Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Media The Almighty Buck Politics

Online Journalists Launch An Onslaught Against Donald Trump (nytimes.com) 843

An anonymous Slashdot reader writes: Online journalists at Buzzfeed are publicizing two controversial videos featuring Donald Trump. First the site "filed court motions seeking the release" of Trump's under-oath testimony in a June trial, in which the real estate mogul "says he planned his caustic remarks on immigration delivered during the launch of his presidential bid," bragging that they'd "led to my nomination in a major party in the country." And Buzzfeed is also publicizing a video clip from the 2000 softcore porn movie Playboy Video Centerfold: Bernaola Twins, in which Trump makes a cameo appearance. Playboy has even said that years earlier Trump actually pressured his second wife to pose for Playboy. ("Trump himself was on the phone negotiating the fee," remembered a top Playboy editor. "He wanted her to do the nude layout. She didn't.")

But his biggest problem may be the mainstream media. According to the New York Times, Trump "declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income tax returns, a tax deduction so substantial it could have allowed him to legally avoid paying any federal income taxes for up to 18 years..."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Online Journalists Launch An Onslaught Against Donald Trump

Comments Filter:
  • Meh. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 01, 2016 @10:45PM (#52996819)

    Meh.

    Hillary is a corrupt, lying monster who is the ultimate expression of the repressive system of the political Establishment. She shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the White House. I'm voting for Trump just because the establishment is trying so insanely hard to derail him. When the UN hates his guts, that just adds another sparkle to his appeal. He's the napalm solution for a time when everyone is tired of what Hillary represents.

    Burn the system down. Burn it all down.

    • Re:Meh. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by sinij ( 911942 ) on Saturday October 01, 2016 @11:26PM (#52997015)

      Burn the system down. Burn it all down.

      I would rather not see Establishment Hilary elected, but Trump really could burn the system down, and what replaces it is going to be much worse than what we have. Corporate Authoritarianism and Full Surveillance State where we have less rights, less freedoms and where system rigged much harder against regular people. Your think your analog guns will be any good against autonomous kill drones?

    • Re:Meh. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by quax ( 19371 ) on Sunday October 02, 2016 @12:16AM (#52997227)

      And when you really get to hate the color of your living room carpet, I assume you also set that one on fire to then watch it burn from the comfort of your sofa.

    • Re:Meh. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by quantaman ( 517394 ) on Sunday October 02, 2016 @12:44AM (#52997345)

      Burn the system down. Burn it all down.

      I'm guessing you're not a Muslim, Hispanic, black person, or resident of a Middle Eastern country.

      You won't get racially profiled, called the enemy, threatened with deportation, or have your country attacked on a whim.

      Much more likely you're white (and probably male), and as bad as Trump is the worst consequence you're likely to personally experience is a drop in your purchasing power due to the recession.

      In other words it's easy to say "burn it all down" when you're not the one in the house.

      • by Kohath ( 38547 )

        Hillary already called almost half the voters "enemies" [cbsnews.com]. She doubled down [washingtonpost.com] and said many of them were "deplorable", "irredeemable" and "not America".

        If I have to choose between my government hurting others or hurting me, what's my rational choice?

        And why do blacks, Hispanics, and so many other people get a pass for supporting a candidate who so obviously hates many of their fellow Americans?

  • poor sod (Score:4, Funny)

    by Black Parrot ( 19622 ) on Saturday October 01, 2016 @11:00PM (#52996871)

    Never realized how much scrutiny his life would get if he got the nomination.

  • by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Saturday October 01, 2016 @11:19PM (#52996983) Journal

    Remember, Trump's >$900million loss came from running a fucking casino. And this was in the go-go 90's when people were actually making and spending money.

    You've got to be a special kind of businessman to lose almost a billion dollars running a casino.

    • Remember these are paper losses. Trump is the quintessential crooked American businessman, with shady accountants who will find a way to cook the books to his advantage. The profits will have been transferred into tax exempt trusts. Only the losses remain where they belong.
  • So what's the news? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by guruevi ( 827432 )

    You pretty much have to be a sociopath or psychopath to make it to the level Trump/Clinton make it. There have been numerous studies proving that C-level executives and politicians are exponentially more likely to exhibit those signs.

    Whether or not he actually got the tax break, it indeed makes him smart. If you knew how to game the system the way Trump, Gates, Jobs or Clinton did, you would do it too. Jobs purportedly never drove with a license plate on his vehicles, Gates did the overseas tax dodge, they

  • by ArtemaOne ( 1300025 ) on Sunday October 02, 2016 @12:10AM (#52997209)
    I don't know if I've seen so many points expended to suppress both sides of an argument.
    • Timely, too (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Okian Warrior ( 537106 ) on Sunday October 02, 2016 @12:56AM (#52997397) Homepage Journal

      I don't know if I've seen so many points expended to suppress both sides of an argument.

      What's interesting is looking at the moderation levels over time.

      For the first hour after the article was posted, there were a lot of pro-Trump comments.

      Now it's 2.5 hours later and all those articles have been modded down. What's left is pro-Hillary, in a roundabout way.

      You can tell when something's gone up and down because of the tags., If something has "Score: 2 insightful" it means someone modded it up (to gain the "insightful") and someone else modded it down.

      When Whiplash took over I mentioned that this site goes to pot around 6 weeks before a presidential election, and becomes unbearable starting around 2 weeks before an election. This year I think it'll be worse than previous election years.

      I can't *wait* until the election is over, so we can go back to having insightful posts.

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        It's meta-moderation correcting the early bad mods. The alt-right moderators are always out in force on every story about Trump it anything "social justice" related. They get in early to try to control the debate, and unfortunately it works.

        Later meta-moderation cleans up, and the tone of the debate changes. Unfortunately most if the comments and views come early on.

        Best way to counter it is to keep meta modding, but only stories from those threads since after the first 10 your votes count for less.

      • You can tell when something's gone up and down because of the tags., If something has "Score: 2 insightful" it means someone modded it up (to gain the "insightful") and someone else modded it down.

        Why not just click on the score and see the exact moderations done to the message? I don't think it lists in what order they happened, but you should be able to figure it out by the final score.

  • by Kohath ( 38547 ) on Sunday October 02, 2016 @12:38AM (#52997317)

    Buzzfeed is a corporation, just like Citizens United is a corporation. We heard it was wrong for Citizens United to spend money to make a political film. Where's the outrage about Buzzfeed spending corporate money against Trump?

    Please post your expressions of outrage here. Unless your outrage was phony. Or selective, partisan outrage. Or you can explain why corporation B can legitimately spend on politics, but corporation C can't.

  • by epyT-R ( 613989 ) on Sunday October 02, 2016 @01:08AM (#52997455)

    Reporting the facts. All of them. Leave the editorializing to the readers.

  • by gman003 ( 1693318 ) on Sunday October 02, 2016 @01:20AM (#52997481)

    I was wondering how he was going to try to recover from his recent string of bad news. Looks like his method is to pretend it's a conspiracy by the left-wing media to ruin him with an "onslaught" of bad press. Which implies that the stories are false or exaggerated, without actually making that claim. Clever, in case he ever needs to admit that the reports are true.

    Truth has no sides. Reality has no bias. If these things are true, and I have seen no indications that they are not, then the news is making Donald Trump look bad because Donald Trump is actually bad. If he steals money from charity to bribe investigators to turn a blind eye to his fraudulent businesses, the blame for the bad press afterward lies purely at the hands of Trump, not on the media and press.

  • by rbrander ( 73222 ) on Sunday October 02, 2016 @02:36AM (#52997639) Homepage

    Publishing - the man's own media appearances is an "onslaught"? Isn't that more like "routine"? It barely qualifies as journalism, too easy.

    Isn't holding people accountable for their public positions the very job of journalists?

    And The Times - every journalist has been howling for those tax returns for a nearly a year, they've been expected for 40 years - and now actually showing a couple of pages of a really old one is an "onslaught"? Most would say, "no brainer".

  • by Bender Unit 22 ( 216955 ) on Sunday October 02, 2016 @04:29AM (#52997885) Journal

    The same people that tells me that I should be ashamed of being white, so, meh.
    (not that I like the giant douche, or the turd sandwich for that matter)

  • by JustNiz ( 692889 ) on Sunday October 02, 2016 @10:53AM (#52999179)

    "it could have allowed him to legally avoid paying any federal income taxes for up to 18 years..."

    Note the use of the word "Legally".
    If you don't like what he did, change the law, don;t bitch about him following it. There are plenty of other corps (such as Apple) doing similar things.

    Besides just that fact that what Trump did is actually legal would automatically make it fuck load better than MANY things Clinton and her foundation has done/is doing.

The reward for working hard is more hard work.

Working...