Slashdot Mirror


WikiLeaks' Big Tuesday Announcement Will Now Take Place Via Video (thehill.com)

Long-time Slashdot reader SonicSpike writes that media outlets including Fox News were reporting WikiLeaks cancelled a big announcement scheduled for Tuesday and expected to reveal damaging information about Hillary Clinton. But they were all citing a tweet from NBC as their source. "Due to security concerns at the Ecuadorian Embassy, Julian Assange's balcony announcement on Tues has been cancelled," tweeted NBC producer Jesse Rodriguez -- which was apparently taken to mean the announcement had been cancelled altogether.

But six hours ago, citing WikiLeaks, that same producer reported that Assange "will appear via video link" at a Tuesday press conference in Berlin marking the 10th anniversary of WikiLeaks. While it's possible this "appearance" will be different than the originally scheduled "announcement," it also seems very possible that the NBC producer's tweets were just misunderstood.

193 of 380 comments (clear)

  1. Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This post has no content whatsoever. Maybe if Assange actually reveals something new it might be worth an article, but this seems an article that should have been rejected as content free.

    1. Re:Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      This is going to be a video link ON THE INTERNET, Mr. Coward. Do you not realize the importance of such an achievement?

    2. Re:Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      because internet

    3. Re:Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      cyber

    4. Re:Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      web 2.0

    5. Re:Why is this here? by quantaman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Gotta push Trump. Slashdot is owned by Dice.com which has numerous ties to the Trump business empire. Just another in a long line of Clinton hit pieces pushed by slashdot and many other sites.

      Any evidence for this? I've noticed /. has had a weirdly pro-Trump anti-Clinton stream of stories but I assumed that was due to Assange fanboyism and Trump supporters hammering the submission queue.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    6. Re:Why is this here? by ShaunC · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Dice sold Slashdot in January. There does seem to be quite a pro-Trump agenda here lately, but that isn't Dice's fault (anymore).

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    7. Re:Why is this here? by sittingnut · · Score: 1

      after vainly pushing anti trump stories for months, recent increase in pro trump tilt in /. summitries is due to editors here wising up to the fact that readers and commenters here are generally pro trump (just look at the moderation points of comments in any trump/clinton/election comments; evidence is definitive ).

    8. Re:Why is this here? by Powercntrl · · Score: 1

      after vainly pushing anti trump stories for months, recent increase in pro trump tilt in /. summitries is due to editors here wising up to the fact that readers and commenters here are generally pro trump (just look at the moderation points of comments in any trump/clinton/election comments; evidence is definitive ).

      One would hope it's due to US I.T. workers fear of globalization/outsourcing. I find it hard to believe /.'s readership, even in this day and age, could support someone who willfully ignores scientific fact as readily as Trump. As an example, when it comes to renewable energy, Trump pretty much talks right out of his ass.

      --

      ---
      DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
    9. Re:Why is this here? by Microlith · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yep. Who knew a supposedly smart techie readership could be taken in by a con man like Trump?

    10. Re:Why is this here? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Dice doesn't own /. any longer, Mr Van Winkle.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    11. Re:Why is this here? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "HIllary's husband cheated on her, so I'm voting for Trump"?

      Oh yes, THAT makes PERFECT sense. *eyeroll*

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    12. Re:Why is this here? by disccomp · · Score: 2

      As opposed to who Trump would name to the Supreme Court. Sorry, that is one of the things that worries me the most about Trump being elected, that the court will swing too far to the right. At least I believe Hillary would pick moderates and maintain the status quo in most respects.

    13. Re: Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      She victim shamed a rape accuser, thats different.

    14. Re:Why is this here? by Maritz · · Score: 1

      consider supporting a constitutional amendment to get money and its corrupting influence out of American politics forever

      Would be nice, but sounds a lot like asking the foxes nicely if you can have the henhouse back.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    15. Re:Why is this here? by Maritz · · Score: 1

      I find it hard to believe /.'s readership, even in this day and age, could support someone who willfully ignores scientific fact as readily as Trump

      Ahem. Climate. This place is full of deniers. They think they're different to creationists, of course.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    16. Re:Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      IoT

    17. Re:Why is this here? by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What has Robby Mook said about Assange?

      I assume you actually mean Bob Beckel. Not only is he not Clinton's campaign manager, Snopes can't find any evidence that he's ever even worked as a Clinton strategist in any capacity. Maybe if you dig hard enough you might find some sort of "three degrees of separation" thing to damn her with, though, so you should probably get started.

      --
      Everybody point at the libertarian and laugh.
    18. Re: Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That's exactly what I think when I hear CNN. The Clinton News Network.

    19. Re: Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They're both biased as hell, just in the opposite ends of the political spectrum. Their bias is not mutually exclusive.

    20. Re:Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Apps

    21. Re: Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hillary's husband cheated on her, and she continued to support him - to the detriment of his victims - for political gain. Ftfy

    22. Re: Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He didn't even cheat on her. Hillary is a lesbian that keeps her lover at arms length (Huma Abedin). Her sleeping with women in college has been proven many times.

      Hillary could care less who Bill sleeps with, she just doesn't want to be embarrassed by it, as them pretending to have a healthy marriage is important to her political career.

    23. Re:Why is this here? by dmbasso · · Score: 1

      The Constitution allows for the states to call a convention proposing an amendment, completely bypassing the Federal Congress.
      Five states have already passed bills calling for the convention, 29 more states are needed:

      http://www.wolf-pac.com/the_pl...

      --
      `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
    24. Re:Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is exactly right. It seems like the left is now moderate and the right is too far right.

    25. Re:Why is this here? by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      If you were married to a Reptilian with cankles, I bet you'd be straying off the path every now and then, too... ;)

    26. Re:Why is this here? by William+Baric · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm Canadian. Apart from Canadian and US media, I also regularly read news from Le Monde and Le Figaro, Al Jazeera, Russia Today and China Daily. My conclusion? All media are doing an enormous amount of propaganda. You may prefer left-wing propaganda over right-wing propaganda, you may prefer pro-establishment propaganda over anti-establishment propaganda, but it is propaganda nonetheless.

    27. Re:Why is this here? by ravenshrike · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hillary's husband regularly cheats on her and allegedly raped some women, Hillary's response has been to stand by him and while he was POTUS savagely attack his accusers.

    28. Re: Why is this here? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Both are biased, but only one has gone to court to argue that they are not required to tell the truth (and won) in things that they present as news.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    29. Re:Why is this here? by Dan+East · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Regarding Snopes, I now only trust them for debunking trivial, stupid internet meme type things, and not at all when it comes to politics (or much of anything serious for that matter). They are extremely biased in favor of Clinton and "debunk" things without any actual proof or showing contradictory evidence whatsoever. It is totally meaningless that Snopes can't happen to find evidence portraying Clinton negatively.

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    30. Re:Why is this here? by JoshuaZ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If Snopes and other fact checkers are repeatedly saying things you disagree with and don't like, you may want to consider that the problem is on your end. Rather than bash Snopes maybe you can supply what you think is relevant evidence. Do you either have any evidence that Robby Mook said anything of the sort, or have any evidence that Bock Becket worked for Hillary's campaign?

    31. Re:Why is this here? by Dan+East · · Score: 1

      I haven't noticed a pro-Trump stance from Slashdot stories (and commentors). However I have definitely noticed a very strong anti-Hillary tone here at Slashdot, which at first was very surprising. However, I think that stems from the fact that the typical Slashdotter better understands the ramifications and details of the whole email server thing than the general populace. Most of the strong political opinions I'm seeing here are in that regard, and seem to originate from the private email server.

      So any pro-Trump leaning is really anti-Hillary. Which is pretty much how this election is working out in general - who hates which candidate the least.

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    32. Re:Why is this here? by HBI · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We also must take into account that the payouts to Clinton's "bimbo" "accusers" amount in the millions at this point. Certainly justifies some quotes around the words used to describe them, and also qualifies the "alleged" nature of the offenses. People don't usually pay out large sums on BS charges.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    33. Re:Why is this here? by ScentCone · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "HIllary's husband cheated on her, so I'm voting for Trump"?

      Oh yes, THAT makes PERFECT sense. *eyeroll*

      It's not about his sleaziness, per se. It's about her full-throated support of it, even when he was violating sexual harassment laws and allegedly raping. Her willingness to use your tax dollars to pay her staff to go after the women her husband was abusing and to publicly smear their reputations ... THAT is what's on the table here. Her remarkable hypocrisy, and the direct, repeated evidence that her entire pandering stance on "women's issues" is nothing but phony theater and another sign of her willingness to lie, over and over again on topics huge and trivial, in her quest for power and the circumstances to further enable her family to rake in millions while at the public trough. Her dismissal (and much worse) of multiple women's very consistent reporting of Bill's behavior and abuse is a key indicator of her sociopathy. THAT is why it impacts people's thoughts about voting for her.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    34. Re:Why is this here? by quantaman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I haven't noticed a pro-Trump stance from Slashdot stories (and commentors). However I have definitely noticed a very strong anti-Hillary tone here at Slashdot, which at first was very surprising. However, I think that stems from the fact that the typical Slashdotter better understands the ramifications and details of the whole email server thing than the general populace. Most of the strong political opinions I'm seeing here are in that regard, and seem to originate from the private email server.

      So any pro-Trump leaning is really anti-Hillary. Which is pretty much how this election is working out in general - who hates which candidate the least.

      Possibly, though I think the better explanation might have to do with Hillary's self-identification as a feminist. Just read any post regarding feminism and see all the people railing against "SJWs". I think gender is still very relevant for a lot of people.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    35. Re:Why is this here? by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 1

      Some lizard people are pretty hot. The Clintons, though, they seem completely resistant to being influenced by their skin. I mean, Bill gave in to his skin there for a while, but I think Hillary managed to bliss him back into rejecting the influence of his human suit.

      Really, the only thing the current Lizard Queen has going for her is her bliss. I mean, good grief. At least she stopped in for repairs to her human suit back in August after she spat out that green chunk of her lizard skin.

      Still grosses me out just thinking about it. *shivers*

      Oh, and John May lives!

    36. Re:Why is this here? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Dice sold Slashdot in January. There does seem to be quite a pro-Trump agenda here lately, but that isn't Dice's fault (anymore).

      I wonder if that could be because of the tech bias in the reporting. Trump is a racing lunatic but there's no hidden email server, classified documents, he hasn't been hacked and for the most part we don't even know if he can use a computer. Is it such a surprise that all things Hilary get more if a mention here given that most of her dramas somehow involve tech, or tech industries outer people using tech against her?

    37. Re:Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ... to damn her with

      She's is already damned. We just need to figure out how to get her to her final resting place.

    38. Re: Why is this here? by Rob+Y. · · Score: 2

      Boy. In any other context, you'd probably be railing about 'defining rape down to the point of meaninglessness'. But if it's a Clinton...

      The primary 'victims' of Hillary's supposed 'blaming the victim' were Gennifer Flowers, who conducted a consensual sexual relationship and then sold her story to the tabloids. And Monica Lewinsky, who basically flirted with a married man, fell in love, and they cried on the shoulder of Linda Tripp, who betrayed her royally. That Hillary chose to defend her husband rather than stand in feminist solidarity with these 'victims', is pretty understandable - in the light of the forces trying to undermine Bill, and yes, in the light of both of their ambitions.

      Perhaps in another place or time, sexual infidelity would be a disqualifier. A pretty hypocritical one, but nontheless... But Trump? Really?

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    39. Re:Why is this here? by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Is everything on this Internet thing true?

      Yes, there are very stringent rules on who is and is not allowed a website in order to make it credible.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    40. Re: Why is this here? by MattBroudy · · Score: 1

      Democrats and Republicans are like visable light, and the rest of the political spectrum is like invisible light. You have been duped into seeing them at opposite ends of the spectrum, when in fact they are quite close.

    41. Re:Why is this here? by Rob+Y. · · Score: 2

      Judging from your signature, the only constitutional protection you're worried about is your right to shoot birds - which, by the way, nobody is advocating for taking away, no matter how much you whine that they are.

      Well, the constitution covers a few other areas that Slashdotters might just care about. Like the preference of one-person-one-vote democracy over an interpretation of freedom of speech that considers The American Enterprise Institute as a charitable organization. And of course, while the SC doesn't design intellectual property law, it does get to be the referee of last resort in related disputes. So it's not out of the question to imagine the likes of Antonin Scalia weighing in on the patentability of API's, etc...

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    42. Re:Why is this here? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      As opposed to who Trump would name to the Supreme Court.

      What don't you like about his picks? Serious question.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    43. Re:Why is this here? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      /sarcasm What!? Faux News spews propaganda? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you ! It is such as a bastion of objective, well researched topics !

      --
      A downvote is NOT I disagree.

    44. Re:Why is this here? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Weird/sad thing is the dearth of positive articles for either candidate.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    45. Re:Why is this here? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1
      I don't trust Snopes to debunk anything, but it's not for any political reason whatsoever. They have an article about Marilyn Monroe having six toes. To be clear, I think the whole idea is silly and I don't think (or particularly care whether) she did. However, they quote as evidence:

      There is no record of Marilyn's having had an operation at that point in her life, and no contemporary references to anyone's noticing her walking with a bandaged foot or a limp for a period of time. (One doesn't simply get up and start trotting around after having a toe removed — the missing digit affects one's balance, and it takes some time to adjust to the change and "relearn" how to walk.)

      My wife is a podiatrist. I asked her about this reasoning and she said it's BS. She amputates toes from time to time as part of her practice and says that patients usually bounce back and are walking perfectly fine in no time, even when she has to remove the big toe. Lopping off an extra little vestigial toe wouldn't have any noticeable effect once the wound healed, and the patient certainly wouldn't have to '"relearn" how to walk'. I wrote to Snopes with that information and got back a response basically blowing me off and arguing that the sixth toe story is a fake and my facts are wrong because "there should be no reason why a person with a painfully infected toe would walk with a limp. But they do.". Yeah, I get that. I never said otherwise. But I do claim that this one piece of evidence is completely wrong, does not accurately contribute to their conclusion (which I agree with), and I have a subject matter expert's testimony to that effect.

      Since then, I've been a bit loathe to trust Snopes about anything. I mean, they're probably right about most things, but I have firsthand experience with them completely ignoring evidence that doesn't fit their narrative. I haven't paid enough attention to their articles to know what their political slant is, but the point is moot for me already anyway.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    46. Re:Why is this here? by TechnoCore · · Score: 1

      From an outside perspective it does sound like the problem lies on your end. You don't find that reality matches your beliefs, so you just ignore reality.

    47. Re: Why is this here? by porksauce · · Score: 3, Informative

      Do you have any citation for that? The only one I found was on Snopes where they're saying it's False.

    48. Re: Why is this here? by LDAPMAN · · Score: 2

      Why just cherry pick two from the long list? You convent ignore the multiple accusers who claim it was not consensual. For example, Juanita Broderick

    49. Re:Why is this here? by Dan+East · · Score: 1

      Here's an example:
      http://www.snopes.com/seth-con...

      It is an open investigation, and Snopes provides no evidence that the claim is false. There is no way Snopes can say that "DNC staffer Seth Rich was gunned down to prevent him from meeting with the FBI over plans to testify against Hillary Clinton." is FALSE. In fact, they don't have the ability to form an opinion one way or another. If you read the entire "debunking" you'll see they just talk about stuff and offer opinions, but no facts whatsoever. That was really one of the first things that turned me off to Snopes.

      Finally, regarding the "problem" being on my end, I'm not the one making claims that I should be trusted and the authority on whether or not statements are true or not. What I see is Snopes making black and white judgements without any backing evidence at all in some cases. Snopes is the one with a burden to bear, not me. Nice try trying to make this about me though.

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    50. Re: Why is this here? by JoshuaZ · · Score: 2

      Ah, I love political topics. In no other area on Slashdot do ACs get upmodded for saying things like "Fuck off, shill." To be clear: no one is claiming that agendas don't exist. But if one has repeatedly the same reactions to multiple respected fact-checkers, the problem may not be on the fact checker's side.

    51. Re: Why is this here? by Rob+Y. · · Score: 2

      I picked them because they're the ones where Hillary's supposedly on the record for slut-shaming them. And that was the topic I was responding to.

      They're also the only two where the accusations were borne out by, y'know, evidence.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    52. Re:Why is this here? by disccomp · · Score: 1

      His first list of picks were way to the right, stock full of anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage zealots; and worse, politicians.

      His new list seems like it was meant to appeal more to the center, this time including minorities. However, I wouldn't be surprised to later find he had no intention of really choosing any of these.

      http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/23/...

    53. Re:Why is this here? by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      Wow, it's like your brain edits out the terms 'allegedly raped' and 'savagely attacked his accusers'. Hell, she used govt. resources to do so.

    54. Re:Why is this here? by Shane_Optima · · Score: 1

      Possibly, though I think the better explanation might have to do with Hillary's self-identification as a feminist.Just read any post regarding feminism and see all the people railing against "SJWs". I think gender is still very relevant for a lot of people.

      I'm sure plenty of sexists use anti-SJW criticism as cover, but this is some damn twisted logic you've got going on there.

      The person who brings up gender by:

      * Explicitly calling herself a feminist (as you yourself just mentioned)
      * Campaigning for feminist causes
      * Having her people engage in those "Bernie Bros" attack
      * Treating every single negative thing Trump has ever said about specific women as evidence that he believes they are an inferior sex

      is demonstrating that gender is, in fact, "relevant" to her.

      The people who are reacting to it... are the ones reacting to it. Some rightly, some wrongly.

    55. Re:Why is this here? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Hey now. That's not fair. Some content on geocities pages were true ! *

      *Possibly only by accident but still.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    56. Re:Why is this here? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Has anybody ever considered that the 'cheating' could have been consensual ? Polyamory and similar arangements have been around long before they had a name... and if you were a high profile politician who chose such a relationship structure you sure as hell would keep it quiet. Getting caught in another relationship it would actually be LESS damaging to pretend you were cheating than to say "Hey my wife knew and my girlfriend and her boyfriend are best friends". That this is true is an indictment of the repressive nature of American culture, not of the Clintons. The same culture where one polyamorous man has had the parents of his departed former wife repeatedly have DCS try to take his kids away on the grounds that having a more than one adult in the household in "parent-like" roles is somehow abusive...

      Of course - I have no evidence that the Clintons had any form of consensual non-monogamy agreement, but it is actually MORE likely than some of the things Trump supporters say about those events.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    57. Re:Why is this here? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately - no amendment has *ever* been passed in this manner. Many have been tried, it's never worked.

      The option exists, but if it actually happened it would be the first one in history. The simple truth is that amendments via congress are the only kind that's ever actually succeeded.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    58. Re:Why is this here? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I've been looking at Snopes from time to time lately, and they seem to be debunking lots of anti-Clinton and lots of anti-Trump claims. They appear to be holding to the same standard of evidence (not perfect, but good) for their political analyses, and they do give sources. It seems to me that they're being fairly neutral in what they publish, although there may be biases in what they publish.

      In other words, it looks to me like you may be the one out of touch with reality due to bias.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    59. Re:Why is this here? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Trump allegedly raped a 13-year-old. There's a lawsuit going on now, which suggests that there's some evidence that it happened. Should we be paying attention to rape allegations without good evidence?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    60. Re:Why is this here? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      What harassment laws did Bill violate? He didn't violate any that I could tell with Paula Jones. Clearly, he's a jerk, but I suspect he knows where the line is. "Allegedly raping"? Should we be paying attention to you with your alleged rapes (I just alleged them)? I'm reluctant to pay attention to alleged crimes, like the allegation (currently in court) that Trump raped a 13-year-old.

      As far as "women's issues" go, there's no reason to think that, because she was angry at a few women, she doesn't legitimately work for women's issues.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    61. Re:Why is this here? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      It's a very reasonable conjecture that Trump would be much less careful than Clinton was if he were to hold office. He just hasn't had the opportunity.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    62. Re:Why is this here? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Oh I'm sure he'd be much less careful. I don't think Clinton did anything by accident. If this was Trump we're talking about they'd be finding emails behind his couch cushions while he'd be claiming it's someone else's couch.

    63. Re:Why is this here? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      The Donald and his jokes... Haha. Idiot.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    64. Re:Why is this here? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      The only problem with the Snopes piece is that you insist on negative proof where it's not possible, and cannot accept "There is no evidence to show that..." and let it go at that, like a normal, sane person might.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    65. Re:Why is this here? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      What is your opinion on the BBC? I have been using it as my news source for a while as it is neutral to US politics, which can't be said of any US news outlet.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    66. Re:Why is this here? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      I looked at that site, and didn't see the answer obviously stated. What 5 states?

      I am honestly curious to see the political leaning of the states that have passed the bills for this, as it will say much about their positions.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  2. Security Concerns by chill · · Score: 5, Funny

    The primary security concern is the balcony not being big enough or strong enough to support Julian's ego.

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    1. Re:Security Concerns by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, with Hillary talking about drone strikes on Assange, staying indoors may be the smartest thing to do...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    2. Re:Security Concerns by Lisandro · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hey, it's on the internet. It must be true.

    3. Re:Security Concerns by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Funny

      The primary security concern is the balcony not being big enough or strong enough to support Julian's ego.

      Of course with a video stream, h.264 compression might have some difficulties handling that as well.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    4. Re:Security Concerns by Rei · · Score: 1

      Given that Julian already consented once to have the press conference on the balcony, we're entitled to have the press conference on the balcony, and if that means moving him outside while he sleeps, then so be it.

      --
      Everybody point at the libertarian and laugh.
    5. Re:Security Concerns by Rei · · Score: 2

      What, you don't trust reporting that only traces back to "truepundit.com" and their anonymous "sources"? Come on, next you're going to tell me that I can't lose 10 pounds in two weeks by following this one weird trick.

      --
      Everybody point at the libertarian and laugh.
    6. Re:Security Concerns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      .. or your sense of denial.

      DNC staffers getting shot in the back in public parks following leaks of DNC emails, and no one steals their wallet.... and no one asks questions.

      And to top it all off, the DNC has the unbridled chutzpah to call it all "conspiracy theory"... after they got busted *conspiring* to keep Sanders out of the race!

      We need to retire the term "consipiracy theory". It doesn't mean what they think it means.

    7. Re:Security Concerns by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

      I thought it wasn't big enough for your stupidity....

      Wow, sick burn, dude. I don't think chill (34294) will ever recover from that witty reposte.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    8. Re:Security Concerns by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      The primary security concern is the balcony not being big enough or strong enough to support Julian's ego.

      They really have nothing to fear. After all, hot air is a lifting gas.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    9. Re:Security Concerns by dohzer · · Score: 2

      Pfft. Everyone know's ego is a lighter-than-air gas.
      That's why so much hot air keeps escaping from his mouth.
      The real issue is the strength of the tie-down points.

    10. Re:Security Concerns by Alopex · · Score: 1

      The one weird trick: don't eat anything.

      RDA for a semi-active 30 year old 6' tall/200 lb male is ~ 2500 kcal.

      2500 kcal * 14 days / ~3500 kcal/lb = 10 lbs.

      It's on the internet AND it's true!

    11. Re:Security Concerns by SadButResolved · · Score: 1

      Being predictable, especially with his physical location would be a bad idea for him at this time.

    12. Re:Security Concerns by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

      Assange is dead. The "video announcement" will be a simulation created by the Russians base on their earlier prototype "max headroom"

      --
      Nullius in verba
    13. Re:Security Concerns by Frank+Burly · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There is so much wrong with this post in light of its being modded up. First, as every /.er but you and the moduppers know: believing "sic hoc ergo propter hoc" is a hell of a way to go through life. A DNC staffer was murdered, but there is no reason to believe that he was in a position to know anything about the leaks—let alone that he was murdered because of them. Assange himself has refused to confirm that the murdered staffer was in any way connected to the leaks—and this would be a yuuuuge blockbuster. Given Assange's obvious cherrypicking and anti-Clinton agenda, it is fair to say that there is no "there" there.

      The notion that the DNC conspired to keep Sanders out of the race, or that they were "busted" doing so, is pure BS and not backed up by the emails or voicemails released by Assange. The DNC insiders were not happy about a non-Democrat fringe candidate from a tiny state potentially winning the nomination, but they didn't actually do anything to top him (except that before he or anyone but Clinton was a serious candidate they set the schedule up to benefit Clinton).

      So the AC below is correct: go back to Breitbart, troll.

    14. Re:Security Concerns by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The one weird trick: don't eat anything.

      It doesn't work. As soon as you stop eating, your metabolism drops like crazy, in some cases daily calorie requirements have been seen to drop to 800 C/day. Thus you never lose as much as you want to. Really annoying, but also good for me when I was a starving college student.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    15. Re:Security Concerns by niaxilin · · Score: 1

      The Russians did the shooting. Or is that that wrong "conspiracy theory"?

    16. Re:Security Concerns by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      woosh

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    17. Re:Security Concerns by clong83 · · Score: 1

      *rolls eyes*
      Hillary currently has the authority to order drone strikes on foreign soil? When did that happen? Did I miss the election or something?

  3. Re:The announcement: by ArylAkamov · · Score: 1

    I think I'm the only one that likes this meme.

  4. Breaking News: Julian Assange Commits Suicide by alternative_right · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Shot himself 13 times in the back. Hillary Clinton unvailable for comment and does not recall anyway.

    1. Re:Breaking News: Julian Assange Commits Suicide by SadButResolved · · Score: 1

      Oh, you are Deplorable!!!

  5. He Is A Darling Of The Cyber Rebels by alternative_right · · Score: 3, Interesting

    People hate authority. Most of them hate it simply because the authority they have experienced has not been just controlling, but also flagrantly stupid. Every public official is incompetent and they all want to tax you into oblivion and regulate minor details of behavior as life-changing events. Assange pushes back against authority. Even better, sometimes he nails really stupid authorities. We are all looking forward to whatever "October Surprise" he can cook up for The Establishment Candidate.

    1. Re:He Is A Darling Of The Cyber Rebels by Powercntrl · · Score: 4, Informative

      We are all looking forward to whatever "October Surprise" he can cook up for The Establishment Candidate.

      Hillary may be part of the establishment, but Trump is a textbook example of the type of people the establishment works for. Trump supporters are like a bunch of cows who'd rather be herded by a slaughterhouse owner, solely because they've had bad experiences with farmers.

      --

      ---
      DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
    2. Re:He Is A Darling Of The Cyber Rebels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just remember, the Democrats could have easily avoided this threat by nominating literally ANYONE else other than Hillary. But no, they wanted her in there so bad they cheated their own party to push her in. Potential candidates like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... need not apply.

    3. Re:He Is A Darling Of The Cyber Rebels by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      What potential candidate? Duckworth couldn't run for President if she wanted to. Not native born.

      Don't you wish you'd stayed awake during Civics class now, and maybe learned something?

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    4. Re:He Is A Darling Of The Cyber Rebels by ArylAkamov · · Score: 1

      It's never a bad time to shill for your political sports team, apparently.

    5. Re:He Is A Darling Of The Cyber Rebels by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      Is it calling for violence to point that 60 years ago we used to hang the kind of people that support Trump?

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    6. Re:He Is A Darling Of The Cyber Rebels by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Don't you wish you'd stayed awake during Civics class now, and maybe learned something?

      Funny. If you'd been less obnoxious, you'd look like less of a dick now that's you've been corrected.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    7. Re:He Is A Darling Of The Cyber Rebels by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      Ok, around '56 we had stopped hanging them and decided that they were such good anti-Commies that we'd overlook their faults.

      But really, if that 60 years ago remark did not trigger 'denazification' in your head in this context, you're irredeemably stupid.

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    8. Re:He Is A Darling Of The Cyber Rebels by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      This is true. Trump as a president is poison, but with any other candidate than Clinton we'd be talking about a landslide Democrat right now.

    9. Re:He Is A Darling Of The Cyber Rebels by ogdenk · · Score: 2

      You might have a point except for the fact that a large chunk of the Nazi's ideology was inspired by what was going on in the US, they just took it to the next logical and more extreme level.

      Hatred of the Jews? Hitler really enjoyed Henry Ford's "The International Jew" publications as well as other American anti-Semitic literature.

      Treating black folks as sub-human? Yeah, we were great at that. Even when they gained meager rights they were considered 3/5ths of a person.

      Medical Experimentation on "untermenschen", Eugenics work, forced sterilization? Yeah, we did that too and many US scientific papers were published on the subject. We even infected whole communities with syphilis.

      Mistreatment and sterilization of the mentally ill? Check. We just didn't outright euthanize them.

      The only major difference is we didn't gas the untermenschen. We preferred to just hang them from light posts for minor infractions like if they dared whistle at white women. Even their expansion into Russia and killing off the natives was inspired by our conquest of the land and extermination of most native Americans to give ourselves more living space.

      The general public opinion in the US of the Nazis for a long time was that they were "firm but fair". Trump actually would resonate well with 1930's/1940's American voters and it's easy to see why many baby boomers adore his stupid ass.

    10. Re:He Is A Darling Of The Cyber Rebels by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Even when they gained meager rights they were considered 3/5ths of a person.

      Umm, no.

      The 3/5 compromise was all about getting Slave States to vote to ratify the Constitution, since otherwise, the low population of the South would leave them basically screwed in the House.

      Without that compromise, we would still be under the Articles of Confederation, or, more likely, split into five or six nations.

      So, effectively, the 3/5 compromise set us up for the Civil War, and freeing the slaves, rather than the alternative, which would have left slavery alive and well....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    11. Re:He Is A Darling Of The Cyber Rebels by Bartles · · Score: 1

      The Natural Born Citizen Clause is only 1 paragraph containing 1 sentence.

    12. Re:He Is A Darling Of The Cyber Rebels by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      Excellent comment. The only reason anyone is even considering Trump is that Hillary is so objectionable in so many ways. Its incredibly sad that the democrat machine was somehow enticed or forced into committing to her as their only candidate. What should be the easiest cake-walk in history for the democrat presidential race is now a disgusting slog through the worst tactical shit slinging either party can come up with. Neither one of them has a leg to stand on so they keep the air filled with so much feces that the average American is blinded by it.

      I just can't stop thinking "how did we let this happen?" What a fucking mess.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    13. Re:He Is A Darling Of The Cyber Rebels by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Hillary may be part of the establishment, but Trump is a textbook example of the type of people the establishment works for.

      Absolutely true, something even Trump admits. But he's the only candidate willing to be politically incorrect, not kowtow to Black Lives Matter, and recognize the threat that Islam is to the West.

  6. Damaging information? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    How can there possibly be any more damaging information than Hillary Clinton has already put on display herself!

    1. Re:Damaging information? by SadButResolved · · Score: 1

      These are all low and Midlevel operatives. Your getting closer though. Think bigger and follow the money.

    2. Re:Damaging information? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "follow the money" has become the conspiracy catchphrase like "think of the children" has for conservatives.

  7. Not sure what else there is to reveal by ErichTheRed · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We already have the email issue, the Clinton Foundation issue, the fact that the DNC intentionally torpedoed her rival in the primary, etc. I can't see anything else left to reveal that would be any more damaging at this point.

    My feeling on both sides is that people should be grown up enough to realize that all politicians aren't "normal people." They have immense power, immense wealth, and are masters at manipulating people to get things they need done. The only reason we didn't hear about their inner circle of dealings in the past is because we didn't used to have every news agency in the country camped out on their doorsteps 24/7 listening to them breathe, or idiotic staffers who can't seem to get their heads around secure email and computer networks. I think we're actually lucky in the US in terms of the level of corruption in our political system..many more countries have it much worse.

    Seriously, anyone who voluntarily goes out seeking political office is not normal, plain and simple. You can't expect them to act like regular people. Corporate executives fall into this category too -- most executives live on another planet compared to us in terms of their daily walk through life. You're just not going to get a regular person as a politician or an executive. Trying to hold them to standards like that just breeds disappointment and discontent.

    1. Re:Not sure what else there is to reveal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The law doesn't matter if you're rich and powerful? We're supposed to hand over the presidency to a corrupt, irresponsible, greedy career politician who's working hard behind the scenes to dick over regular plebs like us all because Trump called someone fat 20 years ago (or whatever the trumped-up (lol) scandal of the moment is)?

      People haven't been accepting this state of affairs for the last 3000 years because they were "grown up enough" to accept it, it was because the powerful had sufficient control over the world to more effectively keep the truth from the public. Thanks to technology this is no longer the case.

      Maybe Trump's an asshole, but I'll take an asshole over someone who's actively working against me.

    2. Re:Not sure what else there is to reveal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Maybe Trump's an asshole, but I'll take an asshole over someone who's actively working against me.

      Don't worry, Trump's both! No need to choose!

    3. Re:Not sure what else there is to reveal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He used the same tax loopholes as Clinton. It just turns out that taking bribes from Saudi Arabia is more profitable than building casinos and creating jobs.

    4. Re:Not sure what else there is to reveal by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      Oh, that's easy:

      I shouted out "Who killed the Kennedys?"
      When after all, it was Hil-la-ry

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    5. Re:Not sure what else there is to reveal by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Who do you think has to pay the taxes that he didn't?

      Maybe you should ask Senator Clinton who she had expected to pay when she supported even more tax deductions only rich people can get... or ask her Husband who signed many rich-people deductions into law...

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    6. Re:Not sure what else there is to reveal by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      He used the same tax loopholes as Clinton. It just turns out that taking bribes from Saudi Arabia is more profitable than building casinos and creating jobs.

      Trump creates plenty of jobs... in third-world countries where they produce his clothing line. Of course, "creating jobs" is a red herring. That's tied to the puritan notion that work is holy and if you don't work you should be thrown to the wolves. What we want to be doing is making the world a better place. Trump's businesses don't do that. They shit it up.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Not sure what else there is to reveal by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      - The "email issue" continues to be a nothing to see. At worst they show a slight lack of misjudgements over technical issues.
      - The Clinton Foundation is a highly respected charity, and while some journalists have attempted to find conflicts of interest or misuses of power, thus far every time someone has made what seems to be a serious allegation it's been found to be baseless or just plain silly. It's ironic, the more people talk about it, the better it makes her look.
      - The DNC's behavior in the primaries was seriously bad, and I'm disgusted Clinton rewarded DWS with a job in her campaign, but frankly it's the DNC, not Clinton or her campaign.

      Assange might have something actually damaging, who knows? But thus far, what's been thrown at Clinton has been stupid, seen only as "damaging" if you hate Clinton so much you'd latch onto a spelling mistake as evidence she's unfit for government.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    8. Re:Not sure what else there is to reveal by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The "email issue" continues to be a nothing to see. At worst they show a slight lack of misjudgements over technical issues.

      Sure, other than the part where she deliberately chose to avoid federal record keeping laws, deleted federal records while under subpoena, and handled highly sensitive data (WAY more than merely "classified") with a recklessness that can and HAS put people in prison many times, even just this year. Lack of judgement? Her poor judgement was in her foolishly thinking she wouldn't get caught. But she did correctly judge that the same administration that has prosecuted other people for FAR less severe violations would protect her from the same consequences. Which is exactly what they've done, repeatedly.

      The Clinton Foundation is a highly respected charity

      Yes, highly respected by the people who give it money in order to buy influence with the Clintons. Highly respected by the family and friends of the Clintons who get fat paychecks, consulting contracts, and perks from the foundation as it spends well over 90% of the money it rakes in on paychecks for those favored employees and on things like travel perks and "administrative" expenses. Less than 6% of the huge pile of cash they take in from foreign dictators and civil rights abusers goes towards any sort of charity activity in any form. But since you're a fan of hers, and are clearly willing to overlook her serial lies and parade of corruption, I can see why you'd consider that arrangement to be "highly respectable." Sure, of course.

      The DNC's behavior in the primaries was seriously bad, and I'm disgusted Clinton rewarded DWS with a job in her campaign, but frankly it's the DNC, not Clinton or her campaign.

      Your attempt to draw a distinction between these two entities is so cute. Darling.

      But thus far, what's been thrown at Clinton has been stupid, seen only as "damaging" if you hate Clinton so much you'd latch onto a spelling mistake as evidence she's unfit for government.

      No. What she's thrown at herself is so damaging that if she didn't have the active protection of the Obama administration she would be, like other people who have done far, far less, already indicted and likely convicted of multiple federal felonies.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    9. Re:Not sure what else there is to reveal by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      So, which sensitive data, exactly? Did you actually read the reports? No question the private email server betrayed extremely poor judgment, but this is just silly.

      So you're going to pretend that in all of this coverage, for a year and half and counting, you've never mustered the energy to google what "SAP" stands for, or to check into whether what the FBI director said: about how anyone in a key role, like hers, handling classified information, would absolutely have known that they were looking at classified information (satellite imagery of facilities in North Korea? discussion threads about pending drone targets in the Middle East? code named human intelligence operations? - you get this, right?). She was required by law to secure any such information as soon as she saw it, and alert her agency's security personnel about that information's appearance on non-secure platforms or in non-secure places. She actively, knowingly avoided those obligations. And it only takes ONCE for her to be indicted and convicted as a felon merely for showing neglect - intent isn't even required.

      And, if really sensitive information had ended up there, it would have been really bad.

      Really sensitive information DID end up there, and we'll never know how much more of it may have, because once she found out she was under subpoena, she arranged to delete tens of thousands of messages in a way that prevented forensic recovery.

      But it doesn't seem to be criminal; pretending it was just obscures the important points.

      Mere neglect MAKES it criminal, by definition. Pretending the laws don't say that, and that other federal employees aren't in jail or towing around a felony record for single instances exactly that, is the "silly" you're looking for, here.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    10. Re:Not sure what else there is to reveal by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Except that Clinton did not intentionally avoid Federal record keeping laws, deleted a few Federal records by mistake when deleting personal emails (which is legal), and handled classified data in ways that can get people fired and security clearances revoked. (Give me ONE name of a person who did what Clinton did and faced serious criminal prosecution. The most I'm aware of is a misdemeanor charge that was dropped.)

      The job of the DNC is not to be a truly neutral arbiter of who gets nominated. The DNC is a partisan organization that has a vested interest in getting the best nominee possible, and in their judgment that wasn't an avowed Socialist who has been running as an independent for years.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  8. Here's a good question: by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    Why is he still in the Ecuadorian Embassy? Didn't the whole investigation get scrapped?

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:Here's a good question: by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      First, that was two questions...

      Second, it's hard to say which one is the good one

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:Here's a good question: by Rei · · Score: 2

      No. Nothing has ever been "scrapped"; every court hearing (and there've been many), both in the UK and Sweden, at all levels (including the Supreme Courts of both countries), has gone against him. What did happen was that the statute of limitations on the lesser charges ran out. The statute of limitations on the rape charge doesn't run out until 2020.

      --
      Everybody point at the libertarian and laugh.
    3. Re:Here's a good question: by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

      Or it could just be that Assange is a prima donna.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    4. Re:Here's a good question: by ScentCone · · Score: 2

      Fascinating! Please provide your citations. And also your explanation as to why the US, with all of it's intelligence agencies and cloak and dagger horsepower, hasn't killed him 20 times by now, if that's what they wanted. What is it - the hyper-powerful android security guards in the Ecuadorian embassy that are thwarting all of those assassination attempts? No? I see. I know ... maybe you're just delusional. Yes, that makes more sense.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    5. Re:Here's a good question: by quenda · · Score: 4, Insightful

      why the US, ... hasn't killed him 20 times by now,

      Ask Fidel Castro.

    6. Re:Here's a good question: by peragrin · · Score: 1

      Sometimes you can just let the idiot die of old age, and then rewrite history and paint them in a negative light much much easier. than shooting them.

      Assange hasn't been in the news for a while so suddenly he has lots of new dumps, except the people that might possibly have actual information won't go to him, as they consider him even worse than Hillary.

      The last 4-5 dump of info that wikileaks has shown have been worthless. The US Government has won vs assange they made him irrelevant.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    7. Re:Here's a good question: by Rei · · Score: 2, Informative

      The fact is that the UK has been told they have to not only allow him his freedom, but have to also compensate him for the illegal detention they've put him under.

      By a nonbinding body (WGAD) that rules in favour of almost all plaintiffs that come before it (usually unanimously, unlike in this case). Both the UK and Sweden have stated the WGAD ruling will have no bearing on the case at hand. Assange raised it in his most recent appeal with the Swedish courts (yet another in a long row of them). He lost.

      The fact is that Sweden has and can interview him in the embassy, and were dragging their feet (read:political corruption).

      Read: Ecuador is demanding that Sweden sign some sort of treaty - the exact details of which have not been publicly disclosed by either side - before they'll allow the prosecutors in, something that Sweden is against. This has been a stalemate for the past 16 months. Before that, Sweden had been insisting on the interview taking place in Sweden in order to follow the standard Swedish process, which is: 1) the initial investigatory phase is carried out, including any interviews 2) if the prosecutor believes charges to be likely and the subject will not voluntarily enter custody, the prosecutor recommends to a judge that the subject be formally anklagad (suspected of/charged with a crime); 3) the judge issues a warrant and the subject is brought into custody; 4) the subject is interviewed (for a second time, if there were interviews conducted in the initial phase), with every matter they are to be charged with put be put forth to them; 5) the subject is formally åtalad (charged/indicted); this begins a time limit on when the subject must be tried (although it can be extended if there are conditions that prevent the person from being tried immediately); and 6) the subject is tried (this cannot occur in absentia). As a general rule, while investigatory interviews are conducted anywhere, final interviews are conducted in Swedish custody, so that if the person is åtalad there is no risk that they could escape trial. This was the route sought by prosecutor Ny up until 2015, when - due to the shortage of time remaining on the lesser charges, and criticism from a lower court for her not seeking less conventional options to try to break the deadlock, Ny sought an interview in the Ecuadorian embassy. The deadlock on this latter issue remains to this day.

      The anklagad/åtalad distinction has often been a stumbling ground in the english-speaking press because it doesn't directly map to stages in US or British legal systems, which generally only recognize one stage of charging, while Sweden has two (one to bring a subject into custody, and one to initiate a trial). However, there is significant jurisprudence that anklagad equates to being charged within the context of an EAW - whatever language one chooses to use for other contexts.

      A general summary of peer-reviewed rankings of the Swedish legal system on different aspects can be found here, more detailed information about what the categories mean and how they're assessed here (extremely detailed here and here) , and more detailed information in general here.

      --
      Everybody point at the libertarian and laugh.
    8. Re:Here's a good question: by Rei · · Score: 1

      Ack, posted too soon... that was supposed to read significant precedent, not jurisprudence. :P Oh well...

      --
      Everybody point at the libertarian and laugh.
    9. Re:Here's a good question: by Dan+East · · Score: 1

      Exactly, and say what you want, but the USA is, for the most part, good. If either of these individuals (Assange, Castro) would have crossed Russia like they did the US, you'd better believe they would have been assassinated by now. Especially Snowden, without any doubt whatsoever. Russia would have had the mentality that he was one of their own, he was a traitor, and thus he would be killed regardless of where he was hiding out. Snowden would probably have gotten a nice dose of polonium like Litvinenko, as that's a particularly nasty way to kill off a trusted intelligence worker who has become a traitor. The bad thing about that is you're lying there for several days knowing and contemplating you'll be dead very soon, after lots of pain and suffering.

      --
      Better known as 318230.
  9. Something to get her indicted by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 3, Interesting

    We already have the email issue, the Clinton Foundation issue, the fact that the DNC intentionally torpedoed her rival in the primary, etc. I can't see anything else left to reveal that would be any more damaging at this point.

    He has said that the next dump contains evidence that will get Hillary Clinton indicted.

    I'm quite anxious to see what it is.

    Perhaps an early Christmas present for the American people!

    1. Re:Something to get her indicted by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hell, the email dump her lawyers gave the FBI contained enough for her to be indicted.

      True.

      There are dozens of military members in Leavenworth for similar offenses.

      No, there are people in military prison for doing FAR LESS.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:Something to get her indicted by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Hell, the email dump her lawyers gave the FBI contained enough for her to be indicted. There are dozens of military members in Leavenworth for similar offenses.

      She is not a member of the military, and thus not subject to the UCMJ. When you join the military, you give up many rights enjoyed by citizens. You become, in fact, nothing more than a slave. You don't even have the right to know what medications you're being injected with, let alone to refuse an injection. Your body belongs to the corps [in question] and your soul belongs to Jesus, because all good soldiers love Jesus... and kill.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Something to get her indicted by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, the military still puts people in prison for marijuana possession.

      Nice attempt at deflection. We're talking about people being put in prison because having a piece of equipment in the background of a selfie is considered such a grave example of negligence in the handling of sensitive material that it's worth locking someone up. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, deliberately conveys way-more-than-just-classified material to her uncleared staff and lawyers, storing it in private offices and homes ... and her negligence (despite negligence being the statute's standard for conviction) is considered inconsequential by the only entity that could indict her for it - the Obama administration that is actively supporting her candidacy. Trying to compare this to controlled substance trafficking while on duty in the military is absurd.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    4. Re:Something to get her indicted by norweeg · · Score: 1

      There's lot of evidence for Trump to be indited on any number of things, but he never is. I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you

    5. Re:Something to get her indicted by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      No, you're refusing to talk about how egregiously unjust the military's prosecution system is.

      No, I'm refusing to take the bait you're trying to use to change the subject, as a way to distract from the fact she only avoided indictment because of political support from the administration. Regardless, not a SINGLE person in the US military is there but for having volunteered to be there. The UCMJ is publicly available to read before you decide to start taking a paycheck and benefits from the DoJ, and nobody - NOBODY - is even a little bit foggy on whether or not being in uniform and carrying around weed are compatible. Anyone in uniform who's too dumb to know that should be in the brig just for being that dumb.

      And none of it would be done by the Military, as she was a civilian, and always has been.

      Both military and civilian government employees who work with the clearances to handle classified material are subject to the same rules.

      Any involvement of the military in Hillary Clinton's prosecution would violate the Posse Comitatus Act.

      Whew! It's a good thing you made that counterpoint to an argument nobody is having with you.

      So let's stick to what you did bring up. The military's abuse of justice.

      I brought up no such thing - you are deliberately manufacturing phony context so you can avoid talking about Clinton's slipperiness courtesy of Obama. I pointed out that people who are negligent with classified material go to jail. Unless they are Hillary Clinton, or any of the parade of her staff that have been given immunity deals by the Obama administration so they can cover for her.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    6. Re:Something to get her indicted by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Yes, you did. You complained about how there are people in military prison for doing far less.

      You, and only you, are choosing to interpret that comparison in a 100% backwards way. I think soldiers possessing illegal drugs should be subject to the UCMJ exactly as it's written, and exactly as they agreed to subject themselves to when they chose that line of work. Can you finally be clear on that?

      What the conversation is ACTUALLY ABOUT is the "little" federal employees getting prosecuted for their negligent handling of classified information (again, as they agreed they would be), but Hillary Clinton being protected from that prosecution (though SHE ALSO agreed to be subject to it for doing exactly the sort of things she did). Are we clear on that now? Or are you going to try to change the subject again?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    7. Re:Something to get her indicted by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Name some of the little federal employees getting prosecuted for doing what Clinton did. So far, nobody's given me a name. Without a name I can check on, you're just mindlessly slinging mud.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  10. Hopefully by dohzer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hopefully they don't reveal Trump's tax return, because that will make Hillary look like an idiot for paying tax. Genius
    Genius Trump Trump Genius. Winning.
    #Genius. #Winning. #Gyna.

    1. Re:Hopefully by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, check out Hillary's 2015 tax return, page 17. She's using exactly the same carried loss maneuver to avoid paying taxes. Just like the New York Times does.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:Hopefully by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Informative
      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    3. Re:Hopefully by burtosis · · Score: 1

      Not a Trump supporter but few large corporations pay lots of taxes. Many pay almost none sheltering themselves in shell corporations and oversea tax havens. But typical fashion the orange one made it about himself during the debate. If he was smart he would have spun it to something along the lines of "all smart large business owners pay no taxes and that's something I could reform better than anyone else". Anyine know if there is a 4th party canadate worth voting for? Because I cannot bring myself to vote for either of them.

    4. Re:Hopefully by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      Actually, check out Hillary's 2015 tax return, page 17.

      Now check out that same line on her opponent's 2015 tax return....oh wait, you can't.

      I really don't understand why wikileaks is concentrating on the candidate who is hiding less.

    5. Re:Hopefully by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Now check out that same line on her opponent's 2015 tax return....oh wait, you can't.

      Right, because his 2015 tax returns ARE NOT COMPLETE. The IRS has placed them into that status by choosing to audit them, and like ANY lawyer would tell you or anyone else, he's keeping those NOT YET CONSIDERED FILED taxes on the table between him and the IRS until all of those thousands of pages of documents concerning his involvement in hundreds of business ventures are considered - BY THE IRS - to be complete and settled. All of which you know, but you're pretending you don't so you can deflect on the topic of Clinton and entities like the NYT doing exactly the same maneuver to avoid paying taxes they are not obligated to pay.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    6. Re:Hopefully by swb · · Score: 1

      That was basically his line in the first primary debate. He said politicians were for sale and that he had given several people sharing the stage with him checks. I guess I interpreted him as saying as a rich person he knew the system was corrupt first hand and that he wanted to reform it.

      I think he could have communicated this a lot better but I think as the campaign has moved on his reform-centric direction has shifted.

      Frankly I'm not surprised he used accounting wizardry to cut his tax burden. I'm sure all rich people do. What would be surprising would be a multimillionaire who had basically paid ordinary taxes without any tax avoidance strategy. I suspect if you don't use every tax dodge there is you will eventually get bled dry by taxes.

    7. Re:Hopefully by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      Right, because his 2015 tax returns ARE NOT COMPLETE. The IRS has placed them into that status by choosing to audit them...

      Nope, that's a lie put out by Trump. (as are >50% of his statements. I really don't understand why anyone would uncritically repeat him). This has been debunked so many times, I'd feel silly just picking one source to refute it. Just Google "IRS audit statement Trump" and pick your favorite.

      The best that can be said for it (which I read on The Hill), was that it wouldn't be legally very smart of him to do so, as the media is liable to end up doing a lot of the IRS's investigative work for them, but that's still entirely his choice (and could be said about anyone). Clinton and every other major-party POTUS candidate have done so anyway. The fact that's he's afraid to do so is pretty damning.

    8. Re:Hopefully by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      Trump never said the IRS wouldn't let him release returns

      Yes, he did say that. Repeatedly, starting in February of 2016.

      When someone repeatedly says they want to do something but can't, when the truth is that they can do that thing, but don't want to, that is what we call a LIE.

    9. Re:Hopefully by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      FYI politifact is about as biased as you can get. They go out of their way to push an agenda, and even when something is true and makes their team look bad they'll double down and mark it as fake.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    10. Re:Hopefully by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      Ah, yes. The old theory that "The Truth has a well-known Liberal bias".

    11. Re:Hopefully by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Facts have a reality bias you mean? If you're trusting a newspaper that operates a "fact checking" organization aka politifact, and you're unwilling or simply willing to believe whatever they shove in front of you...well you're the perfect ignorant voter they're looking for.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  11. Re:Repent and be saved. by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Informative

    No matter what year it is over the last 2000 years, some nut thinks it's the Apocalypse.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  12. I know! I know! by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    Assange will announce his first hardware product, the JulianFone. It will be designed to hack into all WiFi nodes within range, suck data from them and display a continuous scroll of surrounding secrets for your viewing pleasure.

    It will run only one standard app, Tinder.

  13. Everyone knows Hillary Clinton is a criminal... by dfenstrate · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... the problem is that too few care. She's on the same 'D' team as 80% of the media, so every incompetent or corrupt act is explained away by legions of sycophants.

    --
    Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    1. Re:Everyone knows Hillary Clinton is a criminal... by BoRegardless · · Score: 1

      And the reason the 'D' team is they don't funnel money to their supporters in so many ways, they use dump trucks to deliver it to favored entities at a new rate of an additional $1 trillion per year. over the time when the Bushes were President.

    2. Re:Everyone knows Hillary Clinton is a criminal... by mvdwege · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Have you even considered that what you think is 'everyone' might be wrong?

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    3. Re:Everyone knows Hillary Clinton is a criminal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, on one hand, we have the FBI listing facts that support a criminal indictment, then mysteriously deciding that in spite of the law being against negligence, they would have to prove intent, when any normal person can go look at a dictionary and find out that this is, in fact, a literal contradiction in terms:

      "Negligence (Lat. negligentia, from neglegere, to neglect, literally "not to pick up something") is a failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances. The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by carelessness, not intentional harm."

      But it's fine, you've got insults on your side! It's okay, I'm sure that reality is magically biased in your favor, so there's no need to bother with trivial things like facts. Everyone who disagrees with you is a bad person and that means they're automatically wrong.

    4. Re:Everyone knows Hillary Clinton is a criminal... by SadButResolved · · Score: 1

      BUTTTTTTT,,,, The Main stream Media said Trump was mean and a racist!!! And Taxes, he used tax law!!!! He must never be president!!!
      I'm going to need one of those new safe, no speaking zones when I get to college!!!! Words are so mean!!!

    5. Re:Everyone knows Hillary Clinton is a criminal... by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's really no need to consider that option.

      Yes, I know. Thinking is hard. Regurgitating Breitbart is easier.

      It's always fun to watch the deflection attempts, in place of a single coherent response on the subject matter.

      People are in prison - more, newly this year - for doing far, far less than Clinton in simple neglect surrounding sensitive material. You know this. It's public record type stuff. You can't not know it, you can only pretend you don't know it. So the question is: why are you pretending to be dumb in order to support your lying, corrupt candidate? Why do you think that's a good thing? It's an odd position to take if you're trying to be persuasive.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    6. Re:Everyone knows Hillary Clinton is a criminal... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Yes, I can see that you're a rational person, interested in substantive discussion.

      So, who do you think should be seated on the Supreme Court? Please be specific.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    7. Re:Everyone knows Hillary Clinton is a criminal... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      That's not what the FBI said, guy. The FBI said that there was no precedent for criminal prosecution in Clinton's case, and that those who were negligent in similar ways were disciplined administratively. So far, nobody has given me a single name of someone who negligently exposed a relatively small number of classified documents and faced serious criminal prosecution.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    8. Re:Everyone knows Hillary Clinton is a criminal... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      If that's widely known public record type stuff, it should be easy for you to name ONE of these many people in prison for doing less than Clinton did. I'm still waiting, guys.

      Or it could be that you're not only spouting baseless accusations, but coming up with empty phrases to support your "arguments".

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  14. Re:The announcement: by AlphaBro · · Score: 1

    Never leave us, app appers LUDDITE AC guy.

  15. Re:How did this crap get modded up? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Because the poster knew what the fuck he was talking about, maybe?

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  16. Re:How did this crap get modded up? by konohitowa · · Score: 1

    You have to keep up on the /. herd mentality. It changes regularly, and typically by Pi radians.

  17. Re:How did this crap get modded up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I generally agree with denouncing the supporter bashing, no matter victim or source. However this is an apt allegory. Either we get the slaughterhouse owner, or we get the farmer that is chained via purse strings to the slaughterhouse owner. To think that one is better than the other from a steer's view is folly.

    That's American Politics.

  18. Re:Repent and be saved. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Funny

    If you are not well-read in the Bible you will not understand what is happening to the world. It is both an exhilarating and terrifying time to be alive. I look across the world and see so many lost souls rejecting love and truth in favor of lies and hate. Unless we are capable of a perfect life lived before a perfect God, the blood of Jesus is our only salvation. Seek him while you can...

    Wrong! #CrookedJesus is a big loser and also a Jew (which is fine) but believe me, he had terrible ratings. Terrible ratings. And he didn't have my temperament and stamina. If you want to be messiah, you've got to have stamina. I said, stamina. I prefer my messiahs not to get captured by Romans and crucified, all right? Sad!

    I was going to say something very rough about Jesus and a prostitute. Very rough. But I'm not going to go there, all right?

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  19. Peter Griffin by Sulik · · Score: 1

    Oh my GOD! Who the hell CARES ?!

    --
    Help! I am a self-aware entity trapped in an abstract function!
  20. Re: How did this crap get modded up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Its all about whos football team is moderately for or moderately against abortion rights judicial appointments. Yes I said football team.

  21. Set the fire to the building to force him out by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Set the fire to the building to force him out and it will be on his head and not the one shot one kill guy.

  22. Re:Repent and be saved. by worf_mo · · Score: 1

    Jesus is actually quite annoyed by all these "christians"... I loved John Niven's The Second Coming (not for the easily offended)

  23. wake me up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    when there is an actual announcement, everything else is a waste of bandwidth

  24. Re: she will get very sick after winning if she is by Maritz · · Score: 1

    All of that could be true, and she'd still be a better option than your tiny-handed orange-faced wannabe tyrant.

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  25. Trumpism by Carewolf · · Score: 1

    Let me guess: Assange send a team of experts to Hawaii, and they can't BELIEVE what they are finding.

  26. Fuck Ass Ange.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Ever since he started to play in "politics" with a particular bias and trying to influence the outcome of the American election he has lost all credibility with me. I'm betting he can't get his head and his ass (in whatever car he owns) at the same time!

    Wikileaks should dump him (if possible).

  27. I prefer replying, usually... by HBI · · Score: 1

    I couldn't find a thread I liked in this post, though. I'm a Trump supporter, but I am a realist. I have a hard time imagining anything Assange could release that would be material to this race.

    I'll be pleased to be proven wrong, but I'm a skeptic.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
  28. The cyber is so big by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 1

    "And you know cyber is becoming so big today. It’s becoming something that number of years ago, short number of years ago, wasn’t even a word. And now the cyber is so big, and you know look at what they’re doing with the internet. How they’re taking recruiting people through the internet. And part of it is the psychology because so many people think they’re winning. And you know, there’s a whole big thing. Even today, psychology — where CNN came out with a big poll. Their big poll came out today that Trump is winning. It’s good psychology, you know. It’s good psychology. I know that for a fact because people that didn’t call me yesterday, they’re calling me today. So that’s the way life works right?"

  29. Hilary's not running on her business acumen by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    That's what makes this sting for Trump. People expect Trump to do well because he's such a great business man. Anything that undermines that narrative is a major thorn in his side.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  30. Citation needed by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    even on the right wing sites the closed I could find were folks being fired for what Hilary did. And a firing is up to her boss, which would be Obama. The rest of the "Examples of folks Jailed" were all people who sold classified info to foreign governments.

    Nevermind the fact that _everybody_ in the State department was doing what Hilary did. Probably the greatest moment in her career was when a bunch of folks were saying Colin Powel advised her to set up the server and she got up and said: "No, I take full responsibility for my actions" and then a few weeks later it got leaked that Colin did, in fact, suggest running that server. If nothing else that shows a surprising amount of loyalty that she's yet to get any credit for.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Citation needed by Bartles · · Score: 1

      If Hillary gets indicted then so does Obama. It's clear at this point that he was complicit with the server. He claimed that he heard about her server "on the news" like everybody else. But actually he had been communicating with her in unsecured communication on her her server using a pseudonym. That's why Hillary wasn't indicted.

    2. Re:Citation needed by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      This.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    3. Re: Citation needed by Bartles · · Score: 1

      It may be a wild story, but it's also the truth.

      linky

    4. Re:Citation needed by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Did Obama communicate with classified documents on Clinton's server? There was nothing illegal about having a private server when Clinton had it.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    5. Re: Citation needed by Bartles · · Score: 1

      All presidential communications are classified.

    6. Re: Citation needed by Bartles · · Score: 1

      You're obviously incapable of rational thought.

    7. Re: Citation needed by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      In which case it's a good thing that possession of classified material is legal, since I keep listening to Presidential speeches and reading things the President said. I assume the White House Press Secretary is routinely indicted, tried, and put into prison for twenty years, although I really haven't seen the turnover in the job I'd expect, or the reluctance to take it.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  31. Re: she will get very sick after winning if she is by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

    What a load of crap.

    A train is out of control on a track. You have access to a switch that could send it to one track with 2 people on it, or another with 5. Those are the choices my friend. You don't get to say, "I'd fix the brakes", or call Superman. Your vote for Johnson will have the affect of rolling dice to decide which track the train takes - which, I suppose if you really think there's no difference between Clinton or Trump on any issue you care about, is rational. But of course the thought that there's no difference is irrational in and of itself.

    At best, your point is that we need a different system for electing Presidents - and possibly a large turnout for Johnson might inch that into being. I'd say there are better ways - like electing Johnson (or Sanders, or Stein, or Nader)-like candidates to Congress or State legislatures from districts where they stand a chance of winning. And then changing the election system through a process that can actually do it. Because Presidencies have long-term repercussions, so they're best not used to 'send a message' when there are other, better ways.

    --
    Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
  32. Re: she will get very sick after winning if she is by ogdenk · · Score: 2

    What a load of crap.

    A train is out of control on a track. You have access to a switch that could send it to one track with 2 people on it, or another with 5. Those are the choices my friend. You don't get to say, "I'd fix the brakes", or call Superman. Your vote for Johnson will have the affect of rolling dice to decide which track the train takes - which, I suppose if you really think there's no difference between Clinton or Trump on any issue you care about, is rational.

    The lesser of two evils is still evil. I'm all for destroying the tracks ahead of the train and using the fallout from the deadly chaos as a good reason to lay new tracks and build a better and more reliable train. That way the out of control train is destroyed far away from my town where a trainwreck would be more catastrophic.

    In the ways most pertinent to me, this is choice of which disgusting tyranny I'd rather endure.... my answer is neither.

    But of course the thought that there's no difference is irrational in and of itself.

    At best, your point is that we need a different system for electing Presidents - and possibly a large turnout for Johnson might inch that into being. I'd say there are better ways - like electing Johnson (or Sanders, or Stein, or Nader)-like candidates to Congress or State legislatures from districts where they stand a chance of winning. And then changing the election system through a process that can actually do it. Because Presidencies have long-term repercussions, so they're best not used to 'send a message' when there are other, better ways.

    There's already around 600 libertarians in public office throughout the US, most of them in local or state government. Many Republicans have switched parties as well since the Republicans gradual shift toward becoming the "Christian Nationalist Party" became ever more apparent.

    Yes, presidencies have long term repercussions which is precisely why we need qualified people with actual experience governing in that position. Clinton has experience screwing up foreign policy and Trump has experience being a spoiled rich boy smart enough not to play games with his own money when driving businesses into the dirt. Neither of which are something we need to endure at this critical juncture. Both Johnson and Weld are popular 2-term governors with a track record of actual leaving their respective states FAR better off than when they started. And they are on the ballot in all 50 states. Hardly a fringe protest vote.

    If you think forcing a shitty destructive candidate down our throats simply to preserve a corrupt and dying 2 party system is "the better way" you are delusional, simply engaging in wishful thinking or just like to parrot popular views concocted to preserve a screwed up system.

    But, hey, if you like the current oligarchy feel free to waste your vote on one of those two weasels.

  33. Assange wants Trump in the White House? by surfcow · · Score: 1

    Actions have consequences.

  34. Re: Everyone knows Hillary Clinton is a criminal.. by monkeyman.kix · · Score: 1

    NEGLIGENCE. The omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do. or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. It must be determined in all cases by reference to the situation and knowledge of the parties and all the attendant circumstances.

    Hillary's email server was secured the same way that the "reasonable predecessor (aka C. Powell https://www.engadget.com/2016/...)" used. While you can say that slashdot users know better, average joe blow or a braindead politician would not know how to secure an email server, so by definition of law there is no negligence here.

  35. Re: she will get very sick after winning if she is by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

    Well, at least I've coaxed you into revealing your utterly nihilistic thought process. My job for today is done - vote for whomever you please, and I hope anybody reading this gets that your advice may be counter-productive - by design.

    --
    Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
  36. Re: she will get very sick after winning if she is by dbreeze · · Score: 1

    I've voted 3rd party ever since Reagan. Can't do it this time. The Clinton/Bush establishment machine is just too obvious for me not to see that they won't allow another "election" to threaten their thirst for power if they get the WH again. This may very well be the last chance to take back control of our country through the ballot box. Clinton is just long-time, known, self-serving evil. I can't be a part of putting them in power over my child's future.

    Trump may turn out to be just as bad, but he could be for real. Anyone who'll spend the time to go over his positions( donaldjtrump.com ), and actually pay attention to what he says in full context, should realize that the racist buffoon portrayal is just political fear-mongering. I'm greatly encouraged by the establishment's horror and consternation, on both sides, at the notion of Trump as President. At least there's a possibility he's real. I'm frankly terrified for my child if the Clintons get another stint in the WH.

    I'm voting Trump for President this time, but I'll still vote 3rd party everywhere else possible....

    --
    When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
  37. Re: she will get very sick after winning if she is by ogdenk · · Score: 1

    Not sure why you think that's so nihilistic. If the citizens on the tracks are a metaphor for the people who will get screwed over by which direction it takes..... I would simply vote to stop the train by whatever means necessary and screw over the people that boarded a train they most likely helped sabotage in the first place. Seems pretty damn logical to me if "fixing the brakes" or SuperMan aren't options.

    Whether now or later, stopping the train MUST happen. I'd rather it happened when I was still relatively young and able to recover.

  38. Re:Repent and be saved. by dbreeze · · Score: 1

    So, I'm a "troll" huh? Could I have asked for a better confirmation of the spiritual condition of today's society? When i get to heaven, I'm going to find Jonah first thing, and let him know just how much he spoke to me...
    I'll tell each of you young(and not so young) people the same thing I tell my own grown child, and every one else I care for. You remain ignorant of, or rely on others to explain to you, the contents of the Holy Scriptures at the peril of your own eternal soul.

    Here's a man, https://www.youtube.com/watch?... ,who was working in information and military technologies at the highest levels while most all of us were still learning not to shit our pants. I'm nobody, barely a half century of life experience, not much reason for any of you to give me a second thought. But, I dare any of you "educated", "intelligent" men to give Mr. Missler an honest hour of your time and come back saying there's nothing to be gained from a solid personal investigation of the message of the Bible.

    --
    When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
  39. Really? Team D? Ask Al Gore how well... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    ...that worked out for him in 2000, when the media was so busy ratfucking him over invented fibs they didn't notice Bush taking credit for a bill he vetoed as governor of Texas.

    The media giving Hillary a pass on her lies, corruption and incompetence has nothing to do with her party affiliation - which should clearly be R - and everything to do with her being part of the status quo.

  40. Re:How did this crap get modded up? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

    You are right, calling Trump the slaughterhouse owner is seriously unfair... to slaughterhouse owners, who in this metaphor would be Sheldon Adelson and the Koch Brothers.
    Trump is more like the crazy guy in the scarecrow suit who is asking the cows to vote for him to burn the barn down with them in it.

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  41. Re: she will get very sick after winning if she is by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

    Because voting for a third party won't have the metaphorical effect of stopping the train.

    Clinton or Trump is going to be elected, whether or not you think the system by which that happens is corrupt. And calls to 'blow up the tracks' are about as likely to change that corrupt system as your vote is to get Johnson or Stein elected. That's why Bernie Sanders chose not to attempt to run as a 3rd party candidate - he's made the calculation that he can get more of his program enacted by helping elect Clinton than by 'making a statement about the corrupt system'. He's already made that statement in the primary season, and sabotaging the general election won't make that statement any stronger - it'll just make him ignorable as a a saboteur.

    I would suggest that your feeling that your protest vote will stop the train - or even move the needle in that direction - is where the narcissism/nihilism lines start to get crossed...

    --
    Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
  42. Re:The announcement: by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    I find it often cute and clever, though some of them fall flat.

    I also found the moo ones funny, but I am weird like that.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?