Slashdot Mirror
Hillary Clinton Declares 2016 Democratic Presidential Bid
An anonymous reader writes In a move that surprised no one, Hillary Clinton has officially announced she is entering the 2016 race for the White House. According to the Times: "Ending two years of speculation and coy denials, Hillary Rodham Clinton announced on Sunday that she would seek the presidency for a second time, immediately establishing herself as the likely 2016 Democratic nominee. 'I'm running for president,' she said with a smile near the end of a two-minute video released just after 3 p.m. 'Everyday Americans need a champion. And I want to be that champion,' Mrs. Clinton said. 'So I'm hitting the road to earn your vote — because it's your time. And I hope you'll join me on this journey.'"
"Fuck tech news, post everything that could generate clicks!"
FUCK YOU, DICE.
Please don't vote for Hillary just because she is a woman. We can't continue the oligarchy that is the US government leadership.
Not sure where to go with this. I truly doubt I'll want the Republican candidate, but I don't particularly want Hilliary for President either. That doesn't leave much other choice. You heard me Libertarians/Greens/RonPaulFans
Geez, even NIXON didn't burn his tapes when caught doing something illegal.
How about all them deleted emails?
Benghazi?
Monica Lewinsky?
Vote for grandma!
Hillary White Power Clinton
Indeed, a pattern has emerged some time ago. Boy, did we dodge a bullet.
âoe[W]orking, hard-working Americans, white Americansâ. She really said that. Wow.
Congratulations, Hillary Clinton, you win the prize for the first Democratic Bigot Eruption since Iâ(TM)ve been keeping track of this. Even professional haters like Pat Buchanan and his ilk arenâ(TM)t so balls-out about racism.
towards foreign countries, and she is willing to drive an aggressive foreign policy. This is what the people at the top of gov. wants, and with talk of champions and the future of the glorious nation which hits the sweet-spot of the average ignorant American, it is very likely that Hillary Clinton will be the puppet in office for the next 8 years.
If it ends up being Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush, I will conclude it is time to flee the U.S. for a free country. Unfortunately I don't know of any countries out there that are both free enough to go to and yet stupid enough to let Americans in.
Oh well. There is always the safety of the grave to look forward to.
BENGHAZI!!!111!11! !1!!1!!11 11!!1!111 1!!11 !1!!1!!11 !1!!1!!11 !1!!1!!11 11!!1!111 !! !1!!1!!11 !1!!1!!11 !1!!1!!11 1 11!!!!1!! 11!!1!111 !1!!1!!11 !1!!1!!11
(A little bit of drool drips out of mouth)
(Gets modded +5, Insightful by other droolers)
Is this even news at all? I mean there is no chance she was not going to run. She has been in the running for 2016 since the lost the 2008 primary.
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXdNYXMQoy8
Hillary is pretty much poison to any Republican candidate. They already can hardly go 5 minutes without putting their foot in their mouths about women, immigrants or God. Sometimes all three. Hillary will bludgeon ever male candidate with her vagina until they just can't help to say "rape babies are God's punishment for Mexicans," or dumb[-ass shit like that. Admit it, that would not sound the least bit out of place coming out of the mouth of any likely Republican candidate. The only chance the Republicans have would be to nominate a female candidate who's not Carly Fiorina or Sarah Palin. Condoleezza Rice would be a good option and also the only other female Republican I can think of off the top of my head. I see some of you starting to point at some members of the Fox news team, but those are actually animatronic characters that get shut down and put back in the closet at the end of their daily news cycle.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
After almost 7 years of implications that I'm racist when I disagree with the surveillance and foreign policies of the current administration, I can look forward to now being called a sexist instead!
Free at last!
I didn't trust Mr. or Mrs. Clinton in the 1990s. I don't see why we should trust them any more now.
What's the betting that she's running so that she can suck off some young male intern in the oval office and say "Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander Bill"?
Please don't tell me a politician is America's champion... ever.
So congress wanted the emails, but "oops, we wiped them." Not a champion move.
We already dealt with one Clinton, it ended in White House oral and impeachment. Honestly though, I don't think we should allow family members of previous presidents to become president themselves. That means Jeb Bush too.
Buck Feta. You know what to do.
I'm seriously thinking of writing in a vote for Heinz Doofenshmirtz for president.
That's really all I have to say... At the hands of Bill Clinton more American jobs were single-handedly destroyed in one swipe of the pen than at any other point in history. If you think Hillary had no part of that you be crazy -- I am sure Hillary was part of that decision. Hillary is going to try to get Obama to set up a deal with Cuba to get the same arrangement probably which after all the hemming and hawing will probably actually be signed in when she gets a chance to be in office. This administration has been one of the most corrupt and dishonest I've seen in years... I've never seen a group of people be so crass about it that like they're practically flaunting it. Screw these people... vote ANYTHING but Hillary... even the worst Republican is probably better for the USA as a whole than her.
Much though I enjoy the multi-hundred-comment threads where we all scream at each other about politics, why is this here?
How is this 'news for nerds'? I mean, even the summary has given up on trying to even mention technology/nerdy stuff.
Hillary does have presidential ambitions, yes. There is a good chance that 8 years older, less attractive, bruised by most recent fuckups such as BenGhazi, Email and her recently exposed Bosnia sniper fire falsification, will lose to younger W. Warren.
From Republican side Rand Paul, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz will be rolled out. There is a chance that Rand Paul and Ted Cruz will be on one ticket.
I wish there was a third choice...
Whatever one party comes out with, the other party has to approximately match. Think of it as weight class in sports. That keeps it at least mildly competitive. Hillary has a lot of baggage so the Republicans now must choose someone in the same weight class, which means a candidate as detestable as Hillary. Then the public can complain about how bad the candidates are but at least there candidate is not as bad as the other.
Personally I'm hoping that we see Bush III vs Clinton II, only so the public can see how silly and corrupt the whole thing is.
Vote third party or don't bother.
All hail our next President. The Republicans will nominate someone who will look like Satan biting the heads off of babies and drinking their blood compared to Hillary.
So Hillary will be our next president. And because Manning embarrassed her with the leak, she's going to clamp down on what little freedoms we have left. She's going to make Obama look like he's been a huge support of freedom of expression and freedom of the press.
Maybe after 8 years of Hillary, we'll get someone who actually thinks our basic freedoms are a good idea.
I'll vote for a third party candidate as a protest. If enough people join me, maybe someone will notice.
There goes the neighborhood!
Nerds care about politics too...
I'm Liberal. I want clean government, an end to shitty subsidies, no corruption, representatives that actually represent me, equality and justice for all... All the usual.
I can't stand Hillary. I actually turned myself into a Democrat (You can easily switch parties in Oregon. There's a website. it takes just a few moments.) so I could vote AGAINST Hillary in the primary. I think she's a giant tool, and a bit of a war monger. I think she'll be the same bank and war friendly President that we got out of Clinton, Bush, Bush, Obama, and Obama. She's not a progressive. She doesn't care about the little guy. She's a career politician.
If Warren won't run, I'll vote for Bernie Sanders, the only Independant in Congress.
To end this, I would say to you all that our country is having some problems and it's OUR fault. Large swaths of the US citizenry are political morons who vote for hot button issues (And really, when did the R's ever get rid of abortion? When did the D's ever really help the poor? They just SAY that shit, they don't mean it.) or for the "character" of a candidate. Voter turnout is really low, making it possible for candidates to play to the base instead of playing to the swing voter.... Don't blame Washington. Blame yourself. And don't give me that "I don't vote so it's not my fault" B.S. You give them your taxes and then don't hold them responsible for what they do with them. Those people make me sick....
If you one hasn't done anything significant, they don't have any decisions or records to criticize. Humans make mistakes, and those with experience will have a history of mistakes just by being human.
You can do 999 things right and 1 wrong, and the news & opponents obsess on that one wrong one, just as you don't hear about all the planes that land safely.
Warren hasn't been through the grinder of real experience and hounding critics. The Middle East is a tough, chaotic place to work with, and experience there shouldn't be dismissed.
Table-ized A.I.
Seems like Slashdot is loosing it since a while ago...
8 years ago we had Barack Obama come up to stop her, for whatever he has or has not been worth. But so far it doesn't seem like there's a Barack Obama around to take the Democratic nomination. The Republican nomination will go as the previous two elections, to some insane gun toting neo fascist asshole whose only lines are "Whatever the Democrats say is wrong." At this point if the Democratic party said the sky was blue during the day the Republican party would argue it was bright pink. Not that the Democratic party is any better a lot of the time, but at least they aren't shouting about how the immigrant gays will kill us all with abortions.
So we in the US get to choose between two people any reasonably intelligent and informed person wouldn't want, because our democratic process is controlled by campaign funding and gerrymandering and hardcore idiots that need pandering to. It's not even representative of the US population in general anymore, but consists of a twisted, self serving "party" autocracy that keeps itself in power indefinitely. If you don't believe me then ask yourself why a neofascist xenophobic party is in charge of most of the US government when the majority of the population somehow supports immigration reform, gay marriage, and believes in climate change; the opposite talking points of the majority of US government representatives.
Not a fan, personally, but it's likely going to be better than whichever whackjob the Republicans manage to dredge up.
It is a well-known fact that Hillary Clinton is a disabled person. She suffered massive brain damage in an aircraft crash-landing in Dec 2012. Her bodyguard Navy SEALS Commander Job W. Price also died in that incident, when their small turboprop Beechcraft plane entered a weather microburst, while trying to land at Ahvaz, Iran for secret talks concerning Ahmadinejad's contested nuclear programme.
She survived only because Iran has developed special field treatment regimes for severe head injuries during their war with Saddam's Iraq. It's not high tech but they simply do it differently, because there were an exessive number of head injuries in that conflict (also known as the "Little WW1" due to use of trench warfare, poison gas and amassed infantry line attacks.)
Anyhow, if Mr. McCain could not become president, despite being an experienced politician who is going strong, just because his war injuries prevent him from raising an arm over the head, how could Ms. Clinton become president, with significant motor problems and large parts of her brain destroyed by blod cots? She could be confined to wheelchair any day or lose memory.
There should be an independent and strict medical test for POTUS candidates, including physical fitness, mental stability and IQ/EQ measurements. That's because the White House must not become a reboot of the late-era soviet Kremlin, where top leaders were chosen straight from the Intensive Care Unit! (*)
(*) Most literally, as Brezhnev was very ill and demented fom the mid-1970s, while his heirs Andropov and Chernenko were already dependent on various life support machinery when elected to be "General Secretary of USSR" and barely survived a year. It is also little known fact that their heir Gorbachev has a serious case of diabetes since teenage years. He cannot eat usual bread or alcoholize any on risk of near instant death, that's how he become the "Mineralni (Water) Secretar" and got the irrealistic idea of banning vodka among the constantly drunk russian nation, thus leading to the downfall of USSR in just 3 years.
same as the old boss
We Americans will get the government we deserve, once again. I'm too jaded to be disappointed.
there are 3 kinds of people:
* those who can count
* those who can't
It reads: Run Hillary Run!
You put it on the front of your car.
He declared last week, and wasn't on the front page. Why not? I'm guessing it's because Paul is a favorite object of man-love here on slashdot while Hillary is a favorite punching bag. You don't get many readers in to a celebration, but you get plenty of them for a pseudo lynching.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Just...go away.
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
Based on the "choices" we've had over the lasts several decades, I've concluded that the whole thing is rigged just like professional wrestling, and it deserves no more of my attention that that does. Nothing else can explain the farce that's been going on when it comes to the people who are chosen to lead this country.
There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
Wat
Or another Bush. We founded this nation to get ourselves out from the rule of royal families. Of all the people that the Democrats could come up with they put her forward.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
She already lost multiple times. Her last campaign irresponsibly ran millions of dollars into a deficit, which is precisely how people fear Democrats will run the country. She's incredibly fake all the time despite actual, legitimate political experience. Then there's the secret private illegal e-mail server that she lied about and then possibly erased. She has a 0% chance of winning.
America see past your own borders please,,, there is CNN and FOX for this drivel.
Frankly nobody really gives a fuck who is the next US president - same shit, different face..
Now, if there is some interesting tech news, lets be hearing it! HOI!
I'm somewhat skeptical of the whole corrupt system, all the way through, but all the muck brought up on Clintonia is NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING compared to the death, destruction, global disruption actions of the war criminals Dubyah and Dick
Please have respect for people with different abilities, especially children.
Then we can see who the real cross dressing Ralph Nader is
Hillary is full of crap just like Obunghole. Corrupt as Nixon and he only had 18 minutes of tapes "missing".... Hildabeast erased a whole server and where is the media? Did you know she got the boot from the watergate investigation for lying to a judge? Didn't know that... She's too much of what everyone hates about Washington DC... if you want more freedom lost, vote for hillary. If you want to return to freedom, vote Rand or Ted or ABH-Anybody But Hillary!
they bring up Benghazi, a non story (1)
there are some minor scandals, like travelgate (2)
there are some deranged fantasy arguments like vince foster suicide (3)
that all you got ?
maybe she has some small skeletons, but you compare her to the crazys (T Cruz , R Paul) the right wing guys who want us all to be underpaid slaves (S Walker) the retread of the past (J Bush)...HIllary stands head and shoulders over these midgets
1) the republicans in congress *created their own committee* which they *ran* ....zilch
and the committee investigated and found
2) ok, innuendo aside, someone fired a few timeservers in the whitehouse. Bush started a war for no reason that killed 4,000 americans, cost well north of a trillion, and destabilized the mideast...
3) If you think this is an issue, I have a special white jacket for you
I thought this was a tech site, not "The Huffington Post"
The Economist speaks of her candidacy very much in terms of inevitability.
I don't believe they understand how deeply this woman is disliked in the U.S. I'm not taking about policy or history, I'm talking about on a personal level. Her first act as a political climber was working on the Watergate case, from which she was dismissed without a recommendation letter...the fellow later said she wasn't so bad, coincidentally with her husband's presidency of course...
-Styopa
Do we really want another Richard Nixon in drag? Please name me one success story Hillary has accomplished in her political life? Do she do anything well as Senator or as Secretary of State? Do we want more secretive and cloud transparency? You want to elect a typically shyster of a politician. That would be a Clinton.
No doubt let's get a Woman in there, just not Hillary.
we needed universal health care to go with the free trade but DUE to the GOP all we got was the ACA out side of some people useing the jail / prison for it.
And now with automation on it's way things can get very bad.
Don't blame Washington. Blame yourself.
I firmly believe that if Americans want their government to change, they first need to change themselves.
You know that this period of the US will read about in history books as such an obvious time of corruption. The occurrence of dynasties is not a good sign of a healthy democratic republic. Save the last two terms, there has been a Bush or a Clinton as President since 1989. Counting VP, they've occupied those two offices since 1981. If you start to count Secretary of State and such, these two families have held top offices continuously for nearly 35 years. And the next race may well be a Bush vs a Clinton, again.
Of the more than 100 million eligible citizens in the US, is the best candidate for President another Bush or Clinton? Really???
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
Unlike Benghazi, nobody was killed because of the Watergate scandal.
Hillary's email scandal is much worse than Nixon's Watergate cover-up.
Whereas Nixon was forced to resign in disgrace, Democrats are swooning over a candidate who make Nixon look like a boy scout.
In 2012, there were a variety of skilled candidates, each representing a different segment of the Republican Party.
Mitt Romney - the centrist from Wall Street
Ron Paul - the pacifist libertarian
Newt Gingrich - the experienced technocrat
Rick Santorum - the grass roots evangelical
Herman Cain - the individual who worked his way up in business (albeit a low skill industry)
I don't think 2016 will be as good. Hillary is probably going to be the next president.
Oh well, Newt Gingrich had a plan for NASA, Ted Cruz doesn't.
Always has been, she has made that very clear, many time.
So now it's tech. Everybody happy?
at the risk of being labelled troll or of-topic, but she is fucking old. If there is a rule to not let a person be president before 35 years of age, why there is no rule for upper age limit?
Where's your coverage of Ted Cruz, or anyone else for that matter? The only thing you posted on him is that he's scientific poison. Not to be a conspiracy theorist here, but if you're going to be all left wings cnts, then there's no point to you.
I think that having a black president (depending on your definition of "black", because Obama is more like Colin Powell or Laurence Fishburne than Jesse Jackson or Dave Chappelle) has done a lot of good for racism in the US. Many people think that Obama hasn't been an awesome president, but they don't blame it in his being black.
Having a woman president should help with sexism as well. And although I'm sure I don't agree with all of her policies, Hillary Clinton an accomplished and proven competent politician. Unlike some horrible embarrassments (e.g. Sarah Palin), Hillary Clinton is smart and won't fuck things up in a way that people will blame on her being female. And if she does well, only total fuckwads will say it's because she's a lesbian or something.
It'll take a bit longer, but it'll be good when we finally elect an openly homosexual president. It'll mean the US has finally grown up and gotten past these stupid prejudices that have held the human race back for thousands of years.
People hate her because she is the wrong gender. Considering IT's views on women the this on this site is not surprising. Sad, but the internet has not created a better world. We should just ditch it and get back to face-to-face interaction.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
I'm somewhat skeptical of the whole corrupt system, all the way through, but all the muck brought up on Clintonia is NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING compared to the death, destruction, global disruption actions of the war criminals Dubyah and Dick
So?
Lets say that we all agree with you... then what? Vote in Clinton because... of what Bush did?
Two wrongs make a right?
How about we get someone fresh and new in who hasn't been in Washington for 30 years?
No, we got what we got due to Obama. He was still touting the public option even after he made a back room deal with the insurance lobby to implement Nixon's health care plan:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
But SHE would be WAY worse! No more Bush's, no more Clinton's! Term limits on all federal politicians, judges...no more terms for life!
NOWHERE in the articles of impeachment did the GOP write "eeeeew, he had icky sex". The ONLY reason Clinton's political problems involved sex was that the Democrat political strategists and the Democrats in the press WANTED that as a political tactic. The Clintons and their hard-core supporters knew he was in real trouble if the serious accusations stuck, but they also knew that American people sould sour on a prosecution over censensual sex... so they started to argue loudly and in all forums that it was all about sex. Here's why:
Bill Clinton got electoral support from women, in part, by signing a bill into law that said that if a woman accused a man of sexual harrassment, she could drag him into court and ask him about his entire sexual history UNDER OATH in order to expose any pattern of behaviour (this increasing the likelihood of a guilty verdict). Any average Joe, so accused, would be prosecuted and jailed UNDER BILL CLINTON's LAW if he lied about his sexual history to try to win his case. Unfortunately for Mr Clinton (and his wife, the current candidate who helped run his "bimbo eruption squad" (the name the Democraats gave the outfir that trashed any of his conquests who did not go away quietly)) there was a woman named Paula Jones who sued Mr Clinton for sexual harassment and used his own law against him. When Mr Clinton, the man running the executive branch of government (therefore the chief law enforcer of the nation), got dragged into court and asked those new questions about his sexual history, he lied. Under Oath. By his own law, he shoud have gone to prison for perjury. He was NOT prosecuted, not impeached, nor eventually stripped of his law license "for sex".
As your your other mindless idiotic rantings, apparently you have no problem with the idea that Hillary falsely accused a little-known video maker who uploaded a video to YouTube of inciting crazy Muslims in a faraway nation and vowed to jail him for it (while violating federal records laws and destroying her emails so the public will never know what went on "behind the scenes") .... and then he was rounded up and thrown into prison for over a year. I hope YOU never upload a video to YouTube that Hillary can find a way to blame for something somebosy else did (or, actually, on second though.... go ahead...)
If Dick Cheney had done ANY of the above, you'd be spitting his name out as you called for his imprisonment..... but you are probably just dishonest (about what you claim is "right" and "wrong") and hyporcritical enough to vote for her.
I seem to remember that particular fiasco got swept under. Perhaps that deserves new scrutiny in light of current events. Or does she plan her constant refrain to be "I had no idea what was going on".
Given that most of the people involved are safely retired by now, I think some very interesting information may come to light. Don't you?
Nothing came of all the Benghazi investigations, and most of the others. Innocent until proven guilty. And the laws about email at the time were vague. Yes, what she did is a bad practice, but many other politicians made the same error in judgement.
Table-ized A.I.
Why would anyone vote for the democrat or republican candidates? You can't possibly believe that either candidate has any concept of what your life or concerns are like. These candidates are funded by private industry and will act on values they are directed to act on, after they are elected. Their campaign platforms mean nothing. Just like Obama, just like Bush, just like Clinton, on and on. The data is no longer hidden. Step 1. Pander to the public for votes. Step 2. Ignore the public after that with periodic press releases telling the vocal majority, what they want to hear. Step 3. The media supports these half-truths. Step 4. Repeat. This corruption is ingrained all the way to the state level in most of the US of A (Maryland is not too bad, iirc). The federal government, alone, is attacking freedoms DAILY in a myriad of ways. You think Net Neutrality was won? Hah. You think either party is interested in progressive taxation? Hah. What about that section 702 of the Patriot Act? How many cycles before these issues are quietly readdressed? At some point, you need to decide if you have a responsibility to protect your own self-interests. Even if this means something as appalling as choosing a different box.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
Hillary's 2008 campaign is the group that STARTED the "birther" thing! When SOME on the right heard about it and looked into it, they were stunned that Obama spent a pile of money on lawyers making sure nobody could SEE his birth certificate (unlike ALL previous presidents) and as a result they became suspicious that he was hiding it and team Hillary might be right about him being foreign-born. Look it up!
It was actually a stroke of Genius that Obama embraced the suspicions of SOME on the right and continued to hide his birth certificate, just as HE feeds the Muslim theories. His embrace of these two things allowed him and his supporters to paint his opponents as nutty "birthers" and his friends in the press to amplify that message with their megaphones. When the tactic was wearing out, he released a cheesy obvious CG "birth certificate" (and NO I am NOT a birther, nor do I think he lacks an actual paper US certificate) to simultaneously re-ignite the birthers and help his press friends make them look even sillier.
Had Obama genuinely wanted the "birther" thing to go away, he would only have had to go into the press room at ANY point, invite the gathered journalists to step to the podium and inspect and photograph the actual paper document, and wait a day for the whole thing to die. Instead, he embraced the accusation and used it to belittle anybody who opposed any of his potitions and then, after years, he released a low-res electronic doc that could easily have been a photoshop or desktop-published thing. Again, this was an un-necessary FUELLING of the birther thing by a man who has lived on making fun of it.
As for the Muslim thing:
1. His father and step-father were both Muslims, which by some interpretaions of Islam makes him Muslim (don't get mad at ME, I personally think he's an atheist, but many Muslims see it this way)
2. He regularly insults Christians while praising Muslims and Islam.
3. He has behaved towards Israel and its leader in ways most Christians are used to seing Muslims act but have never seen a Christian act.
4. He regularly mis-quotes Christian scriptures, while regularly quoting Muslim texts properly (and according to some Muslims, with excellent pronunciation)
5. He has said the most beautiful sound he ever heard was the Muslim "call to prayer"; this is something NO actual Christian would be likely to say given that it would be (to a serious Chrisitan) a call to reject Christianity, and thus COULD NOT BE a beutiful thing.
6. He has enthusiastically celebrated Muslim holy days at the White House, while ignoring Chrsitian ones his predecessors usually celebrated.
The above actions are ALL Obama's actions rather than the actions of his opponents, and are just part of why so many are so suspicious that he MIGHT be a Muslim. If you want to be upset that people are suspicious, then you are only upset that they are being logical, OR upset that he is giving them all these (and more) reasons to be suspicious.
Many people think that Obama hasn't been an awesome president, but they don't blame it in his being black.
In a certain sense, I do. He assumes that because he's black he couldn't possibly be involved in any persecution or discrimination and that he's automatically a champion of the poor and downtrodden. If a white president had wanted to don the mantle of tolerance or compassion, he would have had to work for it - to actually do something to earn it. But Obama seems to assume that he can do nothing and still get credit for great accomplishment. Obama's treatment of foreigners has been horrific and he has been impotent at best with regard to poverty. The fact that he's black has caused him to waste his presidency in complacence and indifference.
...Hillary Clinton an accomplished and proven competent politician.
If there was ever a politician that represented the interests of the emerging hereditary ruling class in the USA, it would be Hillary. She and her supporters will assume that simply because she is a woman she is a compassionate champion of the poor and the oppressed. But she isn't. There was a time in the USA when even people who were a bit below average could still have secure comfortable lives. I've got an aunt and uncle who are nearing retirement. Neither of them got a college degree but they were able to afford a nice house and new cars every few years. But that American dream is slipping away - and Hillary will make it slip away even faster. Expect a world under Hillary where unless you are born into wealth or are a workaholic super-genius then your life is going to be a desperate struggle to afford even the basic necessities of life - but where those who are born into wealth live out lives of extreme frivolous luxury.
If you upload videos to YouTube, she could throw you in jail for many months without charges (google: Benghazi filmmaker).
If you like high-tech transfers to other countries, you could be in luck (google: China campaign contributions hughes loral icbm)
If you like US high-tech jobs exported as a geopolitical exercise, Clinton is your candidate (google: Clinton ISS RD-180 Atlas III)
If you like that "giant sucking sound" of jobs leaving the US (google: Clinton NAFTA Ross Perot)
If you like the idea of government officials evading FOIA requests and corrupting the legal system by hiding government records on personal off-site e-mail servers, she's your gal!
If you like government officials hiring bar bouncers, giving them credentials and sending them to the FBI to grab the background records on their opponents (then firing the bouncer and claiming not to know what happened to the records or who hired the bouncer), the future looks promising (google: Filegate)
If you like a candidate who based her universal medical coverage plan on Government restricting the number of young people who could take certain college majors (a precedent that would have been horrific for ALL majors eventually) to cut down on the number of doctors and thereby reduce their use and the resulting cost to government AND who also proposed to inclde bans on people seeking any medical care outside of her proposed system (also would have created a nasty new precedent that could be later applied across vast swaths of the economy) then Hillary is your candidate
In this era of increasingly unlimited government, ANY candidate becomes a tech subject. If you want geeky subjects removed from politics you MUST back a candidate who will actually get government OUT of stuff. Big business and big corporations are natural bed-buddies and will likely oppose this enough to corrupt all but the most-principled politicians. For the time being, I'm not sure ANY are principled enough, but at least Rand Paul is making noises in that direction, and to some extent Ted Cruz also is. There's a borderline chance that Scott Walker is. I don't see ANY others in EITHER party even TALKING the TALK on this (to say NOTHING of walking the walk).
If every time some small-government person comes along, Libertarian-leaning voters are going to reject them as imperfect on {X}, then you are gonna keep getting bigger and bigger increasingly-intrusive and controlling government provided by the Wall Street wings of the Republican and Democrat parties (Hillary is in the Hip Pocket of the Wall St bankers, and Jeb Bush is trying to get in good with them too... THAT is the Nov 2016 race THEY most want).
When you wrote: "1) the republicans in congress *created their own committee* which they *ran* and the committee investigated and found ....zilch" you were either badly mis-informed or dishonest:
There were TWO committees. The first (in the House only) was run by the sitting committee chair (NOT a hand-picked person) who MANY Republicans wanted removed because he had a severe conflict of interest - Mike Rogers' wife (Kristi Clemens Rogers) was the president and CEO of Aegis LLC which got a $10Billion contract with Hillary Clinton's State Department..... There was NO WAY ON EARTH he was going to write a report that said anything bad about Hillary and/or the State Department.
The second committee, which was a "select committee" was formed because various other committees were nibbling around the edges of the matter and squabbling over areas of jurisdiction (happens in BOTH parties when members with seniority get into pi**ing matches). THIS committee is run by South Carolina representative Trey Goudy and is just getting around to holding hearings after months of getting organized and gathering information (congress has never been guilty of being fast-and-efficient). This committee which is the only one specifically created to look into Benghazi has not yet generated any findings for you to crow about.
Oh, and Hillary SUPPORTED the war you think Bush lied us into and CITED THE SAME EVIDENCE that HE was given by the same intelligence agencies.
but never could figure out what her qualifications were. Sure, she was the president's wife, but did she participate in decision making?
It seems to me that the press has elevated the status of the first lady to co-president. I don't buy it. Being married to a president doesn't make you presidential material any more than being married to an engineer makes you an engineer.
If there was something wrong with my car I wouldn't call the mechanic's wife/husband, I'd call the mechanic.
Perhaps we SHOULD prosecute somebody for incompetenece leading up to 9-11...
We could start with the Clintons, who refused to do anything serious to stop Bin Laden in response to his earlier terrorist activity (other than boming an Aspirin factory or cruise-missiling some camels)
Or maybe we could go after the CIA chief who was running the agency that gave Bush all the "intelligence" that said nothing more detailed than "a terrorist named Bin Laden says he wants to attack America" - oh but that would be Democrat George Tenet who was appointed to the post by Bill Clinton in 1997 and had not yet been replaced by a Republican Bush appointee on September 11 2001 because of the huge delay in seating the Bush administration due to Al Gore's drawn-out legal challenges to the election.
Maybe we should go after Sandy Berger, who was Clinton's National Security Advisor, who was caught going through the records at the nationa security archives in 2003 and stuffing records of the Clinton administration's Bin Laden related activities into his socks and underwear to be smuggled out. There is no way of knowing how much material he removed and destoryed before being caught, but the FACT is that we will never know what the Clintons were so desperate to hide from the American people. These Clintons are VERY slippery when it comes to the people's records (US Govt records belong to the people of the US and their descendanst and their historians, NOT the Clinton Family)
Oh, and before you respond by whining that Gore was the "real winner" of the 2000 election, let me point out that Gore could not even win his home state of Tennessee, which would have made his victory certain and obvious. He sued and kept trying to re-count the votes ONLY in Democrat-majority counties of Florida (NOT the whole state) and he also sued to BLOCK the legal votes of US Military members on deployment overseas (so much for "every vote matters"). This is a very old and common tactic of Democrats in the US - use mostly Democrat poll workers to re-count majority Democrat areas and "find" more votes - it happens nearly every election cycle somewhere in the US, and has since the 1950s. The courts stopped the one-sided re-counting in Florida in-part because the Democrats kept changing the rules about what constituted a vote, AFTER the voters had cast those votes, AND they were treating different voters' voted DIFFERENTLY. Treating all cast votes the same, mead Bush the winner.
'Nuff said
investigation Democrat staffer who (1) apparently learned the value of hiding and destroying data and (2) behaved with a remarkable lack of ethics (oh, that's a Scripps-Howard News Service article rather than some right-wing blog, in case some dishonest idiot at Media Matters decides to kill the link)
Contrary to some internet rumors, she was not fired for her actions, BUT she DID all sorts of legally unethical actions like working to deny then-President Nixon any defense lawyers.
Her (Democrat) boss from that time was on-record saying he regretted that he did not report her to the bar (for disbarment - to be stripped of her power to practice law as a lawyer) and also that her lack of ethics made it so he could not recommend her for any future position. This information surfaced during her 2008 Presidential capaign and Democrat operatives ran to him to get a retraction, which he subsequently issued - but that does NOT undo his earlier non-Democrat-capaign-related statements.
Remember: The communications of high-government officials are part of the Nation's historical record of how and why national decisions are made. These records, BY LAW, are the property of the American People and are supposed to go into the National Archives where they MIGHT get sealed (for years if necessary) but where they will eventually be open to the people and their historians. The information in these records is part of the people's checks on their politicians and are available for FOIA searches. During the Bush years, Democrats insisted that Republicans NOT do government business on private e-mail servers, so the GOP setup accounts for political activity (where people like Karl Rove did their partican political communications) and separate servers for the government work. Then the Democrats screamed that the Republicans might be doing something government-related on the GOP servers, so ultimately those eneded-up getting sifted by the archives people. Independently, SOME Democrats even hacked into Republican privete personal email accounts (remember when they dumped all of Governor Palin's private emails onto the web???). If Hillary is any guide, the new rule for Democrats is: "NEVER let anybody see Democrat emails.... just keep them on Democrat servers and then wipe-end-destroy the servers if anybody asks for the data"
Too stupid to handle two email accounts on one device. Or lying.
Wants to be leader of the free world.
Dozens of other scandals, lies, and corrupt influences. (Wall Street for a few dozen.)
Sorry. Voted for Obama, twice. Got jack shit for it as H1-B's go through the roof. TPP anyone?
Will never vote for H. Clinton.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekXEfjdUWV8
Presidency should not be a family tree.
Merde!
If you remember the AIR Presidental Election Algorythm, you'll find that she has to get a damn good vice president, because she's no governor, no head of any college, nothing. She scores a 0, while Martin O'Malley scores a 88 (8 years Maryland governor).
--
# Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
Dateline: One date's as good as another. If she has nice legs.
Lede: Clinton accused of running; Doesn't wear hosiery or shave legs.
During a scheduled speech at Clinton erection^welection headquarters, this Any Place, Any Time reporter was awed by the idiocy^wpolitical savvy of the protesters at the back of the room shouting "Just Google for Hillary+Conniption^wCorruption!" Surely this will have no^wsome impact on the clueless^wvoters that comprise a considerable subset of the hysterical right wing^w^w^wvoting public.
Clinton is entering a shoo-in^wrace where Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are presently locked in an epic battle for fourth place; all eyes are upon them as they flipflop^wadjust their positions to comply with what the polls are saying about their sycophants^wpolitical base.
Statistician Nate Silver indicated early numbers were uncertain, as entering the political views of the hysterical^right wing public seems to have crashed his computer^w^w^whave posed some problems, directly affecting his results Silver said "I'll just throw that data out^w^w^w^w^w^wI'll look into the problem."
Be sure to read tomorrow's report, where we explore the conniption^wcorruption issue in depth.
Not trying to be too confrontational, but really?!??? Proof ?
Where have you been, it's now actual history. From Bill's administration trying to ban our right to assemble (Janet Reno's push to regulate those darn Conservatives) to Hillary's State Dept blaming a youtube video for Benghazi.
I get it, the list of Clinton's ethics violations is so large, it looks made up, but it is not. But from what I hear, the current administration is about to unveil some more.
Your post being modded up shows just how many blinded by hate (or whatever) people there really are, and that is sad.
If the Democrats are stupid enough to give her the nomination, I will actually bother voting solely to vote for whatever batshit candidate the Republicans put up*.
Fuck your aristocracy. No more Bushes. No more Clintons. I'll gladly take your tea and hurl it at your face, knocking both you and it into the harbor.
(* Even the Republicans aren't reprehensible enough to run another Bush.)
At least in 2 jobs I've worked the lawyers came before a lawsuit and said it reasonable to expect a subpoena in the future so we need to preserve a copy of EVERY email/file/paper/whatever TODAY (the day the the lawyer found out). Once you suspect something could be legal evidence in the future you are knowingly destroying evidence. You may not be thrown in jail, but the other side can tell the jury to assume the worst in what you destroyed - and the court can just say "it's your fault for destroying the things you say prove your innocence. Too bad for you."
Unless she is dumber than than any republican on the planet thinks, she had reason to believe that Congress would want to see the emails (not the courts but still a legal issue where subpoenas, perjury, etc apply). And if she was "too busy" to understand what was happening her lawyers, who were involved in selecting emails to delete, certainly know. And they decided to allow her to destroy evidence rather than risk having the emails exposed.
Even if there was not a single email that implicated her in anything illegal or anything that Congress was even interested in, it was "destroying evidence". They can't be used to show her innocence - some questions cannot be resolved either way because of the choice she (intentionally) made.
Arguing on the internet is like playing ultimate Frisbee golf. It doesn't matter what happens, because nobody cares and everyone involved looks like a loser.
That being said, both political parties are corrupt as hell and pander to special interest groups. If the POTUS could accomplish even a quarter of what people blame them for, the executive branch would have WAY too much power (which it doesn't).
As for scandals and corruption: Remember how everything is ***GATE...That's because Watergate (a Republican scandal) ended a president. So no, Republicans can't escape that (although they have tried). Democrats are no better, but the GATE suffix is a Republican brand.
69 years Nov 2016 is another reason, for your list.
.
Democrats and Republicans agree that their candidate is a little less bad than the candidate of the other party.
What a great time we live in.
I'm somewhat skeptical of the whole corrupt system, all the way through, but all the muck brought up on Clintonia is NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING compared to the death, destruction, global disruption actions of the war criminals Dubyah and Dick
So?
Lets say that we all agree with you... then what? Vote in Clinton because... of what Bush did?
Two wrongs make a right?
How about we get someone fresh and new in who hasn't been in Washington for 30 years?
Just because two wrongs don't make a right doesn't mean that all wrongs are equal.
Starting two pointless wars is not in the same ballpark as getting a blow job.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
He's the only one that seems to be to be honest.
I also have no doubt that he can read and write at a functional level, whereas the rest I'm not so sure.
As they mostly have someone else to do any major reading and writing for them.
He may be the first President in a long while to actually read and understand the bills before he signs them.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Carson
Such claims often appear to be a "mind trick" variation of the 6 Degrees to Kevin Bacon game.
See also "Small-world experiment": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
Table-ized A.I.
Always funny to see pure opinion trolled^Wmodded up as "Informative" by the "smarter than average".
Democrats and Republicans agree that their candidate is a little less bad than the candidate of the other party.
I used to be a Republican, until I opened my eyes and saw they were just the other side of the Democrat coin.
Now I dislike both sides, we have a nasty two party system that gives the illusion of choice.
Just because two wrongs don't make a right doesn't mean that all wrongs are equal.
Starting two pointless wars is not in the same ballpark as getting a blow job.
True, but I wasn't talking about Bill.
His wife is much worse... I'd rather have him back than her, if those were my only two choices...
Please, I don't want to watch 19 months of pandering by the news media...
Hillary is now the official front runner for the Democrats. She will raise a ton of money do doubt. But she was also the front runner back in 2008 until this obscure Senator named Obama came out of nowhere...and the rest is history.
For many Democrats, Clinton is too centrist. Certainly to the right of Obama. They see her as being just a little to cozy with business types. She has a lot of well documented baggage - past and present. Democrats are torn between supporting someone they believe can win (Clinton) and a less flawed candidate with a lesser chance of winning.
Her resignation from the Clinton Foundation is quite timely. I'm sure that we are going to hear about questionable donations from foreign heads of state to her foundation and allegations of pay-for-play. It all ties in with the secretive email server and the subsequent disappearance of thousands of email messages that were not only never turned over they were willfully destroyed.
I think that some in the Democratic party fear there is a smoking gun and that if someone manages to get to the bottom of it their chances of retaining control of the White House drop to nearly zero. It would not surprise me to suddenly see Elizabeth Warren emerge as a candidate, despite her repeated denials that she is running.
Having said all of that I don't think that Jeb Bush is the answer. We need someone new and fresh ideas.
Why is this on my beloved Slashdot? Is Hillary sponsoring a makerfest? Does this story have some kind of tie-in with Hillary's personal email server? Is the author trying to tell us to switch to Bitcoin NOW because Obama tried to destroy the U.S. Dollar and failed but Hillary's going to finish the job? Where exactly is the tech angle in this?
If I want to read about the political soap opera, I can go ANYWHERE. Please leave this crap off of Slashdot.
In democracy it's your vote in elections that counts; In FEUDALISM it's your count that votes;
Casteism
You can't vote in Party A's primaries unless you are registered for Party A.
"There are people who do not love their fellow human being, and I _hate_ people like that!" - Tom Lehrer
I think if the next president is a Republican, he'll probably get to nominate one or more Supreme Court justices. Ginsberg's getting up there, for example. If the majority on the SCOTUS swings just one more vote to the right, it will likely have a noticeable effect on reproductive rights (and not only abortion), what's left of the labor movement, separation of church and state, and so on. I mean, look what happened to McCain / Feingold.
Sure, I'd like a real progressive – a real liberal – to be elected, but that's not going to happen. And, anyway, were it to happen, we'd see even more paralysis at the Federal level. We'd probably see even more polarization in our society, which is not a good thing (look at some of the nastiness on this very thread, for example).
Sadly, I think the best we can hope for is someone who's willing to battle at the margins of our slide into complete domination by big money and the far right. Clinton is, at least, a moderate (especially compared to people like Scalia, Thomas, and Alito). If elected, she'll stay a moderate. Given the chance, a Republican President will hasten our descent.
Obama didn't do jack shit as a senator, yet, Obamacare. Which is a hell of a lot better than the republican alternative, what was it? Right. Deregulate, deregulate, deregulate... all the while, people were going bankrupt due to getting sick.
Dregulating everything in the name of the free market isn't always the answer, yet, all I ever see is a bunch of money grabbing assholes who only want their taxes lowered, regulation costs to go down, and to have a bigger and bigger military.
Give me an alternative to that, and we'll talk.
The only way that a woman would be president in the U.S.A is if she is installed by the powers that be to be the president that runs the country to the ground.
The real power in the world are the "old boys clubs". If Billary gets 'voted in', I would be very, very worried about the future of America.
Personally I have no problem with women or blacks or whoever getting into positions of power. I'd like to see more diversity of race and gender in those positions.
But to the real power - the racist, sexist old boys - the only thing worse than a black president is a female president.
This whole presidential race smells like trouble to me. America is going to hell in a handbasket.
Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
"You've made it clear that you listen to rush Limbaugh"
This is a great example of the word "assume" making an "ass" out of "u" and "me".
Fair warning. I get to use this in conversation over lunch. Should get quite a laugh from the actual Beck and Limbaugh dittoheads around the shop. :)
... and more pretend democracy.
If we actually elect her, I'm moving overseas.
Do not vote in elections till your Presidential Candidate submits his/her fMRI report;
It'll prevent many untoward incidents in future;
Casteism
Hillary Clinton has held many titles and a very long time to do good. What has she accomplished? I can't think of anything but then I am not a fan. We need a president with demonstrable management and leadership skills.
Do I like Hillary Clinton? No?
Do I trust her? No, she's a career politician.
Is there a Republican candidate that's better? Right now, there's not one that doesn't make me want to spit on the sidewalk and curse.
As usual, we have the choice of the least awful. It may be a marginal difference, but it's what we have in our current oligarchy pretending to be a democracy.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Why bother fighting about which candidate is better? They're all miserable, corrupt, liars. THIS IS POLITICS PEOPLE. They make a living feeding you the bullshit you want to hear. WAAAAAAAAA
Thanks for bringing up Mena, as the State politics set the stage for the national election. The Drugs, the connection between WJC and GHWB, the black ops and CIA etc...
resist propaganda