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.)
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
!
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.
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
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.
http://observer.com/2016/09/ex...
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
Whereas Trump has settled multiple lawsuits using charity money.
http://people.com/crime/donald-trump-used-money-from-charity-to-settle-lawsuits-report/
Although in more recent 7 years he hasn't used charity money at all for ANY donations, instead just using it for his own expenses:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-promised-millions-to-charity-we-found-less-than-10000-over-7-years/2016/06/28/cbab5d1a-37dd-11e6-8f7c-d4c723a2becb_story.html
You do realize that he's committed *actual* criminal offenses don't you? Perhaps you should avoid mentioning charities, that's a big minefield for your guy Trump.
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!!!
Internet Tough Guy detected.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
"Is it interesting that the Clinton Foundation has no measurable results?"
Wot? Not even bought a giant portrait of Hillary, like the Donald did with his illegal 'charity'?
I'd have thought she'd have a 'Donate arms to ISIS whenever Donald Trump tweets" campaign
Requiem for the American Dream
If lobbying were ineffective businesses wouldn't spend billions on it. Just because the results are hard to measure, doesn't mean that there are none.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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.
[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.
In the linked post, Adams never argues why the illusion is an illusion. He simply asserts it is (in an exceptionally patronizing way, incidentally). The furthest he goes in explaining that Trump is not a racist/sexist clown with a dangerous temperament is simply to say that "a guy who uses provocative language (as New Yorkers do) while succeeding across several different fields. And he knows risk-management." So basically, we should not take Trump at his word on anything because he's from New York and just uses colourful language? Also, he knows risk management, presumably from his business career. Adams believes Trump has the capacity to bring real change to American politics. I doubt he came to that conclusion on the basis of Trump's business career alone, so he must be hearing something in Trump's words he actually believes to be true, despite all the "New York talk". So I get this straight, Adams alone because of his special magic hypnotist training can separate the wheat from the chaff, and thinks we are all deluded for not seeing the objectionable things Trump says as meaningless bluster. Yeah, I think we can safely ignore him from this point on.
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/
Well, people who know about how charities work seem impressed by it, and it doesn't "lobby" for good causes, it provides grants for them.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
LOL. You're the same fucking idiot who was paying 10x for ammo when Obama took office.
The gun companies sucked you dry. I hope you enjoyed it.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
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
The pollster picks the demographics for the poll, but never justifies why those demographics are reasonable.
As far as I am aware, the normal procedure is to record the demographics from a random poll, and then adjust the weightings of each demographic group based on the actual recorded demographics from the last similar election.
The rest of your comments display a considerable amount of the Dunning-Kruger effect. I really don't think you should write about things you so clearly know nothing about. Maybe you should spend some time and educate yourself about polling procedures, practices and organizations?
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Do you 2A zealots really believe Clinton is coming for existing guns? Has that ever been part of her approach to gun control?
Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!