Facebook Co-Founder Commits $20 Million To Help Defeat Trump (buzzfeed.com) 459
Mat Honan reports: Dustin Moskovitz, the billionaire co-founder of Facebook and Asana, announced on Thursday that he intends to give $20 million to a "number of organizations" to help Democrats, and Hillary Clinton, win in 2016. Moskovitz published a fiercely-worded Medium post arguing that Republican nominee Donald Trump is "running on a zero-sum vision" and that his attempts to woo economically disenfranchised voters "are quite possibly a deliberate con, an attempt to rally energy and support without the ability or intention to deliver." He also wrote that while he and his wife, Cari Tuna, have previously voted for Democrats in presidential elections, this is the first time they endorsed a candidate and donated. The move represents a sharp break with Asana and Facebook board member, Peter Thiel, a Trump delegate who spoke at the Republican National Convention and earlier this week published an op-ed in the Washington Post in support of the Republican nominee.
inaccurate title (Score:5, Insightful)
Facebook Co-Founder Donates $20 Million to Hillary For Political Favors
I wish I could participate in American Democracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But I don't have millions to buy a voice.
The donation is only $20 million. I have to think that's barely any more of a voice than you or I have in this democracy. Maybe $100 million gets you noticed.
Well... (Score:5, Funny)
...this should certainly reduce the amount of money in politics.
Brexit. (Score:3)
So what he's saying is that Trump is trying to pull a Brexit.
From what I understand about brexit none of them really expected they would win and when they did win everyone was like oh well we didn't really mean any of the things we said we were just trying to keep any third party from winning.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, that is how the media is spinning the Brexit. The people wanted out and the media is just going around saying "no, no, people were confused".
How fucking hard is it to realize that maybe, just maybe, hard working people are getting sick and tired of being treated as globalists' play toys. The only way to combat this is to shrink government and the number of organizations that can control people. Corporations can't directly control people, they need the government or quasi-government entities for that.
I
Re: (Score:2)
And now they have an absolute wasteland of an economy which will leave people destitute and homeless for decades to come. The grass on the other side wasn't greener, it was a radioactive wasteland. Have fun with that.
Re:Brexit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Did some catastrophe destroy the UK since the Brexit vote? What are we supposed to "be careful" to avoid? Globalist complaining?
Good news! Huge political contributions are OK now (Score:5, Interesting)
Hey kids, remember when it was evil for those 1%er nazis to illegally influence elections with their dirty evil money?
Well, it's officially OK now that the money is going to Hillary. Obey to the 1%er rich people you little drones!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm one of those Sanders supporters and I would still like to get money out of politics. However, I'm also a realist - not an idealist - so I realize that we're not simply going to proclaim "This Isn't Done Anymore!" and separate politicians from big donations from rich people and companies. I toyed with supporting a third party, specifically Jill Stein, but I can't abide her anti-vaccine comments. I'm reluctantly supporting Hillary. For me, it's not "She's The Best One For The Job" as much as it is "On He
Re: (Score:2)
Who is Donald Trump again? Oh right... a 1%er
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
How will that help at all? (Score:2, Interesting)
Hillary is already outspending Trump 5 to 1, spending hundreds of millions already - and the result is she is slipping in the polls, further every day.
Part of that I feel is because people get sick of ads, so Trump has been inadvertently brilliant in not having many.
I guess perhaps part of his 20 million is going to directly rig votes in areas where the machines can be altered? I guess that would be effective, but Clinton has already got that covered as much as she can.
Anyone else surprised? (Score:2)
Re:Anyone else surprised? (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe his is against offshoring tech jobs, maybe not. But he definitely doesn't have anything against using undocumented workers in his hotels or outsourcing the tech support for his casino businesses.
Too much (Score:3)
I'm not a Trump fan, in fact quite the opposite, but this is disturbing.
No individual should be allowed to spend so much on an election. No one should have this much power. It's not exactly "buying votes" (which is illegal), but it is buying ad-time which can translate into votes.
It is excessive to allow more than $100 per person (or corporation)- adjustable for inflation. (I don't think those campaigning should be allowed to give more than $100 to their own campaign either). It truly is disgusting how much money is involved in the election and how much money influences who wins.
No it's not (Score:3)
Jeb Bush spent $150 million on a primary race with tons of ad buys and campaigning goodness that money could buy and came in nearly dead last.
http://www.politico.com/magazi... [politico.com]
Money gets your message out but it doesn't mean that it will automatically translate into votes.
If that were the case the new Ghostbusters movie should be the highest grossing movie of all time.
Now it does represent a barrier to entry for candidates without the money/support networks - But - here's a perfect example where one man with
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not disputing that money is a guarantee of success; however, it does give an unfair advantage, and as you pointed out is a barrier for entry. You need $x to win. Democracy, to me, at it's heart is about each citizen having an equal amount of power politically. We all have an equal say, an equal chance to compete. There are so many other realms where having money is advantageous, and I'm not saying it shouldn't be, because its the desire to advance that makes capitalism work.
When it comes to politics
Bloomberg outspent 7-1 or 10-1 in CO gun-control (Score:3)
Depending on the source, but was soundly defeated on the issue.
Money doesn't buy votes. Ads seldom sway pre-formed opinions.
Re: (Score:3)
No individual should be allowed to spend so much on an election. No one should have this much power. It's not exactly "buying votes" (which is illegal), but it is buying ad-time which can translate into votes.
Sorry. It seems the Citizens (were) United [wikipedia.org] in favor of quite the opposite. I don't agree with that, but that's the way it is, unless someone gets the Law changed.
Double standard much? (Score:4, Insightful)
Wait. Aren't these the same Democrats that vilify "big money" from the likes of the Koch Brothers? Funny how they scream about that, but didn't say a word in this case, or when Soros donated 8 million to Hillary.
Re: (Score:2)
If we haven't crossed the event horizon yet, we'll be there in the next decade. No turning back.
Who do you turn to? (Score:2)
Trump works for the democrats (Score:2)
He just scared another guy into giving them another 20 million bucks. Pretty neat trick, eh?
Odd, he's not on the list of evil billionaires? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just got an email this morning from Public Citizen, a 501(c)(4) organization that is very upset about the Citizens United decision, which allowed 501(c)(4) organizations to spend money to forward their respective political agendas--but not to donate to campaigns. They want it overturned.
A snippet: "If we lose, the forces of plutocracy — like the notorious Koch Brothers and casino tycoon Sheldon Adelson, the Big Banks and Big Pharma, Karl Rove and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and so many more — would be even more emboldened to continue exploiting Citizens United and dismantling our democracy."
This guy is not on the list. Nor is Tom Steyer, George Soros, or Michael Bloomberg. Nor the millions spent by the SEIU, AFL-CIO, and other unions. By doing so they paint their organization as nothing more than a group of partisan hacks and not as true defenders of the democratic process.
The money flowing from their rich donors and supporting their causes is just a righteous investment in good government...the money from the other guys are bribes.
Speaking of Public Citizen, I recently received an email from them. Now, PublicCitizen.org is a 501(c)(4) corporation, who's primary purpose seems to be opposing the ruling handed down in the Citizens United case. Recall that the Citizens United case hinged on the fact that a 501(c)(4) corporation produced a movie that had a political purpose, in this case a documentary "Hillary: The Movie" that was intended to highlight Mrs. Clinton's shortcomings the first time she was running for president.
The email from Public Citizen was urging me to donate money to support their production of a documentary DVD highlighting how bad the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United was.
That's right: a 501(c)(4) corporation made a movie with the express political purpose of protesting the Supreme Court decision that a 501(c)(4) corporation could make a movie with an express political purpose!
Re: (Score:3)
No, but if you say fire is evil while using fire to fight fire, why shouldn't everyone laugh at you?
Facebook's got a great reputation. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Totally agree. Trump maybe clueless but Hilary is consciously evil. Its clear which would be best for the country.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Both are horrible choices for president, but a different league of evil. And Hillary will be able to do a lot more damage.
Trump is an idiot (Score:2)
and by far the worst candidate of any major party in modern history, surpassing G W Bush.
But in democracy, the rich shouldn't be allowed to buy the election. US democracy is so flawed. Most developed countries at least have some form of cap in spending.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hillary is a typical establishment candidate. But she is not stupid and dangerous like Trump. Newsflash: Mexico isn't paying for your wall.
Don't you just love it... (Score:2)
Here's an idea... (Score:3)
Instead of spending $20mil to help another candidate that is going to do (pardon sarcasm) *SOOOO MUCH* for the "disenfranchised voters", how about giving $20mil to "disenfranchised voters"? Your name would be much more of a legacy and you'd actually be accomplishing something other than indirectly displaying your lack of confidence in the publicly noted length of your manhood.
You idiots! (Score:3)
You idiots, you can't talk 3rd party candidate today it's SEPTEMBER 2016!!
How can anybody even know which 3rd party candidate is not a crook? You should have started the campaign I don't know a few years ago. Maybe you should start the 2020 campaign today .. but guess what we have to select one of the two candidates in November. So yeah if you have zero analytical skills and thus think they are equally bad that's fine .. but if you have a I dunno half a brain or more .. then use your brain and sense of humanity to SELECT THE BETTER CANDIDATE.
It's too late for a third party candidate. If you can't even change my mind on that and you are able to reply this comment .. how are you supposed to change the minds of 30% of America in TWO MONTHS? You couldn't do it in years, now you expect it can be done in 2 months? WTF?
Brilliant foreign policy quote (Score:3)
"The Era of Hope and Change has been one prolonged act of suicide. If anyone had said that Obama would manage to alienate Israel and the Philippines, lose Turkey, pay Iran a hundred billion dollars, preside over the loss of a won war in Afghanistan, lose billions of dollars in military equipment to ISIS, watch a consulate burn, restart the Cold War with Russia, cause Japan to re-arm and go the knife's edge with China would you have believed it? If someone had told you in 2008 millions of refugees would be heading for Europe and that the UK would leave the EU after Obama went there to campaign for them to remain would you not have laughed?" --Richard Fernandez - Belmont Club - pjmedia-dot-com
Pretty much sums up the foreign policy failures of Obama and Hillary.
Hillary on those dang emails... (Score:3)
Look most of us are in tech, heck all of us are in tech. We all know exactly what Hillary did and how it was done and incredibly screwed up things must have been for her to get away with it. I mean don't even get me started... She didn't want to carry two phones and she didn't want to use the States BlackBerry because she feared they would be able to track her personal email (if their BES even allowed personal email) and she feared FOIA Requests more than anything. It's like the IRS manager targeting Tea Party tax exempt status and using a phony alias email to avoid FOIA requests. People she worked with must have been emailing her @clintonemail address knowing full well that it was not a State Department email. She wasn't listed in the GAL directory. Her assistants clearly took top secret and classified emails from the secure systems and retyped them into an email to Hillary and removed the headers in the process. She emailed Blumenthal constantly because she simply couldn't make a decision without him. She actually tried to hire him but Obama was pissed at his tactics during the second term election. There is a clear evidence trail showing she knew exactly what she was doing but she refused to listen to anyone. She even hired that plead the 5th email engineer at the State Department and he was this outcast nomad that no one in IT knew what he was doing. He would be in IT meetings and such and everyone else was whose that guy? This is the guy who dropped much of the security on her private email server because it was causing emails to bounce and otherwise not be delivered.
It just really pisses me off. On this one topic alone she's done in my book. She should be in prison and she should lose her security clearance. All the pay for play money should be seized and her assets frozen. She deserves to be held accountable for her actions. Anyone else would be locked away by now, it's a damn disgrace.
Re:backing Hillary? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:backing Hillary? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes. This belief that you have to vote for the lesser of two evils needs to end. Vote 3rd part. Vote independent. Write someone in. But don't vote for someone who is complete crap, which both Hillary and Trump have shown they are.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Al of the wars she is going to start...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Technically, not "starting" (Score:3)
Those would be examples of escalating ongoing efforts. Now, dropping bombs on Venezuela would be "starting" a war.
Re: (Score:3)
If Trump does it, he'll face opposition from the press and the rest of the government and we will all know what he did. If Hillary does it, the press and the bureaucrats will help her cover up anything or everything and you might never find out about it at all.
Re:backing Hillary? (Score:5, Informative)
The problem is that one of two people - Clinton or Trump - is going to end up as President. While neither of them is particularly likable you have to consider all the judges that they will appoint, all of the cabinet secretaries that they wil appoint, etc. All of those people have a big influence on the direction of the country albeit less obviously that the President.
How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. The more people vote outside of the 2 main parties, the more exposure the alternative parties get. The more exposure they get, the more people will support them. The more people support them, the better they will poll. If they poll high enough, they get automatic inclusion into presidential debates. The more debate exposure they get, the more people vote for them. When enough people vote for them the alternative parties are eligible for federal campaign funding the next election, which helps them campaign more and gets the cycle repeating again. Best case, they become viable candidates for Senate, rep, or president. Worst case, they garner enough popularity that the main parties shift to include policies supported by the third parties. The system can be beat from within, it just takes a long time and requires a lot of help.
Re: (Score:2)
Not going to happen. What will happen is that the third party will be more aligned with one of the two major parties - okay, see one as the lesser evil at least - and it'll get 46% of the vote, the third party 5%, the other party 49% and because most elections are winner-takes-all the 49% wins. And they'll realize hey we're 51% combined, fuck this was stupid lets go back to voting for the big party. Next election it'll be 50% big party, 1% third party because some never quit and 49% for the other party prov
Re: (Score:3)
it'll get 46% of the vote, the third party 5%, the other party 49% and because most elections are winner-takes-all the 49% wins.
... and then the party that lost because they only got 46% will change their policies to recapture that 5%. Nobody did more to push the Democratic party to the left than Ralph Nader. Nobody did more to push the Republicans to the right than Pat Buchanan. Now, personally, I think both of those were terrible results, because I don't agree with either Ralph or Pat on much of anything. But if you actually believed in what they stood for, then voting for them was the best way to achieve that.
I intend to vote
Re:backing Hillary? (Score:5, Interesting)
How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.
I would suggest killing it first, because it's going to get pissed after the first bite. Your analogy works pretty well actually, since the last time a new party won the White House (Republicans) it required the implosion of one of the two major parties about 8 years prior. I agree it is possible for a current third party to win the White House, but by the time it happens it must become one of the two major parties before the Presidential elections begin. Just getting 13% of the vote instead of 2% won't do anything, just like taking the first bite of a living elephant won't be too successful.
Re:backing Hillary? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, please, vote for someone like Gary Johnson, who DOESN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT ALEPPO IS.
Christ Almighty.
He's also the only candidate that, when confronted with something he should have known, apologized, said he made a mistake and is only human (ie that he will make mistakes) and would try to limit those mistakes by having competent advisers around him. Trump or Clinton would have just danced around the question to begin with until the interviewer gave up and asked another question. I don't know why Americans expect presidents to be subject matter experts in all facets of domestic and foreign policy. Personally, I trust someone who has the balls to say "I don't know" a lot more than someone who just blusters away when confrontest with their lack of knowledge.
Re: (Score:3)
Gary Johnson will hardly ever be the smartest guy in any room, but unlike Trump he knows and acknowledges that.
No Third Candidate (Score:2)
The problem is that one of two people - Clinton or Trump - is going to end up as President. While neither of them is particularly likable you have to consider all the judges that they will appoint, all of the cabinet secretaries that they wil appoint, etc. All of those people have a big influence on the direction of the country albeit less obviously that the President.
If you live outside a swing state, feel free to vote a third party, just don't tell your friends in swing states to vote that way. But focus more of your attention on down-ballot races where your votes count.
If you live in a swing state, you are directly responsible for deciding on any delta between the two major candidates, and failing to vote or voting for a third party if you see ANY difference between the two viable candidates--no matter how small--makes you responsible for the winner in areas where th
Re: (Score:3)
You do know how the political system works in the US don't you. maybe at least just a little. The President is the administrator of government based upon the rules and regulations provided by the Congress and Senate. They can turn the President into an empty suit figure head in one sitting. The only reason US main stream media crap on so much about the president is because it is a magic trick for gumbies, you know look at this had doing nothing whilst the other hand reaches around for your wallet. In this
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That doesn't mean you have to vote for them. This mass mentality of wasted votes needs to end.
Re: (Score:2)
So you want us to choose the lesser of 4 evils then?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Hillary is a criminal, breaking the law sending classified information from her personal email server.
Maybe the FBI should investigate! Oh, that's right, they did, and found no grounds to prosecute her.
OTOH, Trump's organization was found guilty and paid a fine for illegally donating.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If I were the director of the FBI, I'd say that too. I don't want to come down with a sudden case of very localized lead poisoning.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Hillary is a criminal, breaking the law sending classified information from her personal email server.
Maybe the FBI should investigate! Oh, that's right, they did, and found no grounds to prosecute her.
OTOH, Trump's organization was found guilty and paid a fine for illegally donating.
BULLSHIT
They found plenty of grounds.
They just weaseled out with "no reasonable prosecutor" would prosecute Crooked Liar Hillary!, which is BULLSHIT.
The Clintons, with Obama's help, have made huge strides in destroying the rule of law in the US.
And the entire press has decided to look the other way.
At least the press will TRY to keep Trump honest - they've already rolled over and allowed Crooked Liar Hillary! to be above the law.
And that's a deadly threat to freedom - what happens when Crooked Liar Hillary
Re: (Score:2)
No, he didn't say there were no grounds to prosecute her.
What he said is that he was unlikely to be able to find a DA willing to prosecute her....
Re: (Score:2)
oh that would be the person occupying the appointed position placed there by Obama in 2013, right?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
An FBI who's director is a Republican who was originally appointed by a Republican. See two can play at this game
Re: (Score:3)
You know an awful lot of people in the Reagan sphere wound up dead, hell even Nancy. Maybe because people die everyday, if you wait long enough eventually everybody dies. Time to put the Conspiracy theories away and come join the adults.
The same nutters that trot out the Clinton death cabal conspiracy tend to trot out the other conspiracy fantasies. Birthers, Bengazi, 9-11, moon landing, UFOs, vaccines, Kennedy, Tri-Lateral Commission etc. etc. etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you ten? Seriously.
We're coming for you, Martha. We're coming for you! ooga booga
Re: (Score:2)
Like so many others in the Clinton sphere. Lots of accidents and suicides for people who say bad things about Hillary.
If you honestly feel Hillary Clinton is *that* powerful, perhaps you should vote for her to be President. What does Trump have to offer -- lies, no foreign policy experience, 4 (or more) bankruptcies, a bad memory, big mouth and tiny hands? Seriously, he couldn't kill anyone with those little hands.
Ability to prosecute? (Score:2)
You can take a losing case to trial and prosecute. Juries acquit all the time.
In this case, the reality seems to be more of choosing to not prosecute just to avoid the political outrage that would accompany the proceedings. A more cynical would say it was a decision based on partisan criteria--Obama and Lynch fixed it for Hillary when anyone else would be on trial for mishandling classified information, for destroying evidence (even after subpoena), and any number of other things.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only did they show she did nothing illegal in their eyes, they one upped them by saying that even if one of their own did the same thing, they would not be prosecuted either. Reprimanded? Yes. Illegal? No.
I honestly can't believe we're even still talking about this. The only thing we got out of this is emails showing everyone thinks Boehner is an alcoholic.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I seem to recall something about... courts of law? proven guilt?
Nope, guess armchair lawyering on the internet gets upvotes.
Slashdot: We saw so much FUD over Linux that we decided we love it.
Re:backing Hillary? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Hillary: "I AM THE SENATE!" (pulls red lightsaber).
Re: (Score:2)
wrong, the facts are known.
the facts show breaking of the law and Clinton lying about it, it is public record
Re:backing Hillary? (Score:5, Insightful)
This means one of two things:
She is either a criminal mastermind with the power, influence, and pull to continuously break the law and get away with it. Using a vast network of co-conspirators, who have tight lips and similar criminal mastermind status to ALWAYS somehow escape the investigations of an entire country of inept law enforcement, Democrat lead congress, Republican lead congress, Democrat presidents, Republican presidents, and all news media outlets.
She is a super villain. Greater than any ever seen. She is bullet proof and immune to attacks from foe and friend alike. She is an amazing character straight out of fiction. If this is true, she doesn't need to become president, she is already the most powerful person in the world.
OR
The go-to political attack method on Hilary Clinton is to assume she is a criminal.
Al Capone did much the same for years (Score:3, Insightful)
Took the IRS to get him. Of course, these days he IRS is a political attack dog with a leash held by Obama, so it will not touch Hillary or the even the Clinton Foundation, which has recently had to redo taxes for several years due to “errors in the report of donations from foreign governments”.
It has stuck (Score:3, Insightful)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
That's the audio of her laughing about getting a child molester off. The tapes were buried and the media refuses to play them. Snopes still calls it "false" even though we have the audio now.
It's not disputed that she attacked the women who accused her husband of rape and sexual assault.
The current FBI investigation turned up the fact that she mishandled classified information and they said flat out anyone else would be prosecuted.
So yes, she is being protected by the medi
Re:It has stuck (Score:4, Informative)
This audio tape form the eighties is the best you can do at character assassination? I listed to the whole thing, and it is quite clear that her amusement stems from the oddities of the case, such as, that her client passed the lie detector test, and that this forever destroyed her faith in polygraph tests.
Also the peculiar nature of the evidence that she only got a piece of underwear, with a hole where the crime lab had cut out material, or that the judge tried to order her out of the room because he didn't want to discuss the sexual nature of the crime in front of a woman.
At any rate, most of the laughter on the tape is from the interviewer, and that's because the surrealities of the case are funny even if the underlying crime is anything but.
At no time does she make light of the nature of the crime.
Re: (Score:2)
The Clintons are so honest they always manage to stay an inch away from a jail cell.
Re: (Score:2)
She is either a criminal mastermind with the power, influence, and pull to continuously break the law and get away with it.
She doesn't have to be a mastermind. She's the wife of a former 2-term president, a former senator from New York, secretary of State for 4 years, current candidate for POTUS, and a lawyer who graduated from Yale. She is easily in the top ten most powerful people in the world, maybe top 5 (and easily top 5 in the US, maybe even second place behind Obama). And yet somehow you have a hard time believing she can get away with breaking the law? Please. She could get away with anything short of (and maybe actuall
Re: (Score:2)
Hillary is a criminal, breaking the law sending classified information from her personal email server. I wouldn't recommend him or the Democrats endorsing that lying criminal. They need to pick a candidate that believes in upholding the law.
Too late for that. They have picked their horse in this race a month ago. Not to mention that the horses are already on the track having left the starting gate about a month ago. There is no going back no matter how much one wishes it.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are a lawyer, I'm Batman. STFU, partisan hack.
Re: (Score:2)
Those are facts. Also she is on record lying about facts. Nothing partisan about it, the facts are clear.
Obama's political appointee, the head of the FBI, is unwilling to uphold the law
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Hillary is a criminal
[citation needed] And no, Fox News does not count. Deliver evidence of a successful prosecution or STFU.
Re: (Score:2)
What it really means is that you never have to take "the law" seriously any more. It's just another talking point. Anyone who supports Hillary can be laughed at if they ever pretend to care whether someone obeys or breaks a law from now on.
All law enforcement can henceforth be presumed to be political. That makes any violent actions by law enforcement officers politically-motivated violence. And prisoners are just people with bad politics or people without influential government friends.
Re: (Score:3)
Qualified? Dang it man, they are BOTH qualified. I am tired of this canard born of partisan rhetoric.
There are only TWO qualifications listed in the constitution. You must be 35 years old and a "natural born citizen" and they BOTH meet those.
One could argue that you have to be elected too, but that's not absolutely true. A Vice President is/can be appointed and not elected and become president should the sitting president fail to serve their full term.
So I'm QUALIFIED to be president..... Just as much
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For me, it's that changing direction isn't always a good thing even if you think the direction we're going in is wrong. Imagine that the country is a bus. You happen to think that the bus diver is going in the wrong direction. Luckily, we're going to get a new bus driver. One (Hillary) essentially will continue down the path you think is wrong. The other one (Trump) promises a new direction but seems to want to steer the bus off the road entirely and off a nearby cliff. As much as I think the path might be
Re: (Score:2)
You mean Obama's 2013 political appointee James Comey doesn't agree with me. That Hillary broke the law and lied about it is fact. So we have a political buttlick that doesn't uphold the law leading the FBI.
Re: (Score:3)
[...] Trump represents the majority of Americans [...]
Citation please?
Re: (Score:2)
Good point, neither of the leading options have 50% in the polls and I have a feeling this election will see the winner without a majority of the popular vote as the third party folks are going to soak up more than the margin of victory nationally.
No, I don't have a clue which one of the two will get the Whitehouse.... But it sure looks to be a close horse race this time around.
Re: (Score:3)
But it sure looks to be a close horse race this time around.
It's not even a horserace according to the electoral college map. Hillary's going to win. She may not win the popular vote, but she will win the electoral college vote in a landslide. Trump can win only if he wins Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Florida can go either way. No Republican has ever won the White House without Ohio. The last time Pennsylvania went Republican was in 1988. If he lose one of these states, it's game over.
Re:Can't buy popular support (Score:5, Interesting)
It is sure her race to loose by electoral college.
However, if the last two weeks are any indicator, Trump is getting smarter about holding his mouth in check and committing all these unforced political errors and Hillary is loosing ground to the independent candidates nationally. Trump is late getting his campaign going, buying ads and setting up operations in these states, but that effort is now hitting it's stride and I expect him to make the necessary states more competitive over time. Hillary though, continues to face strong headwinds with these E-mail stories and how her story has changed multiple times, how she's not trustworthy and corrupted though that "Clinton Foundation" link during her stint as Secretary of State. I don't think there is any fire behind that smoke, but a wise one said "when you are explaining, you are losing" and she's explaining a bunch right now and the national polls show this.
I don't think we've seen much recent polling in the battle ground states that reflects all this activity and really it is pretty close in most of them. We haven't seen the debates yet, but if Trump can keep from putting his foot in his mouth and stick to his talking points, I dare say Hillary will have trouble. Trump just has to seem "presidential" and he wins sans saying something stupid, Hillary has to somehow keep from having to explain and re-explain all this E-mail, Clinton Foundation, lying business while not letting Trump under her skin, and she's not real good at this debate thing...
No, it's way to early to know how this will play out..
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's way to early to know how this will play out.
It's already played out. It will take a miracle for Trump to win the White House.
Re: (Score:3)
Trump is getting smarter about holding his mouth in check
If elected, then what remains to hold his unforced errors in check?
Re:Can't buy popular support (Score:4, Insightful)
Trump is way behind in the Electoral College map (which matters more than "Nationwide Poll X says..."). This doesn't mean that he's out of the race, just that he'd got more of an uphill climb than Hillary has. I believe the chances to win were something like 85% Hillary and 15% Trump. So he's not out, but he's also not the likely winner if things keep going the way they're going. If you're a Trump supporter, you would do everything to help your candidate gather more electoral votes. If you are a Hillary supporter (or perhaps just a Trump opponent), you wouldn't sit back and say "we've got this in the bag." If you did that, you would find your preferred candidate falling behind. Instead, you'd donate and help keep the candidate that you are against from overtaking the candidate that you are for.
Re:Can't buy popular support (Score:5, Insightful)
If that was true and a Democratic victory is inevitable, why doesn't Mr. Moskovitz save his money?
Because taking the election for granted is the quickest way to lose the election. Mitt Romney was supposed to win the 2012 election. Everyone told him so. He even went to so far as not to write a concession speech. But Obama won the election with 51% of the vote, becoming the first president since Eisenhower to win consecutive elections with 51% of the vote. As Obama demonstrated twice in a row, getting out the vote operations is money well spent and extremely effective at winning elections.
Re:Can't buy popular support (Score:5, Interesting)
Mitt Romney was supposed to win the 2012 election. Everyone told him so.
No. The 2012 election turned out exactly where the polls predicted [xkcd.com]. Anyone who thought Romney was going to win was delusional.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If that was true and a Democratic victory is inevitable, why doesn't Mr. Moskovitz save his money?
You are assuming that he is donating out of an altruistic belief in "the good of the country". More likely he is trying to buy access and favors. In that case, donating to a "sure thing" makes a lot more sense.
Re: (Score:3)
There is being similar to vs. representing.
I don't care if I personally like or dislike the person. However I want someone who will work for their groups they are representations best interests. It is important for a representative to know and understand us and our needs but not agree on our pin hole view of the world's solutions to our problems that we haven't solved ourselves.
Trump is pandering Bar Room solutions without actually knowing the real issues that affect us. Just because these Bar Room solution
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry bro, Trump represents the majority of Americans, Crooked Hillary represents big business and Wall Street criminals. Bye bye!
Precisely!!! Jeb! ran some hundreds of millions worth of ads, but didn't make a dent: at no point could he even lead in his home state! And here, $20M is supposed to do the trick?
Business Decision? [Re:just a coincidence] (Score:2)
Agreed. It's quite possible this is a business decision so Facebook et al. can get more visa workers, and offshore without consequences.
While Trump flip-flops on those issues, it appears he's more likely to curtail visa workers and offshoring than Hillary.
Opensecrets.org Biggest Spenders dominated by (Score:5, Informative)
Big corporations and billionaires.
Oh, no. My mistake. The correct answer is unions. Percentages are to Democrats and to Republicans, respectively.
1 Service Employees International Union $233,948,108 $231,783,862 $1,295,669 99% 1%
2 Fahr LLC $114,005,803 $113,755,803 $0 100% 0%
3 National Education Assn $109,427,714 $105,078,729 $3,452,808 97% 3%
4 American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees $98,678,433 $97,694,335 $676,830 99% 1%
5 Carpenters & Joiners Union $80,768,463 $75,823,760 $4,798,328 94% 6%
6 National Assn of Realtors $74,982,087 $26,027,003 $28,258,810 48% 52%
7 American Federation of Teachers $74,932,481 $74,120,164 $363,250 100% 1%
8 Renaissance Technologies $73,792,377 $36,170,416 $36,646,874 50% 50%
9 Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $72,175,924 $70,714,074 $1,136,150 98% 2%
10 Las Vegas Sands $70,782,782 $53,240 $70,732,661 0% 100%
11 Laborers Union $68,330,958 $64,165,186 $3,679,066 95% 5%
12 AT&T Inc $65,956,335 $27,437,253 $38,360,404 42% 58%
13 United Food & Commercial Workers Union $65,832,840 $65,272,289 $327,750 100% 1%
14 Soros Fund Management $59,210,620 $54,524,165 $1,813,415 97% 3%
15 AFL-CIO $57,212,102 $52,305,234 $1,286,876 98% 2%