Slashdot Mirror
Kim Dotcom Calls Hillary Clinton an "Adversary" of Internet Freedom
An anonymous reader writes: CNET reports that Kim Dotcom views Hillary Clinton as "an enemy of online freedom." Hilary's candidacy came up when Kim was asked about a tweet he made in which he called himself "Hillary's worse nightmare in 2016." He says now that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange would probably be a bigger headache for Clinton. "I'm aware of some of the things that are going to be roadblocks for her," he added. Dotcom said he hoped to expand the influence of the Internet Party and provide some transparency. Brietbart adds that a conflict between Assange and Clinton may have personal motivations, but it also seems inevitable. Hillary is obsessive about maintaining control of information. She created a personal server in her home to handle her emails as Secretary of State and then deleted all the contents after self-selecting the emails she believed were work-related. Assange is famous for parceling out secret information."
Christ. Who cares about a damn tweet that "Kim Dotcom" made? Get a fucking grip editors. This isn't News for Nerds or News for Anyone with a Brain Cell. Grow up.
I wish it were someone more credible saying that.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Kim Dotcom was supposed to be John Keys worst nightmare too, we saw how *that* turned out.
The other Clinton started a slow economic strangle with FTA and such.
So there's the real debate - which is worse, another Clinton or Bush? A decision between terrible and atrocious.
Politicians hate freedom. Full story at 11.
... because Assange never did a goddam thing about leaking shit.
He was the spokesperson for Wikileaks.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Take it as an advantage. No, if he really wanted to hurt Hillary, we would campaign for her
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I'm not exactly excited about Hillary, but Kim Dotcom isn't where I usually turn for information about politics.
Sounds like he just misses being in the headlines.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
When Nixon did that, he was impeached.
Nowadays you're seriously considering electing someone who did the same damned thing Nixon did?
WTF is wrong with you Americans, anyhow?
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
I heard you can per her an appearance fee to come erase your e-mail server for you.
LOL Wut? Republicans Absolutely do not control the media.
I thought Kim Dotcom has something to do with Lord Kim in best Korea and dotcom means some Internet-related company there.
Turns out he's the guy behind Megaupload. Nothing to see here.
You had me until "Brietbart adds"...
Seriously. The Breitbart bits at the end of TFS politicize what would have otherwise been a mediocre Sunday Slashdot submission. Now it falls squarely into the "troll submission" category.
Why stop at one pirate? Let's interview some from the waters near Somalia to see what they think too!
Is a lardass with garlic in his rectum.
Brietbart is dead you insensitive air breathers!
PlanetVulkan.com
Considering how successful this guy has been, you know he is not dumb enough to not support the best candidate for president. Again, the media lies.
Bush is unlikely to be nominated. He is getting no traction with the base. He is supported by the establishment but has no credibility elsewhere.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
cp -avr /home/Hillary/emails /usb/pwned
and wikileaks has them now?
That's what this sounds like, I'm thinking Kim Dotcom shouldn't have spilled the beans.
we cant afford to elect either
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
has slashdot really dropped so low to link stores from the conspiracy theory site breitbart?
.... the Obama administration doesn't seem to have much interest in extraditing him (and executing him (as the conspiracy theory goes)). A future Hillary Clinton administration, on the other hand, ....
Why Clinton Cash Has Bi-Partisan And National Importance
Since 2001, the Clinton Foundation has amassed a staggering $2 billion, mostly in chunks from globally powerful individuals, multinational companies and foreign countries.
“Clinton Cash”: Disputations
House of the Stackd Deck of Cards
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Use of the phrase "Bush Crime Family" is a marker for mental illness that often manifests itself in extreme political views. You should seek help before something unfortunate happens.
You know that if you just call anyone that says anything you don't like a liar, you've rendered yourself unreasonable and unreasoning...
Are some of the things said about Hillary lies? Sure... same goes for all politicians.
But then a good deal of it is not.
As to this notion that the New York Times is controlled by republicans... idiocy. Even MSNBC is coming down on hillary.
If the media were controlled by republicans then MSNBC wouldn't exist. It does.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
You should seek help before something unfortunate happens.
You, on the other hand, should consider seeking help for S/T DD (Sarcasm/Trolling Detection Disorder).
Sorry, but nutters will be nutters, and the nutter Left loves to use that term. You have apparently never listed to the fringe Left media. Mike Malloy, among others, loves that term, and it isn't being used sarcastically.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
If the media were controlled by liberals then FNC wouldn't exist. It does.
FTFY
If he is supported by the Establishment wouldn't he have more chance of being nominated? I don't have any inside knowledge of the process, but it seems to me that if Republican powerbrokers want another Bush, they'll make sure he's their man, and the party base will have to just fall into line behind him. I am could very well be wrong about that of course, but it does seem logical to me.
You are reasoning about this without considering key inputs. It doesn't matter much who "the Establishment" wants if nobody in the base votes for them. The selection process is very much one of mobilizing the base of the party because the outcome is determined by votes of party members, not some secret backroom committee.
There is a wide variety of good Republicans candidates running. Bush has to fight his way through them if he is going to be the frontrunner.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Pretty sure Hillary Clinton is an adversary of anyone who doesn't give money to her or her family. But many powerful people have bought her friendship.
Most of the media is run by Liberals, just not ALL of it. That is why Fox News and talk radio are so hated by some - they aren't under Liberal control, and offer a different perspective. That is simply intollerable to some.
Surveys have repeatedly shown that about 90% of newsroom staff in the media supports Democrats. That is where the oft repeated line about "reality having a liberal bias" comes in. That isn't actually true. The facts of life are conservative, but the reporting is generally liberal.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
He is supported by the establishment but has no credibility elsewhere.
Hey, it worked for Romney!
Correct. You can absolutely refute that the media is controlled by liberals.
You could of course point at specific news papers or specific news stations and say they are controlled by liberals or conservatives.
I don't think anyone with any credibility is claiming that ALL of anything is controlled by anyone. You can say MOST of something is controlled by one faction or another IF you can substantiate that. And in some cases... you can.
In this case, saying that everything negative about Hillary is just republican propaganda is idiocy. That is... something idiots say.
End of discussion. That's all folks.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Yeah, no. Reporters are only part of the equation. What about owners and editors? How do they vote? How about representation on sunday news shows? Shouldn't they be in church rather than in front of a camera if they're trying to be holier than thou?
At best, the media is neither liberal nor conservative. It's driven by getting eyeballs. Conservatives have used this to their advantage for years while playing the ref and screaming 'liberal media' whenever things don't go their way.
In this case, saying that everything negative about Hillary is just republican propaganda is idiocy.
Everything negative? Sure. There's Democrats that don't like her and have legitimate reasons. But most of the republican propaganda about Hillary is indeed idiocy.
Not at all. Romney did well in the primary amongst the rank and file republicans. Jeb polls very badly in that context and it is in that context that you have to win.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Be specific please. When you say most it is little different from all.
Also you don't need to be a democrat to have a legitimate point against hillary.
Just because someone is not of your political camp does not mean they're inherently wrong.
This is just more of that tribalism I was referring to before. This is how primitive people thought and related to each other thousands of years ago.
That people are thinking this way again in the 21st century is fucking pathetic. You can do better.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
What part of "they both deleted recorded communications" do you not understand?
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
All things being equal, of course he would.
But all things aren't equal. The "establishment" is just a powerful faction within BOTH parties. It is the establishment pushing Hillary for example.
However, just because the Establishment wants something doesn't mean they're going to get it. Even Jeb's MOTHER said there shouldn't be another Bush in the White house. Process that. He's also not doing well in the straw polls. Seriously ask a republican what they think of Jeb Bush... just ask... seriously... he's not popular.
And there are some reasons for that.
1. Republicans are a little bitter about Bush Jr. They felt he hurt the party's rep and they're not enjoying having to make excuses for him years after he left office. So letting his brother in is not seen as a good idea.
2. Republicans don't like the dynasty idea any more than anyone else. Republicans feel that two Bushes was pushing it and three would just be absurd.
3. Bush's positions are not the popular positions for republicans these days. He's pro amnesty for example which is not popular amongst republicans. He is pro H1-B visa etc which is not popular. He said recently that he doesn't know if he'd order troops into Iraq if he were in the same position as his brother. It is a long list. But the moral of the story is that he is generally unacceptable.
Lets say Hillary for example said she was against the ACA but the Establishment democrats still backed her.
Would she get the nomination?
And before you think that establishment rules the party, I'd point you at Eric Cantor who was very much an establishment republican but ran afoul of the reform wave that is going through the party and was ejected. I believe Eric is working for an investment bank now which most feel validated the ejection because people don't have good feelings about the investment banks these days.
Does any of this make any sense? Jeb isn't getting nominated. He's just soaking up campaign money from dupes in the establishment that think they can steam roll everyone else. I wouldn't worry about him.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
When you say most it is little different from all.
I'm being generous. I'm sure there's some Republicans out there with what are probably valid concerns. Most of the public ones ("Benghazi!!!' 'sniper fire!!!' 'where's the e-mail') is all covering up for the fact that she's been an effective first lady, senator, and secretary of state and such leadership and background makes her a qualified candidate. If tribalism blinds people to that, then that's their problem.
What did she do as a senator that was "effective"?
Unless Democrats cross over and vote Bush in the primaries to help Hillary out. That's how we got McCain.
Oh bullshit. This has been the right wing mantra as of the last 15 years:
"Oh gee, anyone who doesn't parrot the right wing bullshit talking points MUST be controlled by liberals".
Fox News has quite adeptly convinced a large swath of the US population that they are offering the "truth".
It's the first tenet of effective propaganda, to convince people that your lies are truth, and that reality is all lies.
Congrats for falling for it.
Hmmm... not really. You're just generally dismissing all criticism out of hand. If you were being actually generous you'd not do that.
But you did.
Do you want to talk about any of the specifics because on Benghazi and the emails specifically I don't see how you can defend that.
As to people being afraid of her... Quite the opposite. The republicans are actually quite happy that she's the opposition this time around. Obama was a problem because he could just say "you're being racist" every time you threw something at him. Hillary is trying to play the woman card but it isn't working out so well.
Anyway, if you think Hillary is a solid pick. Then I will just have to let the polls speak for themselves on that one. Both republicans and democrat strategists have said they think Hillary is weak. Most of her media supporters are savaging her for not addressing anything and just going silent. I'm really sort of baffled as to you thinking this is going to end well for her. She's headed for a colossal embarrassing defeat. All the republicans have to do this time around is not fuck up. Which is a tall order for many of them. Republicans are frequently TERRIBLE at politics. Bad public speakers, bad at reading the political tea leaves. Just so many mistakes.
So if that happens she might win. But it is the republican's race to lose if the dems nominate Hillary.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
But it is the republican's race to lose if the dems nominate Hillary.
So you're just trolling. Well done.
Why so gun-ho about Hillery? She's just another pro politician, like any other. It's exactly people like her that turned me away from polotics in the first place. Now if someone like Elizabeth Warren were running, that would actually be something to get excited about. Sadly (or not), she is to busy solving real problems to be a full time politician like Hillery.
We know Clinton is bad. Telling us that does not give us new information.
What we want to know is whether she is better or worse than the alternatives.
Yeah, no. Reporters are only part of the equation. What about owners and editors? How do they vote? How about representation on sunday news shows? Shouldn't they be in church rather than in front of a camera if they're trying to be holier than thou?
At best, the media is neither liberal nor conservative. It's driven by getting eyeballs. Conservatives have used this to their advantage for years while playing the ref and screaming 'liberal media' whenever things don't go their way.
Ever seen Network? The problem is that 'liberal agendas' tend to be a lot more photogenic and easier to communicate--for example, it's super-easy to show a sobbing hungry child, but not terribly easy to show in a single, dramatic picture that the chain of events that led to the kid's state is due to the long-term effects of the welfare system's perverse incentives upon the social fabric.
This is also why these problems get to be long-term, because it's very effective to promise to help those people to get yourself votes, but that in and of itself serves as a perverse incentive to make sure the problem doesn't actually get fixed... Just pick an acceptable lot of scapegoats to 'thank' for it!
Reporters are a huge part of the equation since they produce the content. Editors are likely to come up through the ranks of reporters and will be the same as reporters. Many owners won't care as long as the financial numbers for the newsrooms are acceptable and the brand remains strong. Even owndership by a genuine conservative or Republican doesn't matter if it doesn't result in a change in editorial policy. (And where is the evidence of that on any large scale?)
You also leave out the role of Schools of Journalism, which these days inculcate Liberal / Progressive views into the students. They aren't coming out to find and tell the stories, but to "change the world" and make the news.
All of this would be less of a concern if the media still had the ethic of being "equal opportunity bastards." That is, the reporting might be liberal, but he still expect more or less the same standards of behavior out of liberal politicians as he does out of conservative ones, and is equally ready to write them up. Corruption from liberals should be treated the same as corruption from those claiming to be conservatives. Saddly that hasn't been the case for quite some time. Journalists are far too willing to put their thumbs on the scales these days in favor of their personal ideology.
No, the overall media is quite clearly liberal in training, sympathies and output. They can use the same techniques to get eyeballs as anyone. The real howling is over the existence of a few media outlets with a conservative outlook. That can't be tolerated! And that is why the so called "Fairness Doctrine" has repeated attempts to ressurect it, and the FEC keeps being rumored to be ready to step on Drudge and others. And more ways than just those are being sought to bring government into controlling the media to drive out the small conservative presence.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
That's exaggerated. Such things happen but McCain would have to have gotten a lot of legit votes to bring it to a tipping point. You MIGHT be able to claim that the dems were able to tip it but they weren't enough to bring it across on their own.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Clinton did not selectively keep emails she thought were state-department related - she came up with a small list of keywords she thought would match state-departmnent matters and deleted ANYTHING THAT DID NOT MATCH.
So basically her keeping state department related emails is only as true as her ability to come up with keywords that matched everything she did over years of service...
Not to worry though, the Chinese and many other foreign governments have a full backup, which they have pinky-sweared not to use as leverage should Clinton be elected president.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Not at all... Do you want me to post some comments from democrat strategists and long time supporters of that party saying hillary is a dud? They're not hard to find, chum.
But if you want to jam your head so far up your own ass that you finally arrive in some magical echo chamber where hillary is a solid candidate? You go ahead and do that. Tell you how it is... isn't trolling.
If you want me to lie to your face and pretend... I can do that for you.
Is that what you want? More people lying to so you aren't made to feel uncomfortable for even an instant when you unrealistic views are subjected to reality?
Okay. I'll lie to you.
Hillary is a really strong candidate and everyone knows she's just going to breeze through the election like it isn't even there. In fact, why are we even having an election? Lets just crown her Queen. :D
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Am I the only one who's noticed that any post that says something like "We've had enough of both Clintons and Bushes" or "Both parties are corrupt" always gets modded up, often to +5? That's because the mods must be thinking, "Gee, he's pissed off but he's not biased. If he were biased, he'd only be attacking on side".
No, mods, because you are too lazy to come to grips with the fact that a post that simply says "both parties are corrupt" or "both Clintons and Bushes are bad" is a throwaway post, not insightful.
... that "Please educate yourself" thing
Do you really think that sheeples are capable of educating themselves??
The fact is that they remain sheeples because they ...
1. They are not willing to change
2. They are satisfied with what / who they are
3. They do need some kind of 'leaders' to lead them
4. Their lives would be empty if they do not regurgitate whatever their 'leaders' told them
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
I'm sure the media's utter focus on Romney's "omg mormon" during the Retardicat runoff also had nothing to do with.
Really, the reason that the powers that be ensured McCain's victory was so they could objectify Palin for the next few months. She was somebody's hot grits. And if you think Palin's VP candidacy was a surprise, you really need to pull your head out of M$NBC.
Sure, and just like all big tent parties which is both the republicans and democrats... there are people that actually care about that.
So it is relevant... because they care. I'm not saying they should... but they do.
I mean, there are gay republicans... there is a group called the "log cabin republicans" i think... and they're openly gay and generally support the portions of the republican platform that aren't hostile to gay people.
And yet of course you're going to get a lot of gay bashing people that will attack them and say they shouldn't be there. I think recently they got run out of a CPAC event because the anti gay evangelicals are generally pretty unsavory.
And that is a problem. Because both of the parties are largely victims of extreme elements within both camps.
The repubilcans are victims of the intolerant religious radicals and the democrats are victims of the batshit insane communist fringe. They both influence their factions disproportionately to their size.
The fellow I was responding to is likely seen by most people in his political faction as an embarrassing reactionary. And just as the crazy religious people in the republican party are seen as embarressing nutters... it is just something both parties have to deal with because all votes count equally. Idiots count the same as the wise. Fucktards count the same as the intelligent.
And the human bell curve being what it is, it tends to be more profitable to focus on retards than any other group.
For one thing they're easier to manipulate and influence because they're stupid. And for another they're easier to turn into fanatics. And fanatics FOR your cause are quite useful. Both major parties make heavy use of fanatics.
Any substantive reform of the political system would have to filter such people out of the system more rigiously. First Past the Post is an attempt to filter outliers and it works to some extent. But it doesn't help when the fanatics are simply fanatics of degree rather than persuasion. First Past the Post filters fanatics that believe the moon is made of cheese. It doesn't filter fanatics that hold with the party line but would literally kill in the name of it.
You run into these people occasionally... right and left etc... all sides have them. And they you understand that if they were standing in front of you with a big knife and stabbing you would see their political ends met... they'd stab you right then and feel righteous for doing it.
That sort of thing isn't productive and it is to a large extent what has sadly happened to much of the Islamic world. They're all competing with each other to prove they're more holy than the next guy. And they do that by being more radical and willing to do more crazy shit in the name of their religion.
Zealots are useful as cannon fodder... but little else. The fellow I was responding to is used by his political faction in that same way. the political shock troops... they run in heedless of damage to their own credibility, get torn to fucking shreds but wear out the opposition to some extent... waste rhetorical ammunition and scare the wobbly defenders. Or they sow chaos while more methodical agents are free to move about doing whatever they want because the field is so muddied and chaotic.
And should anyone hold the moderates responsible for the radicals... they'll just say "oh those guys, they're not with me."... its generally tapestry of sadness.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I generally agree Jeb is unlikely to win because people don't want him, but I'm more worried than you are. If your sort of analysis could be counted on, then we could already call a Hillary loss in the general election because people don't like Hillary. She has very little to offer and probably won't be able to do anything to surprise anyone or to motivate a strong turnout.
I'd guess the most likely outcome is President Scott Walker and Vice President Marco Rubio.
Well, not quite. See there is the primary where the base chooses what they'd like from amongst their own party and then there is the general election where each base robotically chooses its own candiates and then tries to convince some portion of the sleepy middle to go join their side.
I think if the democrats permitted anyone to run against hillary in the primary... seriously... then she'd probably be screwed before the general election. I don't see her getting a primary nod if there is really anyone else on the ticket. I don't see that happening though.
The establishment has really railled around hillary and unlike the republicans that are dealing with that whole revolt against the establishment thing... there is no revolt against the establishment in the DNC. So I think it is quite likely that hillery will get nominated.
Jeb has almost no chance of getting nominated. Ben Carson who likewise has no hope has about as much chance of pulling it off... or huckabee or some other hapless candidate that just has zero chance.
The carson issue is kind of annoying because the republicans NEED black candidates but they need to go through at LEAST the kind of vetting that Obama had... I mean, Obama was a senator for like a year or something. So... clearly presidential material. Ben has no political history. Jack. You don't do that... come out of no where and say "hey guys, why not elect me president!"... I mean... come on. Serve in the senate for at least a year first or SOMETHING. I mean... try your hand at mayor somewhere... ideally governor. Governors are generally better presidents because they have some executive experience.
Generals also do really well for some reason. Don't know why... but go through the list... not a lot of duds there.
Anyway, hillary will likely be the democrat nominee. God knows what the republicans are going to do... it is a god damn three ring circus in the GOP field. Most people figure it is one of three guys but who knows.
Point is, whomever it is will hammer hillary on all the stupid shit she refuses to talk about... and that isn't going to go well in the debates. The debates are meaningless for the base. The base has already decided at that point. They're voting for the person with a D after their name or an R. But the debates matter for the people in the sleepy middle that could go either way. And refusing to answer questions is likely to not go down very well in those settings.
So... as long as the republicans don't field a complete asshat... they should be able to win.
The big problem hillary has that Obama didn't have... is that she's not black. Look, I voted for Obama and I didn't even like his politics. I just thought "hey wouldn't it be nice if we had a black president for once... and maybe we can heal the racial divides and hands across America :D"... Literally my thinking at the time. Which Obama has since gone out of his way to make me feel stupid for by doing everything he can run salt in every racial issue he can find and then call anyone that disagrees with him about anything a racist. And he's remarkably gotten away with that. Hillary is unlikely to be able to do the same thing. She's not black. She does have a vagina... but I rather suspect that isn't going to get her as far in the whole identity politics game. There are after all lots of republicans with vaginas... not so many black republicans.
Anyway... it will be interesting. The identity politics will be everywhere. I'd just like to see Hillary deal with the latest round of embarressing details to come out about her conduct... the whole Uranium mine thing is pretty fucking pathetic.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Breitbart is a right wing news source. That is why the criticism is of Clinton. While I'm not disputing the criticism of her, the Republican presidential candidates are so much worse. Most of them want to undo the recent FCC Title II classification for ISPs and to throw out net neutrality in order to let ISPs charge other companies for bandwidth and fast lanes, ultimately passing on the costs to consumers.
Clinton would in all likelihood not undo Title II and net neutrality nor would she deviate from Obama's support of these things. She could be better about whistleblowers and surveillance. But she is already much, much better than any Republican candidate.
I generally agree Jeb is unlikely to win because people don't want him, but I'm more worried than you are. If your sort of analysis could be counted on, then we could already call a Hillary loss in the general election because people don't like Hillary. She has very little to offer and probably won't be able to do anything to surprise anyone or to motivate a strong turnout.
I'd guess the most likely outcome is President Scott Walker and Vice President Marco Rubio.
If you really believe this nonsense, you could make a shit-ton of cash right now. Among the people that actually put their money where their mouth is, you can get Scott Walker at 12-to-1. Meanwhile, Hillary is even money.
None of that is a guarantee of anything, of course; even money represents a 50% shot in the minds of bettors. But the odds have been a pretty good indicator in past presidential elections. Barring some sort of collapse, I don't see why they'd be wrong this time around.
www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2016/winner
I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
He said recently that he doesn't know if he'd order troops into Iraq if he were in the same position as his brother.
Sounds like the only reason to consider voting for him.
Time to offend someone
They both breathed air and occasionally took dumps too. However, the statement of fact that started this thread is horribly, irredeemably wrong. The only POTUS' to have actually been impeached were Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton.
That statement doesn't mean what you probably think it means. The other GOP candidates have said "knowing what we know now, I would not have gone to war," while Marco Rubio goes a step further and says, "and neither would GWB." That Jeb Bush is still vacillating on the issue means he's tone-deaf, stubborn, or simply not in the loop. Given his lack of ability to demonstrate foreign policy awareness, I suspect the later.
You are missing one key part of what is behind the Libertarian movement -- many believe that the government is a tool for big business and just amplifies its power (so the solution is to weaken the government). Surprisingly many Libertarians share many of the same goals of reigning in corporate power as the left does; they just believe there is a different way to do it. I think the current Libertarian movement is very similar to the anarchist movement at the peak of the industrial revolution.
What is interesting is when the the far left and right got so fed up that they stopped bickering over particular solutions and joined forces with a common goal we got the progressive movement which did reign in corporate power. Keep that in mind; Libertarians could be your ally soon.
You seem to be under the impression that the Democratic Party is more liberal than the Republican Party. I see no evidence for that claim. Both parties are on the authoritan and conservative part of the spectrum. If anything, the Republican party is usually the most liberal of the two (although the difference is very small).
The problem with Fox News is not their political leaning, but the fact that they present utter bovine excrement as news and that they have trouble separating facts and opinions. These problems are present with most of the major US media, but Fox News is definitely one of the worst offenders. I also don't buy your claim that facts of life have any political leaning.
Damn, I wish I had mod points.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
So... as long as the republicans don't field a complete asshat... they should be able to win.
Ergo, they won't win.
The big problem hillary has that Obama didn't have... is that she's not black.
What the hell?
Literally my thinking at the time.
What the hell?
Gee, Al Capone evaded prosecution for years - even though every knew what he was involved in. Finally prosecuted on - tax evasion. Not bootlegging, murder, or other organized crime activities.
Just as cause != causation, lack of prosecution != innocence
it should be neither bush or hillary, repub or democrat, it should be
an independent party that repeals every unconstitutional law that has been put
into place. If we continue down this road using unconstitutional American hating government
we're in for huge failures everywhere we turn as a people.
She is a threat to Internet Freedom just as Obama was and is, and everybody needs to remember that she was a willing part of the Obama administration, and that is reason enough to avoid her.
I call her a bitch and a traitor.
That statement doesn't mean what you probably think it means. The other GOP candidates have said "knowing what we know now, I would not have gone to war," while Marco Rubio goes a step further and says, "and neither would GWB." That Jeb Bush is still vacillating on the issue means he's tone-deaf, stubborn, or simply not in the loop. Given his lack of ability to demonstrate foreign policy awareness, I suspect the later.
Interesting.
Here in Britain, Tony Blair still goes on as though the Iraq war was a combination of the Battle of Britain and the Second Coming.
I just hope that he is still alive to squirm when the Chilcott Inquiry reports sometime in the next couple of decades.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
The US "left wing" media is about the same as the mainstream "right wing" media here in the UK. (Fox News would be very right wing).
Just because you're not a biblical literalist, Chuck Norris or a neo Nazi doesn't make you particularly liberal.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I'm from the Redest state in the Union, Oklahoma, Regested Democrats still out number Republican 2 to 1 after 6 years the wost losses in the Democtic party in history. This is the first freely elected GOP House, Senate & Govenor we've ever had they rode President Obama's coatils of unpoularity into office.
Why do you think Carson doesn't have a chance? I've talked to a lot of conservatives (and/or) republicans about the candidates. What should happen? To a person, every single one of them couldn't wait to pull the handle for Ben.
Are you under the delusion that a senator from Illinious that no one had ever heard from before and hadn't even served more than ONE YEAR in the senate won the presidency for a reason besides him being black?
If Obama had been a white guy, he would not have won the presidency. In fact, he probably wouldn't have even won his senate seat.
Do you deny that?
Again, I was many of the people that put him in office in the first place on that basis.
Responding "what the fuck" to reality is just an admission of ignorance.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I don't know who you're talking to... he's sort of a joke. The big problem with him is that he has no track record in government or even management or leadership. I mean, a CEO would have more credibility and we don't nominate those either.
Generally republicans only nominate people with some leadership experience in government.
Go through the list. Occasionally republicans will nominate someone out of the legislature but that is uncommon. Typically republicans prefer governors or generals or other people with leadership experience.
Carson has no leadership experience and no track record. He's never run anything. You don't put someone in the position of president with no leadership experience. It almost always works out badly.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
If money determined who won, then Ross Perot would have won.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
If money determined who won, then Ross Perot would have won.
you're missing the point. it is not about who *has* the money, personally. it is about who *raises* the most money. perot's personal fortune is trivial in comparison to what a good fundraising machine can accomplish. equally as much, like most wealthy people in this country, the majority of perot's fortune is in stocks and investments; he wouldn't have been able to liquify his assets quickly enough in his campaign to make a difference in comparison to other candidates with their own arrays of deep-pocketed donors.
Cantor was killed by immigration reform.
Specifically his support for it.
His opponent ran largely on that, knowing that it was Cantor's primary weak spot with base.
And it worked.
Make no mistake, his replacement is just as in love with the big banks as Cantor was.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Democrats have an electoral college advantage over republicans that is only growing.
Out of 270 EC votes needed to win, Democrats have a builtin 242 votes to the GOP's 180.*
The biggest GOP advantage is the tried and true tactic of the challenger party in every cycle: the economy: if the economy stalls or looks bad, the incumbent ALWAYS faces a disadvantage. It's one reason they (either side) are constantly trying to paint the economy as suffering in any election cycle, no matter the reality of the situation.
This one could be interesting. As far as all the traditional statistics are concerned, the economy is booming. On that basis combined with the EC Advantage, an incumbent win would appear to be an easy lock. The problem however is the recovery has mostly captured by the richest among us, with 95% of all recovered income going to the top 0.5%, with the remaining 5% going to everyone else. This has the effect of making the economy feel bad to everyone else, even while Wall Street and the Economy are at record highs, higher than even before the recession.
(*even though it helps the party closest to my views, I still think it needs to go away.)
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
he also called his brother his foreign policy advisor.
there are no adequate words in the English language to describe the level of stupid you just displayed.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
... you're confusing correlation with causation.
A candidate that raises more money generally has more support from his party and base... and that is what gets you the nomination. Not the money. The money correlates with the support it is not caused by the support.
In the case of Jeb, he's getting most of his money from a small group of big money donors. This cash is therefore less representative of support than it would be otherwise.
Again, I can point at Eric Cantor who spent more money on fancy dinners than his opponent did on his entire campaign. And Cantor lost. Cantor also raised a lot more money than his rival.
And he lost.
Raising more money does not automatically mean you win.
It can be indicative of support. But only if the money is raised from a large number of people. If you got it all from a small group then it is as meaningless as Ross Perot's personal fortune.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
The economy is only booming via those statistics because they've manipulated the statistics.
This has been pointed out repeatedly. Even the New York Times has admitted it. The only people saying the economy is booming are really just incumbent supporters selling that line largely for the reasons you cited.
As to parties closer to our views... the means are the ends. A party is not what they say they believe but what they do and how they do things.
Recalculate your affiliation on the basis that what they do is who they are not what they say.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I don't care... that wasn't my point. We were talking about money.
I'm not interested in you clouding the issue.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
After reading again, Maybe you're right. I guess I'm having problems wrapping my head around someone bleating: "they lie and mark down posts....", "...they want to see it dead", "...we could all die.", while really believing what they're saying. I thought it had to be sarcasm.
Surveys have repeatedly shown that about 90% of newsroom staff in the media supports Democrats.
[citation needed]
All of this, of course, has zero to do with my post that you responded to, which dealt with the odds of each candidate winning, which is directly based on how much bettors are putting on each candidate to win. In other words, anyone can spout a stupid opinion, but if you asked them to actually bet real money on who they'd pick to win, they might suddenly not be so confident. However, looking at who actual bettors put their money on has been reasonably accurate in the past.
Which has fuck-all to do with candidates raising money. How you got there is a mystery to me. Poor reading comprehension, I suspect, which makes your writing automatically worthless.
I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
I've responded to your point already. You conflating lots of different things. Voting also doesn't cost money. You can vote for free. This notion of money needing to be spent is an indicator and not actually politically actionable.
You can't say "I should have won because I got more donations."... it is a correlative indicator. Like a poll.
And it is distorted by a lot of things. For one thing, rich people can donate lots of dollars but everyone only gets one vote. So someone can get the support of rich people and get a lots of money but when it comes time to actually win... you need population... not money.
This is why both parties make appeals to poor people. If all you needed to do was get money then you'd just appeal to the rich and completely ignore the poor.
We're done talking about money. You're confused on that issue and frankly it is boring me.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Yeah I think you're responding to someone else maybe. I never said one thing even remotely related to "voting costing money", "money being spent", or "getting donations."
I was pointing out to someone else that Scott Walker has very little chance of being president according to bettors, and if he really believed that Walker was going to win, as he stated, then the current betting odds of 12-to-1 meant if he wanted to gamble on his stated convictions, he could get a 1200% return on his bet. That's all.
I don't know who was talking about spending on campaigns but it wasn't me. Learn to read.
I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
Citation provided.
Feel free to read the original, which contains the endnotes. This is hardly the only time this issue has come up in the media.
In the Tank: A Statistical Analysis of Media Bias
It is equally fascinating to examine the degree to which members of the news media have supported Democrat or liberal/Left candidates and causes, both at the ballot box and with their checkbooks:
In 1964, 94 percent of media professionals voted for Democrat Lyndon Johnson over Republican Barry Goldwater.[17]
In 1968, 86 percent voted for Democrat Hubert Humphrey over Republican Richard Nixon.[18]
In 1972, 81 percent voted for Democrat George McGovern over the incumbent Nixon.[19]
In 1976, 81 percent voted for Democrat Jimmy Carter over Republican Gerald Ford.[20]
In 1980, twice as many cast their ballots for Carter rather than Republican Ronald Reagan.[21]
In 1984, 58 percent supported Democrat Walter Mondale, whom Reagan defeated in the biggest landslide in presidential election history.[22]
In 1988, White House correspondents from various major newspapers, television networks, magazines, and news services supported Democrat Michael Dukakis over Republican George H.W. Bush by a ratio of 12-to-1.[23]
In 1992, those same correspondents supported Democrat Bill Clinton over the incumbent Bush by a ratio of 9 to 2.[24]
Among Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, the disparity was 89 percent vs. 7 percent, in Clinton’s favor.[25]
All told, White House correspondents during the late ’80s and early ’90s voted for Democrats at 7 times the rate at which they voted for Republicans.[26]
In a 2004, poll of campaign journalists, those based outside of Washington, D.C., supported Democrat John Kerry over Republican George W. Bush by a ratio of 3-to-1. Those based inside the Beltway favored Kerry by a 12-to-1 ratio.[27]
In a 2004 nationwide poll of 300 newspaper and television journalists, 52 percent supported Kerry, while 19 percent supported Bush.[28]
In a 2008 survey of 144 journalists nationwide, journalists were 8 times likelier to make campaign contributions to Democrats than to Republicans.[29]
A 2008 Investors Business Daily study put the campaign donation ratio at 11.5-to-1, in favor of Democrats. In terms of total dollars given, the ratio was 15-to-1.[30]
These numbers are nothing short of astonishing. It is exceedingly rare to find, even in the most heavily partisan voting districts in the United States, such pronounced imbalances in terms of votes cast or dollars earmarked for one party or the other.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
There are several words in English that adequately describe the post I made. Here is one of them: correct.
The problem here isn't that I'm "stupid" but that you are uninformed. If you can manage to follow links, and can follow up on the information you find, there is a lot of food for thought for you here:
In the Tank: A Statistical Analysis of Media Bias
Measuring Media Bias
There is plenty more on this subject if you care to look.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell