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..."
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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/
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.
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.
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?
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.
I don't see how, seeing as I don't allow google to set cookies on my machine.
On your machine? How very quaint... Google's been using Mind Cookies since February 2014.
#DeleteChrome
There was no rigging.
The superdelegates are election tampering. Their express purpose is to allow the Political elite to shut out candidates, or promote one of their own. The republicans have the same structure, but did not give their superdelegates enough power to override the crazy train.
We'll probably never know if Sanders would have won without the Democratic National Committee and the superdelegates doing everything in their power to shut out Sanders. That is why, in spite of facing an imbecile for an opponent, the democrats could still manage to lose this election. The Democrats political elite severely tampered with this election and they know it, and for many people that kind of tampering is enough to prevent them from ever voting for Clinton. There is a small minority of people who will vote for Trump now, just to watch it all burn and teach the god damn career politicians a lesson.
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
Of course Sanders never had a chance, becuase they rigged the election. They rigged the election because he has a good chance.
"There was no rigging."
There was plenty of obvious rigging if you had a criminal enough mind to look at it from a different angle. Calling the vote for Clinton during primaries before the votes were even counted halfway (Arizona, IIRC) exit polls, etc. all show signs of electoral fraud.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
> Sanders never really had a chance
Then why did they plot against him so much? If he never had a chance, why collude and cheat?
Seeing as Bernie isn't really a democrat, it is pretty disengenuous to claim that the party rules are unfair or unreasonable. The system is theoretically there for stability, but either way, it is the rule of the game.
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
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.
It's a general observation. Political correctness, trigger warnings, safe spaces, red lines in the sand, personal pronouns, etc. All words, not actions, yet some people believe they have magical powers like witchcraft spells. They only have power if you believe that they do.
What is "influencing," though? The DNC leaks exposed what anyone with a half a brain has understand for a long time: our news media is just propaganda. We don't so much have state-run media as we have a media-run state. The same corporations that own the media own the politicians. So when the corporate media spreads political propaganda they're influencing the election. When WikiLeaks does it they're influencing the election. What's the difference?
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
He was talking shit. To one of Dubya's nephews, if I'm not mistaken. That's stud-man bullshit. The kind of shit you say to show off and strut like a peacock. Not hard-boiled misogyny.
Hard-boiled misogyny is when you sexually harass women at the workplace, i.e. have subordinates fellate you in your Oval Office, and your wife helps trash and discredit the people you've sexually harassed.
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.
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/
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.
"Hard-boiled misogyny" is when you describe a lifestyle as Trump literally described his own. You site the indiscretions of Bill as if they are those of Hilary.
If you can site where Hilary indulges in "Hard-boiled misogyny" on the level of Trump I might take you seriously but until then, not so much.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
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.'"
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.
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.
"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.
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.
I'm ready for the old news-media to die.
Both the olde media and new media needs to die. It didn't take more then a decade before the new started going exactly the same shit as the olde did and does. The media landscape in general is ripe for organizations that publish factual and generally neutral, or pieces where they declare their bias right out in the open. It's one of the reasons why far-left news orgs are in a cash free fall, whether it be WAPO, Politco or The Guardian. Or garbage clickbait like Vox, Huffpo, etc. While sites that are fully open with their bias, like Breitbart, Washington Examiner, etc., or neutral reporting like The Spectator(UK), are gaining eyeballs and making money off advertising. Even in the current state of advertising being worthless.
Om, nomnomnom...
For someone who's not /really/ a democrat, he still seems to have done more to help the party platform long term than any of the current batch of (D) politicians it appears.
He's stumping hard for Hillary against Trump, kept his word that he would, and is loyally working hard with the party that supposedly he's not got anything to do with.
He asked for lots, got less, but the things he was fighting for Hillary's picked up and ran with. So I see that as a win.
I wish more politicians were not really a democrat as much as Sanders is.
Waiting for an amusing sig.
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.
The fringes of both the Democratic and Republican parties believe that all they need to do to win the general election is win their primary.
The reality is that unless both fringes manage to do so for the same election, centrist voters, who are the one who determine who wins in general elections will abandon the party with the fringe candidate.
Unfortunately for the Bernie fringies willing want to see everything burn, they're outnumbered by the people in the Republican party who are disgusted with Trump.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.