Slashdot Mirror

• has billions to throw at an election, yet
• spent much less on his campaign than he said he would, and
• has alleged ties to Russian hackers?

Not saying he spent his campaign money on Russian hackers, but...

Yes, this was republished today from wikileaks twitter account, trying desperately not to look like bad guys now that they've played a hand in getting Trump in. But it's barely news, let alone scandalous. It's a perfectly legitimate strategy that I'm 100% certain the Republicans followed too (If you want amateur examples from this very forum, look back at all the faux-love Bernie got from Trumpeters like Okian Warrior et al, once it became clear that Hilary was DNC choice - a pure divide-and-conquer play). If you want real hard-core sanctimonious apologia from wikileaks though you should check out Assange's piece here. To summarize: "I only publishes whats I gets and my Russian handlers didn't give me anything damaging on Trump, so... I no publish anything". If you think that Russian handlers thing is a stretch, read what Nadya Tolokno has to say about it.

Your welcome! :)

Oh my, I did touch a nerve with my comparison didn't I? :)

Some more info on me. I'm white, Scottish and my mother comes from the same Hebridean Island as DJ's "mom" comes from.
I've lived, and worked, in the SF Bay for a number of years. I've only been to New Delhi once, regrettably.
Could not settled in the US due to the element of US society that today is supporting Trump.
Shame, beautiful country and I made some great friends there too.

"Disgusting", is how Trump describes the living conditions of people in Scotland who won't sell up to him to make way for his golf course.
One of them is 92 year old "Molly", who had the water to her home cut off by Trump 4 years ago

There's a smell in the air and it's not coming from Delhi.
I'm feeling some what satisfied now that I've upset some of his home supporters. I just hope he disappears by Friday.
He's not a unique and private problem to the people of the USA, he's an international problem and a threat to humanity.

Not really clear that there's anything here. A news organization always checks with the subject of an article before running the article-- this is standard procedure, and it's also standard procedure to correct errors of fact that are pointed out-- it is desirable to do this BEFORE an article runs.
I think they're stretching on this.

Oh yeah?

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/a...

Take your pick: hasbara, CTR and fuzzy bears.

Tick tock Okian Warrior! Just a reminder Trump loses bigly in one week, and I've got you bookmarked so I can come back and read your angry impotent tears on the 9th after he loses. :) Have a good week!

Knock yourself out.

Anyone who thinks of the election as a personal failure larger than, say, losing a game of darts in a pub is an idiot.

We've taken things waaaaay to far in this election, and it's time we stopped and thought about who we are and what we're doing. This is not who we are, We don't fire people for supporting a candidate, we don't beat up homeless people for holding political signs, we don't egg people or key cars that show support.

Anyone American, that is. Americans believe in free speech.

I've thought through both scenarios, and it won't bother me one bit if Clinton wins, and I won't be lording it over people if Clinton loses. Half the country is on either side, so in both cases we'll be in good company.

I'm planning on just shaking hands and saying "good game, the first drink is on me".

(And privately, a CTR on Hillary's payroll posting as AC won't damage my self-esteem. I mean really, you probably base your self worth on the opinion of others, but I don't. I'm good with who I am, and see the insults for what they are: insignificant.)

Jill Stein is an amazing communist from hell even though she invests like an amazing capitalist who strongly believes in fossil fuels and war profiteering. AFAIC she or Sanders or anybody like that should never be in positions where they could actually influence politics, yet they are, which shows the insanity of modern society.

He was labeled anti-black for reasons I have yet to be able to find.

Donald Trump violated the civil rights act by refusing to rent homes to black people.

* http://www.nytimes.com/times-i...
* http://new.www.huffingtonpost....
* http://www.thedailybeast.com/a...
* http://www.newyorker.com/magaz...

Trump continued to refuse to rent homes to black people three years after Justice Department ruling on the matter sides against Trump.

* http://www.nytimes.com/1978/03...
* http://www.nytimes.com/1983/10...

Trump ordered blacks to leave casino floor whenever him or wife arrives on property.

* http://www.newyorker.com/magaz...

1991 book written by Trump Plaza Hotel & Casino President quotes Trump as saying:

"I've got black accountants at Trump Castle and Trump Plaza. Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day⦠. I think the guy is lazy. And it's probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It's not anything they can control."

* http://articles.philly.com/199...

Trump built a casino in black majority city and breaks promise to mayor about hiring locals, refrains to hire the minorities and opting to staff the casino with almost exclusively all Caucasian employees.

* http://www.nydailynews.com/arc...

Trump was asked about replacing TSA's 'heebeejabis' with veterans, responded with:

"We're looking at it"

* http://www.npr.org/2016/06/30/...
* http://www.businessinsider.com...
* http://time.com/4039658/trump-...

Trump responded to accusations of racism by hiring a former aid for Joseph McCarthy to sue the government for half a billion dollars.

* http://www.salon.com/2011/04/2...

Trump kept books of Hitler Speeches by his bed.

* http://www.businessinsider.com...
* http://forward.com/the-assimil...
* http://www.gq.com/story/donald...

Trump's campaign photoshopped a white model black.

* http://www.huffington

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.

Do you think that any of the following will change some minds?

• went beyond their duties as a lawyer to defend a first-degree rape of a 12 year old
• smeared and destroyed the lives of Bill Clinton's rape victims
• helped Russia gain control of 20% of all U.S. uranium and then support war with them
• has Parkinson's disease, which can include dementia, which includes changes in memory, concentration & judgment, delusions, especially paranoid ideas, depression, irritability and anxiety
• runs an international money laundering scheme
• uses the immoral 13 Rules for Radicals that will defeat any opponent regardless of political positions
• used the Benghazi scandal as distraction from the national security breach on her insecure e-mail server
• corrupted the FBI and other government agencies to avoid jail
• part of a campaign that conspires to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry, demeans government, and drops civics
• is very angry and hard on her staff, including the Secret Service agents that protect her
• treats public employees as servants and hates them
• is racist and continues to run a racist campaign
• circulated a picture of Obama dressed as a Somali elder in an effort to gin up racial fears
• ripped off Haitians in their time of need in order to spend donated money on her friends
• wants to go along with a plan to destroy Western democracies so her donors can make a profit
• is preferred by established Republicans because they prefer a Bush-Clinton dynasty

Because you want a Bush-Clinton dynasty run by a person who

• went beyond their duties as a lawyer to defend a first-degree rape of a 12 year old
• smeared and destroyed the lives of Bill Clinton's rape victims
• helped Russia gain control of 20% of all U.S. uranium and then support war with them
• has Parkinson's disease, which can include dementia, which includes changes in memory, concentration & judgment, delusions, especially paranoid ideas, depression, irritability and anxiety
• Runs an international money laundering scheme
• uses the immoral 13 Rules for Radicals that will defeat any opponent regardless of political positions
• used the Benghazi scandal as distraction from the national security breach on her insecure e-mail server
• corrupted the FBI and other government agencies to avoid jail
• part of a campaign that conspires to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry, demeans government, and drops civics
• is very angry and hard on her staff, including the Secret Service agents that protect her
• treats public employees as servants and hates them
• is racist and continues to run a racist campaign
• circulated a picture of Obama dressed as a Somali elder in an effort to gin up racial fears
• ripped off Haitians in their time of need in order to spend donated money on her friends
• wants to go along with a plan to destroy Western democracies so her donors can make a profit

Roseanne Barr: I Was the First Person to Tell Trump to Run for President

"When Roseanne ended its celebrated run, Barr got her own syndicated television talk show, The Roseanne Show. Recently, she realized she'd had two very special guests come through her studio-and told one of them he should consider a presidential run.

"I interviewed both Trump and Michael Moore together," said Barr, who says she "sort of" knows the GOP frontrunner and likes him "as a human being." "I was watching it and I tell Trump, 'You should run for president,'" she grinned.

Why did Trump seem so presidential back then? "Because of all of his views," Barr said. "He was extremely progressive. He was saying we should invest more in education, and we need health care. He said all the things that Hillary's saying. That's why I know that it's just a con. The whole fucking thing. It's a scam, a con, and it's rigged.""

http://www.thedailybeast.com/a...

Roseanne Barr: I Was the First Person to Tell Trump to Run for President

"When Roseanne ended its celebrated run, Barr got her own syndicated television talk show, The Roseanne Show. Recently, she realized she'd had two very special guests come through her studio-and told one of them he should consider a presidential run.

"I interviewed both Trump and Michael Moore together," said Barr, who says she "sort of" knows the GOP frontrunner and likes him "as a human being." "I was watching it and I tell Trump, 'You should run for president,'" she grinned.

Why did Trump seem so presidential back then? "Because of all of his views," Barr said. "He was extremely progressive. He was saying we should invest more in education, and we need health care. He said all the things that Hillary's saying. That's why I know that it's just a con. The whole fucking thing. It's a scam, a con, and it's rigged.""

http://www.thedailybeast.com/a...

Roseanne Barr: I Was the First Person to Tell Trump to Run for President

"When Roseanne ended its celebrated run, Barr got her own syndicated television talk show, The Roseanne Show. Recently, she realized she'd had two very special guests come through her studio-and told one of them he should consider a presidential run.

"I interviewed both Trump and Michael Moore together," said Barr, who says she "sort of" knows the GOP frontrunner and likes him "as a human being." "I was watching it and I tell Trump, 'You should run for president,'" she grinned.

Why did Trump seem so presidential back then? "Because of all of his views," Barr said. "He was extremely progressive. He was saying we should invest more in education, and we need health care. He said all the things that Hillary's saying. That's why I know that it's just a con. The whole fucking thing. It's a scam, a con, and it's rigged.""

http://www.thedailybeast.com/a...

Roseanne Barr: I Was the First Person to Tell Trump to Run for President

"When Roseanne ended its celebrated run, Barr got her own syndicated television talk show, The Roseanne Show. Recently, she realized she'd had two very special guests come through her studio-and told one of them he should consider a presidential run.

"I interviewed both Trump and Michael Moore together," said Barr, who says she "sort of" knows the GOP frontrunner and likes him "as a human being." "I was watching it and I tell Trump, 'You should run for president,'" she grinned.

Why did Trump seem so presidential back then? "Because of all of his views," Barr said. "He was extremely progressive. He was saying we should invest more in education, and we need health care. He said all the things that Hillary's saying. That's why I know that it's just a con. The whole fucking thing. It's a scam, a con, and it's rigged.""

He was talking about this South Park episode

My related question would be: How many of the Slashdot trolls are working for Palmer Luckey?

Probably less than the paid trolls for Hillary.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/a...

I can't imagine how this story is in any way worse than this one:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/a...

Hillary is paying people to lie about her to cover up her misdeeds, this guy is supporting a candidate himself by putting his money and mouth out there.

whose president (Obama) and SecState (Hillary Clinton) jailed a YouTube filmmaker (who had NOTHING to do Libya) as a scapegoat for the Benghazi debacle. and then kept him in prison for a year, even while his prison was letting-out violent offenders in order to get into compliance with a prison overcrowding court ruling, and even had him transferred to a Texas prison so he'd remain behind bars as the California prisons were still overcrowded.

No need to start an effort to free him now; he is out of jail and now living as a poor homeless man whose life is in ruins.

I find it interesting that nobody in Hollywood ever took up the cause of the jailed filmmaker - they all rant about "free speech" and yet are Hillary bots.

Nothing is a hate symbol. People can be hateful with anything.

Name a single christian country that executes gays as a matter of law.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

It doesn't have to statutorily punishable by death for it to be unofficially punishable by death. http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/... http://www.thedailybeast.com/a... . Uganda is 85% christian.

Sadly for you, Hillary spent piles of cash pushing back against users on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Instagram, etc who were probably unaware they were being trolled by her paid shills. She ran quite the troll outfit against Bernie.

Actually, the modern era of well-funded underhanded internet tolling BEGAN with Clinton 1.0 in the 1990s when BillClinton could not keep his hands off the intern, or the secretary, or the campaign worker, etc. Various Democrat supporters ponied-up lots of cash and started a whole bunch of left-leaning internet-centric operations to trash Clinton opponents, distract the public from the scandals, etc. This is where MoveOn.org (as-in "move on, already! Bill's babes were ASKING for it! the economy is good! The Federal prosecuters are a bunch of sex-starved prudes!, the women accusing Bill are the sort you get when you drag a $20 bill through a trailer park!...") originated. It's also where the most-famous opportunistic phoneys in American politics got their start. Both David Brock and Arianna Huffington pretended to be conservatives for several years to learn about their enemies then they took off their masks and launched huge anti-GOP online empires. That was the beginning of the new era of hyper-spin in politics. In the era of Nixon, the president tried (and failed) to "spin" by going before cameras and saying "I am not a crook". In the era of the Clintons, the president was saying (and getting away with) "it depends on the meaning of the word 'is'" and even the most-basic facts in ANY argument became negotiable/debateable.

As a cherry on top of this super-sized hypocrisy sundae, a huge number of the left's online trolling outlets are funded at least partially by George Soros, AFAIK the only man on the planet who has bragged that his time as a NAZI collaborator (yup, an actual servant of THE Adolph Hitler) was the happiest time of his lfe and he is prod of what he did (he's working hard to finish Hitler's dream of eliminate the sovereignty of the US and the UK and submerging the west into a global tyranny).

Why must so many geeks be filthy bigots? Every article is littered with racist and otherwise bigoted garbage. It's a shame that Slashdot is morphing into Stormfront.

It's an anchor for forum sliding.

They use bots to get these comments in at the very top, knowing that they'll be voted down to -1.

Then when an inconvenient or embarrassing discussion happens that they want to bury, they log into another account and respond to their own topmost comment, and log into further accounts to upvote the new comment.

The end result is that the inconvenient or embarrassing discussion gets pushed down the page.

They know that few people read past the first couple of comment blocks, so they use this technique to adjust the conversation to their own benefit.

Check out Correct The Record for info, and note that HRC spent $1 million on these sorts of techniques.

I wouldn't want niggers in my house either.

Trump 2016

http://www.thedailybeast.com/a...

Piss off. Sanders has been fighting for "people of color" as you put it for his entire career.

...this is actually a pretty good representation of the response one can expect any time this issue (all-important for winning a Democratic primary, mind you) is brought up. All the Black people I follow on twitter had timelines full of sentiments like this. Usually even less nice though, and almost always from eggs or people with white AVI's. I'll tell you what I tell Trump followers asserting similar things: Asserting something doesn't make it true, even if you do it angrily. (Out of curiosity, does it even stack up to the experience of his actual constituents? nope.).

Don't act like he wasn't trying

I don't have to act. We had his whole campaign to watch. It was pretty obvious. And now that its over, the stories from the inside are coming out. Not shocking given how black voters were treated by his campaign, but there are all kinds of tales of supporters of color being ignored, his own press secretary (a black woman hired probably in part to contradict the rumors) being assaulted and turned away at meetings, and just generally treated like they didn't belong. Like the campaign didn't care about them, and didn't want their support. Well, guess what? You don't want it, you didn't get it. #EarnThisDamnVoteOrLose.

My personal favorite came from TWiB (a black-run podcast, that was also acting as the media org behind Netroots Nation). They landed an interview with Sanders during NN16. Nothing weird about that, since he was there, and they were the media org running NN16. They showed up to the interview, and no Sanders. Thought he stood them up. Now that the campaign is over, they were talking with some ex-staffers that were there, and it turned out it wasn't that Sanders stood them up. His own staffers wouldn't let him go. They knew what Bernie was going to say, and knew it would not be taken well at all by TWiB or its audience.

This is precisely what a losing campaign for the Democratic nomination looks like. If you lose POC by double digits, you lose. Take a kewpie doll, and better luck next time.

So what does his own high-level former staff (who know the campaign better than you or I) say happened?

But let me be clear - NO ONE STOLE THIS ELECTION! Team Sanders we did AMAZING WORK. But we lost. It's a hard reality for some

It was a hard reality for me. Because I fought hard. Now, we won some great battles, but the reality is the system didn't cheat us.

Now the contents of the leaked emails show individuals were definitely biased, but 7 folks on an email didn't "steal" the election.

There are other qualms. Other valid arguments, but a stolen election is not one. I worked there. No one stole the election from us

Much as you say, but I note that HRC has invested heavily in something called correct the record.

Looking at their about page, we find this helpful description:

Correct The Record is a strategic research and rapid response team designed to defend Hillary Clinton from baseless attacks.

The news article (first link, above) has some interesting sections, such as:

Citing “lessons learned from online engagement with ‘Bernie Bros,’” a pro-Hillary Clinton Super PAC is pledging to spend $1 million to “push back against” users on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit and Instagram.

Correct the Record’s “Barrier Breakers” project boasts in a press release that it has already “addressed more than 5,000 people that have personally attacked Hillary Clinton on Twitter.” The PAC released this on Thursday.

Some Bernie Sanders-supporting users on Reddit already started to notice the changes on Thursday afternoon.

“This explains why my inbox turned to cancer on Tuesday,” wrote user OKarizee. “Been a member of reddit for almost 4 years and never experienced anything like it. In fact, in all my years on the internet I’ve never experienced anything like it.”

Correct the Record, which has received $5 million this campaign season and has spent almost $4.5 million of it, according to OpenSecrets.org, outlined its strategy against “swarms of anonymous attackers” in a press release.

“While Hillary Clinton fights to break down barriers and bring America together, the Barrier Breakers 2016 digital task force will serve as a resource for supporters looking for positive content and push-back to share with their online progressive communities, as well as thanking prominent supporters and committed superdelegates on social media,” the statement read.

Due to FEC loopholes, the Sunlight Foundation’s Libby Watson found this year that Correct the Record can openly coordinate with Clinton’s campaign, despite rules that typically disallow political campaigns from working directly with PACs.

I suppose it's OK, because HRC only wants to "break down barriers and bring America together", because of course the ends justify any means. Right?

I wonder if any of these commisars^w um... partisans^w um... truth seekers have come to Slashdot?

(Also relevant This XKCD comic.)

Disney's parent owns Vice Media. Domestic propaganda is legal in the USA again. The rich and powerful people are spending time and money manufacturing consent on sites just like this. Meanwhile, the US government is literally sending supplies to ISIS under our noses. I wonder why this piece is coming out of vice right now.

"We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."

- David Rockefeller's[p]urported remarks at a Bilderberg Group meeting in Baden-Baden, Germany in June 1991, The remarks are said to have been printed in several right-wing French publications shortly thereafter; as quoted in Programming, Pitfalls and Puppy-Dog Tales (1993) by Gyeorgos C. Hatonn, p. 65. Skepticism is in order for the accuracy or attribution of alleged remarks from these exclusive meetings, particularly those which could be manifestations of either satire, sarcasm — or outright fraudulence.

Yeah, that's it. Keep telling yourself that Gawker is the victim. Just double-down every time you get called out on your bullshit. If it works for Social Justice, it will work for you. (it doesn't work)

So it is ok to shame people like Hogan and Thiel because they are jerks? Who gets to determine who is a jerk and who is not? The people doing the shaming? Got it.

Then everyone else saw this and did it too.

So, Apple is again leading the pack by showing the world how to screw the nation that allowed it to become so rich.

Sure, it's not illegal, but how does that demonstrate social responsibility? It shows great smarts in maximizing profits (not wrong in the slightest), but it also shows that it's more important to make money at ANY cost in Apple's eyes (as any business does, by its very nature), than to consider how these actions affect our nation.

They are hypocrites to say they are leading the pack in "social responsibility", while posing as the poster child of corporations robbing Uncle Sam, leaving the shrinking middle class paying for a government drowning in debt.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/a...

Jill Stein: WIFI harms our kids(1). Gary Johnson: Jews should be forced to make wedding cakes for Nazi party members by the government(2).
Jill Stein and the green party doesn't believes in a free press, wants flat or negative GDP(3). The GP VP hangs out with holocaust denier and 9/11 truther.(4)
Gary Johnson isn't Libertarian at all.(5)
1) http://gizmodo.com/now-jill-st...
2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
4) http://www.thedailybeast.com/a...
5) http://www.dailywire.com/news/...

Did you even read the article? These guys are trying to punish people who helped crack down on rapists. They're rapist sympathizers, which is quite the opposite of "SJWs".

I read all three articles, and it says nothing of the sort.

You're doing this site a disservice by being so intellectually dishonest.

This is Slashdot. Take your sock-puppetry elsewhere.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/a...

You can also just google "Hillary Clinton correct the record."

You have to admit it's kind of a new beast to have a political candidate paying people to spam and insult voters who disagree with her. You have no idea on reddit if you're talking to someone with a genuine difference of opinion with whom you can try to find common ground, or if it's a political operative paid to make fallacious arguments and shit up the site so honest discussions can't take place.

There is such a thing as statistical power, and Tesla doesn't have it. Also he misrepresented air bag deployments as injuries or deaths. See Autonomous Vehicles Cannot Be Test-Driven Enough Miles to Demonstrate Their Safety; Alternative Testing Methods Needed for a thorough smackdown of all of Tesla's faulty claims. RAND is as authoritative as it gets for industrial research.

Now, before I write the rest of this, let me point out this comment I made earlier. I know full well that people, especially the media, lie about Trump and what he says a lot. They do misrepresent what he says. My dislike of him is - as far as I know - not based on those lies.

Wanting to ban Muslims from entering the country simply on the basis of their religion is pretty awful. That's listed on his website, so I hope you find that an acceptable source. It actually helps ISIS by giving them extra recruiting material - they love seeing blanket anti-Muslim statements, it gets them fighters and support. We can and should reject Islamism, but we should do it without blaming all Muslims, as well as without claiming it has nothing to do with Islam - Maajid Nawaz has an excellent article here.

His stance on NAFTA and free trade in general is not supported by most economists. He has no coherent economic worldview. He, for some reason, thinks a trade deficit is automatically a bad thing (see previous link to his website). On this page he claims he can "Reclaim millions of American jobs and reviving American manufacturing by putting an end to China’s illegal export subsidies and lax labor and environmental standards." How, exactly, he is going to change China's environmental standards is left to the reader. His plan to lower the corporate tax rate to 15% is potentially bad; it depends on how that's implemented.

Not something I find "particularly disagreeable", but merely baffling - "Crime— Homicides last year increased by 17 percent in America’s fifty largest cities. That’s the largest increase in 25 years. More than 2,000 have been shot in Chicago since January of this year alone. Donald Trump is the law and order candidate in this Presidential race." (under Section 5, titled "Other Reforms") - how does he plan on reforming "crime", in general?

And, of course, there's his ridiculous wall idea. Seizing the remittances earned by people working here is very disagreeable to me; that's effectively a large tax on people who are, generally, low income. That combined with the fact that a wall is unlikely to meaningfully impact illegal immigration make it a really bad idea.

Oh, and how could we forget that he wants to kill the families of terrorists. Killing someone just because they're related to someone else is never okay, especially if you intentionally make a policy out of it.

He wants to put ground troops in Syria to fight ISIS. America does not need another ground war, especially one that is so politically risky.

He also pledged to crack down on internet porn. Now,

I don't care if he didn't have access to classified intelligence.

So you care more about the storyline than the facts or accountability?

He supported it in 2003-2005.

And why might that be. You only had both parties and the entire establishment media supporting the invasion - shocking development that most Americans also supported the war, given that they weren't privy to the actual intelligence briefings.

Who was privy? Hillary Rodham Clinton. So, yeah, having access to information the common citizen did not does matter. And of course, Trump's 2003 support for the Iraq War made no difference in the invasion - as opposed to the yea vote from a U.S. Senator. And yeah, if Trump had been the one in office at the time while Hillary was a private citizen, the same rules would apply to Trump in her place.

I mean, I guess it would be nice if we elected a president who opposed the war at the time... but after 8 years of a president like that, would we even care about that issue?

We shouldn't care about the possibility of another warmongering fool getting thousands more Americans killed, and between one and two million people getting killed in more illegal wars?

Also, I have no idea why you think Iraq was anything like Syria or Libya.

How were they not like Iraq? Big Ebul Dictator needs to be overthrown and his country made safe for democracy, because he was abusing his own people, clamped down on civil rights, was a threat to his neighbors, blah blah blah. The fake concern over WMD's was copied straight from the Iraq playbook to Syria. Want to say the lack of boots (special forces use moccasins, not boots) and a long occupation makes those two regional instabilities too different from Iraq? Okay....but you know who really wanted boots on the ground in Syria, right?

HRC.

He's Mussolini with a three-inch dick

These crimes were exposed by someone we don't like so much.

Best that the Hillary Haters (which is a family tradition in some cultures) could come up with is claiming violation of 18 U.S. Code  599.

Being the kind of people who don't need and don't care for actual facts as long as they think they fit their agenda - they are even quoting the wrong section.
18 U.S. Code  599 refers to CANDIDATES - not candidate's staff or candidate's party's staff.

But as they have such a hardon for Hillary, they are desperate to make something supposedly done by DNC automagically mean that it's an excuse for execution of Hillary.

What they SHOULD be quoting is section 600 - 18 U.S. Code  600.

Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

Only problem is... at best, that would get them some people in the DNC that no one has ever heard of - not Hillary.

In reality, IT WOULD NOT GET THEM ANYONE cause it is NOT a crime - emails they are quoting prove so.
Key word is PROMISE. I.e. Give assurance of future events.
"IF you do this for me, I WILL do this for you."

Emails are AT BEST describing the exact opposite of that.
It's people ASKING FOR names of people to put on lists of potential nominees. And even that is not a certain nomination. They are LITERALLY asking for names of people who would they like to be CONSIDERED.

Any folks who you'd like to be considered to be on the board of (for example) USPS, NEA, NEH. Basically anyone who has a niche interest and might like to serve on the board of one of these orgs.

Not making promises. Looking for loyalists who have ALREADY pledged their loyalty.
"You DID stuff for me, MAYBE you'll be considered."
That's NOT a promise. At best it is compensation for past service... maybe...
And you can't legislate against that cause then the government would have to fire every government employee and dismantle every government program with every election.
Cause the fact that the candidate would be signing budgets, which pay for paychecks, of cops and judges, who have maintained law and order during candidate's past life - could be construed as compensation for past services.

And in the end, they are not even asking people directly - THEY ARE ASKING FOR RECOMMENDATIONS FROM OTHER PEOPLE!
They are asking for references for possible consideration.
So not only is it not a promise - it is not even a promise of a promise.
Casinos and lotteries make more direct promises than that.

But hey... screw that. Did you know that Hillary has a

"For every celebrity Bernie Sanders supporter there’s a proudly Republican Adam Sandler, and for every heart-flutteringly queer Freeheld there’s a jingoistic, pro-War on Terror action thriller (think The Dark Knight and American Sniper)."

http://www.alternet.org/story/153041/why_'liberal_hollywood'_is_a_myth
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/01/hollywoods-real-bias-is-conservative-but-not-in-the-way-liberals-often-say/266960/

The Washington Post and Buzzfeed have sent robots to cover the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio.

You can hardly blame someone for not wanting to be in that group. The last time there were that many white people in one place, crosses got burned.

Although, I'm sure many of the journalists will regret not being there to see Chachi's big speech.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/a...

Also, Melanomia is scheduled to speak tonight. You never know, she might just revert to type and show her pootenanny.

The mass crushes beneath it everything that is different, everything that is excellent, individual, qualified and select. Anybody who is not like everybody, who does not think like everybody, runs the risk of being eliminated.

The Smartest Book About Our Digital Age Was Published in 1929

. First cops have the us versus them mentality

I wonder why.

Because police academies teach that there is a war on cops, when the opposite is true; police are the front-line warriors in the corporatocracy's (you can just read "oligarchy's" here, if that word offends you) war on The People, and most of them don't even know it.

If you want to argue the efficacy of the War on Drugs by all means I will probably agree with you. However, you said it best "front-line warriors". The police are the front-line of tyranny, emergency response, and everything in between. That means they occupy the extremes of "the boot on your face" to "the face who saved your life by risking their own life". That "war on us" mentality cuts both ways. There is a huge culture of distrust around the police with the "why you snitchin" attitude in poor communities. Don't shovel all of the blame on one side when there is shit on both sides.

And what I want is for them not to be responsible for situations

Right, up until "What have the police done to prevent the travesty?" we keep hearing from various segments of society. So, if a man brandishes a weapon outside of your business and you call the police, what you are saying is that you do not want them to gain control of the situation to assess what the problem may or may not be? You want them to arrive with teddy bears and blankets with warm milk so everyone can have a nap and get along?

A cop shouldn't get out of being judged by a jury; they shouldn't just have a right to a jury trial, they should have to have one. They are supposed to be beholden to their community, and if they aren't, then what good are they?

They are a citizen with rights just like you. They and you can waive rights. They choose a dispassionate judge over the hyper-emotionally charged mob. I am glad your opinion on the law doesn't matter because your ideas of how the law should be is scary. i.e. Rights apply to everyone except this group of people. They have different rights because reasons.

. First cops have the us versus them mentality

I wonder why.

Because police academies teach that there is a war on cops, when the opposite is true; police are the front-line warriors in the corporatocracy's (you can just read "oligarchy's" here, if that word offends you) war on The People, and most of them don't even know it.

Second cops are taught to maintain control of the situation to matter what.

Must be that whole law and order thing, huh? Would you really want law enforcement not be able to maintain control of a situation they are responsible for?

Ironically, you said it yourself: a situation they are responsible for. And what I want is for them not to be responsible for situations. I don't want them creating situations. I want them defusing them. Now, we all know the danger of treating anecdotes like data, but I'm pretty damned white (until you get my ID in hand, anyway) and I personally have seen the cops misbehave as least as much as do anything useful. My first cop interaction was getting pulled over for nothing on Mission St. in Santa Cruz at 2am, not being able to see any alleged lights from their cruiser due to the streetlights and traffic lights in that area, and having two guns with fingers on triggers pointed at my face as soon as I got the window down — which is completely unacceptable behavior in literally every way. If they felt unsafe, procedure is to radio for another cruiser before pulling me over, not threatening my life with shit trigger and muzzle discipline. I've been pulled over for not having a bumper when I (temporarily) had no bumper cover, been pulled over for not stopping at a stop sign before which I clearly came to a full and deliberate stop, blah blah blah. The primary purpose of the cops is to harass and intimidate. The second purpose is to generate revenue. Maintaining public safety can't be higher than third.

So, you mean to tell me that a cop, much like the tax collector who is disliked by most, wouldn't want to be judged by a random bunch of emotionally driven citizens? Color me surprised.

A cop shouldn't get out of being judged by a jury; they shouldn't just have a right to a jury trial, they should have to have one. They are supposed to be beholden to their community, and if they aren't, then what good are they?

Maybe but at this point in time I don't know if it really matters anymore. Either we will do a constitutional convention and address the issues in some manner or ultimately I think we will see a civil war of some sorts in our lifetime.

I don't think so. Look at the Donald Trump rallies. Those are not people who are in any way prepared for the actuality of civil war.

We may see a further rise in militias and ethno-nationalism, but law enforcement can mop them up pretty easily (see "Bundy Ranch" and its offshoots). NRA activists who are actually prepared to use their weapons against other citizens are a tiny minority. Like this lady from a few days ago:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/a...

Maybe you should give up on your delusion, and listen to experts. Your interpretation was invented by the NRA. NRA are fascists, not people.

Using the no-fly list to keep bad guys from guns is a terrible idea, here is why:

• 1. The government can place anyone on the no-fly list for any reason at any time. They could easily just place everyone on the no-fly list banning everyone from buying/owning guns. Only the bad guys will have guns.
• 2. You say that won't happen? Innocent people are placed on that list all the time, and you cannot be removed:
  1. Woman on no-fly list.
  2. 8 year old American on no-fly list.
  3. 6 year old Canadian on no-fly list.
  4. Others including Cat Stevens and Senator Kennedy.
• 3. I could be placed on the no-fly list for writting this, chilling free speech. You could be placed on it for having read it. Don't believe me?
  1. Reporter writing a story about Homeland Security has home raided by the Coast Guard, seizing guns and her research/work at 4:30AM in body armor, weapons drawn.
  2. CIA uses 3 degrees of separation when spying on terror suspects.
• 4. What exactly is the no-fly list for? To keep foreign bad guys out of the country, or to keep bad guys from blowing up planes? What does either of those things have anything to do with gun control? It is already against the law for non-resident aliens to possess firearms and ammunition. What does blowing up a plane have anything to do with guns? So the only reason to use the no-fly list as a means for gun control would be to keep American citizens from possessing.

  None of the shooters in any of the mass shootings were on the no-fly list.

It's just a bad idea that can and will be abused to keep law abiding citizens from possessing guns, which the federal government has no legal power to do.

If you actually want to solve the mass shooting problem, and not just use fear to remove freedoms from individuals with thunderous applause, this is what I propose:

Let guns be in schools. As part of P.E. or even on its own, students will be in a firearm safety course. They will be target practicing. They will be tearing their guns down. They will be cleaning their firearms. They will be using hand guns, and rifles, and shotguns, etc. They will be taught that they are tools just like the circular saw or the welder in shop class, or knives and scissors in art class and home economics. They will take this class every year they are old enough to hold a weapon safely.

Just like at 16, when they are given a license to operate a tool that "kills" on average 3,287 people per day, at 18 they will take a test and if passed they will get a concealed carry license issued by their state of residence. The CCL will be valid in every state and territory of this nation. All of our children will be taught to not fear guns, and if they so chose they will be armed. That way the next time someone decides to bring a semi auto rifle to a night club to kill innocent people, that person would potentially be staring down a hundred barrels of trained good guys.

There will be no fear for the government to use to tighten gun control. People will not fear guns and will know how to use them. There will not be a gun control problem. Who knows, if everyone is armed, perhaps people may be more respectful to each other.

Wow. It appears that she really is Bill and Hillary's daughter.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/13/inside-the-slimy-world-of-chelsea-clinton-conspiracy-theories.html

> Ignore the fact that there are Muslim nations that execute homosexuals.

And there are even more muslim nations that don't execute homosexuals. Meanwhile american evangelicals keep trying to push uganda into executing homosexuals.

It's a darn awful shame I never reveal my full hand when discussing thing such as these, it makes it far more fun later when the less informed opt to challenge me.

She often used the phone.

Phones, plural... and the iPad.

Anyhow, until somebody finds direct evidence of deletion, it's hearsay. Gaps are only curiosities, NOT direct evidence. You don't seem to know the diff.

It is acknowledged, a block of ~31,000 emails which Hillary directed to be deleted which she deemed as 'personal'. It is also acknowledged that she turned over some 55,000 pages of emails were turned over in printed form which were deemed 'work related'.

Even if we ignore the multiple demonstrably false statement she has made with regards to her server usage (most of which you ignored out right, and one you were wrong on (more on that later))... we need to trust that she was honest and turned over all work related emails.

Did she?

Reports say no:

http://www.politico.com/story/...

http://www.theguardian.com/us-...

At the very least, that's perjury given she certified that she had turned over everything... worse if the FBI's recovery attempts turn up additional work related emails which she failed to turn over... something you or I don't have access to, but that available info is supportive of and you have federal felony charges under the Federal Records Act.

Are you that confident in your use of the delete key? I'm not when 10 years per document is the potential result.

There's been no direct evidence that her server was actually hacked during her tenure. Sorta kinda looked like is still sorta kinda. (Could have simply been a DOS or mass spam attack, based on some of the symptoms I've read about.)

Knowing for 100% sure that they were successfully hacked is not a requirement, only that it *may* have happened. Given the emails reported by the IG, again we see Clinton and her team were negligent with regards to not reporting the potential incident.

Re satellite photos, the articles from reliable sources merely say that information "obtained FROM satellite photos may have made it's way" into her emails. It's indirect and speculative.

Reliable sources not cited... seems to be a trend with you.

How much does being a Clinton shill pay? Because if you actually read up on the subject you'd know this was false, even a year ago.

Most seriously, the inspector general assessed that Clinton’s emails included information that was highly classified—yet mislabeled as unclassified. Worse, the information in question should have been classified up to the level of “TOP SECRET//SI//TK//NOFORN,” according to the inspector general’s report.

And that's just an early version of the report. Again, clearly you haven't read this weeks.

I guess I don't have common sense then.

Clearly not, you read as if you've spend quite a bit of time as an unsuccessful defense attorney, ie "isn't it perfectly PLAUSIBLE that my client was on the planet Mars at the time of the shooting?".

I've read her explanation of the "remove headers" event several times and it's a perfectly PLAUSIBLE explanation. We in the public don't have the actual "results" of that changed version yet, so I will give her the benefit of the doubt until it's directly proven she did someth

God I love left wing projection, it must be nice being able to blame all of your problems on the other side without a moment of self reflection or awareness.

The usual right wing lies

A lie requires me to know that what I am saying is false... care to support that claim?

No? You lament a lack of facts from me (despite me highlighting just one law she can be convicted under)... but offer nothing yourself... this is my shocked face: :|

no proof of course

If you bothered to pay attention to the available facts and use your brain (I'm sure you have one, it's just atrophied a bit from lack of use), allow me to educate you:

1) True or false: Hillary is known to have had at least one spy satellite photo on her server which should have been labeled "TOP SECRET//SI//TK//NOFORN", a image which did not originate with the State Department so the original classification would apply.

2) True or false: Hillary's private email server was authorized by the State Department or another federal agency to store classified information.

3) True or false: Hillary is known to have been briefed on her requirements to properly handle classified information and signed a document confirming her acceptance of policies, including criminal penalties for violations.

Answer Key:
1) True: http://www.thedailybeast.com/a...
2) False: https://www.washingtonpost.com...
3) True: http://freebeacon.com/politics...

Given the law I cited above doesn't require 'malice' or 'intent', but simply 'gross negligence', it's not at all a stretch to suggest that Hillary was negligent with the setting up of her server that any reasonable person would expect would see classified information traverse it... and given the fact the server was not a 'proper place of custody'... per instance of classified information on her server, she could be looking at a penalty of "Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

How much does being a Hillary shill pay? I'm looking for a side job, and unlike you morons, I actually have a grasp of facts.

Looks like Hillary's paid internet trolls are still at it.

They're not even remotely US backed militarily

Yes, they are: http://www.thedailybeast.com/a...

Not to mention that the so called "maidan revolution" was planned and financed by the US itself:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/n...

And the result was roughly the same as the US in Afghanistan and Syria: utter military humiliation. Plus a sovereign default and a massive recession. A gorgeous welcome to the "free world".

Surely Donbass people were helped by Russia, I don't deny that. I guess they simply chose better friends.