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.
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.
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.
Kim Dotcom and Jullian Assange are a fuckton more credible than 90% of US pundits and politicians.
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.
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.
Socialism cannot work in a country that isn't homogenous, or at least where the population by and large shares the same values.
Look what a disaster welfare and the rest is here. It used to work in europe because people wanted to get off it quick, because it was shameful to be on it. That pressure doesn't apply anymore.
I can understand where you are coming from when you talk about Assange, but Kim Schmitz? That fraudster? Seriously? That guy started as a script kiddie taking the credit for work of real hackers and later stock fraud and other investment scams. And all the time he's been an attention whore of the worst kind.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap