WikiLeaks Releases Paid Clinton Speech Excerpts, And Threatens To Expose Google (dailymail.co.uk) 756
An anonymous Slashdot reader quotes the Independent:
Wikileaks has dumped thousands of emails from Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, which includes apparent excerpts from Ms Clinton's paid, closed-door speeches to Wall Street executives after leaving her position as Secretary of State. In the excerpts, flagged in a 25 January email, Ms Clinton apparently suggested that Wall Street insiders were best qualified to regulate the banking industry and also included her apparent admission of the need for money from banking executives for political fundraising...
"Earlier today, the US government removed any reasonable doubt that the Kremlin has weaponized WikiLeaks to meddle in our election and benefit Donald Trump's candidacy," said Clinton campaign spokesperson Glen Caplin. "We are not going to confirm the authenticity of stolen documents released by Julian Assange who has made no secret of his desire to damage Hillary Clinton." Slashdot reader schwit1 quotes the Daily Mail's article about what's coming up next: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange promised to release information on subjects including the U.S. election and Google [and] warned that the so called 'October Surprise' will expose Google. Assange did not reveal what type of information would be leaked about the tech giant, but his 2014 book could provide a clue. In it, he wrote: "(Eric) Schmidt's tenure as CEO saw Google integrate with the shadiest of U.S. power structures..."
"Earlier today, the US government removed any reasonable doubt that the Kremlin has weaponized WikiLeaks to meddle in our election and benefit Donald Trump's candidacy," said Clinton campaign spokesperson Glen Caplin. "We are not going to confirm the authenticity of stolen documents released by Julian Assange who has made no secret of his desire to damage Hillary Clinton." Slashdot reader schwit1 quotes the Daily Mail's article about what's coming up next: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange promised to release information on subjects including the U.S. election and Google [and] warned that the so called 'October Surprise' will expose Google. Assange did not reveal what type of information would be leaked about the tech giant, but his 2014 book could provide a clue. In it, he wrote: "(Eric) Schmidt's tenure as CEO saw Google integrate with the shadiest of U.S. power structures..."
Interesting (Score:5, Interesting)
These Wikileaks releases do seem pretty one-sided. Is it just a function of what they do and don't have (it's surprising they didn't have that Trump recording)? But it's hard to believe the timing is completely coincidental, given how it seems to happen soon after Trump either says something particularly stupid or we learn about something damning from his past. However it's not surprising there's lots of skeletons in either candidate's closet... but again, why doesn't Assange have any of Trump's?
Problem is, from what I've seen over the past few months on Slashdot - it's obviously going to be hard to have a rational discussion on these questions here right now. People are way too ready to overlook their preferred candidate's foibles.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Funny)
People wouldn't just vote for him. They'd lavish praise on him for having the guts to cut through all the political correctness bullshit and liberal anti-gun oppression, and showing the nerve to just outright shoot someone. That's the kind of bold, inspired, no-nonsense leadership this country needs to cut through the corruption and change Washington.
Funny (Score:4, Insightful)
Does anyone else find it worrying that the parent was voted 'interesting' instead of 'funny'?
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't subverting the legal process and simply executing someone the kind of abuse it power and corruption he is supposed to stop? And if we are talking corruption, how about his cronyism?
I honestly can't tell if you are mocking his supporters or one of them. Bravo, sir.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
quote>These Wikileaks releases do seem pretty one-sided.
No worries. The mainstream media is already releasing every nasty thing on Trump they can dig up. Someone has to release nasty stuff on Hillary too, since it sure as shit isn't going to come from CNN.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The only thing the media is guilty of is perpetrating the pretense that Trump had a chance, mainly because daily headlines that read "Trump still doomed" wouldn't sell papers. The GOP knew he couldn't win, many state Republicans knew he couldn't win, and yet he had this core of supporters that carried him through.
Well now it's to the point where incumbent Republican senators need to save their own asses, so the time has come to cut him loose.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The only thing the media is guilty of is perpetrating the pretense that Trump had a chance
And yet the polls had him twice neck and neck with Clinton. Trump's only problem is that he opens his mouth. They should have taken him offline and put him in a box 4 months ago and left him there till election day. He may even have won. Trumps popularity rises quite steadily until there's a minor scandal after which he tries to justify himself and spectacularly implodes as a result. Quite frankly the fact he closed the gap to Clinton twice already was a good indication that he really had a chance, a chance
Re:Interesting (Score:4, Insightful)
The mainstream media is already releasing every nasty thing on Trump they can dig up. Someone has to release nasty stuff on Hillary too, since it sure as shit isn't going to come from CNN.
I keep hearing this phrase parroted about 'mainstream media' but what does that actually mean? Isn't Fox News the highest rating News in America? Therefore isn't Fox "the mainstream media"? I'm pretty sure they aren't sympathising with Hillary.
If you think CNN is biased then fair enough, call CNN biased. But when you say mainstream media is just sounds like kooky tin foil hat stuff. It's like saying everyone else is crazy. If it seems like everyone else is crazy, then maybe, just maybe it's you who is the crazy one?
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Interesting)
These Wikileaks releases do seem pretty one-sided. Is it just a function of what they do and don't have (it's surprising they didn't have that Trump recording)? But it's hard to believe the timing is completely coincidental, given how it seems to happen soon after Trump either says something particularly stupid or we learn about something damning from his past. However it's not surprising there's lots of skeletons in either candidate's closet... but again, why doesn't Assange have any of Trump's?
Problem is, from what I've seen over the past few months on Slashdot - it's obviously going to be hard to have a rational discussion on these questions here right now. People are way too ready to overlook their preferred candidate's foibles.
I find it interesting the connection between WikiLeaks and Russia add on top of that the business connections and announced respect that Donald Trump has for Putin. Yes, it could all be very coincidental and perhaps WikiLeaks / Russia is playing to the gaffes of Trump (and he keeps falling for it and fueling the fire, which is a problem in of it self). Add on his business history is less than stellar, the losses he has had, the very disgusting comments he has made about women, minorities etc and you get a very odd looking if not ugly looking picture.
I hate to bring this election down to Hillary vs. Trump -- unfortunately at the presidential level that is it. 3rd parties at this point are not going to win the White House, but obtaining senate and house seats both at the federal and state levels is very possible. Gear up folks, spend the next couple of years finding indies that are not batshit crazy and lets try to change the system for us.
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think independents are the answer you think they are. In any first-past-the-post election system, you will end up with a two-party system. Very occasionally, a third party will displace one of the majors, but then end up as the despised mainstream party.
The only solution is to do what the Koch brothers have been doing for the last few decades: work to push the center of politics in the desired direction. If you don't like Clinton, support candidates like Sanders at the primaries.
In several of the largest states (for example: CA, TX), the primaries are the only elections that matter.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In any first-past-the-post election system, you will end up with a two-party system. Very occasionally, a third party will displace one of the majors, but then end up as the despised mainstream party.
Brazil, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, The Philippines, and several other countries with persistent multi-election multiple party systems would beg to disagree.
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Informative)
Ireland: "While there are a number of political parties in the state, the political landscape has been dominated for decades by Fianna FÃil and Fine Gael, historically opposed and competing entities"
Brazil: "Due to a mix of proportional voting (the only first-past-the-post elections are for the 1/3 of senate seats every 8 years and for mayors in small and medium-sized cities every 4 years), the lack of election threshold and the cultural aspects of Latin American caudillismo-coronelismo, party politics in Brazil tends to be highly fragmented.
Denmark: "Of the 179 members of parliament, the Faroe Islands and Greenland elect two members each, 135 are elected from ten multi-member constituencies on a party list PR system using the d'Hondt method and the remaining 40 seats are allocated to ensure proportionality at a national level."
Do I need to go on? Either they don't use a first-past-the-post voting system, or they are effectively 2-party states.
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Funny)
Wikileaks has obtained a list of Trump's most damaging electronic communications and compiled them her for public viewing: https://twitter.com/realDonald... [twitter.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It's one thing collecting and holding onto a 15yo off-air audio tape from a third grade idiot on a second rate radio show vs. collecting and holding onto what our government and representatives did and said.
The first thing is the job of the government and the second is the job of activists and collectors. Wait, I'm confused, no, that's right, the NSA does the first and we have to hack our own government to get any form of accountability.
Two-minute warning (Score:4, Insightful)
We're coming up on the "2-minute warning" of the elections.
It's when the parties take out the big guns (Republicans) and long knives (Democrats), hoping to get something into the collective consciousness before the election. It usually starts 3 weeks out, but this election has been particularly polarizing.
This weekend has been particularly entertaining. Trump made some locker-room comments eleven years ago, which is causing everyone to grab their pearls and faint. People are falling over themselves pretending that it makes them "sick to their stomach"(*).
Meanwhile, the wikileaks dump shows Clinton admitting a year ago that her "public policy" and "private policy" are different, how she wants world trade with completely open borders (after denying it publicly), and wants to institute gun control by executive order.
And no one seems to have noticed that Trump has completely owned the media for the weekend up to this point!
Seriously - count the number of Trump articles on Google's news page. He's playing them like a violin.
The current headline reads: "GOP consumed by crisis" about Trump, and "Emails Reveal Clinton's Mixed Relationship With Wall Street" about Clinton.
The next few weeks are going to be *highly* entertaining!
(*) As far as I can tell, the general public has responded with "yeah - so what?" about the comments. Everyone seems to recognize that men talk dirty about women to each other, and women do the same about men. It makes all the media pundits who claim "makes me sick to my stomach" seem laughably disingenuous.
Re:Two-minute warning (Score:5, Funny)
My dream is that someone releases a tape of Bill Clinton and Donald Trump talking to each other about all the married women they've banged. It would be the perfect cherry on top of this whole fucking circus.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And no one seems to have noticed that Trump has completely owned the media for the weekend up to this point!
No, the news cycle has completely owned him, everybody noticed, and 14 sitting Republican senators have asked him to step aside. Further, Trump's 16-dimensional chess move stepped on the latest Wikileaks nothingburger (or the nothingburger was served to distract from Trumps implosion, I'm not sure of the timing).
It also deprived Trump of a public appearance/reconciliation with House Speaker Ryan.
I'm far more troubled by Trump's continuing belief in the guilt of 5 men exonerated of rape after years in priso
Re:Two-minute warning (Score:5, Informative)
A bunch of #NeverTrumpers said again "Never Trump." This isn't shocking. We don't have two political parties. We have a uniparty system that does whatever Wall Street and the military industrial complex want while the corporate owned media keep all the peasants fighting over fags and abortions. So Republicans denouncing Trump is hardly news. They're paid by the same people who pay for the DNC.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, Trump is crushing that pussy, all right.
http://projects.fivethirtyeigh... [fivethirtyeight.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure. Great site you linked, there.
Here's one of their other articles:
Hip-Hop Is Turning On Donald Trump. [fivethirtyeight.com]
And another:
Gun Deaths In America. [fivethirtyeight.com]
Your sing-along with Hillary's media is a little pathetic. If you're in the bag with the Wall-Street candidate (Hillary Clinton) why not just say it out loud?
Re:Two-minute warning (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure. Great site you linked, there.
Are you discrediting a statistical analysis of the election run by a statistician [wikipedia.org] who is widely considered as the most referential and accurate source of election coverage in America, who has predicted correctly almost every seat in the previous 3 elections including swing states, based solely on a website owned by ESPN publishing an blog post written by someone else?
* slow clap *
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry "bro", the reason people are upset here isn't because of "locker room banter" it's because Trump is literally describing a lifestyle of sexual abuse.
Re:Two-minute warning (Score:5, Insightful)
How do Trump supporters arrive at the "might stand up to wall street" conclusion for a clear member of the oligarch class whose tax plan clearly favors the affluent as opposed to Clinton who has at least furnished one that seems to favor the middle class?
Please, tell me, how on earth to arrive do you arrive at the conclusion that some one like him will favor the middle class over the affluent? There's certainly nothing in the few actual policy proposals he's floated that suggests that.
Re: (Score:3)
How do Trump supporters arrive at the "might stand up to wall street" conclusion for a clear member of the oligarch class whose tax plan clearly favors the affluent as opposed to Clinton who has at least furnished one that seems to favor the middle class?
Please, tell me, how on earth to arrive do you arrive at the conclusion that some one like him will favor the middle class over the affluent? There's certainly nothing in the few actual policy proposals he's floated that suggests that.
It's just wishful thinking, mustered to provide an excuse for voting for him.
Just like the religious right, who for some reason think their interests will come first when he appoints judges.
Re:Two-minute warning (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll try to be more clear here.
Trump's clearly stated tax policies literally describe one who is in favor of enriching the affluent. Clinton's clearly stated tax policies literally describe one who is in favor enriching our shrinking middle class. Now I realize there's a long ways between stated policy goals and what is actually done but I'll be damned if I'll vote for the candidate (Trump) who is straight up telling me he is going to fuck me in the ass versus the candidate (Clinton) who might despite what she is telling me.
Re:Two-minute warning (Score:5, Interesting)
I normally don't do replies to AC comments as my profile tag suggests but I couldn't refuse this one.
Estate taxes are taxes designed to establish social equity. We don't need royalty in this country, which is to say children of billionaires who have done nothing to earn their wealth. A person should always benefit from wise commercial actions but a wealthy class completely distant from how that wealth was made is not good for a democracy.
If you ask me, no one should get more than a few hundred thousand from their parents. A few hundred thousand sets one up pretty well by any reasonable standard (while still making sure one has to work) but does not make one royalty by birth right.
Re: (Score:3)
-a pompous horndog asshole who MIGHT actually stand up to Wall Street
Please tell me you aren't that stupid? Trump has spent his entire life shitting on the little guy to look after himself, why on earth would you think anything is different now?
Re: (Score:3)
As far as I can tell, the general public has responded with "yeah - so what?" about the comments. Everyone seems to recognize that men talk dirty about women to each other, and women do the same about men. It makes all the media pundits who claim "makes me sick to my stomach" seem laughably disingenuous.
Really? Senior Republican's are deserting Trump, and even his running mate will no longer defend him. Are these people also mainstream media? Every single person I know has made comments about how revolting and unacceptable this is. Bragging about sexual assault is not even acceptable at frat boy level.
You may caught in the Trump bubble, but for the majority of us outside of it, he will not gain any more support. Peak Trump arrived this weekend, The inevitable self-immolation has happened and the campaign
Re:How do they do that? (Score:4, Funny)
I don't see how, seeing as I don't allow google to set cookies on my machine.
On your machine? How very quaint... Google's been using Mind Cookies since February 2014.
Re:Interesting (Score:4, Insightful)
These Wikileaks releases do seem pretty one-sided. Is it just a function of what they do and don't have (it's surprising they didn't have that Trump recording)? But it's hard to believe the timing is completely coincidental, given how it seems to happen soon after Trump either says something particularly stupid or we learn about something damning from his past. However it's not surprising there's lots of skeletons in either candidate's closet... but again, why doesn't Assange have any of Trump's?
Problem is, from what I've seen over the past few months on Slashdot - it's obviously going to be hard to have a rational discussion on these questions here right now. People are way too ready to overlook their preferred candidate's foibles.
Part of it is the fact that Wikileaks is dependent on leakers. If someone gave them Trump's tax returns they'd probably post them, but no one has so they can't.
As for the pro-Russia angle, I suspect Assange realizes that Russia is their source but he still needs the data. And since he's dependent on Russia for the leaks he's fairly amendable to their requests on how to release them.
It may be a poor long term strategy though, the more Assange allows himself and Wikileaks to become associated with Trump and Russia the more other leakers will turn to alternate publishers.
I am a bit surprised by the lack of actual bombshells in the Clinton/DNC leaks however. My first response to this leak in particular is to wonder why Clinton didn't release the transcripts in the first place.
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Interesting)
Are you sure it isn't the other way around? Perhaps the Dems have a collection of things like the recent recording of Trump ready to go, to deflect the news from things like these leaks on Wikileaks? The old Trump recordings have pushed the Clinton emails out of the headlines. Coincidence?
Re: (Score:3)
But it's hard to believe the timing is completely coincidental, given how it seems to happen soon after Trump either says something particularly stupid or we learn about something damning from his past.
Well that's right except the Wikileaks release came out a half an hour before the video.
Other then that it is hard to believe the timing is completely coincidental. Especial when the guy Trump was talking to was Jeb Bush's cousin.
Re: (Score:3)
You're right, it's one sided:
Donald:
- has wikileaks on his side
HRC
- has FBI, NYT, every major paper, every major network, DNC, and GOP on her side
Re: (Score:3)
No matter what a piece of shit he is, he ... did not collude with the RNC to overthrow the democratic process.
You don't know that.
Shocking! (Score:3, Interesting)
Hillary admits that campaigns are expensive "I wish it weren't so but I don't know how to change it" and therefore she will need campaign contributions to win! What a calling admission.
And to also admit that maybe professionals who are experts in a field would be necessary to help regulate the industry! Next she is going to say that maybe a computer scientist or white hat hacker should help write cyber defense policy.
Re:Shocking! (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't be naive. Her statements were intended to send a clear message to the audience, "Give me money and I'll be your friend." It's the same scummy promise that has become the norm for the almost every politician running for office now--politicians who are SUPPOSED to represent the people, and not just a few narrow monied interests. And it has infected both parties like cancer.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Hillary also admitted she has a "public policy" and "private policy",
Yes and she's 100% right. It's impossible to find a diplomatic compromise if you can't sit down out of the public eye and hash out your differences without having to worry about your exact language. You can't negotiate any kind of deal in a public sphere. People will be looking over their shoulder unable to speak freely and nothing will get done. A lot of politics recently has been everybody covering their ass from their base and therefore unwilling to sit down and find real solutions. Read the actual
How corrupt can you get? (Score:4, Informative)
I mean, by that logic, Slashdotters should be moderating Slashdot.
Seriously though, regulators, like bosses, need to have experience in their industries. Every week we boo and hiss at clueless legislators coming in and trying to regulate the Internet or ban encryption or somesuch. The challenge is finding 'insiders' who can still see things in a broader perspective and aren't in the pocket of the people they're supposed to be regulating (a.k.a. regulatory capture [wikipedia.org]). They're tough to find, but if you look hard enough you can find good people like Tom Wheeler.
I've read through some of the emails and so far I haven't found anything damning, just politically inconvenient truths. It's sad we've become so accustomed to pandering and sugar-coated soundbytes that when politicians actually speak honestly it leaves us sour.
Re: (Score:3)
I mean, by that logic, Slashdotters should be moderating Slashdot.
Seriously though, regulators, like bosses, need to have experience in their industries. Every week we boo and hiss at clueless legislators coming in and trying to regulate the Internet or ban encryption or somesuch. The challenge is finding 'insiders' who can still see things in a broader perspective and aren't in the pocket of the people they're supposed to be regulating (a.k.a. regulatory capture [wikipedia.org]). They're tough to find, but if you look hard enough you can find good people like Tom Wheeler.
I've read through some of the emails and so far I haven't found anything damning, just politically inconvenient truths. It's sad we've become so accustomed to pandering and sugar-coated soundbytes that when politicians actually speak honestly it leaves us sour.
The problem is that the Democrats keep yelling about Republicans being the party of big business and all that, so this is supposedly a really big deal to them. Also, remember how they want to get corporate donations out of politics? I'm sure Lessig is just *furious* over this new information about the candidate that he'll vote for no matter what. Right? LOL! Yeah, right.
It's the same way that the Republican base has been telling us for decades now that being a good, upstanding moral Christian is the fo
Words vs. actions (Score:2)
I find it interesting how the left seems to bestow a great deal of power on words alone while totally dismissing the power of actions.
Re: (Score:3)
It's a general observation. Political correctness, trigger warnings, safe spaces, red lines in the sand, personal pronouns, etc. All words, not actions, yet some people believe they have magical powers like witchcraft spells. They only have power if you believe that they do.
Re: (Score:3)
"Hard-boiled misogyny" is when you describe a lifestyle as Trump literally described his own. You site the indiscretions of Bill as if they are those of Hilary.
If you can site where Hilary indulges in "Hard-boiled misogyny" on the level of Trump I might take you seriously but until then, not so much.
Threatens To Expose Google (Score:2)
Deflection (Score:5, Insightful)
"Earlier today, the US government removed any reasonable doubt that the Kremlin has weaponized WikiLeaks to meddle in our election and benefit Donald Trump's candidacy," said Clinton campaign spokesperson Glen Caplin. "We are not going to confirm the authenticity of stolen documents released by Julian Assange who has made no secret of his desire to damage Hillary Clinton."
Interpretation: It's all true, but the people revealing it are mean and want to hurt us so you should ignore whatever it is they've revealed. See ad hominem attack [yourlogicalfallacyis.com].
If this surprises you... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Do I want more? Hell yeah. But I'm an adult. I'm old enough to know what a compromise is.
They say you have to pick your battles. But if you skip too many battles, it looks suspiciously like a retreat... or in this case, a rout.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wha?!?! Hilary! lied?!?! In bed with banksters? (Score:4, Insightful)
Funny how the media acts like Donald Trump's tax returns should be open records, but when it comes to important speeches Hillary Clinton delivered to Wall Street, they're cool with her treating those like state secrets.
How much Donald Trump paid in taxes last year or whatever crude shit he said lately isn't going to have nearly as much of an impact on the day-to-day lives of most Americans as the secret backroom promises that Hillary Clinton has made to the rich and powerful corporate powers on Wall Street. At least Trump bragging about trying to bang some married woman isn't going to gut any labor laws, make him beholden to the corporatocracy, or cost any of us commoners our jobs.
Re:Wha?!?! Hilary! lied?!?! In bed with banksters? (Score:5, Informative)
Funny how the media acts like Donald Trump's tax returns should be open records, but when it comes to important speeches Hillary Clinton delivered to Wall Street, they're cool with her treating those like state secrets.
Tax returns are a form of disclosure done by every Presidential candidate. And in Trump's case there's a very good reason, they shed light on possible conflicts of interest.
If Trump invested heavily in coal he may be tempted to push US energy policy in a certain direction.
If he invested heavily in Russia then Putin might have the ability to push him into bankruptcy (or make him and his children vastly wealthier).
Speeches on the other hand aren't traditional disclosures. Many candidates have given paid speeches, I'm not aware of any others who have been asked to release them. It's similar to Obama's long form birth certificate. Sure there's nothing to hide, but to grant the request is also to legitimize the question.
Re:Wha?!?! Hilary! lied?!?! In bed with banksters? (Score:5, Interesting)
Story [nytimes.com] about Clinton being bribed by Russia for favours while she was Secretary of State. Bribed by Russia for uranium, in the NYT
LoL. This "scandal" was put to rest at the time when someone asked who bribed the other dozen agencies that had to sign off on it.
Re:Wha?!?! Hilary! lied?!?! In bed with banksters? (Score:5, Insightful)
"At least Trump bragging about trying to bang some married woman isn't going to gut any labor laws, make him beholden to the corporatocracy, or cost any of us commoners our jobs."
His tax policy will. The policy he's laid out will not only cost us jobs and sink us further in debt but are obviously tailored to enriching the rich.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org... [taxpolicycenter.org]
http://www.politifact.com/trut... [politifact.com]
Tabloid crap aside, I don't understand how some one from the oligarch class got "common man" status but it's completely clear that he's all about enriching himself and his fellow oligarchs. Clinton is at least politics as usual for the Democrats.
Re:Wha?!?! Hilary! lied?!?! In bed with banksters? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Republicans are hardly exempt from such deals.
I never said they were. That's one of the reasons Trump is so popular. People see him as a political outsider who isn't completely beholden to Wall Street in the same way that every mainstream Republican is. And he has been playing that message up too, bragging that his wealth and outsider status will keep him from becoming a corporate whore like every other politician.
Now whether or not Trump actually MEANS what he says is another story. I would say there is about a 70% chance that he'll end up being a corporate whore just like every other politician once he's actually elected. Still, that's better than the 100% chance with Hillary Clinton. And in an election where we're once again having the choose between the lesser of two evils, you go with the best odds.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
He's so popular that 538 now has down below 20% chance of winning. He had a brief period of near parity, but the DNC bump and then the fact that he can't hold it together for a 90 minute debate saw his support fall, and now, of course, even those that bit their tongues to offer him support are walking away. McCain is abandoning him, Pence appears to want to pretend he doesn't even know the guy.
Trump is doomed, and hopefully, after this sorry episode, the Republicans can find a way to never let such a awful
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
He's so popular that 538 now has down below 20% chance of winning.
Yeah, that might be related to the fact that the media are 100% in the tank for Hillary and have basically branded him as Adolph Hitler: The Sequel. NBC News will blast some crude shit Donald Trump said 15 years ago all over the news tonight like it's the most important story ever. But when it comes to Hillary Clinton's shady "I'll be your Presidential whore if you give me cash" promises to Wall Street, they'll play it off as just some evil Ruskkie plot to prevent the GREATEST WOMEN EVAAAR from assuming her
Re:Wha?!?! Hilary! lied?!?! In bed with banksters? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a nonsense claim on his part. People like him are addicted to money and power. The vast majority of us common folk could live amazingly happy lives off the mere interest of 10 million dollars (probably a lot less). He didn't keep pursuing wealth for any other reason than that he wants the power that comes with it. Who do you think some one like that is going to want to deal with, the common person or our affluent power brokers?
Your ratios are backwards. At least Clinton is coming from a party that almost elected Bernie Sanders. She at least has to try to look like she's trying to help the common person. Trump has gotten himself the nomination of our political party that in the last 30 years has made no effort to hide who they favor with their tax policy.
Re:Wha?!?! Hilary! lied?!?! In bed with banksters? (Score:4, Insightful)
There may be a very, very, very tiny handful of Democratic (and Republican) politicians left out there who aren't complete corporate whores. But you can bet your sweet ass that Hillary Clinton is not, was never, and will never be among them.
Re:Wha?!?! Hilary! lied?!?! In bed with banksters? (Score:5, Insightful)
People see him as a political outsider who isn't completely beholden to Wall Street in the same way that every mainstream Republican is.
Which is ironic - because HE IS WALL STREET. He doesn't even bother to hide it. He doesn't just avoid paying taxes, he boasts about it. He is not beholden to the man behind the curtain - the curtain has been drawn back, and the guy behind it is Trump.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, it's not brainwashed. It's a predictable outcome of how the system is architected. First past the post voting naturally turns into two party systems, and in two party systems strategic voting is inevitable where you vote against a candidate and not for a candidate. The system is working as it was designed to.
Re:Wha?!?! Hilary! lied?!?! In bed with banksters? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wha?!?! Hilary! lied?!?! In bed with banksters? (Score:5, Insightful)
First past the post can only lead to a two party system. Take a look at the US and realize that it has always been a two party system. The parties may change, but essentially that's what it is.
It's been about a century now that a candidate that wasn't from one of the two major parties came in second. We're not even talking about winning.
Re: (Score:3)
Worse than that. They have been brainwashed to think that what is essentially indistinguishably similar is different, no, even "extremes".
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
By doing in small batches he mitigates exactly what happened yesterday. The media/CTR was ready with the 'pussy' drop. He is making them use up everything they have.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like the teaser for the trailer of the preview of the first script reading for a movie?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He's only a rapist if you redefine rape, which in itself would be raping the English language. Sure he's a sexist scumbag but he's no worse than any of his predecessors or his opponent, both in context of his personality and history.
You can also turn the phrase around depending on who's side you're on:
Quick! Dump some more 15yo audio tapes! We need to distract people before they realize they're considering voting for a criminal!
Re:Oh No! Trump opened his mouth again! (Score:4, Informative)
He's only a rapist if you redefine rape
Sure, but he's an alleged rapist [lawnewz.com] by any meaning of the term.
Re: (Score:3)
Because a federal judge hasn't found grounds for your allegation to move to trial?
Re:Oh No! Trump opened his mouth again! (Score:4, Interesting)
If Hillary is guilty of wrongdoing in the Bengazi incident, or guilty of wrongdoing with respect to her mail server, then Trump is guilty of rape. So if you say Hillary is guilty, then you must say Trump is also guilty.
Sow the wind, and reap the whirlwind.
Re:Oh No! Trump opened his mouth again! (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure he's a sexist scumbag but he's no worse than any of his predecessors or his opponent, both in context of his personality and history.
Your logical fallacy is... Bandwagon [yourlogicalfallacyis.com].
True but he is definately (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Sure he's a sexist scumbag but he's no worse than any of his predecessors or his opponent,
Um what? He is bragging about sexual assault. I know of know other presidential candidate who has ever stooped that low. Lots of people have consensual affairs, but that is a lot different from what he was gloating about.
He is unfit for office, and senior Republicans agree. Even his own running mate can't defend him, so don't pretend this is a media or Hillary thing. For most normal people this is behaviour is completely unacceptable.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sorry, so now you're going to blame the Democrats for the fact that he's a vulgar sexist pig who advocates sexual assault of women?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No indication at all that Trump ever engaged in any kind of assault. Unless "and they let you " means that it is assault.
As for voting for a rapist. How about a person who keeps rapists out of jail and shields her rapist husband from reprisals to the point of her attacking the victims?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Oh No! Trump opened his mouth again! (Score:5, Informative)
"You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything... Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything." -- Donald Trump, candidate for the office of president of the united states of america. [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
While he's no doubt a pig, "they let you do it" implies consent and you'd need to document lack of consent to prove anything more.
Thousands of women, every day, "let" their bosses, customers, and even random strangers on the street whistle, pinch and grope. That's not consent, it's exhaustion. It's not consent, it's powerlessness. It's not consent, it's expectation that a macho culture will dismiss 'boys being boys.' Sure, you can throw a fit every time some boy touches you, but that's a quick road to social outcast. Strangely, to invite 'inappropriate' touching is an equally quick road to slut-label.
The fact that DJT can't disting
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yup, Hildawg's got it so in the bag you don't even need to show up to vote.
Re:Oh No! Trump opened his mouth again! (Score:5, Insightful)
Face it, asshole, you're[sic] chosen anti-SJW warrior has lost the election.
Most probably. How strange it is that sex is held to be so much more important than treason [newsweek.com] or nuclear annihilation [youtube.com]. But sigh. Whatever works, just so long as bozo the clown ends up taking the proverbial walk of shame back down the sewer he crawled from.
Re:Oh No! Trump opened his mouth again! (Score:4, Insightful)
Trump didn't say just vulgar comments about women, he said he "grabbed them by the pussy" and forceably kissed them. He has also been married three times, divorced twice because of adultery and is probably cheating on his current wife now.
There is also a court case starting up about him raping a 13 year old girl. If that turns out to be true, we would face a possible impeachment of a President over a high crime. It doesn't matter if he couldn't be charged now due to the statutes of limitations.
Re: (Score:3)
He also delayed an alimony payment to one of those wives when she had the audacity to mention his abusive behavior... what a charmer
Re:Oh No! Trump opened his mouth again! (Score:4, Informative)
Bill Clinton was *actually* sexually harassing women.
Firstly, Trump "actually" sexually harasses women. Secondly, Bill Clinton is not standing for election. Thirdly, Bill Clinton was punished with impeachment. How shall Donald Trump be punished?
Re: (Score:3)
saying mean things is not sexual harassment
Trump boasted about things he did to women. That's not "saying mean things", that is "doing illegal things". Well you don't need to believe me, just look at the swarms of republican rats jumping off the sinking Trump ship.
Re:Oh No! Trump opened his mouth again! (Score:5, Insightful)
Women are indeed perfectly capable of standing up for themselves.
The problem is that if women are being denigrated, abused, mistreated, etc., and men just stand by ... don't they become part of the problem?
Real men don't put up with other men abusing women. This is not at all the same thing as acting like the "protector" of women.
Re:Oh No! Trump opened his mouth again! (Score:4, Insightful)
Categorisation is really useful when you want to deal with aggregates rather than individual instances, but the catch is that you need to remember that you are making some assumptions.
You are correct in saying that there are two genders - for certain values of what 'gender' means. Gender is more than just a categorisation of biological sex - it also refers to social structures and identities (and yes, I'm aware that those social structures and identities grow out of and are closely linked with the biological). Even when considering the purely biological meaning, while most individuals in a population may be well defined as either male or female, not all will be.
You plead 'reality', but reality is not as binary as our approximations sometimes imply. Ignoring edge cases and exceptions because they form a small percentage of the group in question might be convenient, but when those exceptions are individuals who have to deal with social stigmas, discrimination or simply the unconscious assumptions that your post typifies perhaps convenience can bow to courtesy without it being labelled 'political correctness'.
This is not a new phenomenon. Historically, several cultures have had more than two genders with well defined social roles and positions.
You are reminding someone that there exists an approximation (that's useful and fits large samples of data quite well, but is still an approximation) and dismiss trying to discuss and deal with the exceptions, edge cases or less well-defined individuals as 'political correctness'. Yes, you are technically correct, but your post adds nothing. If you have a criticism about the position being taken by the GP, then make it.
Re: (Score:3)
All men participate in raunchy joking
Speak for yourself. All men do not do this. The fact that some do can't be generalized to 100% of men.
Re: (Score:3)
I tell you, you try to call in one little drone strike on a guy and he holds a grudge forever. Jeez, get over it, Julian.
Give Julian a break! (Score:4, Interesting)
Assange is an admitted Hillary hater. His goal is not transparency and it has nothing to do with public service or the public good. The man's a walking colostomy bag.
Oh, be fair. Clinton wanted to kill Assange [theantimedia.org], and spend an entire meeting discussing how to do it.
Clinton never followed up the "drone strike" comment with "seriously", or anything to indicate that she was kidding - she just went on as if it was an option.
“Can’t we just drone this guy?” Clinton openly inquired, offering a simple remedy to silence Assange and smother Wikileaks via a planned military drone strike, according to State Department sources. The statement drew laughter from the room which quickly died off when the Secretary kept talking in a terse manner, sources said. Clinton said Assange, after all, was a relatively soft target, “walking around” freely and thumbing his nose without any fear of reprisals from the United States.
Also, the meeting prompted one of her staffers to write a followup memo with the subject "legal and nonlegal strategies re Wikileaks" [wp.com]
Immediately following the conclusion of the wild brainstorming session, one of Clinton’s top aides, State Department Director of Policy Planning Ann-Marie Slaughter, penned an email to Clinton, Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, and aides Huma Abebin and Jacob Sullivan at 10:29 a.m. entitled “an SP memo on possible legal and nonlegal strategies re Wikileaks.”
Give Julian a break, Hillary Clinton conspired to kill him.
Re:Give Julian a break! (Score:4, Insightful)
Clinton wanted to kill Assange
This claim is promulgated only by lunatic fringe conspiracy sites such as rt.com and no credible "state department" source has ever been identified.
Re: (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What's good for the goose (Score:5, Insightful)
He's stumping hard for Hillary against Trump, kept his word that he would, and is loyally working hard with the party that supposedly he's not got anything to do with.
He asked for lots, got less, but the things he was fighting for Hillary's picked up and ran with. So I see that as a win.
I wish more politicians were not really a democrat as much as Sanders is.
Re: (Score:3)
The fringes of both the Democratic and Republican parties believe that all they need to do to win the general election is win their primary.
The reality is that unless both fringes manage to do so for the same election, centrist voters, who are the one who determine who wins in general elections will abandon the party with the fringe candidate.
Unfortunately for the Bernie fringies willing want to see everything burn, they're outnumbered by the people in the Republican party who are disgusted with Trump.
Re:What's good for the goose (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course Sanders never had a chance, becuase they rigged the election. They rigged the election because he has a good chance.
Re:What's good for the goose (Score:5, Insightful)
"There was no rigging."
There was plenty of obvious rigging if you had a criminal enough mind to look at it from a different angle. Calling the vote for Clinton during primaries before the votes were even counted halfway (Arizona, IIRC) exit polls, etc. all show signs of electoral fraud.
Re:What's good for the goose (Score:4, Interesting)
> Sanders never really had a chance
Then why did they plot against him so much? If he never had a chance, why collude and cheat?
Re:What's good for the goose (Score:5, Insightful)
What is "influencing," though? The DNC leaks exposed what anyone with a half a brain has understand for a long time: our news media is just propaganda. We don't so much have state-run media as we have a media-run state. The same corporations that own the media own the politicians. So when the corporate media spreads political propaganda they're influencing the election. When WikiLeaks does it they're influencing the election. What's the difference?
Re: (Score:3)
I'm ready for the old news-media to die.
Both the olde media and new media needs to die. It didn't take more then a decade before the new started going exactly the same shit as the olde did and does. The media landscape in general is ripe for organizations that publish factual and generally neutral, or pieces where they declare their bias right out in the open. It's one of the reasons why far-left news orgs are in a cash free fall, whether it be WAPO, Politco or The Guardian. Or garbage clickbait like Vox, Huffpo, etc. While sites that are fu