Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Co-Founder Commits $20 Million To Help Defeat Trump (buzzfeed.com)
Mat Honan reports: Dustin Moskovitz, the billionaire co-founder of Facebook and Asana, announced on Thursday that he intends to give $20 million to a "number of organizations" to help Democrats, and Hillary Clinton, win in 2016. Moskovitz published a fiercely-worded Medium post arguing that Republican nominee Donald Trump is "running on a zero-sum vision" and that his attempts to woo economically disenfranchised voters "are quite possibly a deliberate con, an attempt to rally energy and support without the ability or intention to deliver." He also wrote that while he and his wife, Cari Tuna, have previously voted for Democrats in presidential elections, this is the first time they endorsed a candidate and donated. The move represents a sharp break with Asana and Facebook board member, Peter Thiel, a Trump delegate who spoke at the Republican National Convention and earlier this week published an op-ed in the Washington Post in support of the Republican nominee.
Hillary is a criminal, breaking the law sending classified information from her personal email server. I wouldn't recommend him or the Democrats endorsing that lying criminal. They need to pick a candidate that believes in upholding the law.
Facebook Co-Founder Donates $20 Million to Hillary For Political Favors
But I don't have millions to buy a voice.
On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
...that money can buy.
"Of the people, by the people and for the people" ended a long time ago.
I am the minority ... I support neither of the two morons or the koolaid their followers drink. Drink up!
Wait. Aren't these the same Democrats that vilify "big money" from the likes of the Koch Brothers? Funny how they scream about that, but didn't say a word in this case, or when Soros donated 8 million to Hillary.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
Just got an email this morning from Public Citizen, a 501(c)(4) organization that is very upset about the Citizens United decision, which allowed 501(c)(4) organizations to spend money to forward their respective political agendas--but not to donate to campaigns. They want it overturned.
A snippet: "If we lose, the forces of plutocracy — like the notorious Koch Brothers and casino tycoon Sheldon Adelson, the Big Banks and Big Pharma, Karl Rove and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and so many more — would be even more emboldened to continue exploiting Citizens United and dismantling our democracy."
This guy is not on the list. Nor is Tom Steyer, George Soros, or Michael Bloomberg. Nor the millions spent by the SEIU, AFL-CIO, and other unions. By doing so they paint their organization as nothing more than a group of partisan hacks and not as true defenders of the democratic process.
The money flowing from their rich donors and supporting their causes is just a righteous investment in good government...the money from the other guys are bribes.
Speaking of Public Citizen, I recently received an email from them. Now, PublicCitizen.org is a 501(c)(4) corporation, who's primary purpose seems to be opposing the ruling handed down in the Citizens United case. Recall that the Citizens United case hinged on the fact that a 501(c)(4) corporation produced a movie that had a political purpose, in this case a documentary "Hillary: The Movie" that was intended to highlight Mrs. Clinton's shortcomings the first time she was running for president.
The email from Public Citizen was urging me to donate money to support their production of a documentary DVD highlighting how bad the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United was.
That's right: a 501(c)(4) corporation made a movie with the express political purpose of protesting the Supreme Court decision that a 501(c)(4) corporation could make a movie with an express political purpose!
No, that is how the media is spinning the Brexit. The people wanted out and the media is just going around saying "no, no, people were confused".
How fucking hard is it to realize that maybe, just maybe, hard working people are getting sick and tired of being treated as globalists' play toys. The only way to combat this is to shrink government and the number of organizations that can control people. Corporations can't directly control people, they need the government or quasi-government entities for that.
I hope people wake up and realize some day that Democrats (and Republicans) are not "for the people" like they claim. The government allows people that otherwise can't control people to buy control. Democrats have just been much better at marketing and lying than Republicans the last 8 years. It is dangerous that the Democrats are so good at lying because now they feel they can get away with literally ANYTHING and have no repercussions. That idea is far more dangerous than who is calling the shots, which is why it is so dangerous to elect Hillary. It isn't "Hillary" that is dangerous... it is the idea that a person who can do what she does and still be even considered an option that is dangerous.
The entire system has been so corrupted that the media is literally a propaganda arm of the government and people are blind to what is happening. I am ok with the people that think Trump is a lunatic. I hate sanders more than Clinton from a policy perspective but I would still rather have him on the ballot because he is not as dangerous. I am not ok with people that think Hillary is good or even normal. Most people are not. It is the media that is telling us she is "ok".
The blind will think something crazy happened when Trump/Brexit happens but that is just ignoring the people who don't spend 24/7 watching the propaganda networks. It is ignoring the voters who don't dare utter they are voting Trump because the media has made it taboo. It is ignoring that, when no one is looking, people fucking hate illegal immigrants, muslim terrorists, thugs, taxes, etc. and will vote differently than what they may tell their liberal friends.
Took the IRS to get him. Of course, these days he IRS is a political attack dog with a leash held by Obama, so it will not touch Hillary or the even the Clinton Foundation, which has recently had to redo taxes for several years due to “errors in the report of donations from foreign governments”.
I think people have realized that of the two "real" choices, Trump is by far the safest.
If Hillary is elected, she'll likely get to do whatever she wants. She knows how to work the system, she has the connections, and her winning pretty much means that the Dems get the Senate.
If Trump wins, everyone in power hates him. You'll see the lame-duck session of Congress put up so many road-blocks to his presidency that Obama will happily sign that it'll amaze you just how fast Congress can work. If Trump is elected, we'll finally see the curtailing of executive power and the power being moved back to the representatives of the people.
If Hillary is elected, she'll get to nominate judges to the Supreme Court. The Second Amendment will be dead. It's a scenario that's so scary that nothing Trump says can even come close.
So, yes, I think people are finally coming to realize that the lesser of two evils is, indeed, Trump. I may not like Trump, but he won't be able to do half of what he says he'll do and he'll be far preferable to the disaster of corruption and government control of our lives that is Hillary Clinton.
Trump is way behind in the Electoral College map (which matters more than "Nationwide Poll X says..."). This doesn't mean that he's out of the race, just that he'd got more of an uphill climb than Hillary has. I believe the chances to win were something like 85% Hillary and 15% Trump. So he's not out, but he's also not the likely winner if things keep going the way they're going. If you're a Trump supporter, you would do everything to help your candidate gather more electoral votes. If you are a Hillary supporter (or perhaps just a Trump opponent), you wouldn't sit back and say "we've got this in the bag." If you did that, you would find your preferred candidate falling behind. Instead, you'd donate and help keep the candidate that you are against from overtaking the candidate that you are for.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
If that was true and a Democratic victory is inevitable, why doesn't Mr. Moskovitz save his money?
Because taking the election for granted is the quickest way to lose the election. Mitt Romney was supposed to win the 2012 election. Everyone told him so. He even went to so far as not to write a concession speech. But Obama won the election with 51% of the vote, becoming the first president since Eisenhower to win consecutive elections with 51% of the vote. As Obama demonstrated twice in a row, getting out the vote operations is money well spent and extremely effective at winning elections.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
That's the audio of her laughing about getting a child molester off. The tapes were buried and the media refuses to play them. Snopes still calls it "false" even though we have the audio now.
It's not disputed that she attacked the women who accused her husband of rape and sexual assault.
The current FBI investigation turned up the fact that she mishandled classified information and they said flat out anyone else would be prosecuted.
So yes, she is being protected by the media and friends.
She's a walking dead politician.
At least Nixon had the integrity to resign.
Work Safe Porn
Did some catastrophe destroy the UK since the Brexit vote? What are we supposed to "be careful" to avoid? Globalist complaining?
Hey any of you millennials even alive during the 1970's and 1980's? Cause it's worse now than in the 1970's under Carter. Yet Regan and the GOP managed to turn around the economy in an enormous way. I mean things were really booming in the mid-late 80's. Then it tanked a bit during Clinton years. The housing bubble was the direct result of Democrats forcing Freddie May and Fannie Mac to give mortgages to people who could not afford them. Then all the other companies got greedy and did the same thing. If it were not for Obama's heavy tax and regulation government along with the failed ACA the economy would have rebounded by now. For 6 years companies have been afraid to spend cash because they didn't know what ACA and other regulations would mean for the future.
It works every time it's tried. Reducing regulation, reducing taxes on corporations and the rich produces jobs and boosts the economy. The rich have gotten richer even under Obama and more so because they can keep their money and invest it wisely. But the middle class and entrepreneurs are suffering greatly. 97 Million workers have literally given up on finding work. Government does not create jobs, but companies do. If you tax them too much they won't hire. If you make things seem risky due to regulation they won't take risks. Government is standing in the way of American business.