Slashdot Mirror
Hillary Clinton's Campaign Creates Way To Make Money From Donald Trump's Tweets (adweek.com)
Hillary Clinton's campaign has created a new fundraising tool called Troll Trump that lets supporters sign up to automatically donate money to the campaign when Donald Trump tweets. Adweek reports: The tool's landing page populates a new Trump tweet each time the site is refreshed to offer a sampling of the candidate's social media style. "Show Donald that his unhinged rhetoric comes at a cost," according to the Clinton campaign's website. "Sign up to donate to Hillary's campaign every time Donald tweets!" The idea was apparently inspired by a tweet by Matt Bellassai, a former BuzzFeed editor and social media star, who made a joke on Twitter threatening to donate to the campaign every time Trump tweets. (When the tool went live, Teddy Goff, a digital strategist with the Clinton campaign, tweeted Bellassai a thank-you.)
Red headline (with no responses) during the debate...
Trump should just flood post and waste the money of every person who participates.
I hate Trump, but I hate Hillary even more.
bankrupt clinton donors by doing what he does best.. being a raging lunatic that can't shut up.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-19/hillary-clinton-linked-mysterious-front-associated-julian-assange-pedophile-smear
A fool and his money are soon parted.
Not sure what she's going to do with a few bucks from a few random Twitter followers who let her charge their credit cards on demand when they can get million dollar birthday gifts from the wonderful country of Qatar:
Source
Related News:
http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton...
Notes:
WJC = William Jefferson Clinton, better known as Bill Clinton
Wow, that's a real eye opener, I am glad you brought that up Igor. That Clinton Foundation is obviously using charity work as cover for evil crook bad business. You have wokened my eyes with your amazing exposes of the Clinton and her evil deeds.
From:adesai@clintonfoundation.org
To: blindsey@clintonfoundation.org, lgraham@clintonfoundation.org, doug@presidentclinton.com, justin@presidentclinton.com
Date: 2012-04-16 18:56
Subject: Qatar, Brazil, Peru, Malawi, Rwanda
Last Thursday, April 12, I met individually with the Ambassadors from Qatar, Brazil, Peru, Malawi, and Rwanda, in Washington, DC. Below is a summary of key points from each meeting, and we are following-up on each point. I'd welcome your feedback. Sincerely, Ami
QATAR
- Would like to see WJC "for five minutes" in NYC, to present $1 million check that Qatar promised for WJC's birthday in 2011.
- Qatar would welcome our suggestions for investments in Haiti - particularly on education and health. They have allocated most of their $20 million but are happy to consider projects we suggest. I'm collecting input from CF Haiti team.
BRAZIL
- President Rousseff may come to NYC for UN in September; I pitched CGI, again, and will continue to do so.
- We agreed to try to arrange a WJC-Rousseff meeting whenever she and he are next in the same city.
- With regard to Rio climate conference, Ambassador's team is going to think about any sites that WJC could visit to highlight Brazil's leadership on climate issues. [I made clear WJC visit to Rio is undecided.] They said they'd be happy for WJC to come.
- I committed to send them details on CCI in Brazil.
- Ambassador mentioned Lula receiving an award in Iowa and how much Lula enjoyed Iowa. I suggested Lula come to Little Rock when WJC convenes meeting of former heads of state (Club of Madrid). Also discussed Ambassador going to Little Rock to speak with Clinton School students - he said he'd like to. I'll work with Stephanie on this.\
- We discussed Lula's health - Ambassador said he's recovering and still committed to agriculture work in Africa. We agreed it would be good for WJC and Lula to do something together on agriculture in Africa.
PERU
- Per CGSGI, I asked for Ambassador's ideas on which sectors/parts of Peru to focus on in order to create jobs. He suggested we speak with his son, an alderman in Lima, about jobs projects for young men who otherwise could be recruited by gangs. Ambassador also suggested speaking with Minister for Women and Vulnerable Populations, Ms. Ana Jara, for jobs projects for women.
MALAWI
- Ambassador told story of Mutharika's death (said he collapsed with no prior symptoms during a morning meeting, was taken to hospital, then flown to South Africa but passed away en route); and emphasized significance of smooth transition to successor, within their constitutional framework. Sounds like new President is laying low until the memorial service for Mutharika, and then plans to announce her new government.
- Ambassador again urged that CDI consider dairy/cattle projects; I reminded him we'd be happy to speak with minister of agriculture or whoever Ambassador suggests in the industry; he said he'd let us know.
RWANDA
- Kagame is organizing an event in June to commemorate closing of Gacaca process for the genocide. They asked if WJC could go. I said Africa trip is probably in July and we haven't decided countries yet but if there's anything they'd want WJC to do in Rwanda in July, to let us know. I also said to let us know if they'd want a message from WJC for the June event; they'll let us know.
- Ambassador asked if WJC/CF/CGI could do anything to help on education/universities in Rwanda. I explained we are constrained by funding but if they have specific ideas, to let us know. He said they'll put together some ideas for us.
- Ambassador asked about attracting more investments/businesses to Rwanda, including mining/natural
According to who?
Trump just nailed yet another debate. The polls are all being done by the same media that's biased against Trump. People don't want to admit to supporting Trump because Hillary supporters are prone to acts of violence against Trump supporters. Don't forget that Clinton's campaign sent thugs to pretend to be Bernie supporters to cause riots at Trump rallies.
Wikileaks isn't done leaking material yet. Ecuador (at John Kerry's request) may be trying to delay them, but there are contingencies in place. The information will be released. October isn't over and the October Surprise hasn't been released yet.
538 shows Hillary having around an 85% chance of winning - which is high, but that means Trump has a 15% chance, which is the same as rolling a 18, 19, or 20 on a 20-sided die. It's easily possible.
Just wait and see. November 8th is still three weeks away, there's still time to finally break through the mainstream media's pro-Clinton firewall.
The campaign for the highest political office in the land is based on cheap shots, empty hyperbole, and crass corruption. Talk about bread and circuses! The presidential race IS a circus; not even a classy one like Cirque du Soleil, but rather a seedy low-rent carnival sideshow. There are disquieting similarities between this election and any given episode of Jerry Springer or Maury Povich. I suppose that's fitting, given that one of the 'contestants' really is a reality show star, and now the other one is taking her cues from him. When I think about the situation I'm torn between sadness and disgust, and end up feeling both. Yuck. Is this really how things are done now, in what arguably used to be the greatest nation in the world?
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
Oh god I hope Trump trolls them back by instead of tweeting out a sentences he tweets one word at a time.
Hillary
Clinton's
tax
plan
is
the
worst
thing
since
N
A
F
T
A
!
Posting frequently to your own Twitter account is not click fraud.
So when Trump's campaign sets up the same tool, so that every time HRC twats, Trump gets $?
Is that just as neat?
-Styopa
Of course the amazing thing is that Trump probably thinks the tweeting is helping his campaign. He doesn't even want to stop, though Hillary would be helping him greatly if this gimmick discouraged him from tweeting. Like Sun Tzu says, you shouldn't interfere when your enemy is punching himself in the face. (Actually, I'm still entertaining the hypothesis that Twitter actually brainwashed Trump with Alt-Right links.)
I still think it's kind of unfair for Hillary to exploit his weaknesses, but then again, I think Trump is asking for it. Near as I can tell, no one forced him into this ritual humiliation. Kind of a shame he didn't have any good friends who could persuade him not to, and if he thought Bill Clinton was being a good friend when he encouraged him to run against Bill's very own wife... Well, there goes any claim to high intelligence, as if the Donald's campaign hadn't been proof enough.
If there were some similar comments already, I would have appended mine. Nothing showed up yet, and the participation in Slashdot these days is so low that I'm not expecting much before the article dies. The moderation is not helping (as usual), but I have a new question about some discouraging "award" I recently received. Couldn't find out anything about it, so I guess I should care even less, eh?
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Bilk? They have to sign up for it.
But nice, stupid try.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Am I the only one who feels like the stories regarding the election that filter onto slashdot have been pretty seriously biased and generally uncalled for?
Preferably I wouldn't see any campaign news here unless it's extremely specifically about tech, but it seems like anything with a hint of tech and related to the election is getting pasted to the front page regardless of the relevancy.
From the technology-but-really-election stories, to the pretty-much-clickbait stories; I'm getting sick of this site. I've been getting more and better tech related news from the fucking technology board on 4chan for christ's sake.
I can't trust these news sites anymore - I've even been hearing of shadowbans on slashdot in discussions outside this site - if I ever see proof of that, I'm done with this place. What the fuck is happening to our online media?
Congrats.
i just don't think raw $ is going to have quite the effect it's had in the past. Information control isn't bought quite as easily, nor is it nearly as effective, as in the past. Far fewer are glued to their TVs for their world-view. I can't imagine Trump getting in this if he knew of some true skeletons to hide. I can't imagine Hillary ever imagined how quickly her closets would fill up way back before meeting Bill. Hiding skeletons seems to be all she's ever done. And too many of you are too young to realize how long some of us have been watching the "Slick Willy" crime syndicate operate.
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
As proof, please see your same link.
During the election of 1968, Johnson was trying to bring an end to the Vietnam war. Nixon feared a breakthrough at the Paris Peace talks designed to find a negotiated settlement to the Vietnam war, and he knew this would derail his campaign, so he contacted Hanoi and told them, essentially, "if you delay the peace talks, you'll get a better deal once I'm elected".
This was known to Johnson and the FBI at the time, who chose to do nothing.
From the article: “Once in office he escalated the war into Laos and Cambodia, with the loss of an additional 22,000 American lives, before finally settling for a peace agreement in 1973 that was within grasp in 1968,”
You probably aren't old enough to remember that era, but a lot of us are. The peace talks were constantly delayed by demands that, for instance, the table be round or square. This seemed odd at the time, but now we know why.
Nixon committed treason in the literal sense of the word, interfered with the US operations of state, and extended a war for 5 years just to get elected.
We only recently found this out because the records were sealed for 50 years, and recently unsealed.
I'm told that other, previous elections were worse. This one is just more heavily televised.
Be grateful for the bread and circus, because it's not actually killing people.
I've been here through a couple of elections, and I can say definitively that this place goes to hell just prior.
About 6 weeks before an election this place starts to get crazy with spammers and sock puppets, and about 3 weeks prior it goes completely bonkers. It's happened before, it'll happen again in 4 years. If you're worried, just ignore it for the next 3 weeks.
Apropos shadow banning, I myself was banned from Slashdot for about a day because of trolls modding my submissions as "spam" (and triggering Slashdot's anti-spam auto ban).
I sent an E-mail to feedback, an op read it, and I was unbanned. To my total astonishment.
Slashdot is awesome, please don't paint us with the same brush as Twitter or Facebook.
It's just our 4-yearly version of pon-farr.
[Scott Adams is a world class fucking idiot] As proof, please see your same link.
And this is why Slashdot seems to be pro-Trump.
Scott Adams is a trained hypnotist, and has had many insights into this election from that point of view. When he says people are brainwashed, he's speaking professionally with some background. And the posted article uses analogy and example to explain his point.
If you think he's wrong, just pasting a random insult ain't 'gonna do it.
Anyone can show pro-Clinton articles and posts on Slashdot, it only takes insight and background, which anyone could do.
Raw, unsupported insults simply aren't good enough.
Is it interesting that the Clinton Foundation has no measurable results?
Most charities can say "we received $x amount of money, and spent $y on cancer research" or similar. The dollars can be traced to studies or hospitals or doctors' salaries or aid workers in conflict areas.
Not so with the Clinton Foundation. Their purpose is to "lobby" for good causes.
Totally unmeasurable, there is no way to judge whether a donation to the Clinton Foundation is more or less effective than a donation to the "Save the Children Foundation".
With "Save The Children", you know that 1 child is helped, you know how they are helped, and you see whether the help does any good over time.
But with the "Clinton Foundation"... ?
http://observer.com/2016/09/ex...
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
Basically, it it's tied to Tweet count, Trump can cause these people to violate campaign finance laws, simply by being prolific.
Though, realistically, it would more likely just cause financial hardship as a big chunk of cash disappears from their account.
Anyone who uses this is basically a moron who basically WANTS to be stolen from.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
The polls are all being done by the same media that's biased against Trump.
Really?
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Interesting post, and if I ever saw a mod point, I might give it to you, even though you only posed the questions.
Anyway, it's obvious that technology is influencing elections in many ways, but mostly for the worse. Just picking a few examples off the top of my head:
(1) Scientific polling that makes voting feel meaningless
(2) Precise gerrymandering that distorts the House of so-called Representatives
(3) Trump's self-immolation via Twitter
Still no funny comments and the ones modded insightful weren't, and the discussion is almost expired...
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
I think the money went to his head a long while ago and it became a boring business. I think he lost his sense of humor, too, but he's getting ideas from around the Web and he has hired a couple of editors to pick the ones he illustrates for his strip. Nothing that feels like his originality there.
As regards Trump, I think it was a head fake. If Trump wins, he gets to say "I told you so" and if Trump loses he'll claim credit and say "If I hadn't scared, you then Trump could have won."
I still can't understand the rabid hatred of Hillary (except for the misogynists), though their viciousness has finally got me to like her a little bit in spite of the lawyer thing. I started neutral towards Trump, but now I think he's a pathological liar and I definitely hate liars. Probably a sociopath, too, but there are plenty of them running apparently successful businesses.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
"According to who?"
Whom, actually.
I'd have thought she'd have a 'Donate arms to ISIS whenever Donald Trump tweets" campaign
Requiem for the American Dream
Yes comrade; mention her funding of ISIS.
Requiem for the American Dream
"Every time you attack our troops, we will kill 20 civilians. See that your actions come at a cost!"
Even if I wanted to give her money, her organization is not exactly know for being brilliant at security.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Trump just nailed yet another debate.
Strange, it looks like he admitted defeat to me. Why else not agree to accept the result? That's what a child does when they know they are going to lose.
there's still time to finally break through the mainstream media's pro-Clinton firewall.
The mainstream media, especially Fox and other right leaning "news" outlets, have been attacking Clinton for decades. They gave extensive coverage of the email scandal, Benghazi, her husband's actions and the allegations against him... You can't honestly say that they have been easy on her, or given her a free pass because they don't report outlandish conspiracy theories about the number of people she has had murdered (although Fox mentioned it).
The simple fact is that she got her dirty laundry out years back and people have lost interest now, not that it was ever as bad as some make out. But Trump doesn't have a history in politics so there is more dirt left to unearth. The fact that a lot of the stuff he says is clearly off the cuff on issues any serious politician would have nailed down a position on just invites scandal and ridicule too.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
This clearly is targeting 1%ers. Who else could afford to donate even a few cents every time Trump says something stupid? Just further proof that Clinton is in bed with the rich elite, though probably not with her own husband.
I think it's time we retired the word "whom" for lack of use. "Who" in this sense is more intuitive. Besides, we need fewer "special case" words.
Millionaire tech titans back her.
Like Peter Thiel.
Rich celebrities back her.
Like Charlie Sheen.
Wealthy media members back her.
Like Rupert Murdoch.
Well paid millionaire athletes back her.
Like Mike Tyson.
Abusive government leaders back her.
Like Vladimir Putin.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Strange, it looks like he admitted defeat to me. Why else not agree to accept the result? That's what a child does when they know they are going to lose.
Because the elections haven't happened yet and you'd be a fool to agree to the results of something that hasn't happened yet?
If the elections are carried out in a fair way and it's clear that the American people don't want Trump, I'm sure he'll accept the elections. But it isn't at all clear that's going to happen yet, and based on the way Hillary handled the primaries, there's a very good chance that there will be irregularities in the election results.
Trump is refusing to lock himself into saying he's going to accept the results of a process that hasn't happened yet and is up against perhaps the most corrupt candidate the nation has ever seen.
So it's easily possible that Trump might "lose" the elections despite having the overwhelming support of the real American people. We'll have to wait and see.
You do understand that the Clinton foundation proves only a small percentage to an actual charity.
Politifact rates that statement: false.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/25/reince-priebus/reince-priebus-false-claim-80-clinton-foundation-c/
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/
Strange, it looks like he admitted defeat to me. Why else not agree to accept the result? That's what a child does when they know they are going to lose.
I took it as a warning to the Democrats. The Dems have a long, long history of voter fraud and Trump is putting them on notice that he's wise to their schemes, and we're not taking it this time.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
What about percentage-wise, though? Think celebrities split 50/50 on Clinton vs Trump?
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
She has no respect for the 1st amendment and is trying to suppress Trump's right to free speech. Sadly the brainwashed masses continue to believe the left-wing assault on America's freedoms. Have fun watching your jobs get outsourced to India and Twitter bots if Hillary gets elected.
Hey, when any "news source" manages to contradict your own personal first hand experience the only rational reaction is to be VERY skeptical.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Sure, they source things and explain why they rated things the way they did (like rating Obama's statement that "people buy guns over the Internet without a background check" during a speech calling for better background check laws as TRUE by qualifying the statement with "He never said people do that legally).
But no one ever looks at that. They look at the rating which often has twisted justifications that are, yes, clearly biased. But, like I said, no one looks at the justification. In fact, they will propagate nonsense like a aggregate of a bunch of rating as if they were unassailable facts to judge the "truthfulness" of one candidate or organization compared to another. When all that aggregate really tells you is how biased those "fact check" sites actually are.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
I also thought that answer was a bit peculiar too since we recently had a contested election. On the one hand, you can't say that you will blindly accept any nonsense with no question. On the other hand, you can't completely destroy the idea of a peaceful transition of power.
People still have rights. Something bad may happen to you, but you don't have to take it lying down. You can fight it through perfectly civilized means.
You don't have to let people walk all over you.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
And betting markets show the same pattern as with Brexit -- more overall money on Hillary, but more individual bets on Trump.
I would set up a bot to tweet stupid shit 5000 times a day to give Hillary all the monies. I would troll the shit out of the donors.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Given the way he's been acted in the past when losing that's not something to be so sure about.
Happy people make bad consumers.
Talk about a left wing canard. Nixon didn't do that. He said he didn't, others said he didn't. I believe him. Clifford was a paranoid and your source is a
freelance science writer with no credentials.
Now, the truth.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Disclosure: Donald Trump is the father-in-law of Jared Kushner, the publisher of Observer Media.
Other than that, I didn't get much out of the article, sorry.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
They might want to hurry up with their October surprise. Here in Colorado, we do voting by mail and I just received my ballot the other day.
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
You could also just try google. It's not like democrats having dead people vote and busing minorities from polling place to polling place is any big secret.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Where the $12 million from the King of Morocco went in the pay-for-play days as Secretary of State!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
And where is this long history of voter fraud pray tell? I found 436 cases going back to 2000 and none of them mention party affiliation with few even giving hints. According to the Heritage Foundation none the less: (pdf) http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws....
Here's a good quick reference for you:
https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_...
And google is your friend:
https://www.google.com/search?...
I personally thing we have more of a problem with political fraud:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Lady doth protest too much.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
We've been playing the Trump Drinking Game based on his "compulsive behaviors" at the debates.
Each debate, someone does a shot when he sniffs, interrupts the moderator, or says any of "let me tell you," "I'm very proud of it," "it's a (total) disaster," "worst [something] ever," "disgusting," "believe me," and "sad" (may have been others, but I may have passed out).
Everybody drinks if he leans into the microphone and says "wrong", boasts about his company, or says "nobody respects women more than me."
Great times. Wasted inside the first 40 minutes.
No more debates.
Sad.
Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
Yes, it's so easy to just say "the fact checking site is biased"! Once you've said that, you don't even need to look at what it says: you can say it's wrong without even bothering to know what it said.
That seems a bit ironic that you would say that, as it seems you didn't bother to read the examples I posted. The two candidates said essentially the same thing, and Politi"fact"'s rationale was basically the same for both, but they gave different ratings.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Gore didn't accept the result in 2000 (well, at first he did - then when the FL Secretary of State on election night announced an automatic recount, he rescinded his concession) because, until the FL and US Supreme Courts ruled, the election wasn't over yet. As soon as the courts ruled, he made a very gracious concession.
I agree with you, that example is inconsistent. Depending on how pedantic one wishes to be, you can argue that having an income tax with a rate of 0% is different than not having an income tax, at least legally, but why wander down that twisty road. The truth o meter, however, is missing the forest for the trees. The real power of politifact is the articles themselves. You can read how they arrived at their conclusions and decide if you feel the same. That's how I use it. Unfortunately for conservatives, reality has a liberal bias.
Actually I did, but it was so dubious it was barely worth commenting on. These are cherry picked results: how many fact check articles did you have to go through to find two that support your pre-determined conclusion?
You were comparing two articles written by two different people, on different fact check sites (one was politifact Texas, one politifact Virginia), written years apart.
Nevertheless, they both said pretty much exactly the same thing. So, you're not objecting to the actual facts in the articles. Because the facts are the same. So, since you're not disputing that, let's start by agreeing that the actual text part of the fact check is accurate and not biased.
So, what you're objecting to is the fact that, in an article where the text concluded that the statement was partly true, one person labelled this "half true" and the other person labelled it "mostly true." That's within normal variation, I'm afraid: two people wrote the articles, years apart, and their judgement call was very slightly different. Your conclusion that it is "bias" is unsupported.
You'd have to show me some statistics before I can accept that hypothesis. Here's a challenge: why don't you fact-verify, say, the most recent 100 politifact fact checks (or any other set of data that you didn't cherry pick to find ones that support your conclusion), and show the statistics on error?
Is that it?
I agree that one example is a little inconsistent, but it's not like it said one is right and one is wrong. Do you have any others?
It's certainly not enough to write off the entire site from one minor inconsistency, especially since as far as fact checkers go they are usually pretty solid. Maybe you should contact them and let them know? They might acknowledge it and fix it up. Remember, Democracy is not a spectator sport.
See? Right there. That's clunky. It's technically the direct object, but it's placement at the beginning of the sentence automatically makes me want to say "who do you intend to contact" right off the bat. English has come a long way from German; we don't need noun declension for "who," especially since we decline so few other words.
*its (I know, I know!)
Yes reality has a liberal bias BUT that is not the same as saying reality has a progressive bias. Hillary is NOT a LIBERAL. Bernie is NOT a LIBERAL. The DNC and RNC are not liberals.
Liberal comes from the word LIBERTY that is what a liberal was - and what it meant when that quote was created.
Learn some history and realize that you are falling for slick propaganda.