Slashdot Mirror
Clinton Responds To WikiLeaks During Debate, And Blames Russian Hackers (qz.com)
An anonymous Slashdot reader writes:During Sunday night's debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, moderators asked a question based on WikiLeaks documents released Friday -- to which both candidates responded. The leaked emails had included excerpts from Hillary's paid speeches to Wall Street in which she reportedly said "You need both a public and a private position on certain issues."
Clinton said she had been describing the 2012 movie Lincoln, and that Lincoln's use of different arguments for different groups of people was "a great display of presidential leadership." Then, citing intelligence reports, she said "Putin and the Russian government are directing the attacks -- the hacking on American accounts to influence our election...for Donald Trump."
Click through for a complete transcript of Clinton's remarks -- and Trump's response.
The question -- based on the WikiLeaks release -- was, "Is it okay for politicians to be two-faced? Is it acceptable for a politician to have a private stance on issues?"
Hillary Clinton's response:
Right. As I recall, that was something I said about Abraham Lincoln, after having seen the wonderful Steven Spielberg movie called Lincoln. It was a master class, watching President Lincoln get the Congress to approve the 13th Amendment. It was principled, and it was strategic. And I was making the point that it is hard sometimes to get the Congress to do what you want to do, and you have to keep working at it. And yes, President Lincoln was trying to convince some people, he used some arguments, convincing other people he used other arguments. That was a great -- I thought, a great display of presidential leadership.
But you know, let's talk about what's really going on here, Martha, because our intelligence community just came out and said in the last few days that the Kremlin, meaning Putin and the Russian government, are directing the attacks -- the hacking on American accounts to influence our election. And WikiLeaks is part of that, as are other sites where the Russians hack information -- we don't even know if it's accurate information -- and then they put it out. We have never, in the history of our country, been in a situation where an adversary, a foreign power, is working so hard to influence the outcome of the election. And believe me they're not doing it to get me elected. They're doing it to try to influence the election for Donald Trump.
Now maybe because he has praised Putin. Maybe because he says he agrees with a lot of what Putin wants to do. Maybe because he wants to do business in Moscow -- I don't know the reasons. But we deserve answers. And we should demand that Donald release all of his tax returns, so that people can see what are the entanglements and the financial relationship that he has with Russian and other foreign powers.
Donald Trump's response:
Well I think I should respond because -- so ridiculous. Look, now she's blaming -- she got caught in a total lie. Her papers went out to all her friends at the banks, Goldman Sachs and everybody else, and she said things -- WikiLeaks, that just came out. And you lied. Now she's blaming the lie on the late, great Abraham Lincoln. That's one that I haven't heard. [Audience laughs] Okay, honest Abe. Honest Abe never lied. That's the good thing. That's the big difference between Abraham Lincoln and you. That's a big, big difference. We're talking about some difference.
But as far as other elements of what she was saying, I don't know Putin. I think it would be great if we got along with Russia, because we could fight ISIS together, as an example -- but I don't know Putin. But I notice any time anything wrong happens, they like to say, "The Russians are..." She doesn't know if it's the Russians doing the hacking. Maybe there is no hacking. But they always blame Russia.
And the reason they blame is because they think they're trying to tarnish me with Russia. I know nothing about Russia. I know -- I know about Russia, but I know nothing about the inner workings of Russia. I don't deal there, I have no businesses there, I have no loans from Russia.
I have a very, very great balance sheet, so great that when I did the old post office on Pennsylvania Avenue, the United States government, because of my balance sheet, which they actually know very well, chose me to do the old post office between the White House and Congress -- chose me to do the old post office. One of the primary things, in fact perhaps the primary thing, was balance sheet. But I have no loans with Russia. You could go to the United States government, and they would probably tell you that, because they know my sheet very well.
In order to get that development, I had to have -- now the taxes are a very simple thing. As soon as I have -- first of all, I paid hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes. Many of her friends took bigger deductions -- Warren Buffett took a massive deduction. Soros, who's a friend of hers, took a massive deduction. Many of the people that are giving her all this money, that she can do many more commercials than me, gave or took massive deductions. I pay hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes, but -- but, as soon as my routine audit's finished, I'll release my returns. I'll be very proud to.
Clinton said she had been describing the 2012 movie Lincoln, and that Lincoln's use of different arguments for different groups of people was "a great display of presidential leadership." Then, citing intelligence reports, she said "Putin and the Russian government are directing the attacks -- the hacking on American accounts to influence our election...for Donald Trump."
Click through for a complete transcript of Clinton's remarks -- and Trump's response.
The question -- based on the WikiLeaks release -- was, "Is it okay for politicians to be two-faced? Is it acceptable for a politician to have a private stance on issues?"
Hillary Clinton's response:
Right. As I recall, that was something I said about Abraham Lincoln, after having seen the wonderful Steven Spielberg movie called Lincoln. It was a master class, watching President Lincoln get the Congress to approve the 13th Amendment. It was principled, and it was strategic. And I was making the point that it is hard sometimes to get the Congress to do what you want to do, and you have to keep working at it. And yes, President Lincoln was trying to convince some people, he used some arguments, convincing other people he used other arguments. That was a great -- I thought, a great display of presidential leadership.
But you know, let's talk about what's really going on here, Martha, because our intelligence community just came out and said in the last few days that the Kremlin, meaning Putin and the Russian government, are directing the attacks -- the hacking on American accounts to influence our election. And WikiLeaks is part of that, as are other sites where the Russians hack information -- we don't even know if it's accurate information -- and then they put it out. We have never, in the history of our country, been in a situation where an adversary, a foreign power, is working so hard to influence the outcome of the election. And believe me they're not doing it to get me elected. They're doing it to try to influence the election for Donald Trump.
Now maybe because he has praised Putin. Maybe because he says he agrees with a lot of what Putin wants to do. Maybe because he wants to do business in Moscow -- I don't know the reasons. But we deserve answers. And we should demand that Donald release all of his tax returns, so that people can see what are the entanglements and the financial relationship that he has with Russian and other foreign powers.
Donald Trump's response:
Well I think I should respond because -- so ridiculous. Look, now she's blaming -- she got caught in a total lie. Her papers went out to all her friends at the banks, Goldman Sachs and everybody else, and she said things -- WikiLeaks, that just came out. And you lied. Now she's blaming the lie on the late, great Abraham Lincoln. That's one that I haven't heard. [Audience laughs] Okay, honest Abe. Honest Abe never lied. That's the good thing. That's the big difference between Abraham Lincoln and you. That's a big, big difference. We're talking about some difference.
But as far as other elements of what she was saying, I don't know Putin. I think it would be great if we got along with Russia, because we could fight ISIS together, as an example -- but I don't know Putin. But I notice any time anything wrong happens, they like to say, "The Russians are..." She doesn't know if it's the Russians doing the hacking. Maybe there is no hacking. But they always blame Russia.
And the reason they blame is because they think they're trying to tarnish me with Russia. I know nothing about Russia. I know -- I know about Russia, but I know nothing about the inner workings of Russia. I don't deal there, I have no businesses there, I have no loans from Russia.
I have a very, very great balance sheet, so great that when I did the old post office on Pennsylvania Avenue, the United States government, because of my balance sheet, which they actually know very well, chose me to do the old post office between the White House and Congress -- chose me to do the old post office. One of the primary things, in fact perhaps the primary thing, was balance sheet. But I have no loans with Russia. You could go to the United States government, and they would probably tell you that, because they know my sheet very well.
In order to get that development, I had to have -- now the taxes are a very simple thing. As soon as I have -- first of all, I paid hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes. Many of her friends took bigger deductions -- Warren Buffett took a massive deduction. Soros, who's a friend of hers, took a massive deduction. Many of the people that are giving her all this money, that she can do many more commercials than me, gave or took massive deductions. I pay hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes, but -- but, as soon as my routine audit's finished, I'll release my returns. I'll be very proud to.
So it's Russia's fault you did bad things? What are you going to tell us next, that you can see Russia from your back yard?
No, it's that third guy mentioned in the first debate. The 400 lb guy eating chips.
"we don't even know if it's accurate information"...right after a weird anecdote about Abe Lincoln clarifying what she meant in that transcript, the one that may or may not be accurate.
She's right - we don't know if they're accurate, but she does, and it sure sounded like that particular transcript was accurate. How about the rest of them?
This has turned into a foot race between Assange & friend's hacking, and Mr. Trump's own mouth.
there's no point to going on the defensive. She's got nothing to gain and lots to lose. Push back. That's how you make the sausage that is real American politics.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Is it okay for politicians to be two-faced?
Just reading the ramblings of these answers now, it seems the question should be is it ok for politicians to be Schizophrenic?
Is there any actual evidence that "the scary russians" are to blame for this?
Disregard everything else. Is there any evidence?
Clinton - lies, kills, schemes, physically sick and potentially sociopath (she does pretend that she cares about people) Trumps - lies, assaults women, cheats, psychologically not stable Who do you want more?
Lincoln? Saving Private Ryan? E.T.?
Right now I'm studying French by watching the Terminator.
Trump is more honest because he admits to being unable to actually tell anything like a consistent truth?
That's like saying magma is less hot than fire because it's more self aware.
First the Clinton camp gave us "I refuse to admit that those documents are mine because they were stolen from me."
Now we get "I never said that, but here's what I meant when I said it."
Can we have Bernie back, now?
Most of the time Hillary's emotions look totally fake to me - especially the smiles and laughs.
But, when Trump seemed to be suggesting that everyone remaining in Aleppo was a rebel - and therefore ISIS - and that the Assad dictatorship and Russia should therefore be allowed to annihilate them, for a brief moment she looked genuinely angry.
Maybe her attention was just wondering back to the personal insults at the beginning of the date. But, for just a moment, I was able to imagine that she genuinely cared about something other than her own personal glory, and I had this fleeting thought that she was almost someone I could vote for.
Whatever it takes to avoid FOIA requests.
It's just not fair to expect her to remember what she said to other people or what she's been up to with all that brain damage she's suffered. So I think she means it literally and she simply can't remember her own words. That's how she can tell us with a straight face that she hasn't been lying to us. I mean, why can't we believe that she honestly doesn't know what's going on any more or who she used to be?
Grab her by the pussy, comrade!
"Success By Trump captures the spirit of the driven man. The scent is an inspiring blend of fresh juniper and iced red currant, brushed with hints of coriander. As it evolves, the mix of frozen ginger, fresh bamboo leaves and geranium emerge taking center stage, while a masculine combination of rich vetiver, tonka bean, birchwood and musk create a powerful presence throughout wear. For more information, please call 212-836-3248 or visit www.trumpsuccess.com"
Soon to be released: "My new fragrance Commander In Chief. Not everyone can be a leader like me, but you can smell like a leader with my new perfume. $3.99 from Macy's"
What about publishing Trump's open mike (as in not intended for the public) verbal pants shitting? That's okay because it can't be traced to some nefarious foreign power?
I think they should postpone the election until they can figure out why Donald Trump sniff's constantly when he's talking. It's a serious problem. A news outlet counted ninety-two times tonight, which is 30% up from the last debate.
He also chewed his lips several times (play the tape). Now I'm not saying the dude is doing rails in the limo on the way to the debates but if he's didn't have a snoot full of flake, he's got to see an ear, nose and throat doctor, stat. Maybe they can adapt Hillary's anti-coughing machine to stop Donald's incessant sniveling, because I find it very distracting, and I'm keen to hear every red pill truth bomb Trump drops.
You are welcome on my lawn.
For all we know her friends at the CIA and NSA may be the ones behind the hacks. She's definitely pissed off enough people there with her security "lapses".
Plus, a lot of the "evidence" is pretty dumb. "Oh, there was Russian metadata in some of the changed files." "They used a server located in Russia." Well duh, don't you think that shit would be sterilized if a real agency was in charge?
It would be the height of comedy if the other investigating agencies were so incompetent that they actually believe that Russia was behind it but it was done by our TLAs.
We want that pipeline from the middle east through Syria to Eastern Europe so we can destroy GAZPROM, and any Russian influence in EU energy planning.
I am not kidding. We are on the verge of going to war with Russia in Syria over a stupid oil pipeline.
This has nothing to do with Assad other than the fact he said NO to the pipeline.
We are comfortable with other Dictators we call friends but somehow Assad is a really bad man.
What crap.
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
This became more evident that once Trump showed the slightest decline in his campaign, even his own party (Republicans) are trying to abandon him (at least the Establishment on the Republican side). So who is the real problem in this election year?
I believe it is not the Democrat or the Republican parties as a whole, it is the Establishment member that are causing the problems. After this election is over, I will be taking note on the upcoming House and Senate elections that will be coming and decide which side of the line the candidates are on. Establishment or the constituents.
If any of them had any pro Establishment support, then they will be disqualified from my vote.
Just my opinion, if I lived in Wisconsin that scumbag Ryan would be the first to be removed from office.
Putin agreed a ceasefire, then bombed Alleppo (not an ISIS base, rather a rebel city opposing Assad that Assad has recently gassed with Chlorine). Putin used phrases like "Jihadist" leveraging the US military rhetoric to try to make it politically unacceptable to defend Alleppo from Russian backed Assad forces.
It seems to be language designed to leverage Trump too: Oppose Assad's attacking that city with chemical weapons, and Trump's astroturf and propaganda can claim you're defending Jihadists. Giving Trump a boost.
Then there's the invasion of Ukraine, the annexing of Crimea, the invasion of Georgia, the constant invasions of Nato airspace, and now even flying fighters into Finland airspace. It's clear Putin wants a reaction which can boost Trump.
Putin obviously wants Trump in power. Trump's pride won't let him back down on anything. Having backed Putin, Putin would have free reign to attack his neighbors. Trump wouldn't then be able to turn on Putin without admitting Trump was wrong, something Trump's pride prevents.
Keep in mind, as you ponder which of the Ruling Party narcissists is the least odious, that they are not your only options. You can always vote for a decent human being.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
on his tax returns when he is supposed to attack her on her being two-faced?
amazed
I know nothing about Russia. I know -- I know about Russia, but I know nothing about the inner workings of Russia.
Are those the words of a Presidential contender, or a fuckwit?
clarifying what she meant in that transcript
Can anyone explain what the controversy is about?
First, every politician does have a public and private position on issues. That's a given, unless you think everyone just honestly shares their actual private beliefs during campaigns?
Second, it is perfectly acceptable -- e.g., "I am going to help pass the law legalizing X as promised to voters, but personally I think X should remain banned"
Visitor Building Tips To Improve Your Blog-Quick SEO- http://wikitrick.net/visitor-b...
After seeing all the Republicans willing to drop Trump, or even in some cases, endorse Hitlery, I'm more convinced than ever that you're right. I mean, we had Bill Clinton as a president - the entire saga w/ Monica and the stories about Kathleen Willey, Dolly Kyle Browning and Juanita Broderick, and we're now questioning Trump's qualifications for that office for something he said, not did 11 years ago? Had Trump been a Democrat and this all came out, the Dems would be busy closing ranks around him. Just like they're standing steadfast behind her despite the emails.
As for Paul Ryan, I was disappointed that the other Paul didn't win.
I am going to help pass the law legalizing X as promised to voters
that implies future action fulfilling a promise to the voters.
If she's promising one thing in secret to the people funding her campaign, and other thing to the voters which group is more likely to get what they want once she's in office?
Here is what the above poster meant to type:
I am a democrat.
I have always voted democrat
I always will vote democrat, no matter how dishonest, terrible, and disgusting the candidate is
I fail to understand that Trump is actually a democrat and has many policies consistent with democrats. But, since he is not labeled a democrat, I can not vote for him
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer_2.0
"and we're now questioning Trump's qualifications for that office for something he said, not did 11 years ago? "
Did not do? Even in the video he spots a girl in purple, and feels her up. 40 seconds in "Trump: Jeez your girl is hot as shit. (Others)Whoa! (Other man) Yes! the Donald has scored". If you mean he didn't manage to have sex with a woman, despite buying her furniture, well, he is a weak vane man led by his cock. His self image and the reality are miles apart. But he certainly feels up woman on buses and gets away with it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlWR5SsH0hk
... and the fact that a candidate for the US presidency had to justify, on the debate stage, his bragging about sexual assault.
Also he threatened to jail his opponent like a two bit banana republic dictator. /. editors have interesting priorities.
Hillary Clinton is *already* our President. Accept it. We'll go to war with Russia, defeat them, take their resources and bring back the traitor Snowden. We will force Ecuador to surrender Assange. Nothing will stand in the way of our President, and as a loyal Liberal I'm ready, willing and able to kill anyone our glorious President will decide to call an enemy.
It didn't seem unreasonable for her to, as an example, tout the money making opportunities of her proposed legislation/policy positions to Wall Street, while touting the job creation aspects of the legislation/position to the general public - this is a very broad example, but just because a position matters in one dimension to a certain group, and then in a different way to another, doesn't mean she's being dishonest, disingenuous or 'playing both ends against the middle'. A policy can create wealth for Wall Street and jobs for Main Street, there's nothing that inherently makes them mutually exclusive (remember, I'm talking generally, and as an example, and not about any particular policy position or purposed legislation)
Anyone that's ever been in a leadership position with subordinates that aren't obligated to follow you (ie, non-job situations) knows that sometimes you have to be persuasive to get things done, and different people are persuaded by different arguments and logic. Some feel an obligation to the greater good, so they need goals set in that context; others need a more local focus, and need persuasion to focus on how actions directly affects them or those close to them. Good leaders know how to adjust their message and presentation to fit the context of the receiving party, and the inability to do this will simply deepen the issues in the government. Liberals want policies that help the masses, conservatives want fiscal responsibility, and they're not necessarily mutually exclusive. But if your messaging and tactics for both are the same, it is unlikely to get both groups on board and get actual laws and legislation passed.
So it's Russia's fault you did bad things? What are you going to tell us next, that you can see Russia from your back yard?
What exactly did they reveal? from where I'm sitting nothing, except maybe that she mentioned that "politicians sometimes needs to have a public and a private opinion", which taken out of context sounds sketchy -- in reality no doubt necessary and perfectly fine -- politicians should negotiate compromises on behalf of the people they represent, that sometimes means putting your private positions aside.
It could also be contrived as two-faced, which is bad. The argument Hillary made, namely that politicians presents different arguments to different groups isn't bad either...
Anyways, seems like another non-issue, certainly not a scandal comparable to any of the ones Trump has got going.
Trump has lived his life in public for a very long time now, thanks to being the star of a hit reality TV show.
As a result Trump has MANY years of rich source material to draw from (as we have just recently seen).
Trump is less vulnerable not because he's not been in the limelight as long as Clinton; Trump is less vulnerable simply because he's not as repugnant of a person as is Hillary, not even close.
Incidentally Trump being heavily in the public eye for decades now is also why he is so invincible against any verbal gaffes or supposed leaks. People already fundamentally "know" what trump is like from many years of watching him, so anything new they learn is very transitory compared to somebody that no-one knew much of before the race.
That also is true of Clinton; it's just that over decades Trump has earned a lot of favorable press from the before-times, while nothing Clinton ever did was of note unless it was a disaster or rather unethical.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Christ, I can't wait until this is all finally over. Trump is so far beyond toast that this is like dragging out some medieval execution. Whatever though, at least nothing will be sweeter than reading slashdot, reddit, facebook after he gets blasted out of the water on election night and whiny entitled white dudes see their golden god do worse than any candidate in over 20 years. As they see another nail in the coffin of the world where they controlled everything pounded in. Its over, white men don't win you elections anymore.
> First, every politician does have a public and private position on issues.
It seems to me that *all* politicians tend to vote their private positions, even if promising something publicly, then spin the decision ... "this wasn't the right time", "this wasn't about X it was about Y", etc. That seems to happen so often, I no longer care about public statements unless they are in a vacuum. Even then, you often see the hypocrisy in action and can discount their public statements. It's hard for me to believe you care AND have conveniently forgotten *any* political history?
Yeah, she blamed them because EVERY security firm and agency has verified - and shown publicly how they verified - that it WAS Russian hackers. And since you seem to be behind on fact based news: the reason most of the press is leaving this alone is that ALL the networks have determined the files are full of forgeries and fakes and none of it can be trusted. But hey, maybe you have an agenda causing you to imply with your headline that she was being deceitful. Because that is what you did.
The Clinton campaign's non-answers, their releasing a distraction "pussy" recording immediately after the WikiLeaks e-mail leak broke, and Hillary's feeble attempts at evasion confirm beyond any reasonable doubt that WikiLeaks' record of 100% reliability in releasing genuine documents remains intact. I wonder how many more "pussy" recordings they have to distract from WikiLeaks' plans to release a new batch of incriminating evidence against Hillary ever week from now until election day.
Researchers found fake data in the athlete's drug testing data that was released. There is therefore some concern that the DNC leaks, from the same source, may also have been doctored.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
First, every politician does have a public and private position on issues.
I guess that means Ron Paul wasn't a politician.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Thanks to WikiLeaks we understand now better how the US political system really works. We know more about DNC, about funding, candidate selections, political figures' backgrounds, etc.
WikiLeaks did more in political science than generations of academic researchers. It is a revolution in political science, a new brave world.
-So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish
Watching this election from the outside has been one of the most absurd experiences in my life thus far. The fact that these 2, both of whom are massively hated, are what the american version of 'democracy' (quotes because if this election doesn't showcase the huge issues with the primary-system I don't know what will) produces is just baffling to me.
And the fact that somehow Trump is seen as an outsider makes this even more twisted: he's not an outsider, he comes from the funding class itself, the same class of people that people hate Hillary for being in bed with. He gets his money from a whole host of different sources than Hillary, but nothing I have seen or read about him makes me believe he's capable of any integrity, or in fact that he has any principles at all. I mean look at his so called 'tax plan', it's cuts to the very richest of the rich, meaning himself, the Kochs, the Waltons, etc. But somehow this is the guy who stands for change and for the little guy moreso than Hillary? On what basis?
Honestly about the only sensible opinion I've heard him say is his opposition to the trade agreements, but given his tendency to openly lie about what he said 5 minutes ago on tape and deny he ever said such a thing I have not got high hopes that he would stick to that either if elected.
Facts stopped mattering a long time ago in this race on Trump's side because he's a known liar and on Hillary's side because the same is true for he and on top of that no-one trusts the establishment. So this has become a weird pseudo-election in which it's not about the policies, it's not about the current state of affairs, it's not about factual argumentation, it's mainly about making sure the other side is perceived as the wrong lizard. It's reality tv masquerading as politics, which is why I guess Trump has gotten as far as he has.
I've said this before and I'll say it again: please change the election system towards something that better allows multiple parties to gain power and redo the laws on political funding. The proper reaction when you see that an establishment talking head and a clown are racing for the presidency is not to elect the clown out of protest, because giving a clown the
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
Such things are unprovable. All these "ip ranges" and "Russian working hours"... Why should I believe the US that the ip ranges were from Russia? The US is an interested party in this. What proof can they they show me of the ip ranges and working hours that can't be falsified? Such a proof does not cannot exist. Besides hackers can use proxy servers as well as work at night.
Public position: I'm against TPP now guys
Private position: Bring on the TPP
Public position: I will not take away 2nd ammendment rights
Private position: plans to use executive order to institute gun control measures
Public position: need to rebuild the middle class
Private position: wants open trade and open border hemisphere
DNC public position: vote for your nominee
DNC private position: ok, how can we give this to Hillary
As someone not living in US - excuse me, but ... this is the best your nation has to offer? Pathetic.
"I am going to help pass the law legalizing X as promised to voters, but personally I think X should remain banned"
There's a slight difference in this case.
What she's essentially said is to voters "I will fight against X" and to bank representatives "I will do everything to get X adopted". It's not about her personal private beliefs. It's about what she's saying to different interest groups, which are terribly conflicting.
Another great hypothetical example would be gay rights. She would say to a gay rights advocate group that she's going to do everything she can to give gay couples equal rights, and then go and say to religious groups that she will do everything she can to fight the adoption of gay rights in legislation.
So does it matter who the messenger is? She never addresses what she did, only blames the Russian's as being the messenger. Yes, let's say its Russia who hacked all this information and released it to WikiLeaks. How does that negate anything you did Mrs. Clinton? You haven't made the evidence against you look any less damaging by claiming the Russians obtained it. Granted this election is like deciding if you want the gas chamber or the firing squad. But Hillary Clinton committed some real missteps as Secretary of State including the botched take over of Libya, which costs the lives of Americans. But beyond her actions she shows little remorse for participating in these things. Rather she blames others, which in my eyes makes for a bad leader.
Trump calls people N*ggers on tape (one of the Apprentice staff has revealed over twitter) and sexually abuses women. Hillary endangers national security, and cosies up to the people actually ruining America (banks, international companies, outsourcing to China etc). Both choices this election are awful. Gary Johnson is an idiot who doesn't understand foreign policy (What's Aleppo?). Jill Stein gets no press time (not to mention Congress would actively block her on the angel-hair's chance she got elected). Looks like America is screwed. Odds are that Hillary will win the election and be impeached in her first six months. What a joke.
What she's essentially said is to voters "I will fight against X" and to bank representatives "I will do everything to get X adopted".
That isn't what happened at all, and I'd be very surprised if you could find any evidence that could even be twisted massively to suggest that's what she did.
Which is why the DNC denied NONE OF IT.
Fuck off.
Attention Slashdot. The bogeyman du jour is Russian hackers. Henceforth please be sure to attribute all cyber malfeasance to Russian hackers, no evidence or citations are required as the echo chamber has crossed the tipping point from wild speculation to blind acceptance as irrefutable fact.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
I see that as an example of having differing professional and personal positions, which is distinct from having differing public and private positions.
A person who *claims to be* pro gay marriage to get votes, but privately funds anti gay marriage groups; would be an example of the latter.
Public position: I'm against TPP now guys
Private position: Bring on the TPP
She can be in favor of free trade and against the TPP. In fact, that's exactly Trump's position: he's in favor of free trade, he's just convinced that the existing agreements (and TPP) were bad deals that need to be renegotiated.
Public vs. Private opinions are nothing new. Lawyers have done this since they were 'invented'; Public: Your Honor, my client is innocent! Private: I hope that rapist SOB rots in hell! Or analysts at the Banking Clan; Public: We see crude easily going to $55 by the end of the month, and well over $60 by years' end! (so now is a good time to buy-buy-buy and get that demand going and create a self-fulfilling prophecy) while Privately at the pump, or getting their home heating bill, complaining about prices going through the roof.
Politicians are no different. They know exactly what to say, and how to say it, in front of the cameras, and what to say behind closed doors. And the worst of it is, behind those closed doors, there is a perfectly clear understanding that what is said in front of the camera is just for show and effect. It can be the complete opposite of what is discussed behind the closed doors, and the understanding is that what is said behind the closed doors is what really counts.
The absolute *worst* politicians are those that have either a business or a law background because of those character traits. So I pity those that have to choose between lawyer-turned-politicians and businessman-turned-politician.
When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
Researchers found fake data in the athlete's drug testing data that was released. There is therefore some concern that the DNC leaks, from the same source, may also have been doctored.
Source please. I haven't heard about any fake data in the drug testing. From what I have seen, the issue is that some people were tested positive for some medicine prescribed by doctors and while they are on the doping list, they can make exceptions if they confirm medical conditions, which requires the drugs in questions. In other words the tests were positive, but they did not reveal cheating.
I would question that some are allowed to get some stuff from the doping list while others aren't, but that's an issue unrelated to the leaked test results.
What she's essentially said is to voters "I will fight against X" and to bank representatives "I will do everything to get X adopted".
That isn't what happened at all, and I'd be very surprised if you could find any evidence that could even be twisted massively to suggest that's what she did.
You're correct that there is no evidence. Hillary could release the transcripts and end the speculation if she chose, but chooses not to do so, which effectively translates as "no comment." When some information does appear, she does not state it's false, but questions whether or not the information is accurate, as if she's really not in a position to judge its veracity.
When someone bends over backward to avoid saying something damaging to them is false, it is typically so that they will not later be proven to be lying.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
Yeah, I don't quite get it. There are plenty of politicians that have publicly stated their personal position *is* different from the one that they will abide by in office because they respect the law and public opinion on the matter. It's not an easy juggle, but politicians openly do it all the time, and they aren't alone in that (e.g., lawyers defending potential criminals).
> When he utters words, his primary intent is not to *say* something, to describe a set of facts in the world; his primary intent is to *do* something, i.e., to position himself in a social hierarchy. This essential distinction
I don't think that in itself is a distinction - everything Clinton says is also carefully crafted PR. Hers is crafted by a team of professionals based on polls; his is more of a natural talent. Both are full of shit. He says whatever crosses his mind that will get attention, she says whatever today's polls indicate the particular audience wants to hear.
Both are bad in different ways. With Trump, you have a pretty good idea of what he's actually thinking, that's good as a someone who is supposed to represent you, bad as chief diplomat. Clinton is better at lying to Putin, Hassan Rouhani, and us.
Trump has tried to open businesses in Russia and has gotten nowhere with it. That should tell you all you need to know about ties between Trump and Putin -- there are none. Putin only shares the spoils of Russia with his friends.
There are a number of connections between Trump and Russia:
* http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/donald-trump-2016-russian-ties-214116
* https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/heres-what-we-know-about-donald-trump-and-his-ties-to-russia/2016/07/29/1268b5ec-54e7-11e6-88eb-7dda4e2f2aec_story.html
* http://time.com/4433880/donald-trump-ties-to-russia/
Perhaps the Russians don't want American money, which Americans control. Perhaps they'd rather put their money into America / Trump so they can control things.
Also, if things go pear-shaped in Russia, I think most oligarchs are smart enough to know that you want assets in other legal jurisdictions.
Russian server operator says, "[October 2] If the FBI asks, we are ready to supply the IP addresses, the logs." However, he says, "Nobody is asking⦠Itâ(TM)s like nobody wants to sort this out." . Now oh best beloved, this is NOT because the NSA has taps on all traffic within Russia. They don't,and as all you IT folk know, there is nothing as useful as logs from the server itself (if it was just used a reflector) or other network devices within the provider.
But the FBI seems content to let this attack be originating from Russia. The same FBI who is 100% behind Clinton, who wants to start Cold-then-Hot war 2.0. You're being played, folks.
What is most astonishing is that the FBI could have feigned interest, sent people over there to meet with this fellow and gather all available evidence,and then just pretended not to find any. Corroborating with the operator of a compromised server is chapter-one stuff. So damned obvious it hurts.
Which illuminates the most disturbing aspect of all. We are not merely dealing with conspiratorial bias, and laziness. There is a big measure of stupidity mixed in.
Please don't vote for stupid.
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
Whatever the post-hoc justification.
Another possibility is that his tax reporting says he hasn't made the money back yet. But he has. Because that's the mode most wealthy people and corporations use the tax system when making money -- bury and de-emphasize profits, emphasize and exaggerate losses. Make X$? purchase something "for the company" that is $X, viola, "no profit." Nice jet, though. Move the money out of the country. Etc.
I don't know -- nobody knows, because you'd need both his operating details and his taxes to know -- but he's been clear that taking advantage of the tax code is something he considers a good business practice. He thinks it's smart, just as you said.
Unfortunately, when the rich utilize these tools to avoid paying taxes, absent a corresponding decrease in government operating costs, either the debt grows, or the amount of taxes the rest of us pay increase -- or both.
Trump is right in that loopholes in the tax code enable this kind of behavior; Clinton is right in that this kind of behavior is antisocial. Trump is right that congress enables this, but he is wrong in saying that the president, or any one senator, has enough clout to change that. Only we can change that, and we can only do it by changing congress in a very significant way.
The president has a 90-day carte blanche with use of the military; after that, congress gets involved. The president can toss off executive orders, but those are easily blocked by legal means, and then stalled until the courts percolate them though (and then, they may evaporate entirely.) The president has the veto power, which can stall or block congress -- but not the opposite kind of power, the kind of power that would allow implementing the kinds of domestic changes both candidates are throwing around as "what they will do." The only way those things can happen is with the cooperation of congress; and that's not a given under any circumstances.
So IMHO, the thing of most concern is who might do what with the military. That's what drives my choice.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Sensible position: TPP is a mixed bag.
The complete text of the TPP is online, along with executive summaries of each part of the treaty. The executive summaries are sufficiently compact that it's reasonable to read them all, and if you do you'll find there's a lot of good stuff in there. What's harder to see is what bad stuff may be in there, something that will take many, many months of serious attention.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
You're confused, I believe she said she had public policy and private policy, not public and private positions. In other words what she says shes going to do and what she's planning on doing may be fundamentally different. She could campaign on saying she's going to legalize pot, all while planning on increasing the penalties of it if she gets elected. Basically, a vote for her is a vote for the unknown because you have no idea what she's planning on doing, you only know what she said she's going to do, which her emails have confirmed aren't what she's planning on doing.
Here's a fact check from politico on the statement:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-presidential-debate-fact-check/2016/10/clinton-invokes-lincoln-to-defend-having-a-public-and-a-private-position-229483
There is no controversy, it is simply an adult talking about complex and nuanced political issues.
Yeah, she could release the transcript, and if the story didn't match what people were hoping to find out, they'll say it's not the real transcript.
Congress needs to change the constitution via an amendment to stop anyone who is a direct relative (wife, son, daughter) of a previous president to be unable to become president. I am 40 years old and a Bush or Clinton have been in or close to the whitehouse almost my entire life. 350 million Americans and basically for the last half century two / three families have ran the country. This amendment would have stopped GW Bush and now have stopped Hillary, who can argue that he will have no influence on her hence giving him his 3rd term? There are now rumors that Michelle O is looking at a run for the Senate and I will bet she will follow in her husbands steps and as soon as elected start her run for President and or the Clinton's are getting Chelsea ready for her run. Seems the Bush's are out of family members looking to run but I will bet we will hear of some other Bush soon. We need to stop this trend. Also putting in term limits for Congress AND Supremes would also ensure a health turn over of elected officials but that will never happen. my 2cents
The blame should go to the parties whose files and emails were hacked. They're negligent, not securing their info.
Oh, wait, squirrel!
Talk about anything but the actual email contents.
We need a new enemy. Islamic terrorists turned out not to be all that scary (even with all the false flag operations), China hasn't been taking the bait the last 8 years (and the US tried so hard to start a trade war) and North Korea has failed in pretty much everything because Dear Leader is a verifiable idiot. So now Russia is back to be the new American boogeyman, not sure whether Putin will fall for it, he's after all the 'strong man' that has an inane need to show off (much like Trump) but he might be smart enough not to care about the Obama/Clinton grandstanding in the upcoming years.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
when she blamed Russia for the hacks. I think it makes far more sense that Bernie supporters are trying to burn her down.
It's nice to have someone to blame, but it doesn't change the content of what was leaked. She is just as bad as her opponent (except that he actually formally apologized). Asking people to accept it as 'business as usual' just reveals how broken said business is and perhaps an individual's level of psychopothy. I've never seen a shit storm like this, truly unbelievable.
It's actually better than that. Not to support Hillary--she takes opposing stances depending on venue (i.e. lying)--but multiple positions based on audience are actually valid.
As you may well be aware, I am an advocate of a Universal Social Security as a sensible, well-engineered remediation for our welfare system. The Universal Social Security, as I have defined it, has numerous features: It immediately remediates many defects in the current Public Aid model, ensuring aid reaches many more households in need; it carries the capacity to eliminate homelessness and hunger in the United States; it puts a final end to growing Welfare costs; it puts an end to Minimum Wage raises by more-efficiently accomplishing the goals of a Minimum Wage, setting a minimum standard-of-living and supplementing not only the employed, but the underemployed and unemployed; it stabilizes jobs, reducing unemployment spikes and more-quickly recovering from recessions; and it reduces the effective tax burden on Americans by over $1 trillion, allowing us to implement this system without raising taxes on any class--and even with lowered business income and payroll taxes.
These impacts range from providing for the poor to increasing the spendable money--and actual purchasing power--in the pockets of the upper-middle-class. This system improves worker security; decreases taxes on businesses; and immediately provides the 75% of HUD-qualified families who will remain on a waiting list and *never* receive benefits with a supplemental income. It avoids raising taxes on high-income earners, while tangibly improving the welfare of the lower-income earners.
You will select a different narrative when pitching this system to a crowd in Baltimore City than to a crowd in New York City. The upper-middle-class don't want to hear about supplementing minimum wage, raising the minimum standard of living, and protecting welfare families; they want to know they're not going to get squeezed for even more taxes, that minimum wage increases aren't going to jack up product prices, and that their jobs are more-secure. The upper-upper-class will be happy to hear their businesses will experience lower employment costs (reduced payroll tax) and income taxes; that consumers will bring more money to spend, increasing revenues and profits; and that their personal income won't be tapped to make all this happen.
The many different positions you can take, the emphasis on what is and is not important, can change without becoming internally-inconsistent. Granted, that's patently-impossible with a compromise plan or a politically-driven policy; it works well when you've developed a well-engineered plan to cover an issue more-efficiently than current methods, including transitional plans to get from here to there, with a full analysis of risks and robust controls. If you have that, you can make wildly-different arguments about the issue, all of which are in the same direction, and all of which are correct.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Amazingly, nearly 400 posts on this thus far, and nobody has posted or linked to the actual Wikileaks dump on Clinton's comment. I know this is /. but checking facts before bloviating does have its merits.
Here is is:
CLINTON: You just have to sort of figure out how to -- getting back to that word, "balance" -- how to balance the public and the private efforts that are necessary to be successful, politically, and that's not just a comment about today. That, I think, has probably been true for all of our history, and if you saw the Spielberg movie, Lincoln, and how he was maneuvering and working to get the 13th Amendment passed, and he called one of my favorite predecessors, Secretary Seward, who had been the governor and senator from New York, ran against Lincoln for president, and he told Seward, I need your help to get this done. And Seward called some of his lobbyist friends who knew how to make a deal, and they just kept going at it. I mean, politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position. And finally, I think -- I believe in evidence-based decision making. I want to know what the facts are. I mean, it's like when you guys go into some kind of a deal, you know, are you going to do that development or not, are you going to do that renovation or not, you know, you look at the numbers. You try to figure out what's going to work and what's not going to work. [Clinton Speech For National Multi-Housing Council, 4/24/13]
So Clinton's characterization of her remarks in the debate last night are completely accurate, and the out-of-text paraphrase (not an actual quote) that is usually repeated is an intentional misrepresentation about what she really said.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
Mod-point sis1j informative!
You are not throwing your vote away if you vote third party. You are voting for a third party if you vote third party. It is just as legitimate a vote as any other vote.
It actually seems more like you are throwing your vote away if you vote Republican or Democrat. Neither of the two major parties seem to do what they promise, and neither of them seem to care about their voters, just their donors.
Vote third party so you don't throw your vote away.
Blaming the Russians for screwing the pooch is the Cold War boogie man version of blaming a YouTube video for the death of Americans in Benghazi. There is zero evidence to support either claim but plenty of people believe it. Trump may be crude and boorish but Clinton is conniving and has been that way as long as Trump has been crude and boorish. Which one is more dangerous to the American people is the question you should be asking yourself.
I think you are confusing "public vs. private" with "public vs. personal".
I have no problem with the latter dichotomy. It is the first that is an issue.
If we accept the Wikileaks transcript is taken as being accurate, then Clinton's "weird anecdote" is nothing less than a completely accurate statement of what she actually said. Does no one here bother to check facts?
CLINTON: You just have to sort of figure out how to -- getting back to that word, "balance" -- how to balance the public and the private efforts that are necessary to be successful, politically, and that's not just a comment about today. That, I think, has probably been true for all of our history, and if you saw the Spielberg movie, Lincoln, and how he was maneuvering and working to get the 13th Amendment passed, and he called one of my favorite predecessors, Secretary Seward, who had been the governor and senator from New York, ran against Lincoln for president, and he told Seward, I need your help to get this done. And Seward called some of his lobbyist friends who knew how to make a deal, and they just kept going at it. I mean, politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position. And finally, I think -- I believe in evidence-based decision making. I want to know what the facts are. I mean, it's like when you guys go into some kind of a deal, you know, are you going to do that development or not, are you going to do that renovation or not, you know, you look at the numbers. You try to figure out what's going to work and what's not going to work. [Clinton Speech For National Multi-Housing Council, 4/24/13]
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
Note above, she remembers her words with impressive accuracy. The out-of-context paraphrase that is circulating is a misrepresentation.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
you are confusing "public vs personal" with "public vs private"
The former is not an issue, you can pursue a public position that conflicts with your personal interests. And you don't necessarily need to disclose your personal preference as long as you are not pursuing it. However, I would still suggest that you really *ought* to.
The latter (public vs. private) implies suggests that you are stating one position to the public, but have an interest in another position in secret from the general public. This could be because you are secretly pursuing your personal preference or it could be because you are working on a special interest group. It is alway wrong unless it is a matter of security.
Trump has been ahead of Clinton in polling very recently so the only "catering" is your mental stability when you find out Trump's numbers have risen is response to a supposed crisis, yet again... he destroyed Hillary in the most recent debate, so many liberals want him to fail but wishing doesn't make it so, friend.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Is this *really* the kind of shit that passes for insightful, these days? Can you actually demonstrate, with reference to publicly available facts, that HRC has engaged in the kind of weathervane, poll-driven behaviour that you describe? She does have quite a lengthy record of public service, after all, so it ought to be pretty easy to do. What I'm asking for is not some cheap rhetorical rimshot, but actual substance to back up your claim: a demonstration that, time after time, on issue after issue, her policy position has shifted in line with polling.
I think you'll find it nigh on impossible to show this. It may accord with what you'd like to believe (some version of "she's a vapid politician", perhaps, or "all politicians are just ridiculous liars"?) but that does not make it accurate. Her policy positions on gay marriage, for example, underwent the same slow process of evolution as most of middle America -- from "that's absurd" to "of course we must" over a period of a couple of decades. But they didn't flip flop back and forth as poll numbers on the issue wobbled around.
This bizarre and ridiculous caricaturing is going to be the death knell for serious American politics.
No, she simply stated with 100% accuracy what she actually said in the speech that has been hyped by a false paraphrase.
And no, the "uranium scandal" has been thoroughly debunked. Do try to keep up AC.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
As an European, this thread is the scariest thing I've read about the upcoming presidential elections. One is used to seeing the Trump defenders through the eyes of something like the Daily Show: uneducated, dumb, religious nuts rednecks. Here, in slashdot, where the average person has access to so much information, the fact that people still consider Trump the lesser of two evils...is terrifying and I guess it shows why he might actually win. It's like Brexit, except that with Brexit, UK will take most of the hit. The moment a man child with thin skin and a brain the size of wallnut gets military power...we shall all suffer.
If you'd like *watch* Clinton say one thing, then the opposite, then a week later deny she said either, hop on Youtube and type in "Clinton flip-flops", "Hillary lies" or any other relevant search and you can watch her do it for hours, on issue after issue. PR spin and saying what people want to hear is perhaps her biggest strength, prete
Second, it is perfectly acceptable -- e.g., "I am going to help pass the law legalizing X as promised to voters, but personally I think X should remain banned"
I had taken "public vs private" to mean "average American vs Wall Street Fat Cat".
I'm gonna have to replace my TV again.
I lost it at "Russian hackers"
I accidentally hit submit to soon.
Pretending that she's not very good at "staying on message" (the calculated message) is denying her one of her greatest strengths vs Chris Christie, Trump, and to a lesser extent Joe Biden and Bush Jr. You don't WANT the president saying whatever crosses their mind to Putin. That's the problem with a Trump / Chris Christie type communicator - he'd say shit at the UN that he shouldn't say. Clinton will say exactly what State Department staff have calculated should be said.
There are other sides of the exact same coin. Because Bush Jr and Joe Biden say whatever crosses their minds, sometimes they say dumb shit. Hillary doesn't say dumb shit, because what she says has been proofread by two or three staffers. On the other hand, you know what Chris Christie believes, Bush Jr, because they say it - even if it's dumb.
Just in the few days we've seen emails released where HRC herself says sometimes she needs to take different positions on an issue depending on the audience. Did you already forget yesterday's headlines? If so, check out a few of the emails from the DNC hack where everything HRC says, does, or wears is carefully polled. That's more professional, in a way, than Trump where he still won't stop spray tanning himself orange, despite the fact that it has clearly not helped his optics. Perhaps Trump figures that people voted for the first black president and "orange is the new black", but he's clearly not paying attention to the polls on that one.
More likely than doing lines in the limo is that he's allergic to something and then Clinton camp has identified this and using the knowledge. I mean, if you want an insane conspiracy theory, mine is better than yours, but nobody is paying me to publish it, unlike the one you're parotting due to a hundred thousand dollar campaign.
while touting the job creation aspects of the legislation/position to the general public
Name one proposal of Clinton's that has anything to do with Private Sector Job creation, that doesn't have the hand of Big Government (crony capitalism) all over it.
Everything I've seen is "Government jobs" and Crony Capitalism. If you're a Bernie fan, you ought to pay close attention to Hillary's Wall Street Cred. They are a big fan of hers, and I have no doubt why. They will be rewarded when she is elected.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Most entertaining October ever. I think it'll be funny watching more pussyleaks comes out, the media going apoplectic, and then nothing happening because everyone already knows Trump is a sleazy womanizer. That's not new information.
Only thing I can think of that will actually sink Trump is if they've got a video/audio of him using the n-word. And in a bad way, like calling someone it or saying "man I really hate n*ggers." But if he's saying something like "I'm a gorilla dick nigga that makes dyke pussies wet" I think his numbers will go up.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
One thing that is certain is that many Slashdotters seem heavily influenced by emotion rather than reason. This is evidenced by the seemingly nonsensical conclusions that so many are making. Here's just a few:
1. Donald Trump is somehow for the working class. Nothing in this man's history suggests that he's ever had a connection with the working or middle class. He clearly comes from privilege, his self-worth is deeply tied to how rich he is perceived to be, and he eagerly boasts of his prowess at working the system for his own benefit at every opportunity presented. Any logical person would conclude that Donald Trump represents the point one percent of the American ultra-rich who know nothing of the plight of working class and middle class America. Yet somehow because he's "anti-establishment" he's somehow for the working man. Here's some simple logic: anti-establishment != good for America.
2. The ridiculously high bar set for Hillary Clinton as compared to any other politician that ever held office. When, in the history of politics, has there ever been a politician whose private and public positions on policies were always the same? And where is the proof that public and private positions on policy have to be the same in order for there to be a net benefit to the public? It's so common it even has it's own word in the dictionary: it's called "realpolitik".
3. We're living in a time where technology makes it possible to put any person under a microscope and amplify all their mistakes and flaws in a matter of minutes. Ask yourself if we had the same same technology during the time of the founding of this nation what would that do to our opinion of the men who founded this country? Everyone of us knows that humans are flawed and that the longer a career is the more mistakes are made, and yet we're somehow illogically concluding that two individuals with lengthy careers should somehow be of flawless character and with immaculate records to bolster them up. We're not electing robots we're electing people.
One thing I've learned from experience is that when people use words like "despise" and "hate" it's usually coming from a place of deep-seated emotion rather than clear-headed logical consideration. Unfortunately, I see a great deal of that in these discussion. Whoever you vote for this election season I would urge to dump your emotional baggage. Do some breathing exercises, clear your head, talk yourself down. Consider each candidate in a historical context. Weigh their policies against each other. Force yourself to look for something good in each one. Question all your premises. Don't take things personally. You must find the strength to this for yourself and for your families.
I thought this was /. not cnn
Yes I am sure we want the Leader of the Free World to be influenced by a movie to tell them how to lead the country.
That's what this really boils down to. For thirty years old white men have hated Hillary Clinton with a fiery passion specifically because she is a powerful woman. We've had to listen to thirty years of made-up conspiracy theory bullshit blowing every little thing involving the Clintons into some giant scandal.
1. THE ENTIRE FUCKING BUSH ADMINISTRATION USED PRIVATE EMAIL, YOU DUMB FUCK.
2. BENGHAZI HAS BEEN THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATED AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE HILLARY DID ANYTHING WRONG (you dumb fuck)
3. THE CLINTON FOUNDATION IS A FUCKING CHARITY, YOU DUMB FUCK
Is she perfect? No, of course not. Is she a politician? Yes, and she acts like a politician. But, you're holding her to a standard that you've never held any other politician to.
I'm wasting my breathe, because you are just not physiologically capable of realizing your own internal double-standard, and you're too fucking stupid to ever change your mind. Thank God that dumb fucking morons like you are still a minority in this country.
The TTP can't be renegotiated without completely replacing it. There's just way too much of it that is not about free trade at all. It's always been about allowing multi-national corporations to supersede sovereign laws that get in their way of profit.
It's a glimpse into why these people want the NWO one-world, no nations, no borders, no religion "utopia". So that they never have to worry about buying off politicians in more than one country. Once they get their way, it's world-wide. You can't move to another country to get away from it. You can't avoid their purchased laws that make everyday tasks like format/time-shifting of media illegal. They want to own and control everything, and that's the best way to attain that.
It's a mixed bag, sort of like a garbage bag that's got baloney sandwiches and feces all mixed together. I'm sure you'll have a fine time separating it all out and eating those tasty sandwiches.
And rightfully so. It's too late for her to come clean. The woman has ZERO credibility in the eyes of all but the most thoroughly brainwashed. That's what happens when you're caught lying constantly.
The only defense people have for Clinton are either "Yeah well other people did bad things too!" or childish personal attacks like yours. In fact, your tirade here puts you on exactly the same level as Trump supporters. You've vomited a bunch of racist, sexist nonsense. Congrats, you're the other side of the same coin.
Unfortunately I don't have mod points. Hopefully someone will mod this up. But given you're only at a "3" at the moment, that pretty much answers your questions.
People aren't fact checking and just won't. In this day and age, it's easy enough to do. And I would certainly expect more from modded up commenters here. But people insist on firing off assertions as if they were fact. If the people here can't even be bothered, I have no hope for the general public.
It's a shame really.
"Say Fuck You to the system, vote 3rd party!". I easily could see that getting so much votes that in next election it wouldn't be any more clear that 3rd party can never win..
We survived Bill 8 years and it wasn't that bad.
Orange Hitler sounds good but Trump is more like an Orange Mussolini. Trump belongs in a Banana Republic, Africa, or on Wrestlemania!
A bad doctor vs a crooked used car salesman trying to convince me to hire them for my surgery. It is bad choice but also not horribly difficult.
I'm being kind. I have enough psychology training to see that Trump is mentally unfit. I see nothing wrong with Hillary's mental health - being a typical politician doesn't yet have a disorder.
You assert that the only defence he has it whataboutery or personal attacks, yet the *very post you are replying to* specifically defended her on other grounds, to wit, "asked & answered". It makes you look really really stupid when you accuse someone of something that is not only demonstrably not true, but something that has immediately beforehand been demonstrated not to be true.
This is the woman whose husband helped broker the Good Friday agreement, and who as SoS has no doubt been involved in many other negotiations. The Good Friday agreement was, notoriously, brought into being partly at a time when the public position of the UK government was that it would not talk to the IRA at all. And talking to the IRA certainly involved moral compromise -- the sausage making she referred to -- which many found difficult to stomach. But the PONI* have benefited immeasurably from a move away from moral rigour to an acknowledgment of the value of peace, and even Ian bloody Paisley made that journey.
The triumphant pouncing of Trump's supporters on this statement is so depressing: it's like listening to a particularly dimwitted five year old complain about a physicist's line of reasoning.
* People of Northern Ireland. I still miss you, Simon Hoggart
typing more than that for my comment....but is there any more to say?
Vote for Pedro! (There, an exclamation, for the sake of exclaiming!)
There are 2 problems with your statement.
First of all, it assumes that the only possible difference between a public and a private position is to be opposite. Or perhaps you think that only Hillary can have opposite positions?
The second is that your statement appears to be solely aimed at Clinton. Who's to say that Trump doesn't also have public and a private positions?
Even if you are a Trump supporter, you'd be a fool to believe he doesn't at least occasionally say one thing and think something different.
The authentic voice of a Trump supporter. My, what a pleasure to have people like you around.
Actually it was the other way around. The trump video came out before the latest WikiLeaks release. Thanks for playing though.
Considered in the actual context, her response was on the nose.
Effective leaders have a wide set of tools in their toolbox for persuading. Making all discussion public all the time does not make better policy.
Furthermore, while it makes an entertainingly pointed question to call it "two-faced", what exactly would this non-two-faced world we are allegedly hoping for look like? Because I am noticing there is a strong correlation between people who have a reputation in the public sphere for "talking honestly from their gut" and spreading a lot more outright lies than the typical pol. Examples: Trump, Sanders. These supposedly forthright speakers are not notably less two-faced; really they are more two-faced in a more entertaining style.
Are we trying to make a serious argument about wanting leaders who are most honest? Or are we just playing a pretentious game where style counts over substance?
Trump has repeatedly praised up Putin and has some kind of weird bromance going on there. Now he claims to "know nothing" about Putin or Russia. He's just trying to have it both ways, which is standard behavior for Trump.
If Trump gets in, I expect he will either:
1). Try to cozy up to Putin, who will either rebuff him or try to take advantage of Trump's starry-eyed bromance;
2). Quickly decide that Russia can do nothing for him ("Whattaya, a mook? Russia's on the other side of the planet!") and ignore or offend Putin.
I'm from a European country with a coalition minority government. I used to expound that same rhetoric to Americans - you have an alternate choice.
And you do.. in theory. It's just that in practice, you don't. Corporate lobbying is destroying your country. One of the 2 choices you have is to repel special interest groups. Try to guess which one. You might be pleasantly surprised.
And here's another thing to ponder: Women's rights. Femme bots all over the US will potentially unite behind one of the candidates. But ironically, special interest groups have empowered gender inequality in your country. You may recall the recent slashdot story from Bill Gates' wife on the increasing gender gap in STEM.
If we accept the Wikileaks transcript is taken as being accurate
If we accept that the Wikileaks transcript is accurate, which we surely must at this point, why is she saying "we don't even know if these are accurate"? If they're not accurate, you just deny they're accurate and you move on. You don't veer off onto some explanation of how you were just trying to be Lincoln-esque when you said that thing you may or may not have actually said.
She is clearly trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, she wants to be able to deny their accuracy by muddying the waters and claiming that they're possibly/probably/certainly fakes, and on the other hand she wants to be able to downplay what's in the transcripts by attempting to spin it (or "clarify", if you like) after the fact.
Pick a position - if it's fake, it doesn't need clarification, and if it needs clarification, it is necessarily an accurate record of what was said. Not that the media is likely to call her out on one of the more brazen displays of doublethink in recent memory. Nor will her supporters be particularly alarmed by this - no bad tactics, just bad targets, after all.
You are flat out wrong trying actually reading the leaks and stop watching PMSNBC so much.
Latest leaks the clinton camp was working with clinton foundation even talking about the deal.
Also the FBI found info and accounting issues in the clinton foundation but where shut down by the DOJ.
Also the FBI agents were not allowed investigate anything else in the emails other than classified info.
The DOJ and FBI gave out immunity deals like candy.
Clinton had fucking 25 lawyers for her at her FBI interview.
You have a right to counsel but not a football team of lawyers.
CNN didn't want to talk to the Clinton rape victims as that was in the past, a long time ago. Apparently the passage of time doesn't matter for Trump's locker room talk. I am no Trump fan (or Clinton either), but the media bias is disgraceful.
Yes, in her wikileak (which she is effectively validating) she REFERS to the scene in the Lincoln movie as an example of what she does to mislead the public.
BUT in the debate, she laughs off the complete scheme about how to mislead the public by saying she was just talking about a movie, as though she was just writing a movie review or recommending a movie to a friend for general entertainment. She was NOT just talking about a movie. She was talking about how to be two-faced and mislead the public and she was using the movie as an example. This would be like somebody discussing a murder plot and instructing a frient to study the Silence of the Lambs - and then later when caught claiming all that stuff was just about an Anthony Hopkins flick. Details and context matter.
Her debate comment, apparently meant to mislead the stupid and provide a fig leaf talking point to her media shills, completely upends the entire context of the leaked e-mail and only works for people with zero reading comprehension.
Both are bad in different ways. With Trump, you have a pretty good idea of what he's actually thinking, that's good as a someone who is supposed to represent you, bad as chief diplomat. Clinton is better at lying to Putin, Hassan Rouhani, and us.
First of all, do you actually know fuck all about what Trump is actually thinking? Or are you getting the impression that you understand what he is feeling? There is a world difference between the two. Off the cuff thoughts are often forgotten. Feelings much more easily so. Furthermore Trump seems to have a talent for constantly contradicting himself, which strongly indicates he is not thinking about anything carefully enough ever to even care about his own past opinion. Why should you care more about Trump's words than Trump does?
Second of all, thoughts and feelings do not particularly matter. Until they have really solidified into clear intentions, you cannot name goals. What matters are goals that are sufficiently coherent enough to be useful in building policies.
And here is where we hit brass tacks. For all that Clinton plays a whole bunch of games with her words, I think I can hear the difference between what are serious intended policies and what are just window dressing.
With Trump, he cannot even answer a softball question about what he wants to replace Obamacare with. That should have been an easy triple or home run for him, but he kept on whiffing. Yeah, I think I understand what his feelings were. How does that help us?
What's not acceptable is selling the public on one thing when you were never planning on doing that thing to begin with. This is the real problem with $hillary. She panders to "regular folks", but the reality is she's bought and paid for like most other politicians. It's dishonest, deceitful, and should be grounds for impeachment... or worse.
Like most of what Clinton says, much of it is simply misdirection and plausibility deniability.
Its it plausible that Russians are involved on the DNC hack? Sure it is. Why? Well unless you live in a shoe, over the last 10 years Russia has probably spawned more hackers than just about anywhere else, with possibly the exception of China. Do they work for the actual Russian government? Very unlikely. Heck if they accused Chinese hackers, it would probably be at least a little more likely that they are state sponsored. If there is any truth to the claim at all, it is the usual BS of an insufficiently protected server being extorted by private individuals for profit. At any rate this way she can "accuse" Russia for the spectacle against Trump, then later "find" out that these were really just Russia punks working on their own to try and extort cash. Then she might seem "reasonable" for her previous claims about the government of Russia and all is forgiven.
Calling people "dumb fucks" and "morons" is a great way to convince them. GJ
Hillary seems to be quite fond of the devil made me do it, defense. In this way she will say, yes, it happened, but YOU ALL KNOW I didn't mean for it to happen. And I accept full responsibility unless that indicates I will have to resign or return any money.
Thanks for the all caps. Nobody ever equates all cap typing with nutjobs. Especially when they say fuck a lot and call everyone a moron. next in line: You'll tell me to "educate myself".
It worked. I'm signing up for entitlements right now... From now on, I'm just going to sit on the stoop and sling drugs and conduct myself in a manner consistent with criminal behaviors. I can't wait! I'm voting straight Democrat in November.
Many Americans don't want either candidate. Actually the best solution is to vote for an independent this year.
If an independent can win enough of the electoral college votes so that neither Trump or Hilary have 270 electoral college votes, then the House gets to pick from the top 3.
If the US voters can create this scenario, then we can avoid either of these two terrible candidates.
I believe the Republican majority House of Reps won't pick Clinton because she is a democrat and, well, evil. They won't pick Trump even though he is democrat. So the independent is in.
Here are two independent options:
Evan McMullin - https://www.evanmcmullin.com/ https://www.johnsonweld.com/
I hope others like me make a statement this election and vote for neither Trump or Hilary.