Slashdot Mirror
Online Journalists Launch An Onslaught Against Donald Trump (nytimes.com)
An anonymous Slashdot reader writes:
Online journalists at Buzzfeed are publicizing two controversial videos featuring Donald Trump. First the site "filed court motions seeking the release" of Trump's under-oath testimony in a June trial, in which the real estate mogul "says he planned his caustic remarks on immigration delivered during the launch of his presidential bid," bragging that they'd "led to my nomination in a major party in the country." And Buzzfeed is also publicizing a video clip from the 2000 softcore porn movie Playboy Video Centerfold: Bernaola Twins, in which Trump makes a cameo appearance. Playboy has even said that years earlier Trump actually pressured his second wife to pose for Playboy. ("Trump himself was on the phone negotiating the fee," remembered a top Playboy editor. "He wanted her to do the nude layout. She didn't.")
But his biggest problem may be the mainstream media. According to the New York Times, Trump "declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income tax returns, a tax deduction so substantial it could have allowed him to legally avoid paying any federal income taxes for up to 18 years..."
But his biggest problem may be the mainstream media. According to the New York Times, Trump "declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income tax returns, a tax deduction so substantial it could have allowed him to legally avoid paying any federal income taxes for up to 18 years..."
AMEN.
Vote for Hillary = Affirmation that you're cool with corrupt politics.
Vote for Trump = Drop napalm on the whole F-ing thing.
Where do you think the numbers on your state return come from? Maybe you've never filed taxes, but state returns say things like, "Enter amount from your Federal form on line 9a".
State tax returns are based on Federal tax returns.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Why didn't that happen when the top Federal rate was 90%?
You are welcome on my lawn.
Now that is an interesting question. Remember, Donald Trump's only public record is as a businessman. He's never held any public office. So his record as a businessman is the only data we have to evaluate him.
At very least, a businessman who loses almost a billion dollars running a fucking casino had better be prepared to answer other questions about his skill at business.
Doesn't that sound relevant to you?
You are welcome on my lawn.
It scares the crap out of me that here on Slashdot, a site with presumably smart people like engineers and programmers, so many people are defending and rooting for Donald Trump.
Either Slashdot is not as intelligent as I thought, or it is more right-wing than I thought, which of course is not exclusive.
I've experienced the same living in South America and witnessing people i used to regard as smart defending the likes of Castro, Chavez, Kirchner and Rousseff. It was a sad eye opener.
Burn the system down. Burn it all down.
I'm guessing you're not a Muslim, Hispanic, black person, or resident of a Middle Eastern country.
You won't get racially profiled, called the enemy, threatened with deportation, or have your country attacked on a whim.
Much more likely you're white (and probably male), and as bad as Trump is the worst consequence you're likely to personally experience is a drop in your purchasing power due to the recession.
In other words it's easy to say "burn it all down" when you're not the one in the house.
I stole this Sig
I was wondering how he was going to try to recover from his recent string of bad news. Looks like his method is to pretend it's a conspiracy by the left-wing media to ruin him with an "onslaught" of bad press. Which implies that the stories are false or exaggerated, without actually making that claim. Clever, in case he ever needs to admit that the reports are true.
Truth has no sides. Reality has no bias. If these things are true, and I have seen no indications that they are not, then the news is making Donald Trump look bad because Donald Trump is actually bad. If he steals money from charity to bribe investigators to turn a blind eye to his fraudulent businesses, the blame for the bad press afterward lies purely at the hands of Trump, not on the media and press.
People don't vote candidates, in general. They vote if they are happy about how things are, or if they are not. Usually, is the incumbent (I'm happy about how things are in MY life), or the challenger (I'm not happy, let's change something).
In this particular case the incumbent cannot run, so the proxy is the candidate of the same party. Also, people suspect that the usual challengers are not really a change at all. But in this case it is, or at least it appears to be. So the excitement about it.
Voting or defending Trump has nothing to do with Trump, really, and all to do with a desire for profound change. The people express that desire in the only way that the election game allows them, and that's not a good way, that's for sure, but it's the only one.
You are surprised of intelligent people defending Trump, and I am surprised of how this blatant fact, the desire, of so many people, for many current politics to change or reverse course, is completely bypassed by the media, that chooses to center in the, admittedly rather pathetic, personification of that desire. That's an ad-hominem fallacy if I ever saw one, and you fall into that trap and try to keep the discussion there (the person), instead of on the politics.
Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
If you accept that charge then what about President George "My Pet Goat" Bush? He and his entire core team were in the Oval office when intelligence sources reported about a possible Al Qaeda attack on US soil. They thought it was unimportant and sloughed it off. It was completely ignored.
Based on the standard you apply to Clinton then Bush, Cheney and pretty much every person in that room should have been convicted of criminally failure to execute their duties of office. The President and Vice President and Secretary of State should have been hung and the rest sentenced to life in a federal penitentiary.
My conclusion is that you are all foul hypocrites who are so hyper-partisan that you put your party ideology above the national interests of the United States.
Why is Snark Required?
You need to look at the media coverage of all Republican candidates together to understand what happened. The candidates thought to be the strongest opponents against Hillary received the harshest treatment (Christy, Romney, Rubio, and Cruz).
Trump was considered a non-threat, him getting the nomination was supposed to ensure an easy victory for Clinton. The long knives didn't really come out until poll numbers showed Trump actually having a chance to win. Now that he's ahead you see the hysteria.
.
So how is he going to get things done and "Make America Great Again"
Silly voter, he's just going to do it. Trust him, he has a secret plan. Remember, he knows more about ISIS than the generals (he said so himself!). And he has "the best temperament", the "best memory", and "has the best words". Those are all direct quotes so you know they're true!
When he gets elected we'll wake up the next day and the streets will be clean, kids will say "Sir" and "Ma'am", and Leave It To Beaver will be back on the TV machine. Black people will know their place again, atheists will once again be persecuted as is proper, and mothers will go back to the kitchens where they'll spend all day cooking tasty, nutritious food for the whole family again. It'll be glorious!
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
A really good nonprofit that is genuinely supporting a cause puts somewhere between 75% and 90% of its income into whatever cause it supports. The Clinton Foundation has a rather different record. For example, in 2015 the New York Post published numbers from 2013 showing that they foundation spend $9 million (out of a budget of $140 million) on charity,
You know that that is misleading to the point of lying, right? The Clinton Foundation doesn't give much money to other charities, true. Instead it runs it's own charitable programs, and percentage-wise spends less on payroll and administrative employee expenses than most charities. I don't know if the CF is a wonderful charity or not, but it is spending money better than other charities. It's been under constant scrutiny by anti-Clinton folks for years; if they were shielding assets for the Clintons it would have come out. Instead, people just repeat the same lies as you did
In a sense, it does lower the Clinton's taxes, in the way that donating to any charity reduces your taxes. It also means that that money is no longer theirs, which is why most people don't give 10% of their income to charity. But nobody has demonstrated that the Clintons are particularly using the CF money on themselves. Maybe they are and nobody has found the evidence (unlike with Trump's foundation). Or maybe you have evidence that the rest of the world doesn't?