Slashdot Mirror
WikiLeaks Releases Paid Clinton Speech Excerpts, And Threatens To Expose Google (dailymail.co.uk)
An anonymous Slashdot reader quotes the Independent:
Wikileaks has dumped thousands of emails from Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, which includes apparent excerpts from Ms Clinton's paid, closed-door speeches to Wall Street executives after leaving her position as Secretary of State. In the excerpts, flagged in a 25 January email, Ms Clinton apparently suggested that Wall Street insiders were best qualified to regulate the banking industry and also included her apparent admission of the need for money from banking executives for political fundraising...
"Earlier today, the US government removed any reasonable doubt that the Kremlin has weaponized WikiLeaks to meddle in our election and benefit Donald Trump's candidacy," said Clinton campaign spokesperson Glen Caplin. "We are not going to confirm the authenticity of stolen documents released by Julian Assange who has made no secret of his desire to damage Hillary Clinton." Slashdot reader schwit1 quotes the Daily Mail's article about what's coming up next: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange promised to release information on subjects including the U.S. election and Google [and] warned that the so called 'October Surprise' will expose Google. Assange did not reveal what type of information would be leaked about the tech giant, but his 2014 book could provide a clue. In it, he wrote: "(Eric) Schmidt's tenure as CEO saw Google integrate with the shadiest of U.S. power structures..."
"Earlier today, the US government removed any reasonable doubt that the Kremlin has weaponized WikiLeaks to meddle in our election and benefit Donald Trump's candidacy," said Clinton campaign spokesperson Glen Caplin. "We are not going to confirm the authenticity of stolen documents released by Julian Assange who has made no secret of his desire to damage Hillary Clinton." Slashdot reader schwit1 quotes the Daily Mail's article about what's coming up next: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange promised to release information on subjects including the U.S. election and Google [and] warned that the so called 'October Surprise' will expose Google. Assange did not reveal what type of information would be leaked about the tech giant, but his 2014 book could provide a clue. In it, he wrote: "(Eric) Schmidt's tenure as CEO saw Google integrate with the shadiest of U.S. power structures..."
You mean to say someone is trying to unfairly influence the elections, kinda like the Dems rigged the primaries? Oh well...
These Wikileaks releases do seem pretty one-sided. Is it just a function of what they do and don't have (it's surprising they didn't have that Trump recording)? But it's hard to believe the timing is completely coincidental, given how it seems to happen soon after Trump either says something particularly stupid or we learn about something damning from his past. However it's not surprising there's lots of skeletons in either candidate's closet... but again, why doesn't Assange have any of Trump's?
Problem is, from what I've seen over the past few months on Slashdot - it's obviously going to be hard to have a rational discussion on these questions here right now. People are way too ready to overlook their preferred candidate's foibles.
#DeleteChrome
Comment removed based on user account deletion
By doing in small batches he mitigates exactly what happened yesterday. The media/CTR was ready with the 'pussy' drop. He is making them use up everything they have.
You mean like the teaser for the trailer of the preview of the first script reading for a movie?
Hillary admits that campaigns are expensive "I wish it weren't so but I don't know how to change it" and therefore she will need campaign contributions to win! What a calling admission.
And to also admit that maybe professionals who are experts in a field would be necessary to help regulate the industry! Next she is going to say that maybe a computer scientist or white hat hacker should help write cyber defense policy.
He's only a rapist if you redefine rape, which in itself would be raping the English language. Sure he's a sexist scumbag but he's no worse than any of his predecessors or his opponent, both in context of his personality and history.
You can also turn the phrase around depending on who's side you're on:
Quick! Dump some more 15yo audio tapes! We need to distract people before they realize they're considering voting for a criminal!
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Seriously, I'm getting sick of these shenanigans from Wikileaks. Cut the fucking sensationalism and hype; just release what they have and let people decide what to make of it. I am not opposed to exposing corruption and unethical practices, but let the people decide how to interpret whatever information comes out. If you have information about corruption involving the election, get it out there as soon as possible so people have time to digest whatever gets released. The role of Wikileaks is to release information about corruption, but not really to influence how the public reacts to it. I expect such behavior from traditional investigative reporters because the traditional media outlets pay their bills through advertising. It's also why they turn to clickbait in order to inflate ad impressions. It's sketchy, but at least I can understand why they do what they do. Furthermore, investigative reporters are often trying to influence people to a particular position, so there's a definite bias to the reportong. Wikileaks has no excuse for this type of behavior. Don't make threats, spew hype, or withhold information. Just fucking release what you have!
Funny how the media acts like Donald Trump's tax returns should be open records, but when it comes to important speeches Hillary Clinton delivered to Wall Street, they're cool with her treating those like state secrets.
How much Donald Trump paid in taxes last year or whatever crude shit he said lately isn't going to have nearly as much of an impact on the day-to-day lives of most Americans as the secret backroom promises that Hillary Clinton has made to the rich and powerful corporate powers on Wall Street. At least Trump bragging about trying to bang some married woman isn't going to gut any labor laws, make him beholden to the corporatocracy, or cost any of us commoners our jobs.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I mean, by that logic, Slashdotters should be moderating Slashdot.
Seriously though, regulators, like bosses, need to have experience in their industries. Every week we boo and hiss at clueless legislators coming in and trying to regulate the Internet or ban encryption or somesuch. The challenge is finding 'insiders' who can still see things in a broader perspective and aren't in the pocket of the people they're supposed to be regulating (a.k.a. regulatory capture). They're tough to find, but if you look hard enough you can find good people like Tom Wheeler.
I've read through some of the emails and so far I haven't found anything damning, just politically inconvenient truths. It's sad we've become so accustomed to pandering and sugar-coated soundbytes that when politicians actually speak honestly it leaves us sour.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
We're coming up on the "2-minute warning" of the elections.
It's when the parties take out the big guns (Republicans) and long knives (Democrats), hoping to get something into the collective consciousness before the election. It usually starts 3 weeks out, but this election has been particularly polarizing.
This weekend has been particularly entertaining. Trump made some locker-room comments eleven years ago, which is causing everyone to grab their pearls and faint. People are falling over themselves pretending that it makes them "sick to their stomach"(*).
Meanwhile, the wikileaks dump shows Clinton admitting a year ago that her "public policy" and "private policy" are different, how she wants world trade with completely open borders (after denying it publicly), and wants to institute gun control by executive order.
And no one seems to have noticed that Trump has completely owned the media for the weekend up to this point!
Seriously - count the number of Trump articles on Google's news page. He's playing them like a violin.
The current headline reads: "GOP consumed by crisis" about Trump, and "Emails Reveal Clinton's Mixed Relationship With Wall Street" about Clinton.
The next few weeks are going to be *highly* entertaining!
(*) As far as I can tell, the general public has responded with "yeah - so what?" about the comments. Everyone seems to recognize that men talk dirty about women to each other, and women do the same about men. It makes all the media pundits who claim "makes me sick to my stomach" seem laughably disingenuous.
I tell you, you try to call in one little drone strike on a guy and he holds a grudge forever. Jeez, get over it, Julian.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I find it interesting how the left seems to bestow a great deal of power on words alone while totally dismissing the power of actions.
Assange is an admitted Hillary hater. His goal is not transparency and it has nothing to do with public service or the public good. The man's a walking colostomy bag.
Oh, be fair. Clinton wanted to kill Assange, and spend an entire meeting discussing how to do it.
Clinton never followed up the "drone strike" comment with "seriously", or anything to indicate that she was kidding - she just went on as if it was an option.
“Can’t we just drone this guy?” Clinton openly inquired, offering a simple remedy to silence Assange and smother Wikileaks via a planned military drone strike, according to State Department sources. The statement drew laughter from the room which quickly died off when the Secretary kept talking in a terse manner, sources said. Clinton said Assange, after all, was a relatively soft target, “walking around” freely and thumbing his nose without any fear of reprisals from the United States.
Also, the meeting prompted one of her staffers to write a followup memo with the subject "legal and nonlegal strategies re Wikileaks"
Immediately following the conclusion of the wild brainstorming session, one of Clinton’s top aides, State Department Director of Policy Planning Ann-Marie Slaughter, penned an email to Clinton, Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, and aides Huma Abebin and Jacob Sullivan at 10:29 a.m. entitled “an SP memo on possible legal and nonlegal strategies re Wikileaks.”
Give Julian a break, Hillary Clinton conspired to kill him.
Threatens? Is it some kind of blackmail? What Google could do to prevent WL an "exposition"? Or, more likely, WL will just expose Google in the near future.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
No, it's not brainwashed. It's a predictable outcome of how the system is architected. First past the post voting naturally turns into two party systems, and in two party systems strategic voting is inevitable where you vote against a candidate and not for a candidate. The system is working as it was designed to.
The democratic primary was rigged, so don't blame our judgement.
At least Trump bragging about trying to bang some married woman isn't going to gut any labor laws, make him beholden to the corporatocracy, or cost any of us commoners our jobs.
Depends if she asks for money...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
And it is full of her.
This just makes me more and more sure that Assange couldn't have raped those women, because he probably sat at the edge of the bed all night telling them how amazing the sex would be without ever delivering.
Hillary admits that campaigns are expensive "I wish it weren't so but I don't know how to change it" and therefore she will need campaign contributions to win! What a calling admission.
And to also admit that maybe professionals who are experts in a field would be necessary to help regulate the industry! Next she is going to say that maybe a computer scientist or white hat hacker should help write cyber defense policy.
Hillary also admitted she has a "public policy" and "private policy", wants unfettered world trade with open borders, and wants to enact gun control via [presidential] executive order.
Feel free to distract people with non-controversial stuff, but realize who you're helping by doing that.
someone is paying me that kind of money to talk bullshit ill tell them whatever they want too
"Earlier today, the US government removed any reasonable doubt that the Kremlin has weaponized WikiLeaks to meddle in our election and benefit Donald Trump's candidacy," said Clinton campaign spokesperson Glen Caplin. "We are not going to confirm the authenticity of stolen documents released by Julian Assange who has made no secret of his desire to damage Hillary Clinton."
Interpretation: It's all true, but the people revealing it are mean and want to hurt us so you should ignore whatever it is they've revealed. See ad hominem attack.
It's Hillary that's running, not Bill.
Honestly, I love all this scandal, digging up of skeletons, unexpected embarrassment, etc. It's kind of surreal to watch technology (and, its long and perfect memory) come back to haunt these deeply flawed candidates. I think the only way to fix the system is to discredit it so badly that both Democrat and Republican become toxic words. Toxic enough that the average person might want to distance themselves from whatever "tribe" they have chosen and instead elect people that they believe will *actually* represent them. Critical thinking is a lot to ask, I understand, but maybe technology is pushing us towards some sort of tipping point.
Funny how the media acts like Donald Trump's tax returns should be open records, but when it comes to important speeches Hillary Clinton delivered to Wall Street, they're cool with her treating those like state secrets.
Tax returns are a form of disclosure done by every Presidential candidate. And in Trump's case there's a very good reason, they shed light on possible conflicts of interest.
If Trump invested heavily in coal he may be tempted to push US energy policy in a certain direction.
If he invested heavily in Russia then Putin might have the ability to push him into bankruptcy (or make him and his children vastly wealthier).
Speeches on the other hand aren't traditional disclosures. Many candidates have given paid speeches, I'm not aware of any others who have been asked to release them. It's similar to Obama's long form birth certificate. Sure there's nothing to hide, but to grant the request is also to legitimize the question.
I stole this Sig
The Republicans are hardly exempt from such deals.
I never said they were. That's one of the reasons Trump is so popular. People see him as a political outsider who isn't completely beholden to Wall Street in the same way that every mainstream Republican is. And he has been playing that message up too, bragging that his wealth and outsider status will keep him from becoming a corporate whore like every other politician.
Now whether or not Trump actually MEANS what he says is another story. I would say there is about a 70% chance that he'll end up being a corporate whore just like every other politician once he's actually elected. Still, that's better than the 100% chance with Hillary Clinton. And in an election where we're once again having the choose between the lesser of two evils, you go with the best odds.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
He's only a rapist if you redefine rape
Sure, but he's an alleged rapist by any meaning of the term.
Last post!
I'm sorry, so now you're going to blame the Democrats for the fact that he's a vulgar sexist pig who advocates sexual assault of women?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
"At least Trump bragging about trying to bang some married woman isn't going to gut any labor laws, make him beholden to the corporatocracy, or cost any of us commoners our jobs."
His tax policy will. The policy he's laid out will not only cost us jobs and sink us further in debt but are obviously tailored to enriching the rich.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...
http://www.politifact.com/trut...
Tabloid crap aside, I don't understand how some one from the oligarch class got "common man" status but it's completely clear that he's all about enriching himself and his fellow oligarchs. Clinton is at least politics as usual for the Democrats.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
He's so popular that 538 now has down below 20% chance of winning. He had a brief period of near parity, but the DNC bump and then the fact that he can't hold it together for a 90 minute debate saw his support fall, and now, of course, even those that bit their tongues to offer him support are walking away. McCain is abandoning him, Pence appears to want to pretend he doesn't even know the guy.
Trump is doomed, and hopefully, after this sorry episode, the Republicans can find a way to never let such a awful buffoon into the top rung again.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Story about Clinton being bribed by Russia for favours while she was Secretary of State. Bribed by Russia for uranium, in the NYT.
There is NOTHING that could be in Trumps tax returns that could even be half as bad. If you actually cared about disclosure and ethics, you would never ever possibly consider voting for Clinton. Since you are spinning stories about what "might" be in there and how it would disqualify him, you are a worthless hypocrite and your opinion means shit.
Clinton took BRIBES from RUSSIA for URANIUM while SoS. It doesn't get more corrupt than that. The only worse thing she could have done is lie to the families of people killed who worked for her about why they were killed.
Speeches on the other hand aren't traditional disclosures.
Yeah, that's part of the problem. The press has been asleep at the wheel on that one for a long time. I would say it's pretty fucking important to the public interest to know exactly what politicians are promising to the Wall Street honchos behind closed doors. If Donald Trump were going around secretly begging Wall Street firms for money and promising to be their bestie-buddy once he's elected, I would ABSOLUTELY want that splashed all over the news (same goes for every other politician). The fact that the press doesn't even ASK for that kind of disclosure (especially if it's a Democrat) is shameful.
Dick Cheney was infamous for doing the same kind of shady shit behind closed doors back in the day. But at least the media TRIED to call him out on it. But then, Dick Cheney was a Republican and so CNN wasn't just rolling over for him and cheering him on like shameless sycophants.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
you haven't been paying attention. Hilary, like her Husband Bill, is economically conservative. This is what that means. I'll still vote for her because she's the most progressive candidate we've got. American is _filled_ with economic conservatives and they vote. As a progressive I live in that world and it's a world of compromises. Do I want more? Hell yeah. But I'm an adult. I'm old enough to know what a compromise is.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
By stating, ""We are not going to confirm the authenticity of stolen documents released by Julian Assange who has made no secret of his desire to damage Hillary Clinton," Glen Caplin admitted to their authenticity. If they were not authentic, he would not have said they were stolen. He would have said fictionalized or supposed emails from Ms Clinton. But as soon as he said they were stolen, he was admitting the origin. If they were stolen from someone else, he would have said that.
While Trump made some vulgar comments, Bill Clinton was *actually* sexually harassing women. And his wife was attacking any and all women who spoke up about it. I'm much more bothered by what Bill and Hillary *did* than what Trump *said*.
The funniest sitcoms are the ones where the crackpots don't realize just how insane they are.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
This is a nonsense claim on his part. People like him are addicted to money and power. The vast majority of us common folk could live amazingly happy lives off the mere interest of 10 million dollars (probably a lot less). He didn't keep pursuing wealth for any other reason than that he wants the power that comes with it. Who do you think some one like that is going to want to deal with, the common person or our affluent power brokers?
Your ratios are backwards. At least Clinton is coming from a party that almost elected Bernie Sanders. She at least has to try to look like she's trying to help the common person. Trump has gotten himself the nomination of our political party that in the last 30 years has made no effort to hide who they favor with their tax policy.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
The media act like Trump's taxes should be open records because every candidate in living memory (except Romney) released their tax returns. It isn't really about how much Trump pays, it is about how he gets there. Does he claim a farming subsidy for his hobby ranch (while decrying such subsidies)? Does he donate to the Church of Two Corinthians? Does he owe Goldman Sachs half-a-billion dollars? All of this info would provide a window into how he runs his businesses and his life.
Based on what we know about his business and his life, it seems he is leveraged to the gills and needs lots of offshored and minimum-wage labor to keep his businesses afloat. Make of that what you will--since neither he nor wikileaks is going to release his tax returns.
You raped me five years ago!
There, now you're an alleged rapist, too. Why should we listen to anything you have to say?
Because a federal judge hasn't found grounds for your allegation to move to trial?
Last post!
He's so popular that 538 now has down below 20% chance of winning.
Yeah, that might be related to the fact that the media are 100% in the tank for Hillary and have basically branded him as Adolph Hitler: The Sequel. NBC News will blast some crude shit Donald Trump said 15 years ago all over the news tonight like it's the most important story ever. But when it comes to Hillary Clinton's shady "I'll be your Presidential whore if you give me cash" promises to Wall Street, they'll play it off as just some evil Ruskkie plot to prevent the GREATEST WOMEN EVAAAR from assuming her rightful role as Queen and Savior.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
If Hillary is guilty of wrongdoing in the Bengazi incident, or guilty of wrongdoing with respect to her mail server, then Trump is guilty of rape. So if you say Hillary is guilty, then you must say Trump is also guilty.
Sow the wind, and reap the whirlwind.
The headlines on Google's news page reflect your own interests and attitudes, rather than anything general.
I don't see how, seeing as I don't allow google to set cookies on my machine.
Sure he's a sexist scumbag but he's no worse than any of his predecessors or his opponent, both in context of his personality and history.
Your logical fallacy is... Bandwagon.
No indication at all that Trump ever engaged in any kind of assault. Unless "and they let you " means that it is assault.
As for voting for a rapist. How about a person who keeps rapists out of jail and shields her rapist husband from reprisals to the point of her attacking the victims?
Not really. Trump actually raped a 13-year old girl in 1994, an event confirmed by several witnesses. He belongs in prison with the other child molesters.
People see him as a political outsider who isn't completely beholden to Wall Street in the same way that every mainstream Republican is.
Which is ironic - because HE IS WALL STREET. He doesn't even bother to hide it. He doesn't just avoid paying taxes, he boasts about it. He is not beholden to the man behind the curtain - the curtain has been drawn back, and the guy behind it is Trump.
There may be a very, very, very tiny handful of Democratic (and Republican) politicians left out there who aren't complete corporate whores. But you can bet your sweet ass that Hillary Clinton is not, was never, and will never be among them.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Why is it most horrifying to you? Seems fairly benign. Who wouldn't want to be able to move free across borders, without having to worry about anything? Actually being able to go outside and breath clean air (something that hasn't been possible for 200 years, since the start of the industrial revolution)? Not having to worry about who's poor and who isn't? I mean, sounds like a pretty good dream. The only horrifying part of her dream is the fact that it will never happen, for a lot of reasons.
And they've showed just how in the tank they are for Hillary by accurately quoting Donald Trump.
Is that really what you think she said in those speeches? Have you actually read the excerpts?
These "bombshells" Assange is dropping are duds. Even the ones that are fabricated aren't really damning. His little fan dance from the balcony has permanently destroyed his credibility and Wikileaks turning into the Cyrillic-language organ of the Alt-Right has permanently damaged theirs. And Trump continues to fall like an overstuffed garbage bag from a tenement window.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I agree. They're both corrupt lying criminals unfit for anything close to public office. There's no practical difference between Hillary and Trump beyond the irrelevant minutiae they both use to manipulate their respective cults.
"Violence is not the answer. Violence is the question. The answer is yes."
Or if he donates his used underwear to Goodwill and takes the deduction like a certain Arkansas couple who didn't release their taxes until after he became president.
You appear to be crediting the Founders with omniscience. Madison and others specifically opposed the development of parties at the time of the writing of the Constitution. It was not designed to result in a 2 party system; that's just how it worked out despite their best intentions.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Are you insane?
That is the only rational explanation I can come up with for your attitude.
Trump is equally beholden to the unseen hand as Hillary. The main difference is one supports a social safety net and the other doesn't. Trump is there for himself, Hillary isn't much different, but it isn't just ego and a bar bet.
You're delusional if you think CNN cares about politics. CNN cares about ratings. And Trump has benefited from CNN more than any candidate on the field, it just doesn't feel like that today.
Anyone who wants to be actually informed should visit wikileaks and read the actual emails https://wikileaks.org/podesta-... If you can stay awake, you will see that Hillary did not lie anywhere in there. Yes, she says that candidates need money to run. What else is new. Yes, she says "The People That Know The Industry Better Than Anybody Are The People Who Work In The Industry.” but that is true for any industry, right? the people that know cybersecurity best are people that work in cybersecurity, no? So, everything she said is BORING. More importantly, she DID NOT LIE.
And yet you cant refute my comment that Clinton can't completely ignore the Bernie supporters. Furthermore, at the very least, she hasn't furnished a tax plan that completely favors the wealthy like Trump has. Sure, in order for her tax plan to benefit the middle class it has to pass what will likely be a Republican controlled congress but it's a step better then a plan that blatantly favors the affluent.
As I said before, your 70% / 100% ratios are clearly flip flopped.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Except that the claims are so absurd, they've been thrown out by a judge three times already. They're more false than the Rolling Stone UVA bullshit, or the Duke Lacross team lies.
The alleged victim just keeps filing in new new jurisdictions, and modifying the claims, every time it loses in court.
To which candidate are you assigning which properties?
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/stateroundup/bill-clintons-remark-on-release-of-tax-returns-is-a-bit-off/1244556
No source needed for the underwear bit, since it is too good not to be true.
Just pointing out that Hilary did now lie anywhere in the emails. All she said are things we all know to be true: it takes a lot of money to run for office, people in an industry know how their industry works. Please take time to think and read the actual evidence before jumping to conclusions.
There's no law requiring candidates to release their tax records - Nixon did it as a ploy to show he was a 'good guy' and thus began the tradition. You must be a big fan of Nixonian traditions? If you are, then Hillary is your candidate this time.
Candidates ARE required to file full financials with the FEC under oath which are far more detailed and which Trump did indeed file a year ago.
This practice started with Gerald Ford, and is done by MAJOR candidates, not all.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Nope, you're thinking of the wrong case to think it was arbitrary. This one was simply refiled to add a new witness statement and in a venue to avoid upfront legal costs which could not be avoided in California. See here.
How cis-hetro-normative of you.
But I thought men and women were equal in all things? Why should so called 'real men' be required to stand up for women who, according to 3rd-wave feminists are perfectly able to stand up for themselves? Should not women also stand up for men under attack? Where is the 3rd-wave feminist assault on those who attack Trump?
The tradition of releasing taxes to assuage fears of conflicts of interest is only 40 years old. Can we not start a new tradition of disclosing speeches for the same purpose?
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
It's Hillary, not Bill, who is running.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
they shed light on possible conflicts of interest.
And the transcripts to wall street wouldn't?
Worse than that. They have been brainwashed to think that what is essentially indistinguishably similar is different, no, even "extremes".
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/
There's a woman no one has seen filing a suit about this, but there's certainly no "multiple witnesses". Reality or attempted character assassination? Could be more projection, Bill Clinton hung out with that Epstein creep a bunch too.
First past the post can only lead to a two party system. Take a look at the US and realize that it has always been a two party system. The parties may change, but essentially that's what it is.
It's been about a century now that a candidate that wasn't from one of the two major parties came in second. We're not even talking about winning.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Umm... who is who, again? Both definitions kinda fit both.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Not the point - hanging out isn't an accusation from a legally known victim. Try reading your own link there chippy, it actually supports the case against Trump.
Trump didn't say just vulgar comments about women, he said he "grabbed them by the pussy" and forceably kissed them. He has also been married three times, divorced twice because of adultery and is probably cheating on his current wife now.
There is also a court case starting up about him raping a 13 year old girl. If that turns out to be true, we would face a possible impeachment of a President over a high crime. It doesn't matter if he couldn't be charged now due to the statutes of limitations.
don't you sunshine? Face it, you are as deplorable as trump, nobody with any sense of decency would stand by this piece of garbage.
So the election is a speed contest: anti-Hillary hackers vs. Trump's mouth.
So far, Trump's mouth seems to be "winning".
Table-ized A.I.
We have 2 candidates who are both unsuited to be president, yet one will become so. I'm voting for Gary Johnson, but I'm 99% convinced he won't win due to people afraid of throwing away their votes. Keep in mind, I don't think stoned Gary is fit for the office. But he sure as shit beats the 2 assholes he's running against.
Hillary is corrupt, dishonest, deceitful, duplicative, sneaky.
Trump is, well, Trump.
Fuck em both, for gods sake lets get a third party candidate into the oval office this time around.
My prediction? Whoever wins will be impeached within 4 years. Assuming of course Clinton/Trump win.
Oh, did I say the 2 assholes? Did I forget to mention Stein? She's courting the vaccine == evil vote, fuck her.
Yup, Hildawg's got it so in the bag you don't even need to show up to vote.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Wow, nice answer. I would totally mod that up.
Simple, direct, and... I don't care who it paints in a bad light.
Please consider replying more often. We need more clear thinkers on this site.
Face it, asshole, you're[sic] chosen anti-SJW warrior has lost the election.
Most probably. How strange it is that sex is held to be so much more important than treason or nuclear annihilation. But sigh. Whatever works, just so long as bozo the clown ends up taking the proverbial walk of shame back down the sewer he crawled from.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
I'm betting that by 2020 the Republicans will have a "superdelagate" system to let party insiders effectively veto any out-of-control populist candidtate.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Story about Clinton being bribed by Russia for favours while she was Secretary of State. Bribed by Russia for uranium, in the NYT
LoL. This "scandal" was put to rest at the time when someone asked who bribed the other dozen agencies that had to sign off on it.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Sure she can. Once elected she can ignore them just as Obama did once he got elected. She'll use the same excuse of "Republican obstruction" forcing her to this and that just the same as the Obama administration has done since day 1.
What most politicians say during a campaign has no bearing on what they're actually going to do once elected.
WTF? Who doesn't avoid paying taxes? Do you file a return? Do you claim ANY exemptions? Why? You could even review your W2 statement and to feel good about yourself write a check out for a few extra thousand to the Department of Treasury and mail it in. It goes to a good cause, you know, dude. Just do it. Pay more taxes than you're required.
an alleged rapist. And a few times over at that. Similar to what Bill Cosby is facing a pattern emerges. Yeah, maybe it's all not true. But given his personality it still doesn't encourage me to want him President.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
is releasing whatever the hell gets them ratings. They're owned by billionaires. They couldn't care less who wins. Trump or Hilary both will protect their interests.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I think this is more an example of Two Wrongs Make a Right.
Bandwagon usually refers to a shared belief: fifty million lemmings can't be wrong.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
She did that one (the whole Benghazi deal) in the week before Obama's re-election. Everybody forgets the timeline behind that whole affair. It happened THE WEEK BEFORE THE ELECTION and her lies and cover-up was critical to maintaining the myth that Obama was DOING A GREAT JOB, GUYS, in his foreign policy.
At least Trump bragging about trying to bang some married woman isn't going to gut any labor laws, make him beholden to the corporatocracy, or cost any of us commoners our jobs.
Trump-label shit is made in foreign countries to take advantage of sweatshop labor and he runs a visa mill. If you think he won't destroy American jobs, you aren't paying attention to his current behavior.
This is not a defense of Clinton. This is a "what, are you fucking serious?" about your lack of logic.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Clinton is the same warmed-up shit as always. Why should we even think about anything else. I mean, the Republicans were hoping that right about now it would be a Clinton vs. Bush election. That's REEEAL fucking safe. Now, instead, the boys at the Chamber of Commerce are nervous.
Let's at least give the Establishment credit for trying.
Tabloid crap aside, I don't understand how some one from the oligarch class got "common man" status
The common clay are morons, and Trump sounds just like them (see currently floating meme about how Trump speaks at a fourth grade level, which is why he appeals to Republicans) so they identify with him. They think women are out to bleed on them until they turn into pussified American males, and that if Clinton becomes president there will be an aborted baby in every pot. If you're expecting them to rub their brain cells together and get a spark, let alone a flame, your expectations are unrealistic.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
And yet you cant refute my comment that Clinton can't completely ignore the Bernie supporters.
She can baffle them with bullshit until she's elected, then walk away and leave them wondering what happened. And that's exactly what's happening.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Your logical fallacy is... Bandwagon.
That's wrong. The logical fallacy is one of moral equivalence. Bandwagon is an appeal to popularity, which states that someone should do something because others are doing it — it's most commonly used as a propaganda technique, especially in advertising.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
He also delayed an alimony payment to one of those wives when she had the audacity to mention his abusive behavior... what a charmer
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Your ignorance is on display here. You're basically saying "Trump is better because he is different" when all I see is an oligarch playing for power. Please tell me, when his tax plan so clearly favors the affluent, how can you say he is for us "common folk".
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
OK, you don't like that one because "all the polls are skewed". Here, let me point you to a prediction/betting site run by conservative John Stossel:
https://electionbettingodds.co...
That one shows Hillary winning by over 170 electoral college votes. Or is that one also "skewed"? Maybe conservative site "Real Clear Politics" is more to your liking. Here is there election simulation:
http://www.realclearpolitics.c...
That one has Hillary winning by over 200 electoral college votes.
You pick 'em, Euler. And repeat after me: "There are no American tanks in Baghdad."
You are welcome on my lawn.
Hey, your guys nominated him. And elected him twice, and now you're trying to elect his enabling wife, too.
You were talking about Bill, weren't you? The comment you replied to seems to be modded below my threshold so that's what I assume.
Your Youtube channel isn't a sitcom, dude.
It's Hillary, not Bill, who is running.
The only way that works is if Hillary 'comes out' in mid November, after the election, shitcans Bill and marries Huma. Which is something that some people would even bet real money on.
Otherwise, horndog doesn't get the Oval Office, but he'll have interns blowing him somewhere else in the White House.
So we should vote for Trump since he's straight up telling us he's going to fuck the middle class in the ass? It doesnt matter what you think Hillary might do because Trump has literally told us he's going to fuck us in the ass. He hasnt even promised to use lube. He straight up wants to increase wealth for the affluent to the rest of ours determent.
I'll take Hillary over a clear member of the oligarch class any day of the week, thank you.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Bill Clinton was *actually* sexually harassing women.
Firstly, Trump "actually" sexually harasses women. Secondly, Bill Clinton is not standing for election. Thirdly, Bill Clinton was punished with impeachment. How shall Donald Trump be punished?
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
There are a whole string of settled allegations too. Money talks.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Trump DID an awful lot of really bad shit, from his racist and discriminatory policies in his businesses to sexual assault. Add in many crimes he has committed in the grey areas of the law where he gets away with it but should have been in jail bent over in front of Bubba and he is ethically and legally no better than Hillary. Doesn't doesn't make Hillary less of a lieing sack of shit but at least she is a predictable lieing sack of shit whereas Trump will either be completely useless as he gets none of his ambitions achieved as everyone blocks him or worse he does get his way in which case the US and many parts of the world are fucked, either way he will be a bad president.
No indication at all that Trump ever engaged in any kind of assault.
Trump himself says he did.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Sorry to reply to myself, but I didn't explain that very well at all.
If you believe it's right because other people (do / do it) too, it's bandwagon.
If you believe it's wrong but justify it because someone else also did wrong, it's two wrongs make a right.
Since the OP isn't arguing what he said is OK ("he's a sexist scumbag") the latter fits better IMO.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
Just my memory. Remember that was before Al Gore finished inventing the internet. Drudge if you remember came to fame for breaking the Lewinski scandal. Hillary's amazing cattle futures dealing came before that.
As for the underwear I did find a quick reference for that.https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1993/12/28/bill-clintons-great-skivvies-give-away/0dac853d-cf3d-4faf-8104-bcf124bd93b4/
Don't ask about Slick Willie ( how appropriate that name seems in retrospect ) closing down an iarport to get a haircut.
99% of the media is obsessed with what Donald Trump SAID and DID.
ftfy
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
You mean a completely anonymous lawsuit which has been refiled twice and never served so as to avoid legal penalties on the part of the accusers which just happens to pop up when Trump seems to be seriously in the running for president?
Why not? Bill Clinton got re-elected after countless credible accusations from multiple named women who alleged he actually did things to them.
And the Republicans impeached him for it. So safe to assume they'll support an impeachment of Trump (in the highly, highly unlikely scenario that he becomes president).
Yes, "letting" someone as in, the victim doesn't shoot or stab you, does often mean it could be assault. If there's no consent then a lack of forcefully violent protest isn't necessary.
Its like they wanted him to win the nomination.
Of course the media wanted Trump to win the Republican primaries! It's been reported that many Democrats even voted for Trump in the Republican primary just to assure a Trump win.
They saw Trump (and many still do) as the one Republican nominee Clinton had a chance against.
The last thing they wanted was Hillary going up against someone like Ted Cruz (with his perfect recall) in a Presidential debate, or even a Ben Carson (the 'likability/trustability' comparison of Carson to Hillary would kill her in the polls).
Trump was reported to have met with at least one of the Clintons just before he announced his run. One has to wonder if Trump at least started out as, if not still playing the role of, stalking-horse for Hillary and will either intentionally self-destruct his campaign and/or simply withdraw from the race close to election day for 'personal reasons' leaving Hillary as the only candidate. Maybe he decided to back out of the deal with Clinton when he saw he had a real chance at winning the election.
Stay tuned, kiddies!
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
WTF? Who doesn't avoid paying taxes? Do you file a return?
In my country we don't file returns - I ought to know, because I work for what is the (rough) equivalent of the IRS. Only we are obviously better at it, because if he tried that here, we'd have him in jail.
Any other questions about my tax affairs?
Pay more taxes than you're required.
So, you're happy to let Trump not pay tax (he doesn't pay tax), whilst simultaneously boasting about how much money he makes, and running on a platform promising to make plebs (like you) pay more tax. You must pine for the days of an aristocracy where the distinction between the gentle folk like Trump and the filthy unwashed such as yourself was considered an edict from on high - woe betide anybody who suggest that the law apply equally to all.
n one case, his wife was the one wronged and she has every right to say yes or no to that, regardless of what we think. In the other case, the one wronged is the public and the government refuses to address the wrong.
And the question of guilt or innocence, of allegation versus finding, of the presumption of innocence applies equally in both cases, unless you can explain how some have rights that are not naturally imbued on others.
If the presumption of innocence is to be set aside, then Trump is guilty of rape.
And those people who gnash their teeth about it can blame the Republicans, since they chose the worst person they could find to represent the alternative, and then chose to attack Hillary's character, rather than articulating why their policies are better for America than Hillarys.
They sowed the wind, and are now reaping the whirlwind.
if you hacked my cell phone and recorded me, and then posted it, i would get a great lawyer to stuff you in to a hole for
* accessing a computer system that you don't have authority to
* recording a conversation without the party's consent
* distributing information that is not your to distribute
now, while the last one might be a stretch, the first two are felonies, and you will probably end up doing time.
That strange. Cause I don't see anything in Trump's word that suggests he assaulted anyone. What were his exacts words.
It's Hillary who rode shotgun on the control of the "bimbo eruptions".
"You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything... Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything." -- Donald Trump, candidate for the office of president of the united states of america.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Was the reference to long knives intentional or coincidence?
It was coincidence to the link you posted. I was thinking more in the lines of The Treachery of the Long Knives, from which I assume we get the phrase the knives are out.
Specifically, I was referring to something powerful that one keeps in reserve, ready to be pulled out at the appropriate time.
The Wikipedia article you reference includes this line:
The phrase "Night of the Long Knives" in the German language predates the massacre itself and refers generally to acts of vengeance.
So it would seem that the phrase isn't necessarily a Nazi reference in any event.
Women are indeed perfectly capable of standing up for themselves.
The problem is that if women are being denigrated, abused, mistreated, etc., and men just stand by ... don't they become part of the problem?
Real men don't put up with other men abusing women. This is not at all the same thing as acting like the "protector" of women.
All men participate in raunchy joking
Speak for yourself. All men do not do this. The fact that some do can't be generalized to 100% of men.
First past the post can only lead to a two party system.
Plenty of other democracies have FPP and have competitive minor parties. The difference with the US is some bizarre media rules about who can participate in public debates. The media is an important piece of the democratic puzzle, but without the chance for minor parties to compete on the same public stage, they'll always be kept in the dark.
He's only a rapist if you redefine rape,
Then go on and define it. He's accused of raping children, and has admitted to acts that one could call marital rape (accusation withdrawn, upon paying off the witness/victim).
Learn to love Alaska
You could try to keep your paranoia consistent. Immigrants aren't eligible for welfare, and even by marriage in the US must be cosigned as not in need of any welfare for the first 5 years or it must be repaid. Free trade will increase economic activity which is the only things that actually creates jobs. Think, if you can.
At least Trump bragging about trying to bang some married woman isn't going to gut any labor laws, make him beholden to the corporatocracy, or cost any of us commoners our jobs.
This sums up the stupidity of the average Trump voter. If the guy can't even control his own hands when he smells pussy, what chance to you think he'll have at avoiding a potential WW3?
Given the choice of the knave or the fool, at least the knave is competent.
Sure he's a sexist scumbag but he's no worse than any of his predecessors or his opponent,
Um what? He is bragging about sexual assault. I know of know other presidential candidate who has ever stooped that low. Lots of people have consensual affairs, but that is a lot different from what he was gloating about.
He is unfit for office, and senior Republicans agree. Even his own running mate can't defend him, so don't pretend this is a media or Hillary thing. For most normal people this is behaviour is completely unacceptable.
In my opinion such leaks are beneficial as people beginning to understand better how the US democracy really functions. For example, it is not possible to build a machine if one is given only part of a technical documentation, even if it is the best part.
The same is here, - there are good strong parts in the US democracy, and there are certainly weaker dubious parts, as with everything in the world. In any case, it is useful to see and understand how the whole thing works.
Yeah and how does this make him any less of an alleged rapist by any meaning of the term? Whether the allegation is true or not doesn't come into it, that's what makes it an allegation.
And hildawg is tied with national treason and the mysterious death linked to 27 individuals.
I'm anti Trump, however I'd still like to know what country does not accord tax benefits for companies or people with a bad year and that puts people in jail for following their laws.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
Does anyone else find it worrying that the parent was voted 'interesting' instead of 'funny'?
While he's no doubt a pig, "they let you do it" implies consent and you'd need to document lack of consent to prove anything more.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
Cyrillic is not a language, it is an alphabet.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
While he's no doubt a pig, "they let you do it" implies consent and you'd need to document lack of consent to prove anything more.
Thousands of women, every day, "let" their bosses, customers, and even random strangers on the street whistle, pinch and grope. That's not consent, it's exhaustion. It's not consent, it's powerlessness. It's not consent, it's expectation that a macho culture will dismiss 'boys being boys.' Sure, you can throw a fit every time some boy touches you, but that's a quick road to social outcast. Strangely, to invite 'inappropriate' touching is an equally quick road to slut-label.
The fact that DJT can't distinguish beating people up with his wealth and power from consent is exactly the problem.
You're missing the point: it's not about taxes. I mean, it should be embarrassing for the self-proclaimed king of the deal to lose a billion dollars in a year, and maybe 18 years is a little long to let him carry that loss forward, but not paying tax in a bad year is not the problem.
The problem is that he's claiming Clinton is beholden to Wall Street insiders, at the same time as he's claiming to have bought politicians using his Wall Street money. You're acting like it's better to elect an authentic Wall Street schmuck (Trump) than to elect his proxy (Clinton).
As warren buffet has pointed out repeatedly, it's what you say and do when you don't think anyone's looking that determines your character. Not the persona you put forward when the cameras are rolling.
You're certainly able to name any of those other countries, yes?
If you want to say UK, you might want to do a little more research on how the UK system works, along with it being a VERY different kind of country. Hint: Scotland is ... think the southern states around 1850.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
So? When looking at Bill and Bush, I can only say, I prefer a Prez who gets a blowjob to one who really needs one.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
So one prez candidate is a potential rapist and the other one defends one.
Gee, decisions, decisions...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You mean that court case involving one of Jeffrey Epstein's underage prostitutes(/sex-slaves depending on who you ask)? The same Epstein who was not only a child sex peddler, but was also a good friend of the Clinton's? The same Epstein who got the plea bargain of a lifetime thanks to his political connections? The same Epstein who gave Bill Clinton multiple trips upon his plane nicknamed the fucking "Lolita Express"?! Trump might be guilty on that one. Bill is without a doubt guilty.
not sure why this got voted down. its the most accurate and reasonable post on this entire thread
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
I thought after the fappening and the hulk hogan sex tape leak, the world agreed that leaking private tapes was wrong? I guess they are cool with it when it suits them however. hypocrites
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
ohhhhh.... so the same man who brings bill clinton on his jet to his private island, that jet is called the lolita express btw....
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
snopes is your source? they are pathetic and cannot be trusted. its a well known fact
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
saying mean things is not sexual harassment
Trump boasted about things he did to women. That's not "saying mean things", that is "doing illegal things". Well you don't need to believe me, just look at the swarms of republican rats jumping off the sinking Trump ship.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
bill was impeached for lyng to congress (like his wife did recently concerning emails) so if anyone should be impeached for something when elected its her
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
I like the term "Social Justice Warrior". Anybody to whom the term accurately applies is always proud to have the term applied to them. I like the fact that the social conversation is using a term of which the targets of the term agree it applies to them.
Anyone who brings up SJW is an idiot. It's a manufactured name tailor-made to offend beck beards.
It does seem to be true that when somebody uses the term SJW, you aren't going to learn anything from them. It seems to be mostly used as a tag to say "I disagree with these other peoples' political opinions but I'm going to call them names rather than discuss any issues."
(and I don't know what a beck beard is, or why that's an insult.)
The SJWs themselves coined the phrase.
I would love to see a citation to this.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
i raised money for her when she ran for senate, ive spent time with and met her.... yes, she is a corp whore
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
where exactly did he say that? because im middle class, and under hillarys plan my taxes go up, under trumps they do not
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
It's been about a century now that a candidate that wasn't from one of the two major parties came in second.
This sounds like a fallacy. Wouldn't a party lose it's "major" status if it came in third?
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
It were very special circumstances. The election I'm talking about is the presidential election of 1912. What you had here was a sitting president being renominated by his party while a former president wanting in on the deal and running in competition to him. That would be like, say, Obama running again and having the support of his party with Bill Clinton forming a new party and running against him (let's pretend the 2 term limit doesn't apply, because it didn't back then). What happened in 1912 was basically that a very popular ex-president decided to run against his party who fielded a less popular sitting president. So, technically, it were still kinda-sorta, three candidates from the same two parties. I don't want to compare it to Bernie running against Clinton because Bernie never was a president. Even though I'd guess that he's have a good chance to actually get votes from people who're fed up to the level of throwing up by BOTH these goofballs.
The outcome in 1912 was a victory for the Democrat Wilson, of course, since the Republican votes were split between the two competing Reps.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If your uncle starts recommending you sexually assault women, then he's not a nice guy.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Wikileaks is one sided because they focus on Political Corruption. Donald Trump is not a Politician, and argue all you like about business practices he has worked within the law. Clinton on the other hand has flat out broken the law and repeatedly lied to the Public in order to get and hold Political power. Since leaving the White House "flat broke" the Clinton's have personally cleared over 14Million a year (yes, that is Net income not Gross income) on Bill's Retirement and her pay as Secretary of State.
Since we know the media colludes to promote Hillary what else happened on Friday? What did Wikileaks reveal Friday that the Media and Clinton's have had to go to the "Trump said a bad word" archive for? You have to realize that the recording is illegal in California and someone could go to jail, and the source will pay a hefty civil price too. That is a whole lot of damage to take, so what was up with Wikileaks?
Why on Earth would Hillary come out and profess openly that her private positions don't match her public positions? Is not her admitting to openly deceiving people more news worthy than "tits"? Lets see what really happened on Friday.
1. The State Department selling out US Uranium mines to Russians. You know, that important strategic asset we should worry about because of nuclear weapons. Right?
2. Excerpts from Hillary's speeches showing her real position on Borders, she does not want any and does not care that US Citizens suffer.
3. Hillary want's Politicians to Listen to Wall Street and let them set their own Policies.
4. Further validation that massive media companies are colluding with the Hillary Campaign to sway voter opinions by deceit and omitting information from Public inspection. You know, the same thing that Hillary and her ilk accuse the Russians of doing by repeatedly leaking these things called "FACTS" that they have to hack because the sources are liars. Honestly, I get a lot of the "my team" grand standing, but I don't get the mental gymnastics required to believe that whole line of thought.
5. Information that the White House, yes President Obama, and numerous US Departments not only knew of Clinton's wrong doing but attempted to suppress information. So it's not just the media colluding with Hillary and the DNC, it's the whole "We will be the most transparent administration in History", "Hope and Change", and "Change you can believe in" people running full bore to not change, not be more transparent, but to lie to the American public to get their person into office.
Oh there is more, but let me just give you my personal perspective. If you are so offended by Trump admitting he accepted the word "No" and was still nice to a person who turned him down because he said "Pussy" and "Tit" you should at least consider it possible that you lack the maturity to vote. If you believe that the Trump story is more important than the Wikileaks story, you are a fool who definitely lacks the maturity to vote.
several illnesses in my family all at once wiped out all the money I had by 2008 and the economic crash (brought on by deregulation, specifically allowing main street & Wall Street banks to interact) did the rest. It's 2016 and I just recovered. And no, I didn't live an extravagant life style. Modest home, beater car, no traveling. I don't even drink or smoke.
What's important to me is paying for my kid's college and saving enough money to live when I can't work (which is different than retiring).
Nice troll though, but you could do better.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
You are correct. The proper way to disclaim them was to say "we have no idea what these emails are or what they represent,"
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
But Trump does make a difference, because if his antics start badly effecting downticket Senate races (and there is at least some evidence that this is starting to happen), that could mean that Clinton will have fewer obstacles to her various appointments. This is why the GOP is in foment right now. They had pretty much written off Trump months ago, but they needed him to behave like a rational human being and, god forbid, an actual politician, so as to not do damage to the party itself.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Free trade may increase economic activity, but the activity may only be profitable to large corporations and not common people (or it may be profitable for anyone).
For example, I would not like it if people from Belarus or Ukraine were allowed to freely move here, even if they did not get welfare. They would offer to work cheaper because they do not need a lot of money - if they save some money and go back home, they will be rich by local standards. The same thing my countrymen are doing in the UK.
I would not like to have my salary reduced (or be laid off) because an Ukrainian offered to do my job cheaper. Even though it would be more profitable to my employer.
The UK has shot itself in the foot and destabilized the financial sector which was its only area of comparative advantage. They aren't the model to imitate at all.
So you find yourself "enlightened" enough to decide what is/isn't a crime, eh? You wouldn't condemn innocents at all, no, no. An accusation is all that suffices as long as the (thought) crime is one of those you are interested in & you can target the population you want to suppress. You should move to Turkey, they are having great success criminalising thousands and thousands of their people the way you want to.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
No, actually she didn't "mishandle" anything. There are no charges, and no pending charges. Trump by contrast is involved in 300+ lawsuits including this rape case.
And I wish we didn't. Yeah, he mighta taken the primary, but as soon as he hit general there'd be 24/7 ads of him saying he's a (Democratic) Socialist and everybody over 50 who's still afraid of communists would race to the polls to vote. I say this as somebody who waited 3 hours in line to vote for Bernie in the primary.
Our politics are overwhelmingly driven by fear. Fear is what gets people to the polls. It's what's gonna cost Trump the election and it would have cost Bernie the election.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
As with, for example, rape, there are two sides to cronyism. Trump was never a public official before, he is a victim of cronyism. Far too much in America these days requires a government permit/license/approval — making cronyism inevitable. But Trump did not introduce it.
Whether he will happily partake of it, once he becomes a public servant himself, or not remains to be seen. But so far no such accusations against him can be made.
Unlike with Hillary Clinton, whom nobody would've paid $200K for a single speech, if she weren't a Secretary of State and an "inevitable" President. One ought to vote for Trump just to prove all of these bribes she received a bad investment...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Ah, that famously gallant concern Democrats have for the Republican Party...
KKK, BLM, and Westboro Church — three infamously Democratic outfits — throw urine at each other, but it is the Republicans, who need to worry about their dignity... Fabulous...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I realize I may be offending you by saying this, but there are two genders. Honestly, there are. Reality seems to ignore political correctness at times.
YOU may never say sh*t like that, but do you stand up when others do?
As a matter of fact, I do.
Are you not aware that many important allies in the world are directed by a female leader?
There have been great and honorable female leaders. Golda Meir, for instance. Margaret Thatcher, even if you didn't agree with her politics. And many others. (Hillary won't be one of them but that's a different discussion.)
I was thinking for 2020 they might be able to get the guy from Duck Dynasty
Yeah, some men have no sense of humor, like being doormats
Since when is not speaking in denigrating terms about women, or putting up with other men doing so, being a doormat? I'd say it's quite the opposite.
How come they refuse to link her to the lies, there are so many out there. One defintive one is about Benghazi. She lied, our people died! She (or her boss Obama, the supposed commander and chief who was too busy planning his Las Vegas fund raiser) could have sent in the military. Instead they left them. The Ambassador could have been kidnapped, what they probably wanted to have happen. I know, sounds far fetched. Then what was she doing if that wasn't the objective? Why not send in the military? Why not take so many of the actions she was told to take? She's not fit to lead anything.
I mean why would you - it's a shoe in.
You missed that the latest leaks the Clinton Foundation was to NOT HAVE ANY CONTACT while Hillary was Secretary of State. Emails prove she did.
Do you like oligarchy?
TrumPutinites froth at the mouth at the supposed influence that oligarchs have over Clinton - yet cheer on their hero, who IS an oligarch, who boasts about being an oligarch, who tells them in no uncertain terms he intends to rule as an oligarch and that he is going to screw them over good. And they cheer and cheer and cheer.
So you find yourself "enlightened" enough to decide what is/isn't a crime, eh?
I'm afraid we err on the side of requiring explicit consent these days. Apparently you didn't get the memo.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Sorry, I don't live in the PC world where you you think you live where you need to fill out forms and have them certified before having sex. It seems that your fantasy world where you get to be the one choosing (instead of the participating adults) what is and isn't consent is just that: your fantasy. You can send all the memos you want but until the laws change, they have no effect.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
Yes, they stay the same at the expense of a ballooning national debt and negative levels of job creation. Meanwhile wealthy inequality grows at an even faster rate because our wealthiest benefit the most from his plan.
Sounds like a great way to continue the dismantling of the middle class to me.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Normally I'd post something snarky about how you're absolutely right.
But you know what, this is ANOTHER great reason to vote for Clinton!
You want to think you can beat and crush somebody to be the gender they're not. Go to hell.
What on earth does the chamber of commerce have to be nervous about? Trump has promised them a dream of a tax plan.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
I don't know enough about truimps x wife's allegations
It seems to me to be a bit odd to on the one hand claim to know nothing about the subject at hand, and on the other, to be claiming that Trumps situation is somehow different to Clintons. That doesn't seem a weird claim to you?
Categorisation is really useful when you want to deal with aggregates rather than individual instances, but the catch is that you need to remember that you are making some assumptions.
You are correct in saying that there are two genders - for certain values of what 'gender' means. Gender is more than just a categorisation of biological sex - it also refers to social structures and identities (and yes, I'm aware that those social structures and identities grow out of and are closely linked with the biological). Even when considering the purely biological meaning, while most individuals in a population may be well defined as either male or female, not all will be.
You plead 'reality', but reality is not as binary as our approximations sometimes imply. Ignoring edge cases and exceptions because they form a small percentage of the group in question might be convenient, but when those exceptions are individuals who have to deal with social stigmas, discrimination or simply the unconscious assumptions that your post typifies perhaps convenience can bow to courtesy without it being labelled 'political correctness'.
This is not a new phenomenon. Historically, several cultures have had more than two genders with well defined social roles and positions.
You are reminding someone that there exists an approximation (that's useful and fits large samples of data quite well, but is still an approximation) and dismiss trying to discuss and deal with the exceptions, edge cases or less well-defined individuals as 'political correctness'. Yes, you are technically correct, but your post adds nothing. If you have a criticism about the position being taken by the GP, then make it.
A presidential candidate speaking to wall st. execs praises them and asks for donations!! did not expect that!
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Unfortunately, the Your Logical Fallacy Is site doesn't "two wrongs make a right" or "moral equivalence" as choices.
So, the pen is mightier than the sword? Good to know.
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
Anonymous hacked Trump this spring. You didn't see Republicans be WATB's, crying that the group had a bias (because they didn't hack Hillary as well) and where trying to throw the election. And the fact that it's irrelevant who did the hacking - it could have been Zombie Hitler, and he still wouldn't have forced the DNC or Hillary to corrupt political hacks.
FWIW, Bill Clinton was not at all punished for anything he said WRT sexual harassment and/or rape. He did lose his license to practice law (after leaving office) as a result of obstructing justice and perjuring himself in connection with one sexual harassment case, which was also the reason he was impeached. The trial itself broke along party lines, and he was acquitted. He was not, in any sense, punished by the congress. To this day, many people believe that he was impeached for getting a blowjob.
Oddly enough, obstructing justice is the same charge that Nixon resigned (and was pardoned by Ford) to avoid. We've come quite a long way in the last 40 years--many still revile Nixon as a corrupt practitioner of political dirty tricks, and many still vehemently disagree with Ford's pardoning him. Meanwhile, they laud people who have done at least as much if not more.
In answer to your question about the nexus to Hillary (FWIW, I agree with you that Bill's actions should have no bearing on her) it would probably have to do with the hypocrisy inherent in her recent conversion to the "believe the victim regardless of facts in evidence" when she did her level best to the destroy the women who had the nerve to accuse her husband of harassing and/or raping them.
I further agree with your stance WRT Trump. The man is entirely indefensible and anyone who stands up in support of him should have serious difficulty looking in the mirror. Of course, anyone defending Hillary should have the same problem. In a just world, we'd exclude both of them from polite society.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
You're certainly able to name any of those other countries, yes?
Canada has 5 different parties in the house of Reps and 3 in the Senate. Australia has 7 and 12 respectively.
If you want to say UK...
I didn't, but yes they too have a bunch of minor parties so my point still stands.
never heard of john f kennedy?
Yes, did he ever brag about sexual assault?
Where you complaining at Anonymous this spring, when they targeted Trump's campaign but not Hillary's? Trying to swing a foreign country's primary etc etc? If not, why not.
He boasts about it cause he did it legally. When you have a Loss as large as he did back in the 90's, it exempts you from paying taxes for a # of years, which he did. Don't blame the player, he's playing by the rules.
Have you ever fallen asleep at the keybhanusdiog?
That system works great for a club but not for a country.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Please link to a source that says JFK publicly bragged about his affairs or publicly bragged about groping women, or hell, anything else.
A consensual affair is not equitable to publicly bragging about assault.
Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
I find that a tad worrisome. Being overly cocky about your chances could lead to an undoing . Romney was projected to win, and by a landslide, and we all know how that turned out.
Hillary has a lot of baggage, that baggage (I realize largely unproven, or should I say Yuuugely unproven) and that baggage means more to some (ok, a LOT of) people than accomplishments and experience. And the drawback of the information age is misinformation has never been easier to spread.
She should not make the mistake of believing she's got it in the bag, she is disliked nearly as much as Trump. I think more are voting against a candidate than are voting for a candidate. Dangerous.
Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
1. The first problem is that demographic has changed in a way that favours Democrats. Republicans need to court a different group from their traditional base (white men) otherwise they will not be competitive in any race in the future. Some of the other candidates even tried to do that early in the race, but the republican base, in their wisdom picked someone who is unelectable: not because he has no tactics and no policies and makes no case as why he should be president, but because his message means nothing to women and to folks with pigment. Even if 100% of the white men in the US vote for him he will not win, because white men are no longer near to 50% of the people who vote.
2. The electoral map tells the story. When Hillary speaks, she is speaking to the small number of people in the remaining states in play - all of these states, plus the states that Hillary has already won over, have to be won by Trump. Trumps supporters think that when she speaks, she is speaking to them - she doesn't care about them or their conspiracy theories and their labelling of her as a killer. She doesn't need to defend herself against them because she doesn't need their vote, they've made themselves irrelevant.
3. Romney was engaging, he was moderate, he made an argument. What are Trumps plans?
4. Hillary ought to care about the Republicans who have called it quits on Trump and are now focussed on the Senate and Congressional races recognising (rightly) that Trump cannot win and they are going to win more votes for the Republicans by being principled then by sticking with Trump.
I agree that the US is gradually becoming a one party state - and that's a problem. It's a problem for everybody. The people who vote Republican are not well represented and need a voice. If the Democrats become too powerful they will not listen to the people they should court to vote for them and only listen to the innards of their party - to some extent I surmise this is already happening. But then the ground is fertile and prepared for a new party with better ideas and less beholden to special interests. Hopefully, this experience will result in the formation of such a party (not a fake party like the Tea party, a real one).
The irony is, that Trumps supporters think he is like them, that he hears them and sympathises with their concerns. He doesn't, he doesn't pretend to, and he even boasts about it. He is mocking them, and they hear that as him mocking someone else.
It would not be legal for Trumps supporters to do what he did, of course, but they don't seem to be able to put those 2 ends together, and recognise that Trump speaks to them, and thinks of them, as serfs and morons to be played.
That's why he won't stand down and let a Republican who might win take the ticket. He enjoys cheating the gullible too much.
"a new party with better ideas and less beholden to special interests."
We can only hope.
Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
It's the same thing, with a different jacket.
So, lets vote for the wife of a rapist instead!
Mr. Trump, I believe your handlers have requested that you stop posting this stuff until after the campaign.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
I think you're confused about the meaning of "*actually*"
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Mention his abusive behavior? She accused him of raping her. Exactly what he was recorded bragging about doing to strangers. Just a coincidence I guess. Both of them just making small talk. Haha, life is funny, eh?
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
I think you don't understand the meaning of "without a doubt".
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Women should be flattered when a great man like Trump grabs their pussy. He wouldn't do that if they were chubbos.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Just like people who stand up for Trump are just holding him back. If you ever want him to achieve equality you've got to let him fight his own battles.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
How fast do you think Obama's nominee will move through the Senate should Hillary win the election? How much faster if the election hands the Senate gavel to Chuck Schumer?
I'm guessing you are going to see a lame duck session come together very rapidly, just to move a moderate candidate into that vacant seat before the equation possibly changes in January to allow a more liberal justice to be nominated.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
The Talmudic law recognizes 6 distinct genders; just an example of a pretty conservative but intensely thought out analysis. And that's from a couple of thousand years ago before all the surgical and pharmaceutical things possible now. It's like saying all those racial gradations we use these days are silly, there's white and colored and that's it.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
You are confusing financial disclosure with tax returns.
Tax returns don't show shit about individual investments, just aggregate profit (or loss) from investments, and the tax owed (or credited) based on that outcome.
Financial disclosure forms, which are actually required to be filed by the FEC, show individual investments pertaining to conflict of interest. It's also why many candidates put their assets into a "blind trust" before taking office - so they have no control over any of it while in a position to create policy, avoiding the potential conflict of interest.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Why the fuck would Russia be trying to get more Uranium for weapons? They already have shitloads of already-enriched Uranium, to the point where they've been SELLING IT TO THE UNITED STATES since 1994 after de-enriching it from weapons grade into reactor grade.
Stop talking about things you have no idea about.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Because it's the thing that gets the right wing upset. He's a xenophobic serial liar with the attention span of a gnat who knows nothing about domestic or foreign issues and has no clue about what the president can or cannot do, whose entire business history comprises robbing his partners, investors, suppliers, and employees in order to inflate his own grandiose ego? Sure, why not. Uh oh, he's expressing an interest in sex which half the rightwingers privately share (the other half being gay or pedophiles)! Burn the witch!
Freudian repression and projection personified by the very class of people in whom Freud couldn't help but observe it.
The flip side of the rightwing's obsession with Bill Clinton's sex life and their disappointed surprise when the public in general didn't seem to want to lynch Clinton over it.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Trump is a (bad) businessman. Why do you think he isn't already effectively beholden to Wall Street?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
No, a successful third party candidate can generate plenty of media coverage. You could argue that the media have supported a two-party system for, say, the last 60 years, but we've had a two-party system for pretty much the entire history of the US.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I wouldn't call grabbing women by the genitals rape, but it's definitely sexual assault. This isn't simply being a sexist scumbag, it's claiming behavior that would get him put away for months in my state. There's plenty of sexual scumbags in politics (although I have no reason to suspect Hillary Clinton), but they generally don't violate criminal law while doing it.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org... [taxpolicycenter.org] http://www.politifact.com/trut... [politifact.com]
One look at the authors of these "analysis" pieces should tell you everything you need to know about them.
Politifact has been shown time and time again to be less than factual about so many things.
You could, of course, make your own judgement about both plans.
Murphy was an optimist
Talmudic discourse recognizes, in varying ways, indeterminate gender, incapacity to reproduce, etc. I would have to review to be sure but I believe there is a category for someone born with physical characteristics of both genders.
But all of you miss my point.
Someone can be straight, gay, male, female, trans, identify with a certain gender, and all the variations that there may be. They all deserve to be treated with the respect and dignity due any human being. They deserve to be free from discrimination and intimidation. I never intended to imply anything else, and in my personal life I try very hard to live by these principles.
None of this negates biology. We are nearly all of us born either male or female. Yes, we can change that. Yes, we can identify differently or have different orientations. And none of this should be a problem.
Thanks for that confirmation.
What is more pathetic, that you still can't figure out that Bill isn't running for anything, or that you are so shamefully sexist that you think you can blame the woman for something that her husband does. In any case, it doesn't matter, you are deplorable beyond all hope of redemption.
Here ya go Bucko. Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient. Nothing new about that law, just new to you.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
I have and I find it terribly hard to believe that massive tax breaks on the wealthy, who are wealthier than they have ever been in US history, is in the average Americans best interest. Furthermore, I find it hard to believe that massively lower corporate taxes will some how make US corporations, most who are sitting on unprecedented bank rolls, spend more money on creating jobs.
There's only one thing that will make either of these players spend more money on creating jobs and it's not handing them more money. It's the increased consumer demand that comes from a middle class that hasn't been shrinking for the last 50 years. It's simple supply and demand economics. If the demand is there, the affluent will spend more money to create the supply and in doing so create jobs. Shoveling more money at the wealthy does nothing to increase demand for goods and thus there is no correlating benefit to those who provide labor.
Obviously there are ceilings for these claims (you cant tax the wealthy endlessly like some third world country's failed populous policy) but we're miles from that.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
You do realize that you comment works both ways, don't you?
Face it, you are as deplorable as Hillary, nobody with any sense of decency would stand by this piece of garbage.
After all, publically calling the women your husband raped whores really shows how for feminism one is. Also, with how careless she was with classified information, and official records (which are used for FOIA), do you really trust her to keep the launch codes secret or actually care about Top Secret information?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Not that I like defending Obama or anything, but you do realize he is reading a book there, those aren't his own personal words.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
just admit that you are so messed up that you want a child raping molester that is good friends with a foreign despot and a general failure of a human being to be president. Your impotent attempts at justifying your shameful decisions by trying to make up crap it, to be honest, getting rather tiring.
What makes you think I am voting for Trump? Perhaps you should rethink your position that there are only two choices.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
trump, or against trump. If you think that your hissy fit protest vote is anything other than a vote in favor of trump, you should go ask a Nader supporter how that worked out the last time.