Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cracking The Code On Trump Tweets (time.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the crack-the-code dept.

jIyajbe writes: From Electoral-Vote.com: "A theory has been circulating that the Donald Trump tweets that come from an Android device are from the candidate himself, while the ones that come from an iPhone are the work of his staff. David Robinson, a data scientist who works for Stack Overflow, decided to test the theory. His conclusion: It's absolutely correct. Robinson used some very sophisticated algorithms to analyze roughly 1,400 tweets from Trump's timeline, and demonstrated conclusively that the iPhone tweets are substantively different than the Android tweets. The former tend to come later at night, and are vastly more likely to incorporate hashtags, images, and links. The latter tend to come in the morning, and are much more likely to be copied and pasted from other people's tweets. In terms of word choice, the iPhone tweets tend to be more neutral, with their three most-used phrases being 'join,' '#trump2016,' and '#makeamericagreatagain.' The Android tweets tend to be more emotionally charged, with their three most-used phrases being 'badly,' 'crazy,' and 'weak.'" reifman adds: In an excellent forensic text analysis of Trump's tweets with the Twitter API, data geek David Robinson demonstrates Trump authors his angriest, picture-less, hashtag-less Android tweets often in the morning, while staff tweet from an iPhone with pictures, hashtags and greater joy mostly in the middle of the day. Robinson's report was inspired by a tweet by artist Todd Vaziri. As for why Robinson decided to look into Trump's tweets, he told TIME, "For me it's more about finding a really interesting story, a case where people suspect something, but don't have the data to back it up. For me it was much more about putting some quantitive details to this story that has been going around than it was about proving something about Trump's campaign."

330 comments

  1. I wish they could do that for news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wish they'd find an algorithm for figuring out if the "reporters" of news stories had done any fact-checking instead. We have more news and far less fact-checkers these days. They're dying out with the newspapers given that people only want to pay for news they like.

    1. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Its the dishonest press. Trump would be such a great president, and they just spread lies about him!

    2. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We have more news and far less fact-checkers these days.

      There is no evidence that this is true. News reporting in the past was often highly inaccurate: ask anyone old enough to remember the Vietnam War, or, heck, even the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. There are way more fact-checking organizations today. News reporting today is far from perfect, but there was never a "golden age" when journalists were infallible angels.

    3. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The devil is pleased by his muslim slave Barack Obama. He really serves lucifer well.

    4. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hillary is a DEMON from third hell who wants to get america CURSED BY GOD.

    5. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Of course not, but that's not what's being claimed.

      Every guy with a blog is producing "news" these days. The fact-checking profession is dying off with the newspapers.

    6. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by murdocj · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just like if you believe in evillootion. It has "evil" right in the name!

    7. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. Evolution should be banned. Its destroying the faith in our one true GOD.

    8. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you neglect to praise his prophet, you INFIDEL!

    9. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by Pfhorrest · · Score: 2

      I remember the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, and I remember lots of people checking the facts being promulgated in the mainstream news. That didn't stop them from promulgating falsehoods anyway, but anyone who actually cared about the facts could find them checked easily in plentiful other sources.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    10. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by guises · · Score: 0

      There was a time when the audience cared more about the honesty and accuracy of the journalists, or at least there was a belief that the audience felt this way. What has changed is the realization that a "news organization" can reap greater profits by keeping the money which they would otherwise spend on investigative reporting, and instead retain and in fact grow their audience through pandering.

    11. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      "Fact checking" is the new "journalism". Opinionated shills try to hide behind the name and claim impartiality to avoid being attacked for their calumny. They used the fake "journalism" tactic so long that no one trusts "journalists" anymore. So they change the name and continue the charade, just like the companies that change their name to avoid their bad history, or the "service" departments within companies whose "service" never seems to get delivered. Quick quiz: what will be the next buzz-name for these hyenas? (It's already starting.)

    12. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by Darinbob · · Score: 5, Funny

      Facts have an anti-Trump bias.

    13. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's never happened, comrade. Trump is the only one spouting shit regularly about people that criticize him, you vodka-drinking savage.

    14. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      function hasReporterFactChecked()
      {
              return false;
      }

    15. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by tlhIngan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I wish they'd find an algorithm for figuring out if the "reporters" of news stories had done any fact-checking instead. We have more news and far less fact-checkers these days. They're dying out with the newspapers given that people only want to pay for news they like.

      I think it's less likely today than in the past. Why? Because it's so easy to fact-check nowadays. Take just 20 years ago when the Intenret was in its infancy and when you read a news report, there wasn't much in the way of resources - you could go to your library and do the necessary background research and then try to find other sources. In short, it would take a while to check and a lot of effort, so it'll be easier to pull it off.

      These days, a few clicks of the mouse gets you the basic research, a few more clicks often will get you source photos and descriptions A few clicks after that gets you all the conspiracy theories, which again, are easier to search and see through. So anything wrong generally gets called out

      The only thing that's still missing is engaging the brain and thinking critically given the volume of information.

    16. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      How is it wrong to understand how God builds things?

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    17. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There was a time when the audience cared more about the honesty and accuracy of the journalists

      No there wasn't.

      or at least there was a belief that the audience felt this way.

      Who believed that?

      You are experiencing false nostalgia for a golden age of journalism that never existed.

    18. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I think it's less likely [to use poor fact-checking to pull a stunt] today than in the past. Why? Because it's so easy to fact-check nowadays.

      *cough*
      http://www.scottbot.net/HIAL/index.html@p=41397.html
      *cough*

      In which The Author discovers that modern publications utilize the Very Same time-tested fact-checking and citation techniques used by their 19th contemporaries, with a side trek down the rabbit hole of Fact Checking One Seemingly Obvious And Properly Presented Fact.
      Subtitle: It's Not Pretty

    19. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're none too kind to Hillary, either, but that's hardly the point here.

    20. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I think it's less likely today than in the past. Why? Because it's so easy to fact-check nowadays.

      And yet how many people do that and how many people simply search for someone saying what they want to hear? Saying one *can* fact check isn't the same as saying one will and most of us have better things to do than try to correct every half-wit they find online.

      It's funny how things have gone so far that we blame the readers for not fact checking the journalists...

    21. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

      The "Facts" (as reported) have an anti-Trump bias.

      FTFY

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    22. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by umghhh · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Press is indeed dishonest or at least misinforming (for whatever reason other than dishonesty). This has nothing to do with the fact that the baboon should not get access to the case with the codes. Or maybe it does because thanx to continuous dishonesty (or other reasons for misinformation) people tend to believe what they want even more than they would have done if the media, including press, were more reliable in providing objective and fact checked information. The best would be if somebody else than any of the candidates were there fighting to be Ceasar. We are not going to get that, neither we are going to get a honest press I am afraid.

    23. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      Trump would be such a great president,

      Look up both Roosevelts, and Andrew Jackson. US Presidents are at their most effective when they charge headlong into existing interests and take the country in a new direction. They are rarely genteel about it.

      I don't like Trump, but he would make a better President than Hillary. That's the truth of where America is today.

    24. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by Teriblows · · Score: 0

      Well, these days its more insidious because the internet and social media give the illusion of control, but in the end they hold the power to manipulate perception. http://theralphretort.com/bust... http://theralphretort.com/bust... Julian Assange exposes Google's political ties to Hillary Clinton & Obama https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    25. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by Teriblows · · Score: 1

      These days they aren't just ignored, they die https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    26. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by Teriblows · · Score: 0

      Quite the opposite, he stretches the truth just enough to get people to stick their own foots in their mouths going after him. Take for instance... "Obama founded ISIS" https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Putin Tells Everyone Exactly Who Created ISIS https://www.youtube.com/watch?... U.S Senator Confirms Hillary Clinton Created ISIS https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Hillary Clinton : We created Al-Qaeda https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Well, in ways, he did, and now attentions back on it.

    27. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We have moved into a post-factual era now. There was a lot of fact checking going on, and people didn't like reality, so politicians have started trying to move beyond it.

      Crime stats are down, but people "feel" like there is more crime. It's factually untrue, but politicians and the people who vote for them treat it as the truth. If you believe it, then it's true and you should vote based on that feeling, they say. Same with the Brexit thing in the UK, one of the leading Leave politicians said that "people in this country have had enough of experts", and went on to argue that they should vote with their hearts and their gut feelings (mostly bigotry and xenophobia) rather than with reason and overwhelming expert advice.

      We got better at fact checking, so they just moved beyond facts.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    28. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      I wish they'd find an algorithm for figuring out if the "reporters" of news stories had done any fact-checking instead.

      Ask an you shall receive

      int has_story_been_fact_checked(&story) {
      # Determines if a story has been fact checked before posting
      return 0;
      }

    29. Re: I wish they could do that for news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But he seems so uninterested in and ignorant about anything that doesn't concern him, and what's his big idea? Build a wall with Mexico. It's hardly the New Deal, is it?

    30. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      EXACTLY - the supposed lack of fact checking is a left wing lie to try to discredit right leaning less traditional media sources they don't control. This idea that fact checking is dead is easily tested.

      Look back on the massive conspiracy to conceal what was going on in Vietnam so that LBJ could defeat Gold Water and push a bunch of Great Society bullshit through before the shit hit the fan. There was plenty of available evidence to suggest that either there was going to be a total victory for the Communists or required American ground intervention long before the election. The State Department and the media collaborated to hide and distort the facts.

      Arguably the SAME thing was done with Benghazi weeks before the 2012 election. It was obvious that Obama and Hillary's war ( excuse me, kinetic military action ) there was going as badly as Bush Jr's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were going. Which was just the sort of thing that might have move things a few % in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virgina radically altering the way the electoral map was shaping up, so the media allowed the distorted story to go unchecked.

      Its sorta like how none of the talking heads ever bother to point out that Libya is/was an illegal war because it went longer than the War Powers Act allows and was never authorized. Now maybe you can make the argument that is because Congress was to craven to hold a vote, but that does not change the fact continued action there past sixty days was criminal act; the bombs should have stopped falling. Its the same with the bizzarly accepted fiction the AUMF which authorized action against Al Qaeda someone includes ISIS because they are the 'same group' while ignoring the fact that none of intelligence and strategic people treat it that way. Pretty much everything we have done in Syria is also illegal. The media never spends anytime on this they but they are happy to let people say "Bush lied, people died" on air all day long. Whatever you think about the merits of that intelligence and those wars they were authorized wars, that is an import fact and contrast that should be presented and almost never is.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    31. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by ausekilis · · Score: 2

      I dunno about that... When Trump quotes are read by Zapp Brannigan, they somehow don't seem quite so bad.

    32. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by gtall · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The NYT, Washington Post, CNN, etc. regularly run stories fact checking speeches and other bloviatations from candidates. Hell, the WP even gives out Pinocchios from 1 to 3 (or is it 4?) for extremely bad lies and untruths.

      That said, the Truth seems to have been demoted in the general electorate who seem to believe whatever they want can be their own private Truth because they refuse to believe, or do enough background reading to recognize, the Truth as not being anything but merely opposing belief.

      It stems from a stupidity to which the American people have fallen prey. Ask anyone on the street anything that smacks of mathematics or science and a good number will proudly proclaim all that sophisticated stuff is too far above them. They usually do not go as far as saying they are too stupid to understand it all but that is precisely what they should say if they were not attempting to lie to themselves about their intellectual prowess. They know what they believe and be damned if they'll read a book or actually learn anything that might require mental concentration. They have the attention span of gnat and are proud of it.

      The result is that people like Trump and Clinton get to be the choices for President. The Greens and the Libertarians orbit even farther out than Clinton and Trump. Hollywood has finally gotten what they have been pushing for a few generations, a public so stupid it cannot reason effectively.

    33. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not quite... See, if you go 'fact-checking' something from Fox News and find it 'Confirmed!' on the Drudge Report and Breitbart , you're going to say to yourself "Yep, checked facts, it's true".

      The problem is akin to "signal to noise ratio". When there's a lot of noise, it's easy to mistake noise as signal, and human beings are very very good at that (see: The placebo effect, and why people still believe in homeopathy).

      So no. The problem isn't that the facts are hard to find. The problem is that there is no authoritative source (that everyone accepts as authoritative, anyhow. Wikipedia? *snort*) and so people choose to believe the sources that agree with their own inherent biases.

      Repeat a lie often enough and enough people will believe it that the truth becomes irrelevant. The Internet is very very good at repeating repeating itself.

      AC

    34. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by ohnocitizen · · Score: 2

      Here let me cite a comedy show as evidence (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq2_wSsDwkQ). But there is evidence - the news industry is reeling and money for local news, covering local politics, and investigative journalism is shrinking. So yes, there are less people doing serious reporting.

    35. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      One of the problems is that Hillary tends to have normal or slightly above normal levels of problems for a politician. If the media would focus on her problems, her polling would suffer. However, any time they begin to focus on her, Trump loudly spouts something so outrageous that they can't help but focus on him. If he'd keep his mouth shut for a bit, Hillary's own scandals would get front page treatment. It's like the two are swimming in shark infested waters, Trump keeps tossing chum in the water by him and then wondering why the sharks don't bother Hillary.

      (For the record, I don't like either candidate but don't think Trump would make an acceptable president at all.)

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    36. Re: I wish they could do that for news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump owes Russian mafia a ton of $$$

    37. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 0

      Can't tell if you're making fun of absurd Trump propaganda, or if you're really a delusional Trump supporter.

    38. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 2

      The people don't support this buffoon. He appeals to right-wing lunatics, and is too far gone to even fake being a sane person for the general election.

    39. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of the worst of the wingnuts actually believe that! Wingnut media has completely destroyed the minds of most of the Conservatives by filling their heads with nonsense to keep them frothing and clueless.

    40. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by tbannist · · Score: 1

      You're talking about Poe's Law.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    41. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by Enigma2175 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Trump makes a joke, media says he attacked someone.

      You know, I'm sick of Trump claiming everything he says is a joke when he gets called out on his bullshit. You're not a fucking comedian, Donald, you're applying for the most powerful job in the world - so act like it. Whether it's calling for Clinton's assassination or claiming Obama founded ISIS, this "it was a joke" bullshit gets old.

      --

      Enigma

    42. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by GlennC · · Score: 1

      ...any time they begin to focus on her, Trump loudly spouts something so outrageous that they can't help but focus on him.

      It's almost as if Clinton, Trump, and the media planned it that way.

      --
      Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice.
    43. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      Certaib breeds of Hamiltonian/Hobbesians believe that the State should have absolute power so strongly that if ordered to kill themselves by someone they perceive to be an authority figure, they will do it and this may very well have happened in the Vince Foster case.

    44. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      From my perspective, the most powerful job in the world should not exist but we should all take a ste Po back and talk about it and more generally what form of government we want the world to have. To dreum up support for this and and other things like legal self-help I have created the Facebook group The Pirate-Ninja-Zombie Party. Partly because it sounds cool, and partly because if your detractors are going to attribute to you horrors, why not own it?

    45. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by Alomex · · Score: 4, Informative

      Anyone with half a brain knows that was just a sardonic comment

      No it wasn't. Trump and his supporters keep on claiming this because they know the comments are inexcusable, but facts show he was serious.

      First, nobody laughed when he first said it on a Tuesday, and at his first chances to clarify it he doubled down on it, it took until two days later before he claimed was a joke. Here's what happened in between:

      From the Washington Post:

      1. Trump campaign officials never said he was joking on Wednesday. They mounted a robust defense, mind you, but they didn't say it was a joke.

      2. Trump doubled down. In a tweet after the comments exploded on social media, Trump sought to explain a little bit Ã" apparently suggesting he simply meant that the emails should be turned over to the FBI "if Russia or any other country or person has" them. Again, no mention of joking around.

      3. He said it twice. This wasn't a one-off quip in Trump's news conference on Wednesday. He initially said he hoped the Russians had the emails, and then he returned later to say that if they didn't have them, he hoped they would obtain them.

      4. A reporter gave him an out -- that he didn't take. NBC's Katy Tur, later in Wednesday's press conference, basically asked Trump twice if he was serious. In response, Trump indicated he had no qualms about, in Tur's words, "asking a foreign government Ã" Russia, China, anybody Ã" to interfere, to hack into the system of anybody's in this country."

      https://www.washingtonpost.com...

    46. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 2

      I don't understand how people take anything the man says seriously.

      Because he's running for President, and being President is serious. Not only that, but there are a substantial amount of people who take him seriously and actually agree with him.

      I don't understand how you don't understand that.

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    47. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yip, watch the local TV snews in any US town and its all house fires, shootings, pedophiles, traffic (its always bad), traffic accidents, little bit of sports (boring), and a fluff story at the end to make you feel better.

    48. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      I'm not totally a believer in the "Trump is a Clinton plant" theory, but I might get on board with "The Clintons baited him into running and then his ego took him from there."

      The scary part, though, are the number of people who cheer when he says extremely outrageous things that would tank any normal politician's candidacy.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    49. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by guises · · Score: 1

      Need I point out the irony in myself making an unsubstantiated claim about the lack of need for substantiation, you asking for substantiation, and then making your own unsubstantiated claim and getting modded up to +5 for it? Yeah, I think I do.

      Here's an article about CNN firing another group of reporters, despite making more than enough money to pay them. They've had several rounds of this in recent years, firing their investigative staff, with the stated reason being a realization that they just weren't necessary anymore.

    50. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So how about banning all those guns?

    51. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have more news and far less fact-checkers these days.

      There is no evidence that this is true.

      Wait, are you saying that the OP didn't fact-check his comment?!

    52. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      This was an effect of the internet predicted decades ago. People like to listen to people who agree with them, and when they go to sites that agree with them, they feel that they have confirmed their opinions. I believe that this was called the "Echo-Chamber Effect". I think I read about it around 1995, but I'm not sure the article was new then.

      If you think about it, you'll see many examples of it happening long before then internet. E.g. church congregations become firm believers in whatever their congregation believes, and feel that this is confirmed because their neighbors believe it too.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    53. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      People called this The Information Age. A better description would be The Bullshit Age. Everything is tainted with perspective intentionally. Attempting to remove bias is not even considered.

      Ever heard the phrase "sell the sizzle, not the steak"? Bias IS the sizzle in journalistic endeavors and newsrooms all over the US. People make choices about which news outlet to frequent based on the particular flavor of bias the news outlet ascribes to. The news makers carefully construct and curate their bias, tailor it to a certain mindset, study it even, and sell the resulting slanted material to advertisers and eyeballs alike.

      The same goes for education. Repackaging of history, recasting the character of pivotal people and events to support a certain narrative that has nothing to do with the actual motivations; it is big business.

      Politicians do it too. They use "wedge issues" to attack the electorate, separate them into controllable groups. Tested sound bytes designed to change the conversation from one about issues to one about hurts or harms, transgressions or trespasses, real or imagined. All with the intention of removing the power and cohesiveness of American citizens. Keep them at each others throats, offended, scared, and angry. That way they continue to look to government for redress, like fucking children in the back seat vying for the attention and backing of their parents against their brothers and sisters.

      No wonder children get "triggered." The adults who raised them have been pruning their own reality, cutting off the truth fact by fact, subject by subject and have been for decades. Everyone knows Bonsai trees don't do well without constant care, and that's their model for what it is to be an adult. We further weaken their minds by forcing them to practice politically correct speech which has resulted in public discourse that is so neutered it is devoid of the ability to lead to any resolution. Where the only objective is to find something to be offended about so you can cry that you were hurt by words, that you were wronged, and that the other person should be punished. Apparently that is the new definition of winning an argument, not facts, or logic, or even information. Just Bullshit. All of it. /rant

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    54. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      I love how we have gotten to the point where every word a politician speaks has to be vetted, crafted, and teleprompeted before it is acceptable.

      We have a nice little box of expectations on how we expect our leaders to act and talk. We expect them to lie to us. We expect them to abuse their power. We expect them to get away with it. We expect them to attack our rights, to push the envelope of their power over us. We expect every year it will get worse. We expect them to start wars with people we don't care one way or another about. We expect them to put the American people last and big business first. We expect them to get richer while our economy dwindles. All of that is acceptable.

      But heaven forbid they say something off the cuff and not scripted. Its like you idiots are saying, "Please, please, rape our children. We want you to. But don't talk dirty while you do it. That's just unacceptable." You poor, poor senseless bastards.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    55. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by sl3xd · · Score: 1

      You are experiencing false nostalgia for a golden age of journalism that never existed.

      Indeed. Joseph Pulitzer - the guy the "Pulitzer Prize for Excellence in Journalism" is named for is most famous for yellow journalism.

      The "yellow" referred to the color of the paper, which was literally the cheapest they could use; the headlines were carefully crafted to sell a newspaper. These days, we call the practice clickbait.

      Think about that for a second: The guy whose name has become associated with the best in journalism was really a pioneer of clickbait.

      Never forget: journalism exists to do two things: Make Money, and help people feel "connected". Having facts straight helps with both, but are not a requirement if you're willing to reduce your audience. Very few people even care to know the whole story - give 'em a reason to feel superior, and they'll eat it up.

      I wouldn't be surprised that the modern "myth" of honest journalism originates from comic books -- Peter Parker, Lois Lane, and Clark Kent.

      If I look at actual historical journalism... it's a smear fest.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    56. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The NYT, Washington Post, CNN, etc. regularly run stories fact checking speeches and other bloviatations from candidates. Hell, the WP even gives out Pinocchios from 1 to 3 (or is it 4?) for extremely bad lies and untruths.

      The Washington Post also was revealed in the leaks to hold secret fundraisers with the DNC that their lawyers would "never allow."

      We certainly are post-fact, but for lack of a trustworthy source of them. We hear people's conclusions more often than the investigations.

    57. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by rastos1 · · Score: 1

      Because it's so easy to fact-check nowadays.

      The Krym annexation, unrest at Maidan in Ukraine, conflict in Donetsk, coup in Turkey - this is happening less than 2000km from me. And I have hard time doing any fact checking.

      There are conspiracies and propaganda everywhere. Infiltrated social networks, state sponsored shills, ... It is easy to pick sides. But really doing fact checking is difficult.

      How do you know whether this image of the BUK system in Donetsk is true? You would have to be familiar with the location to recognize the aerial view. You would have to be aerial reconnaissance expert to identify the vehicle. You would have to have access to the history of movements of the military personnel in the area. And of course you would have to be able to check that the image was not doctored. Or you could stand on that street next to the vehicle when the picture is taken. That allows you to check facts, but then you have to convince others. Your close friends may trust you, but with each degree of separation the trust gets weaker.

      Sometimes I think about what I would do to convince the world, that something that I saw is true. Something like cryptographic photo authentication might help - but we had a discussion about that before and it does not work.

    58. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey I still remember the run-up to the invasion of Cuba https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Maine_(ACR-1)
      You evil american imperialists.

    59. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by Gob+Gob · · Score: 1

      "...the most powerful job in the world ....."

      A phrase only Americans use but they imply (/expect?) that it holds true for the rest of us.

      If you are blindfolded in a ditch with and ISIS loony behind you holding a gun then; trust me; they have "...the most powerful job in the world ....." as far as you are concerned.

      The American people need a significant cultural, linguistic and self-perception overhaul to stay relevant in anywhere but the board room and on TV.

    60. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      They just start to claim that fact-checkers themselves are biased and lying.

    61. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by Enigma2175 · · Score: 1

      Great, if you don't agree, please let me know what you think is the most powerful job in the world. The US has the largest economy and the most powerful military, it seems the leader of that country is the most powerful.

      --

      Enigma

    62. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by Keybounce · · Score: 1

      Should be boolean

      Boolean has_story_been_fact_checked(Object story) {
      # Determines if a story has been fact checked before posting
      return false;
      }

      Now, seriously: Taking a reference to story? Taking a reference means that you have the ability to modify the incoming. If you are going to take a reference for efficiency, then at least add "const" to declare that you are not going to alter the news story ...

      Ohh, right -- your method is superior, mine doesn't allow the facts to be altered.

    63. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      In my defence the only programming I do is on microcontrollers and as such the compiler doesn't understand boolean :-)

      But if we were doing it properly we should enumerate it.

      enum factcheck_t {
            NOPE,
            OVERHEARD_IT_ON_THE_METRO,
            SOMEONE_TOLD_ME,
            SOMEONE_NOTABLE_TOLD_ME,
            READ_IT_ON_TWITTER,
            READ_IT_ON_A_NEWSPAPER,
      };

      You'll note that there's no option for "DID_ACTUAL_JOURNALISM"

    64. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Speaking off the cuff and not being scripted isn't the problem. The problem is when a politician (and, yes, Trump is included here) speaks off the cuff and says things like "Obama is literally the founder of ISIS", promises to pay legal fees if his supporters beat up protesters, claims that he'll change libel laws so he can sue any media company that says things about him that he doesn't like, etc.

      I'm not saying we shouldn't accept better behavior from our politicians who seem to think it's ok to say "I'll do X" but really mean "I'll do Y because the companies that support Y paid for my campaign." We should totally want them to act differently, but "different" doesn't mean "better."

      Don't take all this to mean that I like Hillary. I really don't like her. I think that she'll take this country in the wrong direction. Still, "wrong direction" is better than "drive this country off the cliff." The former can be corrected the latter can't be.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    65. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Trump supporter 101:

      Before Trump goes to far for even his typical racist base:
      "I love Trump cause he says it like it is , says the things we're too scared to say about those Mexican rapists, and black thugs."

      After Trump goes to far for even his typical racist base:
      "Well, he was joking"

      Trump knows damn well what his messaging is saying.
      He knows damn well you loons believe the crazy sh** he says, and agree with it, even as you try to apologize for him. When he backtracks on suggesting the @nd Amendment supporters "take care" of Hillary, or that Obama founded ISIS, he's only doing it for the media, with a wink wink at his base knowing full well his base is full of dingbats who do truly believe that BS even before he said it.

      He's not dog whistling.
      He's driving a loudspeaker car through the middle of the KKK rally.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    66. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by dywolf · · Score: 1

      And don't forget his VP pick, Pence, is actively undermining him by also saying he was serious and not joking.

      As long as we're in lalaland of TV reality campaign, I almost wonder if Pence is a deliberate fall guy for the GOP establishment to save the party by undercutting Trump.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    67. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      I don't think there are more or less lies being spread around than in the past, it just happens to be much easier to propagate lies and the rewriting of history with the internet.

      Combine the ease in which a lie can spread, with everyone existing in "news bubbles" (tailor your facebook feed, only upvote things you like, only get news from one organization, etc..) that conform to their beliefs, and that explains a lot of the hyper-partisan politics of the last 20 years.

    68. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      Lots of journalist would disagree with you. The rise of for-profit news/cable news (post 60 minutes), and the internet have changed things in both good and bad ways. And people that work in the industry think there is more bad than good.

      For instance, while the overall integrity of journalism may be the same as it was 50 years ago, people can now consume news in a bubble that conforms to their pre-formed beliefs. Google often delivers content it thinks you want to see based on prior searches. People tend to unfriend people on Facebook if they post things that don't follow their own philosophies, etc..

      So while it might be true that the quality of journalism is the same as it has ever been, the way the news reaches people is drastically different, and not for the better.

    69. Re:I wish they could do that for news... by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      The only thing that's still missing is engaging the brain and thinking critically given the volume of information.

      But that is a huge issue that has gotten worse over time. The vast majority of people will never be very good at analyzing sources or critically thinking. Most people are able to cherry pick articles and "data" from this new massive volume to support any view they were already predisposed to believe.

      There needs to be stronger disincentives to lying or using mistruths/partial truths, both in journalism and in politics. I'm not exactly sure how to go about that without rethinking freedom of speech issues, but I can't see our country getting better without some sort of change.

  2. FBI STORY POSTED BY FBI BurEAU HeaD. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Many jumbled facts to consider to tire you out. There is nothing true in this story. Crack code of Trump's tweets?

    DIE FBI. YOU BURN HOT.

  3. Trump 2016!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    oOo TRUMP oOo TRUMP oOo TRUMP oOo TRUMP oOo TRUMP oOo TRUMP oOo TRUMP

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKMTu1GDi_w

    oOo TRUMP oOo TRUMP oOo TRUMP oOo TRUMP oOo TRUMP oOo TRUMP oOo TRUMP

  4. Trump is the one who's thinking by ChrisMaple · · Score: 0

    An image is not an argument.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    1. Re:Trump is the one who's thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
      Phony news site Slashdot, that nobody reads, makes up story about phones and tweets. STUPID EDITORS! #CrookedHillary #Trump2016 #makeAmericaGreatAgain

      ftfy

    2. Re:Trump is the one who's thinking by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Sad!

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  5. +-+-+-+-+-+-+ COMMENT HERE IF NOT FBI +-+-+-+-+-+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Drop your thoughts on cracking tweet code here, pretend it is something that actually exists.

    Cracking tweet code.

    Windows ANNIVERSARY 10.

    FBI SITE NOW.

  6. Next up for debunking by burtosis · · Score: 5, Funny

    Donald trump is just a shill for the Clintions put in place to ruin the Republican Party and get Hillary elected.

    It's getting harder for me to take that as completely tin foil hat conspiracy theory.

    1. Re:Next up for debunking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this election cycle reminds me of how Peter Wiggin took over the world using Locke and Demosthenes.. its a familiar strategy for sure.

    2. Re:Next up for debunking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's getting harder for me to take that as completely tin foil hat conspiracy theory.

      The only question is why would Republican voters be stupid enough to go along with it.

      Oh wait.

    3. Re:Next up for debunking by chromaexcursion · · Score: 1

      I seriously doubt the Clintons put Trump up to destroy the Republican party.
      That's not to say Trumps goal is to destroy the Republican party. I've considered that for a while.

    4. Re:Next up for debunking by lucm · · Score: 2

      What if both of them were shills working for the other side? That would explain a lot.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    5. Re:Next up for debunking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Republicans are pretty good at ruining their own party. Its platform has always been built on hate and control and it's taken someone like Trump for at least a few people to see that.

    6. Re:Next up for debunking by dbIII · · Score: 2

      Trump talks like a walking conspiracy theory.
      If he wasn't born rich he's just be considered a crazy person muttering on a street corner.

      So some apologists make noise about it just being the deal-making random act he does to confuse enemies - fair enough - but do you understand that if it is true he considers the voters an enemy to be tricked?

    7. Re:Next up for debunking by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Which in turn reminds me of this. The internet is magic.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    8. Re:Next up for debunking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mind => Blown

    9. Re:Next up for debunking by Stuarticus · · Score: 3, Funny

      I've often thought if I was fabulously wealthy I would pay two sportsmen to both throw a match, but not tell them, obviously this would need to be a single player event like Tennis. Maybe someone else had the same idea with the election?

      --
      If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
    10. Re:Next up for debunking by dinfinity · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Same here. It seems that shortly after he clinched the Republican nomination, his 'gaffes' have become much much worse from a Republican standpoint.

      The stuff that was deemed 'outrageous' used to be just mostly outrageous to Democrats. Some racism, some bullying, kind of run of the mill Fox News-level stuff, basically. But after the nomination he almost immediately went after military folk, parents of a dead soldier, even. If you're trying to appeal to Republicans (and Americans in general), that is pretty much the worst thing to do.

      The three theories I actually deem plausible (I'm afraid to admit it, but it's true):
      1. Trump doesn't want to win the election for some unknown reason: wouldn't like the (pressure of the) job, thinks the White House is a shitty place to live, etc.
      2. Trump is still a Democrat, Clinton asked him whether he'd want to help blow up the GOP and gain lots of media attention in the process, and so they proceeded.
      3. Trump is just a total narcissistic fuckwit who has no idea what he's doing and thinks that his stream-of-consciousness primary success somehow translates into "All people love me and how I act"

      I deem the latter the most probable.
      The 2nd would be both evil and genius at the same time. It's hard to see how they could have predicted Trump's primary success (nobody else did), though.
      Also, I still can't believe I'm seriously considering it as plausible. Someone pinch me.

    11. Re:Next up for debunking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's actually in the Republicans' best interest if Clinton wins. The Clintons have a long history of making mostly Republican decisions when they're in power.

    12. Re:Next up for debunking by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      Ha! Thanks for the laugh... no mod points today.

    13. Re:Next up for debunking by Gilgaron · · Score: 2

      I had similar thoughts watching the primary... "is this a false flag operation? or does he just not care?"

      I don't think he cares either way if he wins or loses: there'll be a ghost written book either way that'll sell millions of copies. When Sarah Palin stepped down from office to go make a bunch of money with books and TV shows, it certainly made financial sense.

    14. Re:Next up for debunking by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      The thing is Trump or his political team, Paul Manafort isn't stupid, could make some arguments to salvage even attacking the Khan there are some intelligent and arguments to be made. Trump could argue being a gold star parent should not make the guy immune from criticism. We don't hold children responsible for the sins of the father so why would we allow the father to cloak himself in the virtue of the son? The Constitutional argument Khan makes is incorrect based on a number SCOTUS decisions, and US law does currently allow the president by proclamation to deny any group entry into the US the president believes would be detrimental to the United States. So Trump does not need congress if elected, its already done. The Muslim ban would be both Constitutional and legal under US as its generally understood today.

      Trump could easily be primed to make these arguments even if he is to bone headed to think of them on his own and won't do the home work. The fact that he continues to flub interview after interview on these subjects is frankly astonishing. I don't understand why the great delegator does not grab someone in his campaign office and say "I need a solid rebuttal to the criticism I am getting over my Khan comments brief me in hour." Its like he does not actually want to be prepared or is so conceited he thinks he can convince everyone he is right with his next unrehearsed, un-researched comment.

      So I am with you. He has either gone off the rails or he is not really trying to win, can't tell which. I think HRC would be the worst mistake this country has made in the post war era, so I want very much to be a Trump apologist but he is making it really really hard lately.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    15. Re:Next up for debunking by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      but do you understand that if it is true he considers the voters an enemy to be tricked?

      Isn't that true of all politicians?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    16. Re:Next up for debunking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You probably weren't paying much attention during the primaries. His comments about families, veterans, POWs, etc started during the primary. This is why McCain is staunchly anti-trump. Trump said he prefers the soldiers that don't get captured *early* this year. Unfortunately Republican voters weren't paying enough attention.

    17. Re:Next up for debunking by cdrudge · · Score: 2

      It's parts 1 and 3, although the reason you suggest for #1 I don't think correct. Everything he does is about increasing his brand's worth. Becoming President, he'd have to at least put his personal control of the brand into someone else's hands. Generally Presidents haven't continued to run global corporations while also running the country (although maybe that's why he offered the latter to Kasich).

      I think his inner narcissistic fuckwit wants to be president up to the point where it stops increasing his brand's worth. If he wins, and the country turns into complete shit, it becomes a liability to his brand's worth. If he doesn't get elected, he gets to leverage his loss into "the system is rigged against him" and he gets to ride it at least 4 years where he can rinse and repeat the process.

    18. Re:Next up for debunking by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      The faster it burns down, the faster we rebuild it.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    19. Re:Next up for debunking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've often thought if I was fabulously wealthy I would pay two sportsmen to both throw a match, but not tell them, obviously this would need to be a single player event like Tennis. Maybe someone else had the same idea with the election?

      You may be interested in the 8 badminton players who were intentionally trying to lose in the 2012 olympics. Granted it doesn't quite have the same WTF-why-can't-I-lose drama of if both sides were blind to the other's attempts of game-throwing, but it does have the same silly poor play you seem to be looking for.

    20. Re:Next up for debunking by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      movie

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    21. Re:Next up for debunking by dinfinity · · Score: 2

      I think HRC would be the worst mistake this country has made in the post war era

      Such an exaggeration. I've thought about this a lot and even though I have always been a Bernie supporter and am quite convinced Hillary isn't going to do much about 'money in politics' and about lobbying in general, the truth is probably that she is just very very status quo and slightly progressive.

      Her presidency would probably just be boring same old same old classic Democratic politics; Simply uneventful; Just slow, slow progress. Especially if the House and Senate do not flip to the Democrats and it's another 2 (or 4) years of obstructionism in the legislative branch.
      In my opinion such a presidency is far from great, but it wouldn't be terrible or unpredictable. Which, I believe is pretty much the Clinton slogan at this point:
      "Hillary Clinton. Far from great, but you know, not terrible."

      I want very much to be a Trump apologist but he is making it really really hard lately.

      I really don't get this. I understand being against the status quo and everything, but let's be honest, the guy is a huge asshole and not in the "Visionary CEO" kind of way. The asshole CEOs that get stuff done don't bother with all the petty stuff Trump bothers with. They'll fire someone, tell them to fuck off and walk away, but they're not going to linger in some stupid vendetta with people they deem meaningless or flail around aimlessly pissing off anyone and everyone, enemies and allies alike.
      Forget about his total lack of knowledge about the rest of the world. He's basically white Kanye West.

    22. Re:Next up for debunking by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      You know, just the other day I was thinking about that. Decades ago, maybe it made sense that you could curry fame via publicized debates, but now the idea of two anonymous people squabbling on the internet (no matter how articulate) and gaining enough fame to become a leader is just absurd. One, there are so many articulate voices it's impossible that any two would stand out among the crowd, and two, there's so many more inarticulate voices (unclear, confused, uninformed, shills, trolls, outright lies, conspiracy theorists, etc.) that even the articulate ones are for the most part drowned out. Can you imagine anyone rising to the presidency based on even a large collection of viral youtube videos?

      --
      The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
    23. Re:Next up for debunking by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      Good point.

      Although I do think the McCain comment was much less incendiary. McCain is still alive and could easily I see a lot of people thinking that soldiers who 'let themselves be captured' are weak. Few people would boast about (someone) being captured, whereas sacrificing yourself for your buddies is undoubtedly heroic.

      But your point stands. It was definitely a stupid thing to say unfriendly to the military (especially for a Republican).

    24. Re:Next up for debunking by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      3. Trump is just a total narcissistic fuckwit who has no idea what he's doing and thinks that his stream-of-consciousness primary success somehow translates into "All people love me and how I act" ... I deem the latter the most probable

      I've been fairly certain of #3 for a couple of decades now. In fact, roughly 8 years back when I needed a self-centered, power-mad, casino-owning, billionaire tycoon type to be the ultimate villain for the superhero computer game I was working on, I put in several nods (subtle, so as to avoid lawsuits) to The Donald as being just that type. Players of Twilight Heroes have been (unwittingly, for the most part) beating up his caricature over and over for almost a decade now.

      --
      The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
    25. Re:Next up for debunking by unixisc · · Score: 0

      Same here. It seems that shortly after he clinched the Republican nomination, his 'gaffes' have become much much worse from a Republican standpoint.

      The stuff that was deemed 'outrageous' used to be just mostly outrageous to Democrats. Some racism, some bullying, kind of run of the mill Fox News-level stuff, basically. But after the nomination he almost immediately went after military folk, parents of a dead soldier, even. If you're trying to appeal to Republicans (and Americans in general), that is pretty much the worst thing to do.

      The 'parents of a dead soldier' thing was something he didn't handle the best way, but still, was pretty justified in speaking out.

      At the DNC, Khizr Khan spoke out condemning Trump and waving the constitution, implying that Trump is an ignoramus who hasn't read the constitution. But the constitution has absolutely nothing bestowing any rights to people who are not citizens of the US. Foreigners don't have the right to come, vote or do anything unless allowed to by the government, which usually takes the form of a US consulate in another country giving them entry permission. While it's illegal for the US government to discriminate against its own citizens, there is absolutely nothing that bars it from discriminating against foreigners for any reason whatsoever. This is not to say that it should be done, but if there is a good reason, like the fact that Muslims from anywhere in the world seem to be conducting Jihad operations once they're here, it's perfectly legal to do it.

      Trump did step on it by commenting on the mother, who was silent. But everybody hid the fact that Khizr Khan actually has an immigration business where he promotes Muslim immigration, and he'd have plenty to personally lose if Trump's law on banning Muslims was enacted. In other words, he has a vested interest in Trump failing. Which is fine, but it's a pure exercise in sophistry to pretend that this was just a gold star dad most concerned about the constitution. Trump could also have rebutted him by listing all the terror acts that Muslims in the US army do, which happen to exceed the number of Muslims who would be found buried in Arlington. There are more Hasan Akbars than Humayun Khans there. A few days later, Trump did, at one of his rallies, list out a number of legal immigrants from a whole host of (Muslim) countries who've committed acts of terror. That would have been a good occasion to explain why he proposed his Muslim ban in the first place.

      The other things he was guilty of the same week - announcing his reservations over Paul Ryan, and seemingly having a baby removed from his rally in Ashburn. Paul Ryan was running in a primary, and in primaries, it's perfectly valid to support anyone he likes. That's a major contrast to Paul Ryan who refused to endorse him even after Cruz and Kaisich had dropped out. And on the baby story, it was the mom Devon Ebert who was trying to head for the exit as a courtesy to other attendees, it wasn't Trump who asked her to leave. And once her baby was pacified and quiet, she returned to her place in the crowd, and nobody stopped her. If anything, she was supported by both people in the crowd, as well as Trump.

      On the theory about Trump being a Trojan horse planted by Clinton, I actually thought that in 2000 & 2008 when Democrats and Liberals across the country were busy voting for McCain. Now, that was someone who'd certainly have furthered their cause. Not Trump, who'd get rid of a whole bunch of their voters by expelling them to Mexico

    26. Re:Next up for debunking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When Sarah Palin stepped down from office to go make a bunch of money with books and TV shows, it certainly made financial sense.

      It also made sense sense if you know what I mean. She's really good at her current role.

    27. Re:Next up for debunking by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      I'll take Trump's trade wars over Hillary's shooting kind any day. Hillary is an interventionist. She is essentially Bush Jr in every respect when it comes to international policy. She is boosum buddies with Ghouls like Henry Kissinger. Both Libya and Syria were as ill informed and badly executed as Iraq and Afghanistan. Only they were more illegal because congress never approved either. As far as I can glean from any public statement HRC has made her position is "Would do again."

      Electing HRC means spreading more human misery and unnecessary death around the globe. The media isnt telling the truth, she alluded to profiting from a possible Obama assassination during her campaign in 2008. Arguable it was more specific implied threat than Trump made recently but for some reason its okay when she dose it. Yet the media portrays Trump as the Thug in this election. They are both despicable characters, the difference is Trump is at least more transparent about it.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    28. Re:Next up for debunking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4. Trump is taking to the extreme what won him success in the primary: Keeping himself in the 24/7 news cycle 24/7, and baiting journalists to lower the quality of political coverage and discourse.

    29. Re:Next up for debunking by dinfinity · · Score: 2

      I'd vote for Abu Baqr al Baghdadi as president before I vote for Hitlery Rotten KKKlinton

      I've always suspected that Trump supporters were like ISIS supporters. Different team, different ethnicity, but equally hateful and violent at heart.

    30. Re:Next up for debunking by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      Electing HRC means spreading more human misery and unnecessary death around the globe.

      This is really the only thing I am slightly worried about with Clinton.

      The foreign policy of the US in the last couple of decades is definitely not something to be proud of and if she is indeed as hawkish as they say, more of that would be a bad thing. I'm quite sure she will be much, much more diplomatic than Trump, but even then a lot of damage can be inflicted on the world.

      They are both despicable characters, the difference is Trump is at least more transparent about it.

      The transparency doesn't really help, now does it?
      Given his temperament, the chances for catastrophic escalation of whatever international incident there is are just enormous with this guy. With his thin skin and see-through character, he'll be played like a chump by other world leaders and once he realizes he's being played, he'll be prepared to burn the house down out of spite.
      You know it's true.

    31. Re:Next up for debunking by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      But everybody hid the fact that Khizr Khan actually has an immigration business where he promotes Muslim immigration

      The thing with this is that so many people always picture Muslims immigrating to the US as some kind of evil intruders.

      Consider being an intellectual (or just a sane person in general) living in a country with lots of religious oppression, anti-intellectualism, ridiculous corporal punishments, etc. Given that situation, I'd yearn for a country of freedom and opportunity, where I could be who I wanted to be. Shouldn't Americans then be proud that people yearn for the US as being that country? As vindication of the US and its culture being much more advanced than the countries of origin?

      I'll readily admit that I don't know mr. Khans motivations, but if I were an intellectual who had 'escaped' such oppression and found my place in the US, I'd probably want the same for others like me and I could imagine striving to make that step easier for them. To simply assume that the guy just wants to keep making money seems utterly shallow.

      As for the baby stuff: I'm not a fan of Trump, but when I saw the headlines I immediately knew that it was more media hype than substance. So yeah: /ignore.

    32. Re:Next up for debunking by unixisc · · Score: 0

      Unlike your candidate who pops out a 41 year old pedophile from time for raping a 12 year old

    33. Re:Next up for debunking by unixisc · · Score: 1

      It's fine for a Muslim 'intellectual' or MINO to want to come to a Western country. It's equally fine for him to want the same opportunity for his or her compatriots. But it's not something any Western country owes them - which is the point that Trump haters - both Democrat & Republican - miss!

      Since 2001, there have been some thousands of Jihadi attacks worldwide, including the US. These have come from Muslims of a variety of races & countries, from a variety of backgrounds. The one at Orlando was from an Afghan. The Boston Marathon one was from a Chechen. The one in San Bernardino was from a Paki. Then there have been other attacks involving people from Yemen, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iran, and a whole host of other countries. The common thread in all these attacks was not their nationality, or their race, or their ethnicity or anything else: it was their religion. For that reason, it was perfectly reasonable of Trump to suggest a moratorium on Muslims being allowed into this country until one could screen for which ones are likely to explode, and which one's ain't.

      Mr Khan was at the DNC convention as a speaker for only one reason: he was a Muslim. A lot of soldiers have died in Iraq and Afghanistan, who did not get the platform that he got. Why did he get it? So that he'd be a perfect mouthpiece to denounce Trump's proposal

      He claims to be a patriot, waves the constitution in our collective face, and stands up for the 'right' of his co-religionists from other countries to come here. Had he been as patriotic as his son was, he would have been more interested in stopping Jihadi attacks in the US, rather than stopping one of the few things that have some probability of reducing it. If he is more interested in his co-religionists escaping the hellholes of their countries of origin, like his own native Pakistan, than in keeping the lives of his compatriots i.e. American citizens of all religions safe, then it's perfectly valid to question both his sincerity and motivations.

      While it is his business, I don't think that his motivations are purely mercenary. They are a combination of being mercenary AND a desire to have more of his co-religionists around him, regardless of whether or not they are a threat to the larger population.

    34. Re:Next up for debunking by chihowa · · Score: 1

      This is why McCain is staunchly anti-trump.

      Speaking of somebody else who became unaccountably ridiculous during his run for president...

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    35. Re:Next up for debunking by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Indeed a very large number are like that so assuming all is very close to the truth.
      For some reason a lot of people don't see Trump as one despite his decades of being mixed up in politics.

    36. Re:Next up for debunking by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      Had he been as patriotic as his son was, he would have been more interested in stopping Jihadi attacks in the US, rather than stopping one of the few things that have some probability of reducing it.

      This is fallacious reasoning.
      You're stating that only people who support a ban on Muslims entering the US can be patriotic. That is bullshit.
      It is perfectly possible for mr. Khan to be a patriot and not believe that said ban would do anything against terroristic acts (or quite the opposite, even).

      You know, you've just proven my point:
      "The thing with this is that so many people always picture Muslims immigrating to the US as some kind of evil intruders."
      Through indoctrination and fear, you've become incapable of seeing Muslims as people who could ever be part of 'your people', your in-group.

      Think about this and think about it well:
      Imagine a Muslim in the US. Do you think that if that Muslim read what you just wrote, that it would:
      a. decrease
      b. increase
      the chance of him committing an act of terrorism?

      That's the thing you are missing. By directing your ire at all Muslims, you are just pouring oil on the fire by making all of them feel less a 'compatriot', less as one of us. Don't get me wrong, I'm not in any way trying to justify terrorism or trying to paint Muslims as some sort of victims. I am saying your and Trump's rhetoric is just estranging and angering all Muslims.

      You are breeding contempt.

    37. Re:Next up for debunking by unixisc · · Score: 1

      I never said that only people who support a ban can be patriotic. But I did say that people who oppose the ban despite the overwhelming evidence are definitely NOT. There are a lot of people who have doubts about the ban - from whether it's constitutional to whether it'll work. But this guy decided to use the death of his son as a platform to sell his BS that banning Muslims is not just unconstitutional, but spits on Muslims who died for this country. Never mind that that number is dwarfed by the number who've committed terrorist acts against this country.

    38. Re:Next up for debunking by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Also, a Muslim reading this and getting enraged is someone who already has a certain level of vitriol against this country. As for 'in-group', my only 'in-group' is non-Muslims in general, and those who take a dim view of both Muslims and Islam in particular. Those who don't see the thousands of terror acts worldwide being committed by Muslims and then concluding that Islam/Muslims have nothing to do w/ it. I'm not breeding any contempt: they've single handedly earned it w/ everything they've done worldwide since 9/11

    39. Re:Next up for debunking by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      There's a conspiracy theory floating around that says that it's #1, and the reason is that he's basically scamming his supporters out of money. It all centers around the fact that he loaned his personal money to his campaign, and it also pays him a very hefty salary and expenses... but the campaign is still in debt to him personally, and if it is declared bankrupt eventually, any personal donations from people would go mostly into repaying that debt.

      No idea how plausible it is. I mean, it's Trump. Everything is possible.

    40. Re:Next up for debunking by Keybounce · · Score: 1

      ... US law does currently allow the president by proclamation to deny any group entry into the US the president believes would be detrimental to the United States. ... The Muslim ban would be both Constitutional and legal under US as its generally understood today.

      Actually, while it might be *legal* (compliant with the law), it would permit the law to be challenged for constitutional reasons. Specifically, even if the President does have the right to prohibit some people, it may not do so for religious beliefs.

      That would make the "Muslim ban" legal and unconstitutional. The courts would be right to overturn it on the grounds of denying freedom of religion.

    41. Re:Next up for debunking by Keybounce · · Score: 1

      1. Trump doesn't want to win the election for some unknown reason: wouldn't like the (pressure of the) job, thinks the White House is a shitty place to live, etc.

      I have believed this to be true ever since his "I could kill someone and my ratings would go up" line. I think he is totally befuddled by just how ... "easy to sway" (sorry, I don't have a better word that isn't an insult) the American People turn out to be. It's like he is getting a lesson in just how far he can go -- farther than he ever thought possible, so far that it scares and surprises him.

    42. Re:Next up for debunking by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      But I did say that people who oppose the ban despite the overwhelming evidence are definitely NOT.

      So a soldier who did three tours in Afghanistan, has a purple heart and carries the constitution everywhere, but who opposes the ban is not a patriot?
      You're making a fool of yourself.

    43. Re:Next up for debunking by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      I'm not breeding any contempt: they've single handedly earned it w/ everything they've done worldwide since 9/11

      You're so stuck in your hatred that you cannot even see that I was talking about the contempt you are breeding among Muslims. You're giving them every reason to hate you.

      Be an adult and answer my earlier question:
      Imagine a Muslim in the US. Do you think that if that Muslim read what you just wrote, that it would:
      a. decrease
      b. increase
      the chance of him committing an act of terrorism?

    44. Re:Next up for debunking by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Make no difference. If he was here to commit Jihad acts, he'd do it anyway. If he wasn't planning to, but reading something turned him into a Jihadi, then truth is he was one at heart to begin with!

    45. Re:Next up for debunking by unixisc · · Score: 1

      How do you know his father (not him, since he's dead) carries the constitution everywhere? That whole thing was stage managed for the DNC to hit Trump on one of the most controversial things he stated since the campaign started. Besides, there's nothing in the constitution that says anything about the rights of non-citizens to come to the country unfettered. At best, he's a prop for the DNC. At worst, he's someone who wants as many Muslims as possible to come into the country, regardless of intent

    46. Re:Next up for debunking by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      Answer the question.

    47. Re:Next up for debunking by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      I was not referring to mr. Khan. I was exposing your shitty logic which amounts to "disagree with me and you're not a patriot!"

    48. Re:Next up for debunking by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Hillary is in many ways the ideal republican candidate of roughly 20 years ago.

      that was the whole point of the New Democrat movement that took over the party, starting in the 80s, of which the Clinton's are a part (and in some ways even with carter): to move the party rightward to catch the middle and not be left behind as the country moved rightward.

      the people that call Hillary and Obama "Liberal" (ignoring stances taken recently during the campaign) don't know what they are talking about.
      That's doubly true for when they are called "socialists"; even Bernie isn't truly a socialist, though he is owed a big thanks for taking the sting out of the word, and helping the liberal wing wake up and stop being do damn scared of being called "liberal". These days "liberal" turns more on social issues than economic, as the democrats largely joined conservatives is sucking up to money and ignoring the common man; but in this day in age, its quickly catching up to them as more people realize these basic civil rights aren't and shouldn't be a left/right issue. Hence the resurgence of populism; whomever captures it best will win in the days to come. the question is simply whether that populist energy with include the bigotry Trump has been exploiting, or not. Neither party pays attention to the common man enough, to their detriment.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  7. Re: Thanks Media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hillary/Cosby 2016.
    "You can't prove anything."

  8. +-+-+-+-+-+-+ COMMENT HERE IF NOT FBI +-+-+-+-+-+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What does this have to do with cracking tweets? Hm?

  9. If Trump Wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Twenty years after Trump wins and things have gotten back to normal again (assuming things go back to normal) after all the wars that Trump will inevitably conduct, anyone who voted for Trump and (to be fair) has an IQ over 110 should be tried in court for complicity.

    1. Re:If Trump Wins by Z80a · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The fact there are only two actually viable parties and that they have Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as their candidates is already proof enough that the american voting system is completely broken.

    2. Re:If Trump Wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does it work the other way around? All the people that voted for Obama get held responsible for the wars he DID conduct, the abuses of the Constitution he DID commit, the lies he DID tell?

      Or does it just work in a typically leftist hypocritical way, where you just want enemies punished, not any sense of real justice that you might be held to as well?

    3. Re:If Trump Wins by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Yes, we broke it ourselves.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:If Trump Wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody expected Obama to conduct wars, which is why he got the Nobel peace prize. (A fact that committee now appears to resent.) As for the constitution - I don't care too much about constitutions, especially the US constitution. The US constitution allows people to bear arms so they can protect themselves against tyrants? That's useless when one person's tyrant is another person's guy who will make America great again.
      Unlike most presidents, Trump is pretty much promising the horrible stuff rather than promising good stuff. I guess historical evidence suggests that leaders are usually more "terrible" than they present themselves before the election, but in this case that might mean he's "better" than he presents himself?

      Captcha: radical

    5. Re:If Trump Wins by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      The system can never be better than the voters themselves.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:If Trump Wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given the number of people who claim to hate these canidates The election should be almost 4x25% With the Green Party non on every ballot I would expect it to come down to Gary Johnson or Hillary, I just can't imagine why anyone would vote for trump. Unfortunately, American's are obssessed with voting for a "Winner" and so they wont vote for a person "Who can't win" and that is why we have "Two" parties when in actuality most states have at least three

    7. Re:If Trump Wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact there are only two actually viable parties is because we've been brainwashed to believe democracy works that way. Vote for a third party.

    8. Re:If Trump Wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The system can never be better than the voters themselves.

      But it can be plenty worse.

    9. Re:If Trump Wins by Solandri · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not the voters' fault. Unfortunately, we use a plurality wins single vote system. The optimal solution for winning in that system system is two parties, each of which selects a nominee who is popular with 50.000001% of that party (i.e. just 25.0000001% of the entire voting population). Usually the most extreme 25.000001% of the population.

      Basically, both parties are controlled by extremists, who do their best to steer the nomination process hard right or hard left. The further right one party goes, the further left the other party can go while still being virtually guaranteed that one of their nominees will be elected. And vice versa. The entire process effectively disenfranchises the middle 49.99999% of the voting population, leaving government in control of the fringe 25% whose nominee happened to win.

      An instant-runoff voting system would put a stop to this, by making the nominee who best reflects the entire voting population (i.e. a centrist) most likely to win. But that's precisely why the two parties (or rather, the extremists who control the parties) will never allow it to happen while they control the legislatures.

    10. Re:If Trump Wins by Z80a · · Score: 1

      I think most of the trump electors are actually voting to him BECAUSE he's awful, like completely government nuking awful.This and fear of Isis.

    11. Re:If Trump Wins by Teriblows · · Score: 1

      No, we've seen what your "steady hand" Merkel has done to europe. We've seen the neocons scurry over to support the Clinton's. We've seen people dig into things that matter https://youtu.be/ZFcEnRu-hY8 Not tweet analysis, but billions of reasons to "get rid of" people who get in the way https://twitter.com/magnifier6... Never mind the blatant incompetence when it comes to IT security, which should be something people on slashdog would be familiar with. Someone with intimate knowledge of our own cyber offense capabilities through intelligence briefings should have known better...or more disturbingly, she knew, and protecting her Clinton Foundation corruption was more important than state security. http://thefederalist.com/2016/... https://youtu.be/8acghuIfLTE

    12. Re:If Trump Wins by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      How could the voters have prevented this?

    13. Re: If Trump Wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What passes for "far left"
      In the US is "conservative right wing" in most other countries.

      It's not fair to characterize the Democrats as left wing on a global scale

    14. Re:If Trump Wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >An instant-runoff voting system [wikipedia.org] would put a stop to this, by making the nominee who best reflects the entire voting population (i.e. a centrist) most likely to win.

      Based on your numbers, centrists are a minority, with 50.00001% of the country preferring to be as far away from the centre as possible.

      Therefore, a centrist party would not best reflect the voting population.

    15. Re:If Trump Wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sure it would.

      because neither does the 25.00000001% on either side. You seem to be thinking of it in a strictly binary way (maybe an effect of living on a 2 party system?)

      if you have 3 groups, 25.00000001%, 25.00000001%, and 49.999999998% which is the majority.

      And no I did not check the number of 0s and 9s I used, feel free to mock me for that fact.

    16. Re:If Trump Wins by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Consistently refusing to vote for idiots.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    17. Re:If Trump Wins by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      It's not the voters' fault.

      As long as voters are willing to vote for nincompoops, those are the kinds of candidates we'll get. A runoff system won't fix that (for evidence, see Australia).

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    18. Re:If Trump Wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not the voters' fault. Unfortunately, we use a plurality wins single vote system. The optimal solution for winning in that system system is two parties, each of which selects a nominee who is popular with 50.000001% of that party (i.e. just 25.0000001% of the entire voting population). Usually the most extreme 25.000001% of the population.

      Basically, both parties are controlled by extremists, who do their best to steer the nomination process hard right or hard left. The further right one party goes, the further left the other party can go while still being virtually guaranteed that one of their nominees will be elected. And vice versa. The entire process effectively disenfranchises the middle 49.99999% of the voting population, leaving government in control of the fringe 25% whose nominee happened to win.

      An instant-runoff voting system would put a stop to this, by making the nominee who best reflects the entire voting population (i.e. a centrist) most likely to win. But that's precisely why the two parties (or rather, the extremists who control the parties) will never allow it to happen while they control the legislatures.

      Your analysis is mostly true, but gets two key points wrong.

      1) There is not a single axis of left vs right. I know it's an easy simplification people make, but there are numerous issues and policies. How many people do you know who consider themselves "fiscally conservative and socially liberal," for example.

      2) The system you describe would drive the candidates to be more centrist, not less centrist. For example, imagine you have a hard-left Democrat. Would the Republicans rather have a 50% chance of winning with candidate hard-right, or a 95% chance of winning with a candidate who is medium-hard-right? Mistakes in reading positions, poll numbers, and what have you can cause mis-calibrations, but in general the 50%+1 would naturally tend to converge to a middle rather than to an extreme.

      As you note, the idea of primaries wouldn't make it a true-middle, but it would definitely be more centrist leaning than the 25%/75% you rightly suggest the primaries would have the candidates starting at.

    19. Re:If Trump Wins by PMuse · · Score: 1

      Plurality voting needs to be replaced, but IRV has serious problems with 1. spoiler candidates and 2. central counting (i.e., no votes can be counted until all IRV ballots are collected for an entire state, at least).

      Approval voting allows local precinct counting, and always elects the candidate that the least voters disapprove of. How easy is it to implement? Just change the ballot instruction to say, "Vote for as many as you like."

      Approval voting satisfies the one ballot per voter criterion (aka, each voter gets an equal say). Approval voting is easy for voters to understand. And, voting for your ideal-candidate cannot detract from your vote for your acceptable-second-choice, even in those (nontrivial!) situations where IRV would betray you.

      --
      "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
    20. Re:If Trump Wins by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Resulting in idiots voting for idiots? Refusing to vote would not fix this.

    21. Re:If Trump Wins by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Not in a single election, but over time politicians notice what traits provide winning candidates and optimize for it.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    22. Re:If Trump Wins by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Not in a single election, but over time politicians notice what traits provide winning candidates and optimize for it.

      Idiots realising things that changing their ways? Look it doesn't work like that in a system that is fundamentally broken. Look at what happens in countries that are ahead of you with political hate, e.g. Australia. They've gone through 5 prime ministers in the past 5 years. The last election saw an unprecedented number of "alternative" parties (the idiots replaced with the batshit insane). Every election has or very nearly has resulted in a hung parliament with no one in power.

      You want to see the mentality of the politicians? In the last actual hung parliament the winning party (after making a deal with independents to gain power) went to the news saying the election results clearly show Australia has had enough of the opposition. Quite clearly the opposite of what the election showed which was that we had had enough of BOTH major parties. Yet one scraped through and declared it a huge victory for democracy.

      But sure let's optimise in the up coming election. Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump will win. That's how the system works. So do we optimise it in 3 years so we have the choice of voting between 2 corrupt members of the entitled class of career politicians, or do we get the choice between 2 people so insane that the country's IQ drops everytime they open their mouth on the TV?

      I see what will happen with this optimisation path. Camacho for president in 2028!

    23. Re:If Trump Wins by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what you mean by your Australian example. It sounds like one party found a way to win.

      It's too late to optimise the upcoming election this year lol......I'm voting third party, but let's be honest, the third party candidates aren't much better than the mainstream candidates.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    24. Re:If Trump Wins by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      What I'm saying is that in a country forced to vote between idiots and psychos we did the voting is mandatory version of showing we're pissed off at everyone in the race and effectively voted in a way that no one had a majority. This caused the major parties to have to form a coalition with minor ones in order to gain power. It's about as clear of a message as you can send politicians, "You all suck, we don't think any of you are capable of tying your shoelaces let alone running the country."

      What happened? Straight after the election the liberals which scraped through with a coalition went to the media and said the results of an election was a clear indication that Australia was sick of the Labor party.

      They rightfully got mocked for it, but the scary thing is they genuinely believe that. You can't send messages to idiots. Not be voting, not directly. They are almost by job requirements narcissists who believe that everything that happens in the world just further shows that they are right and awesome and everything is meant to be like that.

      The USA is the same. Whatever is wrong with the political system that resulted in this race can not be fixed by voting or not voting.

    25. Re:If Trump Wins by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      The American voting system does not have any political parties, not officially. They are purely private clubs, with no legal connection to the voting system. Really!

      We need an "approval voting" system, where each voter can vote for all of the candidates that they like. This "one voter one vote" system is screwing up the possibility of more candidates. And, it gives way to much power to the political parties.

  10. +-+-+-+-+-+-+ COMMENT HERE IF NOT FBI +-+-+-+-+-+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What does this have to do with cracking tweets? Hm?

    OP said

    >Shut up you can't prove anything

    So you get the subtle implication too I see.

  11. +-+-+-+-+-+-+ COMMENT HERE IF NOT FBI +-+-+-+-+-+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I do.

    The thing about FBI moving in on Slashdot, is they are way out of their usual spectrum of interest. They do not understand the historical Slashdot culture or mindset. They have lambasted Microsoft, Apple, and Google stories on here so much they think nobody notices. We all do.

    Every story now is either hack or politics or honeypot like several days ago "Ask Slashdot: What torrent sites do you use?" People were all over those comments talking a lot of smack. Everybody knows Slashdot is not normal right now.

    Mod parent up.

    I couldn't tell if it was FBI or who it was for sure at first but I do see it now. This reminds me of so many stories about the FBI and the iPhone that I almost stopped reading slashdot. They also think we are Pokemon GO gamers?

  12. Are the FBI pro-Trump or anti-Hillary though? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't believe I read this on /. now. What happened?

  13. +-+-+-+-+-+-+ COMMENT HERE IF NOT FBI +-+-+-+-+-+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well OK I am not FBI I confess.

    I do not log in any more though. AC 4 Life.

  14. +-+-+-+-+-+-+ COMMENT HERE IF NOT FBI +-+-+-+-+-+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Something is very wrong with USA politics now.

  15. TRUMP 2016 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    He will make america great again!

  16. +-+-+-+-+-+-+ COMMENT HERE IF NOT FBI +-+-+-+-+-+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ___AWWWW YEAHH___ Snitches get stitches up in this bitch !!!!! San Diego hollaaaaa at ya boyyy

  17. +-+-+-+-+-+-+ COMMENT HERE IF NOT FBI +-+-+-+-+-+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Word to your moms. Dice must be trippin'. How could your company get taken over like this? They should sue the FBI for every tax payer penny.

  18. +-+-+-+-+-+-+ COMMENT HERE IF NOT FBI +-+-+-+-+-+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll never log into this piece of shit sight again. I haven't since they asked for Slash-dotter's torrent sites. It is obvious.

  19. +-+-+-+-+-+-+ COMMENT HERE IF NOT FBI +-+-+-+-+-+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sir/M'aam I would like to buy you a Michelob dark.

  20. +-+-+-+-+-+-+ COMMENT HERE IF NOT FBI +-+-+-+-+-+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll never log into this piece of shit sight again. I haven't since they asked for Slash-dotter's torrent sites. It is obvious.

    HooOHhhOOhhhOOhhhh THEY ARE BUSTED!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkhKrm4v9ho

  21. +-+-+-+-+-+-+ COMMENT HERE IF NOT FBI +-+-+-+-+-+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll take one of those ! FUCK THE FEDS

  22. +-+-+-+-+-+-+ COMMENT HERE IF NOT FBI +-+-+-+-+-+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    jeez. I click un-hide and I see this. Looks like /. is a bust now. Forget my account.

  23. Let me guess...sent from your Android? (nt) by Brannon · · Score: 4, Funny

    nt

    1. Re:Let me guess...sent from your Android? (nt) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      delete your account :)

  24. +-+-+-+-+-+-+ COMMENT HERE IF NOT FBI +-+-+-+-+-+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Registry Registrant ID:
    Registrant Name: Host Master
    Registrant Organization: SourceForge Media, LLC
    Registrant Street: 1660 Logan Avenue Suite A
    Registrant City: San Diego
    Registrant State/Province: CA
    Registrant Postal Code: 92113
    Registrant Country: US
    Registrant Phone: +1.8584545900

  25. Re:go get another fat loser bc I will keep rejecti by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot is very weird now. [cringes]

  26. DEMOCRATS SERVE LUCIFER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The democrats have brought SIN upon our country. If Hillary becomes president, GOD will become FIRE and rain upon our desecrated nation.

    1. Re:DEMOCRATS SERVE LUCIFER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She plans the DEMONS to ROAM FREELY and feast upon our souls. She is a DEMON herself, bound to LUCIFER by a dark curse.

    2. Re:DEMOCRATS SERVE LUCIFER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GOD has destroyed SODOM as well for the acts of SODOMY that were commited inside it. We will meet the same fate if we don't stop the muslims from invading our country. They all secretly support the IS, because the IS is the religion of the devil.

    3. Re:DEMOCRATS SERVE LUCIFER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump is a GOD-fearing christian. The pope does not like him, but that's personal. Trump will protect the vatican anyway from the IS who wants to destroy the vatican. Can you belive that such SIN exists in our world? If hillary becomes president, her true face will get unveiled.

  27. Trump will be same ole shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He will decidedly be more entertaining though. I have to agree with him if he is implying that the current administration created ISIS... They definitely got a really good education from Bush and especially Cheney on how to get the American public to submit to fear. I think they are convinced that is one of the few tools they have left to keep the insane power they have over the general public. The reason for Trump rising to the level he has is because he represents a vent that relieves they everyday persons frustrations with a government that no longer gives a shit about them. Everyone knows it is all a lie. Everyone knows nothing will change, but Trump supporters get a kick out of the media and establishment making complete fools of themselves. I have to admit, I would vote for trump just for the entertainment value. Nothing will change.

    1. Re:Trump will be same ole shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The other reason you'll vote for Trump is that you only have two teeth left and you smell like a urinal in a bar.

    2. Re:Trump will be same ole shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You will probably vote for hillary because you like sucking on tranny cocks. What the fuck is your point?

  28. This song is for SlashDot Fedzzzzzzzz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyd8dY8rRtA

    I do not trust you.

  29. +-+-+-+-+-+-+ COMMENT HERE IF NOT FBI +-+-+-+-+-+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MOD PARENT UP!

  30. +-+-+-+-+-+-+ COMMENT HERE IF NOT FBI +-+-+-+-+-+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It doesn't matter on this site now. It is raided by the feds.

    Somebody is trying to push the FBI comments down. This will not be tolerated. --ISIS

  31. DEMOCRATS SERVE LUCIFER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hillary will get us all cursed if we let her become president, and not a federal prison inmate. Although she might have commited state crimes as well...

  32. Re: Thanks Media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump/Ailes 2016
    "I would think she could find another job if that happened."

  33. DEMOCRATS SERVE LUCIFER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He'll be a great president to our holy nation. After all, he was CHOSEN BY JESUS for this sacred office.

  34. DEMOCRATS SERVE LUCIFER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He will stop the rapists from entering our country and win the WAR ON DRUGS. DRUGS were invented by lucifer to let us part with the PATH OF GOD which leads to ETERNAL LIFE IN HEAVEN. They corrupt our youth.

  35. ---so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ---so proper

  36. +-+-+-+-+-+-+ COMMENT HERE IF NOT FBI +-+-+-+-+-+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would but I am not logging in k - thx.

  37. SCIENCE IS SORCERY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SCIENTIST LIARS are spreading this lie, and the dishonest press is helping them. It is really horrible to see how our youth gets corrupted by these cursed ideas.

  38. Refused to comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because micro-blogging is so utterly boring

  39. +-+-+-+-+-+-+ COMMENT HERE IF NOT FBI +-+-+-+-+-+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would but I am not logging in k - thx.

    +-+-+-+-+-+-+ comment here if not FBI +-+-+-+-+-+

    same.

  40. Re:Thanks Media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imagine if any journalist put as much effort into ANYTHING Hillary Clinton does..

    They would be killed.

  41. Re:Thanks Media by quantaman · · Score: 5, Funny

    Imagine if any journalist put as much effort into ANYTHING Hillary Clinton does. What's up with the thousands of work-related emails she didn't turn over? Who's gullible enough to believe she installed a private server to send pictures of her grandkids? Why do many of the most repressive dictatorships in the world keep giving so much money to the Clinton foundation?

    The only answer you ever get to any of these questions is "Shut up you can't prove anything" which is true, but the same can be said of Al Capone and OJ Simpson. We're just expected to take the word of a politician with countless lies already under her belt.

    If only someone could find a major News network that would obsessively look for dirt on the Clintons for 20+ years.

    --
    I stole this Sig
  42. +-+-+-+-+-+-+ COMMENT HERE IF NOT FBI +-+-+-+-+-+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I saw this here too. Slashdot appears to be doing some social engineering over there.

    https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/08/05/0329246/popular-bittorrent-search-engine-site-torrentzeu-mysteriously-disappears

  43. If he would STFU... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    He might get elected. Lately he's been rambling like a crack whore, which is no better than Cliton. I'm writing in Mickey Mouse for pres.

  44. +-+-+-+-+-+-+ COMMENT HERE IF NOT FBI +-+-+-+-+-+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Me neither. I noticed in this thread my logs show 100 connections to a.fsdn.com on port 443. This is not normal as I always check my logs.

  45. Re:Thanks Media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > most repressive dictatorships in the world

    There is no proof a single penny came from a dictatorship. CNN reported on this, and confirmed that all of the donations were legal.

  46. +-+-+-+-+-+-+ COMMENT HERE IF NOT FBI +-+-+-+-+-+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    connections stay alive for a long time.

  47. I BET THE FBI ARE PISSED NOW!!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They look stupid as fucking FUCK on this site. TOR from now on for me.

    1. Re:I BET THE FBI ARE PISSED NOW!!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL I was thinking the same thing!! FUCK YOU ASS HOLES !

  48. Re:-+ COMMENT HERE IF NOT FBI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You dumbfuck spamming mindless cunt, fuck off. Talking to yourself like a retatrded fucking wanker.

  49. Re: Thanks Media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This, but that doesn't stop the racists from claiming otherwise.

  50. Re: Thanks Media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This, but that doesn't stop the racists from claiming otherwise.

    I thought Hillary was white.

    Hmph, I learn something new every day.

  51. Am I the only one by quantaman · · Score: 4, Funny

    who suddenly feels embarrassed to be using an Android?

    --
    I stole this Sig
    1. Re:Am I the only one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I feel embarrassed to be using Slashdot. What the fuck is going on in this thread? Either one schizophrenic psycho has dozens of IPs to burn on AC posts, or the Cheeto Squad is in here crapflooding the discussion. I don't think one person could conceivably have written and submitted all the "Slashdot is FBI" garbage in the time this post has been up, even given an unlimited number of IPs to comment from. So it seems like the Trump trolls are out in full force.

    2. Re:Am I the only one by quantaman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I feel embarrassed to be using Slashdot. What the fuck is going on in this thread? Either one schizophrenic psycho has dozens of IPs to burn on AC posts, or the Cheeto Squad is in here crapflooding the discussion. I don't think one person could conceivably have written and submitted all the "Slashdot is FBI" garbage in the time this post has been up, even given an unlimited number of IPs to comment from. So it seems like the Trump trolls are out in full force.

      Sadly I'm not that shocked, I think Trump supporters and MRAs have a pretty high overlap, and MRAs have been swarming any /. thread referencing women for a while.

      That being said I wonder if it's possible to see how many of these /. posts have been written with an Android...

      --
      I stole this Sig
    3. Re:Am I the only one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It started at least back here..
      https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/08/05/0329246/popular-bittorrent-search-engine-site-torrentzeu-mysteriously-disappears

      It does absolutely look like this site is a honeypot/social engineering take over going on. A lot of torrent sites are down, including kat.cr.

      I think your perception might be a bit off but you did get a mod point as AC so that is good on you I guess. The stories have been actually kind of weird lately. When I look at the comments above, the FBI ones look legit but the rest are like wacked out. Talking about democrats are satan in all caps and whatnot. I won't use my account any more. I don't like they can profile me on here just like they do on Facebook. I don't use Facebook for exactly this reason because Facebook is known to be FBI. peace out.

    4. Re:Am I the only one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may be an android user but unless you devoured Dick Cheney's raw, still robo-brating heart after it was surgically removed to make room for a donor transplant you are no Donald J. Trump.

    5. Re:Am I the only one by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What the fuck is going on in this thread?

      It's been apparent for quite some time now there's a group effort to attempt burying these "Trump made an ass of himself again" stories under a mountain of garbage posts. I assume the goal is to make Slashdotters (the ones who aren't sociopathic, anyway) annoyed enough to quickly move on from the thread.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    6. Re:Am I the only one by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      If it makes you feel better, he might just have an aid that he tells to post things.......

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re:Am I the only one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >"I feel embarrassed to be using Slashdot" You got that right.

    8. Re:Am I the only one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as there's even coverage then I don't mind. Stories shouldn't be censored or promoted depending on the particular candidate affected. I can understand these days though why people might get upset enough to garbage post if it starts to look like Slashdot is turning into the MSM, whose mission this election seems to have destroyed all their objectivity and who now pushes anti-Trump stories and buries anti-Clinton stories. It's all over for your trusted news source when it has taken a side.

    9. Re:Am I the only one by phantomfive · · Score: 0

      I think Trump supporters and MRAs have a pretty high overlap

      Really? Is that true?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    10. Re:Am I the only one by Stuarticus · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's why whenever Pol Pot comes up and people are talking negatively about him I always like to add some balance to the conversation. Like "I'm sure if there were trains he would have made them run on time", or maybe "the good thing was he was really unpredictable, which was fun".

      --
      If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
    11. Re:Am I the only one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. Unsubstantiated claim. My Unsubstantiated claim is: again a SJW.

    12. Re:Am I the only one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it seems like the Trump trolls are out in full force.

      It seems like that, but look: Sanders, Trump, Brexit, "populist" partys in europe, plummeting public trust in politics, the media, public instituations. An world economy in pieces after 8 years of financial crisis, austerity, and the corruption that props it all up.

      How long before the tired old political insults stop working and you are forced to admit that there is a genuine popular revolution brewing out there?

    13. Re:Am I the only one by Teriblows · · Score: 1

      Yes yes, exposing the DNC and all that Clinton corruption was the work of that "MRA" Julian Assange http://www.oneangrygamer.net/2... Because anyone against Hillary Clinton is a racist, sexist, mra, gamergater, and just kicks children, everybody knows this! Even "berniebros" were just misogynists who hated women and so instead supported an old communist jew!! Yes that's the ticket! The fact that he blew the lid open on DNC corruption, press collusion and Clinton Foundation shennigans, well why look into that, lets just call people names. Never mind the whole thing about the DNC staffer being murdered, and now fingered as the leaker.... "trump's the real danger" https://twitter.com/magnifier6... Funny how both attack/assassination attempts were on Trump, not Clinton. Most every attack/attempt to shut down a rally is by rabid leftists. Just in the last two days a man was beaten with a crowbar for wearing a Trump shirt. Anyways, things which matter The Clinton Foundation Exposed | Charles Ortel and Stefan Molyneux https://youtu.be/ZFcEnRu-hY8 Emails reveal Hillary’s shocking pay-for-play scheme http://nypost.com/2016/08/09/e... Clinton's private server held emails about nuclear 'spy' executed in Iran: Aides discussed scientist 'friend' and his decision to return home after defecting to the U.S. for $5m http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... http://thefederalist.com/2016/... https://youtu.be/8acghuIfLTE Julian Assange exposes Google's political ties to Hillary Clinton & Obama https://www.youtube.com/watch?... http://theralphretort.com/bust... http://theralphretort.com/bust... Its no surprise people so smug get their information from 20 minute comedy news shows these days....

    14. Re:Am I the only one by Teriblows · · Score: 1

      It's true, remember, the BernieBros were just MRA's who hated women and so wouldn't vote for Hillary because of her gender.

    15. Re:Am I the only one by dave420 · · Score: 2

      Those things are not entirely connected (and some of them not even slightly connected), so your point seems to be that there are some small revolutions attempting to be started. This is business as normal for mankind, and not some harbinger of future troubles.

    16. Re:Am I the only one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Clinton's private server held emails about nuclear 'spy' executed in Iran"

      I love this story because it sounds _sensational_ and then you analyse the headline, and go "Oh, wait"

      So this guy defects. And then he changes his mind. Hates American TV, thinks the weather is awful. Whatever. He decides to un-defect. Goes to Iran to be a hero. Weirdly he then "disappears" just like a spy would in Iran...

      Clinton has emails about this, but what you're probably forgotten is that it's also IN ALL THE NEWSPAPERS AT THE TIME. Because you can't keep it secret, this crazy guy wants to un-defect. He's telling anybody who'll listen about how he was somehow kidnapped from the US while he was studying in Saudi (er... what?) and only just realised it. It's a big deal.

      Unsurprisingly he gets executed. Because while the Americans react to you being a crazy person and trying to un-defect by saying "Eh, whatever, we'd rather you didn't but it's a free country" the Iranians react by executing you as a spy. But it takes then 10 years to admit they did it.

      But then EVEN THOUGH IT WAS IN THE PAPERS, you can get Trump supporters to believe it was a big secret and that breaking into Hillary's email server is the only way the Iranians can have known about er... the stuff in the newspapers and a guy who _literally_ filed paperwork saying he wants to un-defect and return to their country.

    17. Re:Am I the only one by Teriblows · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Emails reveal Hillary’s shocking pay-for-play scheme http://nypost.com/2016/08/09/e... CLASSIFIED: Security Expert on Hillary Clinton's Email Scandal Stefan Molyneux https://www.youtube.com/watch?... The Clinton Foundation Exposed | Charles Ortel and Stefan Molyneux Stefan Molyneux https://www.youtube.com/watch?... DNC, wikileaks, dead staffer, so many to pick from.... what's embarassing is that Trump people are digging into these while all Hillary has is supposed gaffs and mining twitter ......

    18. Re:Am I the only one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and you have to post rational arguments anonymously because trump fans have poisoned the internet well anywhere there is a high ratio of nerdy white men. between them and there overlapping MRA brethren I'm losing interest in reading slashdot at all

    19. Re:Am I the only one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the fuck is going on in this thread?

      It's been apparent for quite some time now there's a group effort to attempt burying these "Trump made an ass of himself again" stories under a mountain of garbage posts. I assume the goal is to make Slashdotters (the ones who aren't sociopathic, anyway) annoyed enough to quickly move on from the thread.

      How does having a mountain of posts bury the story? The story is always at the top.

  52. A wild Investigative Journalist appeared! by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

    Funny how the investigative journalist has all but disappeared in the Age of Obama. But now that credible opposition has appeared, investigative journalists suddenly reappear out of nowhere. It's as if Passenger Pigeons began assembling in their flocks and darkening the skies again.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:A wild Investigative Journalist appeared! by lucm · · Score: 1, Troll

      The NYT sleeper cell woke up, that's what happened. After almost ten years of watering down Obama scandals and witholding evidence of criminal misconduct, they were anxious to get back in offensive mode, like a platoon of green berets who got bored of doing UN blanket distribution duty.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    2. Re:A wild Investigative Journalist appeared! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow. i missed all the obama scandals, i must have been blinded my the lamestream media.

      do tell.

    3. Re:A wild Investigative Journalist appeared! by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2

      This isn't the Age of Obama. It's the Age of Trolls, Shills, and Kool-Aid drinkers.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    4. Re:A wild Investigative Journalist appeared! by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      As if you actually care about the shit that Obama has done. As long as he's on "your side" you will excuse everything he or Clinton have done. Happens every time, which is why you are surprised that someone can actually make the claim you are lamely attacking.

      As for me, it's Green Party's Jill Stein all the way, just like last time.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    5. Re:A wild Investigative Journalist appeared! by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

      The Age of Obama's Trolls, Shills, and Kool-Aid drinkers?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    6. Re:A wild Investigative Journalist appeared! by dave420 · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's more likely a case of you not bothering to seek out investigative journalism (of which there has been an ever-increasing amount), and when some accidentally crosses your path you assume it must be a change in the amount of journalism, and nothing else. Not, possibly, that because you don't care about journalism when you see an article "attacking" someone you like you have to find a reason for the article's existence beyond the person you like fucking up.... naaah. Couldn't be that. It must be some massive conspiracy amongst journalists of all flavours to deceive you. Your arrogance is disgusting. No wonder you are so confused by the world around you.

  53. Re: Thanks Media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You probably thought Hillary was female too. And human!

  54. Re:GOD IS A GOD OF LOVE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    God will kill you.

  55. Re:-+ COMMENT HERE IF NOT FBI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No I am actually not. Also since I posted that comment now this thread connects to 172.x.x.x a lot, on port 443 as well which is HTTPS.

    I also noticed Slashdot changed their Certificate Authority from GeoTrust Inc to Let's Encrypt today.

    Maybe you are the actual person who can not spell retarded?

  56. Re:GOD IS A GOD OF LOVE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    God is dead.

  57. Re:DEMOCRATS HAVE INFECTED THE FBI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    --> this holy institution

    What a weirdo? You call the FBI a holy institution? You are all secret squirrels.

  58. Re:-+ COMMENT HERE IF NOT FBI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So does mine. My light is blinking on my modem like crazy too. Is it a port scanner?

  59. THE FBI PUSH CHILD PORNOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    http://thenextweb.com/insider/2016/01/28/how-the-fbi-became-the-worlds-largest-distributor-of-child-sex-abuse-imagery/

    They bring drugs into their country and they kill people. Now this? FUCK YOU

    1. Re:THE FBI PUSH CHILD PORNOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They killed Ian Murdock at Debian Linux too. This is old news.

    2. Re:THE FBI PUSH CHILD PORNOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MOD Parent UP. This is a fact.

    3. Re:THE FBI PUSH CHILD PORNOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow. everybody on earth has seen a naked child, but pushing pornos is sick.

    4. Re:THE FBI PUSH CHILD PORNOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YEAH NO SHIT especially when they are paid by tax payers.

    5. Re:THE FBI PUSH CHILD PORNOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh my. I had no idea. I am sharing this thank you so much.

    6. Re:THE FBI PUSH CHILD PORNOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And there it is, same Trump shill, same tired lies and delusions. Ive got it down to less than 3 words to spot the drivel, and move on, stopping occasionally to tell the inbred half wit off.
      Trump is certainly making America grate even more.

  60. Re:GOD IS A GOD OF LOVE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then how are you still alive?

  61. Re:go get another fat loser bc I will keep rejecti by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, seems to change with every new owner.

  62. So he figured out what Trump himself says? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imagine if he'd done any research on this before starting his work.

    He could have saved himself so much time. Trump himself has said that he has someone else type up his tweets during office hours (at his direction), and only personally tweets from his phone at home.

  63. Re:go get another fat loser bc I will keep rejecti by lucm · · Score: 1

    You need the decoder ring to read the real message.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  64. Re:-+ COMMENT HERE IF NOT FBI by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

    Also since I posted that comment now this thread connects to 172.x.x.x a lot, on port 443 as well which is HTTPS.

    Clearly, Slashdot is carrying out political assassinations for the KKKlinton KKKrime Family, and your leak of their WHOIS data proves it. I'd head to the safe room if I were you. Trump 2016.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  65. Oh Good Lord. by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 1

    Has it occured to any of the "researchers" that his apps on Android and the IPhone are different and may be configured differently? ( Mouse's law on configuration if yiou have N devices you are supporting at least N+1 configurations ).
    differnt configurations mean different looking posts. Especially since these are rapidly written posts.

  66. Eat, tweet, pound...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So let me get this straight.

    Donald Trump gets up in the morning, sits down at the table in his housecoat and orders something from his menu (sometimes coffee and grapefruit,sometimes eggs Benedict or an omelet, sometimes a full English), starts sending out tweets while he is eating or afterwards, Then yells out for Melania, pounds her dog style for a couple minutes and heads for the shower?

  67. I don't think that's the point by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    This looks like a masterful play to undermine Trump. Or at least I'd like it to be. I'm a Democrat and I'm used to having these sorts of things done _to_ my party, not by it. I know, I know, nobody likes to think about these kind of shenanigans. The subtle ways you can instill doubt in voters to win elections. I'd like to believe they're not necessary, but then I remember Trump was clobbering Hilary for a week or so and then after one bad week of press it was completely reversed.

    Basically, a sizable portion of voters vote on what they're feeling at that moment. They're what everybody calls "swing" voters. It's usually folks too wishy-washy to make up their minds. That means any successful campaign is about managing those voters feelings.

    I suppose it's possible I'm reading too much into things and giving the Dems way to much credit. But if I'm not and they embrace the sort of tactics the other side has been using for 20 years expect a _lot_ more Democrats in office.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I don't think that's the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... I'm used to having these sorts of things done ...

      Really, when? I see a lot of parallels with Romney and Trump. A third-rate business executive spouts the "greed is good", 'make America ... something' mantra and gets the nomination. As the months past, the press dig into his past failures and the nominee can't take the pressure, revealing his self-entitled and psychotic personality.

      What did the current Democrat nominee get from the press? Praised and admired for her 12 years federal service while she back-stabbed a contender with 25 years federal service. Little surprise the Sanders-candidate supporters are angry.

    2. Re:I don't think that's the point by Teriblows · · Score: 1

      I find this angle of attack amusing because most people would only dream to be as much of a "business failure" as Trump. We know the track record of lottery winners, the fact is even with seed money, most don't do anything with it or fail. And of course its absurd when comparing to candidates with ZERO business experience of note. Hillary's rigged elections didn't start with Sanders, she was given a safe seat once a democrat had stepped down by the establishment machine, and then she was simply appointed for her next post. Her only success is corruption, aka pay to play via the Clinton foundation where billions have been funneled through for less than charitable purposes. But of course these things go uncovered in any real way because it takes an hour just to explain the basics. The Clinton Foundation Exposed | Charles Ortel and Stefan Molyneux https://youtu.be/ZFcEnRu-hY8 Nypost tried but the news cycle is more fixated on supposed gaffs than substance. Emails reveal Hillary’s shocking pay-for-play scheme http://nypost.com/2016/08/09/e... I mean really, wikiwut? Oh Assange is just an MRA, don't ask questions anymore....

  68. Re:DEMOCRATS HAVE INFECTED THE FBI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Squirrels??

    Where??

    I hate squirrels!!

  69. Re:Thanks Media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    > The reason you never hear about this is not because it didn't happen or because nobody was looking for it.

    The reason you "never hear about this" is because your interpretation of those events is nutballs.

    If your "liberal media" theory were true, then there are a ton of counter examples. The whole lewinsky thing being chief among them. The obsessive media coverage of clinton "scandals" is beyond dispute. Travelgate, whitewater, vince foster, benghazi, etc. And despite tens of thousands of hours of media coverage, and tens of millions of republican directed tax dollars of investigations, it all turned out to be nothing. Cry wolf too many times and people just start tuning you out, no "liberal bias" necessary.

  70. Re:Thanks Media by Boronx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Imagine if any journalist put as much effort into ANYTHING Hillary Clinton does.

    This makes me wonder where you've been getting your news for the last 25 years.

    Why do many of the most repressive dictatorships in the world keep giving so much money to the Clinton foundation?

    Of everything that you mentioned, this is the only scandal.

    They do it to curry favor with the Clintons. However, I'm 100% certain that the Clintons are savvy enough that everything is totally legal, and that 95% went to the best charities. Unfortunately, we as a nation have decided that direct bribery of politicians is not only legal, but expected, as long as everyone is coy about it.

    --
    Play Command HQ online
  71. Re: Thanks Media by brasselv · · Score: 2

    "The only answer you ever get to any of these questions is "Shut up you can't prove anything" which is true"

    I hereby accuse you to be an operative of the Secret Great Lizards Conspiracy that I know all about, because i read it on a web site that had actual ANIMATED GIFS OF LIZARDS AND CAPS AND EXCLAMATION MARKS!!!!

    I may not yet be able to prove my theory conclusively, but the same can be said of Al Capone and OJ Simpson.

    --
    "Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong." (Oscar Wilde)
  72. More Interested in His Code by jIyajbe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm one of the two submitters. I submitted this story because I am intrigued by his methodology, and not because of the political angle.

    In my submission, I included a reference to the fact that he coded up his analysis in R, and that his code is right there on his website for all of us to inspect. I was hoping that that was what would catch Slashdotters' eyes. The editor deleted that part, unfortunately; oh, well.

    I know a little about statistical analysis, a little bit about coding, but nothing about R. Can anyone knowledgeable about R comment on his code, and/or his analysis? Thanks!

    --
    "Don't blame the log for the fire." --Andrew Ratshin
    1. Re:More Interested in His Code by RPI+Geek · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I can't help. I'm a programmer but I don't know R, and I only know a very little about statistical analysis.

      All I hear about nowadays is Trump / Clinton. I came to the comments hoping to see SOME discussion of the content of the article.

      --

      - "Nobody came out that night, not one was ever seen. But Old Man Stauf is waiting there, crazy sick and mean!"
    2. Re: More Interested in His Code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The author used the %>% magrittr operator a lot which is a fancy way of chaining functions like so f(g(z(x)))

    3. Re:More Interested in His Code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So basically Slashdot deleted the most nerdy part, the programming. Considering Data Science is a hot field bordering the nerdy areas of Math and Computer Science, this was a very bad move. It went from news for nerds, to news for trolls.

      I know a bit of R, and have even touched S code before; but, I can't spare the time. Maybe I'll get annoyed by not helping, and look at it later (but I've go so many pet projects, I doubt it will happen until long after it is relevant).

  73. Why is he so angry? by mdsolar · · Score: 1

    He's a loser. https://slashdot.org/journal/2...

  74. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's happened before by melted · · Score: 1

    It's not a conspiracy theory, it has happened before. Bubba Clinton only won against Bush in 1982 because Ross Perot was also running.

  75. Re:-+ COMMENT HERE IF NOT FBI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No its telling you you're a fucking idiotic trolling pain in the ass, fuck you, you waste of electrons.

  76. Re:Thanks Media by dfenstrate · · Score: 0

    If only someone could find a major News network that would obsessively look for dirt on the Clintons for 20+ years.

    Plenty has been found on the Clintons; the problem is their supporters just don't care, and they always seem to have the right friends in charge of the relevant prosecutor's office.

    --
    Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
  77. Re:Thanks Media by houghi · · Score: 1

    Why do many of the most repressive dictatorships in the world keep giving so much money to the Clinton foundation?

    Of everything that you mentioned, this is the only scandal.

    I would not call that a scandall, because as you mentioned it is legal.
    Why would it be OK that KillThePlanet Inc. is allowed to give monies and not some other person. I am not even sure which one is worse for the American People. One thing is sure, neither has the interest of the (American) Public at heart and that is what you should be looking at.

    That said, neither of the two candidates has the interest of the US public at heart; no matter what they say. One wants power and money; they other want money and power. The only thing that would work is if people all voted for a third candidate, but so many years of indoctrination that that won't work is paying off.

    I guess these parties are too big to fail. You will need a revolution (does not need to be with blood) to do a serious change. Unfortunately people want change, but are unwilling to change.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  78. Time and effort well spent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now we know! Isn't it amazing that we know? I think it is. I'm really happy someone dedicated effort and time to this noble cause. Now we know that Trump uses an Android device and his PR staff are using an Apple device.

    This changes everything. Right? I mean... the impact of this could last well beyond a single headline even.

  79. Re:Thanks Media by Teriblows · · Score: 1

    Why would you think the liberal media mattered during Lewinski, that had its own political momentum and was not pushed by the media. Things like Clinton setting up the sub prime lending disaster which cost the US 10 times what the Iraq war did however was not covered in any way by the media which would have prevented that disaster. Still isn't.

  80. Excellent work by gsslay · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Can we now get an analysis of all the bat-shit crazy posts on this article. A number of things that could be investigated.

    - Is this one crazy person, or has an entire neighborhood of crazy town come visiting?
    - Do these crazy people think that crazy shit like this helps persuade voters to vote Trump?
    - Or is it a false flag effort designed to show Trump supporters as bat-shit crazy people?
    - Does anyone care?

  81. CLINTON IS A SQUARE SHOOTER! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clinton 2016!

  82. Re: Thanks Media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why are so many Fox News staff still alive then?

  83. Trump's choice of platform by unixisc · · Score: 1

    One thing that struck me - after the San Bernardino massacre, when Apple refused to come up w/ a backdoor to the iPhone4 (which ultimately got cracked anyway), Trump called for a boycott of iPhones. People pointed out how Trump was a hypocrite for resuming its use after a few days.

    But this story seems to suggest that he does practice what he preached. If the tweets that are actually his come from an Android, then that's his companion/choice of phone/tablet (does he really use a phone to tweet? Or does he have something like a Galaxy tablet?) In which case, he was true to his word and did boycott Apple. Never mind that Google and Microsoft have both spoken out in support of Apple on this issue, so there really ain't a good principle on which to boycott. And never mind that all the other phone platforms out there - Cyanogen, Replicant, et al offer users more privacy, not less

    1. Re: Trump's choice of platform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't a tablet be too big for his hands?

    2. Re: Trump's choice of platform by unixisc · · Score: 1

      He can have lil Marco help him if that's the case

  84. Re:Thanks Media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's the point. All of these things have a huge conservative media push with congressional backing in the form of multi-million dollar investigations. The only thing these investigations by Republicans in Congress have turned uncovered is conspiracy theories.

  85. Re:Thanks Media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Would you care to cite sources (that aren't batshit websites)? Investigations that turn up criminal activities result in trials.

  86. "fact checkers" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I remember the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, and I remember lots of people checking the facts being promulgated in the mainstream news. That didn't stop them from promulgating falsehoods anyway, but anyone who actually cared about the facts could find them checked easily in plentiful other sources.

    The media lies all the time. They lied about Obama's birthplace, the earth being round, the moon landings, etc.

    The Internet / YouTube fact checkers have exposed these falsehoods and helped expose these falsehoods. The fact checkers play an important role in society. /s

  87. In three words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Badly, crazy weak.

    1. Re: In three words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Truly Madly Deeply

  88. Totally this by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

    A friend used to send me emails incessantly that was just bat ---- crazy "facts" from right wing nutjobs. I thought anyone would at least google to see if it were true before broadcasting it. I'd be mortified if I repeated such easily checked facts as the world is flat. Nope, she believed it and when I'd send her multiple articles invalidating it, I think she did not believe me. But then this is a woman who I told to make sure she gets a 30 year fixed mortgage and she calls me 2 years after the purchase to tell me she got a letter from the bank changing her rate. She never read the mortgage docs. People as a mass are stupid.

  89. Trump donated to NAMBLA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Many people are saying that Donald Trump donated millions to the North American Man/Boy Love Association. This would explain why he's refused to publish his tax returns.

  90. Re:DEMOCRATS HAVE INFECTED THE FBI by rickb928 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    OK, here we go...

    0. The FBI doesn't charge, prosecute, convict, or imprison (for very long, anyways, mostly) anyone.
    1. The Justice Department would be the most common agency to charge and prosecute Hillary.
    2. By delaying interviews, and the FBI's accommodation of her, Hillary successfully delayed the FBI's completion of its investigation until the campaign reached a point where legal action would raise significant questions of tampering or interference on the part of the FBI, whether these would be warranted or not.
    3. Bill Clinton's meeting with Loretta Lynch, while presented as 'secret', was intentional, and intentionally leaked. This meeting;
    - was plainly improper, actually unethical, and should be grounds for removal of Lynch as AG on any of several legal grounds - witness tampering, ex parte communication, obstruction of justice (see next point) among others.
    - was calculated to cause an obvious conflict of interest on all parties' part, save the FBI, which was impacted by it.
    - was therefore crucial in forcing the FBI to reconsider how it would proceed with the disposition of its investigation.
    4. With this meeting exposed, FBI Director James Comey was left with;
    - Referring the case to Justice, where he knew Lynch would recuse herself, force the appointment of a Special Prosecutor, and delay prosecution until after the election, prompting widespread claims of tampering and a potential Constitutional crisis.
    - Refusing to disclose details, which no matter how he proceeded from there would result in denunciations and outrage from all quarters.
    - Or, as he did, disclose sufficient details to expose Hillary's apparent guilt, but then claim that the case was not sufficiently obvious for a 'reasonable prosecutor' to pursue. This is the way he chose to avoid referral and the problems that would cause.
    - And bottom line, Comey may well have wanted to avoid the FBI being accused of any of several impacts on the election, for he would not get support from the Administration if he did refer the case to Justice.
    5. Congress could refer an investigation to Justice, demand they charge Hillary, and then impeach Lynch and/or Obama, but at this stage that would be seen as petty, too late for meaningful results, overreaching their authority, manipulative of the election, and would likely fail. Not that any of these accusations are
    accurate or not, that doesn't matter, for this would be a political act also. All of this would be correct, legal, and devastating to the Republican Congress, as we are in an era where truth is unimportant.

    Director Comey was in an untenable situation, not of his own making except for the delay in completing the investigation. And he was on an island with no support from his boss or his bosses boss.

    Democrats have infected every branch and level of government, even co-opting the Republican congressional leadership. The fix is most likely to vote them all out, every single one. This will take more than one election cycle, as around 43% of the electorate is entirely satisfied with Democratic rule, and around 30% of the electorate is at war with itself. True undecideds and independents have little hope they can change things, and are not unified in any case, so sadly we either face the truth of our nation's condition or continue devolving into something other than what is constitutionally permitted.

    I believe we are witnessing the birth of new political movements in America, and possibly a new era of coalition politics, which will either permit the Right to coalesce and challenge the Left, or deliver insurmountable control to the Left, which will result in further unconstitutional rule and eventual collapse of what constitutional foundation for our government is left.

    We will regre

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  91. BREAKING NEWS: Applicant for Ruler of Free World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...delegates some tasks to his staff.

    What an interesting waste of time. The only question I might have is what delegated work David Robison may have avoided to work on this piece, or perhaps more interestingly, if someone had delegated this task to him to complete. Either way, yes thanks for sharing the sky is blue and the cars go vroom.

  92. Most of us were deceived and now won't admit it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, and I remember lots of people checking the facts being promulgated in the mainstream news.

    The problem is you couldn't tell for sure what was true or not. Yes, you could read that they were lying (and choose to believe one way or the other) but there was no curation of the news (except for the falsehoods coming at us through traditional outlets). Baby Bush whipped up hysteria so high that some of us (me included, to my shame) reluctantly supported the invasion ("if it is true that he's getting nuclear weapons, then we don't have much of a choice"). Far too many of us were gullible enough to believe the lies, even after seeing alternative explanations, simply because the sources weren't as trustworthy. That's changed, I'd say, based in no small part that those "untrustworthy" sources were in fact telling the truth, and right all along, and those of us who believed mainstream reporting were decieved and supported the wrong action. Unfortunately I don't expect us as a people to learn from this. In fact, I suspect most who were deceived as I was, and polling data from the time show it was by far the majority of us, will be like Donald Trump and claim they were against it all along. Admitting you were duped, even 14 years ago, is embarrassing. But pretending you weren't, and refusing to learn, is just downright stupid.

    So yeah, trust in the media is at an all time low. And the media has only itself to blame.

    1. Re:Most of us were deceived and now won't admit it by HiThere · · Score: 2

      Well, that's partially right. Another part is that there's been a tremendous consolidation among the "traditional media" such that their voices are controlled by a small number of very wealthy people whose primary interest is not news.

      This is not to claim that the news in general was ever trustworthy, but it is to claim that news organizations used to be mainly interested in news, and only secondarily politics or public relations. That this was never reliably true is witnessed by the Hearst Press, which earned the name "yellow journalism". But there were alternatives. E.g., in San Francisco a paper called "The Dramatic Chronicle" started off covering theatric presentations, and expanded into sports and local news. It was originally quite reliable. It's wider news, however, was no more reliable than the wire services. Then there was the New York Times, which used to be reliable, and perhaps still is if you learn how to read it...but which was delayed a week in getting to the west coast. Etc. Each news source was biased, but many had areas where they were accurate, and they weren't the same, because the controlling interests had differing goals.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  93. Wiretapping charges? by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

    Umm isn't this wiretapping? and could end in jail?

    --
    Jack of all trades,master of none
  94. Re:DEMOCRATS HAVE INFECTED THE FBI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe we are witnessing the birth of new political movements in America, and possibly a new era of coalition politics, which will either permit the Right to coalesce and challenge the Left

    The right is far more united that the left.

  95. Re:DEMOCRATS HAVE INFECTED THE FBI by eples · · Score: 1

    3. Bill Clinton's meeting with Loretta Lynch, while presented as 'secret', was intentional, and intentionally leaked.

    I agree it was intentional - my theory is that Bill already knew the FBI findings and he went on that plane knowing it would look bad in order to force everyone to get the findings out before the democratic convention.

    "Damnit! Now we have to present the findings ASAP!"

    Yep. tee hee hee

    --
    I'm a 2000 man.
  96. Re:DEMOCRATS HAVE INFECTED THE FBI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some other observations

    #3: the "meeting" was to give Lynch an out, and not for Clinton. By giving Lynch a reason to recurs herself, she avoids the political fallout from the FBI not charging Clinton. I think the outcome of the FBI investigation (regardless of whether anyone thinks it was accurate or conspiracy) was known by both Lynch and both Clintons prior to the meeting.

    #5- Congress is out of session for the summer and is in such disarray that they couldn't approve their way out of a paper bag. The UK Parliament is probably more stable right now...

  97. Re:Zapp is handicapp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh sure, just insult peoples suffering from Sexlexia, you insensitive clod!

  98. Re: DEMOCRATS HAVE INFECTED THE FBI by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    The Left is unified at the voting booth. That is more important than anything.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  99. Re:DEMOCRATS HAVE INFECTED THE FBI by Dread_ed · · Score: 0

    2a) Gave time for evidence to be altered, people to synchronize their stories, work with counsel to devise a cogent strategy that allowed maximum deniability while avoiding perjury charges.
    4) [subtext] Knowing Lynch would not prosecute, Comey is left with the realization that the person he is investigating could be the President of the US very soon. He sees that Obama and Lynch are in the tank for Hillary for their public comments as well as their actions. So not only are his current employers against prosecution, but the person he needs to make a recommendation for or against could very well end up being his boss in short order. Holy fuck what a terrible position to be put in.

    --
    When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
  100. Fight With Baby by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You forgot fighting with the baby. Yeah, I know, it wasn't a "fight" as such, but it doesn't matter at this point. Trump has gotten such a reputation for saying off-the-wall and provocative things, people will believe he'll say or do almost anything.

    Trump discovered our Sacred Cow, and that Sacred Cow is babies. There is a long-standing, well-known protocol for politicians to interact with babies:

    1). You may kiss the baby;
    2). You may lift, pat, hold or stroke the baby;
    3). You may coo at the baby and speak baby-talk;
    4). You may speak intelligible, friendly sounding words to the baby.

    And that is all. Your role is as an honorary Uncle, so you must be friendly and supportive towards the baby (and the baby's parents, but especially the mother). The baby may cry but no one must think you wanted the baby to cry. You may not be unfriendly, indifferent, or hostile towards the baby!

    The thing is, everyone knows this. It's like Political Science 101. It's a sham and no one cares whether the politician likes babies or not. It's a test and the test is a strict Pass/Fail test. Does the politician know the Baby Test and can they pass it? Yes or No.

    Furthermore, this is a real test about a real character attribute. Elected politicians must get along with people they don't necessarily like. They must do so in order to advance their agenda (this is the Can They Get Stuff Done test). The Baby Test is a way of rating candidates in this way.

    And Trump failed the Baby Test. The easy test that everyone knows how to pass.

    1. Re:Fight With Baby by unixisc · · Score: 1

      The whole thing was misreported. It was the mother who voluntarily stepped out on her own when the baby started crying as a courtesy to the other guests, and to pacify her kid. She stepped out, was w/ the security while the baby calmed down, and once the baby got a pacifier and was perfectly quiet, she returned to her seat.

      Something completely different from protesters at rallies who had to be evicted

  101. Re:Thanks Media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, this is too much. The "it's all explained by subversion of the Halls Of Justice" meme just doesn't cut it.

    The problem is not that "Clinton supporters just don't care". That's probably true for a lot of Clinton supporters (though there would be a line for most). It's that most of these alleged scandals didn't matter, or they were hyped beyond sanity by Clinton opposition.

    The Lewinsky affair, indeed all of Bill's dalliances with women. Most people (not just Clinton supporters!) have decided that's a private matter between Bill and Hillary. Seriously, the Right never gave us one good reason to care about Bill's affairs. Important Historical Note: Presidential biographies going back decades have revealed that lots of Presidents have had affairs, including lots of good Presidents. There's just no correlation at all between good moral behavior in a marriage and the national interest in a competent President.

    Whitewater? That was a total bust. Where's the Beef?

    The Ken Starr investigation? Cost us millions, we had to listen to hundreds of hours of breathless build-up, and then the report was a total let-down.

    Benghazi? A tragedy, obviously. However the Right have never made a compelling case that they wouldn't have made the same mistake. And again, the Right, by getting too close to these investigations on a partisan basis, makes us wonder how unpartisan their story is.

  102. Re:Thanks Media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imagine if any journalist put as much effort into ANYTHING Hillary Clinton does.

    This makes me wonder where you've been getting your news for the last 25 years.

    Look the OP said journalists

  103. Re:Thanks Media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, EVERY ONE of those scandals turned out to be true, but somehow Clinton gets a pass with "Oh, it's so minor. She just violated the law for handling classified documents, but no one would ever prosecute for this (except for the other dozen cases currently ongoing)" or "Sure, it was illegal for her aides to work for the Clinton Foundation on the Government's dime, but that's not enough to prosecute for" or "Sure, it was theft when she took hundreds of thousands of dollars in furniture and stuff from the White House, but she gave some of it back, so it shouldn't be prosecuted" or "Sure, she failed to report millions of dollars in income to the IRS for years, until a hostile news reporter discovered it, but she revised her taxes after that, so there's no reason to prosecute".

    Hmm, I'm seeing a common theme here - It was illegal, but no one (except everyone else) should be prosecuted for it. And you wonder why people think she's dirty?

  104. Numerous pundits have taken the idea seriously. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Numerous pundits have taken the idea seriously.

    "If Donald Trump were a Democratic mole placed in the Republican Party to disrupt things, how would his behavior be any different?" -- George WIll

    "Maybe Donald negotiated a deal with his buddy @HillaryClinton. Continuing this path will put her in the White House." -- Jeb! Bush

    "Donald... if you aren't simply a plant to ensure a Hillary presidency, stop acting like it." -- Derek Hunter

    "Is Donald Trump, who spent most of the past few decades as a Democrat and personal friend to the Clinton family, trying to drive the Republican party into a ditch?" -- Jon Hecht

    "There are some theories on the Internet that this is Bill Clinton's best political deal,that he and Donald are buddies, and they have a lot of similar friends in New York, and he has masterfully selected a friend who maybe by October will say, 'You know, this is very boring. And I'm going to get out.'" -- Rep. Marcy Kaptur

  105. Funny definition of "the best charities" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm 100% certain that the Clintons are savvy enough that everything is totally legal, and that 95% went to the best charities.

    The Clinton Foundation is a charity, and here's some information everyone should know about it: Charity watchdog: Clinton Foundation a 'slush fund'

  106. You're not the only one by Bratch · · Score: 1

    who starts a post in the subject line.

    --
    Beware of the Redittor who loans you a Sharpie.
  107. Re:DEMOCRATS HAVE INFECTED THE FBI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fix is most likely to vote them all out, every single one.

    Ignoring the obvious association fallacy of your suggestion, what you suggest would require everyone to vote against their economic interests, instead of just those that now vote Republican.

    I have some rich relatives, and some of them vote Republican, and I do not give them a hard time. If you, sir, earn more than $350K/year, I would never give you a hard time about it either.

    Republican leadership is well aware if everyone always voted in their economic interest, no Republican would ever get elected to office. What drives the success of today's Republican politicians winning any election is ignorance, hatred, and fear.

    That said, I dig your post. Keep up the good work.

  108. Re: DEMOCRATS HAVE INFECTED THE FBI by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    The FBI findings were indeed a forgone conclusion. Anyone paying attention at all knew that.

    And yes, dinner recess does slow the process down.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  109. Re: DEMOCRATS HAVE INFECTED THE FBI by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    Even the Democrats vote their own interests. Some economic, some moral.

    And rich Democrats vote. There are many.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  110. Re: DEMOCRATS HAVE INFECTED THE FBI by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    I'm still convinced it was intended to give Lynch the cover to recuse herself. And she did.

    That it happened at all should have resulted in her resignation.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  111. It's not just the fact checking by golodh · · Score: 1
    The problem with news outlets isn't just the fact-checking. Although I agree with you it's important. I'd be willing to pay for stories carrying the label: "this story has been fact-checked and all reported statements either check out as true or have been marked as unconfirmed". Unfortunately It's also the selection and filtering of news.

    Compare for example the stories on Fox news with those CNN for a day. I do that once in a while and I get the distinct impression they're reporting on different worlds.

    Fox News for example reports everything that might possible be used to call global warming into question (and omits everything that supports it), and goes on and on and on about Mrs. Clinton's emails. And stubbornly try to pin blame on her for the attack on the US embassy in Benghazi. They've put it firmly into their minds that it's their job to spin those affairs out, keep them alive (at least until the elections), and milk them for all they're worth. Fact-checking Mrs. Clinton seems to be limited to one main subject: emails. Fox News commenting on Mrs. Clinton seems to focus on emails. Did I mention that Fox News seems to be particularly interested in her emails?

    When it comes to Mr. Trump, Fox News steadfastily refuses to fact-check or to criticise him (well ... I can understand that: look what he did to Megyn Kelly and how he boycotted Fox News). No critical comment on Mr. Trump's allegations that Mrs. Clinton "plans to abolish the second amendment". No comment on his claims of seeing "secret footage" of cash-for-prisoners deals. No comment on his allegations that Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton "founded ISIS". Even less (if possible) critical review of Mr. Trump's allegations that Mr. Obama is a "weak president" as far as ISIS is concerned. No comment on his mean-spirited dissing of the Khan's. No comment on his brinkmanship-like ramblings about leaving Nato (great move now that Russia is re-emerging as an aggressive power and EU countries are getting worried) and leaving Japan to fend for itself.

    Then CNN. Lots of different topics being covered every day. But each time Mr. Trump ventilates some blatant, glaring untruth or a snide insinuation it's reported on CNN. Is that bias? Could be. It would be mine if I had to report. Does Mrs. Clinton come off scot-free? I shouldn't think so. The development of her email story is duly reported.

    As a matter of fact, continued exposure to Fox News can be harmful to one's mental health. See e.g. http://www.thebrainwashingofmy... .

    For a victim in an advanced state of over-exposure, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...