Oculus Founder Palmer Luckey Is Secretly Funding Trump's Meme Machine (thedailybeast.com) 867
The founder of Oculus, Palmer Luckey, has backed a pro-Trump political organization called Nimble America that is dedicated to "shitposting" and spreading inflammatory memes about Hillary Clinton. In 2014, Luckey's virtual-reality company, Oculus, was acquired by Facebook for $2 billion. Forbes estimates his current net worth to be $700 million. The Daily Beast reports: "The 24-year-old told The Daily Beast that he had used the pseudonym "NimbleRichMan" on Reddit with a password given to him by the organization's founders. Nimble America says it's dedicated to providing that "shitposting is powerful and meme magic is real," according to the company's introductory statement, and has taken credit for a billboard its founders say was posted outside of Pittsburgh with a cartoonishly large image of Clinton's face alongside the words "Too Big to Jail." "We conquered Reddit and drive narrative on social media, conquered the [mainstream media], now it's time to get our most delicious memes in front of Americans whether they like it or not," a representative for the group wrote in an introductory post on Reddit. Potential donors from Donald Trump's biggest online community -- Reddit's r/The_Donald, where one of the rules is "no dissenters" -- turned on the organization this weekend, refusing to believe "NimbleRichMan" was the anonymous "near-billionaire" he claimed to be and causing a rift on one of the alt-right's most powerful organizational tools. Luckey insists he's just the group's money man -- a wealthy booster who thought the meddlesome idea was funny. But he is also listed as the vice-president of the group on its website. In another post written under Luckey's Reddit pseudonym, Luckey echoes Peter Thiel, the tech billionaire who used his wealth to secretly bankroll Hulk Hogan's lawsuit against Gawker. The Daily Beast adds: "'The American Revolution was funded by wealthy individuals," NimbleRichMan wrote on Saturday. Luckey confirmed to The Daily Beast he penned the posts under his Reddit pseudonym. 'The same has been true of many movements for freedom in history. You can't fight the American elite without serious firepower. They will outspend you and destroy you by any and all means.'"
What a Waste (Score:4, Insightful)
We complain about lobbyists... but this is so much worse
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Lobbyists go around the people, to have your representatives work against you.
Bad media goes around your representatives, to have you work against yourself.
Maybe they're the same in that they're your adversary, but they're also pretty different. It's like saying an enemy fighter plane and an enemy tank are the same. Yeah, they're both the enemy's forces, I suppose...
Really? Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
We complain about lobbyists... but this is so much worse
I'm curious why you think this is.
We've just had an article about lobbyists that prevent Tesla from selling in Michigan without going through dealerships [slashdot.org] (which are universally hated), another recent article where lobbyists caused a town to lose it's working gigibit fibre internet [slashdot.org].
For contrast, note that the democrats put up a billboard of Trump kissing Cruz [google.com], and naked statues of Trump in several cities [huffingtonpost.com].
Question 1: Why is this worse than what Democrats do, and
Question 2: Why is this worse than lobbyists who actually screw us over and make our lives miserable?
Really. I honestly want to know. Why should this be of any concern to anyone?
Re:Really? Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
Lets say a wealthy person wants free speech but has no real free time in the day to engage in a long online conversation. They hire one person to be that online persona putting in say five hours a day.
What if the message is always been drowned out by facts and reality? Hire 10 people to each be 10 or 100 accounts each with their own story and time zone, ip?
In the end you just go big and go with what a gov enjoys:
"Revealed: US spy operation that manipulates social media " (18 March 2011)
https://www.theguardian.com/te... [theguardian.com]
British army creates team of Facebook warriors (31 January 2015)
https://www.theguardian.com/uk... [theguardian.com]
Re 'Really. I honestly want to know."
The "tell" is usually one person with a lot of accounts cleaning up after bad news about a nation, their faith or their side of politics, gov, mil or agency, having a few hours to get their spin over, before going full AC again.
Posting initial news reports or early opinion hoping to sway readers, hoping nobody will actually read the links and follow up with real news.
Virtue signalling is the big slip up most of the accounts just cannot avoid. Eg. a party political personality trait, pushing a "security clearances" past to add validity, patriotism, nationalism, jingoism, the same sob story again and again usually gets past the smart hearts and minds effort. i.e. the person befuddles their role due to their own gov work or some mil experience.
The better way is to set up a left or right think tank and have them hire based on life experience. The jargon, slang, life stories are then indistinguishable from actual account users, the spin can be perfected over years of account use. No needing tens of fake accounts, fake ip's, no fear of linguistic analysis, just perfected astroturfing for hire. The staff are happy and on message and if suited can be rolled out on book tours, public speaking, for comedy.
The better lobbyists are using well funded authors, comedians, public speakers rather than vast amounts of easily detectable online accounts.
Re:Really? Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Your first question is flamebait. The non-trollish way to phrase that would be something like: "How is this qualitatively different from other campaign propaganda?" And the answer would be something along the lines of: It's true that campaign ads and other tactics can be flat-out deceitful, but there is some measure of difference between deceptive ads and astroturfing. Neither are good, both are working against us, but one exploits our trust in the honesty of our peers and in doing so sabotages our basic ability to communicate with one another.
For your second question: I don't think it is worse. It's not better either, it's basically the same - lobbyists are doing exactly this, constantly. They deceive constituents and organize campaign contributions all in an effort to get their legislation passed. What is this doing? Deceiving constituents in an effort to get someone elected, who will then go on to pass legislation. No difference.
Your last question though, "Why should this be of any concern to anyone?" is... what? This should be of tremendous concern to everyone. The fact that it isn't is part of the problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Normally political advertising is clearly labeled.
Re:Really? Why? (Score:4, Interesting)
Is it [nytimes.com]?
Maybe, it should be — but any attempts to legally require such labeling, would violate the First Amendment.
Re:Really? Why? (Score:5, Informative)
I'll add that the Clinton campaign has been proudly touting its Twitter and social media strategy ahead of the debate. They are happy to tell you that they have their affiliated PACs and supporters coordinated in a campaign to influence debate moderators to "fact check" Trump during the debate, [nytimes.com] producing an advantage for Clinton.
They also proudly tout their strategy to have an army of supporters and astroturfers alike live-tweet the debate to create the impression that Hillary is winning the debate. [go.com] They are specifically targetting the reporters and pundits who cover the event to ensure that they get the early buzz as winning the debate and have a quick declaration that "the election is over" following the debate.
This story, with labels like "Shitposting" would appear to be cover for this strategy, designed to neuter any criticism of the Clinton strategy, which has been fairly openly discussed at least since the Matt Lauer national security forum.
So we have moved into a new era of political ground game - where social media is used in increasingly sophisticated ways by the campaigns to influence the election. They both seem relatively hamfisted about it at this point, but that doesn't mean it isn't having an effect.
Re:Not bad (Score:5, Informative)
I assume you mean unions? (Score:3)
I can only assume by 'this' you mean the HUNDREDS of millions USD of union members uniontax being given to the Dems?
I dont support either side, as I can watch from a long long way away, but really, the Dems complaining about anyone at this point rather than desperately trying to clean up their own back yard is laughable.
Vote Cthulhu! but he is no longer the most evil (in fact, compared to the two clowns running to control the 'most powerful country in the world' he may be the least evil option).
Who really c
Re:What a Waste (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What a Waste (Score:4, Insightful)
If those comical posts are against his chosen candidate, then yes, they are worse than anything else going on right now. That's the mentality these political types show.
Anti-Hillary is not Pro-Trump (Score:5, Insightful)
There are a LOT of good reasons to be against Hillary without being for Trump.
A big one is this - after what she and the DNC did to Sanders, you all plan to reward her by voting for Hillary? Do you think the DNC will become more, or less corrupt if Hillary wins.
In the end it will not make that vast a difference in Trump or Clinton wins, two arms springing from the same body politic. So don't vote to destroy whatever shred of goodness was left of the DNC by rewarding corruption and massive corporate backroom deals which will be rewarded lavishly during her time in office (just as they were while she was secretary of state).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'll never support Trump. No matter who the alternative is.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll never support Trump. No matter who the alternative is.
Adolf Hitler?
Re:Anti-Hillary is not Pro-Trump (Score:4, Insightful)
Pretty much a zero sum equation as far as I see it. Trump uses the same speech tactics that Hitler did.
My dad hates Obama, and calls him a communist. That is, of course, absurd.
Calling Trump a Nazi is equally absurd. I don't like the guy, and I am not voting for him, but comparing him to Hitler is just silly, and you lose your credibility by making that comparison. You need to read a history book.
Re:Anti-Hillary is not Pro-Trump (Score:5, Insightful)
He didn't call Trump a Nazi, or say he is Hitler. He said he "uses the same speech tactics that Hitler did". Which in a number of cases is objectively, demonstrably true.
If you don't see some of the parallels in the wording of antisemitic propaganda of the 30's and anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim propaganda of the last year, you are not paying attention or refusing to listen.
And it's not all "Nazi" in origin - many Trump supporters, including several IN CONGRESS, have LITERALLY DEFENDED the idea of bringing back US Internment camps. The US didn't have a particularly good track record on immigrants or minorities in the 30's either. And how did that isolationism work out for the world?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
He is also friends with white supremacists, and wants one in the supreme court.
Re:Anti-Hillary is not Pro-Trump (Score:4, Informative)
Exalted Cyclops Robert Bird was Hillary's Mentor. If you want to point to racist KKK people, you might actually point to one that actually was a Racist KKK member. ;)
Re:Anti-Hillary is not Pro-Trump (Score:5, Interesting)
Pretty much a zero sum equation as far as I see it.
Then you aren't living in reality...
Agreed. Neither one is Hitler.
The only comparison I can think of that may be valid is Trump has shown a method of getting elected where truth doesn't matter; where career ending gaffs don't matter; where obvious attempts to court racists don't matter; where blatant appeals to emotions and feel good slogans are the rule of the day, with no real plan to implement any of it works. It is bombast rather than true leadership and wisdom.
Trump is most certainly not Hitler. I'm fairly certain he would never consider anything even on the same planet of that level of evil. That being said, if we, as an electorate allow ourselves to be persuaded by emotions, cheap slogans, lies, and bombast, then the odds of electing some truly horrific people go up considerably.
Lookup unbiased analysis of what we know of their plans and particularly look at who has been more consistent over time. Like it or not with Hillary you know pretty well what your going to get. Four more years of pretty much the same. The stock market has almost doubled under Obama. Osama died under Obama (and Hillary). Jobs are recovering. Despite complaints crime, on average, continues to decrease. Even wages are beginning to increase finally. Do you really want to give that up? So far all the unbiased analysis of Trump's plan are anything but good, and no, "Make america great again" is not a plan. That is part of the job description.
Finally, while a comparison to Hitler is inappropriate, I nevertheless was reminded of this quote:
“Why, of course, the people don’t want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”
– Hermann Goering (as told to Gustav Gilbert during the Nuremberg trials)
Beware of being led by emotions. They seldom lead to good decisions. To reason alone must be one's first master.
Re:Anti-Hillary is not Pro-Trump (Score:5, Informative)
Beware of being led by emotions. They seldom lead to good decisions. To reason alone must be one's first master.
Scott Adams, who you might know as the Dilbert creator, has been saying for a while that humans make decisions on emotions and facts don't matter much or any. In fact, he argues that appealing to reason and laying out facts is actually counterproductive when faced with an opponent who appeals to emotions. I am beginning to wonder with some concern that he might be right. Recent studies have shown that if you take someone who holds a wrong belief or opinion and you can prove with evidence that the opinion is wrong, most people will actually double down and cling more stubbornly to the wrong belief. This is part of why Trump appeals to so many people. A lot of what he is says is very simple emotional arguments. Hillary has been trying to get off the facts in her speech and get more emotional as a result of this. Don't be surprised if the first debate has very little in the way of concrete ideas and a whole lot of name calling directed at the other person. People will complain that it lacks substance, but it may just be that humans in general are pretty stupid and we're just getting what we deserve with a bunch of name calling because we ignore the substance when we're given it.
Re: (Score:3)
Beware of being led by emotions. They seldom lead to good decisions. To reason alone must be one's first master.
Scott Adams, who you might know as the Dilbert creator, has been saying for a while that humans make decisions on emotions and facts don't matter much or any. In fact, he argues that appealing to reason and laying out facts is actually counterproductive when faced with an opponent who appeals to emotions. I am beginning to wonder with some concern that he might be right.
I read him for a while (before I found him too frustrating).
When it comes to politics I believe people are rarely selecting based on individual policy, rather they're selecting candidates who they trust to make good decisions.
Recent studies have shown that if you take someone who holds a wrong belief or opinion and you can prove with evidence that the opinion is wrong, most people will actually double down and cling more stubbornly to the wrong belief.
I think those studies are misinterpreted. In the short term people double down, that is rational behaviour because they're not able to properly evaluate those arguments on the fly. It's in the long term that they start coming to trust the new evidence.
This is part of why Trump appeals to so many people. A lot of what he is says is very simple emotional arguments. Hillary has been trying to get off the facts in her speech and get more emotional as a result of this. Don't be surprised if the first debate has very little in the way of concrete ideas and a whole lot of name calling directed at the other person. People will complain that it lacks substance, but it may just be that humans in general are pretty stupid and we're just getting what we deserve with a bunch of name calling because we ignore the substance when we're given it.
They're backing Trump for two reas
Re: (Score:3)
but... http://www.press.uchicago.edu/... [uchicago.edu] .... The modus operandi at play on the right, as distilled into absurdity by the trump campaign, generally follows the same path toward the cliff that the NAZIs did, in terms of divorcing people from their roles in governance and political involvement, turning groups against each other, fear/war/corruption-mongery and incessantly incremental but 'regretted' acts of curtailing both freedoms and their counterbalancing civic responsibilities. The parallels are freakish
Re: (Score:3)
Both Donald Trump and Adolf Hitler are white dudes with questionable taste in grooming who promote a rosy-goggled Romantic nostalgia for a distant "better time", appeal explicitly to a similarly romanticized working poor with vague intimations of the action they'll take (note, these volk don't themselves want to know the details), who encourage violence at their well-attended populist rallies, pay special personal attention to costuming and event planning, and who both blame many of their countries' problems on groups of undesirables, descriptions of which cleave closely to popular images of racial minorities.
The difference is that Hitler was angry with Jews for more than 15 years before he became Chancellor...
Frankly, a year ago Trump didn't give two flips about Mexicans or Muslims, and I don't think he does even today. He is just playing the game as it exists to get elected, saying what has to be said.
Deep down inside, I doubt he harbors any hate for anyone... except perhaps people bad at business. :)
---
Note: I don't believe 75% of what comes out of his mouth, he is just playing the game... I have no idea i
Re: (Score:3)
Poor old flynutjob, going to be so butt hurt when Trump loses.
And what are you going to say when Clinton loses?
Is Trump violent? (Score:4, Informative)
His opponents are all about violence [huffingtonpost.com]. They openly advocate it [huffingtonpost.com]. Trump's rally in Chicago had to be cancelled [dailymail.co.uk], because of the threats of violence. A US President better be ready to respond to violent threats with overwhelming violence of our own. The era of apologizing [heritage.org] and paying off the little bullies [nypost.com] is over.
Now, has Donald Trump used violence in personal matters? Evidently not...
Re: (Score:3)
I saw a comment the other day that said "Voting for Johnson was like drinking RC Cola. Yeah it's ok, but who are we kidding". I think the same sentiment applies for any 3rd party candidate.
Re:Anti-Hillary is not Pro-Trump (Score:4, Interesting)
They said mean things in private? They stacked the deck for her prior to Bernie running? And you think it is worth fucking-over America (the globe even!) so that she is not "rewarded"?
It will make a yuuuuge difference whether HRC or Trump wins. Remember that people were saying there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between Bush and Gore. Does anyone on Earth think that Gore would have been as bad in policy or implementation on any issue?
Trump is Bush with more bankruptcies, less military service, and no discernible interest in anything about the job other than power.
I sincerely hope it is only Theilatans modding you up.
The DNC are cheaters (Score:5, Interesting)
But really what did the DNC do do Sanders (who was not a Democrat prior to trying to run for President as one)?
They said mean things in private? They stacked the deck for her prior to Bernie running? And you think it is worth fucking-over America (the globe even!) so that she is not "rewarded"?
Early this year, when Bernie raised $60 million and Clinton had raised only $20, the DNC moved $60 million in funds earmarked for local campaigns directly into Clinton's account [politico.com].
Bernie and Clinton won popular votes by roughly the ratio of their campaign spending, so the extra $60 million made a huge difference.
Bernie had momentum at the time, and would have outspent Clinton 3-to-1 in political ads. The extra advertizing would have very likely won him many of the early state primaries, and would have likely won him the national primary as a result.
Moving the money as they did is almost certainly a violation of federal election law, likely a violation of money-laundering law, and goes completely against any sense of neutrality in the DNC towards candidates. (Additionally, they short-sheeted all the local campaigns, giving republicans an edge in many areas.)
Effectively, they took all the campaign contributions people gave to Bernie and wasted them.
And you think it is worth fucking-over America (the globe even!) so that she is not "rewarded"?
It's worth standing up and saying "no" to corruption.
The people who gave support to Bernie Sanders should not have had their efforts wasted due to cheating.
Re: (Score:3)
Bernie couldn't win New York by a long shot. Sure, I voted for the guy but if you can't carry New York as a Democrat or at least come close then you are just not the party's candidate.
I'd say the same for California but we vote so late in the primaries we don't matter.
Re:Anti-Hillary is not Pro-Trump (Score:4, Interesting)
And you think it is worth fucking-over America (the globe even!) so that she is not "rewarded"?
The premise that she is not fucking-over America and the globe is wrong. She is provably already doing that.
Do you think corrupting American elections is not fucking-over America? Hell, if the Russians did as much as telling the truth to change the election results that is seem as bad. What about cheating on the elections and stripping the American people from the candidate they apparently wanted?
Isn't Libya and Syria to fuck the globe over? What about the recent weapons selling to the UAE, that are currently bombing civilians in Yemen?
If/when Trump start mass murdering we'll have a basis of comparison, but so far Clinton is the one fucking-over America and the globe.
Re:Anti-Hillary is not Pro-Trump (Score:5, Interesting)
Trump is Bush with more bankruptcies, less military service, and no discernible interest in anything about the job other than power.
Obama's administration carried on most of the Bush-era policies that Democrats loathed the most - and Hillary's being billed by everyone, even Obama, as Obama's Third Term.
Have fun with that!
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I'm an immigrant (Score:4, Funny)
We didn't have immigration laws until the 1920s
Who's "We," paleface?
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Ohio Trump campaign chair Kathy Miller says there was 'no racism' before Obama [theguardian.com]
Re:Anti-Hillary is not Pro-Trump (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, you're right: if Clinton wins, she'll continue to wreak havoc in minority communities with her corrupt and dysfunctional social policies. She'll continue lying to the LGBTQ community about her support and support homophobic, misogynistic, and racist regimes if they only pay her enough. And she'll continue pandering to illegal immigrants while legal and skilled immigrants have to deal with a dysfunctional immigration system. And while she's at it, she'll hurt the economy a bit, start a war or two, raise taxes, and drive up medical costs to pay off her buddies in the insurance and medical industries. That's just the kind of woman she is. And, of course, she is a favorite with privileged white male voters.
Re:Anti-Hillary is not Pro-Trump (Score:5, Interesting)
So you're going to stop people on the street randomly and tell them to produce papers on the spot? And you wonder why I'm asking?
Oh, and what's "citizenship papers", exactly? There's no such thing in US right now. Closest you can get is birth certificate or naturalization certificate, but many people don't actually have those (since it's not a requirement), and certainly no-one carries them around.
Re:Anti-Hillary is not Pro-Trump (Score:4, Interesting)
In the US your driver's license is often enough, as you had to provide a SSN for that, and to get an SSN you need to prove your identity and eligibility. Which the vast majority of Americans have, and legal immigrants are expected to have their green card on them.
Proving you are who you say you are, and that you have the right you say you have, doesn't seem any more of a burden than having to actually pay for your groceries at the store.
One really has to wonder why some people don't have a birth certificate/SSN/Identification. I'd wager that the vast majority (save for older folks born in remote areas) don't have a legitimate reason, as they've apparently not worked in this country, or worked for cash (and haven't paid taxes), etc. Aside from a few legitimate cases, I really don't care about the rest of these people who have already decided to live outside the social contract.
Re: (Score:3)
"Historically, in this country, the social contract has not amounted to "papers, please!" That was supposed to be the kind of thing reserved for commies and fascists,"
Popular myth and Hollywood. And yes, the social contract HAS generally demanded that you produce papers. You want a job? Papers please. You want a loan? Papers please. You want government benefits? Papers please!
"Also, driver's license does not actually signify either citizenship or legal status. The amount of supporting documentation that
Re:Anti-Hillary is not Pro-Trump (Score:5, Insightful)
The one big idea Democrats have really succeeded with (at least among Democrats) is the "Trump will ruin the country" meme.
Assuming he were to get elected, he has no party structure behind him which means near zero leverage with Congressional Republicans. Congressional Republicans will (rightly, I'd wager) see him as a one-term phenomenon and begin immediately jockeying/campaigning for the 2020 Presidency.
With no Congressional support, he's a straw man. Anything controversial he would do with any executive power would likely be challenged and held up in endless court battles.
How could Trump be worse for the country than Bush II? Bush II had near complete party support, a team of long-term political insiders in his administration and significant control of Congress.
So Palmer supports a fascist demagogue. (Score:5, Interesting)
Guess I shouldn't be surprised. Glad I gave up on Oculus the second Facebook bought them.
He's proven himself to be a duplicitous piece of shit since the acquisition. This is not shocking.
Hillary is also a piece of shit, but not one that would immediately alienate 90% of the rest of the planet, and likely plunge us into thermonuclear war within 6 months of taking office.
Re:So Palmer supports a fascist demagogue. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's ignorance talking, making a leap from Trump is loud and obnoxious to he would fire nukes. Trump is a nationalist and doesn't want to be engaged outside of what directly confronts US interests. In that he's like Obama, who was extremely cautions about intervening for humanitarian or idealistic reasons. Hillary on the other side is an old-school interventionist.
Want more confirmation besides her track record? She pressured Obama into intervening in Libya. She even prevented the US' military from negotiating peace with Gaddhafi through the channel they established in secrecy from her. Check it out on Washington Times, all the records are there. Libya for all practical purposes doesn't exist anymore. When Obama saw how it turned out he refused to go into Syria. And then 51 neocon "diplomats" in a leaked cable urged Obama to strike at Assad, who is a Russian ally. Almost all of them support Hillary.
So who's more likely to start a nuclear war?
Re: (Score:3)
trump cant let anything slide.
he is so thin skinned he feels he has to respond to everything that comes his way.
there is no being "the bigger man", there is no restraint.
he is putin with a larger ego, thinner skin, more erratic behavior, and less thoughtfulness.
he has suggested revoking the civil rights of American citizens starting with the ones that don't agree with him.
he has openly questioned why we don't use nukes more often.
so the answer to your question is without a doubt: Trump.
Re:So Palmer supports a fascist demagogue. (Score:5, Insightful)
Guess there's a reason why when you're an ideologue you believe all the shit put before you as fact. Remember Hillary's "pepe the frog is a symbol of white supremacy" bit that you swallowed hook line and sinker? Yeah, published by the same rag that claims this to be fact, and has yet to publish a correction stating that they were trolled into believing that. If you're trusting the daily beast to be factual, then you likely trust media matters not to take things out of context to create political talking points and carry agendas.
Re:Hillary's a witch! Burn her! (Score:4, Interesting)
Exactly what "piece of shit" things has she done?
Libya, Syria, Yemen (by selling weapons to the people who are bombarding them)
when have American war crimes ever mattered much to the USA?
Oh, I see, you don't care about war crimes. Then yes, she's fine, just an average politician getting bribes and corrupting the election.
I'm increasingly convinced that the Donald's secret plan for quickly defeating Daesh involves nuclear weapons
According to him, it's to bomb the oil fields and to cut the money that they get from "US allies" (in reality Hillary's allies [ibtimes.com], as they are donating for her).
But if you don't care about war crimes when it's Hillary, why care when it's Trump?
Re:Hillary's a witch! Burn her! (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly what "piece of shit" things has she done?
Libya, Syria, Yemen (by selling weapons to the people who are bombarding them)
I'm increasingly convinced that the Donald's secret plan for quickly defeating Daesh involves nuclear weapons
According to him, it's to bomb the oil fields and to cut the money that they get from "US allies" (in reality Hillary's allies [ibtimes.com], as they are donating for her).
Stays.
when have American war crimes ever mattered much to the USA?
Oh, I see, you don't care about war crimes.
Arguable, so I do apologize. You said that American war crimes doesn't matter to the USA, not to yourself. And you worried about a nuclear attack, that proves me wrong.
But it is strange when you ignore Libya, Syria and Yemen, her threats against Iran and Russia, and then say "pretty unlikely she will do anything terrible", and also "I don't think a highly limited nuclear strike is such a terrible thing in the big picture", that's were my (apparently wrong) assumption that you don't care about war crimes came from.
Did my apologies get it right? Or there was some other misinterpretation (English is not my native language)? I realize you said that global warming might be the largest risk, but I don't see how that could relate to the points on how "piece of shit" she is. Also, it is unlikely that four years of Trump will be enough to impede "the survival of your own descendents" on the global warming side of things. Just because he is mindless, doesn't mean the rest of the world is too (including good portion of the US). We can hope he will have some opposition and some decent technical advisors.
BTW, I'm not in power to vote for him, foreigner. My survival is more likely to be ended by an American drone (for posting links from wikileaks on extremist sites like slashdot) than by American global warming.
Re: (Score:3)
Your reading is improving, but perhaps I was not clear enough in my writing. Often I am not sufficiently sensitive to readers' context...
I was referring to accountability for war crimes. Actually, I regard it as kind of sad how many war criminals are never held to any account, but in most cases American actions are not even assessed on that scale. There is a reason justice is supposed to be blind. If it makes you feel any better, I think the evidence indicates that the actual number of victims of war crimes
so he loves to shitpost... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm +1 on that hashtag.
Anyone know how Rob's doing these days?
Brilliant insight. (Score:5, Insightful)
The American Revolution was funded by wealthy individuals
On the one hand, the American Revolution was also lead by philosophers, scientists, judges, generals, etc. These guys had some ideas about how to create a better system than what they inherited.
On the other hand, you have Donald Trump. His philosophical concept of government is that "Only I can fix it" and "All you need to know is that I'll take care of it. Don't worry about." "There's going to be so much winning." etc. Luckey and Thiel should be so proud.
Turnabout is Fair Play. (Score:4, Interesting)
As long as Hillary wants to 'correct the record' Trump gets his online engine too. The DNC's youth (and staying power online) was mostly behind the Bernie campaign. Any attempt by Hillary to 'connect to the youth' has backfired terribly. Most recently in her Between Two Ferns interview.
After some 'incidents' the high schools around here let students know that their first amendment rights didn't go to football games. Some photo of a bunch of teens with a trump banner saluting. It went 'viral' in this region. If I had to guess knowing teens they're Trump because their parents are "Anyone but". A lot of the 4chan, "shit posting" youth of 2016 is behind Trump and it shows on Reddit (Where there's a strong correlation to "Red Pillers"). [And consequently a lot of Bernie teens because their parents are Trumpers].
It's 21st century political satire. If the memes were in the NY Times as a political cartoon it would be ignored.
Knave or Fool? (Score:5, Funny)
I heard once that this is the classic dilemma in politics: do you vote for the knave, or vote for the fool?
The answer: vote for the knave, because the knave is competent. But watch the knave like a hawk.
I'll leave it to the reader to decide which is which in this discussion.
What a fucktard (Score:3, Insightful)
Palmer Luckey: "You can't fight the American elite without serious firepower. They will outspend you and destroy you by any and all means."
Gee, with a net worth of $700M, you yourself are in danger of being a member of the elite you profess to despise but secretly long to join.
It must truly suck to be a member of the 'nouveau nouveau riche', when the 'nouveau riche' won't even give you the time of day, let alone take you seriously, and I feel for you - NOT. The fact that you have to resort to shitposting to gain any audience at all probably has nothing to do with the newness of your wealth. I'm sure it has everything to do with the fact that you're an ignorant, whiny, petulant brat who can afford a seat at the 'grownup table' but who can't act or talk like an adult. (Come to think of it, that makes you the PERFECT Trump shill). If you ever grow up to the point where trolling, bitching, and crowing give way to reasoned, thoughtful discourse, (but I'm not holding my breath), then maybe you'll be taken seriously. Until then, STFU - adults are trying to have a conversation, and we don't need mini-Trump butting in when Big Trump is already making rude noises and sticking his tongue out at us.
The Daily Beast is a Clinton Mouthpiece (Score:5, Informative)
Chelsea Clinton is on the board of directors of their parent company. Go look.
Slashdot, do better. Put a disclaimer in next time.
I remember when... (Score:5, Insightful)
When posts on /. were intelligent and the users replied with equal intelligence. Now it's no better than comment sections on any other website on the internet.
Fighting the American elite... (Score:5, Insightful)
by giving power to Trump. Words fail me.
Bad? (Score:3)
You're saying this is bad, right? Have ya *heard* of George Soros?
You're fighting against him, too, right?
Re: (Score:3)
You guys are like Amway salespeople in reverse: "Have you heard the bad news about George Soros?"
Facebook Backlash (Score:3)
Almost all the money that Luckey/Oculus own came from Facebook, which has been in the news quite a bit for thinking about what they can do to help Trump lose the election. I imagine Zuck won't be very happy that the money he gave Oculus is being (indirectly) spent to go against his aims.
Fake (Score:3)
Re:Incoming liberal asspain (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump may be the president America deserves.
Re: (Score:3)
Trump may be the president America deserves.
Thank god Hillary isn't
Re:Incoming liberal asspain (Score:4, Insightful)
And maybe what both parties need to get out of the trench warfare that they currently have as well.
He's not really a good alternative, but neither is Hillary. The difference is that Trump don't have many followers from either party while Hillary has a lot of Democrat followers and a few Republican.
Both have a luggage of questionable actions throughout history but the stuff Hillary has seems to stink worst when you dig. Trump luggage is what you expect from a person in his position.
Re: (Score:3)
I've been saying "Trump is the president we deserve" for the last 10 months. He represents everything Americans stand for these days. Just look at the comments section on any public news site for the last 5 years. We are a fact-averse, hypocritical, writhing mass of bigotry and ignorance. We value fame for fame's sake. We value money for money's sake. We entertain ourselves with the suffering of others. We fail to take responsibility for our mistakes, and seek to blame others preemptively. We cloak our hatr
When the world comes a callin' (Score:4, Funny)
outside of the USA, and if you think there was anti-Americanism before, if Trump is elected, it will be an all-out continuous, and well-deserved shitpost on America.
Gasp! The Germans are here!
Allooooo Americans! We love you [youtube.com]
Welcome back, Americans!!!
Re:Yeah but there's a whole world out there (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree that people have to be all that to be ardent Trump supporters. But as a foreigner that have seem what Hillary has been doing to Americans and to the world, as well as her threats against both Iran and Russia, I'll say you are partially wrong (on the anti-Americanism growth).
If Trump wins we will shitpost on how stupid Americans are, both because many of you are, and to shame you for having him as president.
But we'll be glad if you elect someone that doesn't finance terrorists and start proxy wars with Russia.
He is really embarrassing, but most people I know down here in Brazil think that if Trump wins it will be mostly on the "lesser of two evils" concept. We (the people I talk to) think most Americans voting on him are in a desperate attempt of doing something for your country, but don't really believe on his white supremacy speeches. Specially after the support that Sanders got and the way that the Democrats pushed Clinton. There are plenty of polls that show that most Americans (rightfully in my opinion) dislike both your candidates.
Foreigners opinions are based on discourse only right in the very beginning. Trump's speeches are not inspiring, but we won't become anti-Americans because of that (at least not for long), we'll be more anti-Americans next time you finance armed "rebels" or start a war. Just like we became more pro-Americans when you elected the constitutional lawyer against surveillance and pro-healthcare, but only for a very short time, as we quickly realized it was just another lie (and that he would spy on our entire populations in spite of international agreements and the notion that men are created equal).
Anyway, if you care about anti-Americanism, vote for who you think will actually murder less, it is in direct relation to that, not on how bigoted your presidents are.
Re:Yeah but there's a whole world out there (Score:5, Insightful)
"Start proxy wars with Russia"? How about Russia not starting proxy wars with the West? Russia invades and seizes part of Ukraine just when they decide they want to be more pro EU. It even currently enjoys a "civil war" that wouldnt have lasted a week without Russian arms and soldiers. They control a tiny portion of the country but somehow are capable of withstanding the rest of the country's army not to mention performing large offensive pushed early in the war? Clearly all of those photos of Russian military equipment Ukraine never owned from within Ukraine show something is going on, right?
Or maybe Syria is the "proxy war" you speak of? Was all of the Arab spring started by the US or just the Syria part? Is our extensive campaign against ISIS, where ever they may be, a secret move against Russia?
Or maybe the proxy war was those evil Georgians that got invaded by Russia right when entering into NATO might have been a possibility?
Please. Tell me. What are these terrible evils the US visits on Russia?
Re: (Score:3)
For starters, your links don't show that the government turnover didn't have to do with resentment over 50 years of Russian hegemony over Ukraine as opposed to Western influence. One would think that if the Ukrainian masses weren't pro-West then the civil war wouldn't be restricted to the small, ethnically Russian territories, clearly being fueled by Russia and that this small minority wouldn't be able to resist the military might of the overall country without Russian military supplies (like tanks) that Uk
Re:Yeah but there's a whole world out there (Score:5, Interesting)
If Trump wins it will be confirmation that democracy is failing in the English speaking world. Brexit happened because the UK has post-factual politics, and it's looking like the US is the same.
The internet and social media were supposed to improve democracy, but they seem to have reduced it to the level of memes and feelings counting more than facts and ability.
Re: (Score:3)
Pretty much this, yes.
And isn't it sad? I mean, imagine you told someone 10 years ago "Donald Trump is running for president. And he is the LESSER evil." Anyone you told that would have looked at you and asked "Who's he running against, Cthulhu?
And you would pause, ponder, and then very slowly, you would nod.
Re:Yeah but there's a whole world out there (Score:5, Informative)
By attacking the person and not the message you are just being stupid, but since you implied that the current state of my country of origin makes me less qualified to talk about the subject, I'll answer.
Your government meddles with ours. Your country implanted a dictatorship some time ago when we were getting better, huge setback, but we got out. We had a pretty good run for 14 years (just go check anywhere), even between two world economic crises. But when our president complained (2013) that your country was violating our constitution and our human rights, your president appointed a coup specialist as ambassador. Three years later, our president was taken out of office in the same way Paraguay's one was taken when this American coup organizer was working there (through a flaw in the law that permitted legally removing the president as long as enough congressmen lied together).
So yeah, we were fixing our government but America keeps fucking us. So don't complain when people talk about it, and don't blame us for everything that happens here, we are pretty shit alone, but you help a lot. As you should know, fixing broken governments is really hard, I'm working on it too.
But if you read my previous post, that's not even the reason I care the most about your politics, personally I really dislike murder, as most people I know (including several Americans). Considering your poor options as candidates, something I relate to, I wrote "who you think", as not to give an absolute opinion on the person you should vote to, but on one issue I think you should consider to be top priority (not that employment doesn't matter). To make it clear I wasn't telling on who to vote, I also gave a very conditional advice:
If you care about anti-Americanism, vote for who you think will actually murder less
I babbled a lot in my comment, but in the end the advice that I gave was that one. Do you think it is a bad advice? Do you think the US will become a banana republic if voters think about that? If so, isn't it worth becoming one? And in the end it was a conditional advice, so if you don't care about anti-Americanism, or about murdering less, it's ok, you can do whatever you want. But I will not restrain from speaking.
Re: Yeah but there's a whole world out there (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone who claims what Trump would do as a president is lying. Including Trump.
Re: Yeah but there's a whole world out there (Score:4, Insightful)
No, the real issue is this:
The vast majority of people are idiots. The problem is they're too stupid to realize it.
Re: Yeah but there's a whole world out there (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Yeah but there's a whole world out there (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: Yeah but there's a whole world out there (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Yeah but there's a whole world out there (Score:5, Funny)
There was a joke doing the rounds after the Brexit referendum...
USA and UK are competing to be the most stupid country. UK have just taken the lead but USA still have a trump card to play.
Re: (Score:3)
There are leftists now in the US?
Re: (Score:3)
European here, from a country that had its share of different people from across the continent wandering in, out or through. You'll find quite a few houses in our capital with few "native" sounding names on the tenants' list, and none of them being immigrants in the strict sense because they have been here for centuries, dating from a time when it was their turn to move here.
You'd think that a place like this, where nearly everyone can trace their lineage (if they can) once across the continent and back, wo
Re: Yeah but there's a whole world out there (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you serious? Trump has stated 1) he wouldn't necessarily honor NATO commitments and 2) he is a "big fan" of the leader of the country NATO was created to resist. You better believe the rest of the world is acutely interested in the results of this election.
Besides, it sounds like you are an American - and the typical American who makes broad assumptions about the rest of the world without actually ENGAGING with it. Pretty much every non-American friend I have is interested - sometimes literally fascinated - with what's going on right now in American politics.
Re: Echo chamber (Score:3)
Re: Echo chamber (Score:4, Interesting)
HAH. Yes, an online game is totally the best forum for interacting with someone and discussing their politics. I guarantee that Ukranian has an interest in politics, the fact that you didn't ask him doesn't mean anything. I got in an Uber last month with a driver from Ukraine and talked about a bunch of random things. Eventually when I asked him what he thought of Putin, he said "Fuck Putin, and fuck Trump for supporting him!"
Daily at my workplace I "interact" with - in person - a person from Ukraine, 4 more persons from Russia, one from Latvia, two from Germany, two from UK, one from France, four from China, a half dozen from India, two from Japan, one from Jordan, one from Uganda, one from Egypt, one from Israel... ok, it's just getting tiring now, I could name 20 other countries. Sounds like a real echo chamber!
And you know what the weirdest thing is? Almost every one of them thinks Trump is utterly dangerous to the US and the rest of the world and doesn't understand how he got to where he is when there were a half dozen actually qualified Republicans running. Lucky for Trump the whole world doesn't vote on the US president, or he'd lose in an utter landslide.
Re: Echo chamber (Score:5, Informative)
I too work daily with an international crew. And you know what the weirdest thing is? Almost every one of them thinks Trump is utterly dangerous to the US and the rest of the world and doesn't understand how he got to where he is when there were a half dozen actually qualified Republicans running.
Sorry. Guess there's an echo in here today. ;-)
The non-echo part: My Russian colleagues don't seem to like Putin much, either, but they are very cagey about it when it comes to saying so online--even the ones who don't actually live in Russia. They're much less reticent about it in person. Gee, I wonder why.
Re: Echo chamber (Score:5, Insightful)
That might be because Trump is unapologetic in his avocation for prioritizing American interests over those of the world at large - in foreign trade, in overseas military action and in diplomacy. Naturally this will annoy denizens of European nations that've drastically under-spent on their armed forces for decades, preferring to freeload off the guaranteed protection of US/UK forces. Even former defense secretary Robert Gates - who's gotten snippy with Trump's foreign policy statements - himself said that NATO was becoming a "two-tier" alliance [reuters.com] of fighters and freeloaders. It's taken repeated and persistent Russian aggression to finally reverse that trend, and it might already be too little, too late. Someone rattling Europe's cage to stimulate defense spending is exactly what they've needed - a little more rattling can only produce more spending.
Some Americans have a strange fascination with the opinions of foreigners on our politics - the American left wing holds them in particularly high regard - for reasons I cannot fathom. Said people often cite said opinions as if they're significant to our internal discourse as American citizens.
When these foreigners pay taxes to the American government, then I'll care about their opinion. Until then, they can take a flying fuck at a rolling donut.
Re: (Score:3)
Pretty much every non-American friend I have is interested - sometimes literally fascinated - with what's going on right now in American politics.
Wouldn't you stop and look if a huge train wreck happened before your very eyes?
Re: Yeah but there's a whole world out there (Score:5, Insightful)
Tell that to Georgia and Ukraine. You are delusional if you really think that.
Re: (Score:3)
No, my assumptions were almost as narrow as the parent's worldview.
Re: (Score:3)
Berlusconi didn't cause me to hear anything negative about Italy, so I wonder.
really? We certainly laughed about it... Honestly, it's things like that which makes it hard to take Italy serious... It makes you question if it's even a first world nation.
Re:Yeah but there's a whole world out there (Score:4, Informative)
Not really, what makes it hard to take Italy seriously are prosecutors who during a single trial advance motives ranging from normal sociopathy to crazy sex games to devil worship and do so completely seriously.
Re:Yeah but there's a whole world out there (Score:4, Informative)
You really think that?
Or, rather, you really WANT that? You really want to pay more for your groceries, for your deliveries, for your repairs, for ... well, pretty much anything?
Before you cry "they took ur juuubs", ponder whether you'd WANT that job, or whether that job is done for you, and realize that if it's the latter, the price for this will go up.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yeah but there's a whole world out there (Score:5, Insightful)
The original poster is correct. We shouldn't be using illegal labor to justify low prices. I don't have a problem with immigrants. I have a problem with illegal immigrants not paying their fare share in taxes. Most of the money they make gets sent back to Mexico anyhow.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd pay 10x as much for my groceries if that means my wife has less chance of being raped, and my children have less chance of being groomed by drug dealers.
Blaming rape and drug dealing on illegal immigrants is a ridiculous scapegoat with absolutely no basis in fact. The reality is the opposite of this - illegal immigrants (not accounting for the crime of illegal immigration itself) commit a tiny fraction of the crime in America, and it's very much disproportionate to their population. Illegal immigrants are less likely than natives to commit violent crime or be incarcerated. [wsj.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"I was under sniper fire in Bosnia."
"None of the emails on my server were classified."
"Americans were killed and dragged through the streets of Benghazi because of a youtube video."
Just a few off the top of my head, without googling. There are many, many more. But, of course, you already know this. Lying comes naturally to Hillary. Lucky for her, she's got delusional shills like you that are willing to play damage cont
Re:Typical Republican tatic: LIE (Score:4, Insightful)
Clinton is a typical exaggerating and cherry picking politician. Trump's pants have achieved stable nuclear fission.
Re: (Score:3)
No it doesn't. Go look for yourself.
Did you really think you could just put out a lie like that and nobody would check? Of course you did, didn't you?
Re: (Score:3)
VPs since Quayle have been assassination insurance.