Slashdot Mirror

Here's a list of the things Trump has promised to do in the first 100 days.

Of particular note is this item in the 3rd grouping:

Additionally, on the first day, I will take the following five actions to restore security and the constitutional rule of law:

* FIRST, cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama(*)

That is something the president can do on his own, without getting permission from congress. That alone is probably worth the price of admission.

Additionally, Ben Carson said he's willing to help Trump find a replacement for Obamacare.

Dr. Carson is smart and has first-hand knowledge of the healthcare system. He's not a career politician, and would make a good HHS secretary or surgeon general.

Check out the comments to that 2nd article, and see what people are saying about Carson.

(*) He doesn't say how he will determine whether something is unconstitutional, but in my view any reasonable method would work. Such as getting a consensus from a panel of legal scholars, or simply cancelling anything that orders the government to do something. We'll have to wait and see.

1) Bill Clinton...

http://www.breitbart.com/big-j...

> Three years before Matt Drudge changed the world and how news would be
> consumed, President Bill Clinton's White House feared that the Internet was
> allowing average citizens, especially conservatives, to bypass legacy gatekeepers and
> access information that had previously been denied to them by the mainstream press.

2) Hillary Clinton...

http://www.freerepublic.com/fo...

> "We are all going to have to rethink how we deal with this, because there are
> all these competing values ... Without any kind of editing function or gatekeeping
> function, what does it mean to have the right to defend your reputation?" she said.

"Gatekeeping" mentioned in both articles above. And while we're at it, the Democrats claim that Breitbart dot com doesn't have a right to exist...

http://dailycaller.com/2016/08...

> Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's campaign has sent out a fundraising
> email arguing the website Breitbart News has no "right to exist,"
> and suggests that if elected, the website will be shut down entirely.

"I just sued two Virginia counties this week for concealing alien voting records, the list of foreigners who are on the voter rolls," said J. Christian Adams on Breitbart News Daily on SiriusXM. "In Virginia alone, our litigation found a thousand aliens in just eight counties. These are the only eight counties that complied with our document requests. And they were voting! So if you take a thousand aliens who were accidentally caught in eight Virginia counties, and there's 135 Virginia counties, that tells you that the number of aliens on the voter rolls in just this swing state is in the five figures."

"The same is true in Colorado, Florida, North Carolina, Arizona," he continued. "More so in Texas, Pennsylvania. These are places where alien voting will make a difference. And it made a difference in California. California became the deepest shade of blue, in part, because of problems with the voter rolls, with illegal alien voting."

"We have a blind spot," Adams added. "I don't think Republicans are aware of this problem to the degree they need to be. Some of them are. Most aren't. There are very few tools, and the Obama administration has been blocking the use of those tools. For example, there is a federal database called SAVE. It is a list of aliens, all the aliens who are in the federal system. Under federal law, that data has to be made available to the states. Well, when Florida asked for that data to clean their voter rolls, the Obama administration refused to give it. So Florida had to sue in federal court to get it. They got it. The DHS is throttling it. They're making it very hard to use the data."

Source

For the last week Google has been harassing me every I look: Youtube, my phone, my tablet -- "do you know where to vote?" "look up your polling place?" etc... etc... etc...

Although it's couched very well in neutral, non-partisan terms, it's been painful obvious that Google is completely in the tank for Hillary.

Look no further then Google's autocomplete. Go to any search engine other than Google, and type "crooked". The first suggestion will always be "Hillary", gathered from countless blogs and places on the intertubes that picked up on Trump's constant pounding of that phrase for almost a year. Bing -- check. Yahoo -- check. Etc...

But you will never see Google's autocomplete suggest "Hillary" in this case. The extent to which Google is corrupting and slanting their search results is pathetic.

The strategy here is quite obvious too: trumpet with fanfare as soon as possible the results from the blue states on the East coast, in an attempt to depress the vote in the midwestern fly-over country. As Trump himself would say: sad.

The NYPD pedo dudes were like 'hey FBI you want in on this crazy shit' meant nothing?

It was all 100% duplicates. Nothing new? He just dropped all of that stuff into his 'insurance' folder for no real reason.

SpiritCooking was bullshit. http://www.trueactivist.com/sp... It is just an art piece someone paid 10k for.

The charity foundation paid 3.3 million for someones wedding.

Clinton didnt pay people to stir shit up then imply it was bernie sanders? http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...

She didnt scream at her own people https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

HRC supporters dont beat up homeless because they do not agree with them http://www.breitbart.com/big-h...

You know what you convinced me. I am voting for HRC tomorrow.

The NYPD pedo dudes were like 'hey FBI you want in on this crazy shit' meant nothing?

It was all 100% duplicates. Nothing new? He just dropped all of that stuff into his 'insurance' folder for no real reason.

SpiritCooking was bullshit. http://www.trueactivist.com/sp... It is just an art piece someone paid 10k for.

The charity foundation paid 3.3 million for someones wedding.

Clinton didnt pay people to stir shit up then imply it was bernie sanders? http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...

She didnt scream at her own people https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

HRC supporters dont beat up homeless because they do not agree with them http://www.breitbart.com/big-h...

You know what you convinced me. I am voting for HRC tomorrow.

You miss the part where Donna Brazile was the person who fed Clinton at least two questions, right down to the information on the person who was going to be asking the question? Guess so. It's only been all over the media for the last week, and only picked up steam after CNN canned her and the boss of CNN publicly came out to blast her.

But if we return to the original argument, PvtVoid denied that even one person "has called for criminal prosecution of climate change deniers".

My counterargument was that a Google search does in fact show a large number of reports of people calling for criminal prosecution of climate change deniers. I don't think the fact that one of these many links leads to Breitbart -- which you regard as an unreliable source -- negates my argument.

In fact, let's throw caution to the wind and click on that odious Breitbart link right now: http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...

The article claims that Senator Sheldon Whitehouse made the following statement during a Senate Judiciary Hearing:

The similarities between the mischief of the tobacco industry pretending that the science of tobacco's dangers was unsettled and the fossil fuel industry pretending that the science of carbon emissions' dangers is unsettled has been remarked on widely, particularly by those who study the climate denial apparatus that the fossil fuel industry has erected. Under President Clinton, the Department of Justice brought and won a civil RICO action against the tobacco industry for its fraud. Under President Obama, the Department of Justice has done nothing so far about the climate denial scheme.

First, you might argue that the esteemed Senator did not actually speak these words. I confess that I do not have time to examine the Congressional Record to see if these words were really spoken. But I do trust Breitbart enough to believe they did not just make this up. Feel free to dispute this if you wish.

Second, you might argue that this statement is not really calling "for criminal prosecution of climate change deniers". The way I read it, the Senator equates "the climate denial apparatus" of the fossil fuel industry with tobacco industry fraud. He then states that the Department of Justice won a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) action against the tobacco industry. He then complains, with obvious dissatisfaction, that "the Department of Justice has done nothing so far about the climate denial scheme."

I don't know how you parse this, but it sounds very much to me as if Senator Whitehouse is calling "for criminal prosecution of climate change deniers". I submit that this is sufficient evidence to disprove PvtVoid's claim that not one person has called for criminal prosecution of climate change deniers.

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-...

> CONSPIRACY THEORIES??
>
> [insert meme of "Aliens!" here]
>
> Has anyone thought about this act being caused by a
> "government agency" that has something to prove?

Take your pick...

1) DHS setting up for another power-grab

2) US government setting up to claim that [insert country name here] has CWMD ("Cyber Weapons of Mass Destruction") as a pretext for an invasion/war.

3) Democrats/lib-left-elite who are scared shitless of the free flow of information on the internet.
A) http://www.breitbart.com/big-j...
>Three years before Matt Drudge changed the world and how news would be consumed,
> President Bill Clinton's White House feared that the Internet was allowing average
> citizens, especially conservatives, to bypass legacy gatekeepers and access information
> that had previously been denied to them by the mainstream press.

B) In the 1950's and the 1960's, JFK was f***ing women all over the place. President Bill Clinton was a saint in comparison. The lib-left elite needed only a few names/numbers in their rolodex, and any inconvenient stories were squashed. In a similar manner Newsweek killed the Lewinsky scandal story. Unfortunately for Bill Clinton, a lowly store clerk by the name of Matt Drudge didn't play lapdog to the elite... http://www.drudgereportarchive...
Hillary Clinton (yes, *THAT* Hillary Clinton) responded by whining about the lack of any "gatekeeping function" on the internet http://www.freerepublic.com/fo...

C) Notice that I quoted Breitbart.com? The lib-left is extremely pissed at the site. So much so that...
> Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's campaign has sent out a fundraising
> email arguing the website Breitbart News has no "right to exist,"
> and suggests that if elected, the website will be shut down entirely.

  http://dailycaller.com/2016/08...

The lib-left elite would really rather have a gatekeeper-controlled internet. But that would be too obvious. So they'll settle for "random DDOS attacks. Only companies with big budgets would be able to afford the neccessary infrastructure to stay up against a DDOS attack.

I seriously hope you're not considering voting for the candidate whose campaign manager worked for Yanukovitch, whose foreign policy advisor actively works for Gazprom

I'd rather Trump wins, than Clinton, who:

1. ran State, when the Administration ended all "Georgian" sanctions against Russia, thus inviting Putin into Ukraine as predicted
2. received, along with her husband, countless bribes (that is, "speech fees") from Putin-controlled entities — and gave amply in return
3. routed billions-worth of investment into Russia's high-tech and -technology firms, some of them, obviously, with military connections
4. was part of the Administration, that still would not give Ukraine lethal weapons (such as anti-tank missiles they desperately need) to counter the threat of Russia's armor
5. Continues to employ John Podesta, who received millions from Putin too — and, unlike Manafort, Podesta is not simply a cold professional campaigner one day in Peru, tomorrow in Israel, and so on, he is sincerely behind Clinton and Democrats.

Unlike USSR before him, Putin courts all sides. I'll take my chances with Trump, who has no prior record of helping the asshole and is less likely to be blackmailed by him.

How do you sleep at night knowing close to half the country is a basket of ***ist ***phobe advocates of hatred and violence?

And yet, it is the Democrat Party and its operatives that bird dog and foment violence at political rallies. Go figure!

Political violence that was paid for by Hillary's campaign and the DNC to provoke unrest also counts. Paying homeless and other desperate people to stay in a hotel and shower and shave to prepare them for making trouble in the waiting lines at Trump rallies. In the words of the organizer recorded on the video, not inside because then they are covered by the Secret Service but in the waiting line.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...

You may not like the source but the data is there for you to check.

On that point, here are a couple of more examples.

Democrats hired protesters to get into fights at Trump rallys, to give the appearance that Trump supporters are violent thugs.

From that article, note that one of the hired protesters filed suit against a Trump supporter claiming that she was punched in the face. The first cited article has a secret recording of the person hired to orchestrate the fights, where he mentions that the protester was one of his group.

(And here she is after the incident, smiling, with no evidence of bruising or injury.)

Also of note, Scott Adams got shadowbanned from twitter, for no apparent reason, and has seen invitations for speaking go from several per month (for decades) to none. He estimates that blogging about the election has cost him $1 million in speaking fees alone.

And of course, after all that people started leaving fake bad reviews of his book.

Trump supporters have been pretty polite throughout the election. We don't put naked statues of Hillary in cities, or have billboards of her kissing Huma Abedin, or make comparisons of her to Hitler, Stalin, Satan, or Cthulhu.

This is the 3-week mark where all civil discourse goes to hell, both IRL and on this blog.

Expect things to get much *much* worse.

On that point, here are a couple of more examples.

Democrats hired protesters to get into fights at Trump rallys, to give the appearance that Trump supporters are violent thugs.

From that article, note that one of the hired protesters filed suit against a Trump supporter claiming that she was punched in the face. The first cited article has a secret recording of the person hired to orchestrate the fights, where he mentions that the protester was one of his group.

(And here she is after the incident, smiling, with no evidence of bruising or injury.)

Also of note, Scott Adams got shadowbanned from twitter, for no apparent reason, and has seen invitations for speaking go from several per month (for decades) to none. He estimates that blogging about the election has cost him $1 million in speaking fees alone.

And of course, after all that people started leaving fake bad reviews of his book.

Trump supporters have been pretty polite throughout the election. We don't put naked statues of Hillary in cities, or have billboards of her kissing Huma Abedin, or make comparisons of her to Hitler, Stalin, Satan, or Cthulhu.

This is the 3-week mark where all civil discourse goes to hell, both IRL and on this blog.

Expect things to get much *much* worse.

On that point, here are a couple of more examples.

Democrats hired protesters to get into fights at Trump rallys, to give the appearance that Trump supporters are violent thugs.

From that article, note that one of the hired protesters filed suit against a Trump supporter claiming that she was punched in the face. The first cited article has a secret recording of the person hired to orchestrate the fights, where he mentions that the protester was one of his group.

(And here she is after the incident, smiling, with no evidence of bruising or injury.)

Also of note, Scott Adams got shadowbanned from twitter, for no apparent reason, and has seen invitations for speaking go from several per month (for decades) to none. He estimates that blogging about the election has cost him $1 million in speaking fees alone.

And of course, after all that people started leaving fake bad reviews of his book.

Trump supporters have been pretty polite throughout the election. We don't put naked statues of Hillary in cities, or have billboards of her kissing Huma Abedin, or make comparisons of her to Hitler, Stalin, Satan, or Cthulhu.

This is the 3-week mark where all civil discourse goes to hell, both IRL and on this blog.

Expect things to get much *much* worse.

Good grief, Check BASIC FACTS! I'll post two sources so that you can't complain about bias in the first. Seriously, do you know how to type two words into a fucking search engine?
http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...
http://www.wsj.com/articles/an-internet-giveaway-to-the-u-n-1472421165

While it may not be illegal, to be a journalist, you must report the facts accurately and report both sides of the story

Surely, you jest.

http://www.breitbart.com/

Lying under oath to congress, destroying evidence after being issued a subpoena, lying to the FBI..

You make assertions, but offer no proof, much like all that claim she should be in jail. You assert she lied under oath, probably based on stories like this one. If you read through the transcript, a hostile series of questions were asked (then again, you want them to be hostile in this situation) but nowhere do I see any proof of lying, although I do see what I suspect is a level of technical ignorance I imagine is quite common among that level of government. She stated initially that no classified information was sent. After the review that stated there was some classified information, the statement became "no marked classified information". That's not evidence of a lie, that's making a truthful statement based on new knowledge. Note that Jim Jordan claims she committed perjury based on Comney's testimony, without providing hard proof. If you wish to argue that she knew it was classified before the review, you'll have to provide proof. I'll give you a hint - if there was actual proof, they would prosecute, or at least move to impeach her, since Congress is Republican dominated. Note that a successful impeachment would effectively remove her ability to run for any federal office.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea...

From that fivethirtyeight article some months ago:

So, how do I wind up with that 2 percent estimate of Trump’s nomination chances? It’s what you get3 if you assume he has a 50 percent chance of surviving each subsequent stage of the gantlet.4 Tonight’s debate could prove to be the beginning of the end for Trump, or he could remain a factor for months to come. But he’s almost certainly doomed, sooner or later.

People have to remember that Nate Silver is using statistics based on assumptions, and those assumptions may or may not be valid.

The particular assumption in the link you quoted, is that his chances will not change in the next two weeks.

Let's see what tomorrow may bring, shall we?

I just love the "Correct the Record" people. Before transcripts were released Hillary shills say "no way, Hillary is actually FOR YOU, NOT Wall Street". These dumps confirm that, yes she's going to push for more NAFTA and more money for Wall Street and donors and we'll have more people getting fired and training more H1B workers to replace them. So after the email dumps, what does "Correct the Record" say now? Oh everybody already KNEW that Hillary really supports Wall Street more than the average worker.

It may not matter to you, but Hillary being in bed with corporate sponsors sure matters to people like Mike Emmons EXCLUSIVE — American Worker Forced to Train Foreign Replacement Reveals How Hillary Clinton Betrayed Him .

Vote for Hillary? Enjoy your subjugation you voted for yourself.

It seems that Twitter's stock price has nosedived precipitously since appointing radical Social Justice Warrior Anita Sarkeesian to their newly formed “Trust and Safety Council.” Since then, Twitter has:

* Banned Robert Stacey McCain
* Banned Milo Yiannopoulos, AKA @Nero, permanently
* Suspended Instapundit
* Shadowbanned Anna Maria Perez
* Forced James O'Keefe to renove a Tweet and perform a spite reset

And after having damaged their brand and destroyed billions worth of shareholder value, lo and behold, no one wants to buy them! Gee, turns out that alienating half your user base at the behest of a tiny cadre of radical feminists is a lousy business strategy...

All those allegations against him, are ALL malicious and designed to stop him getting into power.

Did any on those women come forward before the released 'I just grab their pussy' tape? No. He was secretly recorded (where's the FBI investigation?), the tape was released to embarrass him (FBI?), and all these women came forward with their stories. They can't prove their stories.

Trump is the victim here, not these women, he's the one being abused, he's the one being spied on, they should say sorry to him for making up those stories.

Furthermore, none of those women pressed charges or filed suit against a billionaire at the time. I guess we weren't a very litigious society back in the '90s.

Also, at least one witness came forward to claim that nothing happened - that he was there with the woman (and Trump) the entire time and nothing happened.

You mean they should spend tax money and valuable resources investigating one of the most transparent and well respected charitable organizations on the planet?

Yes, the one that misled the IRS, according to an internal audit.

There is no third option for encryption right now, but that does not mean there can never be one. You argue that there are only two solutions, either good encryption or weak security, and while that may be true right now, and may even always be true from a technical standpoint, there may be other creative options available over time. Maybe it boils down to as you said pulling the phone memory physically and then cloning it and running every possible password until it works. As long as there is a way to get at the info on the phone for sufficiently important situations. OTOH, I do kinda wonder if this is all a kabuik theater where the feds have figured out an easy crack (or Apple handed it to them under the table) and they are doing this to try and shift all the Islamic terrorists to use Apple products.

If we had a single, mentally deranged individual I would tend to agree with you that once he is dead, the rest is a non-issue. The problem arises when it is neither an isolated individual nor an isolated incident. What you have with radical Islam is essentially a fragmented conspiracy around a certain set of ideas. These guys are usually killed, but it is a 50% chance that he was not alone and he either had money or other forms of assistance/encouragement to do what he did.

Islam has ~1 billion active followers globally and around 3.3 million in the US. 25% of US muslims think violent jihad is OK against their fellow Americans, at the very least should be doing our best to gather information on any and all who back or support violence against us.

http://www.breitbart.com/natio...

And before anyone complains about Islamophobia and discrimination against Muslims, that is a canard. We are all adults here and fully capable of discerning the difference between normal, peaceful fellow citizens who also happen to be Muslims and those radicals who want to do us harm. That is probably why Muslims only accounted for 16% of US hate crimes, vs 57% against Jews.

http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/mi...

Here you are (Google is your friend). This is four years old but nothing has changed except the voters are getting older. The local news says it continues this year. http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...

http://www.washingtontimes.com...

not to mention going after the donors to the organizations...

http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...

> The organization discovered the IRS was using donor lists it extracted from tax-exempt
> organizations during its anti-Tea Party crusade to target the donors themselves for tax audits.

And Google on the phrase...

Lois Lerner hard drive

about losing more government-related emails than Clinton. Since she was going after conservatives, "no reasonable prosecutor..." (who didn't want to end up dead) would file charges against her.

Are these stats real? Can anybody confirm?
http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...

Maybe, but...

http://www.breitbart.com/clint...

It's worth a watch no matter what side you're on.

For the lazy and on the NYT.

Pot Kettle.

The New York Times Paid No Taxes in 2014

http://www.breitbart.com/big-j...

Trump controls Isis?

You mean, he bought them out? No wonder their wages were cut

The USPS is not losing money as a result of its own operational costs vs income.

Yes it is.

the money the USPS is "losing" is being paid into a fund to pay retiree benefits for employees 75 years into the future

"the Postal Service would have lost $10.8 billion without the prefunding requirement."
- http://townhall.com/columnists...

And the USPS get lots of benefits:

"pays nothing in property tax, nothing in licensing or sales taxes for its vehicles and no state or federal taxes, even on its competitive products. It does pay federal tax on income from those products, but it pays those taxes to itself."
- http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...

pay retiree benefits for employees 75 years into the future - YES, that would include costs for employees that have not even been BORN YET.

Completely false.:

"the law only requires pre-funding of obligations to actual current and past employees."
- http://www.cnbc.com/id/4501843...

You're welcome.

Okian Warrior, off the top of your head, answer me right now:

Do you think that one/third of US Uranium reserves were actually physically sent to Russia?

I do not.

Why - is it important?

Because of what you wrote:

Sold 1/3 of our Uranium reserves to Russia

Sure seems like you're implying she actually sold US National reserves of Uranium, isn't it?

Since what actually happened was that Uranium One, a Canadian Company, was bought out by a Russian-state owned one, all it means is that they have legal title to Uranium in the US, which still has to be sold in the US, which means...what exactly?

Really, give us 3 bad things that Russia can now do.

(I'm not mentioning that a Russian bank paid Clinton $500,000 for a speech right before the deal, because she says there was no conflict of interest.)

Funny how if you add up all of Trumps indiscretions, they don't even total one of Hillary's speaker fees.

Well, let's see, an illegal loan of 3.5 million dollars from his father is a great deal more than 500,000, so you're lying again without even challenging on your account of Hillary, you're lying. And that you started this by complaining about name-calling from liberals? What are you doing? Trying to practice dementia so you can get money from the VA?

Okian Warrior, I know you've admitted to being a troll, but you can stop anytime. Just click log out and never log in again.

Okian Warrior, off the top of your head, answer me right now:

Do you think that one/third of US Uranium reserves were actually physically sent to Russia?

I do not.

Why - is it important?

(I'm not mentioning that a Russian bank paid Clinton $500,000 for a speech right before the deal, because she says there was no conflict of interest.)

Funny how if you add up all of Trumps indiscretions, they don't even total one of Hillary's speaker fees.

Because if you don't use electricity, it doesn't really get generated in the first place.

Yes, it does get generated. Excess power can be dumped to the grid at a negative price of about -1 cent per kWh. At that price, someone will take it off your hands. So then why would you generate it and lose money? Answer: Subsidies. Wind producers receive a federal subsidy of about 2.3 cents per kWh. So it makes sense for them to continue to generate and push the power into an overloaded grid that has no use for it, because they make money doing that.

Hillarie's many instances of deeply held racism are easy/ to find if you search just a little.

Not really.

Of that list of 11 items, 1 is racist (if it happened, 40 years ago), 2 is racist, though somewhat of a legitimate mistake in the middle of a bad crime wave, and she repented.

The rest are bombed jokes or comments where they're trying really hard to erase the context and nuance.

Trump on the other hand his blasting his dog whistle like a bull-horn.

Of course I don't know if Trump is racist or just exploiting racism for political gain, but it's racism.

Since you appear to be too stupid to understand my comment (which is of course to be expected from someone only able to play the race card in place of real argument), it's not that he has black friends and supporters (though that in itself is an indicator)

There are 10's of millions of black people in the US, I'm sure David Duke could find black supporters if he wanted them.

- it's that in actions taken over a long period at times when he was not running for office, he did not act against people based on color (or indeed gender). Real people are judged by actions, not just words or the words especially of others that hate them.

And it's only a very extreme racist who won't have friends of an ethnicity at all, modern racism is found in the form of stereotypes, different standards for other groups, and singling out or judging groups based on ethnicity.

If you are also so stupid as to equate the federal government investigating the actions of a company with the actions of using a nuclear arsenal against another nation;

I'm seriously unsure what the hell you're talking about.

if indeed you are that stupid who can be blamed but yourself, possibly your parents?

I'm seriously amused you followed up a weird random sentence with this.

But you've had long enough to correct any misapprehensions they might have fed you, so your delusions are of your own peculiar brand, or more likely fed to you by the rich eco-chamber that is the modern liberal press and parroting supporters.

With any luck, perhaps time you may be able to think for yourself once more, rather than simply vomited what is fed to you by your masters.

I'll let you have the last word, as the delusional people will chatter on so and I am busy with real work and life.

Ok thanks for that!

Hillarie's many instances of deeply held racism are easy/ to find if you search just a little.

She's an old white lady from the south, You do the math.

You're literally making the argument that Trump can't be racist because he has black friends.

Since you appear to be too stupid to understand my comment (which is of course to be expected from someone only able to play the race card in place of real argument), it's not that he has black friends and supporters (though that in itself is an indicator) - it's that in actions taken over a long period at times when he was not running for office, he did not act against people based on color (or indeed gender). Real people are judged by actions, not just words or the words especially of others that hate them.

If you are also so stupid as to equate the federal government investigating the actions of a company with the actions of using a nuclear arsenal against another nation; if indeed you are that stupid who can be blamed but yourself, possibly your parents? But you've had long enough to correct any misapprehensions they might have fed you, so your delusions are of your own peculiar brand, or more likely fed to you by the rich eco-chamber that is the modern liberal press and parroting supporters.

With any luck, perhaps time you may be able to think for yourself once more, rather than simply vomited what is fed to you by your masters.

I'll let you have the last word, as the delusional people will chatter on so and I am busy with real work and life.

You may not, but the problem is that too many of the politicians you vote for do. HRC is on record many times this campaign saying she wants to see the "Australian model" implemented in the US. That means forced confiscation of all personally owned firearms under the guise of "buybacks." The buybacks are mandatory, and you go to prison is you don't comply.

Here's a list of politicians talking about confiscating guns, just from a short period in 2013:

Hawaii legislature proposes gun confiscation
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/...

New York Assemblyman asks colleague not to mention that original proposed SAFE Act included confiscation
http://www.breitbart.com/Breit...

Missouri Democrats introduce legislation to confiscate guns
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-...

VA has veterans who cannot manage their own financial affairs declared prohibited persons unable to own firearms
http://www.humanevents.com/201...

NJ State Senator "We needed a bill that was going to confiscate confiscate confiscate."
http://www.politickernj.com/ba...

Oregon Legislator calls fears of gun confiscation a "paranoid delusion" and then states he is in favor of gun confiscation
http://www.examiner.com/articl...

Governor Cuomo says, "confiscation could be an option."
http://www.nationalreview.com/...

Feinstein suggests "compulsory buyback."
http://washingtonexaminer.com/...

CA assembly proposes confiscating 166,000 legally registered guns.
http://www.mercurynews.com/bre...

And the classic from 1995:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Do you notice any common political party among the people calling for confiscation?

was purely motivated by his mixed race.

Could you offer some proof of this — something the rest of us, who do not have your powers of telepathy, can verify on their own? Something, that makes Trump's suspecting Obama's eligibility uniquely different from Clinton suspecting same? Or suspecting that McCain or Ted Cruz may not be eligible either?

You will need to provide substantial proof that the judge is racist before you can make a statement like that.

That judge has just awarded a scholarship to an illegal immigrant . Is it not fair to suspect, he may be biased against someone, who wishes to deport such illegal immigrants?

White judges are suspected of bias against Black defendants all the time (as are White juries) — why is it "racist" to suspect a Latino judge of similar bias against other races?

That Judge is apart of a group called "San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association", not the "La Raza" association

Distinction without difference. Any attempts to promote people based on their race automatically discriminates against other races and is thus racist — by definition.

That's pretty much racist.

"Pretty much" does not count.

directly attributed to anybody from the Middle East, who's appearances are starkly contrasted to caucasians.

The biggest Muslim country in the world is Indonesia, which is about as far from the Middle East as is the US. Fail.

That happened in 1973. He took over his father's business in 1971.

So, he inherited a problem from his father. Big deal. Hillary Clinton's father was racist too

Except that was a lie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

A YouTube clip with some talking-head talking about Trump is not proof, sorry. Maybe, he really forgot, who it was. Or, maybe, he lied. But that's not racism either way.

As for "disavowing" David Duke — wake me up, when Hillary Clinton "disavows" Al Sharpton, who is no less a racist than David Duke... Except she would not do that, because, whereas Duke's endorsement of Trump was unsolicited, Hillary actively sought Sharpton's. Maybe, if Trump ever went to a Duke's rally, you'd have had a point...

Fail.

Of course, the ACTUAL originator of the Birther claims was a guy that produced a book jacket biography for Obama's first book that was never written. That bio explicitly claimed that Obama was born in Kenya. The writer that produced that book jacket biography that was sent to the publishers? No one seens to know who it was, but it initials were B.O. and it's rumored he was last spotted at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington DC.

Oh please, even Breitbart admitted that it was unlikely the biography was written by any of the subjects, and the person who probably didn't pay that much attention to it.

M.G. is different from B.O. though.

This is why Trump is a real failure though, shit like this, which is about as meaningful as Major Dad getting the date wrong on his discharge papers. And no, nobody else made Trump proclaim that he'd find out the real truth. He chose to do it. He also chose to try to make somebody else responsible. Nobody else made him print that letter about the Central Park 5. Nobody else made him make a wild accusation about Ted Cruz's father. Nobody made him do half the shit he's done.

But hell, if he wants to say he's Hillary Clinton's puppet, go right ahead and let him.

Its not like he can own up to anything himself.

You mean how Clinton reveres Sen. Byrd?

> Considering the fact that the head of Google is the CTO of the Clinton campaign should
> not make this surprising to anyone, but between this and Google manipulating
> search results to aid Clinton they are about as fair and balanced as Jezebel or Twitter.

This is the same Clinton campaign that says Breitbart doesn't have a right to exist. http://dailycaller.com/2016/08... And don't forget that back in 1998, Hillary was whing about lack of "Internet Gatekeepers" http://www.freerepublic.com/fo...
> Hillary Rodham Clinton said IN 1998 during a meeting with reporters said
> that "we are all going to have to rethink how we deal with" the Internet
> because of the handling of White House sex scandal stories on Web sites.
>
> Clinton was asked whether she favored curbs on the Internet, after the
> DRUDGE REPORT made headlines with coverage of her husband's affair
> with a White House intern. "We are all going to have to rethink how we deal
> with this, because there are all these competing values ... Without any
> kind of editing function or gatekeeping function, what does it mean to have
> the right to defend your reputation?" she said.

Back in "the good old days before the internet", the elite controlled the MSM (Main Stream Media), and they still do. JFK was screwing every woman in sight, Bill Clinton was a saint in comparison. But the media kept quiet about it, and people didn't know. In 1998, the obedient lapdogs at Newsweek killed the Monica Lewinsky story article. But a virtually unknown store clerk, name of Matt Drudge, blew it wide open. The rest is history.

Actually, the Bill Clinton administration feared this in 1995. http://www.breitbart.com/big-j...

> The infamous 1995 "conspiracy commerce memo" tried to demonize and discredit alternative
> media outlets on the right to mainstream media organizations and D.C. establishment figures.
>
> The memo notes that the "Internet has become one of the major and most dynamic
> modes of communication" and "can link people, groups and organizations together instantly."
>
> "Moreover, it allows an extraordinary amount of unregulated data and information to be
> located in one area and available to all," the memo states.

The elite are scared of the open internet, because it bypasses the MSM, and the elite can no longer supress the truth. People coming together and sharing "unregulated data and information" means that controlling the MSM is not enough. Watch the elite try to destroy the internet in the coming years.

In "the good ole days before the internet", the MSM (Main Stream Media) controlled the news. The government needed a dozen people on their rolodex, and embarressing stories could be shut down. E.g. John F Kennedy was screwing women all over the place, and Bill Clinton would almost be a saint in comparison. But the MSM kept quiet, and it wasn't until much later that JFK's philandering became known.

Bill Clinton realized by 1995, that the internet had the potential to democratize the news and bypass the gatekeepers. "Moreover, it allows an extraordinary amount of unregulated data and information to be located in one area and available to all," http://www.breitbart.com/big-j...

In 1998, his worst fears came true. Clinton's MSM buddies at Newsweek spiked (i.e. killed) a bombshell of a story about Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. But a lowly store clerk with a modem (i.e. Matt Drudge) published the story on his site. Hillary was whining about there not being any "gatekeepers" on the internet http://www.freerepublic.com/fo...

Fast-forward to the current election campaign, and the Democrats are openly talking about shutting down the Breitbart website http://dailycaller.com/2016/08...

Do you really want Hillary in charge?

You know, the for-profit university system that paid Bill Clinton $16 million "while Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. pumped at least $55 million to a group run by Laureate’s founder and chairman, Douglas Becker, a man with strong ties to the Clinton Global Initiative."

Hillary certainly would go the other way on taxes.

Yes, except for everyone who had helped her out.

Still thinking there's no special re-patriation tax break in the cards, or a lowering of the corporate tax rate for the largest corporations? You Slashdot readers are so amusingly naive! I admire your clild-like innocence.

"Gross negligence" is defined as "such a gross want of care...as to justify the presumption of willfulness "
--Black's Law Dictionary 1185 (4th ed.1968), the definitive dictionary for the legal profession;

"Whoever, being entrusted with...any document...relating to the national defense...through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody...shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."
--18 U.S.C. 793(f);

"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information...110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification...To be clear , this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. "
--James Comey ( transcript source: FBI National Press Office, "Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System",July 5, 2016 )

The FBI just released its notes from the meeting with Hillary Clinton regarding the email server.

Hillary Clinton used her mobile phone on a balcony outside of secured areas to check her email:

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton knew that she was not allowed to use mobile devices in her office — so she would walk onto the 8th floor balcony of the State Department building to check her email messages, new FBI documents reveal.

Clinton’s office was located in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF), where mobile devices were not allowed. “According to [Huma] Abedin, Clinton primarily used her personal BlackBerry or personal iPad for checking emails, and she left the SCIF to do so, often visiting State’s eighth floor balcony,” the FBI investigation noted.
[. . . ]
Presumably, anyone watching the movements of the Secretary of State would have known that when she appeared on the balcony, she was about to use her mobile devices, either to access her email or perhaps to make telephone calls, as soon as she appeared on the balcony.
(source: "FBI: Hillary Clinton Checked Email on Public State Dept. Balcony", by Joel B Pollack, September 2, 2016 at http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/09/02/fbi-hillary-clinton-sent-received-emails-state-dept-balcony/)

Hillary claimed to the FBI she didn't receive training on handling classified information, yet her signature shows otherwise; how is this not a direct lie to the FBI?

Hillary Clinton told FBI questioners numerous times that she did not receive the various guidance documents and training sessions from State Department officials that employees get to ensure they protect and preserve their official emails and computer documents.
[...]
She said she was not trained on handling classified information.

That claim is a puzzle because her signature is attached to a 2009 State Department document testifying that she was trained on handling classified information.

That contradiction was highlighted by

http://www.infowars.com/man-fa...
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/...

It happens, even if you are willfully blind to it.

You're right they're all bad, however bad is relative.
I would contend that Hilary is obviously worse than Trump because she is blatantly corrupt (primary mechanism being the Clinton foundation), habitually lies on a level bordering psychopathy, and is not even eligible to get security clearance necessary to be president.
http://thehill.com/policy/nati...
http://www.nationalreview.com/...
  At least one source has evidence that in fact she never had actually passed security clearance.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...

She has already also clearly sold out the US many times to enrich herself/the Clinton foundation. Do some research for yourself into exactly why middle eastern countries like Saudi are donating millions to the Clinton Foundation.

Trump is a clueless pompous asshat but at least he isn't blatantly corrupt career criminal, and also I beleive he's clearly more of a patriot that Clinton, in that he would be far more likely to put the interests of the US first than she ever would, given she's already provably sold it out for her own benefit many times.

Or you're missing context, when someone is currently the target of a harassment campaign they're given a little more leeway than someone who tweets something out of the blue.

And even if there was a double standard (which I don't concede) your comment is still wrong, the alt-right would still be free to say whatever it wants, it would just be that only one side would be able to harass.

Apparently that was easy to disprove, as one can see what happens when you turn around and post exactly what someone else has said, but just happen to have the right connections inside twitter. Notice a similarity here? No? How about when facebook turned around and started removing groups for various imaginary thought-crimes. Starting to see a trend with social media now?

Again context, Jones was trying to retaliate and protect herself from a campaign initiated by Milo.

Context: She was doing it before Milo was involved. Read the story, click on the other links in the story.

I'm not familiar with all of those cases, certainly not the rape threats, and Twitter may have been inconsistent in the past. If so, they will hopefully fix that in the future. No one should be the target of harassment.

You mean like their "trust and safety council" which has done nothing? Or all of the past cases which they generally just sweep under the rug, unless it gets plenty of media attention.

But you're also conflating harassment with with social campaigns, like trying to excerpt pressure against shady businesses, or outing people who have done something bad (these campaigns are very troubling, but different from harassment).

For instance I don't think I'd mind as much if Milo had encouraged his followers to call the producer or studio to complain about the movie. The problem is that he was making Twitter into a place where a black actress couldn't really stay.

No, he wasn't doing anything of the sort. Then again, I suppose if you engage in the right kind of racism it's perfectly fine right? Just like it's okay with the right kind of sexism. See julie bindel, jessica valenti and so on, along with the lovely #killallmen stuff.