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.
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
...this should certainly reduce the amount of money in politics.
-Styopa
Hey kids, remember when it was evil for those 1%er nazis to illegally influence elections with their dirty evil money?
Well, it's officially OK now that the money is going to Hillary. Obey to the 1%er rich people you little drones!
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
So none of the above then?
Yes. This belief that you have to vote for the lesser of two evils needs to end. Vote 3rd part. Vote independent. Write someone in. But don't vote for someone who is complete crap, which both Hillary and Trump have shown they are.
Well, Hillary did say that if you are under investigation by the FBI you should have your Constitutional Rights suspended.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
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."
Maybe his is against offshoring tech jobs, maybe not. But he definitely doesn't have anything against using undocumented workers in his hotels or outsourcing the tech support for his casino businesses.
Whitewater was in 1992... I am 36 years old. That means for 2/3 of my life Hilary Clinton has been continuously investigated, and accused in the media and courts and been called a criminal by default. Since then she has had tons of scandals and accusations of being a criminal, none have ever stuck.
This means one of two things:
She is either a criminal mastermind with the power, influence, and pull to continuously break the law and get away with it. Using a vast network of co-conspirators, who have tight lips and similar criminal mastermind status to ALWAYS somehow escape the investigations of an entire country of inept law enforcement, Democrat lead congress, Republican lead congress, Democrat presidents, Republican presidents, and all news media outlets.
She is a super villain. Greater than any ever seen. She is bullet proof and immune to attacks from foe and friend alike. She is an amazing character straight out of fiction. If this is true, she doesn't need to become president, she is already the most powerful person in the world.
OR
The go-to political attack method on Hilary Clinton is to assume she is a criminal.
The problem is that one of two people - Clinton or Trump - is going to end up as President. While neither of them is particularly likable you have to consider all the judges that they will appoint, all of the cabinet secretaries that they wil appoint, etc. All of those people have a big influence on the direction of the country albeit less obviously that the President.
How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. The more people vote outside of the 2 main parties, the more exposure the alternative parties get. The more exposure they get, the more people will support them. The more people support them, the better they will poll. If they poll high enough, they get automatic inclusion into presidential debates. The more debate exposure they get, the more people vote for them. When enough people vote for them the alternative parties are eligible for federal campaign funding the next election, which helps them campaign more and gets the cycle repeating again. Best case, they become viable candidates for Senate, rep, or president. Worst case, they garner enough popularity that the main parties shift to include policies supported by the third parties. The system can be beat from within, it just takes a long time and requires a lot of help.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
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!
Big corporations and billionaires.
Oh, no. My mistake. The correct answer is unions. Percentages are to Democrats and to Republicans, respectively.
1 Service Employees International Union $233,948,108 $231,783,862 $1,295,669 99% 1%
2 Fahr LLC $114,005,803 $113,755,803 $0 100% 0%
3 National Education Assn $109,427,714 $105,078,729 $3,452,808 97% 3%
4 American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees $98,678,433 $97,694,335 $676,830 99% 1%
5 Carpenters & Joiners Union $80,768,463 $75,823,760 $4,798,328 94% 6%
6 National Assn of Realtors $74,982,087 $26,027,003 $28,258,810 48% 52%
7 American Federation of Teachers $74,932,481 $74,120,164 $363,250 100% 1%
8 Renaissance Technologies $73,792,377 $36,170,416 $36,646,874 50% 50%
9 Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $72,175,924 $70,714,074 $1,136,150 98% 2%
10 Las Vegas Sands $70,782,782 $53,240 $70,732,661 0% 100%
11 Laborers Union $68,330,958 $64,165,186 $3,679,066 95% 5%
12 AT&T Inc $65,956,335 $27,437,253 $38,360,404 42% 58%
13 United Food & Commercial Workers Union $65,832,840 $65,272,289 $327,750 100% 1%
14 Soros Fund Management $59,210,620 $54,524,165 $1,813,415 97% 3%
15 AFL-CIO $57,212,102 $52,305,234 $1,286,876 98% 2%
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.
It is sure her race to loose by electoral college.
However, if the last two weeks are any indicator, Trump is getting smarter about holding his mouth in check and committing all these unforced political errors and Hillary is loosing ground to the independent candidates nationally. Trump is late getting his campaign going, buying ads and setting up operations in these states, but that effort is now hitting it's stride and I expect him to make the necessary states more competitive over time. Hillary though, continues to face strong headwinds with these E-mail stories and how her story has changed multiple times, how she's not trustworthy and corrupted though that "Clinton Foundation" link during her stint as Secretary of State. I don't think there is any fire behind that smoke, but a wise one said "when you are explaining, you are losing" and she's explaining a bunch right now and the national polls show this.
I don't think we've seen much recent polling in the battle ground states that reflects all this activity and really it is pretty close in most of them. We haven't seen the debates yet, but if Trump can keep from putting his foot in his mouth and stick to his talking points, I dare say Hillary will have trouble. Trump just has to seem "presidential" and he wins sans saying something stupid, Hillary has to somehow keep from having to explain and re-explain all this E-mail, Clinton Foundation, lying business while not letting Trump under her skin, and she's not real good at this debate thing...
No, it's way to early to know how this will play out..
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.
I would suggest killing it first, because it's going to get pissed after the first bite. Your analogy works pretty well actually, since the last time a new party won the White House (Republicans) it required the implosion of one of the two major parties about 8 years prior. I agree it is possible for a current third party to win the White House, but by the time it happens it must become one of the two major parties before the Presidential elections begin. Just getting 13% of the vote instead of 2% won't do anything, just like taking the first bite of a living elephant won't be too successful.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Mitt Romney was supposed to win the 2012 election. Everyone told him so.
No. The 2012 election turned out exactly where the polls predicted. Anyone who thought Romney was going to win was delusional.
Yes, please, vote for someone like Gary Johnson, who DOESN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT ALEPPO IS.
Christ Almighty.
He's also the only candidate that, when confronted with something he should have known, apologized, said he made a mistake and is only human (ie that he will make mistakes) and would try to limit those mistakes by having competent advisers around him. Trump or Clinton would have just danced around the question to begin with until the interviewer gave up and asked another question. I don't know why Americans expect presidents to be subject matter experts in all facets of domestic and foreign policy. Personally, I trust someone who has the balls to say "I don't know" a lot more than someone who just blusters away when confrontest with their lack of knowledge.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Did some catastrophe destroy the UK since the Brexit vote? What are we supposed to "be careful" to avoid? Globalist complaining?