Slashdot Mirror
Julian Assange: Google is 'Directly Engaged' In Hillary Clinton's Campaign (infowars.com)
An anonymous reader writes from a report via Infowars: Speaking to the "New Era of Journalism: Farewell to Mainstream" symposium, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange stated Google is "directly engaged" with the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton. Assange said, "The chairman of Google, Eric Schmidt, set up a company to run the digital component of Hillary Clinton's campaign." As reported by Quartz in late 2015, an under-the-radar startup known as "The Groundwork" was funded by Schmidt "to ensure that Clinton has the engineering talent needed to win the election." Assange went on to say that "[...] once Hillary Clinton becomes president, those people in Google, like Jared Cohen, will be placed into positions around the new Clinton presidency." Controlling the majority of the world's smart phones, Assange adds, raises even more serious concerns in light of the company's growing and monopolistic influence. "Google controls 80 percent of the smart phone market through its control of Android and if you control the device itself -- that people use to read -- then anything that they connect to through that device you have control over as well. [...] Google has gotten into bed with the Obama administration in a very significant way," Assange stated. "It is the company that visits the White House more than any other -- averaged once per week in the last 4 years."
Sounds more like monopoly than democracy
No company gets the breadth of google without getting in bed with the government.
look its a propaganda bot
Clinton is going to get Trumped. Trump's presidency is going to be a fucking disaster, but like the Phoenix, maybe the American political system will be born again. This time with more parties, choices and common sense.
The only thing that would guarantee the Democrats a likely victory is if Sanders is chosen as their nominee in the DNC. His lead in the opinion polls against Trump is in the double-digits range whereas Clinton vs Trump figures are within the margin of error.
We know that our data is secure on a Windows phone.
What chance of a smart phone that you can actually control?
>No company gets the breadth of google without getting in bed with the government.
very insightful. correcting typos and reposting
And yet.. Somehow.. He seems to care more about the manipulation of democracy than you do..
Interesting. Isn't it.
Trump is a childish idiot.
Clinton is a corrupt weasel.
Good luck America. Really. It's going to be rough.
He's an old man. Bending over starts to get harder with age.
Can you build the wall on the northern border as well, and shut down your airports?
I'm sick of Americans getting out of the asylum.
Wasn't something like this portrayed in House of Cards?
Also, would love to see some evidence to the fact, though I have to admit it doesn't sound so farfetched.
Bending over is easy. Standing up straight again is the hard part.
Nadar isn't running, so really no choice left.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
I found this to be an interesting idea of why he isn't quitting yet. Basically, they hypothesize the Sanders is having the most excitement he's ever had in his life.....much more than the rallies in Vermont. And people are actually listening to him. All the attention is intoxicating.
Like I know if that's true.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
OP here; yes he did lose big indeed. But this doesn't change the Trump vs {Clinton|Sanders} setup. Sanders still has the upper hand in polls against Trump.
It seems that a significant portion of Sanders supporters are not willing to vote for Clinton no matter what. They either don't vote or vote for Trump. But Clinton supporters, on the other hand, seem to be willing to vote for Sanders even if Clinton lost the nomination.
But yeah, it's obvious that Clinton has accumulated so much political capital and influence that she'll blow through the rest of this circus and secure the nomination. She's got so much dirt on her, though, that I have no faith in her ability to win the election. There's also that 1-5% chance she'll get indicted for her email debacle. Hell, even if she *doesn't* get indicted, it's still bad for her (makes her look like a corrupt snake squirming away from legal troubles). It sucks when there's only bad choices, ain't it?
Google, like the BBC in the UK, is a corporation DESIGNED to serve the State Intelligence services.
This current presidential election was designed to annoint the insane and infinitely evil Clinton as the next president of the USA- and bring the USA into a state of war with Iran almost immediately after. Those that control the Republican and Democrat party had arranged for her to have no viable competition. Then Trump happened.
Trump is a wild card (like the popular rise of Obama who ended up costing Clinton her chance last time). The BIG mistake was when, out of fear, Trump was allowed to be an OFFICIAL Republican candidate when it looked like he'd have to run as an 'Independent'.
Google is throwing its entire NSA grid functionality behind Clinton in a desperate attempt to salvage the prospects of the war mongering butcher. And Slashdot is in lockstep with Google.
Trump is a LIBERAL popularist who wears the clothes of a PARODY republican, because he is media savvy enough to understand that by playing the political game this way, he gains needed national support. Clinton is a vile mass murdering monster- the face of the US military industrial complex. A Clinton victory would bring Mankind that much closer to extinction. Look at how her supporter- Slashdot- sells more Russia bashing propaganda (designed to bring the USA and Russia into direct military conflict) on the same page as this story.
I suspect he isn't quitting because he can still win. It involves all the superdelegates switching sides, but it can still happen.
Now why would the superdelegates switch to Bernie? Well, the FBI hasn't finished their investigation in Hillary Clinton's time as Secretary of State yet...
There isn't a better side. The president is a cosmetic figure who doesn't govern day to day affairs. Someone who is changed every 5 years simply doesn't have enough time to become an effective administrator. Instead president has to rely on actual bureaucrats who implement what they want. And president's only job is to present those bureaucratic decisions to people and to convince them that those are good decisions.
I'm really wondering how people can sustain such strong negative emotions towards Hillary. Maybe I'm just too cold blooded, but she seems to be a pretty typical lawyer of the political sort. The only difference is that she's been targeted by the most negative propaganda, but I have to discount the so-called Republican Party's propaganda these days because they have clearly crossed the line and are now putting party politics ahead of everything else.
Looking at it from a historical perspective, there are plenty of comparisons to be made. For example, the previous leaders in party discipline were Lenin's Bolsheviks. I think Trump's personal insecurities should be compared with Stalin's. Lots of people have expressed concern about Bernie's extreme supporters, but they are irrelevant now, and it actually seems likely that the most extreme ones may wind up with Trump's extremists, who are already reminding me of early supporters of the Nazi Party...
By the way, did you know that Trump spent an estimated $80,000 calling for the death penalty for some teenagers who were convicted of the rape and murder of a Central Park jogger in 1989. If the Donald had gotten his way, they may well have been executed before the actual murderer was identified in 2002.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
His lead in the opinion polls against Trump is in the double-digits range whereas Clinton vs Trump figures are within the margin of error.
Funny that I keep hearing that, and yet every time the media and pollsters open their mouths the opposite happens. Jumping back to the recent past, you even had the flappy headed media and pollsters saying that Trump wouldn't succeed to make it to October of last year. Ol'Nick at 538 got so up set he threw a hissyfit and started acting like a child. Media? Same deal. Hillary and Sanders supporters? Well some of them opted for open violence along with illegals. Some news organizations? Vox and Huffpo are all for rioting and using violence against Trump.
Keep going guys, you're proving Trump right.
Om, nomnomnom...
Julian Assange has previously done great work unmasking the nefarious schemes of Google to enslave the world.
Maybe, but I can barely make out what you're saying because your horse is too high.
Plus of course, if they think Trump might win the Presidency, then Sanders is a better bet to beat him.
Hi NSA!
When most superdelegates declared support for Clinton Sanders shouted that superdelegates should not override the popular vote. Now that he has soundly lost the popular vote he is stating the exact opposite. And people say Sanders is not a politician.
Trump 2016. The wall will be built. LYING GOOGLE won't change this
Allahu Akhbar!! Oops, sorry, different group of fanatics. In the longer run it doesn't matter, I suspect - American democracy is seriously ill and needs to relaunch itself in a fundamental way; only it is hard to see how that can happen peacefully.
It is interesting to observe the two elections, the EU referendum in UK and the presidential elections in the US; in UK it is mostly fairly cool-headed with at least the Remain side trying to lay out a somewhat coherent, pragmatic argument, and the Leave side responding in kind, although rather more emotionally, I feel. Compare to the US elections, where things are getting ever more hysterical; and the actual election campaign hasn't even started officially yet. I don't know - where's your dignity, if you don't mind my asking?
And yet.. Somehow.. He seems to care more about the manipulation of democracy than you do.. Interesting. Isn't it. Trump is a childish idiot. Clinton is a corrupt weasel. Good luck America. Really. It's going to be rough.
And yet when I'm asked to choose between bad and worse, to decide who controls the worlds second largest nuclear arsenal on earth (by a small margin), I'd choose the corrupt weasel over the childish idiot every time but then I'm not an American so I can only watch and hope that the US public rejects the childish idiot. Having said that I am still puzzled over why the American people don't see to it that there is more (or better) choice. You'd think that as exasperated as a large portion of the American people seem to be with the Rep/Dem duopoly that they'd set up alternative political parties. It happens in other democracies all of the time. At the very least you guys could force a popular reform of the SNAFU that are the Rep/Dem primary election processes. There is something seriously wrong with your democratic process when primaries have become so manifestly corrupt and stupid that stand-up comedians don't even have to come up with jokes about them, they simply have to matter-of-factly tell the audience how the process works to reap roaring laughter.
It would be a punishment of sin to be obliged to watch on TV for the next eight years either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. I bow down on my knees, and I repent.
It seems that a significant portion of Sanders supporters are not willing to vote for Clinton no matter what.
That's very abusive wording. Independents won't vote for Hillary - the second most hated major party candidate, or Drumpf - the first most hated major party candidate.
That means that "Sanders supporters" are more likely independents or unenthusiastic party members. They aren't spiteful, but uninterested in a choice between two evils Who's the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil. That makes you evil, even if you are trying to avoid a worse evil.
Learn to love Alaska
But what about the asylum seekers? Will they be turned back at the border?
Maybe, but I can barely make out what you're saying because your horse is too high.
Like an Ecuadorian election early next year which Correa won't be standing for? ;)
Maybe, but I can barely make out what you're saying because your horse is too high.
You really don't know?
The good old USA is not a democracy. Really. Never had been.
It is a democratic republic.. Which is a very very different thing.
It's governing rules were set up from day one to guarantee control for those at the top.. Funnily enough the very people who made the rules.. And they did a fine job of it.
It has never been a democracy.
But isn't a vote for Trump a vote against the establishment, much like a vote for Bernie is just that, too? I can see this as a realistic reasoning for many independents. Without being spiteful toward Clinton per se (although isn't she quite the embodiment of the so called establishment).
I'm not convinced. Trump is an egomaniac who would likely spend most of his term fighting with congress and failing to get anything done. Hillary is a corrupt establishment authoritarian who knows the system well enough to actually achieve things (though things that are good for the people are not very high on her to-do list). I think I'd prefer that the US had an inept clown as President than someone who is effective but actively malicious.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Yep, I can categorically say the next US president will be one of the worst the US has ever had.
Hopeful projection, m'thinks.
OK, so Google will work with Trump in stead. Don't think he wants what they have?
sudo ergo sum
All three remaining candidates (Trump, Clinton, Sanders) suck, each in their own, special way. The election comes down to whether it's worth bothering voting at all and which candidate one dislikes the least. All three of them are an utter embarrassment for the US.
I don't know - where's your dignity, if you don't mind my asking?
I don't know, concealed carried ?
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
This story is the first time I have thought 'trump can't be worse than that cunt'.
Then I read comments from trump supporters.
America, you are so fucked.
He's only 6 years older than Clinton. She's 68.
Maybe, but I can barely make out what you're saying because your horse is too high.
What to say. Things are changing quickly: we face a second (or third?) industrial revolution which is going to upset society at a global scale in a way we barely imagine.
At this point capital is over-powerful, "classical" national states are dwindling in significance, all the little achievements like rule of law and democracy, the dream of Human Rights, etc seem to be melting in the harsh sun of Capital Dictates Everything.
Politicians everywhere are dead set on a model of constant growth (a minimum percentage always represents (super-) exponential growth, and we geeks know what exponential means, right?), which isn't working. "Jobs, jobs!" you listen everywhere whereas at the same time self-driving cars and deep learning prepare themselves to eradicate a big swath of jobs.
What to do? Keep up the good fight! There are people everywhere doing that. Never give up.
And don't forget: life can be fun, in spite of all that.
Six years is a big difference among senior citizens, and gender life expectancy difference makes the contrast stronger.
Good one!
Achille Talon
Hop!
Perhaps, but she is not the one that needs to bend.
Achille Talon
Hop!
No, hope would be to imagine that Trump is nothing like the person he has been pretending to be for the last 40 years. Kind of hard to ignore all the evidence in all the books where he keeps getting mentioned in the most surprising places. Mind you that all of these books were published at least a few years ago, so the authors couldn't have been pandering for his favor or possible boons if he becomes president.
In my desperate fantasy, Trump has noticed that the American 2-party system is broken to the point of national dysfunction, reaching the point where the nation is ready to collapse. The Democratic Party has become even more dysfunctional than usual, which is hard to believe when you start from Will Rogers accurate description of it as the lack of an organized party. Meanwhile, the demographically challenged so-called Republican Party has substituted extreme party discipline for the ideological shreds of Abe Lincoln's progressive Republican Party and the remains of the pragmatic governing GOP of Ike or Teddy. In that desperate fantasy Trump actually understands that the American electoral system is winner-take-all, so the only stable situations are two balanced parties or one permanent ruling party. He would therefore understand why third parties can only succeed when one of the two main parties has been destroyed (most often by political suicide) and has decided the Democratic Party is mostly harmless but the so-called Republican Party needs to be replaced. In that fantasy, he's actually planning to implode his own campaign at some time after the convention--but looking at his campaign so far, it would be really hard to tell what had happened.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Well, he's an opportunist in all the way of the term. Oh! I see what you meant by politician.
Achille Talon
Hop!
I think the opposite.
Republicans would be so happy to have a president they will rubber stamp or be string armed by trump. Just look at how many jumped to his bandwagon and not call him out on his comments.
Where as 20% of Democrats and all Republicans don't like Hillary which is enough to grind Congress to a halt.
Remember nothing has been done the last 6 years because Republicans have done what they were voted in to do nothing. Stop Obama at all costs. Hillary will get that same treatment. Trump will strong arm his way through using the Republican ideal if you aren't with us then you are against us.
Either way both will be bad for the future. I am hoping Gary Johnson can get his name out there more. Don't normally care for libertarians but he will be the best choice come November.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Powerful person provides money or knowledge to forward a political leader who he knows will provide access to power for personal or financial gain.
How ignorant of history do you have to be to realize that this has been the pattern of human politics since the emergence from primate tribes so small that the strongest alpha male became the leader buy killing or threatening to kill every other male strong enough to compete for alpha?
Every single, viable candidate for president has had the backing of massive financial wealth with the intent to influence politics or a cult following with the skills to sway the population. Do you think newspapers, when they were the key communications mechanism, stayed above that? Hell no. Do you think JP Morgan bailing out the US Treasury at the end of the 19th century was out of the goodness of his heart? Fuck no - he was in it for the power and the money, and he was rich enough that it worked and made him hat much richer and more powerful.
Julian needs to get off his high horse and realize that he's just telling ever single person who knows history what we ALREADY know. The people at the top are corrupt as sin, because that's how you get to the top. You're really just hoping you have a choice where one of the candidates has corruptions which match your personal desires.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I'm not voting for trump, I'm writing in Bernie if necessary because fuck this system anyway, but I did vote for Schwarzenegger on that basis and as a plan it had no drawbacks. Moonbeam has been shit, Arnie accomplished nothing, the logic was proven out in that case. I'm not sure it would work here, though. It depends on Trump's appointments. You can be sure they will be shit. The thing is, you can be sure that Clinton's would be shit, as well. It's all bad if it's not Bernie.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Good thing we aren't giving any credence to any wingnut conspiracy sites.
Best Slashdot Co
I suspect you are correct. It will likely continue to escalate over the next several election cycles until something breaks. It is interesting to see. Working at a large company with a Global Security group that issues travel advisories and things I always wondered "what the hell" when I would see things like "election in progress in (country x), unrest likely, avoid travel for 3 weeks". I have a feeling that the US is headed to be on that list someday in the near future though.
>"You'd think that as exasperated as a large portion of the American people seem to be with the Rep/Dem duopoly that they'd set up alternative political parties."
We already do. The Libertarian party is a good example. But it doesn't matter because our stupid voting system makes it nearly impossible for any third-party to ever win any important election.
http://fairvote.org/
A friend of mine recently posited that what american democracy needs is a "reboot", or "fresh start", or "rebuilding". He said the best way to do that was to nuke it all from orbit and then start rebuilding, and that a vote for Donald Trump was the closest thing to "burn the forest so we can replant" that he had at his disposal.
No, the wall won't be built. Even Trump knows it won't, but it makes for a good political hot topic. The wall would have to span across multiple agencies, and they would have to approve it, past land not owned by the government and through land that would require years of study on its effect on the little critters that live there.
No - sorry - the wall won't be built. You can bet on that.
Google and Obama have been scratching eachother's backs for the past eight years. No surprise that their next purchase was Hillary.
I suspect he isn't quitting because he can still win. It involves all the superdelegates switching sides, but it can still happen.
Lots of things can happen in theory that won't in reality. Yes in principle he could still get the nomination. It is extremely unlikely at this point unless Hillary has a major medical issue or some other catastrophe occurs that her campaign can't manage. I would probably prefer Bernie as the candidate but it would take a minor miracle for him to get the nomination at this point.
Now why would the superdelegates switch to Bernie? Well, the FBI hasn't finished their investigation in Hillary Clinton's time as Secretary of State yet...
They won't switch to Bernie unless Hilllary drops out. Wishful thinking to assume otherwise. If the FBI hasn't got anything yet regarding the private server I very much doubt it will ever be a real issue beyond some poo for republicans to fling at her.
What I don't get about Hillary is why she seems to draw such special hate from some people. I get disagreement with her political stances and have no problem with an honest difference of opinion. I don't agree with much of what she says as well but it seems to be more than that. Clearly some of the ire is poorly disguised sexism. A powerful smart woman scares a lot of insecure people both men and surprisingly many women too. Many claim they don't trust her but there is NO evidence that she is meaningfully more or less trustworthy than most any other politician running for high office. To get to high office almost by definition means doing some things that put skeletons in your closet. By default I assume all of them are power seeking self interested liars and if you don't then you are an idiot. I don't trust Hillary but I don't trust any of her opponents (except maybe Bernie by just a little) any more than her and some I trust far less (Trump) with real power. At least with Hillary I have a pretty good idea what I'm getting even if I have to hold my nose at times.
I, for one, am voting for Kodos.
Either way, our planet is doomed.
You act like Trump isn't corrupt at well. He's had his fair share of scandals as well.
The EU referendum in the UK has been a total disaster. The Leave side in particular just spews lies and half truths, repeating them often enough for them to become facts in some people's minds. I mean easily verifiable lies too, completely bare faced.
The worst part are the voters though. You hear endless moronic complaints. "We just want the facts", as if there is someone out there with a crystal ball who can see all possible futures and tell them exactly what will happen in either case. Are these people shocked when the weather forecast turns out to be wrong? Well, presumably not, because the other standard argument is that anyone who has ever been wrong about anything ever cannot be trusted. Apparently they only want to listen to those people making economic predictions who have never been wrong, if only the biased liberal media would allow them on TV...
I heard someone complaining that she didn't know who here MEPs are or who to vote for when the European elections come round. Literally complaining that she is too ignorant to vote and unable to do anything about it, like google the answer.
The whole thing has become dominated by memes. You have the "get rid of red tape" meme, that always avoids mentioning exactly what red tape they want to get rid of because a) all red tape is bad, even the stuff that covers that gap in the fence by the cliff, and b) it's workers rights and occupational safety, lead in paint etc, the stuff that costs businesses money. Then you have the particularly nasty "immigrants are responsible for everything that's wrong" meme that seems to ignore recent history, and the "I know how to fly this plane better than you" meme about taking back control from Brussels.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
It is better to be an "conspiracy theorist" than a NSA employee
FWIW, he might not be American. For instance, I have no frikkin' clue how long the English prime minister serves.
This has described every Presidential election in my lifetime. If Sanders were the nominee it would have been different for once...
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Trump is an egomaniac, but he also has a strong business background with negotiation, and making deals through compromise. He understands budgets, and has a working knowledge of economics. I do think he'll get things done, just not all the demands he's making now. When making a deal, you start high (build wall and mexico pay's for all of it) so that you'll compromise where you want to end up (build wall and maybe get mexico to chip in a bit). He can't come out and publically say this, because it'll ruin the deal before it happens. He's not in the establishment, and this is plain to see as the entire media is colluding against him while they praise Clinton and ignore her FBI investigation. Hell, even the rebublicans tried colluding against him before he won the primary. As opposed to many libertarians (Paul, Johnson, etc...) I think Trump stands a good chance of getting things done while in office.
A Clinton presidency would mean legislation goes to favor the highest bidder as well as her wallet.
The EU at least allows members to leave peacefully if they want. The last time a number of US states wanted to leave, they were conquered by the remaining part of the empire.
He didn't "soundly" lose the popular vote, many states have gone Sanders, many more districts have gone for Sanders by a wide margin, and my state for one had every single county vote Sanders.
As much as I agree with you that Trump would never be able to build the wall the way he says he would, do you really think he'd let something like an environmental impact survey stop him? He seems like he'd just write an executive order saying it's exempt from those (regardless of whether he has the political power to do so) or would get someone who is willing to sign anything for the right amount of cash ("He's the best surveyor! Fantastic!").
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
So what do you do to control immigration? Who decides who enters the country: the citizens or non-citizens?
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Dignity is for pussies.
I like the theory that Trump started his campaign as a publicity stunt. He intended to run, fail, and then parlay that into better ratings for The Apprentice and more profits for anything he tagged with his name. He said some outrageous things thinking he'd go down in flames. Instead, his popularity rose. So he said some outrageous things and got more popular. At some point, his ego took over and the "play the American politics game for profit" plan was ditched because Trump couldn't get enough of the attention he was getting.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Google and the Democrats have been working together for years. These comments are nothing new.
"Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate."
(All joking aside, this is my plan come Election Day.)
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Glad they are picking the better side.
Easy to say that if you do most of your research using Google.
To see the bias in an easy visible way, just look at the candidate photos they use for Hillary vs Trump on the primary results page.
And then click on the candidates and see the 3 pics they have on the side to represent
Hillary
https://www.google.com/search?...
Trump
https://www.google.com/search?...
Seig Heil!!
Independents won't vote for Hillary - the second most hated major party candidate, or Drumpf - the first most hated major party candidate.
They're both shining examples of what democracy looks like in a free country. America should be proud of producing such great representatives that both truly represent the interests of the people.
No matter who gets elected it's going to be great as either of them will try their best to make the future great for the everyday person. America should rejoice, the people can't loose.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
That's what the last Roman emperors also claimed. When the greatness needs to be specifically stated, you know the empire in in decay.
5 year plans. Great leaps forward, and all that.
Usually 4 years. The 5 year period seems to be used mostly in the former soviet union and its satellites, while in western countries 4 years seems to be the norm. I have no idea if there has been any research done what the optimal length is (if such a number can be determined anyway).
We have several alternative political parties. The Libertarian and Green parties are the most prominent, but we also have a Constitution Party, Justice Party and even a Socialist party.
Year after year polls have shown that at least 2/3 of people in the USA want more viable parties, but every two years, most of those same people refuse to vote for the alternatives they're given.
Of course when you have a two-party political duopoly, the two parties will do everything possible to prevent the rise of alternatives. Why would they ever reform the voting system so that we have IRV, "approval voting" or proportional representation? Ballot access is also made very difficult in most states and no other parties are allowed to participate in debates.
Voting for Democrats or Republicans is a wasted vote. Given that those parties have chosen to nominate the worst candidates imaginable in this election, I'm *hoping* that we see a strong showing for the alternatives. If the Libertarians can get 2-3% of the vote, I'll be happy. If the Greens could do the same(Come on Sanders supporters!), it would be fantastic.
I've seen several of the privileged Sanders supporters make that claim. Their lack of empathy for the people who would be harmed the most by a swing to the fascist right has been noted.
As opposed to the facists on the left.
The EU referendum in the UK has been a total disaster. The Leave side in particular just spews lies and half truths, repeating them often enough for them to become facts in some people's minds. I mean easily verifiable lies too, completely bare faced.
Here across the pond it seems like the opposite. Except that the Stay side is going way over the edge trying to generate fear.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Its not a theory when people are actually conspiring :)
I think the issue is that we are running 16 years straight of the worst presidential / governing we have ever had. Almost like a "Dark Age" in american politics, and neither future choice seems to move away from the decay.
--WooooHoooo--
Anybody can claim to be a "Trump supporter" and in fact anybody can play that game to smear someonfe they actually oppose.
That's assuming Trump doesn't provoke North Korea into nuclear war. As a citizen of Earth, I implore all USA voters to recognise the dangers of a Trump presidency. Not all of us get a vote on this matter.
What the hell are you talking about? Trump doesn't give a crap about North Korea - Hillary is MUCH more likely to start wars than Trump, who is more interested in domestic issues, renegotiating trade agreements (we don't really trade with NK), and invigorating manufacturing and productivity of companies within the US. Hillary already started wars in Libya, Syria, and stirs up conflicts all over the globe.
If you're concerned about the next US president starting wars, you should be way more concerned about Hillary. Her foreign policy is practically identical to the neocons. Yes, the warmongering neocons. Who hate Trump, because he has already stated he thinks the US has too many military bases abroad.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
I'm not voting for trump, I'm writing in Bernie if necessary because fuck this system anyway
I think a vote for Trump IS a vote for "fuck this system anyway". All the TV pundits sure seem to think so.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
If we leave the EU, there will be plenty to be afraid about.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
No they can't. I am a Hillary supporter and we should kill all middle class white people.
For those outside the US, Hillary is the hawk urging for "regime change" and invading other countries.
No more so than any number of Republicans and less than some of them. Yeah she's more hawkish than Bernie but that's not news.
With her as president, it won't take long before the next war(s) start and other countries are called upon to clean the US-caused mess.
Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss. Can't be any worse than Bush the Lesser.
Trump is more focused inward, proposes a more isolationalist view and seems less likely to mess up anywhere else on the planet.
Spare me. The only thing Trump is focused on is the Trump brand. Trump isn't proposing any sort of focused policy and the "proposals" he has floated are idiotic. I shudder to think how fast Trump would manage to cause international incidents by running his mouth and his shoot first ask questions never approach to policy issues. 2/3 of the job of president is foreign relations and I can think of few people less appropriate for that job than Donald Trump.
What's to stop Sanders from standing as an independent, unaffiliated with either party?
Mainly the "sore loser" laws that most states have. These laws state that if someone runs for a party nomination in a primary or caucus, they cannot appear on the ballot if they don't have that party's nomination. It's party of the 2-party duopoly protection system.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
One of the most prominent Leave campaigners claimed that staying in the EU risked women being raped by Muslims yesterday. The fear-mongering over immigration from that side is intense, far worse from than the mostly justifiable warnings about economic ruin if we leave.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
This:
The Leave campaign consists entirely of lies. The Remain campaign has some good arguments, but that is apparently not good enough, they have to have lies too.
The latest Leave meme is that we will not be safe in our beds because the EU won't let us deport foreign convicted criminals. They fail to mention
a) that is false
b) the majority of crime in Britain is committed by British people
c) deporting criminals just dumps the problem on somebody else. Raped and murdered French people are not somehow worth less than raped and murdered British people.
d) if we leave the EU, we'll have to take back all the British criminals that foreign countries are trying to get rid of but can't because of this mythical EU regulation.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
Nobody has ever left the EU. We don't know if we'll be allowed to leave peacefully.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
The FBI has enough evidence that they believe is cause for an indictment. The Department of Justice is just sitting on it and not pursuing the indictment.
That is not true at all apparently. The FBI has found "no criminal wrongdoing". The Justice Department isn't sitting on anything because so far there is nothing to sit on. While the investigation goes on, so far it is much ado about (almost) nothing.
The whole thing is sleazy and it's showing just how incestuous DC can be.
Sleazy politicians? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you... [/sarcasm]
But.. Bill Gates is an avowed liberal, or, he is nowadays. He's also behind much of the common core and PARC idiocy too.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Quite frankly I'm quite happy that the figureheads that end up "running" the country are unable to achieve things.
The opportunity to influence events and control destiny is irresistible. And it should be expected, anticipated, and so diminished and ultimately defeated.
Hillary is plainly an unindicted felon, a reasonable conclusion given the public statements made so far by so many credible sources. While it may disrupt the election and cause much chaos politically if she were in fact indicted, and worse if she were convicted, more likely she will be either pardoned or merely escape indictment. No action will bring all of the involved institutions into disrepute, but most of them already enjoy terrible reputations with the public, so there is little lost there. And the powers that support her are without shame or conscience, either believing they are in the right to implement their agendas, or they will take power by any means. No one should be surprised if she escapes judgment and stands for election. You who would challenge my assertion that the public record is sufficient to find her at least under substantial suspicion of criminal acts should avoid trolling me on this - my mind is made up, and if you have not already examined the record, you are not likely to do so now, and I understand. Hillary can win in November if she gets enough Berners to give in and vote for the lesser of two evils - Corruption v. Not Liberal.
Trump is, first, not a Republican. No, he is not. But he is much less a Democrat, and if he planned to run an insurgent campaign from the beginning, he certainly would not oppose Hillary with a party in total accordance with her candidacy. He has been masterful in his campaign, but that is not a good thing for the GOP. His appeal is only heightened by the abject failure of GOP leadership to actually function as an opposition party in Congress. Whatever the reasons, the GOP leadership has abdicated that role, and are now merely figureheads maintaining their personal power, prestige, and wealth. Trump is being the authentic Donald Trump, a creature New Yorkers know well, and he has mixed business acumen with instinct and opportunistic actions to wear down his opponents. Successfully. he is invincible if he can navigate the next 5 months without a major gaffe, and if he can successfully isolate Hillary and paint her with her own brush. Maybe.
The GOP primary was decided when Trump stated on Fox News that "His (Ted Cruz) father was with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to Oswald's being — you know, shot. I mean, the whole thing is ridiculous", and no one, virtually no one challenged such an unsupportable, plainly fantastic and questionable claim, I don't doubt that Ted Cruz met with his advisers and essentially asked why, in a campaign where the truth no longer matters, should he try to run on a platform of anything rational when Trump can say literally anything without being called on it.
The only question for the general election in November seems, now, to be which side the media will choose, since that is the side that will win. And Google, Facebook, et al are the new media, same as the old media.Of course they will exert their influence and control to their own advantages, severally and individually. How do we, individuals, survive this? By being as suspicious of all media as we are of all politicians and business. They are all out to manipulate us. Know this when you read or listen or watch them, always.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Trump's corruption is the typical bullshit deals that happen in corporate America complete with tantrums, fake lawsuits, a bit of money moving, and not paying taxes. Clinton's corruption ... well if it weren't for that fantastic last name of her's she'd be buried in a prison somewhere by now.
Sorry jafiwam, but you've not seen inside Julian's 'insurance' file nor Snowden's 'insurance' file.
Until you can compare the two, you don't know jack shit, son.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
It doesn't matter if he loses the DNC nomination. YOU CAN STILL WRITE IN YOUR PREFERRED CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT AND THUS VOTE FOR HIM IN THE GENERAL ELECTION.
Holy fuck, it's like you fuckers failed basic goddamned civics.
Whipslash, get rid of the goddamned caps filter. TEXT IS NOT YELLING. You are *NOT* using your fucking vocal chords.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
The AC is right, you know... This whole "bot" thing needs to be retired, along with "sheeple." Make a counter argument, or just say nothing. Better yet, say something clever or funny. "Bot" is no longer either of those.
Trump may possibly provide that reboot, if we're lucky.
The surplus office furniture/equipment auctions as they empty out large buildings full of worthless-fuck government employees will bankrupt most of the big office equipment manufacturers for years after.
(I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.)
It's funny that you bring up Nixon, because though he's renown for being a crook, his policies weren't bad. He ended US involvement in Vietnam and stopped the draft. He established the Environmental Protection Agency and forced racial desegregation. He continued NASA funding and saw the Apollo 11 landing. He reestablished diplomatic relations with China and the USSR and signed the anti ballistic missile treaty. Overall, his policy wasn't bad or unpopular, though his popularity dropped tremendously after an oil embargo and soaring gas prices and rationing and then the Watergate scandal.
He wasn't a bad president, but he was a crook. We know that Clinton is a crook, but what if she's a bad president, too? We don't have any evidence to suggest that she'd be a good president. This isn't an endorsement of Trump (at all!), mind you. I'm just fascinated by the bizarre love for Clinton outside of the US.
(Also, I know that you Europeans loath Bush II and adore Obama, but in what ways are they substantially different? Policy-wise, especially as regards to foreign policy, they are both atrocious and leagues behind Nixon's détente and general anti-hawkishness. Further, even though they are so similar in policy, Clinton seems much more like Bush II than Obama.)
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
Only 4 million more votes due to gerrymandering districts.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Opposing fascists isn't actually fascism, but yes, the Sanders supporters can be just as extreme as Trump supporters. Sanders didn't win the nomination because Democrats learned to marginalize their extremists, while the Republicans let the extremists take over the party.
The Clinton family is plenty bent enough as it is.
Under the both Bush's admins the petro-chem industry was part of the White House staff, under the Obama admin Hollywood wannabe's held reign, so I guess it must be Silicon Valley's turn, should Hillary make it that far. Not sure who Trump would have, the folks that get weekend passes from mental institutions ?
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Is there a -1 Trump option?
Whatever rights he may or may not have given up, he hasn't given up the right to lobby government, petition government, or support political parties; as I was saying: although he is arguably doing this personally, even if he did it "as CEO of Google" it would be legal.
If Google were foolish enough to try to do that, it would be legal. I don't believe they are such fools because they'd risk lots of money. But even if they were, that wouldn't be any different from the past half century, where TV networks and their CEOs wielded the power to influence elections, and wallowed in it.
Furthermore, people who think that the American voter is a mindless zombie who can be told who to vote for have found themselves disappointed time and again. And organizations that have tried to do that, like "the press" and the Republican party machinery, have found that they have lost the trust of Americans and paid for it.
There isn't a better side. The president is a cosmetic figure who doesn't govern day to day affairs. Someone who is changed every 5 years simply doesn't have enough time to become an effective administrator. Instead president has to rely on actual bureaucrats who implement what they want. And president's only job is to present those bureaucratic decisions to people and to convince them that those are good decisions.
Is that you Sir Humphrey? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_Minister)
So what about her big contributions she got from the supposedly evil Koch brother also??? No one going to cover that too?
Symbolism matters. Especially in politics. A black president proves that blacks can be president. Nothing else will. Which is why Obama's election was important in race relations purely for the fact that he was elected and black. It says something about America and race.
What politicians and other influential people say also matters. People listen to them. Trump being racist against Mexicans, being the owner of a beauty pagent, being Islamophobic does matter. Bush saying "The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends." mattered.
Electing someone who calls Mexicans "rapists" says something about America, which is pretty much the opposite of what electing a black guys says about America.
I'll probably also vote for a third party candidate. However, that's a small minority. I don't blame the strategic anything-but-X voter, for X in {Trump, Clinton, Sanders}, because these candidates are really so awful.
It seems that a significant portion of Sanders supporters are not willing to vote for Clinton no matter what. They either don't vote or vote for Trump. But Clinton supporters, on the other hand, seem to be willing to vote for Sanders even if Clinton lost the nomination.
I think it's a broader problem than that. A huge number of people in the US don't vote. I would argue that's because there's no candidate that would make any difference to their life. Sick child with no health care? Minimum wage job? No Job (remember it's official US government policy to keep unemployment around 5% so that there's no upward pressure on wages)? Reasonable tax rates for corporations and wealth individuals to cover education, infrastructure, etc.?
This is essentially the Sander's platform and former non-voters have been coming out to support it. Sander's has done well in any state with an open primary, and not so well in states where you had to specify well in advance that you wanted to participate in this particular lizard contest.
I contend that the vast majority of the non-voters are just not interested in spending their time when the outcome is, in their life-circle, the status quo. Whether there would be any change with ANY candidate is open for discussion, but clear the new Sander's voters feel it would be the case.
So facts are "fear mongering" to you now? You went off the deep end long ago. You're not only a danger to yourself, but others.
Warnings about the economy are only justifiable because the EU assholes and globalists will do everything they can to punish the UK if they do leave (think trade embargoes, tariffs, bogus accusations justifying war against them, etc) . Other than that, the UK would do just fine on its own, like it always had.
One of the most prominent Leave campaigners claimed that staying in the EU risked women being raped by Muslims yesterday. The fear-mongering over immigration from that side is intense, far worse from than the mostly justifiable warnings about economic ruin if we leave.
Well that's actually true. It's been going on in many EU countries, and the extent of it is often suppressed. The response from German officials is that women in Germany should "cover up" when they go out, or make sure they have a male escort.
The EU is now proposing quotas of middle eastern immigrants that all member countries must accept. So it might be fear-mongering, but it's based on facts and a predictable future outcome.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Hillary's already had a stroke. Bernie's in good health.
I didn't say it's insufficient time. It's sufficient for what they actually do. But administering entire country isn't done by a single person in any case. It's done by teams of administrators at many territorial levels, and presidents are merely figureheads. And the point is that a single limited term isn't enough to take place in one of such teams. Either new president is already a team player or his decisions will get disregarded. So basically president is less important than most people think.. No major reform comes from particular president, it's always a team effort.
However there have been serious allegations of irregularities at the polls. In Illinois, neutral observers claim to have seen election workers blatantly changing votes in Hillary's favor. In other places, exit polls completely disagree with the official Democratic voting results. In New York, a huge number of people had their voter registrations "magically" changed from Democratic to Independent so they were prevented from voting in the (closed) primary.
AFAIC, the election results are all completely invalid and I'm unwilling to accept them unless we have non-American UN election monitors come and hold all new elections here, using paper ballots. IMO, the whole thing has been rigged.
I'm in Florida. The Trump supporters have absolutely no problem announcing their support to the world over here. They're very open about it.
Bear in mind he's (practically) the nominee for the Republicans right now. That gives supporters a lot of cover.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
yes, yes we are. But we deserve it because most Americans (it appears) are to dumb to do anything but simply repeat what their favorite mouthpiece tells them... My apologies to those that actually do their own research, I am not speaking of you.
My not responding to your flame is in no way indicative of my submission to your statement, it just means I don't have t
... Assange hasn't been in the news.
Coincidence?
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
So here is Hillary Clinton having a speech last night after essentially securing the Democratic nomination. She touched on most of the typical democratic talking points...equality for all, helping the working class get a fair shot, etc. This is while wearing a $12,000 Armani jacket: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/06...
If this isn't the height of arrogance I don't know what is. That jacket is worth more than the yearly salaries of some of her supporters. Not to mention that many of the people on her campaign are unpaid volunteers. At least when these phony celebrities show up on humanitarian missions in some of the poorest parts of the world they at least have the humility to leave the Rolex at home.
This is the same party that was criticizing Trump for allegedly lying about how much money he raised for Veterans groups (he claimed 6 million, it was actually 5.6 million. By the time it's all said and done, it will be over 6 million). Emperor Hillary has donated a grand total of $75,000 to Veterans groups - over the past 8 years. This is from a woman with a net worth that far exceeds $100,000,000, much of it in dubious fashion. Am I surprised? Not in the least.
I wonder how many of her supporters are made up of the following:
1) People that support her solely based on the fact that she is a woman, putting aside past and current scandals and suitability for office questions.
2) People that simply hate Trump, for whatever reason.
What is striking to me is the popularity that Bernie Sanders still enjoys. I watched his speech last night in California and I'm telling you his supporters are worked up and they love this guy. I've read polls where up to 25% of Sanders supporters will not support or vote for Hillary. Some of them will even vote for Trump. That has to be alarming to the Clinton campaign, especially in light of Sanders vow to hang in to the bitter end.
I would say that the Emperor has no clothes but evidently she does...expensive ones at that.
Right now most of those voter numbers, that are very counter to the exit polls, are part of the desciption. How DNC is working hard to make sure all that money they got gets clinton elected.
https://electionfraud2016.word...
Basically they are using the information from Eric's Google invested information systems to know where to cheat voters. So if your district is polling high for Bernie expect you polls closed, the wrong forms mailed, and most definitely the wrong forms given to pollers. These forms are thrown away as not being correct in essence.
Every state and Peurto Rico. They(People in Power) are intending that when the dust settles she will be President and able to shut down any FBI investigation finding into, "her asking for Top Secret to be whited out" before faxing/emailing something to her personal residence.
At this point you are looking at advertising dollars, but the reality is much more sinister. Advertising dollars is a distraction in this story, its much more a Coup before the final elections.
they wouldn't finish their investigation before she is elected, then it will quietly go away. There is no Law in the USA anymore, just convenient lies they tell us little people.
My not responding to your flame is in no way indicative of my submission to your statement, it just means I don't have t
- don't give preferential treatment to the parents of anchor babies. They can get in line like everyone else.
- do give preferential treatment to people with English skills as speaking the language of the country is an obvious win
- do give preferential treatment to immigrants with desired skills which is again an obvious win
- if you (or your family or other people you might sponsor) break laws then you get a fast track deportation.
Essentially this is to say do what is best for the country and the legal citizens who live there. Not hard really.
Was Obama really that bad? From outside the US he looks like one of the better presidents. Sure, he didn't get Gitmo closed and he did murder a load of people with drones, but that's pretty much par for the course with US presidents. Some kind of universal healthcare seems like a pretty big achievement, and LGBT rights have come a long way too. He did better than most fixing the financial crisis he inherited too, even if most of the guilty avoided punishment. Considering the constraints he doesn't seem to have done too badly.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
This has described every Presidential election in my lifetime
Mine too, but things aren't black-and-white. This is going to be absolutely the worst choice I've ever seen in a general election, and I'm not that young. Other elections have always been between two not-so-hot choices, but in this one they're both absolutely horrible. I've never seen another election where 1) the party was hijacked by a loud-mouth, bombastic blatant racist who encourages violence, or 2) where the candidate is so completely blatantly corrupt while also an obvious warmonger in a party that claims to be against that kind of thing, and also so blatantly in favor of enriching the 0.01% while again in a party that claims to be against that kind of thing.
In other elections, the candidates were generally party insiders who were fairly mainstream, obviously working for various corporate interests to some degree but not so obviously for their own direct personal enrichment, and never so blatantly stoking xenophobia and racism.
... they can even keep and bear arms.
For reference, see Citizens United.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Hillary's already had a stroke. Bernie's in good health.
A quick search indicates that Hillary had blood clots a few years ago, likely due to sever dehydration after having the flu (blood thickens causing a clot) based on what was reported by the doctors involved. There has been no evidence that she has had a stroke or, even if she did, that she is susceptible to having another one.
We do have evidence that she'd be a *bad* president: she's a well-known warmonger. She pushed for involvement in Libya (which has turned into a disaster), and she pushed for an invasion of Syria, which luckily Obama backed away from.
I predict we'll be invading Syria within 100 days of her being elected.
Hillary is going to be worse than Bush II: she'll be just as much a warmonger as him, but also a far worse crook than Nixon could have dreamt of. Nixon was of course involved in some dirty politics (Watergate), but Hillary is shameless and blatant in her quest to personally enrich herself (speaking fees, speeches to Goldman Sachs, Clinton Foundation involvement in arms sales to middle eastern nations: she approves arms sales, those nations then give "donations" to Clinton Foundation most of which goes to pay generous salaries of CF insiders meaning the Clintons themselves).
Why people outside the US would like Hillary, I have no idea. Do they really want another mid-east war that'll create another huge wave of refugees?
I mentioned on Facebook last night that if there isn't record voting for third party candidates this November this country is truly screwed, and my dad pointed out that none of the third party candidates have met the criteria in the state we both live in to actually be on the ballot in November. I'll probably do a write in, but it is pretty much beyond hope that there will be significant enough people in common with me to send a message.
Very impressive, Donald.
You got first post with those tiny fingers. They're the best fingers. Well done.
This is the odd thing though, superdelegates in many cases are not democrats per say but are actually lobbyist. Lets say that they know that Hillary can't beat Trump... are they better off with Trump, who likely can be bought (despite his claims of incredible wealth) or Sanders, who won't take their money.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
A vote for Satan is a vote against the establishment as well. And no, a vote for a self proclaimed multi-billionaire isn't anti-establishment. Hillary represents the establishment, Drumpf *is* the establishment.
Learn to love Alaska
Regarding the 3 sidebar pics, what's wrong with the Trump pics? Trump tends to look more serious in the press, and Clinton tends to smile more.
Also, Trump looks a bit goofy when he smiles, enough that I'm surprised the main banner on his site has him smiling (it might just be because he almost comes across as friendly, which my mind cannot accept).
For the little primary results pic, it does seem like an odd choice to choose a pic of him in the middle of saying something while the other candidates have professional headshots. Though to be fair, his main web page contains a supporting video whose cover pic shows him in his often-portrayed shouting expression - obviously he doesn't have a problem with people seeing him that way.
I will not be responsible for voting for "awful". I'll throw my vote away on a 3rd party or stay home before I'll do that. The polls show that many others do the same. If neither party will put up a "good" candidate, people will stay home. That's why Bernie beats Drumpf, and Hillary doesn't. Bernie is less hated/polarizing, and so people will vote for him as a "not awful" candidate. They aren't "Sanders supporters", they are voters. No more. No less. And they don't want to vote for Hillary or Drumpf.
Learn to love Alaska
Keep in mind Nixon also ordered the firebombing of his political opponents & journalists. I'm not sure the crook is a strong enough word for someone who is willing to murder citizens to cover up their crimes.
Britain could focus more on leading the Commonwealth of Nations and forming their own EU which they run.
There are a lot more people joining the protests as a means to get drunk and cause disruption. They don't have real political views they just want to rumble. Same thing happened with the Occupy Oakland protests. If you accuse those people of being typical of leftists then why not accuse the violent Trump supporters as being typical Trump supporters?
You haven't been watching the news then or it's been going through some sort of pro-Trump filter.
Sure... and the right has always been on the side of the pure and holy since the beginning of the universe. The Nazis were just a socialist plot to discredit the right, Mussolini was a commie stooge, and so forth I suppose. Modern proponents of the "right" are insistent that no fascist was ever conservative or on the right because they are trying to create the myth the the right is always good and all evil throughout history has only come from the "left". Left and right are all illusions anyway and it's a simplistic notion that you can plot politics in a single dimension. Fascists were strong on authoritarianism, militarism, and nationalism, but inconsistent and vague with regards to economic and social policies.
And gave her a free email account, just what she needs!
Table-ized A.I.
One of the most prominent Leave campaigners claimed that staying in the EU risked women being raped by Muslims yesterday.
That's obviously true. Will more than 0 women be raped by immigrants? Yes, obviously. How important that is is subjective, of course.
But of course, the most important fact about the immigration debate in the UK (and to a lesser extent in the US), is that each side only talks about the other side's plan, while neither side actually puts forth a number of immigrants per year they think is best, nor any sort of plan to limit immigration to that number. Neither side apparently has any concrete plan, but both sides are sure the other side's plan is wrong.
mostly justifiable warnings about economic ruin if we leave.
The economic question is more interesting: if you believe the EU will drain the wealthier nations, then collapse entirely, then the UK should leave; otherwise leaving seems quite negative. That's one heck of an open question, with many trillions of (whatever currency) in bonds as the stakes in that bet.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Americans have been stuck in a two party system for so long that they can only think in single dimensions. A pro-gun-control person is assumed to automatically be on the left, and an anti-abortion person must be on the right, the concept that one person can be both is discounted as so rare that it can be ignored. So when they look at fascists in history they automatically assume they must be the opposite of what good people are; they rounded up guns so they must be on the left, they were pro military growth so they must be on the right, and so forth. The idea that they were neither left nor right isn't considered.
You can very easily control immigration... by issuing a national ID to citizens and legal immigrants only, implementing an easy verification system and putting the onus of verification on the employers. No need to build a wall.
The IDs can be issued at Govt expense, thus neutralizing complaints from democrats that it would be unfair to poor people. Also tie the reception of benefits to said ID.
The IDs can also be used to verify voters, thus neutralizing republican complaints about crooked voting.
Assuming $20 per ID (a vast overestimate), you can issue such IDs to every single one of the $400M american citizens for $8B. Far cheaper than building and maintaining walls!
Also, aggressive enforcement; if an employer is found to have employed someone without verification, punitive fines. I find it ridiculous that farmers can go on national TV and bemoan their inability to hire illegals, with no repercussions whatsoever!
No jobs and no benefits means no incentive for illegals to come and stay here. Also a natural motivation for self-deportation. No "roundups" or "camps" necessary.
Then all the countries can form their own Europe with themselves in charge! The only problem is all those lesser countries who also want to be in charge. They just need to grow up and realize that nation $X is their superior in all ways.
How's that any worse than the AP telling us that Hillary is the official nominee before California has even voted? Or pushing the idea that Iraq had WMD, which the mainstream media did back then?
Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party is on the ballot in all 50 states
How would gerrymandering affect a popular vote?
My quick Google search (nach) only shows only Bernieite fringe media coverage of similar allegations and none describing quite what you are describing. Do you have a source?
Accepting for the moment your criticism of HRC (and ignoring for the moment that Trump is the incarnate apotheosis of the Republican party, and not its hijacker), doesn't Trump also possess all the negative qualities you ascribe to HRC? Isn't it fair to say that 1) Trump is a loud-mouth, bombastic blatant racist who encourages violence, and completely blatantly corrupt while also an obvious warmonger, and also so blatantly in favor of enriching the 0.01%; and 2) Hillary is only half as bad?
What has Jerry Brown done or failed to do to earn your "shit" rating? By every measure I've seen or heard, he has been a very successful governor.
Thank you for pointing these out. I wish more Americans knew that their Presidential choices are between getting hit with a sock full of shit in the mouth, or getting hit with a BLUE sock full of shit in the mouth.
My not responding to your flame is in no way indicative of my submission to your statement, it just means I don't have t
There is no "lesser evil" anymore. Both parties are totally corrupt and probably beyond redemption. Stop supporting the 2-party system. Vote 3rd party, get involved, do research and vote for somebody you actually agree with.
we have like 100 political parties. Not 2. The ones you Non-Americans never heard of? Things like the American Socialist Party, etc.
My not responding to your flame is in no way indicative of my submission to your statement, it just means I don't have t
I, for one, am voting for Kodos.
Just for Libertarian this year, since it doesn't matter. Gary Johnson was a successful 2-term governor of New Mexico.
Well depending on your state a write in vote may or may not be counted. For example in Minnesota for votes for a write in candidate to be counted they candidate needs to register in writing with the MN Secretary of State no later than November 1, 2016.
Time to offend someone
A number of commonwealth countries are trying to ditch the Queen as head of state. I doubt they will be very interested in our leadership, especially as after we joined the EU the pivoted away from us.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The UK has already secured an exemption from the immigration quotas.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
> Wingnuts actually believe that. If you immerse yourself in far-right propaganda,
> and lack critical thinking skills, you'll wind up so brainwashed that you'll actually
> believe the Nazis were the "left."
You mean the "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei", which translates as "National Socialist German Workers' Party"? Because it's a real mouthful, the MSM called them "Nazis". Hitler's campaign platform in 1933 included the nationalization of banks. More like Bernie, if you ask me.
> Those idiots blame everything on the tricksy left, even now when they've
> nominated an actual fascist who promises to commit impeachable offenses.
As opposed to Hillary, who already has commited impeachable offenses with her private mail server?
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
In most states (according to Wikipedia), those laws don't apply to presidential elections. And even when they do, you can be certified as a write-in.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Yeah, keep in mind that what really did in old BJ Bill was not the sexual act, but the perjury when he lied about it under oath...
No, you don't make any sense at all. Where do you get the idea that Trump is a warmonger like Hillary? Trump said the Iraq war was stupid, that the military has too many bases abroad, and seems to kinda like Putin. Where do you get "warmonger" out of that? The part about bombing ISIS? Everyone wants to bomb ISIS. But not everyone wants to invade other nations and set up all-new governments; Hillary does, she's said it many times, and voted for it too.
And where do you get the idea that Trump wants to enrich the 0.01%? That's just plain stupid. Trump isn't corrupt; he doesn't need to be. He didn't finance his campaign with money from wealthy special-interests like Goldman Sachs. He's rich enough that "speaking fees" aren't really important to him, and being President doesn't really offer him a bigger return than he could get just by doing what he normally does. He's clearly doing this not for money, but for ego. And that's probably a good thing: someone doing it for money (like Hillary) will happily sell us all out. Someone doing it for ego wants to go down in the history books as a great leader, which a sell-out isn't going to get. I think Trump is completely serious and honest when he talks about "making America great again"; I think he really does want to make America a better place. The question is if he can actually do that, or if the policies he pursues would do that or make it worse. Hillary, OTOH, has no such desire at all: she's clearly only interested in her personal bank account. But I fail to see how a possibly incompetent and racist nincompoop is a much worse choice than an evil sociopath who only cares about making herself richer by personally profiting from arms deals.
This has described every Presidential election in my lifetime. If Sanders were the nominee it would have been different for once...
For the Sanders voters at least.
For everyone else there would still be only bad choices.
I stole this Sig
Well for starters:
Illinois:
http://www.inquisitr.com/30220...
https://electionfraud2016.word...
New York:
https://news.vice.com/article/...
http://www.inquisitr.com/30113...
http://usuncut.com/politics/so...
Feel free to look up Arizona on your own.
Yeah, I just went with 'crook' because he explicitly claimed that he wasn't one. He wasn't that bad of a president, but he was a real dirtbag of a person.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
Seig Heil!! </sarcasm>
(/sic)
"I'm not much interested in interoperability. I want substitutability. I want to be able to throw your software out."
Patreus was found to be intentionally leaking classified info (to impress a lady for romantic advantage). So far no intent has been identified from H.
In fact, I've yet to see confirmation that she even accidentally (or otherwise) leaked CLEARLY classified info that was CLEARLY classified at the time of the alleged link. If you have such evidence, please do provide it.
There are two levels of evidence needed. First, that something was clearly leaked, and THEN it was leaked intentionally. Right now she's still at level 0 (based on public evidence).
The rest of your statements appear to politically motivated, but I choose to focus on current events for now, and thus won't reply on those.
Table-ized A.I.
The EU at least allows members to leave peacefully if they want. The last time a number of US states wanted to leave, they were conquered by the remaining part of the empire.
Those US states who chose to unilaterally engage in war in order to foster their secession to protect the peculiar institution of black slavery?
You don't get to quit just because you lost an election.
Plausible, but I'm not sure he could have been so naive about the snake oil he was selling. It kind of depends if he's more of a salesman or a con artist.
As a salesman, Trump would focus more on listening to what the customers want, and the so-called Republican primary voters have been quite clear on what they want, even if their clarity is often incoherent and contradictory. Some salesmen don't mind selling on both sides to different customers.
As a con man, the Donald would be more focused on actively persuading the suckers to trust him, to feel the confidence in him that they needed to give him their money or votes. Trump University is just one impressive example of a big con, but he's been involved in plenty of other scams.
Kind of hard to see clearly in the clouds of data and obfuscation, but I think Trump's overall track record is pretty clearly on side of con man.
Of course, people also hate lawyers, so it isn't helping Hillary that she's a lawyer at heart.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
It is a real concern if the overt authoritarians are numerous enough, but usually they are a relatively small minority. To win an actual election they must discourage their opponents from voting or somehow obtain a lot of less overtly fascist support. The discouragement approach might involve threats, disenfranchisement, or even propaganda to create an atmosphere of desperation or hopelessness among their opponents. The other approach may use coalitions or secretive supporters (who can often be shamed, which was the focus of my comment).
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
There are two levels of evidence needed. First, that something was clearly leaked, and THEN it was leaked intentionally. Right now she's still at level 0 (based on public evidence).
The Espionage Act criminalizes the mishandling of classified documents. Intent is irrelevant. So, to correct your level estimation, she's at Level 1, where Level 1 corresponds to "broke the law". Plus there's the issue of passing her email archive to her lawyer, who was not cleared for classified documents.
Redundancy is good And also good.
So far "mishandling of classified documents" has not been demonstrated beyond vague guesses (to the public).
Table-ized A.I.
I haven't. There is simply no time between sex, drugs, and rock and roll once you try to mix work into it and make sure your wife doesn't find out.
So please post a couple links that you feel provides the examples necessary to support such a claim. I hope your best example is not a black person punching someone dressed like the KKK. I wouldn't consider that extreme. Prudent and proper would be more realistic.
The Stay campaign seems far worse when it comes to scaremongering. Every day they are saying billions will be wiped of this or that, but in actual fact they really have no clue at all. There are plenty of intelligent arguments going both ways, but we have heard precisely zero of them from either campaign. Instead its just been unsubstantiated scaremongering. On top of this, the people who want to leave are being marginalized as racists, even though in the past, many of the leading left-wing politicians wanted to leave the EU, claiming it to be capitalistic and undemocratic.
In the early 1900s, racism in the context of Hitler was the crown jewel of the left. Eugenics was a leading scientific theory and led to horrible things around the world including forced sterilization in the US. But the essence of the scientific theory was that different classes or races of people were superior and inferior to each other much like specimens in the barn yard (breeds of cattle for instance ). Hitler took it a bit further under the guise of compassion where he allowed the handicapped to be euthanized (even without their consent ) in the T4 program which was a precursor to the final solution.
It is quite interesting how there are so many similarities of Hitler and the left's stances on many things yet you would be led to believe he was a political right. I mean he had the compassion thing down. Valued science over religion, made university free and encouraged participating. He even removed churches and god from public view after using it to his advantage. It's almost as if history was ignored to push a narrative.
Thanks. Only the Bernieite fringe worpress blog suggested actual malfeasance. The DailyKos article linked to by your inquisitr link suggested that that scandal was the crappyness of the machines. The NY purge issue was well publicized, and problematic, but neither that, nor the incompetent administration of the election in Arizona seem to have meaningfully benefitted Clinton. Rather than not voting, why don't you vote and be one of the poll watchers. If the whole thing really is rigged, you can report Irregularities to the FEC and press.
Having said that, Trump supported the Gulf War before he was against it, and I consider forcing Mexico to pay for a wall very bellicose talk. Trump's entire schtick is either U.S. against the world, or us (white-ish people) against everyone else. The only way to deliver on that message is though international violence and domestic marginalization of already marginal populations. He is a warmonger, against "enemies," foreign and domestic.
I don't think there is evidence that Trump sincerely believes much of anything, but "making America great" means different things to different people. Trump's ethos of exploitation is obvious from where his clothing is made, his "university," his resorts, and how he treats people he does business with. Also, look at his taxes if you ever get the chance.
http://time.com/4254801/donald...
http://www.cnn.com/videos/poli...
http://mashable.com/2016/03/12...
1 - Gitmo - no closure, not even tribunals or due process of law. Just nothing
2 - Drone murders - Earning that nobel peace prize
3 - Universal Health Care - locked in rate increases with minimal benefits. Yeah, insurance companies where totally scared.
4 - LGBT rights where fought without Obama weighing in until the end so he could claim victory.
5 - Financial Crisis - hired the fox to guard the henhouse.
Things not mentioned :
extension of executive powers - Started by Bush, and ramrodded by Obama.
Wars - yeah, we are totally not fighting five wars right now.
Ignoring Humanitarian crisis in Africa - Why no love here.. oh, no oil...
Constitutional Professor - yet completely ignorant of international treaties around crime / POW / etc...
Zero leadership of his party. It's like they intentionally went out of their way to avoid doing him any favors.
I could go on, but the basic gist is the Obama presidency has been just as bad as W's. And Clinton looks to keep the hits coming. And if Trump wins, hopefully the next species to inherit the earth once the Radiation settles can learn from our mistakes.
--WooooHoooo--
The one in Illinois was reported to the press, who decided not to publicize it. The MSM is working for Hillary, as is DailyKos.
Remember, the MSM is the one that told us that Saddam had WMD.
I fail to see how any of that is any worse than Hillary starting a war with Russia in Syria, or how she's obviously sold out to Wall Street and Goldman Sachs, or the way she treats her Secret Service agents, or how she uses the Clinton Foundation to funnel money to herself and family using arms deals.
Clinton got 30% higher popular vote than Sanders.
Do you mean like these numbers?
Clinton popular vote 15,729,913
Sanders popular vote 12,009,562
Clinton go a 30% higher popular vote than Sanders.
Democratic delegates are assigned proportionally so very closely follow the popular vote.
There's a big difference between "Opposing", and violence. Protest all you want, and stop acting like petulant children. It doesn't help your cause, and in fact turns people against you.
Just another day in Paradise
Tell that to the good people of Sevastopol.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
You could call the ID cards "Freedom Cards", so they sounded even better.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
Get help, no one should live with psychological problems this extreme.
https://slashdot.org/comments....
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
My understanding was that he also had the government take over the industry of the country, which is textbook socialism. So I never understood hanging Hitler on the right as if he shared any political leanings with the right.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
I know, but, unfortunately the overt Trump supporters (who don't necessarily think of themselves or Trump as authoritarians) are numerous in this one instance. I don't think, alas, there are enough secretive supporters to make a lot of difference.
Really, with Trump, you have:
- Overt fascists
- People who have a positive view of Trump and believe he's not a fascist.
- People who don't like him very much, but consider him the nominee of their party (who they're loyal to) and who cannot stand his opponent.
In all three cases, there's no shame felt by these people in voting for him, and probably won't be unless Trump's opponents are really able to make Trump a dirty word, which is unlikely.
Yeah, unlikely. It's been a year, Trump has said pretty much any horrendous crap that's possible to think, and he's where he is. If they're not convinced he's radioactive now, they never will be.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
He took over enough of German industry to put 'the fear' into the rest. But he was enough of a realist to not fully implement socialism while at war.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The dirty secret is: Of all the mismanaged currencies in the world, the British Pound is _by far_ the worst.
England is an economic canary. How the 'powers that be' engineered the delma of 'Pound vs Euro' as 'the referendum' on the euro has to be a deeply interesting story.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The day the UK leaves the european economic zone, it join NAFTA.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Only 4 million more votes due to gerrymandering districts.
Um, no. Think about what you wrote, and come back when you sober up.
Just another day in Paradise
Oh stop the bullshit. The investigation is ongoing, which you just admitted. That's a big difference from "The FBI has found "no criminal wrongdoing".
Just another day in Paradise
You do know that seven states don't allow write-in candidates? So much for civics.
Just another day in Paradise
Apparently about 1/3 of Sanders votes were simply protest votes. Those are going to Trump.
Which still leaves Sanders with more than the usual 'vote for whoever promises me more free shit' voters. Who knows where they will land. Likely many will stay home as not enough 'free shit' is being offered by anybody.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Apparently Google is doing what it can, in the context it finds it self in, to prevent evil. They should have backed Sanders, but they couldn't see him coming back when Clinton was the only game in town for Democrats.
Only boring people are ever bored.
You don't know much about socialism and the NSDAP, apparently. The NSDAP did have a socialist wing in 1933, but that was shortly terminated with extreme prejudice (see the Night of the Long Knives). After that, the Socialist part was kept for propaganda purposes (Hitler discusses this sort of thing in Mein Kampf), but the actual policies of the Third Reich were not anywhere near socialist.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
In democracy it's your vote in elections that counts; In FEUDALISM it's your count that votes;
Casteism
Hitler pushed some companies into being run by individual Nazis, and cozied up to the big capitalists. The means of production were almost exclusively in private hands.
As someone who has studied the period in some detail, I never understood calling Hitler left-wing (at least not after his affiliation with the Bavarian government of 1920 or so).
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Sanders wouldn't be nearly as successful in the actual campaign as he is in the polls.
He has not been seriously attacked yet. If he were nominated, the Republicans would hammer hard on "Socialism" and throw any dirt they could find at him, and when they ran out of dirt they'd paint sawdust to look like dirt and throw it at him. Sanders would lose a lot of popularity.
On the other hand, the Republicans have been attacking Clinton for years, including thirteen Congressional attempts to find something, anything, she did noticeably wrong about Benghazi. They can't step up their attacks and have it do any good, because anyone who's inclined to believe them is already anti-Clinton.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
"The investigation is ongoing" is also a big difference from "The FBI has found evidence sufficient to indict", since they're going to keep their mouths shut until they finish. Nobody outside the FBI has really reliable knowledge of what the investigation is turning up.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Okay, how many wars did Hillary start? I don't offhand remember being at war with Russia. (There was the post-WWI expedition to the Vladivostok and Archangelsk in the Russian Civil War, of course, but I'm really too young to remember that.)
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Historically, that's very dangerous reasoning. Someone who has made a great deal of money might well be interested in acquiring more. Trump doesn't have a record of making money in particularly clean ways. And, if he's rich enough not to worry about speaking fees (why the scare quotes?), why the scam known as Trump University?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I don't know a single Sander's voter that wants "free shit". They seemed equally split between Hillary and Donald. Donald is offering an equality nobody else has. Drag all the middle class down to poor, so the poor that want free stuff will feel better, because misery loves company. And the "free stuff" democrats are mainstream enough, they went for Hillary. Republicans take more "free stuff" than Democrats. So the "Free stuff" party is the Republicans, not the Democrats.
Learn to love Alaska
Are you really that dense? Hillary voted for Bush's war in Iraq. She also pushed for war in Libya and Syria. She's a warmongering neo-con.
And, if he's rich enough not to worry about speaking fees (why the scare quotes?),
They're not "scare quotes", I'm pointing out that "speaking fees" is a euphamism for legalized bribery.
Trump's money has all come from business ventures, not from outright bribery. Hillary's money has all come from bribery. I fail to see why I should worry more about the guy who's never made money by selling out (though he may have scammed some people with a crappy for-profit school) than the woman who's a millionaire a hundred times over solely through bribery, and has every indication that she'll do more of it in the White House.
Yes, well done. Honestly, talking about Hillary and corruption is like shooting fish in a barrel.
" Nobody outside the FBI has really reliable knowledge of what the investigation is turning up."
Bullshit, Hillary's e-mails are out in the wild. If you have the right connections, you should be able to find them.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
I've got way more facts than you, including half of the key to Julian's insurance file.
I know WAY more than you. :D
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Which means you know exactly nothing...as if you even have half.
Just another day in Paradise
Google, they can find anything. So if you say anything against Eva Perone.... er I mean Hilary Clinton they could find you and terminate your google account. For a lot of us, that could really really suck. From phones, tablets, Nest controllers.... and in some cases on and on and on.
Imagine if she's elected. Could really be hell.
Scary people!
Wow. Are going to cry or something? I asked for links and i got them. What do I need to say to stop you from crying?
BTW, you might want to understand what [sic] actually means and how tto use it before making yourself look even dumber than sumdumass. Now recess is almost over so go ask your teacher about that.
Lots of people voted for the Iraq war, based on misleading statements from the President. As President, she'd have access to less filtered and slanted information. Currently, I'm unaware of US boots on the ground in Libya and Syria. We are active in the air against ISIS, which I consider to be a good thing. I'm not offhand sure what you mean about Libya, as most of what I've heard about Libya in the last few years is about Benghazi and the desperate effort to find something wrong she might have done.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
In other words, you claim you can do your own investigation, and my statement that nobody outside the FBI really knows what's going on in their investigation stands. Personally, I'd trust the FBI investigation more than I'd trust yours.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
You are right, but it will never happen.
"and make the burden of proof on the employer, not the employee."
More specifically, that will never happen. For all that the certain politicians make a lot of noise about illegal immigrants their clients are mostly large businesses -- and in the southwest many of those businesses hire illegal immigrants in order to keep costs down. Heck, even one of the presidential candidates has made it clear that he prefers to hire immigrants by bending/breaking the rules rather than Americans (though he says it is because it makes them "seem exotic" to the customers rather than admit the economics).
When the politicians comprising our government are either owners of business or are owned by businesses they will fight long and hard to avoid making any law that hurts those businesses. A major reason for CANSPAM was to undercut existing state laws which were stronger -- and even worse, more states were looking to pass even more onerous (from a business perspective) laws. CANSPAM is an apt acronym because it essentially authorizes spam.
There *are* other reasons to enter the US and defenders of the status quo will claim that "the illegals are sneaky and trick the companies into hiring them" or that it is too hard to verify citizenship, etc. On the other hand I suppose there is something to the difficulty of verifying citizenship when your budget for doing so is $0.
In the end, I do not expect to see any laws penalizing companies for hiring illegals. And with the offer of jobs that pay better than in Mexico it is inevitable that some will take the risk of illegal entry.
I have thought the same many, many times. However, what worries me is the thought of what things would be like if I'm wrong and he doesn't obstruct a business controlled congress (why would he? he represents a significant business interest). He makes a wonderful (from some points of view) figurehead because his ludicrous antics will capture and draw attention away from an escalating abuse of power.
In other words, he can be completely ineffectual and accomplish a lot (or a lot be accomplished) by him doing nothing other than what he has shown himself good at: glorying in global attention.
Brexit will spell END of EU and bring ‘DESTRUCTION of Western civilisation’, says eurocrat.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia