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."
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.
I hate morons who don't know the meaning of the world "liberal" more.
Hilary is not a liberal.
we cant afford to elect either
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Seems like right wing owned media is continuing to push the "haxors hate dems, don't vote" meme
In a world where intelligent people do not bother to vote, the right wingers that want to drag us back into the dark ages will win because their base always votes
Bernie Sanders is what was once called 'Liberal'
It is still what Liberal means in Europe. but it has been scandalized as "Socialism" in the USA by the gop
Libertarian has been hijacked as some small government laissez faire concept which allows for complete control by the wealthy be convincing the masses that there is no benefit to cooperative efforts like Unions to support their common causes
Wherever You Go, There You Are
Kim Dotcom and Jullian Assange are a fuckton more credible than 90% of US pundits and politicians.
Bernie Sanders is a self described socialist. It means the same as in Europe. Political parties in Europe use the world socialist.
Your claim about Libertarian is nonsense. Perhaps you are too busy. You might want to slow down long enough to at least get some of the facts straight.
2.7 Labor Markets
Employment and compensation agreements between private employers and employees are outside the scope of government, and these contracts should not be encumbered by government-mandated benefits or social engineering. We support the right of private employers and employees to choose whether or not to bargain with each other through a labor union....
Is There a Libertarian Case for Organized Labor?
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
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.
Unless Democrats cross over and vote Bush in the primaries to help Hillary out. That's how we got McCain.
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.
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