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
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.
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.
"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.
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!
"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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.