BTW. From my point of view, his main crime seems to have been certain sexual conduct with a couple of women.
The evidence is consistent with the theory that he went to Sweden voluntarily, committed sex crimes in Sweden, fled to the UK to avoid trial, and then made up crap about political persecution to avoid facing the consequences of his actions. It isn't very consistent with the theory that he was framed or falsely accused for political purposes.
Re:Sorry Julian (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry jafiwam, but you've not seen inside Julian's 'insurance' file nor Snowden's 'insurance' file.
Until you can compare the two, you don't know jack shit, son.
No comaony makes it that far. (Score:5, Insightful)
No company gets the breadth of google without getting in bed with the government.
Re:No company makes it that far. (Score:3, Insightful)
very insightful. correcting typos and reposting
Re: What about a comaony like Google? (Score:4, Informative)
Julian Assange has previously done great work unmasking the nefarious schemes of Google to enslave the world [techcrunch.com].
Stranger Than Fiction (Score:3)
Also, would love to see some evidence to the fact, though I have to admit it doesn't sound so farfetched.
Sin visited with punishment (Score:2)
Welcome to the entire history of mankind (Score:2)
Powerful person provides money or knowledge to forward a political leader who he knows will provide access to power for personal or financial gain.
How ignorant of history do you have to be to realize that this has been the pattern of human politics since the emergence from primate tribes so small that the strongest alpha male became the leader buy killing or threatening to kill every other male strong enough to compete for alpha?
Every single, viable candidate for president has had the backing of massive financial wealth with the intent to influence politics or a cult following with the skills to sway the population. Do you think newspapers, when they were the key communications mechanism, stayed above that? Hell no. Do you think JP Morgan bailing out the US Treasury at the end of the 19th century was out of the goodness of his heart? Fuck no - he was in it for the power and the money, and he was rich enough that it worked and made him hat much richer and more powerful.
Julian needs to get off his high horse and realize that he's just telling ever single person who knows history what we ALREADY know. The people at the top are corrupt as sin, because that's how you get to the top. You're really just hoping you have a choice where one of the candidates has corruptions which match your personal desires.
"a report via Infowars" (Score:5, Informative)
Good thing we aren't giving any credence to any wingnut conspiracy sites.
Four more years (Score:4, Informative)
ahhhh (Score:4, Insightful)
How ironic (Score:4, Insightful)
So here is Hillary Clinton having a speech last night after essentially securing the Democratic nomination. She touched on most of the typical democratic talking points...equality for all, helping the working class get a fair shot, etc. This is while wearing a $12,000 Armani jacket: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/06... [cnbc.com]
If this isn't the height of arrogance I don't know what is. That jacket is worth more than the yearly salaries of some of her supporters. Not to mention that many of the people on her campaign are unpaid volunteers. At least when these phony celebrities show up on humanitarian missions in some of the poorest parts of the world they at least have the humility to leave the Rolex at home.
This is the same party that was criticizing Trump for allegedly lying about how much money he raised for Veterans groups (he claimed 6 million, it was actually 5.6 million. By the time it's all said and done, it will be over 6 million). Emperor Hillary has donated a grand total of $75,000 to Veterans groups - over the past 8 years. This is from a woman with a net worth that far exceeds $100,000,000, much of it in dubious fashion. Am I surprised? Not in the least.
I wonder how many of her supporters are made up of the following:
1) People that support her solely based on the fact that she is a woman, putting aside past and current scandals and suitability for office questions.
2) People that simply hate Trump, for whatever reason.
What is striking to me is the popularity that Bernie Sanders still enjoys. I watched his speech last night in California and I'm telling you his supporters are worked up and they love this guy. I've read polls where up to 25% of Sanders supporters will not support or vote for Hillary. Some of them will even vote for Trump. That has to be alarming to the Clinton campaign, especially in light of Sanders vow to hang in to the bitter end.
I would say that the Emperor has no clothes but evidently she does...expensive ones at that.
Re:CROOKED hillary will be busted by Donald J. Tru (Score:2, Funny)
look its a propaganda bot
Re:CROOKED hillary will be busted by Donald J. Tru (Score:2, Interesting)
Trump 2016. The wall will be built. LYING GOOGLE won't change this
Allahu Akhbar!! Oops, sorry, different group of fanatics. In the longer run it doesn't matter, I suspect - American democracy is seriously ill and needs to relaunch itself in a fundamental way; only it is hard to see how that can happen peacefully.
It is interesting to observe the two elections, the EU referendum in UK and the presidential elections in the US; in UK it is mostly fairly cool-headed with at least the Remain side trying to lay out a somewhat coherent, pragmatic argument, and the Leave side responding in kind, although rather more emotionally, I feel. Compare to the US elections, where things are getting ever more hysterical; and the actual election campaign hasn't even started officially yet. I don't know - where's your dignity, if you don't mind my asking?
Re:CROOKED hillary will be busted by Donald J. Tru (Score:5, Funny)
I don't know - where's your dignity, if you don't mind my asking?
I don't know, concealed carried ?
Re:CROOKED hillary will be busted by Donald J. Tru (Score:5, Insightful)
The EU referendum in the UK has been a total disaster. The Leave side in particular just spews lies and half truths, repeating them often enough for them to become facts in some people's minds. I mean easily verifiable lies too, completely bare faced.
The worst part are the voters though. You hear endless moronic complaints. "We just want the facts", as if there is someone out there with a crystal ball who can see all possible futures and tell them exactly what will happen in either case. Are these people shocked when the weather forecast turns out to be wrong? Well, presumably not, because the other standard argument is that anyone who has ever been wrong about anything ever cannot be trusted. Apparently they only want to listen to those people making economic predictions who have never been wrong, if only the biased liberal media would allow them on TV...
I heard someone complaining that she didn't know who here MEPs are or who to vote for when the European elections come round. Literally complaining that she is too ignorant to vote and unable to do anything about it, like google the answer.
The whole thing has become dominated by memes. You have the "get rid of red tape" meme, that always avoids mentioning exactly what red tape they want to get rid of because a) all red tape is bad, even the stuff that covers that gap in the fence by the cliff, and b) it's workers rights and occupational safety, lead in paint etc, the stuff that costs businesses money. Then you have the particularly nasty "immigrants are responsible for everything that's wrong" meme that seems to ignore recent history, and the "I know how to fly this plane better than you" meme about taking back control from Brussels.
Re:CROOKED hillary will be busted by Donald J. Tru (Score:5, Insightful)
This:
The Leave campaign consists entirely of lies. The Remain campaign has some good arguments, but that is apparently not good enough, they have to have lies too.
The latest Leave meme is that we will not be safe in our beds because the EU won't let us deport foreign convicted criminals. They fail to mention
a) that is false
b) the majority of crime in Britain is committed by British people
c) deporting criminals just dumps the problem on somebody else. Raped and murdered French people are not somehow worth less than raped and murdered British people.
d) if we leave the EU, we'll have to take back all the British criminals that foreign countries are trying to get rid of but can't because of this mythical EU regulation.
Re:CROOKED hillary will be busted by Donald J. Tru (Score:3)
If we leave the EU, there will be plenty to be afraid about.
Re:CROOKED hillary will be busted by Donald J. Tru (Score:3)
One of the most prominent Leave campaigners claimed that staying in the EU risked women being raped by Muslims yesterday. The fear-mongering over immigration from that side is intense, far worse from than the mostly justifiable warnings about economic ruin if we leave.
Re:CROOKED hillary will be busted by Donald J. Tru (Score:4, Insightful)
One of the most prominent Leave campaigners claimed that staying in the EU risked women being raped by Muslims yesterday. The fear-mongering over immigration from that side is intense, far worse from than the mostly justifiable warnings about economic ruin if we leave.
Well that's actually true. It's been going on in many EU countries, and the extent of it is often suppressed [theconserv...ehouse.com]. The response from German officials is that women in Germany should "cover up" when they go out, or make sure they have a male escort.
The EU is now proposing quotas of middle eastern immigrants that all member countries must accept. So it might be fear-mongering, but it's based on facts and a predictable future outcome.
Re:CROOKED hillary will be busted by Donald J. Tru (Score:2)
The EU at least allows members to leave peacefully if they want. The last time a number of US states wanted to leave, they were conquered by the remaining part of the empire.
Re:CROOKED hillary will be busted by Donald J. Tru (Score:4, Insightful)
Nobody has ever left the EU. We don't know if we'll be allowed to leave peacefully.
Re: CROOKED hillary will be busted by Donald J. Tr (Score:2)
Dignity is for pussies.
Re:CROOKED hillary will be busted by Donald J. Tru (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:CROOKED hillary will be busted by Donald J. Tru (Score:3)
Re:CROOKED hillary will be busted by Donald J. Tru (Score:3)
You haven't been watching the news then or it's been going through some sort of pro-Trump filter.
Re:CROOKED hillary will be busted by Donald J. Tru (Score:3)
Sure... and the right has always been on the side of the pure and holy since the beginning of the universe. The Nazis were just a socialist plot to discredit the right, Mussolini was a commie stooge, and so forth I suppose. Modern proponents of the "right" are insistent that no fascist was ever conservative or on the right because they are trying to create the myth the the right is always good and all evil throughout history has only come from the "left". Left and right are all illusions anyway and it's a simplistic notion that you can plot politics in a single dimension. Fascists were strong on authoritarianism, militarism, and nationalism, but inconsistent and vague with regards to economic and social policies.
Re:CROOKED hillary will be busted by Donald J. Tru (Score:2)
OK, so Google will work with Trump in stead. Don't think he wants what they have?
Re:CROOKED hillary will be busted by Donald J. Tru (Score:2)
No, the wall won't be built. Even Trump knows it won't, but it makes for a good political hot topic. The wall would have to span across multiple agencies, and they would have to approve it, past land not owned by the government and through land that would require years of study on its effect on the little critters that live there.
No - sorry - the wall won't be built. You can bet on that.
Re:CROOKED hillary will be busted by Donald J. Tru (Score:2)
As much as I agree with you that Trump would never be able to build the wall the way he says he would, do you really think he'd let something like an environmental impact survey stop him? He seems like he'd just write an executive order saying it's exempt from those (regardless of whether he has the political power to do so) or would get someone who is willing to sign anything for the right amount of cash ("He's the best surveyor! Fantastic!").
Re:CROOKED hillary will be busted by Donald J. Tru (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:CROOKED hillary will be busted by Donald J. Tru (Score:3, Insightful)
- don't give preferential treatment to the parents of anchor babies. They can get in line like everyone else.
- do give preferential treatment to people with English skills as speaking the language of the country is an obvious win
- do give preferential treatment to immigrants with desired skills which is again an obvious win
- if you (or your family or other people you might sponsor) break laws then you get a fast track deportation.
Essentially this is to say do what is best for the country and the legal citizens who live there. Not hard really.
Re:CROOKED hillary will be busted by Donald J. Tru (Score:2)
Re:CROOKED hillary will be busted by Donald J. Tru (Score:2)
But what about the asylum seekers? Will they be turned back at the border?
Re:Well, it is either her or Trump. (Score:3, Insightful)
Clinton is going to get Trumped. Trump's presidency is going to be a fucking disaster, but like the Phoenix, maybe the American political system will be born again. This time with more parties, choices and common sense.
The only thing that would guarantee the Democrats a likely victory is if Sanders is chosen as their nominee in the DNC. His lead in the opinion polls against Trump is in the double-digits range whereas Clinton vs Trump figures are within the margin of error.
Re:Well, it is either her or Trump. (Score:4, Insightful)
His lead in the opinion polls against Trump is in the double-digits range whereas Clinton vs Trump figures are within the margin of error.
Funny that I keep hearing that, and yet every time the media and pollsters open their mouths the opposite happens. Jumping back to the recent past, you even had the flappy headed media and pollsters saying that Trump wouldn't succeed to make it to October of last year. Ol'Nick at 538 got so up set he threw a hissyfit and started acting like a child. Media? Same deal. Hillary and Sanders supporters? Well some of them opted for open violence along with illegals. [americanthinker.com] Some news organizations? Vox [twitter.com] and [archive.is] Huffpo [archive.is] are all for rioting and using violence against Trump.
Keep going guys, you're proving Trump right.
Re:Well, it is either her or Trump. (Score:4, Interesting)
Like I know if that's true.
Re:Well, it is either her or Trump. (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect he isn't quitting because he can still win. It involves all the superdelegates switching sides, but it can still happen.
Now why would the superdelegates switch to Bernie? Well, the FBI hasn't finished their investigation in Hillary Clinton's time as Secretary of State yet...
Re:Well, it is either her or Trump. (Score:2)
Plus of course, if they think Trump might win the Presidency, then Sanders is a better bet to beat him.
Re:Well, it is either her or Trump. (Score:3)
When most superdelegates declared support for Clinton Sanders shouted that superdelegates should not override the popular vote. Now that he has soundly lost the popular vote he is stating the exact opposite. And people say Sanders is not a politician.
Re:Well, it is either her or Trump. (Score:2)
Re: Well, it is either her or Trump. (Score:3)
However there have been serious allegations of irregularities at the polls. In Illinois, neutral observers claim to have seen election workers blatantly changing votes in Hillary's favor. In other places, exit polls completely disagree with the official Democratic voting results. In New York, a huge number of people had their voter registrations "magically" changed from Democratic to Independent so they were prevented from voting in the (closed) primary.
AFAIC, the election results are all completely invalid and I'm unwilling to accept them unless we have non-American UN election monitors come and hold all new elections here, using paper ballots. IMO, the whole thing has been rigged.
Bernie almost certainly won't get nominated (Score:3, Insightful)
I suspect he isn't quitting because he can still win. It involves all the superdelegates switching sides, but it can still happen.
Lots of things can happen in theory that won't in reality. Yes in principle he could still get the nomination. It is extremely unlikely at this point unless Hillary has a major medical issue or some other catastrophe occurs that her campaign can't manage. I would probably prefer Bernie as the candidate but it would take a minor miracle for him to get the nomination at this point.
Now why would the superdelegates switch to Bernie? Well, the FBI hasn't finished their investigation in Hillary Clinton's time as Secretary of State yet...
They won't switch to Bernie unless Hilllary drops out. Wishful thinking to assume otherwise. If the FBI hasn't got anything yet regarding the private server I very much doubt it will ever be a real issue beyond some poo for republicans to fling at her.
What I don't get about Hillary is why she seems to draw such special hate from some people. I get disagreement with her political stances and have no problem with an honest difference of opinion. I don't agree with much of what she says as well but it seems to be more than that. Clearly some of the ire is poorly disguised sexism. A powerful smart woman scares a lot of insecure people both men and surprisingly many women too. Many claim they don't trust her but there is NO evidence that she is meaningfully more or less trustworthy than most any other politician running for high office. To get to high office almost by definition means doing some things that put skeletons in your closet. By default I assume all of them are power seeking self interested liars and if you don't then you are an idiot. I don't trust Hillary but I don't trust any of her opponents (except maybe Bernie by just a little) any more than her and some I trust far less (Trump) with real power. At least with Hillary I have a pretty good idea what I'm getting even if I have to hold my nose at times.
Re:Bernie almost certainly won't get nominated (Score:5, Insightful)
If the FBI hasn't got anything yet regarding the private server I very much doubt it will ever be a real issue beyond some poo for republicans to fling at her.
The FBI has enough evidence that they believe is cause for an indictment. The Department of Justice is just sitting on it and not pursuing the indictment. Why would they? Why would the Democrat lead DoJ do something that would wreck the candidacy of their party's Presidential candidate?
The larger risk to Hillary right now isn't even the email scandal. It's perjury and that's why there's pushes to get Obama to issue a preemptive pardon to Hillary for whatever crimes she may have committed. A charge of perjury is not likely to be taken lightly because it can easily be played into the lying politician bias that most people have.
The whole thing is sleazy and it's showing just how incestuous DC can be.
Re:"No criminal wrongdoing" (Score:4, Insightful)
"The FBI has found "no criminal wrongdoing"."
Why is this not a story on slashdot's front page, then?
Oh, because Mediaite is a known bullshit news site.
Try again when you have a clue about real unbiased news.
Re:Bernie almost certainly won't get nominated (Score:3)
> What I don't get about Hillary is why she seems to draw such special hate from some people
For those outside the US, Hillary is the hawk urging for "regime change" and invading other countries. With her as president, it won't take long before the next war(s) start and other countries are called upon to clean the US-caused mess. Trump is more focused inward, proposes a more isolationalist view and seems less likely to mess up anywhere else on the planet.
Same as the old boss (Score:3)
For those outside the US, Hillary is the hawk urging for "regime change" and invading other countries.
No more so than any number of Republicans and less than some of them. Yeah she's more hawkish than Bernie but that's not news.
With her as president, it won't take long before the next war(s) start and other countries are called upon to clean the US-caused mess.
Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss. Can't be any worse than Bush the Lesser.
Trump is more focused inward, proposes a more isolationalist view and seems less likely to mess up anywhere else on the planet.
Spare me. The only thing Trump is focused on is the Trump brand. Trump isn't proposing any sort of focused policy and the "proposals" he has floated are idiotic. I shudder to think how fast Trump would manage to cause international incidents by running his mouth and his shoot first ask questions never approach to policy issues. 2/3 of the job of president is foreign relations and I can think of few people less appropriate for that job than Donald Trump.
Re:Well, it is either her or Trump. (Score:4, Insightful)
OP here; yes he did lose big indeed. But this doesn't change the Trump vs {Clinton|Sanders} setup. Sanders still has the upper hand in polls against Trump.
It seems that a significant portion of Sanders supporters are not willing to vote for Clinton no matter what. They either don't vote or vote for Trump. But Clinton supporters, on the other hand, seem to be willing to vote for Sanders even if Clinton lost the nomination.
But yeah, it's obvious that Clinton has accumulated so much political capital and influence that she'll blow through the rest of this circus and secure the nomination. She's got so much dirt on her, though, that I have no faith in her ability to win the election. There's also that 1-5% chance she'll get indicted for her email debacle. Hell, even if she *doesn't* get indicted, it's still bad for her (makes her look like a corrupt snake squirming away from legal troubles). It sucks when there's only bad choices, ain't it?
Re:Well, it is either her or Trump. (Score:2, Interesting)
It seems that a significant portion of Sanders supporters are not willing to vote for Clinton no matter what.
That's very abusive wording. Independents won't vote for Hillary - the second most hated major party candidate, or Drumpf - the first most hated major party candidate.
That means that "Sanders supporters" are more likely independents or unenthusiastic party members. They aren't spiteful, but uninterested in a choice between two evils Who's the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil. That makes you evil, even if you are trying to avoid a worse evil.
Re:Well, it is either her or Trump. (Score:4, Funny)
Independents won't vote for Hillary - the second most hated major party candidate, or Drumpf - the first most hated major party candidate.
They're both shining examples of what democracy looks like in a free country. America should be proud of producing such great representatives that both truly represent the interests of the people.
No matter who gets elected it's going to be great as either of them will try their best to make the future great for the everyday person. America should rejoice, the people can't loose.
Re:Well, it is either her or Trump. (Score:3, Insightful)
This has described every Presidential election in my lifetime. If Sanders were the nominee it would have been different for once...
Re:Well, it is either her or Trump. (Score:3, Funny)
Bending over is easy. Standing up straight again is the hard part.
Re:Well, it is either her or Trump. (Score:5, Informative)
He's only 6 years older than Clinton. She's 68.
Re:Well, it is either her or Trump. (Score:2, Informative)
Six years is a big difference among senior citizens, and gender life expectancy difference makes the contrast stronger.
Re:Well, it is either her or Trump. (Score:3)
Hillary's already had a stroke. Bernie's in good health.
A quick search indicates that Hillary had blood clots a few years ago, likely due to sever dehydration after having the flu (blood thickens causing a clot) based on what was reported by the doctors involved. There has been no evidence that she has had a stroke or, even if she did, that she is susceptible to having another one.
Re:Well, it is either her or Trump. (Score:2)
Re:Well, it is either her or Trump. (Score:2)
Re:Well, it is either her or Trump. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well, it is either her or Trump. (Score:2)
Re:Well, it is either her or Trump. (Score:2)
FWIW, he might not be American. For instance, I have no frikkin' clue how long the English prime minister serves.
Re:Well, it is either her or Trump. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well, it is either her or Trump. (Score:4, Interesting)
I think the opposite.
Republicans would be so happy to have a president they will rubber stamp or be string armed by trump. Just look at how many jumped to his bandwagon and not call him out on his comments.
Where as 20% of Democrats and all Republicans don't like Hillary which is enough to grind Congress to a halt.
Remember nothing has been done the last 6 years because Republicans have done what they were voted in to do nothing. Stop Obama at all costs. Hillary will get that same treatment. Trump will strong arm his way through using the Republican ideal if you aren't with us then you are against us.
Either way both will be bad for the future. I am hoping Gary Johnson can get his name out there more. Don't normally care for libertarians but he will be the best choice come November.
Re:Well, it is either her or Trump. (Score:3)
I'm not voting for trump, I'm writing in Bernie if necessary because fuck this system anyway, but I did vote for Schwarzenegger on that basis and as a plan it had no drawbacks. Moonbeam has been shit, Arnie accomplished nothing, the logic was proven out in that case. I'm not sure it would work here, though. It depends on Trump's appointments. You can be sure they will be shit. The thing is, you can be sure that Clinton's would be shit, as well. It's all bad if it's not Bernie.
Re:Well, it is either her or Trump. (Score:5, Insightful)
Glad they are picking the better side.
Easy to say that if you do most of your research using Google.
To see the bias in an easy visible way, just look at the candidate photos they use for Hillary vs Trump on the primary results page.
And then click on the candidates and see the 3 pics they have on the side to represent
Hillary
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
Trump
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
Re:Well, it is either her or Trump. (Score:3)
That's what the last Roman emperors also claimed. When the greatness needs to be specifically stated, you know the empire in in decay.
Re: and we should care? (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet.. Somehow.. He seems to care more about the manipulation of democracy than you do..
Interesting. Isn't it.
Trump is a childish idiot.
Clinton is a corrupt weasel.
Good luck America. Really. It's going to be rough.
How can anyone get that upset with Hillary? (Score:2)
I'm really wondering how people can sustain such strong negative emotions towards Hillary. Maybe I'm just too cold blooded, but she seems to be a pretty typical lawyer of the political sort. The only difference is that she's been targeted by the most negative propaganda, but I have to discount the so-called Republican Party's propaganda these days because they have clearly crossed the line and are now putting party politics ahead of everything else.
Looking at it from a historical perspective, there are plenty of comparisons to be made. For example, the previous leaders in party discipline were Lenin's Bolsheviks. I think Trump's personal insecurities should be compared with Stalin's. Lots of people have expressed concern about Bernie's extreme supporters, but they are irrelevant now, and it actually seems likely that the most extreme ones may wind up with Trump's extremists, who are already reminding me of early supporters of the Nazi Party...
By the way, did you know that Trump spent an estimated $80,000 calling for the death penalty for some teenagers who were convicted of the rape and murder of a Central Park jogger in 1989. If the Donald had gotten his way, they may well have been executed before the actual murderer was identified in 2002.
Re:How can anyone get that upset with Hillary? (Score:2)
Re:How can anyone get that upset with Hillary? (Score:2)
I basically agree with you on the dynasty thing, but I don't really blame Hillary for the failure of the Democratic Party to produce more and better candidates. I think they had a number of good ones, but the big-money political machine basically shut them down before they could even give it a shot. Not that it was better on the so-called Republican side, where they suffered from an embarrassment of anti-riches (including some with lots of money behind them), with most of the initial candidates highly unqualified for the office, even by the low-bar standards of Dubya and Dan Quayle.
By the way, I'm bringing Quayle back from the dead because that was the presidential decision that convinced me the modern so-called Republican Party had gone beyond caring about the good of the nation and was focused on partisan politics above all else. As silly as the office of the VP is supposed to be (and regarding the big dick Cheney as an aberration in that way, too), the VP is generally supposed to get SOME consideration as a future presidential candidate.
Re:How can anyone get that upset with Hillary? (Score:2)
Aren't we pretty much there now, without the need to declare anything?
Between 1989 and 2008, two families have controlled the White House. One of those families was a senior member of the administration of the only other family to control the White House. If Hillary wins a second term, two families will have controlled the White House for 28 of 35 years.
If you worked the historical numbers, that's probably more stable rule than a lot of actual monarchies.
Re:How can anyone get that upset with Hillary? (Score:2)
I'm really wondering how people can sustain such strong negative emotions towards Hillary ...
She's an amoral, crooked, corrupt, lying dirtbag without a single accomplishment outside of marrying Bill.
She slut-shamed women her husband may very well have raped - attacking any woman who made any claim that Bill harassed or raped her with a "nuts-and-sluts" attack. THEN she turns around and says, "Every woman's accusation of rape or harassment needs to be believed."
She has continuously lied about her ILLEGAL email server [cbsnews.com] - "If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying headings and send nonsecure" - hrod17@clintonemail.com. Of COURSE there were no classified emails with classification markings on them on her server - SHE TOLD HER AIDES TO REMOVE THE MARKINGS!. Oh yeah, that email is pretty much proof that Hillary committed multiple felonies with her ILLEGAL server. She lied about other Secretaries of State using private email. She's lied when she said the FBI isn't conducting a CRIMINAL investigation of her server.
The Clinton Foundation is crooked as the day is long [google.com]. Secretary of State Hillary! took millions of dollars in "donations" from foreign states WHILE MAKING DECISIONS ON THINGS LIKE WHETHER TO SELL THEM WEAPONS.
The REAL question is, "How much are you getting paid to ask your question?"
Re: and we should care? (Score:3)
And yet.. Somehow.. He seems to care more about the manipulation of democracy than you do.. Interesting. Isn't it. Trump is a childish idiot. Clinton is a corrupt weasel. Good luck America. Really. It's going to be rough.
And yet when I'm asked to choose between bad and worse, to decide who controls the worlds second largest nuclear arsenal on earth (by a small margin), I'd choose the corrupt weasel over the childish idiot every time but then I'm not an American so I can only watch and hope that the US public rejects the childish idiot. Having said that I am still puzzled over why the American people don't see to it that there is more (or better) choice. You'd think that as exasperated as a large portion of the American people seem to be with the Rep/Dem duopoly that they'd set up alternative political parties. It happens in other democracies all of the time. At the very least you guys could force a popular reform of the SNAFU that are the Rep/Dem primary election processes. There is something seriously wrong with your democratic process when primaries have become so manifestly corrupt and stupid that stand-up comedians don't even have to come up with jokes about them, they simply have to matter-of-factly tell the audience how the process works to reap roaring laughter.
Re: and we should care? (Score:2)
You really don't know?
The good old USA is not a democracy. Really. Never had been.
It is a democratic republic.. Which is a very very different thing.
It's governing rules were set up from day one to guarantee control for those at the top.. Funnily enough the very people who made the rules.. And they did a fine job of it.
It has never been a democracy.
Re: and we should care? (Score:3)
>"You'd think that as exasperated as a large portion of the American people seem to be with the Rep/Dem duopoly that they'd set up alternative political parties."
We already do. The Libertarian party is a good example. But it doesn't matter because our stupid voting system makes it nearly impossible for any third-party to ever win any important election.
http://fairvote.org/ [fairvote.org]
Re: and we should care? (Score:3)
We have several alternative political parties. The Libertarian and Green parties are the most prominent, but we also have a Constitution Party, Justice Party and even a Socialist party.
Year after year polls have shown that at least 2/3 of people in the USA want more viable parties, but every two years, most of those same people refuse to vote for the alternatives they're given.
Of course when you have a two-party political duopoly, the two parties will do everything possible to prevent the rise of alternatives. Why would they ever reform the voting system so that we have IRV, "approval voting" or proportional representation? Ballot access is also made very difficult in most states and no other parties are allowed to participate in debates.
Voting for Democrats or Republicans is a wasted vote. Given that those parties have chosen to nominate the worst candidates imaginable in this election, I'm *hoping* that we see a strong showing for the alternatives. If the Libertarians can get 2-3% of the vote, I'll be happy. If the Greens could do the same(Come on Sanders supporters!), it would be fantastic.
Re: and we should care? (Score:2)
Either way, our planet is doomed.
Re: and we should care? (Score:2)
Re:and we should care? (Score:2)
Like an Ecuadorian election early next year which Correa won't be standing for? ;)
Re:This is why we need Windows Phone! (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft was selling secrets to the NSA before Google was even founded. Where do you think the NSA got the idea to start Google anyway?
Re:This is why we need Windows Phone! (Score:3, Insightful)
> Where do you think the NSA got the idea to start Google anyway?
Holy cow! You stole my idea!
(Well, not seriously, more of a "great minds think alike :-)
Back then, in the early 2000s, when Google was still Doing No Evil(TM), I ran around telling people: "if Google ain't a NSA invention, the NSA ain't worth their salt."
Yeah, conspiracy and that. I'm enough of a scientist to know that this was an unverifiable (and unfalsifiable) hypothesis, at least for means whithin my reach, but hey -- having watched the success of AltaVista, there was a real story for a company which people *willingly* gave all the details of their dirty laundry to. And the NSA was, at the time already a champion in data indexing and analysis. And it financed itself! What's not to like!
If world's largest employer of mathematicians (which the NSA was at this time) doesn't come up with this idea... they ain't doing their job.
BTW: watch this success story repeat itself: people paying for their own tracking devices (smartphones), paying for the listening-in devices (Amazon Echo et al). A couple of years ago those things got installed by state agents in your living room *at their own fucking cost*
Bah.
Re:Easy for the google to decide the election (Score:2)
Hopeful projection, m'thinks.
Re:Easy for the google to decide the election (Score:2)
No, hope would be to imagine that Trump is nothing like the person he has been pretending to be for the last 40 years. Kind of hard to ignore all the evidence in all the books where he keeps getting mentioned in the most surprising places. Mind you that all of these books were published at least a few years ago, so the authors couldn't have been pandering for his favor or possible boons if he becomes president.
In my desperate fantasy, Trump has noticed that the American 2-party system is broken to the point of national dysfunction, reaching the point where the nation is ready to collapse. The Democratic Party has become even more dysfunctional than usual, which is hard to believe when you start from Will Rogers accurate description of it as the lack of an organized party. Meanwhile, the demographically challenged so-called Republican Party has substituted extreme party discipline for the ideological shreds of Abe Lincoln's progressive Republican Party and the remains of the pragmatic governing GOP of Ike or Teddy. In that desperate fantasy Trump actually understands that the American electoral system is winner-take-all, so the only stable situations are two balanced parties or one permanent ruling party. He would therefore understand why third parties can only succeed when one of the two main parties has been destroyed (most often by political suicide) and has decided the Democratic Party is mostly harmless but the so-called Republican Party needs to be replaced. In that fantasy, he's actually planning to implode his own campaign at some time after the convention--but looking at his campaign so far, it would be really hard to tell what had happened.
Re:Easy for the google to decide the election (Score:2)
I like the theory that Trump started his campaign as a publicity stunt. He intended to run, fail, and then parlay that into better ratings for The Apprentice and more profits for anything he tagged with his name. He said some outrageous things thinking he'd go down in flames. Instead, his popularity rose. So he said some outrageous things and got more popular. At some point, his ego took over and the "play the American politics game for profit" plan was ditched because Trump couldn't get enough of the attention he was getting.
Re:Easy for the google to decide the election (Score:3)
Plausible, but I'm not sure he could have been so naive about the snake oil he was selling. It kind of depends if he's more of a salesman or a con artist.
As a salesman, Trump would focus more on listening to what the customers want, and the so-called Republican primary voters have been quite clear on what they want, even if their clarity is often incoherent and contradictory. Some salesmen don't mind selling on both sides to different customers.
As a con man, the Donald would be more focused on actively persuading the suckers to trust him, to feel the confidence in him that they needed to give him their money or votes. Trump University is just one impressive example of a big con, but he's been involved in plenty of other scams.
Kind of hard to see clearly in the clouds of data and obfuscation, but I think Trump's overall track record is pretty clearly on side of con man.
Of course, people also hate lawyers, so it isn't helping Hillary that she's a lawyer at heart.
Re:Easy for the google to decide the election (Score:2)
All three remaining candidates (Trump, Clinton, Sanders) suck, each in their own, special way. The election comes down to whether it's worth bothering voting at all and which candidate one dislikes the least. All three of them are an utter embarrassment for the US.
Re:Easy for the google to decide the election (Score:2)
"Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate."
(All joking aside, this is my plan come Election Day.)
Re: Revenge! (Score:4, Insightful)
This story is the first time I have thought 'trump can't be worse than that cunt'.
Then I read comments from trump supporters.
America, you are so fucked.
Re: Revenge! (Score:3, Funny)
No they can't. I am a Hillary supporter and we should kill all middle class white people.
Re:arguments (Score:2)
Re:Google = R+D arm of the NSA (Score:3)
blah blah retarded bullshit blah
Trump is a LIBERAL popularist who wears the clothes of a PARODY republican, because he is media savvy enough to understand that by playing the political game this way, he gains needed national support.
So, that's why he's running for the REPUBLICAN party, and has the support of the REPUBLICAN voters and elected officials? And is detested by approximately 100% of liberals?
You're saying REPUBLICANS fell for this parody of them? That would be stupid of them, wouldn't it?
As for gaining national support, he has the highest disapproval rating of anyone in modern history, so that ain't working out.
But sure, it all makes sense (if one suffers from traumatic brain injury or is just a raving partisan idiot).