Slashdot Mirror


Anonymous Hacks Donald Trump's Voicemail and Leaks the Messages (betanews.com)

Mark Wilson writes: In the run-up to the presidential election, few days go by when Donald Trump isn't hitting the headlines for something he's said or done. The bombastic billionaire looks set to become the Republican candidate, and his journey towards the White House is littered with offense and controversy, and back in December Anonymous declared war on him. The loose collective of hackers and activist made its declaration after Trump announced plans to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. One of the first strikes in Anonymous' war sees the group hacking the businessman's voicemail and leaking the messages. The messages appear to show that Trump had a surprisingly cosy relationship with the more left-leaning section of the media than one might imagine.

314 comments

  1. Let Me Guess... by kackle · · Score: 1

    They said exactly what he says in public...

    FP!

    1. Re:Let Me Guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only thing I think they might say that he isn't willing to say in public is, "How can I get out of being stuck with this job for four years?"

    2. Re:Let Me Guess... by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That isn't a problem. The President is free to resign at any time, and the Vice President will then take over as Acting President. It's exactly what Nixon did.

      Honestly, I'd be OK with Trump doing that, as long as his VP isn't one of the existing or former GOP candidates. It couldn't be any worse than any of the other current GOP candidates, or Hillary. Trump is likely doing all this for his big ego anyway, but still that's a lot better than the other GOP candidates and Hillary who are really working for special interests.

    3. Re:Let Me Guess... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Anonymous is the GOP? No wonder they act all stern, strict, and that kind of crap about anonymous. It's like the most vocal anti gay voices seem to belong to closet homosexuals.

    4. Re:Let Me Guess... by KGIII · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There's some merit in that idea. I did propose a solution which would result in my voting for Trump. Put him as VP alongside Sanders - it's just crazy enough to work. It's not like Congress is going to let either one of them do anything meaningful. We might as well give us the best entertainment money can buy, or something like that.

      I'm not big on conspiracy theories or things of that nature. I'm really not... However! (You knew that was coming, didn't you?) I know this is probably *not* the case but I have wondered if Trump's actually a spoiler that has gone horribly wrong - or fantastically correct. He's completely disrupted the GOP. I don't watch television or see any ads online but I understand he hasn't even been paying for ads. (That's particularly clever and we were sort of discussing that in a journal post last night/this morning.)

      What if Trump's not meant to win but is just meant to take enough votes from the Republicans to make the ride a bit easier for the Democrats? He is good friends with Hillary, after all. I'm pretty sure that's a complete bastardization of the political process but I'd not put it past them. I'm also guessing that we'd not hear about it until well after the deed is done and can no longer be undone.

      To be clear, I'm absolutely NOT suggesting that is the case. (Sadly, this is Slashdot and I'm compelled to clarify that.) It's not even an accusation. It's just more of a, "What if?" It's probably not illegal. I'm thinking that it might be adequate for impeachment but this is a Clinton we're talking about. They could even be banking on it not becoming obvious until well after the fact. It really wouldn't even require a lot of other people to be involved and they could easily do it with leaving little to no information behind.

      Hell, one or both of them could be in a position where they have either plausible deniability or no actual knowledge to begin with. Heh, almost Manchurian in nature. At the very least, it could be fairly easy to get someone in Trump's position motivated to run and convinced he thought it all up himself. It might actually make an interesting novel or movie.

      At any rate, I'd absolutely have no choice but to vote for a Sanders/Trump ticket. I might even vote a Trump/Sanders ticket. Why? It's not that I don't like you but that it would be the most amusing four years in my life, collectively speaking. I bet not a day goes by that I'm not given cause to laugh like hell.

      In the words of the immortal Chink: Ha ha, ho ho, he he! (Should not be an obscure reference on Slashdot.)

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    5. Re:Let Me Guess... by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I did propose a solution which would result in my voting for Trump. Put him as VP alongside Sanders - it's just crazy enough to work. It's not like Congress is going to let either one of them do anything meaningful. We might as well give us the best entertainment money can buy, or something like that.

      A Trump/Sanders ticket would be hilarious; I've thought of that too. Even funnier would be if they both chose each other as running mates, and ran that way: Trump/Sanders vs Sanders/Trump.

      However, I disagree about them doing anything meaningful. Even with an uncooperative Congress, the President does have a lot of power, and especially the power to say "no" and refuse action. If Congress wants to start a war in the middle east and the President says "no", that's the end of it: there's no military action without his approval. If Congress or other powers-that-be want to grab Snowden or Assange and torture them in Guantanamo, the President has the power to not do that, and even to pardon them. If Congress wants to pass TPP or SOPA/PIPA or whatever, the President has a lot of power to throw a wrench into the works there. If Congress wants the NSA to spy on all Americans, the President has the power to shut it down.

      What if Trump's not meant to win but is just meant to take enough votes from the Republicans to make the ride a bit easier for the Democrats? He is good friends with Hillary, after all.

      You're definitely not the first person to think of this. A LOT of people have suggested this for a while now. However, it seems that Sanders has thrown a wrench into that plan. A lot of Democrat voters despise Hillary and will vote for Trump instead of her (or just write Sanders in). According to polls, though, if Hillary dropped out (perhaps because she was in jail) and it became a race between Bernie and any GOP person including Trump, Bernie would win. He's the least unfavorable candidate according to polls; lots of people despise Trump (on both sides), and lots of people despise Hillary (on both sides). Almost no one despises Bernie; they can't even come up with any real dirt on him. They can say stupid stuff about "socialism", they can say his policies won't work, they can say completely idiotic things about 90% tax rates (betraying a complete lack of understanding of marginal rates and also his actual policies), they can complain about his age (even though he's only 5 years older than Trump and 6 older than Hillary who's had a lot of health problems), but no one really *despises* him like they do all the other candidates. The other GOP candidates aren't as unliked, but they're not liked either: everyone thinks Cruz is a liar and a religious nut, and that Rubio is a robot and in the pocket of the establishment.

    6. Re:Let Me Guess... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      We need to get some designs made up for Sanders/Trump and Trump/Sanders bumper stickers. Way back when, I got a bumper sticker made up that said, "Archie Bunker for President!" I got given the finger, a lot. It was hilarious.

      Anyhow, the president has plenty of power, just not as much as most people think. We'll likely end up with a stalled Congress and maybe, just maybe, they'll learn to compromise and actually consider working for the people. Well, it *could* happen.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    7. Re:Let Me Guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump does his best to be Archie Bunker for President.

    8. Re:Let Me Guess... by roman_mir · · Score: 0

      Please let me correct you. I despise Sanders more than all other politicians rilunning in this race (and I generally despise politicians). He is the epithome of collectivism in usa politics, there is nobody more loathsome than Sanders AFAIC.

    9. Re: Let Me Guess... by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      But that's because you'd rather see people die in the gutter than hand over a penny, Scrooge. Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?

    10. Re:Let Me Guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Congress wants to start a war in the middle east and the President says "no", that's the end of it: there's no military action without his approval.

      Except that it's Congress that has the power to declare war, and could probably impeach the President for refusing to prosecute a declared war. At best, the President's refusal to deploy troops would be stalling for time while trying to get Congress to end the state of war.

    11. Re:Let Me Guess... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 0

      maybe, just maybe, they'll learn to compromise and actually consider working for the people.

      The last time the politicians compromised, the American people got the Iraq war. I prefer gridlock over compromise.

      Also, why is anyone surprised that Trump gets along better with lefty journalists? Fox News has been his biggest critic. For leftists, Trump is like a dream come true. Not only are the Dems likely to hold onto the presidency, but if a lot Republicans stay home in November, they may take control of the senate as well.

    12. Re: Let Me Guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ad hominem.
      Why won't you think of the children of the communist countries ? How many millions dead in the name of Bernies ideas? Oh, but sure, Scrooge, very compelling. Run along child, the cake is a lie.

    13. Re: Let Me Guess... by roman_mir · · Score: 0

      Would I? See, nobody is ASKING for a penny, they are coming with a gun to my door.

    14. Re:Let Me Guess... by grcumb · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The last time the politicians compromised, the American people got the Iraq war. I prefer gridlock over compromise.

      Un. Fucking. Believable.

      I don't really care if I get modded down so far I can't edit my hosts file for moo-ing.

      This is the most vacuous piece of reasoning I have ever in my life come across, but tragically, that's probably because I live in Saneland, which is the geographical area NOT occupied by the contiguous United States. It's just so wrong in so many ways there quite literally is no way to respond respectfully to it, unless it were uttered by a bespectacled, slightly sociopathic eleven year-old. In which case I would tell him to stop talking until he's finished his homework.

      I despair of you, you know that? I am saddened by what your country—and you—have been reduced to. And I grew up with the assassinations of Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King, with the Nixon resignation and Reagan's arms for hostages constitutional fuckuppery. I breakfasted under a Doomsday clock that was just two minutes to midnight.

      But nothing compares to the pass you have brought your nation—and, God help us, this planet—to now.

      Mod me down; label me a troll. But I used to be your neighbour. I used to be your friend.

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    15. Re: Let Me Guess... by Vladimus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Without an actual counter-argument you realize that it's more likely that your post will be modded "troll", right?

      --

      A rolling stone is worth two in the bush!

    16. Re:Let Me Guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All Trump cares about is his "brand". Can you imagine how much cheap plastic shit made in China he will be able to put "President Trump" on and make a fortune from?

    17. Re:Let Me Guess... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      The President is the Commander-in-Chief of the military. So sure, Congress could impeach him, but the President could also direct the military and federal police to act against Congress and arrest them. It'd be an interesting situation for sure; who would the military follow? I think at that point, it'd depend on what the top military leaders believed, if a war was really necessary or if it was foolhardy or worse.

    18. Re:Let Me Guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thinking that anything that happens in this election will make the slightest bit of real difference to anything that happens in the real world marks you out as a smug 12 year old though. Go and finish your homework.

    19. Re:Let Me Guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whatever.. You'd shit your pants if americans dared tell you how to run your country. Maybe it's time for these sanctimonious euro slashdot users to take their own advice and stop trying to 'nation build' the US in the comments section.

    20. Re: Let Me Guess... by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Americans already pay close to 40% of their income in taxes and the government STILL runs a deficit every year. The state is beggaring the taxpayers with interest and inflation.

    21. Re:Let Me Guess... by davester666 · · Score: 1

      why would he leave himself voicemail?

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    22. Re: Let Me Guess... by snowsnoot · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But you have to admit, politically speaking, your country is a fucking laughing stock right now isn't it?

    23. Re: Let Me Guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ad hominem. Why won't you think of the children of the communist countries ? How many millions dead in the name of Bernies ideas? Oh, but sure, Scrooge, very compelling. Run along child, the cake is a lie.

      Sanders' ideal are the Nordic countries. Care to expand on the millions of dead there?

    24. Re: Let Me Guess... by grcumb · · Score: 4, Interesting

      But you have to admit, politically speaking, your country is a fucking laughing stock right now isn't it?

      Tough call, actually. We just put over half the government into jail for criminal bribery. Seriously. 14 out of 27 MPs were convicted. On the one hand. Bribery is so common and politicians are so shameless that they collectively walked right into a conviction. On the other hand, we actually showed that crimes among the ruling class have consequences.

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    25. Re:Let Me Guess... by Raenex · · Score: 2

      I don't really care if I get modded down so far I can't edit my hosts file for moo-ing. [..] Mod me down; label me a troll. But I used to be your neighbour. I used to be your friend.

      Well if you really didn't care, then you would have just stated your case without the special pleading, because we all know that whenever you do this the opposite happens and you get modded +5.

    26. Re:Let Me Guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However! (You knew that was coming, didn't you?) I know this is probably *not* the case but I have wondered if Trump's actually a spoiler that has gone horribly wrong - or fantastically correct. He's completely disrupted the GOP. I don't watch television or see any ads online but I understand he hasn't even been paying for ads. (That's particularly clever and we were sort of discussing that in a journal post last night/this morning.)

      What if Trump's not meant to win but is just meant to take enough votes from the Republicans to make the ride a bit easier for the Democrats? He is good friends with Hillary, after all. I'm pretty sure that's a complete bastardization of the political process but I'd not put it past them

      I'm old enough to remember the 1992 election. I don't wear a tin foil hat but I believe this was EXACTLY Ross Perot's plan back then. He didn't want the presidency. He just didn't want Bush 41 to have it. Split the vote just enough to hand it to WJC on a silver platter. Those two Texans had some long standing feud and Perot took him to task over it and ultimately "won". I think WJC only had 42% of the vote but he had more than George H. W. and Perot had 19%. Most of that 19% would have went to 41 if he had't run.

    27. Re:Let Me Guess... by ganjadude · · Score: 2

      what IS the point you are making???

      the LESS the federal government does, the more free the people are to be free. Gridlock over passing stuff for the sake of passing stuff IS the right way.

      the constitution is suposed to mkae it hard for congress to make changes at the federal level for a reason

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    28. Re: Let Me Guess... by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      typical left wing response. instead of talking about all the people who will die in socialist countries

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    29. Re: Let Me Guess... by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      What if Trump's not meant to win but is just meant to take enough votes from the Republicans to make the ride a bit easier for the Democrats?

      And... this is exactly how Billary v1.0 was elected the first time - Perot was used to steal votes from G.B. Senior.

    30. Re: Let Me Guess... by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      It's like the most vocal anti gay voices seem to belong to closet homosexuals.

      And two thirds of 'em are Southern youth pastors.

    31. Re: Let Me Guess... by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      You've stated on here before that you don't believe in charity. Humbug!

    32. Re: Let Me Guess... by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Is the death rate significantly higher in Europe?

    33. Re: Let Me Guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then move the fuck out of Alabama or Georgia or whatever gangbanger shithole you are in.

    34. Re: Let Me Guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't care if I get modded down for this. Trump will be the best president ever! Oh yeah and global warming is fake just like evolution!

    35. Re: Let Me Guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey listen, I really don't like to work man. So if you are serious about the whole "not letting people die in the gutters" thing, if I quit my job, will you give me money so I won't starve? If so I'll send you my contact info.

    36. Re:Let Me Guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not like Congress is going to let either one of them do anything meaningful.

      Why on Earth would you think that? Congress is stonewalling Obama because they hate the idea of his policies (or appointments) ever taking hold and having a lasting effect. Sanders and Clinton would certainly get the same treatment. But Trump's policies are taken straight from the Republican mainstream--their only beef with Trump is that he's using his out loud voice to talk about their shared racist policies, which could discredit the Republicans during the election. But if he gets elected, they actually have a chance to implement those policies that they all agree on. They would approve everything, and propose even crazier ideas than Trump's. Have you read the latest fake outrage over Trump ordering torture? The military would refuse to obey! Except... they totally obeyed when Bush ordered torture only a few years back, including Hayden, the very schmuck who's pretending to have principles now. Everyone's playing amnesiac about what the Republicans actually do when they're in power--they act precisely like Trump promises to. The sad truth is that this clown fits right in, he's just a little too honest about his motivations for the Republican establishment.

    37. Re: Let Me Guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hillary would be his Edith.

      "Edithhhhhhhhh"

    38. Re: Let Me Guess... by ewibble · · Score: 1

      Nonsense, just because you have a global health system doesn't mean you are a socialist country. Guess what? The world is not black an white, you can actually pick and choose which policies you want. In fact most 1st world countries, if not all, except the USA have one. It is cheaper to run than the US system, and all people live longer, including the rich. All the US system does is give money to the health insurance companies.

      But don't let evidence cloud your judgement, the moment you get global health care system, is the moment you start your inevitable decent into becoming a communist state.

    39. Re: Let Me Guess... by dothasmurfysmurf · · Score: 1

      Yep. Socialism !=communism

    40. Re:Let Me Guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The messages appear to show that Trump had a surprisingly cosy relationship with the more left-leaning section of the media than one might imagine."

      If this surprises anyone, they are fucking retarded.

    41. Re:Let Me Guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The President is the Commander-in-Chief of the military. So sure, Congress could impeach him, but the President could also direct the military and federal police to act against Congress and arrest them. It'd be an interesting situation for sure; who would the military follow? I think at that point, it'd depend on what the top military leaders believed, if a war was really necessary or if it was foolhardy or worse.

      No, he cannot.

    42. Re: Let Me Guess... by snowsnoot · · Score: 1

      Haha you got me, I'm guessing you're in Vanuatu not the USA? Oh well no comment editing function exists so I will just have to own it.

    43. Re:Let Me Guess... by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      That isn't a problem. The President is free to resign at any time, and the Vice President will then take over as Acting President.

      Yea, but you don't do that. If you get everyone fired up enough to put you there, the least you can do is serve. To be elected and resign just because he didn't want the job in the first place, well everyone should never trust him again. Let him become cent-less (not pennyless, the US doesn't make pennies, we make cents). He'd also have to turn in all his man cards. Even his squirrel on his head. That's really yellow.

      However I agree he didn't intend on being caught up in all this. I bet he's like - crap! I might win this thing!

    44. Re: Let Me Guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sanders ideal countries are nigger free zones. No wonder why he can't capture the black vote.

    45. Re:Let Me Guess... by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Well Mister Trump, I'm afraid you're going to have to die. That will show the bitches.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    46. Re:Let Me Guess... by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Nah, the GOP has had candidates like Trump (and worse) for decades, and it wouldn't be the first time one of them got the nomination. Remember Barry Goldwater anybody ?
      And you can't call them outliers either. Nixon's Southern Strategy was lifted almost word for word from Goldwater's policies - I say almost because he left out one word (only one word) and that was the word "nigger". That and he no longer outright said he was against the civil war act, the supreme court decision on seperate-but-equal had killed that as an option or he would have however.

      The fact is, the last sane republican was Eisenhower. Reagan may have qualified if not for the Iran/Contra scandal - sorry but letting your sitting president get away with high treason means the entire damn party has gone crazy.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    47. Re:Let Me Guess... by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      > the US doesn't make pennies, we make cents

      No. You really don't. :)

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    48. Re:Let Me Guess... by jandersen · · Score: 1

      In the words of the immortal Chink: Ha ha, ho ho, he he! (Should not be an obscure reference on Slashdot.)

      Do enlighten us all. As far as I know, 'chink' is a racial slur that means 'Chinese'. Chinese culture does contain reference to 'the immortals', but I don't have the impression that they are prone to laughing goofily. So far, you've only managed to communicate your apparent racism.

    49. Re:Let Me Guess... by jandersen · · Score: 1

      A Trump/Sanders ticket would be hilarious; I've thought of that too.

      I think what you and many others are saying is, that American politics has become, in essence, a tired, old sitcom, and people are sick of it - to the extent that they are willing to vote for anything that doesn't feel like 'establishment'. The problem, especially in America, is that the establishment includes the extremely rich companies that own everything; I don't think it will be possible to simply vote for the right politicians - something similar to the civil rights movement will be needed.

    50. Re:Let Me Guess... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I don't see why: the extremely rich companies may exert a lot of influence through media, donations, etc., however at the end of the day, the only thing that really matters is the votes. If the people vote for some non-establishment candidate, then that's who wins the election and takes office.

    51. Re:Let Me Guess... by jandersen · · Score: 1

      I don't see why: the extremely rich companies may exert a lot of influence through media, donations, etc., however at the end of the day, the only thing that really matters is the votes. If the people vote for some non-establishment candidate, then that's who wins the election and takes office.

      Don't we know plenty of examples? Laws that get passed to suit the convenience of large industries, despite what is good for the population as a whole and so on? The organised lobbying paid for by big money? Rich American corporations are able to exert so much influence that only their candidates are able to even get close to being elected; it doesn't really matter whether you vote Democrat or Republican, when both candidates as well as the majority of the rest of the politicians take their cue from the big corporations. I don't see how America can get real democracy, unless the influence of big money (in which I think one can include the religious industry) is gotten rid of.

    52. Re: Let Me Guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is all this redneck racism here recently a result of the dwindling Slashdot user base, so it is bubbling to more visibility than before, or are these people embolden by Trump to come out and flag the KKK flag more than before?

    53. Re:Let Me Guess... by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      as long as his VP isn't one of the existing or former GOP candidates. It couldn't be any worse than any of the other current GOP candidates, or Hillary.

      I figure Trump's going to go with someone who's more of a personality than a career politician. To balance Trump's business history, I think he'd lean for someone with a bit more wholesome appeal. Maybe a well-respected star athlete, like a former olympic champion, for instance. He might also lean for a female running mate, to counteract voters who go for Hillary based on gender alone. Put all that together, and I figure his ideal choice is Caitlyn Jenner.

    54. Re:Let Me Guess... by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      You know, way back in the day the vice president was not chosen by the president. The vice president was the runner up in the presidential race, so it would work out to exactly like that had this been 100 years or so ago. (I can't remember exactly when it changed, and I'm too lazy to look it up.)

    55. Re:Let Me Guess... by Talderas · · Score: 1

      I think you're on to something but instead of an athlete I think he should go with a female pop star to counteract that Hilary votes for gender. To further sweeten the deal she should be a black female pop-star to court the black vote. That leaves but one apropos running mate.

      Trump / Beyoncé 2016

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
  2. Not really. by khasim · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The messages appear to show that Trump had a surprisingly cosy relationship with the more left-leaning section of the media than one might imagine.

    There is very little "left-leaning" media in the USofA. Most of it would be corporate-leaning.

    And they love him because (exactly as he says) he brings in the ratings for them. He's always ready for a friendly interview.

    1. Re:Not really. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The media has been hammering him from all sides. It's incredibly obvious that the establishment wants Hillary or Rubio.

    2. Re:Not really. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The messages appear to show that Trump had a surprisingly cosy relationship with the more left-leaning section of the media than one might imagine.

      There is very little "left-leaning" media in the USofA. Most of it would be corporate-leaning.

      Got any evidence to back this up? I perceive most media in the U.S. as leaning the exact opposite direction.

    3. Re: Not really. by thesupraman · · Score: 5, Informative

      The part you are missing is that the left in the US is often further to the right than the right in most other countries (assuming you ignore the fringes of both).
      Yes, believe it or not left and right tend to be relative to local center, and in the US that has been drifting to the right since about 1492..

      Nothing wrong with that of course, every country is free to want what it wants from politics, just dont fall in to the trap of thinking that
      the USAs left and right align with most other countries left and right.

    4. Re: Not really. by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >Most of it would be corporate-leaning.

      Establishment-leaning. Yes, pro- corporate, but also pro- State, banksters, regulators, NGO's, etc. Which isn't all that surprising since the corps pay them and the regulators don't shut them down if they dance on cue.

      http://www.econlib.org/library...

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    5. Re:Not really. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0, Troll

      Quick sanity test: is the New York Times a liberal newspaper?

      There is one and only one correct answer to this question. Fail it, and...well...you've failed comprehension.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    6. Re:Not really. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I perceive"

      One typically finds what they are looking for. If you hate "right-wing", so much media is leaning right wing and you are the underdog. If you hate "left-wing", so much media is left-wing and you are the underdog. It's like how Atheists, Christians, muslims, and agnostics all simultaneously think they are "under attack" and are the underdog in a desperate fight.

      The answer isn't somewhere in the middle, there is an actual correct answer, though it will never be agreed upon. So the pragmatic answer may as well be "it's somewhere in the middle" as that is the best form of compromise we'll see in in the USA for quite awhile.

    7. Re: Not really. by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > Quick sanity test: is the New York Times a liberal newspaper?

      Which definition of 'liberal' are you using? The word has been co-opted so many times, even in recent decades, that your question may not be useful.

      If you mean 'authoritan-socialist' then say that. (My best guess, but who knows? They're certainly not classically liberal).

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    8. Re:Not really. by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2

      Apparently you are too illiterate to know the difference between left-leaning and liberal.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    9. Re:Not really. by khasim · · Score: 2

      Quick sanity test: is the New York Times a liberal newspaper?

      Google "Judith Miller". See how the New York Times presented her material vs opposing material regarding the Iraq War.

    10. Re:Not really. by Noah+Haders · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Quick sanity test: is the New York Times a liberal newspaper?

      There is one and only one correct answer to this question. Fail it, and...well...you've failed comprehension.

      it's a liberal-leaning establishment rag. they celebrate power, they celebrate wealth, they reject the fringe. they nominally lean left. On the dem side, they endorse hillary, on the repub side, they endorse kasich. that's how they roll.

      i remember when US accidentally bombed a doctors without borders clinic. every paper in the world was like, "US bombs doctors without borders clinic!" NYT was like "Doctors Without Borders clinic is bombed; US investigating." It took them like a week to finally get around to the fact that it was the US that did it. this is when I cancelled my subscription.

    11. Re:Not really. by khasim · · Score: 1

      How about this?

      It is "left-leaning" if you only consider a 1-dimensional "spectrum" with one side being "left" and the other being "right".

      Now, change it to a 2-dimensional triangle with the vertices of "left", "right" and "centrist" and the placement changes.

      Now make it a 3-dimensional model with "pro-corporate" and "anti-corporate" added and the difference should be obvious.

      It also helps with the "anything that is to the left of me is leftist" and "anything that is to the right of me is fascist" tirades.

      So two media corporations could be at the same level of pro-corporate yet differ along the "centrist" and "right" scale.

      But that kind of nuance isn't very popular.

    12. Re: Not really. by TapeCutter · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not really, "most other countries" in this context pretty much means "the western world". eg here in Oz, Obama would be classified as center-right.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    13. Re:Not really. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The media has been hammering him from all sides. It's incredibly obvious that the establishment wants Hillary or Rubio.

      Ignoring the politics for a bit, but I could be wrong, but if all the leading republican candidates but Trump could agree
      1) That they would not support him no matter what
      2) That they would support any of the others if the others won, then Trump would eventually lose.

      They haven't done that. They say lots of things, but then say, "Yes, I will support him if he is the candidate."

      What the country needs is not unity of party. It needs rational decision making and policy based on ethics and science, and most importantly a republic that is educated to pick those who base their policies on ethics and science.

      Rubio the other day made a distinction between terrorists and criminals. One could be basically tortured or the next thing to it, but the other could not. How about we first give any accused a fair impartial trial before we toss them into a lower class? Make sure any public defenders are not hopelessly overworked while you are at it. At any rate, before rights are denied a trial is required. If the public wants torture then, well that is a discussion to be had, but to do so before they are found guilty? That just seems wrong to my admittedly naive self.

    14. Re: Not really. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes he would. I can play this too.

    15. Re:Not really. by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      This makes no sense to me. so you agree it's a pro-corporate, pro-money left leaning rag?

    16. Re: Not really. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is no "left" in US mainstream politics....there's only "right wing" and "batshit crazy insane right wing".

    17. Re:Not really. by khasim · · Score: 0

      This makes no sense to me. so you agree it's a pro-corporate, pro-money left leaning rag?

      Rag? Yes.
      Pro-corporate? Yes.
      Pro-money? Yes.
      Left-leaning? Disagree. At best it is leaning towards Centrist. At worst, it is just less Right-leaning that others.

    18. Re: Not really. by postglock · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The part you are missing is that the left in the US is often further to the right than the right in most other countries

      Absolutely! This site has a good overview of political leanings, showing the current trend towards the right/authoritarian.

    19. Re: Not really. by postglock · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In a global/historical context, Obama is firmly "right", with no centre to him. However, you are correct that by Australian standards, he appears somewhat central.

    20. Re: Not really. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go to some parts of Germany and the anti-immigrant rhetoric would make Donald Trump blush.

    21. Re: Not really. by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      The part you are missing is that the left in the US is often further to the right than the right in most other countries (assuming you ignore the fringes of both).

      By "most other countries" you're probably referring to Europe. Most other countries should by definition include the entire middle east, as well as every autocratic nation in Asia (in other words, just about every Asian country, including the former iron curtain nations.)

      But even then, Europe wouldn't be accurate either. There's been a very big fascist uprising in Europe as of late. That is to say, they fascist parties in France and Denmark have over 28% of the vote, and about 15 other European countries have some 15% of the vote going to their respective fascist parties. And when I say 'fascist party' I mean they actually identify themselves as fascist.

      As a result of that, there are quite a number of actual fascists in the EU parliament.

    22. Re:Not really. by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If they really wanted to "hammer him", they wouldn't give him air-time, which is the opposite of what they do. Trump is a ratings magnet.

    23. Re: Not really. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes he would.

      This is fun. I was wondering how I would spend Saturday night. Yay!

    24. Re:Not really. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is very little "left-leaning" media in the USofA.

      I'll refer you to CNN, MSNBC, Huffington Post, and Daily Kos.

      Most of it would be corporate-leaning

      Left-Leaning and corporate-leaning are in no way mutually-exclusive.

    25. Re: Not really. by guruevi · · Score: 1

      If Trump wins (and that's a big if), the establishment most likely would form a coalition to get the delegates required. It would destroy both parties but the. There would finally be the true single party that rules the USA, perhaps a coup or riots would then reinstate democracy.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    26. Re:Not really. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even NPR veered to the right in the mid 90s-- they are bending over backwards right now to talk up Hillary (pretty right wing) and ignore Bernie (an actual leftist in US politics).

      I guess "Mother Jones" is left, but that's hardly mainstream.

    27. Re:Not really. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm an American, but I tend to go to the Economist first for news.

      Though recently, it has been so hilariously anti-Putin, that I have stopped trusting them.

      Not to say that I'm pro-Putin, but their vicious caricatures of him are like something from WWI propaganda. I do think he's a douche-bag, but I expect journalists to give me better and more balanced news than "He's a douche-bag".

    28. Re: Not really. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go to some parts of Germany and the anti-immigrant rhetoric would make Donald Trump blush.

      Yeah, rational people have a tendency to do that while their so-called leaders invite in large groups of people who have openly vowed to destroy their country and all the native people in it. All while being invited in to said country. I heard a German minister actually claim all the European / Western world hating "immigrants" who have vowed to never assimilate will "save" Germany. You just can't make up that kind of self-loathing stupidity. Enjoy.

    29. Re: Not really. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the part you are missing is that I have lived in both Europe and the US and have degrees in history and philosophy as well as unrelated PHD and md. Your view is the common left ivory tower view and is frequent here on /. The problem is it is fallacious. So keep living in your echo chamber and keep thinking that Alex jones represents the right and or that all right leaners are theonomists, of course people conflate theonomy with dominionism, Cruz for example is a dominionist, but not a theonomist. Look them up, two very different viewpoints, and the big difference being the role of the church with government. Hint theonomists are the ones that want 'gods law' enacted by the government, dominionists see things as expressed by natural law... Like the founding fathers did

    30. Re:Not really. by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Which is of course the exact treatment Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein get. What this US election is clearly showing is the blatant and extreme bias of corporate media in America, they have stopped even trying to pretend to be news media and instead have gone whole hog on corporate propaganda. They are really starting to give of that stench of losing to the internet. The idiot box/TV versus the smart box/internet and the internet is kicking mains stream media arse and they are just really starting to lose it.

      Of course the principle of if our privacy is stolen at the bottom then bloody do not expect it to be kept at the top is fair and reasonable. The reality is for good governance there should be not secrets, take public office or seek public office and you should go through exactly what any other employee goes through when getting a job. Let's see an end to the secrets about who those people running for office really are. Public testing of intelligence, knowledge and psychology and on record civil liability for the promise they make and fail to keep.

      Various corrupt players are trying to steal our privacy, how about they expose the truths about themselves first, how about their private lives are opened up to the general public first, how about any information that can affect an election is required under law to be released to the public.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    31. Re: Not really. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That there exists fascist parties in Europe does not falsify his claims though.

    32. Re: Not really. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ^ This.

    33. Re: Not really. by 7-Vodka · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that period in the 70's when Bernstein exposed the CIA as controlling most of the mainstream news in the USA.
      How Americas Most Powerful News Media Worked Hand in Glove with the Central Intelligence Agency and Why the Church Committee Covered It Up

      And yes, that's the same Bernstein that broke Watergate.

      --

      Liberty.

    34. Re: Not really. by KermodeBear · · Score: 1

      I'm thankful.

      --
      Love sees no species.
    35. Re:Not really. by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      You're joking right? ..or is this yet another no true leftist fallacy? I suppose the NYT and the WP dont' qualify? I suppose it is mild compared to the outright marxist crap they get in sweden, but they are still left leaning. ..and sure, there's plenty of corporate crap, too. Authoritarian regimes favor corporate interests as long as they've got the lobbying power.

    36. Re:Not really. by dryeo · · Score: 1

      How the hell can you have a pro-corporate, pro-money group and call them left leaning? By definition the left is for the people. So unless you're calling not quite as far right as most being left leaning...
      No wonder the American revolutionaries started out by purging the right wingers. And yes, Torie is another name for Conservative.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    37. Re:Not really. by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

      Here is a news flash for you: The New York Times is not located in Brisbane, Donald Trump is not standing for office in Queensland, and the context of the discussion is not Australian.

      Apparently you don't understand how those terms are applied in an American context. Does that mean that you too are illiterate?

      --
      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
    38. Re: Not really. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      If they know they're going to lose the general, they might want to preserve their party delegate system and just distance themselves from the candidate, like they did with Goldwater.

    39. Re:Not really. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Giving more air time to people who are well known and have very high unfavorable ratings should not be expected to be helpful to them. It rallies people against him; he eventually gets around to offending almost everybody. Turnout will be high.

      It helps the Trump brand for whatever TV project he's doing after the election, but nobody is trying to stop him from that.

    40. Re: Not really. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      That makes sense, he's a center-right "conservative democrat" here in the US.

    41. Re: Not really. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no "left" in US mainstream politics....there's only "right wing" and "batshit crazy insane right wing".

      Living in Scandinavia what I have heard about Bernie Sanders sounds very much like parties and politicians we characterize as center-right, eg. they are among the group we consider center, but would lean to the right when supporting which other parties to support to form government (some other center parties lean left).

      And Obama would be to the right of our main right parties.

    42. Re:Not really. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're joking right? ..or is this yet another no true leftist fallacy? I suppose the NYT and the WP dont' qualify? I suppose it is mild compared to the outright marxist crap they get in sweden, but they are still left leaning. ..and sure, there's plenty of corporate crap, too. Authoritarian regimes favor corporate interests as long as they've got the lobbying power.

      There is exactly one marxist party in Sweden. They have so low voter support that they don't even run in the national election, only in the local elections, where they get a few thousand votes total combined. I assure you that no-one sane consider any major media as supporting them.

    43. Re: Not really. by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Yep authoritarian socialist is a good discription.

    44. Re: Not really. by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Yeah just look at examples of left wing governments throughout the 20th century and how good they were for their people. You're an idiot.

    45. Re: Not really. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US is not, and has never been a democracy

    46. Re: Not really. by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Its certainly true that here in the States we've got fascism masquerading both as liberalism on the "left" and conservatism on the "right."

    47. Re: Not really. by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Operation Mockingbird.

    48. Re: Not really. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If all the American citizens just decided to say I won't support Trump no matter what. If Trump just decided not to run...if if if if

    49. Re: Not really. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what about North Korean standards? Or moon standards? Or intergalactic standards hmmm?

    50. Re:Not really. by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      they celebrate power, they celebrate wealth... on the repub side, they endorse kasich.

      One of these things is not like the other.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    51. Re: Not really. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are aware the "right" on that chart corresponds to "Liberalism/Libertarianism"? In other words, individual freedoms vs the "left's" "Collectivism"?

      On that chart, damn straight all US Presidents are far-right. The US stands for individual liberties that the Euros can only dream of (as they get carted off to jail for having offended someone on Twitter).

    52. Re:Not really. by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure that Left-leaning, socialist, even Communist nations have gone to war with the approval of their media. What do you think you're trying to prove? That Liberal papers can support military action too? I'm pretty sure there isn't any real doubt about that.

      --
      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
    53. Re: Not really. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scandinavia? France? Unified Germany (though the last two are now moving right, they're still FAR left of anything in the US)

    54. Re: Not really. by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Stupidity, noun, citing a historically supported fact.

      Fact: emigrants always produce more than they cost and on average the difference is far larger than for natives. They use less social services and produce more wealth. Never in all of history has *any* amount of immigration ever FAILED to make the locals RICHER.

      As for the claim of wanting to destroy the natives ? Well in all of history that only ever happened once. It was called colonialism and it was done exclusively *by* Europeans.
      Do not project the failures of your ancestors on the entire world - who mostly consist of the people they did it to.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    55. Re: Not really. by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      Not really. As a senator, he had one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate. As President, he's been solidly left (along the US spectrum).

    56. Re:Not really. by ausekilis · · Score: 1

      Negative attention is still attention. It's the same reason Britney Spears is popular after her social train wreck. Or Miley Cyrus making headlines over her nudity.

      The sad part is people often remember a name/face, but forget why they remember them. There's a joke in the military about being a screwup, but not a big screwup. Enough to get your name in front of the commander, but not enough to get canned. The commander won't remember why they know your name, but they'll certainly sign for your promotion.

    57. Re:Not really. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "There is very little "left-leaning" media in the USofA."

      Please lie more. Unbelievable cognitive dissonance in that statement alone.

    58. Re:Not really. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and the purpose of his campaign is to a) stroke his ego and b) get his friend Clinton elected.

    59. Re: Not really. by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Much of Scandinavia has a freer economy that the US does. Not a single one of those is an example of a socialist country. Sweden used to be socialist but they started a slew of free market reforms in the 1990's that made them the economic powerhouse they are today. They didn't succeed because of socialism, but because they rejected it.

    60. Re: Not really. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not a very big if, though your prediction certainly is. Of course, that sounds like a good thing in the long run. You're not giving us any reasons to not vote Trump here.

  3. Some of the messages... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    - your hair piece is ready for pickup
    - this is Angela from Geico calling to tell you how you can save on car insurance
    - you car warranty is about to expire and we want to sell you an extended warranty, even though you only have 2000 miles on the car
    - wrong number
    - prerecorded political ad

  4. Another worthless stunt from Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have they ever done anything worthwhile?

    1. Re:Another worthless stunt from Anonymous by arth1 · · Score: 1, Informative

      i'm so sick of anonymous. they may have strong opinions, but the US election is an internal matter. we'll sort it out ourselves. butt out.

      When the candidate in question has said that he'll attack foreign people and countries, it's far from an internal matter.

    2. Re:Another worthless stunt from Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually, Trump is hostile to immigrants of all kinds, but is a dove on foreign policy. He wants Russia to handle ISIS, and China to cool down North Korea. Maybe he doesn't relish the idea of being in charge of the War Room. One thing is for sure - Putin has noticed this aspect of Trump.

    3. Re:Another worthless stunt from Anonymous by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      why? every election in the free world has this. obama has this. gwb has this. bill clinton has this. should foreign agents interfere in every single us election? if so, maybe we SHOULD bomb the world because they are literally trying to take away our freedom to choose our own leadership.

    4. Re:Another worthless stunt from Anonymous by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The easiest way to get Americans to vote for someone the outside world does not like is to make it obvious they do not like them. Americans will hold their nose and elect Satan himself if a bunch of foreigners acted like we couldn't. The overwhelming vast majority of Americans agree on one thing, foreigners do not have the right to tell us what to do.

      Keep it up and Trump will be president.

    5. Re:Another worthless stunt from Anonymous by KGIII · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't really like being in the position of defending Trump but when has he said he'd attack foreign people and countries? Specifically?

      I checked Google and the only thing I'm seeing is where he said he'd have opened fire on the Paris terrorists. I guess, with some mental gymnastics, one could construe that into saying that he'd attack foreign people and countries? However, I'm pretty sure that even some of the French said that. Actually, I think they did.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    6. Re:Another worthless stunt from Anonymous by Ogive17 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's sad, isn't it? I hate the " 'merica" movement that has taken root in the country.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    7. Re:Another worthless stunt from Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, Trump is hostile to immigrants of all kinds

      Bullshit. He is against illegal immigration, and wants our laws against it enforced, like very country on earth, including Mexico, does.

    8. Re:Another worthless stunt from Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States ..."

    9. Re:Another worthless stunt from Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He also said that we "need to go after [ISIS's] families," (paraphrasing) and then went on to blanket all Muslims as a hostile race that needs to be pushed out of the country. I'm not sure where you are from, but from inside the US, that sounds to be like ethnic cleansing. Even Larry Wilmore said that Trump had publicly advocated a war crime.

    10. Re:Another worthless stunt from Anonymous by KGIII · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yet you're paraphrasing. Do you have a link to the transcript of that comment? I should think you'd have actually quoted what he said. I mean, it's Trump. There's a gazillion things wrong with him. There are countless reasons that people have to not want him to be the president. Some of them are even good reasons. It should be easy to find that quote - and, again, Google's not finding anything using those terms.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    11. Re:Another worthless stunt from Anonymous by GrahamCox · · Score: 1

      That's called "cutting off your nose to spite your face". It's the exact same thing as people voting for Trump because they hate Obama. You really need to grow up, friends.

    12. Re:Another worthless stunt from Anonymous by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's the only group where he opposes both legal and illegal immigration - TEMPORARILY. I happen to disagree w/ him - I think there should be a PERMANENT ban on Muslims entering the US. But that's the only group where he opposes illegal immigration. He actually supports OPT visa holders i.e. F1 students who get those work extensions - being granted green cards or citizenship, since they happen to be wanted and needed due to their skills.

    13. Re:Another worthless stunt from Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=trump%20isis%20families

      Including YouTube footage. Maybe you forgot to add either isis, trump or families to your search terms.

    14. Re:Another worthless stunt from Anonymous by Raenex · · Score: 2

      You really need to grow up, friends.

      Yes, patronizing comments like these are so helpful. Keep it up, "friend".

    15. Re: Another worthless stunt from Anonymous by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Do you think any people has a right to enter a foreign country?

    16. Re:Another worthless stunt from Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There you go:
      http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/02/politics/donald-trump-terrorists-families/

    17. Re: Another worthless stunt from Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't call me "friend," pal.

    18. Re:Another worthless stunt from Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families,"

      http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/02/politics/donald-trump-terrorists-families/

    19. Re:Another worthless stunt from Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, #CruzIsWorse

      Cruz would use his religious delusions to attack Muslims and the Russians wouldn't like it much in Syria/Afghanistan.

    20. Re:Another worthless stunt from Anonymous by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Thank you. Someone understand the concept of transcripts. I'm not gonna go watch a dozen videos. That text is more than enough.

      And, I guess, that *can* be related to the initial quote of, "he'll attack foreign people and countries." In other words, meaningless rhetoric - from both sides. I'm still not seeing any references for the "countries." I guess we could say those people would be citizens of foreign countries and, as citizens, they are a part of it so then he'd saying he'll attack foreign countries. However, that's pretty meaningless. There's a gazillion reasons to not like Trump, this doesn't appear to be one worth even mentioning. Reading it, it looks like he's saying something akin to, "Kill 'em all and let God sort them out."

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    21. Re:Another worthless stunt from Anonymous by penguinoid · · Score: 2

      Yet you're paraphrasing. Do you have a link to the transcript of that comment?

      “And the other thing is with the terrorists, you have to take out their families. They, they care about their lives. Don’t kid yourself. But they say they don’t care about their lives. You have to take out their families.” link

      Asked about it later, he refused to back down

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    22. Re:Another worthless stunt from Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, #CruzIsWorse

      Cruz would use his religious delusions to attack Muslims and the Russians wouldn't like it much in Syria/Afghanistan.

      You have no proof of that and are simply LYING. You are a bigot as well.

    23. Re: Another worthless stunt from Anonymous by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Do you think any people has a right to enter a foreign country?

      When asking that question, make sure you ask it of everyone.
      Do Israelis have right to enter Palestine?
      Do Americans have a right to enter Afghanistan?

      At any rate, the US is free to prevent anyone they want from entering its country. But it must be up to them to enforce it, on their own soil, and their own cost. Demanding that Mexico pays for a wall is just idiocy.

    24. Re:Another worthless stunt from Anonymous by Hulfs · · Score: 1

      How about when Trump said on air in a Fox "interview" that we should attack terrorist's families, which would constitute a war crime.

      http://time.com/4132368/donald...

    25. Re: Another worthless stunt from Anonymous by Bartles · · Score: 1

      The answer to all those questions is no. I find it very revealing that you didn't ask if palestinians have the right to enter israel. Mexico is not invading the US. We don't have to demand anything. Illegal aliens remit 10's of billions of dollars a year to Mexico. We can tax those remittances and use the funds to build a wall. Not real difficult.

  5. Nice! by penguinoid · · Score: 1

    I'll get the pop corn.

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  6. Considering those Republicans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    have access to our voice mail without a warrant, this is only fair. Of course those morons will still bitch about it not being fair when it is completely fair.

    1. Re: Considering those Republicans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's how they be. How they be.

    2. Re: Considering those Republicans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Expect there to be a lot of whining about this when it is completely justified considering he is doing it to us.

    3. Re: Considering those Republicans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Expect there to be a lot of whining about this when it is completely justified considering he is doing it to us.

      You think Donald Trump is listening to your voice mail? And, I thought this site couldn't get any more moonbat.

    4. Re: Considering those Republicans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm gonna go get the papers, get the papers

    5. Re: Considering those Republicans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don’t think it be like it is, but it do.

    6. Re:Considering those Republicans... by Noah+Haders · · Score: 2, Insightful

      NSA and all the other agencies are in the executive branch and work for obama. maybe you should shush.

  7. So it seems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    he's really a nice person! :D

  8. I thought internet harassment was bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Hmm... No condemnation of bullying...
    No condemnation of hacking a system...

    It's cool when it happens to non-politically approved persons... Right slashdot?

    Morons.

    1. Re:I thought internet harassment was bad? by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      Hmm... No condemnation of bullying...
      No condemnation of hacking a system...

      It's cool when it happens to non-politically approved persons... Right slashdot?

      Morons.

      Actually, becoming a politician does open up many aspects of your life to the public.

      Everyone has known this for a long time. There are lines that are traditionally not crossed (family life), and the location of these lines is an issue of constant debate.

    2. Re:I thought internet harassment was bad? by penguinoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's cool when it happens to non-politically approved persons... Right slashdot?

      Morons.

      It's long been traditional to point and laugh when someone who supports something against others gets upset when that thing happens to him.

      Trump Won't Rule Out Warrantless Searches for Muslims in the US

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    3. Re:I thought internet harassment was bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your are completely correct to point out the hypocracy, it is rediculous.

      One thing I would add is that Christ is aware of everybody who does this not just to Trump but others like him. When Christ returns there will be brutallity that they cannot imagine, He will take revenge on everybody who has attacked him. To the left this is your only warning.

    4. Re:I thought internet harassment was bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hate to break it to you, but it's been 2000 years. He's not coming back...

    5. Re:I thought internet harassment was bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh bullshit - you're perfectly demonstrating my point - When that happened to sarkeesian and brianna wu and lena dunham they went apeshit and took the internet and you along with it.

      let me repeat it again - its cool and you'll even rationalize it when it happens to non politically approved persons - but anybody hacking and making doxxing attacks of the politically approved elite must be penalized and jailed.

      Rules for thee but not for me, eh penuinoid?

    6. Re:I thought internet harassment was bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a God. You're not Him.

    7. Re:I thought internet harassment was bad? by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      Seeing as Trump is well on his way to winning the presidency, he might qualify as "politically approved".

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  9. Big news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why report on it if there's nothing juicy? It's like robbing an empty vault and then bragging about it.

  10. Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Voicemail of a female gets released: It's virtual rape, harassment, gender Shoah!, absolutely horrible, the end of times!
    Voicemail of Trump gets released: KEK!

    Well, at least we all know what will be in the voicemail: Nothing Trump hasn't said already. To him, it's only more positive self-marketing.
    Anonymous wasted their worthless time.

    1. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you just really compare leaking the private voicemail of a private person who's being targeted by a hate campaign with leaking the voicemail of a public figure who is running for President?

      I despair of this group sometimes.

  11. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone by supremebob · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Donald got caught with a "hot mic" on a commercial break of the Morning Joe talk show on MSNBC, where Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski were VERY friendly with him. Hell, it almost like it seemed like they were giving him campaign advice during the chat.

    I'd imagine that CNN loves him as well, simply for the ratings boost he's given to the Republican debates.

    1. Re:This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It said left leaning. Joe Scarborough is a former Republican congressman, and Morning Joe was MSNBC's token right wing show until the recent establishment shake up.

    2. Re:This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People seem remarkably naive about how this works. What you are looking at is people using each other to their advantages. Left wing or right wing have nothing to do with it.

      For the record I don't think Trump is either. His ideology begins and ends with himself.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People seem shocked that he is 'nice' with them. Of course he is. He is running his entire campaign with 'free' advertising from them. He is telling them exactly where to show up and put the mic or get lost and miss out on the show he puts on.

      This is news to people?

    4. Re:This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you would actually follow the news regularly, you would know that CNN hates him and so do most other media, including Fox news and NY times. Funny enough, BBC England has reported in the most pro-Trump way I've seen so far.

      Moreover, how reporters are personally getting along with politicians off the camera/microphone has nothing to do with what their media actually report. Journalists need to have good personal relations with politicians or otherwise they wouldn't get their stories, but what's published in the end and how it is framed is to a large extent determined later by the editor in chief. If you come across as a frosty, opinionated smartass, you cannot be a political journalist, since no politician would give you an interview or come to your news show.

  12. Re: Why is Ian Murdock dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A lot of people are dead, and no one gives a fuck about that either.

  13. That's it? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Really? That's all? Where's the smoking gun? Where is the correspondence with David Duke? Where is the message telling him when the next cross-burning is? How about telling him his KKK hood is ready for pickup at the cleaners? Where are the messages from the international bankers telling him to keep going? Are there any alien space bats? Where's the outrage? That's the best they could do?

    A charismatic man is making relationships with less intelligent journalists (though I repeat myself) so that he can take advantage of them later? What, exactly, were we expecting?

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:That's it? by khasim · · Score: 1

      Where is the correspondence with David Duke?

      I don't think that David Duke would be considered "left-leaning" by many.

    2. Re: That's it? by Bartles · · Score: 1

      And he's been involved with several socialist groups and political parties.

  14. Re:Why is Ian Murdock dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He was a nutjob that offed himself.

  15. Too bad it wasn't the NY Times interview by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Too bad it wasn't the NY Times interview where he allegedly says that he's telling everyone what they want to hear to get elected.

    Everyone who votes for him says he speaks his mind. The jokes on them, because he speaks _their_ mind, which is why they support him.

    1. Re:Too bad it wasn't the NY Times interview by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have it backwards. What he's saying resonates with a lot of people who are tired of politicians who check which way the wind is blowing before making a statement.

      Every other candidate (D and R) says what they think people want to hear; been that way since Jimmy Carter.

    2. Re:Too bad it wasn't the NY Times interview by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Each of his positions are reversals. In the art of the deal he says if you want to make a deal you play to the other persons fantasies. He wants to make a deal with the American public and he is playing to fantasies, just as he says you should. It's plain to anyone not supporting him and its only not obvious to his supporters because they are angry with "the establishment" and don't want to be played the fool, but they are. You are kidding yourself if you don't think he's a politician. He is. He's running for office, and he's just as conniving as the very worst of them. At least the career politicians got into it originally to make a difference. When a rich man like Trump gets into the race its because money is no longer satiating his greed and now only power will.

  16. Bullshit reporting from Mark Wilson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bullshit reporting from Mark Wilson. He just stole a Gawker story and slapped the "Anonymous" tag on top of it. Gawker said it was just a random group of pranksters. Nice reporting Wilson... you're worse than a Pakistani blogger

    1. Re:Bullshit reporting from Mark Wilson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And he conveniently left the Gawker link out of the summary.... http://gawker.com/voicemails-a... Fucking SEO hound

  17. Trump is the ultimate rino by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He is a solid democrat, but has recently been playing the caricature of what democrats think republicans are. He's been earning votes despite this, not because of it. The reason people like him is because he's not a career politician. When he gets elected, he'll show his rear end and declare himself a democrat again.

  18. not Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Anonymous didn't do this.... read the Gawker story... it was just some 4Chan users

    1. Re:not Anonymous by just+another+AC · · Score: 1

      Anonymous didn't do this.... read the Gawker story... it was just some 4Chan users

      The thing about Anonymous is they don't have an "official" head. Anyone that wants to use the banner can. That was always the biggest strength and weakness of the group. You cannot shut it down if you can't define it. But it cannot stand for anything either.

      Yes it might be some 4Chan users, but what stops them being classified as being part of Anonymous?

  19. How dare white people have their own countries! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    It's "hate", because the Jew says so...

    What's wrong with muslims staying in their OWN countries? Not enough 'infidels' to kill there? Have you nothing against Islam?

    Then you have nothing against stoning, amputations, flogging, female genital mutilation, suicide bombers, beheadings, "honour" killings, repression of free speech, abolition of Parliament and its replacement with Shariah, banning of music, banning of beer and wine, banning of pork, dressing women in burkhas, beating of wives, multiple wives, killing of rape victims, persecution of Jews and Christians, child brides, repression of reason and questioning, islamic police states, burning of churches, killing anyone who leaves islam, killing anyone who questions the teachings of islam, total intolerance of other religions, inferior status of women, violent Jihad against non-muslims, arranged marriages, acid attacks, public hangings, mutilations, rewriting of history, denial of islamic atrocities...

    Islam... in layman's terms

    Here's how it works:

    As long as the Muslim population remains under 2% in any given country, they will, for the most part, be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:

    United States -- 0.6% Muslim
    Australia -- 1.5% Muslim
    Canada -- 1.9% Muslim
    China -- 1.8% Muslim
    Italy -- 1.5% Muslim
    Norway -- 1.8% Muslim

    At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize to other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from prisons and street gangs. This is happening in:

    Denmark -- 2% Muslim
    Germany -- 3.7% Muslim
    United Kingdom -- 2.7% Muslim
    Spain -- 4% Muslim
    Thailand -- 4.6% Muslim

    From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:

    France -- 8% Muslim
    Philippines -- 5% Muslim
    Sweden -- 5% Muslim
    Switzerland -- 4.3% Muslim
    The Netherlands -- 5.5% Muslim
    Trinidad & Tobago -- 5.8% Muslim

    At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Shari'ah, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Shari'ah law over the entire world.

    When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:

    Guyana -- 10% Muslim
    India -- 13.4% Muslim
    Israel -- 16% Muslim
    Kenya -- 10% Muslim
    Russia -- 15% Muslim

    After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, as in:

    Ethiopia -- 32.8% Muslim

    At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, as in:

    Bosnia -- 40% Muslim
    Chad -- 53.1% Muslim
    Lebanon -- 59.7% Muslim

    From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Shariah Law as a weapon, and jizya, the tax placed on infidels (yes, there really is such a thing) as in:

    Albania -- 70% Muslim
    Malaysia -- 60.4% Muslim
    Qatar -- 77.5% Muslim
    Sudan -- 70% Muslim

    After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some state-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, as has been experienced and in some

  20. Are you separarting? by s.petry · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't listen to just me, several studies and reports have said what I'm about to say, including an Ivy league school. The US has become almost text book fascism as defined by Mussolini. Meaning, you can not separate regulators from Corporations because the regulators work for the corporations. Regulatory capture has occurred in every sector of the economy. It is really easy to see, but you have to at least glance at it.

    Main stream media simply works for those same interests. Again, it's easy to see if you care to look. "Money" and "Ratings" are a byproduct of the control the establishment has over the people using media.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:Are you separarting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > Don't listen to just me, several studies and reports have said what I'm about to say, including an Ivy league school.

      it would a fuckton more easy to do that if you actually provided *some* sort of citation

      as it is i'm more inclined to take it as a false appeal to authority

    2. Re:Are you separarting? by shawn2772 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Don't listen to just me, several studies and reports have said what I'm about to say, including an Ivy league school.

      Cite?

    3. Re:Are you separarting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are really interested, you will google it.

      If you are not really interested, it isn't worth the effort to google it for you.

    4. Re:Are you separarting? by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      The ivy league is not exempt from the issue you speak of. In fact, it has become a purveyor.

    5. Re:Are you separarting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't take time away from licking your corporate master's boots to use their search engine, huh? Here, I'll help you:

      Sadly, there's no LMGTFY for Scholar.

    6. Re:Are you separarting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't listen to just me, several studies and reports have said what I'm about to say, including an Ivy league school.

      Cite?

      In the age of google where people are now too lazy to type a few words into a browser they are already sitting in front off, Facepalm?

    7. Re:Are you separarting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On a site that prides itself on logic and reasoning, providing the data supporting your argument is kinda important

    8. Re:Are you separarting? by shawn2772 · · Score: 1

      Can't take time away from licking your corporate master's boots to use their search engine, huh? Here, I'll help you:

      Sadly, there's no LMGTFY for Scholar.

      Snark aside, it's rather hilarious that none of the hits for that search say what the GGP said.

    9. Re:Are you separarting? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Mussolini used the word "corporation" in a very different sense from what we mean by it today. It was part of the vocabulary of corporatism, and meant something more like a trade association or a guild.

    10. Re:Are you separarting? by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      He is probably referring to a Princeton study: http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

    11. Re:Are you separarting? by shawn2772 · · Score: 1

      He is probably referring to a Princeton study: http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-...

      Thanks! Though that study doesn't actually say what he said, it does look interesting.

  21. Conspiracy theory... by DoctorBonzo · · Score: 2

    Trump is really in a conspiracy with Hillary so that he'll get the Republican nomination & then lose the election, ensuring Hillary's presidency

    1. Re:Conspiracy theory... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some conspiracy... He polls better against Hillary than any of the competitors to the Republican nomination so it's not like Hillary needs the help...

  22. Apart from Bernie. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Who, unlike Trump, is sane and has actual policy positions and ethics he's demonstrated for 30 years.

    1. Re:Apart from Bernie. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And he's used those ethics to do a lot in the senate...oh wait.

  23. Wow. Snuff movie fantasies much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And what's with this asinine claims of "christ"? that's SATAN who has deluded you. Know why all those other predictions of the second coming have been so wrong? SATAN deluded them. Just like he's deluding you.

    So that you won't clean up your act or care about anything because SATAN has convinced you that the world will end, so why bother.

    And so you will die having done nothing except trash the planet you were given and listen to the lies of the lord of deception.

    You are going to be SERIOUSLY fucked.

  24. Hello by Psicopatico · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hello America!
    I'm Italian, pizza spaghetti & poor english, so don't grammar nazi me, please.
    I'll go straight to the point.
    Thank you all for Donald Trump, I mean it: thank you from the bottom of my heart.
    For two decades, wherever I went, everyone who was not italian that I met around the world asked me a question, and I felt silently ashamed facing that simple question: "Why Berlusconi?".
    Everywhere.
    Italian? Why Berlusconi?
    Even in Argentina, in a small gas station in the middle of nothing in Patagonia, a place without Internet, without sat channels, without newspapers: "Italianos? Berlusconi! Las fiestas con las ninas!".
    That was awful.
    Now, with Donald Trump you will receive from us the Olympic Torch of political silliness, you will rewrite THAT question, you will set us free, at last. Worldwide.
    God bless America.

    Francesco Lanza, 28 feb 2016

    --
    Mastering the English language is fucking easy: all you have to do is to put an f* word in every fucking sentence.
    1. Re:Hello by monkeyman.kix · · Score: 1

      ahh how quickly we forget the Bushisms...

    2. Re:Hello by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Undoubtedly the funniest thing I've read on slashdot in years. Thank you.

      (and my sympathies for Berlusconi)

    3. Re:Hello by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Me laughing like mad)

      Thank you Francesco.

      While we're at this, a similar story.
      Me, an albanian living in Italy, went for a trip to Ireland, landed there at night and got a cab. The cab driver asked me from where i was coming, i said Rome and he straight to the point looked funny at me and started talking about Berlusconi. At that point i said I'm not from Italy so no chance i voted him.

      As for now, god bless Trump indeed :-)

    4. Re:Hello by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't get your hopes up too high. Registered Republicans represent about 1/3 of the electorate here in the United States and Donald Trump's support among that group is approximately 40%. That won't be nearly enough to beat the Democratic nominee, although Hillary Clinton would win be a smaller margin than Bernie Sanders because there are many people who dislike her too for various reasons. Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, is a man of good character. The fact that nobody has been able to find any serious dirt on Bernie, despite lots of time and money being spent on that search, proves that.

  25. not anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    not anonymous, lol, the idiot reporter from betanews can't even copy-paste a gawker article properly? what a dumbass

  26. That's what they're doing, to go to convention. by raymorris · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Kasich obviously can't win the nomination outright via the primaries. 99.5% chance Rubio can't either. What they CAN do is stash enough delegates to deny Trump the majority he needs to become the automatic nominee. When Kasich and probably Rubio drop out after the first convention vote, their delegates become free to vote for anyone else. That'll be the agreed non-Trump nominee. That's why they are still getting big-money donations and other support - because by dividing up the delegates four ways, Trump can't get a strict majority and the convention will be free to choose someone other than Trump. That's also why Ben Carson SUSPENDED his campaign rather than ended it- suspending means he can still select a few anti-Trump delegates. Most if not all of the drop outs suspended for that reason, and also if they had campaign debt.

    If they all dropped out and supported Cruz NOW, Cruz might win 48% to Trumps 52%. By offering four primary candidates, hopefully Trump will get less than 50%, then at the convention the anti-Trump delegates (the majority) will choose the nominee.

  27. * President, not acting. Big fight in 1841 by raymorris · · Score: 4, Informative

    > Vice President will then take over as Acting President.

    There was a big fight about that in 1841. John Tyler insisted that he was President, his political opponents insisted that he was merely Acting President. He refused to open the letters they sent him, addressed to Acting President. Tyler won the fight. He was President.

    Later, the 25th Amendment removed all doubt. The 25th begins with these words:
    In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

  28. In USA Trump hacks himself. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pfffff.. Just another publicity stunt to keep the gawkers rubbernecking and their jaws hanging slack, instead of talking about real issues.

  29. Re:Truly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You do realize that Bruce Jenner and Chuck Norris only have a 9 year age difference.

    Also, Buce Jenner WON THE OLYMPIC DECATHLON. Is there a manlier thing to do?

    And, according to the movie "Repo Man (1984)", which I have no reason to doubt, "John Wayne was a fag".

    John Wayne, Lee Marvin, and Clint Eastwood-- men who pretended to be men. Bruce Jenner-- a woman who pretended to be a man and destroyed every man on the planet with her effort.

  30. Other possibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Based on a quick read, it sounds like it comes out well for him, like, messages thanking him for giving money to charities, that kind of thing.

    Why would anonymous leak this? 50% chance he leaked it himself and pretended it was anonymous.

  31. Please tell that to the US Government by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    i'm so sick of anonymous. they may have strong opinions, but the US election is an internal matter. we'll sort it out ourselves. butt out.

    Perhaps you would like to share that point of view with your current government which seems intent on telling Britain how it should vote in the upcoming EU referendum.

    1. Re:Please tell that to the US Government by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      I don't see the relation.I'm talking about the core principle of democracy. you're talking about international negotiations.

    2. Re:Please tell that to the US Government by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Republicans are the ones opposed to foreigners interfering in the US elections. Democrats are all for it. Which is why you have that ridiculous spectacle of Biden apologizing for Trump. It's almost like me apologizing to the US for what Osama did.

    3. Re: Please tell that to the US Government by Bartles · · Score: 1

      That makes sense. Democrats are dependent on foreigners votes, after all.

    4. Re:Please tell that to the US Government by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      The point is that the vote is nothing to do with the US government. Whether the UK remains in or leaves the EU is an internal matter for the UK to decide for itself and none of the US government's business. Even if you argue that it is international relations that relationship is between the UK and the EU, again nothing to do with the US.

      If you are going to argue that the UK decision has an indirect impact on the US then I would not disagree but if that gives the US license to interfere then I can use the exact same argument for anonymous. The choice of president in the US has an indirect effect on it's international relations (especially given Trump's statements and Mexico and muslims) and so that would justify anonymous' intervention in the US election: the same argument cuts both ways.

    5. Re:Please tell that to the US Government by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      I think there's a difference between nosing in on international agreements (which everybody does, even UK) and nosing in on a country's democratic elections. You'd be pretty PO'd if I started meddling in your parliament elections.

  32. Remember George W. Bush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quite frankly, I am baffled by people worried about what the world will think of America with Donald Trump as president. George W. Bush was president only 8 years ago. How will Donald Trump be a worse, and more embarrassing president than George W. Bush???? He sounded stupid. He used the weasel word WMD, which can mean chemical, nuclear, or biological weapons, justifying Iraq invasion. Some chemical weapons were found, so technically he was correct. Bush later justified invasion of Iraq as 'spreading democracy'. He tried to appoint an acquaintance to the Supreme Court. The leadership failed to do good negotiations on price with Halliburton.

    1. Re: Remember George W. Bush? by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Why don't you go take 5 minutes to read the aumf for iraq.

    2. Re:Remember George W. Bush? by ebvwfbw · · Score: 0

      Forget Bush, look at the despot we have as President right now. He makes his own laws. Even says so, heck, even SNL had a skit on how he's a dictator. Yet so many of his true believes overlook it all. Brainwashed into thinking they're racist if they don't do anything he wants. No, Trump would have to be worse than this guy and I don't think that's possible. Obama has worked hard to be the worst, surpassing the previous worst - Carter.

  33. True story by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 3, Interesting

    For two decades, wherever I went, everyone who was not italian that I met around the world asked me a question, and I felt silently ashamed facing that simple question: "Why Berlusconi?".

    True story:

    I was vacationing in Bulgaria in the early 'aughts, was chatting people up on the street and almost got mugged *twice* because I was American (and specifically because of Bush).

    I went right back to the hotel and told my GF: "From now on, we are Canadian. If anyone asks, we're from Canada!"

    Didn't have any problem after that.

    Love Bulgaria, the people are nice, but don't tell them you're American...

    1. Re:True story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True story:

      I was vacationing in Bulgaria in the early 'aughts

      I call stone-cold BullShit right there. Or you are a masochist and quite, quite insane. If you have to do the "true story" schtick, then it isn't. Either way, story invalidated.

    2. Re:True story by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      Cheap beachside holidays on the black sea, what's not to love?

      A Norwegian family I used to know used to spend annual vacations there.

    3. Re:True story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can you be from Canada, eh? You don't, eh, sound like you're from there, eh.

  34. Donald Trump Rocks by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Interesting

    and here's why. He's moving the country to the Left. Our country has gotten to the point where there's Far Right Wing, Really Far Right Wing and Ted Cruz. Assuming (as Bernie said) you realize words like "Socialism" and "Welfare" have meaning and aren't just things to be afraid of then this is a good thing.

    Yes, Trump's a jerk. But he's also the only Candidate besides Bernie Sanders who thinks healthcare (not just "affordable" healthcare) is a right. Yes, he's said some racist things, but he's also said them out loud instead of dog whistling.

    I'll take Trump over Rubio any day of the week. Rubio's the kind of guy who'd stab me in the gut, twist the knife and then smile; saying it's nothing personal, just business. If Trump's gonna stab me in the gut it's because he hates them. I can deal with Trumps Hate. Rubio's cold hearted unlimited greed? Not so much.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Donald Trump Rocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      One reason Trump doesn't "rock" is because no one, not even DJT, knows what Trump is going to do on *any important issue* if the country and world have the misfortune of him being elected President of the United States.

      All we know is that he has an enormous ego and sense of pecking order even now, before he's even wrapped up the Republican nomination. He puts down just about everyone in the crudest terms. Imagine how insufferable the guy will be when he's President of the United States.

    2. Re:Donald Trump Rocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      . Rubio's the kind of guy who'd stab me in the gut, twist the knife and then smile

      No, no, that isn't Rubio. It's Cruz who hasn't denied being the Zodiac Killer.

    3. Re:Donald Trump Rocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no one, not even DJT, knows what Trump is going to do

      What does DJ Tanner have to do with anything?

    4. Re:Donald Trump Rocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can anything that costs money be a 'right'? I guess that means you expect other people to be forced to pay for that right? So the government should use their threats of force and violence to take your money and pay for my doctors bills? Sounds brilliant.

    5. Re:Donald Trump Rocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But he's also the only Candidate besides Bernie Sanders who thinks healthcare (not just "affordable" healthcare) is a right.

      Uh-huh.... The reality is that Trump does not even begin to understand policy, let alone be able to set it, doubly let alone hiring anybody who would explain it to him and equip him with one. But he's sure entertaining, ain't he?

      Yes, he's said some racist things, but he's also said them out loud instead of dog whistling.

      And you figure that's a good thing, on *either* clause of that sentence. Ooookay.

      I'll take Trump over Rubio any day of the week. Rubio's the kind of guy who'd stab me in the gut, twist the knife and then smile; saying it's nothing personal, just business. If Trump's gonna stab me in the gut it's because he hates them. I can deal with Trumps Hate. Rubio's cold hearted unlimited greed? Not so much.

      Now it makes sense. You actually believe that Trump is being straightforward, instead of saying whatever it takes to get elected. Just like Rubio. Just like Cruz. Just like Clinton. Just like Sanders. Just like any person who runs for office. And pardon my cynical smile if you think Trump does not possess, "cold hearted unlimited greed."

    6. Re:Donald Trump Rocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So his irrational emotional nature appeals to your irrational emotional nature. Got it.

    7. Re:Donald Trump Rocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Basically everything you said there is true, and has been since the founding of the Republic. The US Government has always had the power to tax, ergo they believe they have a "right" to your money. This is hardly revolutionary (pardon the expression).

      Anyway, if you want to change it, you have to change the Constitution, so good luck!

  35. That's no dove. by denzacar · · Score: 1

    That's an ostrich.

    He's an isolationist who wants to believe that treating foreign policy as someone else's problem is a viable strategy.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  36. Erratum from betanews by alexandre.oberlin · · Score: 1

    The photograph illustrating the linked article was inadvertently taken from our science story. It is actually a computer aided reconstitution of a supposed profile from an early homo habilis which has been recently discovered and nicknamed "Donald". We would like to apologize for this unfortunate substitution.

  37. VM Hacking. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The VMs that SHOUKD be hacked are the GOPers VMs. Mitch "Turtleman" McConnell, Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz, etc. Break up that "good Ol' boy" crew of decades upon decades of hate, bigotry, racism...

    Trump is saying no more than he says publicly. The reason that the GOP is so vehemently going after Trump, is because they cannot buy Trump; Trump doesn't need any of their money and would most likely get half of their old tails out of office - they are scared to death.

    Hilary will "play ball" like any politician - but she cannot blow-up the GOP establishment - Trump can... Personally, I would prefer Bernie, but the DNC already had it planned for Hillary to be the nominee - she feels "entitled" at this point. Hilary is not going to make any dramatic changes to this country - she will "play ball" and look out for her own special interests, just as the GOP will. Hillary has a price tag and so do the GOP boys - Trump does not.

    One. Must decide what is more beneficial for the country:
    1) Elect Hillary and have a "democratic" president who will simply continue to play in the cat turd sandbox with the GOP and bicker.

    2) Elect Trump and completely fracture the GOP - most likely causing a 3rd party to evolve (which is what we need). We may never get another chance to create a multi-party system again and blow up the GOP.

    Do I think Trump has said some heinous things? Yes. Do I think that he truly wil follow through? No. Trump chose the GOP base because he can easily acquire the ignorant, poor, white constituents with hate speech - they are gullible. He needs their votes - that's all. A Bernie/Trump ticket would actually be the best flip for this country - it would be nice if they considered this. America is sick of the two parties - and the families who run this country like a dictatorship. America needs a clean slate and we will NOT get that with any of those truly in the GOP party, nor from those truly in the Dem party. Quite frankly, Bernie and The Donald, together, could very well give this country the complete overhaul that it needs.

  38. Re: Why is Ian Murdock dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because he got divorced in 2008 and divorce is the number one contributor to suicide?

    Debian is a portmanteau of Debra (his ex wife) and Ian (him).

    Hmmm... do you think that the fact that your life's work and the thing that you are best known for, Debian, also reminds you every day of your failed marriage might start to prey on your mind just a little bit?

  39. fuck anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so trump thinks muslims are dangerous, hes probably right, and anonymous attacks him because of it...

    that puts anonymous on the same side as most terrorists that hate usa... of course there are other terrorists around the world that have other agendas, but now the muslim terrorists and anonymous terrorists are buddies. awesome. why dont you assholes just go to syria or something and sign up for desert anal sex like the rest of the terrorists.

    or at least hack all the other candidates stuff so we can see everyones dirt to be fair...

  40. GOP Break-up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the stuff from which party breakups are made. It would be much harder for Republicans to oust Clinton in 2020 if thereâ(TM)s no longer any unified Republican coalition to speak of. They HAVE to embrace the Trumpmeister or risk losing their voter base.

    What they will do is block Hilary's every move (just like Obama) if she is President. This way, they can set up a republican platform for 2020 - but hope like hell that Trump will not run as an Independent - big gamble for the Turtle Men either way...

  41. GOP IMPLOSION. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are three things that can explain a huge amount of the attitudes and thoughts of the GOP: 1) Cognitive dissonance, 2) Denial and projection, and 3) The DunningÂÂKruger Effect.

  42. Worth repeating... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    According to polls, though, if Hillary dropped out (perhaps because she was in jail) and it became a race between Bernie and any GOP person including Trump, Bernie would win. He's the least unfavorable candidate according to polls; lots of people despise Trump (on both sides), and lots of people despise Hillary (on both sides). Almost no one despises Bernie; they can't even come up with any real dirt on him. They can say stupid stuff about "socialism", they can say his policies won't work, they can say completely idiotic things about 90% tax rates (betraying a complete lack of understanding of marginal rates and also his actual policies), they can complain about his age (even though he's only 5 years older than Trump and 6 older than Hillary who's had a lot of health problems), but no one really *despises* him like they do all the other candidates. The other GOP candidates aren't as unliked, but they're not liked either: everyone thinks Cruz is a liar and a religious nut, and that Rubio is a robot and in the pocket of the establishment.

    1. Re:Worth repeating... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give it time. President Obama started in much the same boat as Bernie. Yet over the past five years, his unfavorable rating has been as high as 58%, and Hillary's has only gone up to 54%. His approval rating peaked at 59 and went as low as 38. Hers has peaked at 62 and dropped to 41. In both favorables and unfavorables, Hillary can claim better "bests" than Obama as both the most popular and least unpopular.

      Currently, he's at 51-45 and she's the other way around at 44-52, but .

      Bernie's numbers of 49-38 are soft and don't stand a chance of lasting through the election. His unfavorables are rising right along with his favorables. He's already landed in that 40 to 60 zone where virtually all politicians wind up. If he wins the nomination, he'll surge in favorables and the unfavorables will then skyrocket a few steps behind once the Republicans start in and the people smell blood.

  43. Re:Good. by ezdiy · · Score: 2
    Good writeup of the american feudal-oligarchy, however:

    but it runs far better than anything the poor would be able to come up with.

    Until the French revolution happens. The problem is that the poor get poorer (debt and ladder rungs get further apart) and rich get richer (rent seeking while not producing anything of value). You're painting the rich elite as some technocratic power with decent foresight, but they're far from it.

    Their power is more or less emergent, this whole system is and at some point it implodes under the weight of the monetary tragedy of the commons - you get two piles of money - mountain of debt, mountain of assets/savings and the two mountains not interacting in economy at all. Everything grinds to a halt.

    Soon after, food shortages, infrastructure breakdown, the poor do a peasant revolt and string of revolutions until society resets into more equal state - after a lot of bloodshed. Then, after a while, rinse repeat.

    Perhaps the time of french revolution is closer than we think.

  44. Re:Why is Ian Murdock dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because he was murdered by the San Francisco Police Department, and they are covering it up.

  45. No one mentions charity? by TerminaMorte · · Score: 1

    Some of the leaked VMs show something scandals.... he donates to children’s charities!

    Funny how no one is running with that story.

    1. Re:No one mentions charity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many millions?

      If you're not donating at least 1% of your income to charity, then you're just paying lip service.

    2. Re:No one mentions charity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nonsense.
      The charities themselves tell me "every dollar matters."

  46. It's disinformation, plain and simple. by sethstorm · · Score: 0

    People are attacking Trump since he represents an existential threat to the status quo, especially when it comes to him speaking about the painful truth.

    Expect things to be made up, taken out of context, and otherwise used to smear Trump and his supporters.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  47. Then you haven't seen the SJW's. by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    There is very little "left-leaning" media in the USofA. Most of it would be corporate-leaning.

    If it's willing to sympathize with professional victims and smear their critics, it's not exactly corporate-leaning in the traditional sense.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  48. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hopefully, not this time. We throw away enough food to feed the whole world. It is possible that taxpayer-funded poor-assistance programs will be sufficient to prevent the violence.

    Given the kinds of weaponry that exist today, that did not exist during prior revolutions, I really think the angry mobs of poor people will wind up on the losing end. The notion that they can't kill us all really isn't true anymore. They absolutely can kill us all.

    As labor-automation continues to eliminate the need for cheap labor, the teeming masses of poor people wind up with fewer and fewer opportunities to earn a living....so....eventually we will either violently reduce the numbers of the poor back to workable levels, or we will somehow stop them from breeding as we provide for their needs. Either way...the transition to a largely labor-free economy will be very turbulent.

  49. Indeed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the modern day-and-age, to believe that either party is actually better than the other is negligently ignorant. The struggle between them is a distraction, which has proven supremely effective in preventing the people from unifying their voice on the issues that harmfully impact them.

    Those who get caught up in that bullshit are enablers that keep the evil aspects of government powerful.

    Of course....the only real way to effect positive political change is to donate money to a lobby. Most Americans will have absolutely none of THAT!

    1. Re: Indeed. by Bartles · · Score: 1

      That's exactly what Democrats like to say.

  50. Re:gawker copy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, you think that we should read gawker if we want the truth? Because they're so fair and unbiased?

    Oh my sides!

  51. Re:Truly... by epyT-R · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Her effort? Having your testicles removed and your penis mutilated does not make a man a woman.

    Yeah, he won a decathlon before he went batshit crazy. Why should we celebrate mental illness?

  52. Re: Truly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Give me a fuckng break. Bruce Jenner is a fucking nutcase along with every other man who wants to be a woman. People applaud him for his courage. I'd punch him in the fucking face.

  53. Another election cycle, more Democrat crimes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In 2008, Democrats broke into Sarah Palin's personal e-mail and circulated all her mail in the internet while Democrat news outlets like the NYT encouraged their readers to "crow-source" the hunt for "dirt". The guy who did the actual hack is now a convicted criminal, and all the critics quietly dropped the "scoop" when they realized there was NOTHING corrupt in her personal e-mails (which she had written with an expectation of privacy). Did the NYT lift a finger to get at Hillary's e-mails? Nah, they did not even do the basic journalism to know that those e-mails even EXISTED because if they HAD they would have discovered the server issue. Did they crowd-source the hunt for dirt on Hillary??? Nope.

    In 2012, Democrat Harry Reid publicly asserted that he knew the IRS was aware that Mitt Romney had not been paying his taxes. This would have either been slander, or a criminal access to IRS records (depending on if the charges were true) but Harry Reid knew what most of the public did not: that he could not be prosecuted for either offense if he did it on the Floor of the Senate while the Senate was in session.

    Incidentally, most progressives pretend to be against spying on other people, but then appear to be all-in-favor when it's against somebody they HATE. Situational ethics at their worst.

  54. Yes. I am. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Want proof? Look out the window? Do you think that stuff just made itself in all its perfection???? NO! I DID IT.

    That's PROOF I'm god.

  55. Trump is an Existential Threat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Media, the Political Insiders, and so-called "good will" organizations like the EFF and Anonymous, all form what we all have come to refer to as "the Establishment."

    These people control everything through lies, deceit, and manipulation. They create the illusion of conflict, get people to take sides, and of course there is a convenient organization on each side to accept money from the proletariat to wage their battle for them.

    The goal of this system is singular: to keep people in conflict, and keep them in poverty.

    Trump represents an existential threat to this system, so The Establishment, which includes Anonymous (which in all reality is likely just a group of various government employees on their routine mission), will do anything to take him down.

  56. It costs 42-44% to run a first world country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And that's without your last GOP idiot having spend trillions on a war that wasn't warranted in the least and trillions more bailed out because your government under libertarian rhetoric removed regulations on banks.

    And since the only ones with money are the wealthy, and you cut the taxes for the wealthy, and the wealthy aren't fucking SPENDING the money but hoarding or lending out (which gets them a net positive return, so is worse than just salting the money away in a vault for the money supply movement), your average figures are completely worthless. And getting worse.

    And what's the cry? "They waste all that money, give them less!".

    Yet still demand all those services. Cut military spending to 1/10th. Save trillions. You will whine like holy hell.

    1. Re: It costs 42-44% to run a first world country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As would Europe who soley depends on US Military protection

    2. Re: It costs 42-44% to run a first world country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are drunk, go sober up somewhere. How about you also end the illegal occupation of Japan?

    3. Re:It costs 42-44% to run a first world country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still am amazed that people don't see that supply-side (aka "trickle-down") economics has failed for the last 30 years.

      Benjamin Studebaker published a piece on Why Bernie vs. Hillary Matters More Than You Think which clarifies that this is fundamentally a fight over the economic policy of the Democratic party.

      Voting for Hillary is voting for more of the same failed economics.

  57. FYI by transami · · Score: 1

    Anonymous was dismantled a couple years back, so now they are almost certainly a government operation.

    --
    :T:R:A:N:S:
  58. Doesn't pass the "sounds like bollocks" test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have one of the lowest taxes of the developed world, stop complaining ! - It is nowhere near 40% http://qz.com/74271/income-tax-rates-since-1913/

    1. Re:Doesn't pass the "sounds like bollocks" test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Income tax is not the only tax you're paying.

  59. That's it? by Bartles · · Score: 1

    Trump has a cozy relationship with the media? A public media figure has a cozy relationship with the media. Trump plays the news media like a fidlle. Great work anonymous.

  60. Re: Truly... by Type44Q · · Score: 1

    Mod the fuck up.

  61. lame hack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hax0red a voicmeail i am l337. huh huh huh hu! So lame.

  62. The enemy of my enemy is my friend by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    Trump is running against right-wing purists. The media doesn't get along with them. Oh, and BTW, there is very little right-wing media. Oh, you mean corporate media? Right, so basically, any media outlet that makes money including Gawker. Oh, wait, you mean internet media which is so well known for facts. But I digress. IMHO, Trump's strategy is quite effective. He talks to the people he needs to get results. He's not the type of person who says, "I won the election. They're going to have to shut up and do whatever I want."

    But there is something that a lot of people are missing. Lots of people think he's the next Hitler or Mussolini. Those people really don't understand how our system of government works. If Trump wins in November (and assuming that Republicans retain control of Congress which may not be the case), it's safe to say that he doesn't have majority support in Congress so why would you think that they're just going to go along with everything Trump wants to do? Contrary to popular belief, POTUS doesn't make the law. POTUS is mainly a manager. Most presidents have done nothing but expand the unelected part of government. My guess is that Trump will fire a whole lot of unelected dead weight and he's the only candidate who will have no qualms about doing so. Is that a bad thing?

    1. Re:The enemy of my enemy is my friend by ebvwfbw · · Score: 0

      POTUS isn't supposed to make the laws. That's not what is happening right now. Obama does as he pleases. In fact, the present POTUS is closest to those fascists than Trump would be. Fasicism is to the left. Right of Communism, however clearly left of center. A lot of people think it's to the right. It's not.

      Trump is popular because we think we can finally get rid of political correctness bullcrap. I think we're all for that. African Americans - who aren't from Africa can go back to being Americans. And so on.

  63. Re: Truly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bigot.

  64. You are both missing the middle by s.petry · · Score: 1

    Sure, the uneducated give up votes for the best lie and can't measure up front. Sure, the best politicians are the best liars. Sure, money is power so the wealthy exert power in all possible ways. While those things are true, it's also true that revolutions are rarely driven by the uneducated and easily fooled. Revolutions come from the educated middle class. People who are smart enough to see the game, and not quite oppressed enough to be ignorant. These same people are often overlooked and underestimated by the people trying to hoard power.

    The founding of the US was not some peasant uprising, it was an educated bunch who wanted to hammer down the top. The French revolutions were much the same, each time led by a different set of intellects. I will say that the Brits are a bit better at relinquishing enough to the masses to stay in power, but the uprisings in Scotland, Ireland, and even the Colonies, were all led by an educated middle.

    This is a game of momentum, and at present we are not too far from tipping into a revolt. The people holding power know it and are doing everything they can to maintain control. "Bread and Circuses" can be seen all over, from the current political race to programs like the Obama Phone program. The desire to disarm the populace falls into the exact same reasoning.

    I don't own a crystal ball to say when, or even if, something will happen. I will say that when society gets to the point the US is at today, it usually takes something very small to push people into an all out revolt..

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  65. Enough blather. WHERE DO I FIND THE DOCUMENTS? by Joe+Branya · · Score: 1

    Lots of BS here- everybody has an opinion about the opinion of everybody else.

    Where is the text of the hacked documents so I can look at them and make an informed opinion.

    Any ideas?

    Dave Miller

  66. trump, new adolph hitler by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yet you're paraphrasing. Do you have a link to the transcript of that comment? I should think you'd have actually quoted what he said. I mean, it's Trump. There's a gazillion things wrong with him. There are countless reasons that people have to not want him to be the president. Some of them are even good reasons. It should be easy to find that quote - and, again, Google's not finding anything using those terms.

    (1)
    trump he want to attack foreign people and countrys, lotta evidence on video:

    iowa 1-26-16
    https://youtu.be/Dl_34BeiMvg?t=1h12m26s

    iowa 1:30-16
    https://youtu.be/DUlJGZAMFNI?t=55m21s

    new hampshire 2-8-15
    https://youtu.be/c-UyrR2I9l0?t=46m26s

    tampa 2-12-16
    https://youtu.be/YlH0rdW3ks8?t=2h2m13s

    atlanta 2-21-16
    https://youtu.be/Y9DJrA8gBwM?t=47m38s

    madison, alabama 2-28-16
    https://youtu.be/sKWRtkfyOiw?t=54m57s

    columbus, ohio 3-1-16
    https://youtu.be/LI8hJHK2Ojk?t=24m

    louisville, kentucky 3-1-16
    https://youtu.be/0Hzc9yL3_n8?t=19m39s

    warren, michigan 3-4-16
    https://youtu.be/cqaFWgNGt3Q?t=1h7m33s

    (2)
    radio show host skewer trump and tear him new a**-hole https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HG8QX5SEtMU

    (3)
    thirty year ago, rare video of trump harassin attractive black lady (**OFFENSIVE CONTENT WARNING**) https://youtu.be/SEPs17_AkTI?t=5s

    (4)
    trump crazy at press conference last year https://youtu.be/Lom9mPITxOo?t=12m31s

    (5)
    trump wild and bezerk closed door meeting https://youtu.be/m91vEm9kAsY?t=3m28s

    (6)
    united states should be like european union (seen these storys in main stream press), europe doing great job handling they're immigrants come in for past year:

    imigrants great for economy of europe February 17 2016

    immigrants show how to harmonious living in refguee center February 20 2016

    immigrants respect host countrys and helpers february 20 2016

    immigrants make on to better security on europe which mean more peac for europemarch 1 2016

    immigrants preach live an let live amongst each others december 6 2015

    europe don't want no border walls blockin immigrantion september 23 2015

    germany lead way in showing how best handle immigrants an integration in communityjanuary 8 2016

    sweden love it's immigrants even more than germany

  67. why? by superwiz · · Score: 2

    Why would anonymous go after Trump? I get that he is a Republican. But Kasich is the candidate who is still in the race and who is still the absolute worst on tech issues. He is openly for forcing tech companies to be slaves of the government and do its bidding when it comes to protecting their customers. If it were up to him, he'd effectively give the government agencies the monkey wrench as the best tool for dealing with encryption (beat em with a monkey wrench until they talk). In fact, even though I am a registered Republican, I would donate money to whoever runs against Kasich in any election (including the next time he runs for governor).

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  68. Huh. by dabeshu · · Score: 1

    This is stupid.

  69. President is in charge of Dept of Justice by cpm99352 · · Score: 1

    Under the Consitution, the Congressional branch is the most powerful, and can certainly stall either a Sanders or Trump.

    However, the President controls the Dept of Justice, so can bring significant charges against the banking and medical industries. Imagine an SEC that actually does it's job. Ditto w/ the Dept of Treasury. A President should be able to cause significant disruption for the Federal Reserve.

    Were either Sanders or Trump to win, to me the greatest threats are assassination and removal from office by the Senate. Impeachment by the House is almost a given.

  70. It's anti-Trump disinformation, nothing more. by sethstorm · · Score: 0

    People are attacking Trump since he represents an existential threat to the status quo, especially when it comes to him speaking the painful truth.

    Expect things to be made up, taken out of context, and otherwise used to smear Trump and his supporters.

    (laughing at the modbombers that can't get this post)

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    1. Re:It's anti-Trump disinformation, nothing more. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People are attacking Trump since he represents an existential threat to the status quo

      Yeah, like the status quo that we currently have a free country.

      Well, nominally we do.

  71. Re:I'm Italian by Cthulhu's+Physicist · · Score: 1
    Ciao Franceso.

    You mean like this?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  72. Re: Why is Ian Murdock dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because he got divorced in 2008 and divorce is the number one contributor to suicide?

    Debian is a portmanteau of Debra (his ex wife) and Ian (him).

    Hmmm... do you think that the fact that your life's work and the thing that you are best known for, Debian, also reminds you every day of your failed marriage might start to prey on your mind just a little bit?

    Plus he moved to San Francisco a month before. That stinking shit-hole of a city didn't help in the least. SF's good days are a memory now. The "smart people" (ha) just don't know it.

  73. Re:Truly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Her effort? Having your testicles removed and your penis mutilated does not make a man a woman.

    Yeah. Men are men and women are women just like God created.

    And don't tell me about all sorts of weird things that happen in biology during prenatal development that mess up with the clear God-ordained dichotomy. Things like chimeras or all kinds of sinful intersexual thingamobies. I won't listen. No, I really won't. LAA-LAA-LAA-LAA! See, you can't penetrate my armor of faith! LAA-LAA-LAA!

  74. DeToqueville mentioned this would happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It could never last forever.

    1. Re:DeToqueville mentioned this would happen by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      Yep.

  75. I can just imagine the VM's on calls *FROM* Trump by phorm · · Score: 1

    "Honestly, it's at least the same size as anyone else. Probably bigger. No definitely bigger! Come down next weekend and you can measure it. Actually, make that tomorrow. Screw that, let me know your mobile number and I'll send you a picture I took next to a quarter."

  76. Re:Truly... by CaptainLard · · Score: 1

    Why should we celebrate mental illness?

    Because apparently humans can do great things such as win olympic medals, invent the computer (Turing), tell great stories (first Matrix), and all sorts of other stuff despite what society (or you and 3 mods in this case) thinks of their mental state.

  77. Simply disinformation to smear Trump. by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    People are attacking Trump since he represents an existential threat to the status quo, which is not a free country, especially when it comes to him speaking the painful truth.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  78. Re:Truly... by epyT-R · · Score: 1

    I never mentioned or implied supernatural creation had anything to do with it. This guy was not born this way. He chose to have it done to him.

  79. Re:Truly... by epyT-R · · Score: 1

    I don't question their deeds. Those are great accomplishments.

    Look at it this way: If he wanted to cut off any other part of his body, we'd look in askance. Since it's his penis and gonads we're supposed to cheer on the 'diversity'? Sorry, but I smell a bit of an agenda here...or at least the possibility of one.

  80. Re: Truly... by epyT-R · · Score: 1

    I suppose it wouldn't be bigotry if he wanted to cut something else off instead of his penis and gonads?

  81. Trump's plans by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

    Let me first say that I'm not a fan of Trump. However, it's disingenuous to claim that he "wants to ban Muslims from entering the US". This Politifact article gives some more details.

    --
    Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    1. Re:Trump's plans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit, it's not "disingenuous" at all.

      Here is the wording direct from Donald Trump's campaign website:

      "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."

    2. Re:Trump's plans by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      Fair enough - however, he has stated several times that his campaign website isn't up to date, and his views have changed.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.