Slashdot Mirror
Transcripts of Clinton's Wall Street Talks Released in New Wikileaks Dump (reuters.com)
Emily Stephenson and Luciana Lopez, reporting for Reuters: U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's full remarks to several Wall Street audiences appeared to become public on Saturday when the controversial transparency group Wikileaks dumped its latest batch of hacked emails. The documents showed comments by Clinton during question-and-answer sessions with Goldman Sachs Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein and Tim O'Neill, the bank's head of investment management, at three separate events in 2013 in Arizona, New York and South Carolina. Some excerpts of Clinton's speeches had already been released. For more than a week, Wikileaks has published in stages what it says are hacked emails from the account of John Podesta, Clinton's campaign chairman. Clinton came under fire for months for not releasing full details of her paid speeches to big business audiences, as opponents accused her of a cozy relationship with bankers and other members of the U.S. financial system.
Quick, blame the Russians somehow!
The should have released this stuff when she was running against Bernie. This isn't going to change any minds now. Everyone knows now what she is and they're voting for her because of Trump or voting for Trump because of her. The stage was set weeks ago and the only thing that would change it now is absolute proof she killed someone. That's probably worth 5 or 6 points in the polls.
For the most part, it's the same speeches she gives on the campaign trail. Her detractors comb through to find some interpretation that can be spun as sinister, and dance around the news cams with it like a kid who found his lost jaw breaker under the couch.
Table-ized A.I.
That headline is just begging for the inevitable rhyme...
I just can't wait for the "Trump Dump" !
It's strange that the news is almost entirely about the release of the remarks and, at least in linked article, no mention of what those remarks are. Could it be that the remarks aren't actually interesting or even newsworthy?
She promised them she'd leave the door to the treasury building unlocked and they could just take whatever they wanted.
I don't even believe you've actually read them if you can say that.
Releasing this /. after midnight on a Sunday doesn't 'feel' like the top of the news cycle to me. At least it's getting mentioned here;I haven't heard a peep on the major networks.
Doesn't bother you ?
http://oilprice.com/Latest-Ene...
I'm actually wondering at this point, is he deliberately trying to cause election day violence?
Nah- what's happening here is that he knows he's going to lose, and he's desperately groping for excuses.
Can be found here.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-15/here-are-hillary-clintons-three-speeches-goldman-sachs-which-she-was-paid-675000
Trump is asking for a drug test before the next debate. I'm loving it!
She's probably already working on that. But either her campaign or someone related to the DNC is paying youtubers to endorse her. And sorry no, "omg, I bet that's infowars" retards. It's Phil DeFranco saying he's been offered money to endorse Clinton and so have others.
Om, nomnomnom...
.
People bashing Wall Street forget the following :
(a) we (the electorate) have busily shaped the societal and legal environment in which Wall Street could become what it is now. Republicans have always vigorously supported business *in all of its facets) and Wall Street, with Democrats coming in closely behind. That policy has served us well, but is now starting to show some cracks. Time to figure out the minimum change required to fix that. That requires ingenuity. Lots of people see their personal interest compromised (job loss, no perspectives, feeling of not being needed by society, etc.), get "as mad as hell" and demand instant action. Well, they won't get it. Not with either candidate. One tells then they won't get instant gratification (but more of the same instead), the other does (sort of), but is so obviously clueless that his word is worth nothing.
(b) the idea of "Give Enterprise a Free Run and only regulate when the body count becomes too high to ignore" is part and parcel of our society and our culture. There certainly is a lot of anger and an appetite for "change", but I still can't get my head around what it actually wants. It's not prepared to accept the consequence that more prevention means less freedom. Being proactive with policy, (or even enforcing existing laws aimed at e.g. environmental protection) is violently opposed (sometime literally with guns in hand). Take for example that Bundy fellow. In violation of federal laws. Lost several court cases. Shouts his head off in the counterculture media, assembles a band of rogue hillbillies that actually point guns as federal officers. Is cheered on by a certain segment of society, and actually gets away with it. Unlike a steady trickle of you-know-who's who are shot dead in or near their car by police officers for making a false move or not complying fast enough or clearly enough with officers' commands..
(c)" Wall street is the nexus of how we as a country manage wealth. It's a giant market that can (and does) set a price on goods, services, policies, and lives. In doing that, it is a forum that co-shapes a certain part of our national decision making. In that sense it's what has always set the US apart from e.g. the Soviet Union (plan economy) or China. You don't steer or reform a market like that by dropping corporate taxes to 10% as some Republicans (among which a presidential candidate) propose, prohibiting municipalities from offering public services that compete with private enterprise (think broadband initiatives), or annulling wide swaths of environmental protection laws. You might be able to steer it by imposing regulations. Not so much regulations on how it's supposed to trade, but laws that regulate what it's trading in. Well ... try that and watch the (mostly conservative) nay-sayers come out of the woodwork in force.
It's also a major source of our wealth. We need it and we should regulate it only with care and insight. To dump on a presidential candidate for displaying that insight is beyond ridiculous. It's adversarial politics.
(d) It so happens I would have preferred Sen. Sanders to be the Democratic candidate. Or at least see a substantial part of his views acted upon and some of his policies enacted. But there is simply no support for that. The inertia of mainstream politics (well, lets be thankful for that) and Wall-street related views. So it's compromise time. We're going to get a much more business-friendly candidate. Oh, and in case anyone wishes to cavil about Wall Street's influence on politics, remember the rulings those fine Conservative gents on the Supreme Court handed down? Com
At least nothing interesting to people who have looked at Clinton's past at all. She's cozy with Wall St. Well no fucking shit. Nobody except for everyone knew that one :P
I've been very underwhelmed with the leaks given the "bombshell" claims about them. It's all shit that was already known about her, or shit that is totally unsurprising about any politician. I can't see it changing anyone's mind.
Now maybe I've missed something juicy or there's something major yet to come, but if there's a big thing they think will change shit, they'd better release it soon since the election is very near. A non-trivial number of people have already voted by mail, or will in the next few days.
It seems like Wikileaks didn't really find anything great in the e-mails, and so instead is playing a PR game with them, since they don't, in fact, have a bombshell that'll have any effect on the election.
The issue is NOT language, that's something that Trump's PR people have been trying to spin it as, and you are eating that spin if you believe it. The issue is what he's saying: That he commits sexual assault because he's a star, because he can. THAT'S the deal. The terminology he used isn't the issue, it is what he's claiming he's done.
Trevor Noah put it pretty well: https://youtu.be/LiPjWUn-PUo?t...
Anyone who thinks this is just "normal guy talk" needs to reevaluate who the fuck they hang out with. None of my friends have ever said anything like this. We've said vulgar things to each other, we've talked about sex, but none of us have ever said we have forced ourselves on a woman without consent. If your friends talk about doing shit like this, no matter if the language they use to describe it is crass or refined, you need better friends.
Would you mean this Anthony Gilthorpe?
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Hillary WILL be President. We WILL go to war with Russia. Assange WILL be killed. It's a done deal.
Do some critical thinking. If they were false accusations, we'd be hearing accusations about incidents in the 2010s. Nobody who's making stuff up for the purpose of harming a candidate is going to pretend it happened decades ago, they're going to pretend it happened recently so they can show the guy hasn't changed.
This space intentionally left blank
Weird how the whole Clinton camp just cannot secure email. It's no wonder Clinton was using a unsecured server in her basement. I mean none of her staff had a clue how to be secure. It's like they are all technology challenged. If people would actually read this stuff it really is amazing but scary at the same time. If you didn't think Clinton was a two faced liar before. These emails definitely prove it. If we could only read a few more politician's emails. I think many will vote for Trump but not really for Trump. They vote for him as a message to government to work for the people not big business and special interest.
Photographic memory is a myth. http://www.medicaldaily.com/ph...
Remember, there are no stupid questions. But there are a lot of inquisitive idiots.
In 1980 you killed my dinosaur. I obviously haven't made this up otherwise I would have said you killed it in the 2010s.
Critical thinking - maybe you need to look that up.
The denial is strong with this one. Not sure if you've been reading the same e-mails as the rest of the world.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
If you already hate Hillary: all that's there is "look! More emails proving that Hillary is exactly like what we've been saying she's exactly like for the last twenty years!
If you don't already hate Hillary, all that's there is "look! More emails that really don't say anything new."
Either way, it's just not news.
REAL journalists:
These are all from the last week or so and mostly from the hacked emails. Oldest first. Yes these people go after Trump too but as far as I'm concerned has no chance in hell anyway.
Hillary Clinton Sympathized with Goldman Sachs over financial reform.
What Major Donors like Goldman Sachs want from the Democratic Party (they also fucking hate Elizabeth Warren - shock.)
Hillary Clinton repeatedly Praised Wal-Mart in paid speeches This bitch knows who signs her checks and kisses heavy amounts of ass accordingly.
Clinton aide PLANTED ANTI-BANK COMMENTS in a paid speech to throw off reporters.
Democrats trying to work out how to pass huge corporate tax cuts. If you read it's essentially the same thing Trump wants. Remember: same corporate hand, different puppets.
BONUS: Hillary Clinton's encryption proposal impossible. Because she wanted secure communication between people that could still be monitored by the gov't.
For the record I think Bernie Sanders / Elizabeth Warren would have been the dream team. Fuck Hillary and Trump both.
PS. In case you didn't know The Intercept = Glenn Greenwald = Snowden's choice for disclosure. They're good guys.
Alternately, you do false accusations about the (distant) past so that there's no possibility of confirming/disproving the allegation.
Since I'm not voting the Trump no matter what, I hardly care. But I'd expect that about half the women coming forward now are doing it for the publicity, and not because they want Trump punished for his crime(s).
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Other than admission that the email scandal was, in fact, a real scandal and that the Clinton team knew that what they were doing was wrong. Or coordinating with the media to spike damaging stories. Or how the San Bernadino shooting situation would have been better if a guy named Sayeed Farouk was reporting that a guy named Christopher Hayes was the shooter.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Who's Phil DeFranco, and why should I care?
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
"they're voting for her because of Trump or voting for Trump because of her."
I'm embarrassed for my country that it has come to this. And yet people still won't vote for candidates other than these two clowns. At presidential debates we only see the clowns, none of the other candidates. Just ridiculous.
Twinstiq, game news
Come on now, everyone saw plain as day that a CNN employee gave Trump a setup question in the 2nd debate. These people were already waiting in the wings to promote the narrative. The most recent allegation has already been proven to lack merit because the person was emailing Trump and praising Trump just prior to making allegations. The oldest case lacks merit due to the age of the case and the unlikely event that in the late 70s men could freely grope women on an airplane and nobody would say anything. The alleged abuse of the former Ms Universe also turned out it lacked merit and the person making the allegations fabricated at least portions of her so called testimony. When the testimony is hear-say it is fair that we scrutinize the allegations before throwing mud.
Lets not forget that the left in general has a long history of using bogus allegations for the purpose of winning elections. Look at the people who ran against Obama for example, where he gained a Senate seat by making up allegations weeks before elections. How about the false allegations used against Romney in his race for President. They also have a history of making allegations against their side vanish from headlines until too late. Again, Clinton is the easy target with the media claiming all of the sexual misconduct and perjury charges against him were fabricated by sluts and evil right wingers. And hey, don't all men get blowjobs from interns and use their private parts as cigar holders? You prudes that believe otherwise are nothing but right wing Religious nutjobs. Unless its the Conservative/Republican they wish to accuse.
Once again, we have real facts to back allegations of not just Clinton's wrong doing but high ranking officials in several departments including the State Department, Justice Department, and the head of the FBI. Those are not hear-say allegations, they are based on evidence. Sure, the evidence would not be admissible on its own but it should have already resulted in Grand Jury hearings, suspensions, and confiscation of data from those same parties which could be used as evidence.
If you are not outraged at the current system, you are a fool.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
It seems that the unstated assumption that is made, which may be entirely correct, but still appears to be an assumption,is that Stromeyer's claims about the woman being able to look at two different images 24 hours apart and mentally fuse them into a single one is false. Granted, the lack of reproducibility does lend this assumption some credibility, but why doesn't the article come out and simply say that is what they are assuming instead of dancing around it with a whole bunch of jibber jabber about how memory works?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Web Site Title: Progressive news and media coverage on Crooks and Liars (From DNS: here.) Owned and operated by the Progressive Rag Huffpo's own John Amato.
When you start with a bias you end with a bias. Shill much? Yeah...
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
After all, CNN claims it's illegal for us to read them, but it's different for them. So just trust CNN/MSNBC/ABC/NYT to summarize and give you the information you need to know. They won't steer you wrong!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
FTA (summary): Clinton came under fire for months for not releasing full details of her paid speeches...
Well, duh. People paid to hear the speeches – and their content. Why would she later release the content to all "for FREE"?
Any regular speaker, especially a paid one, recycles content from one private speech to the next.
Yes, that Anthony Gilthorpe. What of it?
That site has nothing but attack articles on Trump. Seems a bit biased and politicially one-sided, no? I mean, if it were really about "crooks and liars" there's surely a lot to write about on Hillary. Yet, suspiciously absent.
The article does nothing to discredit Gilthorpe's claim at all, other than he performed some deviant sexual acts when he was a minor. The author goes on to state that Gilthorpe's claim shouldn't be believed because he has no evidence other than his word. Yet, we are supposed to believe Leeds' story, simply based on her word.
Once again, the pro-Clinton camp caught being deceitful hypocrites.
Sorry, but the email scandal has been ongoing for 2 years and is not a new revelation or allegation. The only new part is that emails have now been leaked which seem to give credence to the earlier concerns of corruption and collusion.
These two sets of allegations are in no way equal, and the weight of these implications has completely different outcomes for the United States of America. If Trump is guilty of groping women we have a candidate who as worst case would be similar to the Progressive/Democratic hero Bill Clinton. In the other case, we have a complete collapse of the United States of America. Open collusion with money to install a person of their choosing instead of the People's voice in a Democracy. Open borders and the destruction of the struggling lower and middle classes. Selling of State influence to the highest bidder so that the installed candidate can enrich themselves as they see fit (assuming they continue to do the bidding of the money that got them into office). It's is a Banana Republic verses a Democratic Republic.
I'll give you that one side is a distraction, but not the other. Their own words are corroborating allegation, it's not just hear-say.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
It will be OK Trump voters. If your sad on election night just grab yourself by your genitalia!!!! The Donald would approve!!!!
there's nothing in these leaks we didn't already know. Clinton's been cozy with Walstreet for always. There are people who like that. There are _lots_ of people who are economically conservative but socially liberal. The Dems take those guys in. That, more than any shenanigans, is why Bernie lost. The Millennials like him because he promised to wipe out their massive student loan debt, where all Clinton wanted was to refinance their debt a bit. But our right wing woulda freaked out as soon as adds with Bernie saying he's a (Democratic) Socialist started running non-stop.
:(...
Much as I liked Bernie (waited 3 hours in line to vote for him in my primary) he never had a chance in primary or general. America is just too conservative. Too many old people who wanna keep gov't out of their Medicare and such
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
run by Fox News and right wing think tanks (our right wing has lots and lots of think tanks) to shut her down. They've known for ages she was gonna run for president and they've got near unlimited amounts of money so attacking her always made sense. If you've bought into even a little of that it's been getting hammered into your skull for 20 years.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
the grouping allegations (#9 just stepped forward this weekend) then this would be part of a broader narrative that would be making people leery of Hillary. Nobody likes her. Mostly because she's very impersonal. She's all business. I forget who but somebody pointed out that her problem is that all she does is work. You might like that person in the office because you can dump your crap on them and go home early but you don't wanna hang out with them.
:(...
American Politics is mostly a popularity contest. That's because we've got a 45/45 ideological split with around 5-10% up for grabs amount likely voters. Those likely voters aren't thoughtful though. They're wishy-washy. They don't have any strong beliefs one way or the other. So they let feelings sway them. The practical consequence is that gut feelings and not beliefs decide our elections
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
but the few analysis I've read are pretty dull. It's everything you think it is and nothing more. She says Goldman Sachs et al should have a lot of influence on the economy and tells 'em how great they are. This is nothing we didn't already know. Heck, for a lot of economic conservatives it makes them feel better about Hilary, not worse. And yes, the Dems have plenty of economic conservatives. There really isn't much of an American left wing and what little there is is too divided...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Trump said that in the context of explaining how solid his support was with his followers - and he ALSO said in another speech that the same was true for Hillary.
Does ANYBODY doubt that both are true and that the firm Hillary-types will stay with her no matter what and the hard Donald-types will stick with him no matter what?
The guy was simply making honest statements about the state of our current politics and the successes for both Donald and Hillary in establishing very dedicated support with sizeable portions of their bases. You Trump haters love to take that statement out of context and ignore the Hillary on and then leave the reader to assume Trump is some psycho-machine-gun-killer from a horror film.
As offensive as his statement, it's not that much more offensive the the streams of expletives Hillary used to spout in the 90s, and that probably most politicians and entertainers emit from their pie holes when they think they're not being recorded. As bad as it was, Trump did not say he attacked women against their will, he says that they LET HIM. We all know perfectly well that there are in fact women who are attracted to fame, fortune, and/or power and who will tolerate a hell of a lot from men with those things. Ever heard of rock stars or movie stars? There are entertainers who have had this exact same attitude towards women and who are currently fawned-over by the Clintons and the Obamas and many of their supporters, and a bunch are actively supporting Hillary. This whole scenario is exactly why lots of young men learn to play a guitar. Hillary herself and all her supporters spent the 1990s demanding that all the stuff Bill Clinton was accused of, and actually ultimately admitted to was "just about sex"and had NOTHING to do with his suitability to held the office of President. Hillary and Bill trotted the entire presidential cabinet out onto the Rose Garden for a press conference to the effect. Every Democrat in the United States Senate voted to not remove Bill from office, insisting that his sexual misconduct was a non-issue and they would not remove him from office for all the related criminality he engaged in to cover it all up (his coverup was what was criminal and what he was impeached for, not the underlying sexual activity).
Saying that a groupie will allow herself to be groped and more by a rocker is NOT a comment on what that rocker would do to the typical female non-groupie. This whole thing is being driven this year as part of the "war on women" thing to try to energize female support for Hillary and the thing is in overdrive because Hillary, being female, is not vulnerable to a counter-strike of unsubstantiated attacks as a male candidate would be.
Interestingly, The tape was made back when Trump was a friend of the Clintons and hanging out with them, and Access Hollywood has always had it and known what was on it, yet made no use of it. I guess it was a non-issue while he was a presumed Democrat.
It's also interesting that the Democrats are demanding nobody pay attention to the wikileaks emails because they were private thoughts never intended to be made public and thus we should not use their contents to make any assumptions about the beliefs, actions, and character of Clinton and her team. Then they spin on a dime and tell us that the tape of Trump (also apparently a private conversation never intended to be publicly aired) should be our main point of info about Trump's nature, actions, fitness, etc.
Personally, I'm much more concerned about the economy, national security, and so forth. I just got my new health insurance paperwork and Obamacare is turning out to be EVERYTHING the Republicans warned it would be. My coverage next year will be less than this year, I have fewer alternatives, and the price is going up nearly 30%
Liar
The sex tape is freely available because it was aired on public TV. He did not lie about telling people to look, he told the biased moderator that he pointed at a publicly aired TV show demonstrating the character of the person making the apparently false allegation of impropriety.
Try really hard to establish facts during dialogue instead of pretending everything you hear is true.
The Progressive Trolls are all over this post, you appear to be just another dumbass.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Trump did not brag that he grabbed women without their consent, he explicitly said that they LET him because he was rich and powerful.
There is no bragging about tying a woman up, locking her in a room, beating her up, etc.
Bill Clinton, on the other hand, was accused of physically restraining and raping, trapping in a room and exposing, and lots more ACTUALLY predatory conduct, other than his consensual ( but textbook "sexual harrassment" by virtue of the "power imbalance" between POTUS and an intern) relations with Monica. Hillary Clinton, all the Democrats in congress, all the feminist groups, and much of the media agreed that what Bill did was not a disqualifier for him being President.
While Bill Clinton's victims had evidence of his actions, from the time of those actions, the current batch of Trump accusers have no such evidence.
While Bill Clinton's victims were mostly his former supporters, like Jaunita Broderick (who claims to have been raped by Bill and was found battered and with torn clothes by a friend who is on the record from that time) and Kathleen Willey who was a Clinton campaign volunteer, The Trump accusers are not former Trump supporters - most are feminist Clinton supporters eager to get the 1st woman president elected. This may mean nothing, but it's certainly a motive to lie and should be considered when the facts do not support their stories.
Trump has never made a secret about his life or his penchant for fashion models, so nobody should be surprised that he likes pretty women, but its suspicious when a rich guy who has provably had no trouble landing 3 models as wives is suddenly accused of groping a bunch of average women years ago with no physical evidence and a rather convenient lack of witnesses and details right before an election and well-synchronized to the leaks of data hurtful to his opponent.
MoveOn.org was launched to tell Americans to just "move on, it's just about sex"
What's changed?
Every media outlet other than Fox is currently running approx 30-to-1 airtime hostile to Trump, and half the people on Fox are "Never Trumpers" (the station is sadly littered with Bush-era Republicans and has very few who are either Reaganites or Trump supporters. The only full-on Trump supporters on the air on Fox are Sean Hannity, and Janine Piro.
Sean Hannity is an openly-partisan editorial guy, rather than a reporter, and promised his viewers he would support whichever GOP candidate won the primaries. In the primaries, he seemed to be pumping Trump, but he actually complained that most other candidates were less-available whereas Trump was an open guy would go on any time with any host (as history proves with all those MSNBC Morning Joe, and old Howard Stern interviews).
Janine Piro is not a reporter and runs a weekend opinion show. She has openly stated on-air many times that she has been a personal friend of Trump for many years. This makes her more honest than the late Walter Kronkite who was supposedly an unbiased journalist and never disclosed to his viewers on air that he was a personal family friend of the Kennedys.
As for unlimited money: Hillary may end up spending $2 Billion in this race (it's what she bragged she would spend). She's been out-spending Trump by 10-to-1 and has many media outlets working full-time for her. The multinational mega-corporations she serves have trillions of dollars on the line and they are going to expect a payback when they get her into office.
What makes those speeches worth tens of thousands of dollars per minute?
What were those Wall Street bankers getting for their money? hmmmmm?
government policy perhaps?
Certainly, she is no stunning orator. People do not weep with joy at the dulcet tones of her voice.
Certainly, she is no amazing entertainer, although she does seem able to make amazing piles of money disappear.
Certainly, she has never invented anything, composed anything, or built anything.
What were those Wall Street bankers getting for their money?
What are those Wall Street bankers and foreign tyrants going to get for their money?
If Hillary Clinton wins the presidency, she'll be entering office as a war criminal having achieved that status well prior. She has backed possibly every war the US is engaged in and shows no signs of pulling the US out of its many occupations. Her belligerent stance on Syria, for instance, is to push for a "no-fly zone" which she acknowledges (to her bankster friends who also bankrolled Pres. Obama's candidacy) will "kill a lot of Syrians". Patrick Cockburn disagrees any US president would actually do this, but that doesn't stop her from making it known she is fine with the bombastic talk. She'll continue all of Obama's wars just as Obama continued and expanded G.W. Bush's wars. We don't know precisely where she'll expand US wars to, but it's likely to be some other poor country just as Obama expanded wars into Yemen. She'll continue the extrajudicial assassinations of Obama's drone wars (which Obama engaged in far more than Bush, making the drone wars a hallmark of Obama's presidency).
The drone strikes deserve some special attention because so few people seem to know about them. If any other country did this the US would have no problem identifying them as "state-sponsors of global terror" or calling them "terrorists". Each of these wars kill a lot of women and children (putting into perspective how much Clinton cares about women), including Americans (as we've seen with the Al-awlakis, such as killing a father and son 2 weeks apart in separate drone attacks) without due process. And the drones kill completely unsuspected innocent passers-by (such as one infamous wedding party attack. The US kills so many civilians they can't keep track of them all but are clearly ashamed by the deaths so they released (on a Friday before a holiday weekend when mainstream corporate media are least likely to carry the story) an internal assessment of civilian killings in U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya (including those killed including during Clinton's stint as Secretary of State). In that assessment we find an undercount due to the US reclassification of any military-age male as an "enemy combatant" in a desperate attempt to reduce the civilian death toll. There's every reason to expect more of the same from Hillary Clinton should she become president.
Domestically, Clinton's anti-poor/anti-working-person policies are bound to worsen the plight of women. Taking so much money from global banks ensures a continuation of no prosecutions for global banksters, no matter what fellow Democrat Sen. Elizabeth Warren says. Global trade pacts will help the US more efficiently exploit the poor. The TPP is a fine example of this: the TPP was known to, and does, receive massive international disapproval hence the TPP negotiations and early drafts were done in secret even keeping US congresspeople in the dark. Regardless of what Clinton says or hints to the US public, Clinton picked a pro-TPP vice presidential candidate in Tim Kaine and Clinton picked TPP boosters in her cabinet setup committee. It's hardly surprising that in April 2015 TheIntercept.com reported that "TPP Propon
Digital Citizen
There is enough known about memory to know that the only "photographic" memory is what some researchers call the "sensory registry" which is a form of short term memory that lasts at best a few seconds, and holds a sensory "image" (whether visual, auditory, tactile, etc.), by the time memories are even shuffled into short term memory, the memories have already been encoded. Memories shuffled off to long term memory are what you might call heavily compressed, and when the brain accesses them, it uses its knowledge of the world to reassemble a coherent narrative. It is because of the nature of declarative memories that they are susceptible to being altered, and it is why witness testimony can be so faulty, and why when questioning witnesses, it is critical to do it correctly, and keep multiple witnesses apart, because failure to do both can often taint even very recent memories.
That's not to say that we can't remember events fairly accurately, but we should always be conscious of the fact that what we are "remembering" isn't a video playback, but rather a compressed and encoded pieces of information that are put back together by the brain when a memory is recalled.
It's for this reason that various claims surrounding "repressed memories" have been so regularly debunked, and why when you hear about someone put under hypnosis and who recounted his parents being Satanists that murdered a baby, you're listening to fabrication, usually unintentional on the subject's part, but also usually involving the hypnotist basically creating a whole series of suggestions which the subject's brain uses to assemble a memory of a situation which never happened.
Now, that all being said, that doesn't mean that memory is completely faulty. Obviously it isn't, and we can recall events relatively well, particularly where we actively commit them to memory or they were of some significance (i.e. the birth of one's child, or, say, being groped by Donald Trump), but it does raise the question as to why an observer would have such vivid memories countering that.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Just track down those who've actually dealt with the "help" of the Clinton Foundation and see what their story is..... http://fusion.net/story/357169...
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
Smith: "What good is a phone call, if you don't have a mouth to speak".
Enjoy the 25 cents worth of rent while and how you can.
The first one, "admission" about the e-mail scandal, was exactly the opposite of what you said: it was an e-mail from Tanden saying that the attacks on Clinton weren't on the level. The second one is the Clinton campaign responding to a request for comments from the New York Times. Uh, if you are unaware that newspapers ask for comments from people they run stories about, you aren't aware of very much about journalism. The next two are simply the campaign staff discussing stories in the news.
Really: this is not news because it is boring and there is nothing there.
This is the scandal? The Clinton campaign staff discuss the day's news?
Nobody who's making stuff up for the purpose of harming a candidate is going to pretend it happened decades ago, they're going to pretend it happened recently so they can show the guy hasn't changed.
Of course, there are recent incidents too. And this kind of thing has been going on recently.
This is one sick perv, and so close to the nuclear codes.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
To say Wikileaks Dump, given how often it happens, I vote we just call it either "a Wikileak" as in, " Clinton emails Wikileaked this week," or a Wikidump, as in, "Hillary emails released in massive Wikidump this morning.
This will of course naturally lend itself to use of the term in a scatalogical context. "Not now, I have to go take a Wikileak" or "I'm gonna go take a Wikidump."
This is nothing new. Everyone knows that HRC is in the pockets of Wall Street and Big Business. This simply does not matter.
Funny how an article about obvious collusion between Clinton and Wallstreet, the 'too big to fail' crowd has been derailed in the comments section with Trump's p@@sy comment.
Remember when everyone hated what Wallstreet did in 2008 so much that everyone across gender and racial divides joined forces to try to cause change?
Of course, the movement imploded because special interest groups managed to wrest control of it, but the point stands...why does everyone seem to love someone so incredibly entrenched with that crowd?