WikiLeaks' Big Tuesday Announcement Will Now Take Place Via Video (thehill.com) 380
Long-time Slashdot reader SonicSpike writes that media outlets including Fox News were reporting WikiLeaks cancelled a big announcement scheduled for Tuesday and expected to reveal damaging information about Hillary Clinton. But they were all citing a tweet from NBC as their source. "Due to security concerns at the Ecuadorian Embassy, Julian Assange's balcony announcement on Tues has been cancelled," tweeted NBC producer Jesse Rodriguez -- which was apparently taken to mean the announcement had been cancelled altogether.
But six hours ago, citing WikiLeaks, that same producer reported that Assange "will appear via video link" at a Tuesday press conference in Berlin marking the 10th anniversary of WikiLeaks. While it's possible this "appearance" will be different than the originally scheduled "announcement," it also seems very possible that the NBC producer's tweets were just misunderstood.
But six hours ago, citing WikiLeaks, that same producer reported that Assange "will appear via video link" at a Tuesday press conference in Berlin marking the 10th anniversary of WikiLeaks. While it's possible this "appearance" will be different than the originally scheduled "announcement," it also seems very possible that the NBC producer's tweets were just misunderstood.
Why is this here? (Score:5, Insightful)
This post has no content whatsoever. Maybe if Assange actually reveals something new it might be worth an article, but this seems an article that should have been rejected as content free.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This is going to be a video link ON THE INTERNET, Mr. Coward. Do you not realize the importance of such an achievement?
Re:Why is this here? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm Canadian. Apart from Canadian and US media, I also regularly read news from Le Monde and Le Figaro, Al Jazeera, Russia Today and China Daily. My conclusion? All media are doing an enormous amount of propaganda. You may prefer left-wing propaganda over right-wing propaganda, you may prefer pro-establishment propaganda over anti-establishment propaganda, but it is propaganda nonetheless.
Re: Why is this here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
He Is A Darling Of The Cyber Rebels (Score:4, Interesting)
People hate authority. Most of them hate it simply because the authority they have experienced has not been just controlling, but also flagrantly stupid. Every public official is incompetent and they all want to tax you into oblivion and regulate minor details of behavior as life-changing events. Assange pushes back against authority. Even better, sometimes he nails really stupid authorities. We are all looking forward to whatever "October Surprise" he can cook up for The Establishment Candidate.
Re:He Is A Darling Of The Cyber Rebels (Score:4, Informative)
We are all looking forward to whatever "October Surprise" he can cook up for The Establishment Candidate.
Hillary may be part of the establishment, but Trump is a textbook example of the type of people the establishment works for. Trump supporters are like a bunch of cows who'd rather be herded by a slaughterhouse owner, solely because they've had bad experiences with farmers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Because the poster knew what the fuck he was talking about, maybe?
Re: (Score:2)
You have to keep up on the /. herd mentality. It changes regularly, and typically by Pi radians.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I generally agree with denouncing the supporter bashing, no matter victim or source. However this is an apt allegory. Either we get the slaughterhouse owner, or we get the farmer that is chained via purse strings to the slaughterhouse owner. To think that one is better than the other from a steer's view is folly.
That's American Politics.
Re: (Score:2)
What potential candidate? Duckworth couldn't run for President if she wanted to. Not native born.
Don't you wish you'd stayed awake during Civics class now, and maybe learned something?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you wish you'd stayed awake during Civics class now, and maybe learned something?
Funny. If you'd been less obnoxious, you'd look like less of a dick now that's you've been corrected.
Re: (Score:2)
This is true. Trump as a president is poison, but with any other candidate than Clinton we'd be talking about a landslide Democrat right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What a load of crap.
A train is out of control on a track. You have access to a switch that could send it to one track with 2 people on it, or another with 5. Those are the choices my friend. You don't get to say, "I'd fix the brakes", or call Superman. Your vote for Johnson will have the affect of rolling dice to decide which track the train takes - which, I suppose if you really think there's no difference between Clinton or Trump on any issue you care about, is rational.
The lesser of two evils is still evil. I'm all for destroying the tracks ahead of the train and using the fallout from the deadly chaos as a good reason to lay new tracks and build a better and more reliable train. That way the out of control train is destroyed far away from my town where a trainwreck would be more catastrophic.
In the ways most pertinent to me, this is choice of which disgusting tyranny I'd rather endure.... my answer is neither.
But of course the thought that there's no difference is irrational in and of itself.
At best, your point is that we need a different system for electing Presidents - and possibly a large turnout for Johnson might inch that into being. I'd say there are better ways - like electing Johnson (or Sanders, or Stein, or Nader)-like candidates to Congress or State legislatures from districts where they stand a chance of winning. And then changing the election system through a process that can actually do it. Because Presidencies have long-term repercussions, so they're best not used to 'send a message' when there are other, better ways.
There's already around 600 libertarians in public office thr
Re: (Score:2)
Is it calling for violence to point that 60 years ago we used to hang the kind of people that support Trump?
Re: (Score:3)
You might have a point except for the fact that a large chunk of the Nazi's ideology was inspired by what was going on in the US, they just took it to the next logical and more extreme level.
Hatred of the Jews? Hitler really enjoyed Henry Ford's "The International Jew" publications as well as other American anti-Semitic literature.
Treating black folks as sub-human? Yeah, we were great at that. Even when they gained meager rights they were considered 3/5ths of a person.
Medical Experimentation on "untermen
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, no.
The 3/5 compromise was all about getting Slave States to vote to ratify the Constitution, since otherwise, the low population of the South would leave them basically screwed in the House.
Without that compromise, we would still be under the Articles of Confederation, or, more likely, split into five or six nations.
So, effectively, the 3/5 compromise set us up for the Civil War, and freeing the slaves, rather than the alter
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Gotta push Trump. Slashdot is owned by Dice.com which has numerous ties to the Trump business empire. Just another in a long line of Clinton hit pieces pushed by slashdot and many other sites.
Any evidence for this? I've noticed /. has had a weirdly pro-Trump anti-Clinton stream of stories but I assumed that was due to Assange fanboyism and Trump supporters hammering the submission queue.
Re: (Score:2)
after vainly pushing anti trump stories for months, recent increase in pro trump tilt in /. summitries is due to editors here wising up to the fact that readers and commenters here are generally pro trump (just look at the moderation points of comments in any trump/clinton/election comments; evidence is definitive ).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yep. Who knew a supposedly smart techie readership could be taken in by a con man like Trump?
Re: (Score:2)
As opposed to who Trump would name to the Supreme Court. Sorry, that is one of the things that worries me the most about Trump being elected, that the court will swing too far to the right. At least I believe Hillary would pick moderates and maintain the status quo in most respects.
Re: (Score:2)
I find it hard to believe /.'s readership, even in this day and age, could support someone who willfully ignores scientific fact as readily as Trump
Ahem. Climate. This place is full of deniers. They think they're different to creationists, of course.
Re: (Score:3)
Judging from your signature, the only constitutional protection you're worried about is your right to shoot birds - which, by the way, nobody is advocating for taking away, no matter how much you whine that they are.
Well, the constitution covers a few other areas that Slashdotters might just care about. Like the preference of one-person-one-vote democracy over an interpretation of freedom of speech that considers The American Enterprise Institute as a charitable organization. And of course, while the SC d
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't noticed a pro-Trump stance from Slashdot stories (and commentors). However I have definitely noticed a very strong anti-Hillary tone here at Slashdot, which at first was very surprising. However, I think that stems from the fact that the typical Slashdotter better understands the ramifications and details of the whole email server thing than the general populace. Most of the strong political opinions I'm seeing here are in that regard, and seem to originate from the private email server.
So any pro
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I haven't noticed a pro-Trump stance from Slashdot stories (and commentors). However I have definitely noticed a very strong anti-Hillary tone here at Slashdot, which at first was very surprising. However, I think that stems from the fact that the typical Slashdotter better understands the ramifications and details of the whole email server thing than the general populace. Most of the strong political opinions I'm seeing here are in that regard, and seem to originate from the private email server.
So any pro-Trump leaning is really anti-Hillary. Which is pretty much how this election is working out in general - who hates which candidate the least.
Possibly, though I think the better explanation might have to do with Hillary's self-identification as a feminist. Just read any post regarding feminism and see all the people railing against "SJWs". I think gender is still very relevant for a lot of people.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Dice sold Slashdot in January [slashdot.org]. There does seem to be quite a pro-Trump agenda here lately, but that isn't Dice's fault (anymore).
Re: (Score:2)
Dice sold Slashdot in January [slashdot.org]. There does seem to be quite a pro-Trump agenda here lately, but that isn't Dice's fault (anymore).
I wonder if that could be because of the tech bias in the reporting. Trump is a racing lunatic but there's no hidden email server, classified documents, he hasn't been hacked and for the most part we don't even know if he can use a computer. Is it such a surprise that all things Hilary get more if a mention here given that most of her dramas somehow involve tech, or tech industries outer people using tech against her?
The cyber is so big (Score:2)
"And you know cyber is becoming so big today. It’s becoming something that number of years ago, short number of years ago, wasn’t even a word. And now the cyber is so big, and you know look at what they’re doing with the internet. How they’re taking recruiting people through the internet. And part of it is the psychology because so many people think they’re winning. And you know, there’s a whole big thing. Even today, psychology — where CNN came out with a big poll.
Re: (Score:2)
Dice doesn't own /. any longer, Mr Van Winkle.
Re:Why is this here? (Score:4, Insightful)
"HIllary's husband cheated on her, so I'm voting for Trump"?
Oh yes, THAT makes PERFECT sense. *eyeroll*
Re: Why is this here? (Score:3, Insightful)
She victim shamed a rape accuser, thats different.
Re: (Score:3)
Boy. In any other context, you'd probably be railing about 'defining rape down to the point of meaninglessness'. But if it's a Clinton...
The primary 'victims' of Hillary's supposed 'blaming the victim' were Gennifer Flowers, who conducted a consensual sexual relationship and then sold her story to the tabloids. And Monica Lewinsky, who basically flirted with a married man, fell in love, and they cried on the shoulder of Linda Tripp, who betrayed her royally. That Hillary chose to defend her husband rath
Re: Why is this here? (Score:3)
Why just cherry pick two from the long list? You convent ignore the multiple accusers who claim it was not consensual. For example, Juanita Broderick
Re: (Score:3)
I picked them because they're the ones where Hillary's supposedly on the record for slut-shaming them. And that was the topic I was responding to.
They're also the only two where the accusations were borne out by, y'know, evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
If you were married to a Reptilian with cankles, I bet you'd be straying off the path every now and then, too... ;)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Hillary's husband regularly cheats on her and allegedly raped some women, Hillary's response has been to stand by him and while he was POTUS savagely attack his accusers.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"HIllary's husband cheated on her, so I'm voting for Trump"?
Oh yes, THAT makes PERFECT sense. *eyeroll*
It's not about his sleaziness, per se. It's about her full-throated support of it, even when he was violating sexual harassment laws and allegedly raping. Her willingness to use your tax dollars to pay her staff to go after the women her husband was abusing and to publicly smear their reputations ... THAT is what's on the table here. Her remarkable hypocrisy, and the direct, repeated evidence that her entire pandering stance on "women's issues" is nothing but phony theater and another sign of her willingne
Re: (Score:2)
consider supporting a constitutional amendment to get money and its corrupting influence out of American politics forever
Would be nice, but sounds a lot like asking the foxes nicely if you can have the henhouse back.
Re: (Score:2)
The Constitution allows for the states to call a convention proposing an amendment, completely bypassing the Federal Congress.
Five states have already passed bills calling for the convention, 29 more states are needed:
http://www.wolf-pac.com/the_pl... [wolf-pac.com]
Re:Why is this here? (Score:4, Insightful)
What has Robby Mook [wikipedia.org] said about Assange?
I assume you actually mean Bob Beckel [snopes.com]. Not only is he not Clinton's campaign manager, Snopes can't find any evidence that he's ever even worked as a Clinton strategist in any capacity. Maybe if you dig hard enough you might find some sort of "three degrees of separation" thing to damn her with, though, so you should probably get started.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Regarding Snopes, I now only trust them for debunking trivial, stupid internet meme type things, and not at all when it comes to politics (or much of anything serious for that matter). They are extremely biased in favor of Clinton and "debunk" things without any actual proof or showing contradictory evidence whatsoever. It is totally meaningless that Snopes can't happen to find evidence portraying Clinton negatively.
Re:Why is this here? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Security Concerns (Score:5, Funny)
The primary security concern is the balcony not being big enough or strong enough to support Julian's ego.
Re:Security Concerns (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey, it's on the internet. It must be true.
Re: (Score:3)
What, you don't trust reporting that only traces back to "truepundit.com" and their anonymous "sources"? Come on, next you're going to tell me that I can't lose 10 pounds in two weeks by following this one weird trick.
Re:Security Concerns (Score:4, Funny)
The primary security concern is the balcony not being big enough or strong enough to support Julian's ego.
Of course with a video stream, h.264 compression might have some difficulties handling that as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that Julian already consented once to have the press conference on the balcony, we're entitled to have the press conference on the balcony, and if that means moving him outside while he sleeps, then so be it.
Re:Security Concerns (Score:4, Insightful)
.. or your sense of denial.
DNC staffers getting shot in the back in public parks following leaks of DNC emails, and no one steals their wallet.... and no one asks questions.
And to top it all off, the DNC has the unbridled chutzpah to call it all "conspiracy theory"... after they got busted *conspiring* to keep Sanders out of the race!
We need to retire the term "consipiracy theory". It doesn't mean what they think it means.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
There is so much wrong with this post in light of its being modded up. First, as every /.er but you and the moduppers know: believing "sic hoc ergo propter hoc" is a hell of a way to go through life. A DNC staffer was murdered, but there is no reason to believe that he was in a position to know anything about the leaks—let alone that he was murdered because of them. Assange himself has refused to confirm that the murdered staffer was in any way connected to the leaks—and this would be a yuuuu
Re: (Score:2)
The primary security concern is the balcony not being big enough or strong enough to support Julian's ego.
They really have nothing to fear. After all, hot air is a lifting gas.
Re: (Score:3)
Pfft. Everyone know's ego is a lighter-than-air gas.
That's why so much hot air keeps escaping from his mouth.
The real issue is the strength of the tie-down points.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Security Concerns (Score:5, Funny)
Wow, sick burn, dude. I don't think chill (34294) will ever recover from that witty reposte.
Breaking News: Julian Assange Commits Suicide (Score:3, Insightful)
Shot himself 13 times in the back. Hillary Clinton unvailable for comment and does not recall anyway.
Not sure what else there is to reveal (Score:4, Insightful)
We already have the email issue, the Clinton Foundation issue, the fact that the DNC intentionally torpedoed her rival in the primary, etc. I can't see anything else left to reveal that would be any more damaging at this point.
My feeling on both sides is that people should be grown up enough to realize that all politicians aren't "normal people." They have immense power, immense wealth, and are masters at manipulating people to get things they need done. The only reason we didn't hear about their inner circle of dealings in the past is because we didn't used to have every news agency in the country camped out on their doorsteps 24/7 listening to them breathe, or idiotic staffers who can't seem to get their heads around secure email and computer networks. I think we're actually lucky in the US in terms of the level of corruption in our political system..many more countries have it much worse.
Seriously, anyone who voluntarily goes out seeking political office is not normal, plain and simple. You can't expect them to act like regular people. Corporate executives fall into this category too -- most executives live on another planet compared to us in terms of their daily walk through life. You're just not going to get a regular person as a politician or an executive. Trying to hold them to standards like that just breeds disappointment and discontent.
Something to get her indicted (Score:4, Interesting)
We already have the email issue, the Clinton Foundation issue, the fact that the DNC intentionally torpedoed her rival in the primary, etc. I can't see anything else left to reveal that would be any more damaging at this point.
He has said that the next dump contains evidence that will get Hillary Clinton indicted.
I'm quite anxious to see what it is.
Perhaps an early Christmas present for the American people!
Re:Something to get her indicted (Score:5, Insightful)
Hell, the email dump her lawyers gave the FBI contained enough for her to be indicted.
True.
There are dozens of military members in Leavenworth for similar offenses.
No, there are people in military prison for doing FAR LESS.
Re:Something to get her indicted (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, the military still puts people in prison for marijuana possession.
Nice attempt at deflection. We're talking about people being put in prison because having a piece of equipment in the background of a selfie is considered such a grave example of negligence in the handling of sensitive material that it's worth locking someone up. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, deliberately conveys way-more-than-just-classified material to her uncleared staff and lawyers, storing it in private offices and homes ... and her negligence (despite negligence being the statute's standard for conviction) is considered inconsequential by the only entity that could indict her for it - the Obama administration that is actively supporting her candidacy. Trying to compare this to controlled substance trafficking while on duty in the military is absurd.
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, the email dump her lawyers gave the FBI contained enough for her to be indicted. There are dozens of military members in Leavenworth for similar offenses.
She is not a member of the military, and thus not subject to the UCMJ. When you join the military, you give up many rights enjoyed by citizens. You become, in fact, nothing more than a slave. You don't even have the right to know what medications you're being injected with, let alone to refuse an injection. Your body belongs to the corps [in question] and your soul belongs to Jesus, because all good soldiers love Jesus... and kill.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The law doesn't matter if you're rich and powerful? We're supposed to hand over the presidency to a corrupt, irresponsible, greedy career politician who's working hard behind the scenes to dick over regular plebs like us all because Trump called someone fat 20 years ago (or whatever the trumped-up (lol) scandal of the moment is)?
People haven't been accepting this state of affairs for the last 3000 years because they were "grown up enough" to accept it, it was because the powerful had sufficient control ove
Re: (Score:2)
Who do you think has to pay the taxes that he didn't?
Maybe you should ask Senator Clinton who she had expected to pay when she supported even more tax deductions only rich people can get... or ask her Husband who signed many rich-people deductions into law...
Re: (Score:2)
He used the same tax loopholes as Clinton. It just turns out that taking bribes from Saudi Arabia is more profitable than building casinos and creating jobs.
Trump creates plenty of jobs... in third-world countries where they produce his clothing line. Of course, "creating jobs" is a red herring. That's tied to the puritan notion that work is holy and if you don't work you should be thrown to the wolves. What we want to be doing is making the world a better place. Trump's businesses don't do that. They shit it up.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, that's easy:
I shouted out "Who killed the Kennedys?"
When after all, it was Hil-la-ry
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not sure what else there is to reveal (Score:5, Insightful)
The "email issue" continues to be a nothing to see. At worst they show a slight lack of misjudgements over technical issues.
Sure, other than the part where she deliberately chose to avoid federal record keeping laws, deleted federal records while under subpoena, and handled highly sensitive data (WAY more than merely "classified") with a recklessness that can and HAS put people in prison many times, even just this year. Lack of judgement? Her poor judgement was in her foolishly thinking she wouldn't get caught. But she did correctly judge that the same administration that has prosecuted other people for FAR less severe violations would protect her from the same consequences. Which is exactly what they've done, repeatedly.
The Clinton Foundation is a highly respected charity
Yes, highly respected by the people who give it money in order to buy influence with the Clintons. Highly respected by the family and friends of the Clintons who get fat paychecks, consulting contracts, and perks from the foundation as it spends well over 90% of the money it rakes in on paychecks for those favored employees and on things like travel perks and "administrative" expenses. Less than 6% of the huge pile of cash they take in from foreign dictators and civil rights abusers goes towards any sort of charity activity in any form. But since you're a fan of hers, and are clearly willing to overlook her serial lies and parade of corruption, I can see why you'd consider that arrangement to be "highly respectable." Sure, of course.
The DNC's behavior in the primaries was seriously bad, and I'm disgusted Clinton rewarded DWS with a job in her campaign, but frankly it's the DNC, not Clinton or her campaign.
Your attempt to draw a distinction between these two entities is so cute. Darling.
But thus far, what's been thrown at Clinton has been stupid, seen only as "damaging" if you hate Clinton so much you'd latch onto a spelling mistake as evidence she's unfit for government.
No. What she's thrown at herself is so damaging that if she didn't have the active protection of the Obama administration she would be, like other people who have done far, far less, already indicted and likely convicted of multiple federal felonies.
Here's a good question: (Score:2)
Why is he still in the Ecuadorian Embassy? Didn't the whole investigation get scrapped?
Re: (Score:3)
No. Nothing has ever been "scrapped"; every court hearing (and there've been many), both in the UK and Sweden, at all levels (including the Supreme Courts of both countries), has gone against him. What did happen was that the statute of limitations on the lesser charges ran out. The statute of limitations on the rape charge doesn't run out until 2020.
Re: (Score:3)
Or it could just be that Assange is a prima donna.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
By a nonbinding body (WGAD) that rules in favour of almost all plaintiffs that come before it (usually unanimously, unlike in this case). Both the UK and Sweden have stated the WGAD ruling will have no bearing on the case at hand. Assange raised it in his most recent appeal with the Swedish courts (yet another in a long row of them). He lost [neweurope.eu].
Re: (Score:2)
Ack, posted too soon... that was supposed to read significant precedent, not jurisprudence. :P Oh well...
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Here's a good question: (Score:5, Insightful)
why the US, ... hasn't killed him 20 times by now,
Ask Fidel Castro.
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes you can just let the idiot die of old age, and then rewrite history and paint them in a negative light much much easier. than shooting them.
Assange hasn't been in the news for a while so suddenly he has lots of new dumps, except the people that might possibly have actual information won't go to him, as they consider him even worse than Hillary.
The last 4-5 dump of info that wikileaks has shown have been worthless. The US Government has won vs assange they made him irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, and say what you want, but the USA is, for the most part, good. If either of these individuals (Assange, Castro) would have crossed Russia like they did the US, you'd better believe they would have been assassinated by now. Especially Snowden, without any doubt whatsoever. Russia would have had the mentality that he was one of their own, he was a traitor, and thus he would be killed regardless of where he was hiding out. Snowden would probably have gotten a nice dose of polonium like Litvinenko, a
Hopefully (Score:4, Insightful)
Hopefully they don't reveal Trump's tax return, because that will make Hillary look like an idiot for paying tax. Genius
Genius Trump Trump Genius. Winning.
#Genius. #Winning. #Gyna.
Re:Hopefully (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hopefully (Score:5, Informative)
For the lazy [zerohedge.com] and on the NYT [breitbart.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, check out Hillary's 2015 tax return, page 17.
Now check out that same line on her opponent's 2015 tax return....oh wait, you can't.
I really don't understand why wikileaks is concentrating on the candidate who is hiding less.
Re: (Score:2)
Now check out that same line on her opponent's 2015 tax return....oh wait, you can't.
Right, because his 2015 tax returns ARE NOT COMPLETE. The IRS has placed them into that status by choosing to audit them, and like ANY lawyer would tell you or anyone else, he's keeping those NOT YET CONSIDERED FILED taxes on the table between him and the IRS until all of those thousands of pages of documents concerning his involvement in hundreds of business ventures are considered - BY THE IRS - to be complete and settled. All of which you know, but you're pretending you don't so you can deflect on the t
Re: (Score:2)
I know! I know! (Score:2)
Assange will announce his first hardware product, the JulianFone. It will be designed to hack into all WiFi nodes within range, suck data from them and display a continuous scroll of surrounding secrets for your viewing pleasure.
It will run only one standard app, Tinder.
Everyone knows Hillary Clinton is a criminal... (Score:5, Insightful)
... the problem is that too few care. She's on the same 'D' team as 80% of the media, so every incompetent or corrupt act is explained away by legions of sycophants.
Re: (Score:2)
And the reason the 'D' team is they don't funnel money to their supporters in so many ways, they use dump trucks to deliver it to favored entities at a new rate of an additional $1 trillion per year. over the time when the Bushes were President.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Have you even considered that what you think is 'everyone' might be wrong?
Re:Everyone knows Hillary Clinton is a criminal... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, on one hand, we have the FBI listing facts that support a criminal indictment, then mysteriously deciding that in spite of the law being against negligence, they would have to prove intent, when any normal person can go look at a dictionary and find out that this is, in fact, a literal contradiction in terms:
"Negligence (Lat. negligentia, from neglegere, to neglect, literally "not to pick up something") is a failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances. The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by carelessness, not intentional harm."
But it's fine, you've got insults on your side! It's okay, I'm sure that reality is magically biased in your favor, so there's no need to bother with trivial things like facts. Everyone who disagrees with you is a bad person and that means they're automatically wrong.
Re:Everyone knows Hillary Clinton is a criminal... (Score:5, Insightful)
There's really no need to consider that option.
Yes, I know. Thinking is hard. Regurgitating Breitbart is easier.
It's always fun to watch the deflection attempts, in place of a single coherent response on the subject matter.
People are in prison - more, newly this year - for doing far, far less than Clinton in simple neglect surrounding sensitive material. You know this. It's public record type stuff. You can't not know it, you can only pretend you don't know it. So the question is: why are you pretending to be dumb in order to support your lying, corrupt candidate? Why do you think that's a good thing? It's an odd position to take if you're trying to be persuasive.
Re: (Score:2)
So, who do you think should be seated on the Supreme Court? Please be specific.
Set the fire to the building to force him out (Score:2)
Set the fire to the building to force him out and it will be on his head and not the one shot one kill guy.
Trumpism (Score:2)
Let me guess: Assange send a team of experts to Hawaii, and they can't BELIEVE what they are finding.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Repent and be saved. (Score:5, Informative)
No matter what year it is over the last 2000 years, some nut thinks it's the Apocalypse.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Repent and be saved. (Score:5, Funny)
Wrong! #CrookedJesus is a big loser and also a Jew (which is fine) but believe me, he had terrible ratings. Terrible ratings. And he didn't have my temperament and stamina. If you want to be messiah, you've got to have stamina. I said, stamina. I prefer my messiahs not to get captured by Romans and crucified, all right? Sad!
I was going to say something very rough about Jesus and a prostitute. Very rough. But I'm not going to go there, all right?