Slashdot Mirror
Clinton Campaign Considered Bill Gates, Tim Cook For Vice President (theverge.com)
WikiLeaks has been releasing thousands of emails over the past couple of weeks belonging to Hillary Clinton's campaign chair John Podesta. One of the more interesting tidbits revealed from the email dump was the list of potential running mates considered by Clinton's campaign. The Verge reports: Clinton's vice presidential candidates, while not altogether surprising, include some vaguely interesting choices like Bill and Melinda Gates, Apple CEO Tim Cook, and General Motors CEO Mary Barra. In the mail, Podesta says he has organized the list into "rough food groups," one of which includes all the people mentioned above. Xerox CEO Ursula Burns and Starbucks CEO Howard Shultz are also in this "food group," along with Michael Bloomberg. With just under 40 names on the list, it's not immediately obvious how close any of these people came to actually being asked to take on the role (Tim Kaine is on the list).
Everyone else is covering that story to death. The "food groups" the nominees are in are their race, gender & wealth if you're wondering. Sanders is their very last choice, all by himself. So why not release this story instead, which almost nobody is covering right now?
https://slashdot.org/submissio...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDc8PVCvfKs
Larry Ellison could have been on that list (shudder!)
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
For people like Bill Gates and Tim Cook, vice president would be a very real step down from what they do presently.
Yes, I'm saying the CEO of Apple and a retired billionaire turned philanthropist have more power than the second highest ranking elected official in the United States. Because the position isn't worth a warm bucket of piss.
Everyone else is covering that story to death. The "food groups" the nominees are in are their race, gender & wealth if you're wondering. Sanders is their very last choice, all by himself. So why not release this story instead, which almost nobody is covering right now?
https://slashdot.org/submissio...
An excellent choice, monseur.
Might I also recommend https://slashdot.org/submissio...
or perhaps https://twitter.com/wikileaks/...
I'll spare you all a click because there's nothing to see here unless you're interested in their "food groups" and which they thought they needed. Here's the full list of VP ideas put forth listed by the category they all appear to fit into (which is not, in fact, listed in the email, just to be clear about that):
Hispanic Men
Rep. Xavier Becerra, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julian Castro, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, Secretary of Labor Tom Perez and Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar.
Women
Sen. Tammy Baldwin, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Sen. Claire McKaskill, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, Sen. Debbie Stabenow and Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
White Men
Sen. Michael Bennet, Sen. Sherrod Brown, Sen. Martin Heinrich, Sen. Tim Kaine, Gov. Terry McAuliffe, Sen. Chris Murphy and Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack.
Black Men
Columbia, S.C., Mayor Stephen Benjamin, Sen. Cory Booker, Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum, former Attorney General Eric Holder, former Gov. Deval Patrick, Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed and Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx.
Military Leaders
Gen. John Allen, Adm. William McCraven and Adm. Michael Mullen
Rich Businesspeople
GM CEO Mary Barra, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Xerox CEO Ursula Burns, Apple CEO Tim Cook, Microsoft founder Bill Gates, philanthropist Melinda Gates, Coca-Cola CEO Muhtar Kent, Rockefeller Foundation President Judith Rodin and Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz
Other
Sen. Bernie Sanders
1. former stockbroker, investment advisor, and financier Bernie Madoff
2. owner of the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant Charles Montgomery Burns
3. elderly Scottish anthropomorphic Pekin Scrooge McDuck
4. A large slightly moist burlap sack of cash marked "campaign finance reform or whatever"
Good people go to bed earlier.
She is a black version of Carly Fiorina with a dash of "diversity" -- one who did irreparable damage to a once powerful Fortune 500 company, who has a reputation as a liar, who insisted a stupid acquisition with Affiliated Computer Services was the right thing to do, and who is hated by her employees. My God -- I have absolutely no problem with a black woman, but why *that* black woman?
Is anyone else disturbed by the apparent ramifications of this? Perhaps those lizard people "conspiracy theories" of have more credence than we were led to believe.
Don't worry, I actually covered that in a comment to my own submission, which is the first post on this story.
Also, let's linkify that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Just because you want someone doesn't mean there's a snowball's chance in hell of them going along with what you'd like.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Everything on the Interwebs is true, even the warnings that the Interwebs are not true.
Table-ized A.I.
Because the evidence is junk.
First the "investigative" video is by James O'Keefe, who is infamous for dishonestly editing and framing videos to create the false appearance of criminal behaviour. And yes, you're allowed to shoot the messenger when the messenger is lying.
As for the woman Zulema, even if she was a Clinton supporter or even worked some aspect of the Clinton campaign (they must have thousands of paid staffers) that doesn't mean she was part of a Clinton conspiracy to frame Sanders supporters for violent protests. People who work in politics sometimes care about politics too, and they're more than capable of attending a protest on their own.
Oh, and I don't know what she has to do with the violent protests anyway, the video is of her at a peaceful (though disruptive) protest on a highway!
Huh.
Scott Adams has a blog post on attacking the source, and claims it's almost always a "tell" for being guilty.
I don't know about those sorts of things, maybe this is the statistically improbably case where a non-guilty person attacks the messenger.
Then again, you don't cite any sources, show independent reviews of the evidence, or even any rationalization. Just "the evidence is junk".
Was that on purpose?
Right. Part two of "James O'Keefe Does His Typical Hit Jobs".
For anyone who doesn't know his past, he made his name with the "ACORN videos", which led to investigations of the organization - and consequently, the videos. The results? From the Wikipedia summary:
The internet is not a series of tubes. It's more like a net. Or a network of computers. Or an internet.
Tim on the campaign trail:
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I'm not *suprised* the Dems lumped candidates into buckets based solely on race and gender, rather than perhaps QUALIFICATIONS FOR JOB, but I do find it interesting and illustrative.
Exactly how does one use their genitals to perform the job of vice president? Whether or not a potential candidate has a penis is apparently the #1 most important consideration; does the SIZE of their penis matter?
I would hope that if someone like Paul Ryan was making the list his categories would be something like:
Legistlative Experience
Executive Experience (govt)
Executive Experience (private sector)
Foreign Policy Experience
It's called "Arkancide"
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
Business is not politics. There's little reason why (once you've got over the low bar of being able to put your shoes on) being good at one should make you good at the other.
War isn't politics either. Arthur Wellesley - brilliant general, repressive asshole prime minister. Grant - OK general, a tad genocidal with the Indians.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Apparently neither does Trump.
"Trump corp email servers - all internet accessible, single factor auth, no MDM, Win2003, no security patching."
Funny how nobody bothered hacking that.
The internet is not a series of tubes. It's more like a net. Or a network of computers. Or an internet.
But then again... maybe that wasn't fair of me. The security aspect of cyber is very very tough.
The internet is not a series of tubes. It's more like a net. Or a network of computers. Or an internet.
> Ghere are many fantastic and far more capable and proven African Americans who would have been FAR better as the first one in the White House.
> Trumpster's not the best male in the country either, but he's not trying to go down in history as the first male president (First oompaloompah, perhaps
Orange IS the new black.
Unless George Clinton of the Parliament-Funkadelic is picked for VP, I don't think I'll be voting this election.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
We've already got Clintongate, and if we get into a war with Russia we're all cooked.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
But seriously, when all Trump can do is court the NRA vote, he's going to lose.
He may not win, but he'll be getting WAY more than the votes from the few million members of the NRA. Because there are many tens of millions of active voters who don't want to see her in office.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Ah, I get it. You're an NRA fetishist with no statistics skills. Yeah, there seem to be a lot of those in the Hillary camp. It explains a lot of things.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I'll bet Bill Gates could have set up a secure personal email server...
Not all of us can be 450 pounds sitting on the couch.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
It doesnt. Those are obviously candidates that would target specific demographics. VP doesnt have to go after women votes (Clinton has that covered), looks like they decided on a VP that would most appeal to white population.
Isnt it obvious with Bernie being in a category of his own?
Are you sure the only difference between men and women is the genitals?
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
I'm not *suprised* the Dems lumped candidates into buckets based solely on race and gender, rather than perhaps QUALIFICATIONS FOR JOB, ...
The word "qualifications" in your case has a very broad meaning. You need to understand that those categories are set for "strategic" in order to help making decision. Once you understood, then categorized candidates into groups of expecting people to vote can be seen as a "qualification" as well. If you are talking about those who can get jobs done while in the office, then you will never find one in politics because you should know why...
Also, I highly doubt that Republicant part would differently strategize their plan. It is about politic after all. Those list you gave could possibly be in Democrate's plan as well, but they do NOT play a major roll right now. If they could not get elected first, what's good to have those plan for? You should already know how majority of Americans vote (and it is very similar strategic to get a job in a big company where you need to get through their HR first). So please do not be "not surprised" that this happened in Democrate party.
Those writing the lists tend to embellish the actual facts. Further, the C's are rather up there in age, such that their acquaintances are at the age people start dying frequently of age-related ailments.
Table-ized A.I.
> Romney chose Ryan because Ryan was respected by the Tea Party (which was very dubious of Romney).
Romney sought to balance what he thought was the important, difference, political positions on the issues of the day.
> Trump chose Pence to reassure the GOP that Trump would be under adult supervision.
Trump sought to balance on what he thought was the important difference - temperment and government experience.
Clinton sought to balance what she thinks is important - gentals.
> Also, I highly doubt that Republicant part would differently strategize their plan.
We do not have to guess what Republicans *might* do, we *know* what they did.
On choosing Paul Ryan, Romney sought to balance what he thought was the important, difference, political positions on the issues of the day.
With Pence, Trump sought to balance on what he thought was the important difference - temperment and government experience.
Clinton sought to balance what she thinks is important - gentals.
For very long time all presidents were all white men, now we have a black man. We may have a woman for next president. I wonder if future presidents can be someone who is single (not married), someone with different religion than Christian, or with facial hair (I think Teddy Roosevelt was the last with facial hair), or someone that is paraplegic (other than FDR).
mfwright@batnet.com
> You don't have anything from the FEC, but your claim that you do...makes you unreliable.
So, why don't we read my submission again? Here's a link to it for the lazy: https://slashdot.org/submissio...
Did you see the words the words "FEC records of disbursements to her"? Check where the link points to, it goes to here:
https://beta.fec.gov/data/disb...
See that FEC.GOV in the URL? Can you tell me who runs this site? Yeah, it's the FEC, who you said I "don't have anything from" just now.
That data shows this lady being on the MoveOn.org payroll. You know, the person who faked all that crap at the Trump protests (which is *on video*)? And who bragged about creating violence at the rallies? But that's "nothing" right? Just because a completely independent video shows her acting and blocking the rally with a rented Lexus, creating violence, etc. Normal people would call that "corroborating evidence" of whose payroll she's on.
By all means tell me how the FEC isn't the FEC, how this woman wasn't paid by the people the FEC says she was paid by, or how she's not clearly the same person in the videos. Go look at the FEC data and see who she works for. I'm not asking you to take my word for anything, just to look at the facts in front of your eyes.
Romney reported that "women's groups" brought his administration "whole binders full of women". Who exactly created "binders full of women" and brought them to the state house?
That would be MassGAP, an organization created by and affiliated with the Massachusetts Women's Political Caucus. The front page of their web site lists the candidates they are endorsing this year. Guess which political party they all belong to? That's right, the binders full of women were created by a bunch of Democrats. Because that's what Democrats DO, that's how they see the world, men vs women, black vs white, us vs them.