Latest WikiLeaks Reveal Suggests Facebook Is Too Close For Comfort With Clinton (hothardware.com)

MojoKid writes: As we quickly approach the November 8th elections, email leaks from the Clinton camp continue to loom over the presidential candidate. The latest data dump from WikiLeaks shines a light on emails between Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, John Podesta and Facebook Chief Operating Officer, Sheryl Sandberg. In one email exchange, dated June 6th, 2015, Sandberg expresses her desire for Clinton to become president, writing to Podesta, "And I still want HRC to win badly. I am still here to help as I can." While that was a private exchange, Sandberg also made her zest for seeing Clinton as the 45th President of the United States publicly known in a Facebook post on July 28th of this year. None of that is too shocking when you think about it. Sandberg has every right to endorse whichever candidate she wants for president. However, a later exchange between Sandberg and Podesta showed that Mark Zuckerberg was looking to get in on the action a bit, and perhaps curry favor with Podesta and the Clinton camp in shaping public policy. Donald Trump has long claimed that Clinton is too cozy with big businesses, and one cannot dismiss the fact that Facebook has a global user base of 1.7 billion users. When you toss in the fact that Facebook came under fire earlier this year for allegedly suppressing conservative news outlets in the Trending News bar, questions begin to arise about Facebook's impartiality in the political race. The report also notes that Sandberg is at the top of the list when it comes to picks for Treasury Secretary, if Clinton wins the election. In an interview with Politico, David Segal, executive director for Demand Progress, said "[Sandberg] is a proxy for this growing problem that is the hegemony of five to ten major Silicon Valley platforms." Lina Khan, a fellow with the Open Markets Program at the New American think tank adds: "If a senior Cabinet member is from Facebook, at worst it could directly interfere [in antitrust actions]. But even in the best of cases there's a real worry that it will have a chilling effect on good-faith antitrust efforts to scrutinize potential anti-competitive implications of dominant tech platforms."

Comments

Why even have elections?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why even have elections? It's a waste of time and money and corporations have already picked the winners.

Re: Why even have elections?

[Anonymous Coward]

It gives the serfs the illusion that they have some say in who their rulers are.

Re: Why even have elections?

[johnsmithperson123]

Well, obviously that isn't true, demonstrated by a Mr Trump who barely fundraised at all. If the ordinary people picked him, I think I'll stick with the corporate choice, thank you.

Re: Why even have elections?

[tripleevenfall]

I don't think even the lowliest serf is ignorant anymore that every media outlet and talking head is campaigning for Hillary.

I wonder, though, if this won't backfire. People don't like being lied to, deceived, having information kept from them, or being talked down to like the media is doing. The average voter might lean right or left, but they want the process to be fair, and the media to be fair, and for the ballots to fall where they may.

This growing perception that the media will never relay the truth about Hillary or honestly investigate her scandals, that all the corporate interests (including Google and Facebook now) are manipulating public opinion for her - people aren't going to like this nonsense. I wonder if it won't cost her more votes than it nets her.

Re: Why even have elections?

[Anonymous Coward]

That is very pragmatic. In other words, it's very short sighted with no vision of the long term. Not saying Trump is a gem. Just that your logic for supporting HRC is pretty pathetic.

Re: Why even have elections?

[The Real Dr John]

I can see the left and right coming together on this. The right hates Clinton, and so does much of the left. Both are sick and tired of her lies, manipulation and the dirty tricks political machine. I would never vote to put Clinton the Second back into the White House again, but for me it is even more about her coziness with Wall Street and her penchant for wars of regime change (e.g., Libya) and her pro-trade deal and drill-baby-drill stances than it is about her lies and deceitfulness.

Re: Why even have elections?

[tripleevenfall]

I am voting third party, even though I have always voted Republican in the presidential election.

I wish people would revolt. Everyone likes to pretend that we wouldn't vote for the worst person in the world just because they bear our favored party's lablel. Well, this time around both sides get to prove it. To prove that honest government is more important than my desire for my side to dominate.

If not now, when?

Re: Why even have elections?

[penandpaper]

The problem with revolting is that, what ever comes after, there is no guarantee that it will be better. More often than not it is worse.

Re: Why even have elections?

[Rei]

Right.

Because we hate Wall Street, let's instead put a billionaire real estate scammer whose entire adult life has been spent trying to kiss up to investors and banks to get loans for his businesses, and who refuses to reveal what banks he's in debt to in power.

Because we oppose the Libyan conflict, let's put in power someone who wants to bomb the children of terrorists, insists that waterboarding isn't harsh enough, wants more nations to have nuclear weapons, wants to build a new generation of nuclear weapons, and spent his first security briefing repeatedly asking why we're bothering to have nuclear weapons if we're not going to use them.

Because we oppose free trade, let's put in power someone who spent his entire career - up until he decided to rebrand himself as a populist for this election - championing free trade, built his empire on dumped steel and undocumented workers, and - until it was shut down as a scam - championed the benefits of outsourcing on his Trump University page.

I'm not even sure where you're getting that Clinton has been big "drill baby drill" champion, but Trump has literally called for "drill baby drill" in speeches, including lifting all federal restrictions on offshore drilling and elimination of the EPA.

So if you want to cut off your nose to spite your face, go right ahead, but please understand why many people will not be joining at you.

And if your argument is "I'm not supporting either of them" - if you don't vote for one, you're supporting the other. Not to the degree of voting directly for the other, but you're still supporting them. Because that's the way the US electoral system works.

Re: Why even have elections?

[danbert8]

This election will hopefully show just how many sheep and free people we have in this country. Free people do not vote for two authoritarian options just because polling data claims that there are only two options. Sheep just vote for letters.

As far as the media, journalism is a dead art... When interviewers ask questions of 3rd parties like "if you had to vote for the two major parties, who would you choose" you know they have no intent of being unbiased and actually doing an interview. It's just an entertainment show at that point.

Re: Why even have elections?

[Oswald McWeany]

I find both candidates to be revolting.

Re: Why even have elections?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, alright! I'm tripling my vote!

Re: Why even have elections?

[penandpaper]

wants to build a new generation of nuclear weapons

This one actually I don't mind because our infrastructure of nuclear arms is atrocious. It has been in disrepair for a long time now and even Obama has plans to modernize our nuclear weapons.

Yea, I agree almost five thousand nukes on hand isn't a great idea but if you are going to have them at least have the infrastructure, training, and man power to manage them in a safe manner. For example, I remember seeing (don't remember where) one of the missile silos had a broken blast door that was held open with a hammer. There are a few other examples that I am too lazy to remember or search.

Re: Why even have elections?

[The Real Dr John]

No, voting my conscience isn't voting for whoever actually wins. That is a red herring argument. I am voting for Jill Stein in the hopes that it will 1) help the Green Party get federal matching funds in the future and 2) tell the DNC how much I hate their policies and their malfeasance. Plus, when Clinton starts war with Russia over Syria, my conscience will be clear. I am never voting for the DNC again until they stop pushing Wall Street owned corporate lackey candidates, while smashing down populists like Bernie Sanders. I won't reward their behavior this time by voting for the crooks in the DNC.

Re: Why even have elections?

[MrLint]

"I don't think even the lowliest serf is ignorant anymore that every media outlet and talking head is campaigning for Hillary." I'm concerned you've missed the point. They are ignorant that this is happening. because they have been convinced by said media that its their own opinion. All media outlets that set out to sway the public do this. There are countless instances of people who complain about Fox News generating a skewed reality for their viewership. At the end of the day, taking apolitical position on a candidate is a matter of money. The more eyeballs you drive to your venue, them ore you can sell those views to advertisers. The more rabid the viewers are the more they will patron your venue. Its just the way it works. There can really only be one rule of caution : Be more cynical.

Re: Why even have elections?

[lucm]

We can all agree on that.

So let's give up the idea of having a good President, let's focus on which one will give us more entertainment. Let's ask ourselves: which of those two could resurrect press conferences and the state of the union? Would you ever tivo a Clinton speech so you can watch again the good parts? Unlikely. Even is she was competent, she's exciting as a doorknob.

Trump, however, would give us a good show. Insult foreign dignitaries that don't deserve the VIP treatment. Blame people, companies or religions openly. Make comments about the physical appearance of celebrities. Ignore lobbies. Ignore precedents and tradition. The guy is pure gold!

Re: Why even have elections?

[lucm]

See your post sums up this whole election: let's elect Clinton because she's not Trump.

She has no plans or vision or political platform other than not being Trump. Doesn't that worry you?

We've seen how well it went with the I'm Not Bush president. Those people get in the Oval Office and suddenly there's a huge void because they can no longer define themselves by contrast to someone else. So they improvise and horse around, throw money here and there, try to find a way to please their sponsors while creating a "legacy". They stand for nothing, they follow the polls, they just suck.

Re: Why even have elections?

[CaptainLard]

I wish people would revolt.

Sounds like your 3rd party is Homer Simpson for garbage commissioner...."Can't somebody else do it?"

Re: Why even have elections?

[hierofalcon]

You should vote for whatever candidate you feel best represents your views. If the Green Party is head and shoulders above the others, so be it. But if you are ambivalent between a couple of choices, then consider this.

This election I decided that both of the main party candidates were so bad that I had to pick the third party candidate that was actually on the ballot in all 50 states. The Libertarian party would normally be my fourth choice, but my preferred third choice isn't on the ballot everywhere. So they won't win. Write-in votes simply don't happen enough. There is at least a chance that when people see the third option on the ballot, they might pick it this election. If your third party candidate isn't on the ballot everywhere, this won't happen.

The reason a third party vote usually fails is it is split so many ways. For a third party vote to actually mean anything, we need to unite behind a single third party. If the vote is split 20+ ways, none will make a difference. I'd urge you to consider picking the third party that actually is on the ballot everywhere. It wasn't my preferred candidate either, but it is the only realistic chance preventing a train wreck.

Re: Why even have elections?

[Anonymous Coward]

because we're broke and there's just one candidate speaking to and about that. the fact that he's a bankruptcy specialist is just icing on the cake.

if you don't take care of the money situation nothing else will matter. so its not a choice, its a necessity to bank on the mafia-don with a pompadour. at least he's just a small time crook.

Re: Why even have elections?

[PCM2]

The problem with revolting is that, what ever comes after, there is no guarantee that it will be better. More often than not it is worse.

Yeah, the future can be funny that way.

Re: Why even have elections?

[Cajun Hell]

And if your argument is "I'm not supporting either of them" - if you don't vote for one, you're supporting the other. Not to the degree of voting directly for the other, but you're still supporting them. Because that's the way the US electoral system works.

I could say the nonsense about your vote for your candidate. How would you like it if I said your vote for Clinton supports Trump or Stein? Because by voting against Johnson, it sure looks like that's what you're doing: preventing Johnson from winning, so that we get stuck with whoever else wins instead.

Please don't vote against Johnson. Don't throw your vote away like that, voting on a spoiler. Your vote could have been against the Republicrats and instead you're going to help one of them win again.

(See how condescending that is? Please knock it off.)

Re: Why even have elections?

[Anonymous Coward]

bill = slime 1.0
hillary = slime 2.0

Re: Why even have elections?

[Penguinisto]

So you prefer Kang over Kodos, then?

Seriously - they both suck, and are singularly unqualified for the job. Most of us with more than two working neurons know this.

The problem is two-fold:
1) There is a huge mass of low-information sheep who don't really bother with politics (either by ignorance, stupidity, or laziness), but will nonetheless do whatever they're told by their ideological 'betters', mostly to look good in the eyes of their social peers - hell, there's even a satchel of soundbites and pre-digested 'debate' techniques that are supplied to them.

2) There are also two masses of howling hyper-partisan ideologues who each abandon logic and reason in order to 'win' at all costs.

The sad part is, the aforementioned masses comprise the majority of our populace. I'm certain that the US isn't the only country that has this affliction, but as the US is among (if not atop the list of all) world leaders, what happens here will affect the rest of the planet one way or the other. I fear that no matter who gets it, it will be to the detriment of us all.

I know on my part? I happily voted third-party (yes, I'm that disgusted with both the major candidates), but I live in a state where the outcome is pretty much predestined (thanks to the hivemind living in Portland, Salem, and Bend), so I could have written in my dog as President, and no one will notice here.

Re: Why even have elections?

[danomac]

From someone outside, looking in: You've got Tantrum Trump on one hand, and Crafty Clinton on the other. The voting population needs to have a reset button available for when lousy choices pop up.

Re: Why even have elections?

[Qzukk]

Given the devils we now know quite well, it's just about guaranteed that the devils we don't know can't be worse.

I'm voting Gary Johnson, even if he can't be bothered to pretend he has a chance and comes across as something of an idiot since he doesn't prepare for interviews.

Re: Why even have elections?

[Anonymous Coward]

We can all agree on that.

So let's give up the idea of having a good President, let's focus on which one will give us more entertainment. Let's ask ourselves: which of those two could resurrect press conferences and the state of the union? Would you ever tivo a Clinton speech so you can watch again the good parts? Unlikely. Even is she was competent, she's exciting as a doorknob.

You want somebody unexciting as POTUS.

Same for the majority of Senators, the majority of Representatives, all of SCOTUS, etc.

Trump, however, would give us a good show. Insult foreign dignitaries that don't deserve the VIP treatment. Blame people, companies or religions openly. Make comments about the physical appearance of celebrities. Ignore lobbies. Ignore precedents and tradition. The guy is pure gold!

You don't want anybody exciting as POTUS.

There are a few Senators and Representatives who are "exciting", but by no means the majority of them.

Re: Why even have elections?

[AF_Cheddar_Head]

Cannot vote Libertarian for the following reason:
-- The Environment-- property rights being enforced before the '60s is one of the biggest reasons our skies and rivers were so polluted before the EPA came into existence.

For anyone who was old enough to pay attention during the late 60s/early 70s you have to remember the smog over major cities, a river that could burn and Lake Erie dying. The regulations promulgated by the EPA resulted in much cleaner air, rivers and lakes.

Re: Why even have elections?

[The Real Dr John]

I supported Bernie Sanders, and the DNC used every cheating dirty trick in the book to make sure he failed. If Independents had been allowed to vote in all the primaries, he would have won. Jill Stein is the only other candidate that is talking about the same issues. Clinton is talking about no fly zones over Syria. You also know she will push through any trade deals that Obama fails to get passed. I voted for the Democrats most of my life (my first presidential vote was for Carter). But that is over. Now that they are the other corporate controlled party, I will be sticking with the Greens until the DNC gets taken back from the billionaires.

Re: Why even have elections?

[Anonymous Coward]

See your post sums up this whole election: let's elect Clinton because she's not Trump.

She has no plans or vision or political platform other than not being Trump. Doesn't that worry you?

Yes, of course. But those worries are at least an order of magnitude less than if Trump were President.

Re: Why even have elections?

[hierofalcon]

There's more than one. Google

Gary Johnson deficit

for another.

Re: Why even have elections?

[interkin3tic]

I suspect there's a vast difference between the modernizing that Obama and anyone else sane would be doing. After Trump's comments about leaving NATO (and basically anything else) I can't imagine he'd be interested in keeping with the nuclear test ban.

Re: Why even have elections?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh... doesn't Hillary work for big banks and corporations??? I thought her two faced deception was recently well documented by Wikileaks.

If Hillary is sooook good, then why is it that 30 years in politics, even as a lawmaker, she has done nothing to fix laws that favor rich people only???? Oh wait... because she is bought and paid for. Trump merely worked in the system that Hillary and the establishment designed for the rich.

So please... Hillary is indefensible. She is pure evil and you know. She lied to the faces of the mothers of those killed at Benghazi, yet another scandle she was responsible for, thanks to Wikileaks.

Re: Why even have elections?

[bfpierce]

I totally would vote third party.

If it weren't for the fact that even the third party candidates are terrible buffoons as well.

Re: Why even have elections?

[hierofalcon]

The environment (from a pollution standpoint) has improved massively over the last few decades. There have also been some notable disasters on the pollution standpoint that happened even with a strong EPA around. A large part of the reason for the improvements had to do with pollution controls on automobiles. I doubt seriously that companies are going to risk going back to the 60's or 70's policies and products - even if the EPA wasn't there to stop them. All the major manufactures are moving to electric or hybrid - I just wish they were feasible in our neck of the woods.

In addition, ballot issues on corporate proxies seeking accountability for issues like these are getting higher and higher percentages of For votes - regardless of the industry - so I think that the pendulum is definitely swinging towards conservatism and protecting the environment regardless of the party in political power at the time.

But even for all the good that the EPA has done, you still have companies like VW scamming the system. So saying that government is the solution really doesn't work either.

Reducing the federal government's size and scope doesn't necessarily mean that the functions it does will all disappear. Some will be taken over by other departments if they need to exist at the federal level, and some will be taken over by the states (where the founders of the country intended them to be).

I don't agree with every policy the Libertarians have either. Remember that many would take a law getting through Congress to enact anyway. For all the uselessness that I feel exists in the Department of Education, one of the things that I would champion is the Common Core - I just think it should push students harder than they are now being pushed but it is still a great idea. With the mobility of the population, it is absolutely required that there be no impact on kids education when they move from state A to state B. Each grade level must be expected to have mastered particular items and not have the hodgepodge that we have had for decades. Even within a single elementary school here, they have gone to different math curricula every couple of years. Different ones teach things at different times, leading to gaps in the kids educations. That is madness.

But I've digressed. There is no one single issue that I can think of that is so big that I would disqualify the current Libertarian slate of candidates. If elected, they may well not win a second term because the main parties will have to seriously re-evaluate their lives. That would be a good thing, in and of itself. As former governors, I think that they would probably govern OK. Not great - not horrible. But I'm OK with that.

Re: Why even have elections?

[liquid_schwartz]

And if your argument is "I'm not supporting either of them" - if you don't vote for one, you're supporting the other. Not to the degree of voting directly for the other, but you're still supporting them. Because that's the way the US electoral system works.

Sounds like you're rationalizing voting for Hillary. It's obvious both candidates are thoroughly bad. Someone could easily compile a list similar to yours for Hillary as she is embroiled in multiple scandals and has been pretty well shown to be bought and paid for. However most votes don't matter. In California they would elect a pet rock if it had "Democrat" next to it. In other states they would also elect a pet rock if it had Republican next to it. Moreover until the electoral votes are granted in proportion, not winner take all, then most peoples votes don't matter. The election is decided by a handful of battleground states. At this point parties largely hold the power, not voters. And if you want to discuss how voters pick candidates for the parties in primaries then you had better pay more attention to Wikileaks finding on that. Trump I will admit was not the Republican parties first choice. That and Brexit are a few signs that the people still have a chance to disrupt their masters.

Re: Why even have elections?

[TheReaperD]

Sadly, it can be worse. The level of corruption of Brazil's last two presidents makes Hillary Clinton look like a rank amatur selling favors on a street corner and Kim Jong-un of North Korea makes Donald Trump look like a wise and level-headed saint as hard as it is to believe. That said, I don't actually recommend voting for either one of them as there are better choices in the field, even if the media doesn't want to cover them.

Re: Why even have elections?

[ewibble]

The future is uncertain, and yes it maybe worse, but in order to improve we must take risks, otherwise we will surely stagnate.

Quote:
The definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Hillary is a liar, and manipulative, but how is that different from any other politician.

However the same thing is probably better than electing a sociopath like Trump.

Re: Why even have elections?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://therightstuff.biz/2016/10/25/a-visit-to-the-swamp/

Re: Why even have elections?

[ewibble]

The solution is not with person you elect, it is with checks and balances you place on those people, anyone can be corrupt. When you start down the corrupt path it only gets harder to stop. You have to use more corruption to cover up previous corruption, you are indebted to the people that helped you on your way. You start feeling entitled the benefits you got. Go give someone $100 a week for a while then take it away from them, they will upset, even though they are better off than they would of been without the money in the first place.

There needs to be a system that is transparent, that the politicians know that there actions will be revealed, even top secret stuff should have an expiry date.

There should be private funding of political campaigns at all, all that does is leave politicians indebted to there donors. The current system forces you to be indebted straight away. A political candidate should win on their ideas not on the size of their, or the people they ow favors to wallets. The usual argument to that is do you want to pay, and my answer is YES, because I am going to pay either way either directly or through laws that are designed benefit the donors. The latter is probably going to be much more expensive in the long run.

Re: Why even have elections?

[ewibble]

what there needs to be is the following options:

I don't like either, couldn't we find a better candidate in a country of 318 million people, but if must I chose X

If that option wins X gets put in a caretaker role while another election is started to find a better candidate.

Or alternatively a more practical solution (since I don't think you would ever find a candidate that wasn't useless)
simply rank your preferred candidates in order, if your top choice does not win your vote goes to the next option an so on.

That means your vote is never wasted by voting for a minor candidate.

Re: Why even have elections?

[Oswald McWeany]

Good candidate don't run for president, and the few that do don't get very far. By very nature of being decent, they don't attract corporate or lobbyist money.

Re: Why even have elections?

[TheReaperD]

I doubt seriously that companies are going to risk going back to the 60's or 70's policies and products - even if the EPA wasn't there to stop them.

"Hand of the market" libertarian fairytale bullshit! History has shown, again and again, that the majority of companies will take the path that earns them the most money in the short term; damn the consequences. The few that don't, if no action is taken against the ones that do, are eventually forced by investors to adopt the same disastrous policies to remain competitive. The EPA is one option to try and prevent this behavior by giving the good companies some equalizing leverage against the bad actors, when all goes well.

so I think that the pendulum is definitely swinging towards conservatism and protecting the environment regardless of the party in political power at the time.

People seem to forget that the EPA was created by that liberal commie, Richard Nixon. [/sarcasm] for the sarcasm impaired. People in power, regardless of political party, who aren't in the pocket of the big, industrial polluters know that there needs to be a force against companies that wish to destroy the environment we live in for profit.

But even for all the good that the EPA has done, you still have companies like VW scamming the system. So saying that government is the solution really doesn't work either.

So, you're suggesting that since the EPA doesn't work 100% of the time, that it should be thrown away? By that logic, I'm sure that you have had failures and did not succeed 100% of the time. Should we throw you away as well? Look, the EPA has had failures, I don't dispute that. But, given the fact that the people that they have to report to (congress) has a leadership that has a vested interest in making sure that they can't work, they're doing an ok job. It comes down to if they are doing more good than harm. Right now, overall, they still fall under doing more good.

Reducing the federal government's size and scope doesn't necessarily mean that the functions it does will all disappear. Some will be taken over by other departments if they need to exist at the federal level, and some will be taken over by the states (where the founders of the country intended them to be).

Umm... other federal agencies cannot suddenly extend their mandate without authorization from congress. And, congress is not going to extend another department to take over the EPA because they already have a department to do the job... the EPA. You really think that that states would have any chance against the money of the gross polluting industries? The Koch brothers and their allies, all heavily invested in gross polluting industries such as coal, power generation, paper, timber and other such industries, have pledged just shy of 1 billion dollars in support of candidates that, in addition to other things, sign off on supporting the complete elimination of the EPA. (To put that in perspective, Delaware's entire projected 2017 annual budget is 4.1 billion dollars.) Do you really think that they're spending 1 billion dollars because they think environmental regulations can really be ran better by states or industry? Hell no! They're funding it because, if they can ram dissolving the EPA through congress, they feel they can make significantly more than 1 billion dollars by selling our planet's habitable future for profit. And if our planet is not habitable for future generations... well, that's not their problem.

Your solution, to put it in a metaphor: A fox gets past the hen house guard dog once in awhile and kills a chicken. Your proposal is the same as the farmer shooting the dog for not doing his job and saying to the chickens: "Sorry, you're on your own." and walking away; hoping the problem sorts itself out.

Re: Why even have elections?

[Darinbob]

Media doesn't relay much truth about anyone. The modern media is an entertainment service and not an information service. The modern media is Trump's *best* friend because they gave him an unprecedented amount of free coverage in exchange for the year's best entertainment. Hillary isn't as entertaining so she gets less coverage.

Re: Why even have elections?

[Darinbob]

Obviously it can be worse! Did you not go to school, did you drop out early or play too much hookey or go to class stoned? What's worse? Fascism (the real kind not the American insults made to conservatives), communism (the real kind not the American insults to liberals), dictatorships (the real ones, not the insults make to Bush or Obama), anarchy (not the libertarian dream but the stuff you see in Somalia, Libya, etc), or a military coup every time there's a new election, and so forth. What about real stuff in America that's worse - rampant racism, sexism, violence in the South in 1940s and 50s (as well as much of the north); the civil war, the lawless West post civil war; genocide of native Americans; fatal duels between members of congress (and you thought today's didn't know how to get along).

The devils we know from history are worse than either Trump or Hillary.

As individuals they have so little power when elected, and yet so many voters act as if the president has dictatorial powers, and so many candidates act as if they have such power ("on my first day in office I will overturn fill-in-the-blank"). Even appointing 3 supreme court justices will not change that much - maybe rules of abortion will change, maybe some regulations get strengthened or weakened, but the overall effects will not cause the disasters (unless you're the sort who believes God will destroy the planet if gays can get married or we don't return to the gold standard). If you want change then you have to get that squabbling bunch of legislators nationally and locally to do stuff and that means voting down the ballot instead of just looking at the dog and pony show for president.

Re: Why even have elections?

[ewibble]

See other post, but one of the things I think is needed, is public (not private) funding of election campaigns,

Re: Why even have elections?

[Darinbob]

You want somebody unexciting as POTUS.

Same for the majority of Senators, the majority of Representatives, all of SCOTUS, etc.

Very true. As the mythical Chinese curse says, "may you live in interesting times". Boring is a very good thing.

Re: Why even have elections?

[hierofalcon]

Really, all I am suggesting is that there are so many issues and problems with the two primary party candidates that taking a one issue stand as a means to divide the third party vote so that no third party can compete is the road to ruin.

The post was replying to smog in cities, largely caused by autos. That ship has sailed and the car companies aren't going to be able to push the product purchasers back to the 60s/70s.

As far as the rest of your comments - many are valid. I tend to think that since the various departments are under the executive branch, that Congress would be likely to shuffle some functions around as needed and would probably pass that legislation without much fuss. I wasn't necessarily even thinking of the EPA, although it certainly doesn't have a sound constitutional basis for existing. It's also an agency with cabinet level status, but really isn't on the same level as other departments. A lot of these were split out in the first place from other departments for political purposes to show we were serious about problem X or were created out of thin air because the existing departments couldn't communicate with each other in the first place. Recombining them isn't the drastic problem you point out.

I also think that regardless of the presence or absence of the EPA, the $1 bln dollar value you're throwing around would be just as effectively used greasing the palms of Congress to get legislation written to do whatever they wanted or carve out whatever exception they wanted anyway, so I'm not sure what your point is.

Finally, keep in mind that war is frequently much more harmful to the environment than the worst polluter. It's also much more harmful to those directly involved. You may have many reasons for disliking the Libertarians, but their keep your noses out of other peoples business stance has its merits.

Re: Why even have elections?

[ganjadude]

you dont, some of us do (when the choice is that or more of the same failed policies)

Re: Why even have elections?

[ganjadude]

the EPA destroyed a river and absolved itself from all responsibility. excuse me for not giving a flying fuck about them

Re: Why even have elections?

[ganjadude]

he was also the "im black, vote for me or you are racist" president

Re: Why even have elections?

[kaatochacha]

I'm not convinced of that. Trumps an idiot, but he's a known idiot. Congress will be openly hostile to him, he'll get nothing done.
I'd prefer gridlock to outright corruption.
That being said, has anyone considered Mcmullin? https://www.evanmcmullin.com/p...
I'm sure some don't like his God-centric ideas here, He's Mormon after all, but he's another third party option if you're looking for one and Johnson seems too spacey.

Re: Why even have elections?

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, he would destroy America in such a way that it would take decades to put right. But the ride to Hell would be FUN.

Re: Why even have elections?

[chihowa]

I agree, but I'm voting for a third party anyway because I can't stomach the idea of voting for Trump or Clinton and I don't want my lack of an endorsement for either of them to written off as "voter apathy". Buffoons the others may be, but some of the third party candidates really are the lesser of the evils.

Re: Why even have elections?

[Anonymous Coward]

Said the obedient serf to the other serf.

Re: Why even have elections?

[ewibble]

I am not at all convinced he is an idiot, (don't get me wrong most of the things that he says are stupid) he is at least a semi successful business man who has ripped of plenty of people. He has manipulated a significant portion of the population into supporting him, with his hate speech. You can't do that being a total moron. What I am convinced of is he only cares only about himself, it doesn't mater if you are a woman, man, Mexican, Arab, ... or a White middle class American, if it is in his best interest, he will screw you, given half the chance,

Re: Why even have elections?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are you lying? The DNC did not such thing? Just another faux-leftist trying to undermine the causes they supposedly support.

Re: Why even have elections?

[Chelloveck]

I supported Bernie Sanders, and the DNC used every cheating dirty trick in the book to make sure he failed. If Independents had been allowed to vote in all the primaries, he would have won.

Now, why would the DNC have to cheat? They wrote the rules! And the rules say, they can nominate whoever they want. The superdelegates are there for just that reason, to overturn the primaries if the people don't pick the one they want. The primaries are only advisory. The results are not binding. This is by design. The RNC has slightly different rules for itself, but the idea's the same.

People complain about how unfair the primaries are. Yup, they're unfair. They're unfair by design. The DNC and RNC are both private organizations that can do as they please. Don't like it? Go vote for a different party, one with internal rules that you like. Try to vote for someone promising election reform so we can get rid of this whole rotten system. Not that anyone promising election reform has a snowball's chance in hell of winning. If they had any way to win in the current system, they wouldn't be trying to reform it.

Yeah, it sucks. All of it.

Re: Why even have elections?

[murdocj]

Well played Boris. Between you and agent Trumpsky we'll have the Americans so convinced their freedom is worthless that we can easily take over.

Re: Why even have elections?

[lucm]

In other words, he would destroy America in such a way that it would take decades to put right. But the ride to Hell would be FUN.

Well, that's what I've done with my liver in my 20s and it was totally worth it.

Re: Why even have elections?

[someoneOtherThanMe]

Didn't Jobs and Sculley get excited about some beautiful doorknobs?

Re:Why even have elections?

[Salgak1]

Someone has been playing Black Jeopardy. . . .

Re: Why even have elections?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish people would revolt.

You have no idea how much worse things could be...

Re: Why even have elections?

[david_thornley]

Third part of the problem: there has been an intense mudslinging campaign against Clinton for decades now, to the point where people who don't know any better believe much of it. Heck, what this thread is about is that some high executives have come out for Clinton, and may even have slanted things her way. If she was a male Republican, that would be considered to be Tuesday. Add to that her temerity in apparently favoring someone the article writer doesn't like for a Cabinet post. Damn, from TFS, you'd think that there was something not completely normal going on.

Re: Why even have elections?

[david_thornley]

The DNC is a private organization that is basically an umbrella organization for its dozens of component parts. It does not have authority over whether delegates are picked by caucus or primary, because that's up to the state parties. Primaries are usually open or closed depending on state law, which is also not under the DNC's control.

What you're saying is that Democrats should give up control of who's their candidate to anyone who wants, regardless of whether they're pro-Democrat or neutral or anti-Democrat. Minnesota has open primaries, which means that, when there's a close race for the Democratic/Republican nomination, and none for the other party, the Republicans/Democrats can freely vote for the Democratic/Republican nominee they think will lose. Is this really what you want?

I don't know that Clinton will push through Obama's trade deals. She's come out against the final form of the TPP, unlike Obama.

And, of course, you're giving up on having any influence on politics. If you want the Democrats to change, you need to get involved with them. Voting Green will register dissatisfaction and do very little else.

Re: Why even have elections?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am an independent who tends to vote democrat and am voting for Hillary - but not because I am sticking to a party line or because I even really like her, it is because Trump is such a loathsome individual that I would vote for a goat if it was running against him.

Re: Why even have elections?

[Anonymous Coward]

Johnson isn't great either, he is pretty clueless about world politics in general and wants to remove the minimum wage - and the libertarian party line seems to be obsessed with removing the age of consent and drivers licenses - and neither is Stein, she is a huge conspiracy theorist that doesn't understand math and financial policy. I mean if trump was pulled out of the race I would still probably vote for Hillary, not because she is good but because it isn't just the first party candidates that are highly flawed - the third party ones are too- and the system is set up to deal with her.

Re: Why even have elections?

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump, however, would give us a good show.

I don't like his malicious style of humor, though. Instead of Chuck Lorre-style constant insults, I prefer more character-based humor, where you know the foibles of the characters and laugh at them acting like themselves. More Parks & Recreation-style humor. That's why I'm voting for Gary Johnson.

Re: Why even have elections?

[Anonymous Coward]

That is by far the most stupid thing I have ever read. This isn't entertainment it is the mechanism running the cogs of government. A basket of kittens is entertaining but I wouldn't swap the engine out of my car with them when I am stranded in the middle of nowhere just because the old engine didn't run very well.

Re: Why even have elections?

[lucm]

That is by far the most stupid thing I have ever read.

You must not read a lot, and/or you've never done ticket duty in a tech support department.

Re: Why even have elections?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll give you a very good reason to vote for Trump. I'm voting for Trump because I want to be able to look out of my window and see an Enlightened(TM) corpse swinging from every lamppost, and I'll happily jump on any bandwagon that's heading in that general direction. Any questions?

Re: Why even have elections?

[The Real Dr John]

Voting Green will help the Green party get federal matching funds. Considering the two main party candidates this time, I can't think of a better time to help the Greens. I get nothing if I vote for Clinton, other than to tell the Democrats they can do anything they want and still get my vote. Clinton admitted in excerpts from leaked Podesta emails that she had two positions on everything, one for public consumption, and one for corporations. So what if her public stance on the TPP, TISA, and others is that she is now against them? We know what her corporate position is on them.

I am wholeheartedly voting Green this time around, and I hope lots of other Democrats do too. That is how to change the Democratic party. Starve it of votes as long as they act like criminals and corporate tools.

Re: Why even have elections?

[strikethree]

I would never vote to put Clinton the Second back into the White House again...

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.*

The first Bush president was business as usual but nobody could "prove" that it was business as usual. When his fucking son became president too, it was clear that the the system was corrupt.

With the first Clinton president, it was business as usual. When his fucking wife became president too, it was clear the system was corrupt.

There are 360 million people in the United States of America and the only people who can be president come from two fucking families? Give me a fucking break. We have royalty and we have despotism and we have such blatantly obvious corruption that having two different families rule the serfs of the United States of America is not even concerning as a dead giveaway that everything is "fixed".

While the remnants of democracy echo through the empty chambers of justice, people will still continue to be wonderful little serfs. As soon as the last bits stop echoing, this thoroughly owned Police State will fall and those two families, amongst (since when did "amongst" get dropped from the English language? I can still find it in the dictionary...) several others, will be dropped feet first into wood chippers.

(At least I got it right whereas Bush 2 failed.)

Re: Why even have elections?

[strikethree]

The problem with revolting is that, what ever comes after, there is no guarantee that it will be better. More often than not it is worse.

That is why so many people are afraid of change. In their minds, better the devil you know than the devil you don't know.

There was a guy who had something to say about that where the situation does not constantly devolve into a police state: Patrick Henry says, "Give me liberty or give me death."

If the system that you are supporting does not allow personal liberty, then it does not matter what could possibly come after if you revolt. Either it is better or you keep revolting until it is. Or you die...

Problem solved. Problem stays solved. Rangers lead the way.

Re: Why even have elections?

[The Real Dr John]

We joke around here about how they are grooming Jenna Bush and Chelsea Clinton for the next round of elections. We assumed before, and know now after the DNC hacks, that the media work with the DNC to promote candidates. We know that the DNC was working with the Clinton campaign and the media to attack Bernie Sanders. Now the same political/media machine is going after Trump. I just don't see how any Democrats would want to support that corrupt system. It's like thinking you'll stop crime in the city by voting for the Mafia.

Rewarding very, very bad behavior only begs for more of it. Voting for Clinton is telling the media, and the DNC and the Clintons that what they have been doing is just fine with the voters.

Re: Why even have elections?

[shutdown -p now]

I will be sticking with the Greens until the DNC gets taken back from the billionaires.

So let me clarify: you're worried about DNC being controlled by billionaires from your own country, and to prove that point, you're going to be sticking to the Greens, who are controlled by billionaires from another country?

Re: Why even have elections?

[The Real Dr John]

Ahhhh, the grand inquirer, the source of all knowledge. I bow to your superior knowledge source. I love it when the neocons and neolibs blame Russia for everything when the US is the one with its military boot on every neck around the world. Nice. Russia hacked Hillary, Russia controls Trump!, Russia controls the Greens! The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming! I loved Alan Arkin in that. In the end, the Russians are people too. What a strange concept.

Re: Why even have elections?

[shutdown -p now]

The question wasn't whether you liked the Russians in general. The question was, why do you prefer Russian oligarchs to the American ones?

Re: Why even have elections?

[The Real Dr John]

Gee, I wonder which ones are screwing the country and the world over the most.

The New American:

[fredrated]

Magazine of the John Birch Society. Yep, I need to hear from them.

Re:The New American:

[XxtraLarGe]

Magazine of the John Birch Society. Yep, I need to hear from them.

Ah, the argumentum ad hominem! Always strange to see a logical fallacy modded up...

Re:The New American:

[Anonymous Coward]

"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." -- William F. Buckley

Re: The New American:

[jmac_the_man]

I can't find any reference to the John Birch society on the group's website. Are you sure you haven't been drinking too much fluorinated water?

I think this is a different group.

Re:The New American:

[SmokeyRobot]

And you get modded as a troll. I wish I had mod points to fix that because as others have noted the comment is wrong.

Re:The New American:

[TangoMargarine]

They opposed the Civil Rights movement. It's not ad hominem if they really are scum.

Re:The New American:

[Chris Mattern]

It's not ad hominem if they really are scum.

Yes, it is. The scumminess or non-scumminess of the source is not relevant to the strength of their argument. If they are scum, it may be more likely that they have made false arguments, but it is not guaranteed, and the proper counter is to root out the falsity of their arguments.

Re:The New American:

[TangoMargarine]

If you know they have a history of being idiots there's little reason for you to investigate each new thing they do because it'll probably follow the same pattern.

Re:The New American:

[Chris Mattern]

You might feel safe in ignoring them, but if you attempt to refute them, using "they're scum" is still a logical fallacy. If you feel there's no point in refuting them any more, that's a different matter. But laziness is not logic.

Re:The New American:

[TangoMargarine]

Hey look, it's the Fallacy Fallacy.

The original poster never said he was trying to refute them. He was simply dismissing them.

Re:The New American:

[Chris Mattern]

You should have made that argument first instead of trying "it's not ad hominem if I don't like them". Still not sure I agree with it, but you'd be on firmer ground.

Re:The New American:

[TangoMargarine]

It's not really "because I don't like them." Arguing against the Civil Rights Movement is effectively saying all citizens should not be equal, which is kind of one of the principles our country was founded on (admittedly it took us a long time to approach that point).

Re:The New American:

[XxtraLarGe]

The original poster never said he was trying to refute them. He was simply dismissing them.

By dismissing them, he was implicitly claiming that there was no merit to their argument.

Re: The New American:

[Anonymous Coward]

BS. Arguing against an organization does not mean arguing against it's goals. I would argue against the Nazi party, yet I don't object to German unification. The means matter just as much as the motives.

Re:The New American:

[liquid_schwartz]

Arguing against the Civil Rights Movement is effectively saying all citizens should not be equal, which is kind of one of the principles our country was founded on (admittedly it took us a long time to approach that point).

At this point the Civil Rights movement seems to be more interested in pushing for special rights for favored groups and blaming any problems its favored groups encounter on -isms like racism or sexism. Moreover Civil Rights groups tolerate honest discussion, or dissenting views, about as well as Soviet Russia. Indeed they take special pride in punishing dissenting political views such as anyone who donated to California Proposition 8 (citation below). This is why I chuckle when Civil Rights groups are mentioned in the same sentence as founding principles. The two couldn't be more different. Equality under law just means no special rules for anyone ... period. It really is that simple.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02...

Re: The New American:

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not actually true. The Civil Rights Movement was/is a multifaceted thing. There's a lot to like about it, particularly the core belief of equality.

However, there are some things that resulted from it, like forced diversity in the workplace laws and rules, that people of good conscience can argue about the effectiveness and necessity of. So if I believe in equal opportunity and disbelieve in what I see as artificial numbers games for their own sake, am I for or against civil rights?

Re:The New American:

[TangoMargarine]

Well, I'm not talking about now; I'm talking about the '60s. But otherwise that's fair.

Re: The New American:

[TangoMargarine]

BS. Arguing against an organization does not necessarily mean arguing against just its goals.

FTFY. And in the example, the goal is already dubious without even looking at their methods.

Re:The New American:

[TangoMargarine]

refute
rfyoot/
verb
prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove.

imply (implicitly)
impl/
verb
strongly suggest the truth or existence of (something not expressly stated).

Yes, thank you, Webster, different words *do* have different meanings.

Re:The New American:

[Xenographic]

Go back far enough and you can throw out quite a few media outlets outright with that. For example, the LA Times? Supported Japanese internment camps.

Of course, I won't argue the broader point that most of the media simply isn't worth reading any more. But when evaluating them, instead of worrying about history, I worry about how detailed an account they give of their sources and how well the stories can be corroborated with other facts.

Anything less would simply be intellectual laziness.

Re:The New American:

[allcoolnameswheretak]

Republicans are "too close for comfort" with Clinton. Everyone with a sound state of mind should be on the side of the politician rather than the narcissistic egomaniac if the stakes are the presidency of the United States.

What's your fucking problem man?

Re:The New American:

[Anonymous Coward]

If you know they have a history of being idiots there's little reason for you to investigate each new thing they do because it'll probably follow the same pattern.

Everyone has a history of being an idiot. It is called being human.

Re:The New American:

[erapert]

And then, just to prove the point, he got modded down. Great job /.

Re:The New American:

[Darinbob]

And yet I see so many people instantly calling anything Hillary says is a lie, or the other grop that calls anything Trump says is a lie. It seems the popular way to know who is a liar is to see who has a different opinion from one's own.

Re:The New American:

[Darinbob]

It's my crazy uncle Larry who claimed he paddled around the world on an inner tube, and later had his perpetual motion machine classified and hidden by the goverernment. How he says he's figured out how to use cigarettes and bath salts to create cold fusion. Should I give him the benefit of the doubt?

Re: The New American:

[Darinbob]

Much of the argument against civil rights was based on some core John Birch Society principles. Mainly, the government should do nothing, especially the federal government. If the states want to be governed by assholes then that's their right. Also if you can't enforce the constitution then what it says is irrelevant. Mainly though, the John Birch Society opposed it because of communists. Social good is one step away from socialism, which is nigh equivalent to communism, and not even democracy should be allowed to go there. Of course once MLK Jr said he was opposed to the war in Vietnam they treated it as proof of communist sympathies.

The other issue, not necessarily from John Birch Society, is that wrongs commited in the past don't need to be corrected today. We declare someone as "equal" then some feel that should be the end of the matter. After centuries of oppression there is no need, some feel, to take any corrective action whatsoever. Sure it's a shame about how the slaves and their descendants were treated, but it's not my fault. Besides I've got to protect my wallet and kids first!

The artificial numbers game is there for a purpose. When you knock a man down you should help him back up, rather than say "sorry about that" and leave them bruised in the mud while you walk away. The voting rights act was there for a purpose, to stop states with a clear and unambiguous history of violating rights from doing it again, and we should still have such oversight over the known bigot filled state governments today although the supreme court repealed this part recently.

Re:The New American:

[david_thornley]

However, ad hominem isn't always a fallacy, particularly when facts are in question. Some sources are simply more reliable than others. I disregard what I read from seriously partisan organizations, no matter their preference, because I've found them unreliable.

Ad hominem is a fallacy when discussing arguments from more or less known facts. It looks like the known facts are that some corporate executives favor Clinton, and that a member of the John Birch society doesn't like someone she's rumored to be favoring for a Cabinet post. I'm shocked! Shocked! to find that there's politics as usual in this campaign.

Where's the BoA stuff?

[Maritz]

What happened to the BoA materials? Did wikileaks not release them because they're not personally relevant to Assange and his own personal feuds?

Re:Where's the BoA stuff?

[GameboyRMH]

They were deleted by Daniel Domscheit-Berg:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/tech...

Re:Where's the BoA stuff?

[Sax Russell 5449D29A]

Now there's a rotten story that never stops smelling. I suppose they are/were both "strong personas" that had a temper tantrum and the other one ragequit. Assange has his personality problems too, but deleting the information they possibly had was a loss for everyone.

Re:Where's the BoA stuff?

[Maritz]

Yeah, that strikes me a pretty nihilistic act, especially if it gets BoA off the hook.

Re:Where's the BoA stuff?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who the F cares?! The bigger issue is not whether people support Clinton or the fact private business is perfectly welcome to support her by any means necessary or any of the other lame postings by Assange related to this matter.

It is of utmost importance that Trump not have the keys to nukes; bottom line. I mean even a scumbag like Roger Ailes walked away from the promise of money, and I quote, "Because Trump totally lacks focus."

Re:Where's the BoA stuff?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this supposed to be "offtopic" instead of "interesting"? ;)

Re:Where's the BoA stuff?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dumbshit-Berg ftfy

So what?

[pauljlucas]

Who says companies can't favor one candidate or party over the other. Fox News clearly favors republicans and that just seems to be accepted.

Re:So what?

[MFriis]

I don't disagree with you. Corporate agendas are not rare. However i do think there is a difference between being blatantly in support of a candidate (which from the view of a humble european, like me, is the case with Fox News) and having a slightly favourable selection algorythm that favours one candidate. I don't know enough about the laws and regulations of the US to judge, but what facebook does seems close to subliminal marketing which the FCC revokes broadcast licences for. Is it too big a stretch to compare news nudging to subliminal messaging? I doubt the consumer knows they are being manipulated.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Accepted? They get nothing but criticism for it and rightly so./*

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Benghaaaaaziiiii!

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is such a shill response. The difference is Facebook isn't a news outlet. You watch Fox or CNN knowing that its right or left biased.

Facebook welcomes people right, left, up, down, purple, green, magenta, and so on. Its an open platform for dialogue. If heads of that company are giving advantages to one candidate over another and are leveraging their platform to do so, or enforcing rules more strictly towards those with a different point of view, then that's what this article is referring to.

When Biff Tanner for President says the election is rigged, he doesn't mean voter fraud/rigging. He means the whole election process, campaigns, media coverage, etc.. to drown out opposing views, ignore the controversies about their person of choice, and further push a pre-determined collaborated narrative under the illusion of independent or neutral platforms. Vote manipulation happened within the primaries. Enough with this Russia crap already.

Evidence has come out again and again that these emails were not altered (thank you, DKIM), and that James Clapper, the one who lied under oath about NSA domestic spying, and pushed the false narrative of WMD's, is the one saying that. Do you really think the Coast Guard, Department of Energy, DEA, US Marine Corps Intel, etc.. are supporting this claim despite being out of their scope? Russia seems to be the scapegoat that she loves to use over and over again, even against Bernie according to the leaks.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fox News is (part of) a broadcaster. Plenty of competition so partisanship is acceptable.

Facebook is a medium. No effective compeitition so partisanship is unacceptable.

( But I hope it works anyway :-} )

Re:So what?

[Luthair]

Do you really think Facebook has no republican employees and could keep some vast conspiracy hidden?

Re:So what?

[bahwi]

I'm going to have to disagree, Fox's slogan was "Fair and Balanced" for a very long time. It may be obvious and blatant, but they deny it every chance they get.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not an american, so not my circus; but it seems a bit sketchy that you have a COO of an influential company that is on the shortlist for treasury secretary found to be using subtle influence to affect an election.

There are both similarities and differences with Fox News. With Fox News, there is no question that the ultimate decision about which stories to run and which stories to pass on, and what sorts of slants get put on stories, is made by people and the bias is clear and evident, because people are biased and you can't avoid that.

One might assume that with Facebook the selection process is done by some piece of software that uses an algorithm that is intended to be unbiased (whether it is really possible to create an unbiased algorithm is another story). It would be surprising to many to learn that the algorithms are *intentionally* biased.

Many won't care about this particular issue because there is apparently a great deal of animosity towards Trump.

One would wonder if Sandberg would need to declare a conflict if she was making decisions on behalf of Facebook that might provide her material personal benefit (I'm not sure what US law says about that).

Re:So what?

[DirkDaring]

You should start watching it then, because every 'take' I see that have both a republican and a democrat arguing against each other or getting their point of view.

Re:So what?

[110010001000]

I'm pretty sure Trumps views haven't been "drowned out" by the media or whoever is the boogeyman of the moment. We have heard enough of Trumps views. He needs to just quit.

Re:So what?

[JackieBrown]

I think you need to actually watch it instead of go by what hufington post, politico and other liberal sites state.

Fox news has a very large segment that is as anti-trump as you can get. Two prominent examples that come to mind are Shepard Smith and Megan Kelly.

Re:So what?

[bahwi]

Yes, because having one token member from the other side (who is sometimes ill-informed, or unable to make a decent argument) and controlling the argument and questions and leading is very fair.

So in your definition, because Trump did make the news, and his posts were on Facebook (hell, his TV station even premiered its first show on Facebook!) this is all moot because Facebook is incredibly fair and there is no favoritism... Yeah?

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hilarious that you guys have one media outlet you throw out as being blatantly right while ignoring that every other one is blatantly left.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hit the history books and do a little research on AT&T leading up to the first time they got broken up. There's a difference between a news agency having a political agenda and a communication platform (I hate to admit it too, but Facebook is a communication platform used by many people) having a political agenda.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Many members of the Democratic Party have said this, while doing exactly the opposite of what they say. It's why many on the left consider Hillary Clinton and the majority of her party to be centrists and crony corporatists, rather than liberals and progressives.

It's an awfully cozy relationship between the Democratic Party and their major corporate sponsors, as these emails have shown. But you already knew that just by looking at who is contributing to Clinton's campaign.

Re:So what?

[ganjadude]

their news programming (all day until 5) is news proper. from 5 PM on its opinion. same holds true with cnn but for the other guys.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Simply zooming in will make low-contrast text easier to read.

Fuck off you fascist apologist. Here's the relevant quote

Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power -- Mussolini

Corporations should not be involved in politics full stop! Much less the One Party State that is rapidly coming to fruition in Washington. You don't like Donald Trump? Boo fucking hoo. That doesn't give Facebook a free pass to turn America into Fascist Italy 2.0. Tired of everyone throwing away every principal they have because they've picked one political tribe over the other.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fox news has a very large segment that is as anti-trump as you can get. Two prominent examples that come to mind are Shepard Smith and Megan Kelly.

In case you haven't noticed, there are segments of the republican party that are as anti-trump as you can get.

Re:So what?

[Feral Nerd]

This is such a shill response. The difference is Facebook isn't a news outlet. You watch Fox or CNN knowing that its right or left biased.

Facebook welcomes people right, left, up, down, purple, green, magenta, and so on. Its an open platform for dialogue. If heads of that company are giving advantages to one candidate over another and are leveraging their platform to do so, or enforcing rules more strictly towards those with a different point of view, then that's what this article is referring to.

When Biff Tanner for President says the election is rigged, he doesn't mean voter fraud/rigging. He means the whole election process, campaigns, media coverage, etc.. to drown out opposing views, ignore the controversies about their person of choice, and further push a pre-determined collaborated narrative under the illusion of independent or neutral platforms. Vote manipulation happened within the primaries. Enough with this Russia crap already.

Evidence has come out again and again that these emails were not altered (thank you, DKIM), and that James Clapper, the one who lied under oath about NSA domestic spying, and pushed the false narrative of WMD's, is the one saying that. Do you really think the Coast Guard, Department of Energy, DEA, US Marine Corps Intel, etc.. are supporting this claim despite being out of their scope? Russia seems to be the scapegoat that she loves to use over and over again, even against Bernie according to the leaks.

Well now you know, Facebook is left/liberal biased (which was kind of obvvious before this stunning revalation) much like the overwhming majority of the tech sector. Get over it. They are doing nothing the right wing media and players like the Koch brothers haven't been doing for years.

Re:So what?

[knightghost]

Do you really think Facebook has no republican employees and could keep some vast conspiracy hidden?

Conspiracies involve few people but with incredible power over others - hence the head of Facebook over 1.7 BILLION people.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah and which candidate is going to put a justice on the Supreme Court who will overturn Citizen's United, and which one is going to put a justice on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade?

Re:So what?

[knightghost]

You forgot to measure. Shifting things a few percentage points changes an election.

Re:So what?

[penandpaper]

The sad irony is that we know his views and we think he is going to do them or at least try to do them ergo he is honest with his platform. With Clinton, we heard her views but there is no expectation that the views she holds after the election will be the same. We know she is a liar that changes tune as soon as a different group show up or if you have the right connections and money.

Re:So what?

[dcollins117]

I don't know enough about the laws and regulations of the US to judge, but what facebook does seems close to subliminal marketing which the FCC revokes broadcast licences for.

Not sure where you got that idea. There are no rules or laws regarding sublimal messaging. At one point the FCC issued a policy statement saying the use of subliminal perception is contrary to the public interest. That's pretty far from what you are asserting.

Re:So what?

[WalrusSlayer]

Well now you know, Facebook is left/liberal biased (which was kind of obvvious before this stunning revalation) much like the overwhming majority of the tech sector. Get over it. They are doing nothing the right wing media and players like the Koch brothers haven't been doing for years.

With the acknowledgement that the above may well be completely true, recently I've been flooded with unhinged Trump posts. From FB friends I'd never expect to see it from. So much so that for the first time I've had to unfollow somebody.

For a long time prior to that I was seeing posts/shares from my left-leaning friends from high-school oh-so-long-ago. Which made sense since I came of age in the 70's in a very liberal part of the Northeast. So seeing liberal/progressive messages from my former classmates wasn't so much an indictment of the medium as much as the demographic with which I was affiliated.

Re:So what?

[squiggleslash]

It's also not Facebook, it's a few top people at Facebook. And there are at least two top people at FB who are very publicly associated with Trump (albeit one has the self awareness and sense of decency to at least be embarrassed and ashamed about it.)

This is a non-story, and like certain other non-stories (OMG! A low level Clinton staffer was caught spitballing ideas about how to demonstrate Trump supporters are violent!) it's an attempt to muddy the waters and get people to forget wide truths (Facebook has pro-Trump [1][2] people on its board, Trump has actually supported violence against opponents.)

Re:So what?

[Kierthos]

That's because Fox is pro-Republican, and being pro-Republican and anti-Trump has a fair amount of crossover.

Let's face it, Trump is the Republican candidate, but he is doing far and away more harm to the party than anyone else who ran for the nomination could have. For example, I don't care for Ted Cruz, and I think he'd probably be losing right now as well if he were the Republican candidate, but he, at least, doesn't flip out at 3 a.m. and go on Twitter rants, and he almost certainly wouldn't have been doing some of the insanely stupid shit that Trump has done in the last few weeks (not to mention the last few months).

Sure, Cruz would have almost certainly made different mistakes. Or Rubio, or whoever, but they at least understand the system. They don't go treating the entire thing like a season of a TV show.

Trump won the nomination because, with as many people running for the nomination, all he had to do was get more attention than the next person down in the field. The field was so fragmented that it was easy to do.

But he tried the same shit when he officially got the nomination, and it doesn't work. The goal after getting the nomination is to attract enough people who might be on the fence about you, and Trump could not stop insulting people left and right. He's effectively alienated most of the groups that the Republican party tried making inroads with since Romney lost.

That's why Fox News is anti-Trump.

Re:So what?

[Oswald McWeany]

We're no longer a democracy, we've crossed the line into corpocracy.

It is made much worse with the supreme court allowing mega-corps to spend massive amounts of money. Beyond that though, lobbyists should be made illegal, it is overt corruption. "Pass this measure for me and I'll host a fundraising event for you - how is that tolerated?

If I were amending the constitution I would include:
No campaign can spend more than $1million (adjusted for inflation) on advertising. (make them win debates, and give interviews... it shouldn't be about who can raise the most money).

Do away with companies giving money to candidates. Nope! Should not be allowed.

No individual or individuals should be allowed to represent a corporation in granting favours to a politician. No hosting fundraisers, giving them money.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hilarious that you think every media outlet that isn't extremely far to the right is blatantly left.

Being in the center only makes them more left than you.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Its an open platform for dialogue.

I can't believe anyone would say that. Facebook totally sucks for dialogue. Have you personally ever had a dialog on Facebook? Try comparing it to Slashdot, even. Go on, I dare you.

And then there's this..

the whole election process, campaigns, media coverage, etc.. to drown out opposing views, ignore the controversies about their person of choice, and further push a pre-determined collaborated narrative under the illusion of independent or neutral platforms. Vote manipulation happened within the primaries

Vote manipulation is the PURPOSE of primaries!! The whole reason the Republicrats had primaries was to prevent people like Sanders and Cruz from being on the ballot!

I can understand some niche people being upset about that, but for Republicans to be complaining about it, is totally absurd! Wanting to fuck up the vote is why so many people decide to become Republicans (or Democrats). "Rigging" isn't bad; it's what about 60% of American voters want and those voters would be angry if they found out the election weren't rigged (e.g. the went into the vooth and saw Sanders and Cruz on the ballot).

So let's stop bitching about this, unless you really are against it. And FFS stop acting like Trump said anything dishonest or insightful about it, since his so-far-success at rigging the election (keeping Republicans off the presidential ballot) is the whole reason anyone is still listening to him.

Re:So what?

[cyberchondriac]

They do, but just as CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, NPR, CBS, HuffPost, Salon, Mic, Vox, Rolling Stone, and Mother Jones, etc.. all lean left, from slightly left of center, to completely out of the ballpark.
It really needs to stop all around with the over-editorializing and partisanship. Newspapers should stop endorsing candidates, and stick to non-partisan objective reporting. But it'll never happen, because sensationalism sells.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Usually in the snippet's I've seen, it is a republican given a chance to out their point of view out there to the audience, and a democrat being talked over by the host.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hillary is a token member of the DNC. And?

Re:So what?

[Sax Russell 5449D29A]

Here in Europe companies, especially major ones, generally stay out of politics. They endorse certain policies, but stop short of endorsing politicians or parties. It's a good approach that keeps employees and customers happy, since they represent a wide range of ideologies and backgrounds. Having the media and corporations so strongly divided into opposing camps only degrades the quality politics and surrounding conversations.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about the Washington Post comparing Trump to Hitler? While both Trump and Clinton disgust me, please don't assume that it is only Fox News that is supportive of a candidate.

Re:So what?

[wisnoskij]

Corporations are allowed to have agendas, but politicians are not allowed to sell favors for corporate money or bias.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really think we're so stupid as to forget the trending story manipulation that facebook failed to keep hidden?

The answer to your question is "NO, obviously facebook is incapable of keeping vast conspiracies hidden BECAUSE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THEM, DIPSHIT."

Re:So what?

[Holi]

Why is Facebook barred from doing what every PAC is trying to do? What every media outlet is trying to do?

Re:So what?

[mlw4428]

In what way does Facebook really favor Democrats? The stuff I see are posts from old people who got on Facebook. They're predominately pro-Trump, Infowars insanity, and Drudge Report drivel. I see more conservative memes and groups on Facebook then I see liberal ones.

Re:So what?

[Spy Handler]

Flip the situation around and see what your response is. Would you be okay with it if Facebook and Google were pushing hard for a (R) candidate in a close election?

And by the way it could very easily have turned out this way. If Bernie won the Dem nomination, and Jeb won the Repub side, the mantle of populism (anti free trade, anti H1B visa, protecting domestic workers) would've been taken up by the Democrats. Globalism, TPP, pro Wall Street/corporate welfare would've been the Republican platform under Bush.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Companies will always have a bias, and I'm not sure I mind them making it overt. At least you know where you stand.

Your ISP, bank or social media network of choice might publically back a candidate - that's fine, because you're free to switch to another one, or just accept that some of your money is going to a cause you don't like.

What is absolutely morally wrong is insidiously using their influence to help their preferred side behind the scenes. Imagine if your cable co sent 404 errors on pages about political candidates that they didn't support, or your bank sent your political contribution to someone other than you had selected (or just refused to process the transaction). That's the level of shenanigans that has been going on at Facebook: deliberate decisions to censor content that Facebook doesn't agree with.

Where there's a de-facto monopoly it gets a bit stickier; if the only game in town is overtly and covertly backing one candidate over the other, then they have a disproportionate influence over the result. At least with Fox you can just change the channel; good luck persuading everyone you know to ditch Facebook and join your own democrat/republican/neutral social network.

Re:So what?

[pnutjam]

Reality has a well known liberal bias, it's folly to hold on to the past and stop change (the very definition of conservatism).

Re:So what?

[CharlesDonHall]

What in Trump's background makes you think that he's honest with his platform?

It's pretty obvious that if he gets elected, he's going to run the country the same way he's run all of his businesses: He makes a bunch of unrealistic promises, siphons money from the investors/customers into his own pockets, and then declares bankruptcy. I mean, seriously, do you think he's telling the truth when he says he's going to build an impenetrable wall along the whole southern US border? His plan is to pocket the estimated cost of the wall, and that'll be the last anybody ever hears of it.

You're right that Hillary Clinton lies about as much as the average politician, so we need to look at her history as well. Based on her past record: If she's elected, she'll probably try to move things a bit towards the left but mostly keep the status quo in place. Of course a lot of this depends on what kind of Congress she winds up with. But if Trump wins, he'll be guaranteed a Republican Congress that won't have the courage to provide any meaningful resistance to his schemes.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fox News is undeniably a more right-leaning network. But it's hard to say that without also admitting that CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, Washington Post, and NY Times are all heavily biased toward being left-leaning.

In fact, there are emails that prove direct connections between them and the Clinton campaign, going so far as to allow the Clinton campaign to veto certain stories. You cannot say the same thing about Fox News, which has a major news anchor that had a public feud with Trump, which hurt him politically.

If you watch CNN, like I do, then you will notice that the only Hillary news is good news (as a person with a defense background, I cannot support Hillary). The only Trump news is either matter-of-fact ("Trump speaking in Florida") or negative Trump news. And the vast, vast majority of news is anti-Trump. If you look at the polls, you can see dubious reports, like ABC's report that Hillary had a +12 point lead while every other poll was showing the race lying within the margin of error (usually +1 or +2 for Hillary, in fairness).

Finally, if you then have Facebook showing biased results, then it creates biased opinions from a much wider audience because people expecting certain opinions tend to watch Fox News versus CNN; but both sides often use Facebook. Republicans and Democrats desperately try to convince the other side's voters that it's not worth voting at all, by showing their own reports; if the majority of avenues voice only one biased opinion, then it's only ever going to be okay as long as the voice is for your opinion. Supporting such systems is a fool's errand because inevitably they will not support you and it will be nearly impossible to root them out once they're established. That's why you should want unbiased outlets, regardless of your position. Both sides should be reporting positive and negative news about both sides.

Re:So what?

[Bartles]

Actually, yes. I highly doubt Facebook has any Republican employees. I'd love to see some evidence that shows otherwise, but I have yet to see any.

Re:So what?

[Bartles]

One candidate has the overturn of Citizens United in their official platform. The other says nothing about overturning Roe v. Wade. Stop lying to yourself.

Re:So what?

[ProfBooty]

Conservatives can't conserve anything. Its a brand name rather than an actual set of principles, and they hardly fight.

Trump is no conservative, but he is a fighter. That is probably why the base latched on to him, because he seems like he will actually fight rather than acquiesce like the Republican party has during my lifetime. They really do seem to play as the Generals to the Globe Trotters.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to have to disagree, Fox's slogan was "Fair and Balanced" for a very long time. It may be obvious and blatant, but they deny it every chance they get.

CNN, New York Times, Oh and NBC doesn't do much to hide their pro Democratic Party alignment.... Heck you have editorial boards (you know, in many cases the people the straight reporters work for) coming out and endorsing candidates. I would rather have people come out and just plainly state their partisan political views than pretend to be unaligned and then somewhat subtly work their views into their reporting and headlines.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because they show a few things that are "Anti-Trump" it means they are fair and balanced.

ALL mainstream media outlets try to give a surface impression of being balanced, but every single one of them has extreme bias in the slant, tone and story selection. The worst of the worst are Fox and HuffPo (on respective opposites of the "political spectrum").

Re:So what?

[penandpaper]

Do you think he wants to do something about illegal immigration? I think he does and I think he is being honest about it. Do you think he wants better trade deals for America? I think he does and I think he is being honest about it. Agree or not doesn't really change that it is easy to see that he is being honest about many of the policies he wants. Whether that is good or not is debatable. Clinton on the other hand... Who knows what she wants, only the ones that pay her know that.

If Trump is elected with a Republican congress, that does not mean that they 'won't have the courage to provide any meaningful resistance to his schemes'. I think he will be stone walled by congress and that is actually a good reason to elect him. Same with the media. Do you think the media darling of Clinton will be forthright in reporting corruption and scandals of a Clinton administration compared a Trump administration? Trump is hated by GOP and democrat alike, why would GOP in congress work with him? As we have heard in this thread, Clinton can get things done. She will make enough deals and curry favors that any congress will be bought and paid for while the media laps up another Nobel Peace prize for a war monger. While a Trump presidency will be hated by mainstream media and political establishment that he would be a lame duck.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's their company. They can do whatever the fuck they want. The FCC has authority to revoke a license because they're using public spectrum. Facebook is not. The Slashdot crowd is young enough to trust government with big decisions.

Re:So what?

[pauljlucas]

Flip the situation around and see what your response is. Would you be okay with it if Facebook and Google were pushing hard for a (R) candidate in a close election?

There's a difference between liking it and believing it's within their right to do. In my original post, I never said whether I liked it. I only questioned why people are thinking they have no right to do it.

So, while am still not saying whether I would like your hypothetical flipped case, yes, I believe they would have a right to do it. Whether I like it or not is irrelevant.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

No media in the US is left from centre, about the furthest left you will see is what is considered hard right anywhere else.

Re:So what?

[cyberchondriac]

That's so absurd it's hilarious.

Re:So what?

[david_thornley]

One problem is stuff done not by campaigns.

I'm obviously biased in this election, and I've been posting a lot of pro-Clinton stuff. I'm not being paid for this (I'm naturally leftist and intellectually confrontational), but it's arguable that it does help Clinton (I hope it does). I'm using my free speech to find a forum (in this case Slashdot) that will air my views.

Now, suppose I decide that a larger audience needs to hear what I've said, so I organize a group of people to write letters to the editor and call radio shows. I maintain this is still covered by the First Amendment.

My friends and I decide to escalate, so we buy some ad spots wherever we can get them and use them. Is this OK?

Suppose we just counter what we see as false allegations about Clinton? Attack Trump? Make specific arguments why we should elect Clinton? Try to promote policies Clinton is associated with? I believe I should be able to favor free college tuition, which Clinton supports and Trump (as far as I know) doesn't.

This gets real complicated real fast.

Re:So what?

[Oswald McWeany]

Now, suppose I decide that a larger audience needs to hear what I've said, so I organize a group of people to write letters to the editor and call radio shows. I maintain this is still covered by the First Amendment.

My friends and I decide to escalate, so we buy some ad spots wherever we can get them and use them. Is this OK?

Suppose we just counter what we see as false allegations about Clinton? Attack Trump? Make specific arguments why we should elect Clinton? Try to promote policies Clinton is associated with? I believe I should be able to favor free college tuition, which Clinton supports and Trump (as far as I know) doesn't.

This gets real complicated real fast.

Personally, I think a letter to the editor campaign, or using media is OK. This is how campaigns SHOULD be run, by equal citizens have equal ability to campaign.

  I am against the spending on advertisements to promote specific candidates. The quickly shifts the onus back on who can have the supporters who cumulatively have the most money.

Now, if the ads were based on issues without promoting individual candidates, that would be OK in my mind (impossible to enforce otherwise). Like for example, Trump supporters could post an ad for a wall to keep people of different colors to them out. Hillary supporters could post an ad in favor of "free" college-tuition.

Who gets elected should never be about whose supporters can directly raise the most money.

Moving along

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing to see here. It's the progressives just doing what has to be done. The ends justify the means and all that.

Re:Moving along

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, it used to be the right who held the pursestrings, owning manufacturing and finance. However now that "progressives" have built their own businesses more suited for a modern economy and collected the power that comes with it, the right feels like they are being silenced. Poor things.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I'm not pro-left. Just anti-hypocrisy. You can't just change the rules the game just because you started to lose.

Captcha: Labor

They're all plotting against Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

All the media companies online and off-line, Paul Ryan and his Republican insiders, The DNC, all foreign governments except Russia and China. Women, Blacks, Mexicans, disabled people, ex soldiers, they're all plotting against Trump. Jeb Bush, big plotter, Ted Cruz and his sleazy push polls,Fox News and its clown announcers, CNN and their boring anti-trump panelists, Charles Koch and his puppets, MSBNC crazy crazy fraudsters, Marco De Rubio the joke phoney light weight, John Kasich the Absentee Governor who supports Mexico..... ALL PLOTTING!

It's time for the non-Democrat, non-Republican, white, male, full-fit, but not military, who are not in the media, or online media, it's time for that MAJORITY to rise up and put Trump into power he so richly believes he deserves!

Make America Great Again!

Re: They're all plotting against Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

I already did my part by voting early for not-Trump. At least this way we'll still have a country in 4 years.

Re: They're all plotting against Trump

[cyberchondriac]

What makes you think we'll still have a country in 4 years under Clinton? Both are pretty horrible.

Re:They're all plotting against Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to change the way you think of this. This is not "anti-Trump". This has nothing to do with Trump and everything to do with Clinton and getting her in power so she can return all the favors she owes. She is a power broker and all the seats of power are spoken for.

Now you and every other idiot conflates this issue with Trump and they have won the false war. The whole point of this charade is to get HILLARY ELECTED. Forget Trump for a second. These people actually SUPPORT Hillary. What does that tell you about their motives, intentions, etc. These are not the anti-Trump people begrudgingly voting Hillary.

I don't know the solution. Obviously Trump being the other choice sucks but I think Hillary being elected is worse because it proves their strategies are impossible to break. Electing Trump would send a message: powerful people don't get to buy the nations/populations sovereignty anymore. I personally think Trump was planted by the Dems to get Hillary elected. If Hillary were running against anyone else in the world she would lose. Every time something bad Hillary did comes out Trump makes a fool of himself and he threatened to run independent which would hand the election to Clinton. This stinks of a plant and no one believes it because Trump says some really nasty things about Hillary.

Hillary is such a sociopath she doesn't care about her public reputation if it gets her in power.

Re:They're all plotting against Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

When Trump supporters, including the freaking Scot Adams ("Dilbert" creator), get shadow-banned by Twitter and booted off Periscope to listing actual evidence of Clinton crimes, I would say fucking YES, it IS all a giant globalist conspiracy.
Remember, just because you are paranoid does not mean they aren't after you....

Re:They're all plotting against Trump

[pastafazou]

I don't think Trump was planted by the Dems to get Hillary elected, but I do think the Democrat loving Media did everything they could to help him win the Republican primary so that it would be him against her. There were some very solid and capable candidates in the Republican field that would have done a good job as President.

Re: They're all plotting against Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes you think we'll still have a country in 4 years under Clinton? Both are pretty horrible.

Because I was told Bill Clinton would destroy our economy. I was told Obama would destroy our nation. Now you want me to believe Hillary will destroy our country?

I know people who were planning for when Obama came to take their guns. Now their planning for when Hillary does. Does being totally fucking wrong mean anything to you nut jobs?

Re:They're all plotting against Trump

[david_thornley]

I do think the eyeball loving Media did everything they could to help him win the Republican primary

Fixed that for you. Having Trump as a candidate has to be doing wonders for the media's clicks and readership. Be very careful about attributing to ideology something that can be explained by profit. Also, remember that journalists are heavily Democratic, and people who own media are heavily Republican (although that seems to be changing somewhat).

Re: They're all plotting against Trump

[cyberchondriac]

Yes, I'm a "nut job" because I don't recognize that HRC is corrupt as shit? Oh, and look how well that Obamacare is working out, BTW.
No, anyone who is a raving fan of either of today's candidates is likely the nutjob.

Virtual public spaces

[sinij]

This illustrates the problem of virtual public spaces and real danger to freedom of speech and association that comes with digitization of all means of communications. Currently, FB and Twitter are free to censor political speech and push political agenda. You could argue that in 2016 as a politician you are effectively censored if you don't have access to FB and Twitter. This shouldn't be the case, insofar politics these should be considered virtual public spaces and any censorship of this kind should be disallowed.

Re:Virtual public spaces

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, has Trump been denied access to Facebook and Twitter?

Re:Virtual public spaces

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump wasn't banned from FB for "hate speech" only because Zuker personally intervened. This is how far-gone into SJW territory SV's social platforms are.

Sure, you can ban wrongthink all you want, but all it will do is make it easier for the next demagogue elected.

Re:Virtual public spaces

[AthanasiusKircher]

Currently, FB and Twitter are free to censor political speech and push political agenda.

As private corporations who own, operate, and maintain these services, that generally is the default. Yes.

You could argue that in 2016 as a politician you are effectively censored if you don't have access to FB and Twitter. This shouldn't be the case, insofar politics these should be considered virtual public spaces and any censorship of this kind should be disallowed.

I'm sympathetic to this argument, and in fact I've argued similarly that we need to consider how these things work in "virtual spaces" (these simply aren't "public," any more than than Facebook's headquarters is a "public space").

The closest analogy that some people have made is to public utilities, like phone service. A phone service that tried to refuse service to someone on the basis of the speech content of phone calls likely wouldn't get very far... unless there was a court order from a proven record of harassment or something like that.

But a number of issues arise when you try to extend that analogy to a service like Facebook or Twitter. First, phone calls are by nature ephemeral and generally not recorded for permanent record (except by the NSA, I suppose), and they're generally not audible/visible publicly. Facebook and Twitter posts are frequently VERY visible (often to millions of people) and there's a record that people can reference immediately.

A process like going through a court to get a restraining order against someone to disallow them service is just not set up for the kind of visible, persistent record that services like this provide.

And before you say, "Well, just allow all speech on these services then!" But the very nature of social media is that stuff can spread like wildfire, and the drumbeat for action will often continue until something happens. If you have people actively advocating terrorism or other violent actions or whatever and actual records that thousands of people are "liking" and agreeing with such things, there's going to be backlash from users. There's going to be media attention. And if some horrific event transpires that there's a permanent record of where these things were planned and encouraged, there will be lawsuits. And if stuff like this happens repeatedly, you can bet there will be calls for government officials to IMPOSE censorship.

That sort of thing just doesn't normally apply to things like phone services. So even if the government passed a law requiring "free speech" on such "virtual spaces," I doubt it would last very long. Even with court mechanisms to remove user access under extreme cases, it simply won't be fast enough for the outcry of social media waves of interest. And what about foreign users? Do they have the same "free speech rights?" What about anonymous users? Or do you only qualify for rights if you have a registered account with a verified real name and address?

And even if you magically came up with a way of making this work that users, companies, and government officials were satisfied with, just how do you determine which services qualify for this sort of speech protection?

Facebook and Twitter may seem obvious choices. But what about the "up and coming" social media service? Or the declining one? Or the random internet forum? Is Slashdot a "virtual public space"? How many active users do you need before these protections kick in? And how do we determine that threshold?

Again, with phone service there was one standard fairly early on, and interconnectivity was essential. Interconnectivity between different social media services is rarely the same -- even if data can be transferred between them (not always the case), they tend to have different use cases. So again, you're looking at potentially protecting a multitude of different KINDS of "virtual spaces." Where does it stop? How do you determine that?

I'm not saying this is impossible. But it's a legal and regulatory nightmare to even imagine how to do it.

Re:Virtual public spaces

[jonesy16]

Unless they start receiving public funding, I have to disagree. I don't care which candidate it's against, these are private companies run with private money and if they want to push personal agendas to either attract or deter potential customers, that's their right. If you're going to go to Facebook or Twitter for objective news, you're already barking up the wrong tree. These are social sites, where people post all manner of mindless rants, T&A, and pet photos. It should not be your primary source of objective news.

Re:Virtual public spaces

[sinij]

No it isn't. Corporations are not people and have no rights or agendas. It is people behind these corporations that drive this agenda, and in democratic societies it is important that all people had equal say in the process. It is called oligarchy when CEO billionaires have all the say due to money and ownership of the media and social media.

Re:Virtual public spaces

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the problem is that you, and many others, believe Facebook and Twitter are *virtual public spaces*. They're not. They're entitled to conduct business in whatever manner they wish, so long as they're not violating the law. Why people think they're somehow a bastion of fairness and journalistic integrity boggles my mind, because neither platform is a news outlet.

Arguably, there are no free bastions of speech online; any forum is as free as the moderators choose, and that's their right being the payers of the bills. If they have shareholders to answer to, you can bet that the "freedom" of your online speech will be curtailed in the event that it cuts into their business model. Why is anyone surprised by this?!

As for "freedom of speech", none of these platforms are even obligated to offer free speech; that first amendment right only applies to what the *government* is obligated to provide.

Re:Virtual public spaces

[sinij]

Arguably, there are no free bastions of speech online;

As for "freedom of speech", none of these platforms are even obligated to offer free speech;

So what happens when most or all of out speech is online? Is censorship is any less of a censorship when it originates from a naturally monopolistic corporation instead of a government?

What has this World come to?

[Anonymous Coward]

Making a big deal over what some executive at a social media site says and does?

And considering facebook to be a major tech platform?

Too bad you youngsters weren't alive when Silicon Valley wasn't a bunch of hucksters. Someday, read up on Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard - THE fathers of Silicon Valley. And then compare what they did to facebook and every other waste of time over hyped shit that has come out of there in the last 15 years.

THIS JUST IN!

[Anonymous Coward]

Facebook has an agenda! I can't tell you how fucking shocked I am

The whole US gov is corrupt.

[Anonymous Coward]

The checks and balances of the US government are 100% compromised. Does anything else surprise you?

We should be seeing Raids all over the country by the FBI and DOJ. Nope, not a peep. How great countries fall?? the root of all evil of course.

Re: The whole US gov is corrupt.

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is the corruption here? You can be partisan without being corrupt, and with the Trump being the alternative, it is almost patriotic.

Re:The whole US gov is corrupt.

[Anonymous Coward]

We should be seeing Raids all over the country by the FBI and DOJ

They are busy raiding your text messages and Twitter feed because you are a possible terrorist.

Who would have thought?

[PvtVoid]

Wow, you mean we are electing somebody for President who has effective working ties and a good relationship with the largest businesses in the country? Who knows these people personally, understands the issues and challenges of their industries, and has a functional organization in place to aid in their growth and success? It's a scandal, I tell you!

Wait, actually, that sounds pretty good.

Re:Who would have thought?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? You think it sounds pretty good? Are you okay with it when the police and the judge are buddies? Are you okay with it when you got on the polices wrong side and you're claiming the police wrongfully arrested you and you're trying to convince the judge that his buddy is lying?

And if you don't get why I used that analogy then we're done here. We'll never see eye to eye.

Re:Who would have thought?

[PvtVoid]

Really? You think it sounds pretty good?

Yeah. It mean's she'll actually be an effective President. Having ties is only equivalent to being subject to undue influence in the minds of conspiracy nuts.

The ironic thing about the Wikileaks dump of Podesta's emails is that they give a picture of a highly effective political organization, which makes me want to vote for Clinton even more than I did before. I'm not the only one I know who feels this way.

Re:Who would have thought?

[meta-monkey]

Is the government there to serve the interests of the biggest businesses, or the people? Because you know what'll really help the American middle class is millions of more H1-B visas for FaceBook.

Re:Who would have thought?

[ganjadude]

effective at what exactly and to whos benefit? not the american people thats for sure

Re:Who would have thought?

[penandpaper]

Hooray! An effective president at going to war! At empowering Walll Street! At colluding with big business! At conspiring against open and fair elections! At being above the law! Who needs a president that is constrained by law when we can have an effective leader that 'gets business done'?

Re:Who would have thought?

[PvtVoid]

effective at what exactly and to whos benefit? not the american people thats for sure

Well, let's see:

- Strengthening the Affordable Care Acts is to the benefit of the American people.
- Increasing taxes on the very wealthy to close the deficit is to the benefit of the American people.
- Strengthened bank legislation is to the benefit of the American people.
- Sensible gun control legislation is to the benefit of the American people.
- Wider access to women's health care (including abortion) is to the benefit of the American people.
- Appointing non-right-wing Supreme Court justices is to the benefit of the American people.
- Supporting LGBT rights it to the benefit of the American people.

I could go on. I am going to be very pleased to have Hillary in the White House.

Re:Who would have thought?

[penandpaper]

Hey, those middle class Americans will be training the H1-B visas before they are replaced for a generous severance package. Of course it is good for the American middle class. How else will they get that 'generous severance package'?

Re:Who would have thought?

[ooloorie]

Yes, because nothing says "effective president" than "being able to lie effectively to the electorate about the policies you're actually going to implement" and "making handouts to corporate cronies".

Low information voters like you and the crooks you favor for office are the cause of government corruption, economic problems, lack of growth, and social problems.

Re:Who would have thought?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's adorable that you think she's going to do anything of this.

In her "private" vs "public" speech, she has told big business that she wants to make it easier for the banks, and use government to backstop all of their risk. Her foundation's doesn't do anything in health care unless there's a political connection back to skim money out of it. And her track record on actually telling the truth is terrible, she lied about forwarding confidential information, her lack of security focus in Benghazi, but if you want to think that she actually cares about you, go ahead. Send her more money.

Re:Who would have thought?

[Anonymous Coward]

Minimum wage increase
Immigration reform
Carbon emissions reduction

But to really get much done she has to at least win the senate and ideally the house too, even if that is a long-shot.

Re:Who would have thought?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Yes, because nothing says "effective president" than "being able to lie effectively to
> the electorate about the policies you're actually going to implement"

Historically, presidents implement about 70% of their campaign promises. A significant reason for that is simply getting those promises on the record makes holding them accountable to their promises much easier. Obama even got somewhat of a pass because nobody in the party wanted to give the republicans any help in besmirching the first black president and he still is about 70%.

But given Clinton's low popularity ratings, she ain't getting a pass on anything. Sanders and Warren are going to hold her feet to the fire from day one. In fact, the email dumps have revealed how they've been putting the screws to her for the past year in order to get their endorsements. So this lying liar theory, that's unlikely to be true any more than it has been for any other politician.

Re:Who would have thought?

[ganjadude]

ok so now that you have pushed out the talking points. explain HOW shes going to do any of that????

- Strengthening the Affordable Care Acts is to the benefit of the American people.

you mean the program that was pushed down our throats and has NEVER worked, costs for most on it are rising an avg of 22% this year alone, insurance companies leaving the exchanges.... that ACA??? So tell me HOW shes gonna fix it, not just that she will

- Increasing taxes on the very wealthy to close the deficit is to the benefit of the American people.

her plan will bring in less revenue and hurt the middle class and poor even more than you thing because things dont work that way. its a great talking point but you raise the money on the "rich" (which include farm owners and small business owners" and costs rise and business closes. but yes, those mean rich people that hillary is getting all her money from are simply going to give more money to the government. heres an idea, instead of spending a billion on her campaign, why not give it to the treasury???

- Strengthened bank legislation is to the benefit of the American people.

thats not what it seems like based on her talks with wallstreet, but you go on and believe that

- Sensible gun control legislation is to the benefit of the American people.

we already have sensible gun control, its called the 2nd amendment. the president really has no constitutional say on guns that is a decision for congress, to pull a constitutional convention and get 3/4ths of the states to agree to ammend the constitution....do you REALLY think congress is gonna do that??? no - so no she wont be doing anything with guns, just like obama

- Wider access to women's health care (including abortion) is to the benefit of the American people.

really? and how do you propose that? by taking more of our money to give to special interest groups??? how is that better for america? if someone wants an abortion fine! but me and you should not pay for it. just like we shouldnt pay for penis pills and birth control, thats NOT what a government is supposed to do

- Appointing non-right-wing Supreme Court justices is to the benefit of the American people.

LOL yes just what we need more justices who think its ok to take more and more of our rights away. The correct Justice to put on the bench is one who is a constitutional scholar. anything less is a disservice to america

- Supporting LGBT rights it to the benefit of the American people.

really? because you would be shocked to find out trump is a bigger friend to the gay community than hillary ever has been. shes only come out publicly in support of the LGBT community recently because she thinks its beneficial to her campaign. go over her career, shes been anti LGBT for 90% of it and look at trump who has no history of being anti LGBT

the mental gymnastics you must go through to believe the garbage that she spews is disgusting

Re:Who would have thought?

[PvtVoid]

The correct Justice to put on the bench is one who is a constitutional scholar.

Obama it is then.

Re:Who would have thought?

[ganjadude]

except for hes done nothing but shit on the constitution since hes been in office......

nice to see you ignore everything else that i had to correct on your post however. typical clinton supporter, head buried in the sand

Re:Who would have thought?

[ganjadude]

also, still havent explained HOW shes gonna do any of the talking points you posted.... ill wait

Mark Zuckerberg is a low life

[Trax3001BBS]

The only respect I've seen shown him is when he married an ugly women after he made his fortune.

You can always expect the unexpected from facebook.

Re:Mark Zuckerberg is a low life

[PvtVoid]

The only respect I've seen shown him is when he married an ugly women after he made his fortune.

?

Priscilla Chan isn't a supermodel, but she's a very beautiful woman.

Re:Mark Zuckerberg is a low life

[Zontar The Mindless]

I guess "ugly" is a code word for "intelligent and educated, and not a bad looker, either, except that she's not white"?

I can find fault with Zuckerberg on a lot of counts, but his taste in women is not one of them.

Disclaimer: I'm also married to an intelligent and educated Chinese woman who is also not a bad looker, so I may not be without my own prejudices in this regard.

Re:Mark Zuckerberg is a low life

[Anonymous Coward]

There is nothing wrong with his wife's looks, but she's not in any way remarkable looking either. He's plain, she's plain.
And his marrying her is such a cliche - jewish guys into asian women.
I'm not saying he married her for the wrong reasons, but when someone fits a stereotype you can't help but notice.

On the other hand, the google founders seem to have gone full fuck-anything-that-moves which is a far worse cliche.

Re:Mark Zuckerberg is a low life

[Zontar The Mindless]

I'm not interested in a discussion of what you project onto others' relationships.

Re:Mark Zuckerberg is a low life

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently you are interested enough to repeatedly comment on the topic.

WikiLeaks more like WikiPiss

[Anonymous Coward]

The same WikiLeaks that seems to be getting leaks about the US Presidential Race from Putin?

The same WikiLeaks that leaked names of homosexuals living in Saudi Arabia?

Based on what I've seen, smells like there's a drug-deal of some sort between the Rapist, Homophobe and Narcissist.

Just like China

[ebonum]

In China, the people who control the media support the party. And the party makes sure the top people who control the media get rich.
We are no different.

Re:Just like China

[meta-monkey]

We don't have a state-run media, we have a media-run state. The massive corporations have similar interests (mass immigration for cheap labor, free trade, etc), they own the politicians and the media, the corps make the policy decisions, their politicians enact them and the media propagandizes to the people why things that are clearly not in their best interests like flooding the country with semi-retarded 3rd worlders are the good, moral things to do, citizen, and anyone who disagrees is an evil Nazi. This is how you conquer a nation, with very special episodes of Blossom.

Re:Just like China

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, we should be more careful before blasting against China. Politicians and the media are crying out loud about all kinds of ills over there but refuse to look into those same issues at home.

Re:Just like China

[Anonymous Coward]

State run media are mostly more reliable than private ones. Maybe you should check one, probably you already do sometimes, such as the bbc.

Re:Just like China

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, just like it. Fucking moron.

Re:Just like China

[Anonymous Coward]

We are no different.

We don't eat dogs and boil cats. And in the US we have a bill of rights that would be nice if we enforced. It is one of the things we should impose on the rest of the world to give it some sense of civility and respect for life.

Re:Just like China

[meta-monkey]

The BBC definitely has their own biases, as well.

I prefer adversarial media. With both Breitbart and Mother Jones I know exactly where they stand. Neither is pretending to be unbiased. You can see what issues matter to different people of different ideologies, and then do your own fact-checking. But then you get CNN blatantly editing shit to fit their narrative while pretending to be unbiased "news." No, it's propaganda. I don't think it's possible to be unbiased. Humans can't be. Anyone claiming to be unbiased is lying.

Re:Just like China

[ooloorie]

We don't have a state-run media, we have a media-run state.

The distinction is pretty academic: when government becomes too powerful, media, police, politics, etc. all blur into one entity.

The massive corporations have similar interests

"The" massive corporations don't have much of a choice than to participate in this, because if they don't, their competitors will kill them via legal and legislative manipulation.

Ultimately, the failure is always a failure to limit government power. Governmental power will always be abused, and the only way to limit that abuse is to limit how much power you give government.

Re:Just like China

[meta-monkey]

Governmental power will always be abused, and the only way to limit that abuse is to limit how much power you give government.

We used to have this document that listed the limited powers of the federal government and strictly forbade it from doing most everything else but nobody pays attention to that thing anymore.

Re:Just like China

[ooloorie]

We used to have this document that listed the limited powers of the federal government and strictly forbade it from doing most everything else but nobody pays attention to that thing anymore.

It was a good idea, and it actually lasted quite a while in comparison to other nations. However, even the Founding Fathers were not optimistic that this was going to last forever. As Jefferson wrote:

the people can not be all, & always, well informed. the part which is wrong [. . .] will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. we have had 13. states independant 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure.

Re:Just like China

[Anonymous Coward]

"limit how much power you give government"

I don't disagree, but also add that this goes for any concentration of power. Large corporations, large institutions, and very wealthy individuals are all among the category of those who should have power limited.

Re:Just like China

[Tablizer]

Ultimately, the failure is always a failure to limit government power. Governmental power will always be abused

What's the alternative? Giant corporations would then replace all the functions done by government, and be mega slimy and dishonest.

In China one milk company poisoned infants to save a buck. What would stop them otherwise? Mass social Darwinism? It would then be 3-eyed Mad Max's with gated communities.

Your argument seems to be that since Bob is influenced by the Devil, you might as get rid of Bob and let the Devil do his job directly: Bob is merely a wasteful middle-man. You deserve an Enron power supply and a Comcast doctor.

Re:Just like China

[erapert]

Careful, citizen! Don't give anyone reason to doubt your love for Big Brother.

Re:Just like China

[ooloorie]

What's the alternative? Giant corporations would then replace all the functions done by government, and be mega slimy and dishonest.

No, they wouldn't.

In China one milk company poisoned infants to save a buck. What would stop them otherwise?

Yeah, that is the kinds of delusions progressives always have; they then proceed to create oppressive governments and massive crony capitalism.

Mass social Darwinism?

Social Darwinism was something advocated by progressives.

It would then be 3-eyed Mad Max's with gated communities.

That I don't have a problem with.

You deserve an Enron power supply and a Comcast doctor.

Both, incidentally, corporations and oligopolies created by big government, with deep and corrupt ties to both Democrats and Republicans. You know, the way you like it.

Re:Just like China

[Tablizer]

Yeah, that is the kinds of delusions progressives always have

Oh really. I guess my senses are bad and yours are good.

[Mad Max] That I don't have a problem with.

Why should I care what YOU want?

Social Darwinism was something advocated by progressives.

I don't know who originated the concept, but the Ayn Rand types have currently embraced it.

with deep and corrupt ties to both Democrats and Republicans.

Getting rid of gov't doesn't stop sneakiness and cheating and competition-killing oligopolies. If anything, it increases it.

Re:Just like China

[ooloorie]

I don't know who originated the concept, but the Ayn Rand types have currently embraced it.

If by "Ayn Rand types", you mean advocates of free markets, that's bullshit. People who advocate for free markets advocate for a world of mutually beneficial, voluntary relationships. Free markets operate at the level of groups, organizations, and relationships, not individuals, and free markets are decidedly non-zero-sum.

The ideas of Social Darwinism and market interventions related to it are misconceptions of the left and the progressive movements, which tend to view the economy as a zero sum game and tend to reason in terms of winners and losers. Progressives explicitly advocated creating conditions under which the "most gifted" and skilled individuals would succeed, reap rewards, and have offspring, while the "less gifted" would get fewer resources and fewer children.

Socialists and progressives conceptualize society as a fixed pie (or maybe one that can be grown through government intervention) and people as fighting over who gets the biggest slice. Free market advocates understand that this is completely wrong, and that the best way for everybody to win and maximize their absolute wealth and well-being is to have the freedom to engage in voluntary, peaceful, non-coercive economic transactions.

Getting rid of gov't doesn't stop sneakiness and cheating and competition-killing oligopolies. If anything, it increases it.

I didn't propose "getting rid of government"; government is a necessary evil, but it ought to be limited.

However, you need to realize that government is pretty much the only source of "cheating and competition-killing oligopolies", and the more power you give to government, the more "cheating and competition-killing oligopolies" you are going to get.

Re:Just like China

[Anonymous Coward]

It became a matter of interpretation by the Supreme Court. Where once the document was considered a grant of government powers that could be expressed, it became a limitation of powers that could be expressed. In other words, it was interpreted that the Constitution listed what the government could do, but now it is considered a list of what the government is prevented from doing (all other things being permissible). With the new view, it is only a matter of time and redefining vocabulary before government can do anything it wishes.

Re:Just like China

[david_thornley]

A disproportionate number of people who argue for free markets believe they will benefit from them. Free markets are theoretically for mutually beneficial voluntary relationships, but in practice that works as well as Communism or expecting people to have good passwords. Someone will get an advantage and exploit it. I await your explanation of how it isn't about individuals when individuals have to either accept or reject whatever services people offer them, and that includes overpriced stores in the poorer areas of town who rely on the fact that most poor people don't have good transportation and can't get to Target or Walmart.

Free market advocates talk about conditions under which the most gifted and skilled in working in the market succeed, reap rewards, and have offspring, while those less gifted or business-savvy get fewer resources and fewer children. This is exactly what you blast progressives for, just a different definition of "gifted" and "skilled".

Socialists and progressives in the US are perfectly aware that the pie has been growing. They also know who's eating it. In the past few decades, worker productivity has soared and worker compensation has been fairly flat. Growing the pie doesn't help people who have an ever-diminishing share.

Government per se doesn't cause cheating and competition-killing oligopolies. Barriers to entry and lack of regulation do that. Government does often increase barriers to entry, but they're not the only ones, and they do try to keep things sane in some areas that lack competition.

Re:Just like China

[Tablizer]

As a "centrist-progressive", I find you characterization of "progressive" completely off. But that's probably a long and winding debate best for another medium.

However, you need to realize that government is pretty much the only source of "cheating and competition-killing oligopolies"

Hogwash. I've worked for multiple companies, big and small, where I was paid by them to cheat and mislead customers.

Gov't tends to have an incentive to be lazy over cheating, while the private sector is the reverse. That's my observation based on living in the real world, and I ain't young. Sorry, but I'll believe my own eyes over your pet theories.

Re:Just like China

[ooloorie]

As a "centrist-progressive", I find you characterization of "progressive" completely off. But that's probably a long and winding debate best for another medium.

The meaning of "progressive" is defined by the history of progressivism, not your ignorance of that history.

Hogwash. I've worked for multiple companies, big and small, where I was paid by them to cheat and mislead customers.

And the reason they could get away with that and stay in business is that (1) government has limited competition and (2) government has limited the ability of customers to sue those companies.

Sorry, but I'll believe my own eyes over your pet theories.

There is no contradiction between your observation and my statement. Companies cheat because they know they can get away with it; they can get away with it because government protects them from the consequences they would suffer in a free market.

Re:Just like China

[ooloorie]

Free market advocates talk about conditions under which the most gifted and skilled in working in the market succeed, reap rewards, and have offspring, while those less gifted or business-savvy get fewer resources and fewer children

That reasoning is completely divorced from reality, for the simple reason that "the most gifted and skilled" and the most "successful" actually have significantly fewer children than those less gifted and skilled. That is why progressives embarked on a government program of eugenics and Social Darwinism and wanted to sterilize people of low socioeconomic status. The arguments are clearly spelled out by the great progressives of the early 20th century; go read up on it.

In fact, that reasoning doesn't apply even to biological evolution; both biological evolution and markets don't even select at the level of individuals in the simplistic sense in which progressives and Social Darwinists reason about evolution.

The argument classical liberals make about free markets have nothing to do with utility or improving society or making people richer; rather, the right to free association and the right to private property are fundamental human rights, and any society that interferes in a free market infringes on those fundamental human rights. That is, to classical liberals the argument for free markets is fundamentally a moral argument about human rights, not a utilitarian argument.

It's a lucky coincidence that free markets also happen to produce the best known economic outcomes, not just for society as a whole, but also for individuals. Progressives don't believe in basic human rights (they may pay lip service to them, but they abandon them as soon as some other goal overrides them), so classical liberals usually don't even bother making a moral argument to progressives; that's why classical liberals usually skip the moral argument for free markets (which is what motivates us) and jump right into the utilitarian argument (which is the only one progressives understand).

Government per se doesn't cause cheating and competition-killing oligopolies. .

Yes, government per se does, because the only way politicians can stay in power is by selling out to powerful special interests and corporations. Those laws linking political and economic power are pretty much as inevitable as the Second Law of thermodynamics: in theory, all particles in a room could jump to one side of the room by pure chance, but in practice, entropy increases without fail.

Re:Just like China

[Tablizer]

The meaning of "progressive" is defined by the history of progressivism,

Typically meanings are "defined" by current usage, not (directly) history. You should know that.

And the reason they could get away with that and stay in business is that (1) government has limited competition and (2) government has limited the ability of customers to sue those companies.

For #1, let's take an actual example. How exactly did the gov't allow MS to become an OS near-monopoly for desktops?

Per #2, most of the customers I was paid to screw didn't even know it. You can't sue if you don't know you've been manipulated. Part of the art of manipulation is not letting the manipulated party know they've been had. (I'm not condoning it all. I just ended up in such situations.)

Further, much of it wasn't illegal, just sneaky. Most trickery is not illegal and shouldn't necessarily be illegal.

Doesn't stop pro-Trump posts

[OzPeter]

I am being inundated with all sorts of pro-Trump posts by one of my friends. All the anti-Clinton conspiracy posts. Every damn one of them. Including one that was so bad that even Fox News published a retraction.

So as far as I can tell FB isn't shaping much, otherwise they would have tweaked that mysterious algorithm that only shows you posts from people that they want you to see and then for everything else goes "What post? I don't see any post? What do you mean you saw a post 5 minutes ago and now you can't find it in your feed? No idea what you are talking about."

Re:Doesn't stop pro-Trump posts

[bongey]

Only real conspiracy theories going around right now are the alt left screaming "The Russians are coming".
A video of someone saying they are committing voter fraud is call evidence.

Re:Doesn't stop pro-Trump posts

[Gravis Zero]

I am being inundated with all sorts of pro-Trump posts by one of my friends. All the anti-Clinton conspiracy posts. Every damn one of them. Including one that was so bad that even Fox News published a retraction.

You could just unfriend this person, even if it's just a temporary measure.

Re:Doesn't stop pro-Trump posts

[OzPeter]

You could just unfriend this person, even if it's just a temporary measure.

I prefer not to live in an echo chamber.

Besides .. it makes for great sport to play "this conspiracy theory is false because of ...."

Re:Doesn't stop pro-Trump posts

[Anonymous Coward]

A note from Brexit-land: don't be complacent about hysteria being peddled from the 'wrong' side - you never know who it's influencing and they have votes!

Re:Doesn't stop pro-Trump posts

[Anonymous Coward]

I have un-followed a few people recently. A couple of 'libertarian' friends have been really obnoxious with their posts, so they got unfollowed. What do they have in common? Both from the rust-red-bible-belt and both have been solidly moderate republicans up until now. I respect that they cannot vote Trump. What gets my goat is that they are all of a sudden so Gung Ho for a candidate who is probably the worst candidate the Libertarians could have selected - so bad that another friend, the biggest 'L' Liberarian I know, won't vote for him. I suspect the reality is that my 2 republilibertarian friends really just cannot handle the thought of a female president, even though Clinton has probably done more for them in their youth than just about any other politician alive.

Once this election is done, I'll put them back on probation on my feed...

Re:Doesn't stop pro-Trump posts

[Anonymous Coward]

The rabbit hole is deep. Go read r/wikileaks. There are all kinds of backroom deals with everyone. Talk of plotting war with Russia.

Assange hasn't been seen, a nearby airport was shut down for mysterious reasons, and a plane that was used to haul people to Guantanimo took off shortly after.

We used to say it was a "conspiracy theory" that the government monitored the entire internet. Now we know that's true.

Think about that for a moment. Is it hard to believe a few people might disappear if they got in the way of one of the world's biggest governments?

Latest Wikileaks

[Ol Olsoc]

Show that Assange is a very important member of the Republican Party.

Re:Latest Wikileaks

[ooloorie]

Show that Assange is a very important member of the Republican Party.

Because of your partisan mindset, you assume that because the Democrats are crooks, the Republicans must be as well, and if the evidence for that isn't leaked, it must be because of some vast right wing conspiracy that keeps such information from the public. Add paranoia to the sin of ignorance and partisanship on your part.

Re:Latest Wikileaks

[Ol Olsoc]

Show that Assange is a very important member of the Republican Party.

Because of your partisan mindset, you assume that because the Democrats are crooks, the Republicans must be as well, and if the evidence for that isn't leaked, it must be because of some vast right wing conspiracy that keeps such information from the public. Add paranoia to the sin of ignorance and partisanship on your part.

O my yes. The Democrats are responsible for every crime ever committed, and the Republicans are pure angels, sent to us from God himself, to set the world aright.

Here ya go, here is how the party of purity operates:

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2...

Praise the lord!

{ Duke Cunningham! Praise the lord

Tom Delay - Praise the Lord! Mark Foley Bob Ney This poor angel of purity spent 30 months in prison.

Chris Lee, (R-NY) DEnnis Hastert, the ultimate family values guy likes teenage wrestlers, Aaron Schock, THaddeus McCotter Mitch Mconnel's Campaign manager Jesse Benton when a bribery scandal erupted from Pon Paul's 1014 Campaign - Oh -oh! David Rivera - and get this one - Here is a true angel at work. He had a campaign finance scheme to prop up a democrat in teh primaries to trash Rivera's republican opponent. It's the sure sign of purity when you eat your own.

Rick Renzi - 17 counts of wire fraud, conspiracy, extortion, racketeering, money laundering and others. Mike Crapo drunk driving, Tery Reidell Cocaine - running around his brain! JOhn Ensign A family values politician who enjoyed fencing outside of the bonds of holy matrimony. Michael Grimm - Tax Fraud Ron paul campaign manager Demitri Kesari bribing a senator for endorsement.

Scott DesJarlais a staunch pro lifer made his wife have two abortions, and was unsuccessful prusuading one of his outside fucks to get one. As a married physician he enjoyed fucking with 6 wmoen outside of teh bounds of holy matrimony, 3 co workers, two patient, and a drug rep.

there are some democrats who have been corrupt, certainly not as many. but you don't really care about the truth, do ya? As long as those fucking currupt Democrats are eliminated, they will stop telling all these verifiable actions by the saintly Republicans. But you see my point, and I have no expetation that you would ever accept it, is that you don't like Democrats, and you love the Republicans, so you are willing to accept one sided "expose" against Democrats, and nothing against Republicans.

Anyhow, and just sayin' the leaks and the hacks are being done by people who hate the United States, and who would be happy to see us toppled. Support them if you wish, but that allows me to make a decision about your allegiances, comrade.

Re:Latest Wikileaks

[ooloorie]

O my yes. The Democrats are responsible for every crime ever committed, and the Republicans are pure angels, sent to us from God himself, to set the world aright.

I'm sorry, I keep forgetting I need to spell things out with you. We're talking specifically about Wikileaks here, not whether people of some political affiliation commit crimes or are nice.

For Clinton, Podesta, and the Democratic Party, the leaked E-mails contradict their desired public image of rational government and opposition to money in politics. They show a well-oiled political machinery that uses carefully tuned propaganda campaigns, tells different stories to voters and donors, and simply confirms massive corruption and dishonesty by Hillary Clinton.

For Trump, Priebus, and the Republicans, there is likely not much to leak: Trump's political machinery is dysfunctional, his "propaganda machine" consists of making outrageous and inflammatory statements, he couldn't dissemble like Clinton if his life depended on it, and he doesn't have the decades-long string of scandals hanging over him or lies to cover them up. There are plenty of reasons to dislike and reject Trump as a candidate, but few of them can be related to Wikileaks.

Therefore, accusing Assange of political partisanship because he leaks damaging information from the Clinton campaign but not from the Trump campaign is stupid. There is little reason to believe that there is damaging, secret, internal information on the Trump campaign; the Trump campaign shouts its damaging information at anybody willing to listen quite freely; they don't need Assange to do it for them.

Anyhow, and just sayin' the leaks and the hacks are being done by people who hate the United States, and who would be happy to see us toppled. Support them if you wish, but that allows me to make a decision about your allegiances, comrade.

Exposing corruption, dishonesty, and incompetence in a major political candidate, in particular one that runs on a pretense of being an experienced and rational politician, is a benefit to the US. The identity of the people exposing this information, and their motives, don't matter as long as the information is correct, which it seems to be.

Furthermore, I see Russia's interests aligned with ours in this case: they don't want a war-mongering, incompetent kleptocrat with a history of foreign policy disasters (like Clinton) in the White House, because it is likely to lead to instability and more war. Neither do I. Your preferences may, of course, differ.

Cui Bono?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is the dirt from the other side? Tax forms? Business dealings? Foreign association?

Re:Cui Bono?

[penandpaper]

If you are saying this without sarcasm you are an idiot. Agree/disagree with Wikileaks all you want but at least know what the organization is about.

WikiLeaks specializes in the analysis and publication of large datasets of censored or otherwise restricted official materials involving war, spying and corruption. It has so far published more than 10 million documents and associated analyses.

IOW, they specialize in government dealings because that is what is 'censored or otherwise restricted official materials'.

The difference is that if you have dirt on Trump any media source will publish it and you won't need protection from the government. If you leak government secrets you either get jailed, holed up in Russia, or worse. The point of Wikileaks is to protect the leakers from the government you mongoloid.

There are plenty of other news organizations that are digging up dirt on Trump. Or did you forget getting grabbed by the pussy? Or did you forget the X million of dollars losses in a tax return leak? Or did you forget the lawsuits of Trump University?

FFS. Apologetic shills just get to me in the morning before I have had my coffee.

Re:Cui Bono?

[meta-monkey]

You realize WikiLeaks doesn't obtain the files themselves, right? They publish what they're given. If they were given Republican/Trump docs and then they sneakily held on to them to protect them, the leaker would just hand the docs over to CNN. Either the Republicans run a tighter ship with better security, or there's nothing incriminating/shady to leak.

Re:Cui Bono?

[Anonymous Coward]

Start drinking your coffee before you check /. :D

Re:Cui Bono?

[Anonymous Coward]

This has been covered on slashdot repeatedly.

The RNC uses basic security standards, but doesn't actually have any hidden agenda. They wanted Jeb, and worked very hard to discredit every other candidate. They hate Trump because he doesn't owe them, and might actually try to keep any of his promises to work against the political class.
Donald Trump uses business grade security because it's the same system that keeps his businesses running relatively unhindered. He is also psychologically incapable of ulterior motives, every stray thought that begins to form in his head comes right out of his mouth while it is still half-formed, and often goes straight to Twitter.

Re:Cui Bono?

[meta-monkey]

I agree with that. I would think an RNC leak would actually help Trump. It would show all the RNC executives shitting on Trump and conspiring against him like the DNC did Bernie, except Trump had a strategy for beating them. It would corroborate Trump's narrative that the system, including the primaries, is rigged.

Re:Cui Bono?

[GameboyRMH]

Either the Republicans run a tighter ship with better security, or there's nothing incriminating/shady to leak.

OR they simply aren't as heavily targeted - the Russian government is only interested in finding dirt on the Democrats after all. They may have even broken into the RNC/Trump campaign to the same extent but kept the information for themselves rather than leaking it.

Re:Cui Bono?

[cyberchondriac]

They have nothing on Trump most likely because he's never held a government position, ergo, no official documents to leak.

Re:Cui Bono?

[meta-monkey]

You can't just assume it was the Russian government, as the evidence doesn't back that up. It could have been anyone from a Russian proxy, or the phishing attacks could be unrelated to the leaked email. i.e., they could have both stupid users who fall for phishing attacks, and disgruntled employees leaking their shit.

Re:Cui Bono?

[meta-monkey]

Also I don't get the impression Trump is relying heavily on email to coordinate his campaign strategy. I think he's mostly winging it.

Re:Cui Bono?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just the other day it became public knowledge that Trump's systems are running Windows Server 2003. So old that it isn't even getting security patches any more. There is simply no way he's not been pwned. Probably by every intelligence service on the planet. It just doesn't serve their purposes to release anything. And frankly, everything released from the DNC hack has been a yawner too. The breitbarts have been making hay out of it, but other than some funny-as-shit inter-office snarking its just been exactly what you would expect from the campaign of a tightly-managed establishment candidate.

Re:Cui Bono?

[Anonymous Coward]

> except Trump had a strategy for beating them

Running your campaign like a reality-tv show isn't a strategy.

Re:Cui Bono?

[porges]

Reminder: the Wikileaks we're dealing with right now are not government documents. They are the internal emails of the Democratic National Committee. Wikileaks has released the stolen emails of private citizens -- granted, relatively powerful ones, but still.

Re:Cui Bono?

[meta-monkey]

How do you figure? It worked.

Re:Cui Bono?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean in the primaries?
He won with less than half of the votes cast during the primaries.
That's because he faced the single largest field of primary contenders the republican party has ever fielded. He didn't win because of any strategy on his part, he won because the RNC explicitly chose not to organize against him which let the vote be split.

Re:Cui Bono?

[meta-monkey]

the RNC explicitly chose not to organize against him which let the vote be split.

Naw, that's not what happened. The RNC preselected Jeb! just like the DNC preselected Hildawg. They had the wide field explicitly to split the vote so there'd be no stand-out and everyone would eventually fall behind Jeb. Same thing with Romney in 2012 where nobody actually wanted Romney, and you'd have the not-Romney of the week who would go up in the polls and then crash until you were left with "well fuck it I guess it's Romney." So this cycle first they were behind Yeb, but when he got low energied they switched to Rubio who short circuited and then Ted who wanted to fuck...rats...or something. Anyway the Fox News machine and the paid-for pundits were clearly shilling for whoever the flavor of the week was, but not Trump. Like Rush Limbaugh who works for ClearChannel which is owned by Bain Capital (Romney). Was all behind Jeb and Trump was dangerous and then Rubio was a "full-throated conservative" and then Ted was a "True Conservative" and is only now behind Trump because well fuck it.

So, no, the RNC explicitly split the field, and then implicitly united behind whoever they thought had the best shot of beating Trump.

Re:Cui Bono?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol. Political fan-fiction. I love it!

Re:Cui Bono?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are out of your mind if you don't think WikiLeaks is biased. Whether they are taking marching orders from the Russians, or acting on their own bias, the bias is undeniable. It's not the publishing of leaked e-mails that proves this, it's the manner they are going about it. If they were only interested in getting this information out there, they wouldn't be trickling out a couple thousand e-mails a day to try to maximize the damage to Clinton and ensure the story stays in the spotlight during the run-up to the election.

Also, I assume you are kidding with your quote about "censored or otherwise restricted official materials." The personal e-mails of campaign officials aren't official materials. Unsavory as they may be, they have revealed no wrongdoing. They are not serving any purpose other than the embarrassment of the Clinton campaign and making governance difficult for Clinton in the extremely likely event she wins the election.

WikiLeaks used to have the moral high ground, but it is completely lost now. They are as bad as the politicians, and just as obviously biased. Only a few trolls on the internet still believe in the sanctity of WikiLeaks.

Re:Cui Bono?

[david_thornley]

People have been digging up dirt on Hillary for decades, even when there isn't any. Those people clearly need no protection. Wikileaks exists as an outlet for illegal activity, which has its good and bad points, but to evaluate the veracity of their releases you really do need to know who they got the stuff from.

Re:Cui Bono?

[david_thornley]

The evidence I've seen is that it's a Russian state-sponsored operation. What I've seen isn't all that convincing, but it would be stupid to rule it out.

Note that Obama has made a diplomatic incident out of the break-in, which suggests (but doesn't confirm) that he knows of more reasons to think it's Russia.

Re:Cui Bono?

[meta-monkey]

Note that Obama has made a diplomatic incident out of the break-in, which suggests (but doesn't confirm) that he knows of more reasons to think it's Russia.

No, it suggests he's spewing bullshit for political reasons to distract from the content of the leaks.

Re:Cui Bono?

[david_thornley]

In other words, you have your pre-formed doctrine, and aren't willing to look at evidence and speculate about what it means.

The leaks aren't from Russia, since then you'd have to wonder if you were Putin's dupe. They're correct and authentic, because if they weren't you wouldn't have things to hate Clinton about, such as politics as usual and the fact that some CEOs support her. You need to back off and think for a while.

Re:Cui Bono?

[meta-monkey]

I'm not saying the leaks aren't from Russia. The leaks could be from:

1. Russian government.

2. Non-state Russian hackers.

3. Disgruntled DNC staffer/IT guy.

4. The NSA.

It could be any one or all of these. They could have been hacked by Putin for general spying/blackmailing purposes, but then also leaked by a staffer. We don't actually know.

So I'm not the one jumping to conclusions here. You're the one blindly believing the government, which has a long, long history of lying about foreign attacks in order to justify war. You have your pre-formed doctrine ("Dems r gud guys dey wuldnt lie!!!11!") and will not look at the evidence and speculate about what it means, since then you'd have to wonder if you're Obama and Hillary's dupe.

They lied to get us into Vietnam (the Gulf of Tonkin incident never happened). They lied to get us into Iraq. They're probably lying about this, too.

Re:Cui Bono?

[david_thornley]

Excuse me, but I didn't say the Russians did it. I said there is evidence that they did it, and no evidence the other way. What I've been trying to say is that the Wikileaks stuff isn't reliable, since we don't know the source, and if it comes from where the evidence points it's definitely unreliable.

It's very likely that the CIA has more information than we do, and Obama presumably can get reliable information out of them (I don't trust them). The fact that Obama is acting as if the hacks were Russian official acts is evidence that they are. It isn't conclusive, but it's the best evidence I've got. It's perfectly plausible that the Russians would try illegal means to mess with US elections. You can call that poetic justice or something, and I'd prefer it if we got our noses at least somewhat out of other people's politics, but what we have is a significant and believable possibility that these originate from Russian attackers who want to influence our election. Russians doing these sorts of things have the will and ability to fake things, at least on a small scale.

Therefore, people who just accept these as fully accurate are going well beyond what the evidence supports, and there's a good chance that they're being "useful idiots" for Putin (if I may use a Communist phrase here). I have no problem with people who at least doubt their authenticity.

You broke it, you bought it

[PopeRatzo]

It's been part of the "conservative" orthodoxy for decades that corporations have First Amendment rights and money = speech. Remember, "Corporations are people, my friend"? It's unseemly for them to want to cry now because Democrats have done better under those rules.

I don't remember hearing anything from them when a top Trump donor (or Trump's son-in-law) used their newspaper to push pro-Trump stories, or when the Koch Brothers (and ALEC more broadly) were influencing elections from the national level down to local school boards.

Anytime they want to overturn Citizens United or pass a constitutional amendment asserting that only natural humans have guaranteed civil rights, I'll be glad to start taking them seriously.

Barely my ass

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump barely fundraised? Seriously. They even caught one of his PACs (with his son Eric in it, no less), trying to launder $2 million in Chinese donations yesterday:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/24/exclusive-investigation-donald-trump-faces-foreign-donor-fundrai/

"You shouldn't put any of this on paper, The reporter said a Chinese client wished to donate to the PAC to support Mr Trump's campaign. Mr Beach appeared interested despite raising concerns about his nationality and saying he would need to know the donor’s identity. He suggested the donation could be put through a social welfare organisation called a 501(c)(4) - or C4 - , which unlike a PAC is not subject to a blanket ban on receiving foreign money, and not required to name donors."

Re: Barely my ass

[johnsmithperson123]

I'm mostly talking about the primary where the candidate who fundraised the most and had establishment backing failed miserably.

MSM and social media are in the bag for the DNC

[StandardCell]

There's no point in denying this any more. Journalists have always tended to lean left more than right, but 2016 has shown that all pretense of integrity and independence has completely evaporated. Rigged polls, collusion with PACs and the DNC, mudslinging directed at the RNC candidates while ignoring third party options and DNC scandals of the same magnitude as Watergate, and making unsubstantiated accusations of foreign interference by Russia while ignoring the foreign money from Soros and extreme Islamic regimes influencing the electoral process. Nothing is off limits to the same group that doctors audio recordings to falsely show racism and hypes up stories of a few cops committing criminal acts against black people while ignoring the fact that black on black violence is at epidemic levels.

Rigging the Facebook feed to promote pro-DNC pro-Clinton pro-SJW causes is IMO an effective subliminal ploy even for those that scroll past it so they can see funny pictures of their friends' kids. They're cutting off Twitter feeds and FB pages of people they don't like too even though they have not violated the user agreement. All of them will stop at nothing to brainwash and browbeat us into one mind, and use the SJWs to persecute those who disagree with the positions like useful idiots.

But it isn't just here as we've also seen in Europe with the hiding of stories and statistics on the effects on violence and crime due to mass migration from the third world. And, at this point, anyone who is a blind follower of political parties or of the media is a fool ready to be controlled to the will of an elite willing to throw us back into an effectively feudal system.

Welcome to the Ministry of Truth. We have always been at war. All dissent is doubleplusungood. You don't even need to imagine a boot stomping on a human face forever because it's already coming through your computer screen.

Re:MSM and social media are in the bag for the DNC

[PvtVoid]

There's no point in denying this any more. Journalists have always tended to lean left more than right, but 2016 has shown that all pretense of integrity and independence has completely evaporated. Rigged polls, collusion with PACs and the DNC, mudslinging directed at the RNC candidates while ignoring third party options and DNC scandals of the same magnitude as Watergate, and making unsubstantiated accusations of foreign interference by Russia while ignoring the foreign money from Soros and extreme Islamic regimes influencing the electoral process. Nothing is off limits to the same group that doctors audio recordings to falsely show racism and hypes up stories of a few cops committing criminal acts against black people while ignoring the fact that black on black violence is at epidemic levels.

Rigging the Facebook feed to promote pro-DNC pro-Clinton pro-SJW causes is IMO an effective subliminal ploy even for those that scroll past it so they can see funny pictures of their friends' kids. They're cutting off Twitter feeds and FB pages of people they don't like too even though they have not violated the user agreement. All of them will stop at nothing to brainwash and browbeat us into one mind, and use the SJWs to persecute those who disagree with the positions like useful idiots.
 

I'm guessing lead poisoning.

Re:MSM and social media are in the bag for the DNC

[Anonymous Coward]

"Rigged polls, collusion with PACs ...mudslinging ...scandals of ...Watergate, ...unsubstantiated accusations ...Russia ...extreme Islamic regimes influencing the electoral process...black violence is at epidemic levels...."

Occams Razor: Either: It's a big conspiracy with all left, right wing media attacking your candidate on orders from the "Ministry for Truth". Or: He's a crap childish whiney loser constantly contradicting himself, frequently attacking his allies and his supporters, and has pissed everyone off.

"There's no point in denying this any more."
Whose in denial here? It seems to be you.

Re:MSM and social media are in the bag for the DNC

[Bill_the_Engineer]

I don't think so. The sites I go to are pretty fair with their criticisms of both candidates. It's not MSM's fault that Trump can't control himself and runs his campaign like it's a reality TV show. He is still operating with the idea that any media coverage is good media coverage.

I think this story has more to do with excuses for not doing well. I mean it's hard to take Trump's complaints seriously when he has Fox and Breitbart as allies and not to mention the the talk show hosts. I live in a very red state and most of my local news (TV and paper) are pro-Trump so I strongly disagree with the notion that somehow Trump is a victim.

Re:MSM and social media are in the bag for the DNC

[Anonymous Coward]

Attack the person, not the argument: it's a logically fallacy called argumentum ad hominem.

Classic American liberalism.

Re:MSM and social media are in the bag for the DNC

[Anonymous Coward]

So?

Facebook isn't a journalistic organisation. They've never made a commitment to impartiality, and we've never demanded that they do. They're a site for people to connect with one another, and if those people want to share their views--left OR right wing--they're allowed to do that. I see a lot of conservative posts on the site from friends of mine that I don't agree with.

You can believe whatever cockamamie conspiracy theories that you like, but Facebook and Twitter and Tumblr are just echo chambers. They've got zero responsibilities to the public at large, for good or ill.

Re:MSM and social media are in the bag for the DNC

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't lean "left", though -- they lean pro-establishment-"left". See this piece by Thomas Frank:

My project in the pages that follow is to review the media’s attitude toward yet a third politician, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who ran for the Democratic presidential nomination earlier this year. By examining this recent history, much of it already forgotten, I hope to rescue a number of worthwhile facts about the press’s attitude toward Sanders. Just as crucially, however, I intend to raise some larger questions about the politics of the media in this time of difficulty and transition (or, depending on your panic threshold, industry-wide apocalypse) for newspapers.

Re:MSM and social media are in the bag for the DNC

[fulldecent]

What sources are you seeing fair reporting?

Some sources I have read that are usually decent but are failing on this election:

  * The Economist -- does not investigate complaints about Trump and parrots the left's analysis; does not acknowledge any criticism of HRC
  * The Intercept -- reporting on Trump includes thorough analysis and opinion, reporting on facts critical of HRC include no analysis or commentary

In fact the only balanced piece I have seen written was in Glamour magazine's op-ed written by the editor! It explained the contemplative process of voting in this election on page one and explained the issues voters face. Then page two was a bunch of claptrap about how women need to vote for a woman.

Re:MSM and social media are in the bag for the DNC

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think so. The sites I go to are pretty fair with their criticisms of both candidates.

You must be going to the Church circular, because I have NEVER in all my years seen a Western election where the media has so clearly, relentlessly, and shamelessly picked a side and gone on the attack against a candidate.

People are fooling themselves. What is happening to Trump has never happened to any candidate anyone can remember. There have always been oafs, buffoons, and morons running for office. Regan, Dan Quale, George H.W fucking Bush people. Bush wasn't even that long ago; Sarah Palin if you want something closer.

But People are losing their minds over Trump. Really. He's nowhere near as far out there in comparison to a lot of Republican candidates of yesteryear, but the entire Media have flipped their shit like this is a second 9/11. I don't even think the coverage was this sloppy and slanted during the Iraq War. 90% of it is complete bullshit and hysteria, the other 10% is distorted reporting.

I've come to the conclusion that it's not Trump. He's not that extreme. It's about his policies. They are extreme. But they're also what the public wants. What Sanders' supporters wanted. What a lot of people fed up with 8 years of austerity and 25 years of decline want. And that's why the media is lashing out so aggressively against him. Because unlike all the other batshit Republicans and religious wingnuts, Trump is actually giving the public want they want: Revenge.

It's not about Trump. This is about the media trying to smother a rebellion by the 99%. And boy are they dirty about it.

Re:MSM and social media are in the bag for the DNC

[PvtVoid]

Attack the person, not the argument: it's a logically fallacy called argumentum ad hominem.

Classic American liberalism.

When the "argument" is entirely devoid of anything resembling a logical thread, ridicule is pretty much the only sensible response.

Re:MSM and social media are in the bag for the DNC

[Kierthos]

Except some of the polls showing Trump behind are from Fox News.

When Fox has a recent poll that shows Clinton is ahead by 6-7 points (depending on whether it's a 2-way poll or 4-way), well, I really doubt they're carrying water for Clinton.

And you have to understand... there's a certain percentage of the voting populace that is going to vote for the Republican candidate no matter who it is or how they are presented (good, bad, indifferent). There are likewise going to be a certain percentage of voters that are going to vote for the Democratic candidate no matter who it is or how they are presented (good, bad, indifferent).

It doesn't matter what scandals dog those candidates, they will always get a certain percentage of the electorate.

The trick is appealing to those who normally fall into one party or the other but don't care much for the candidate AND getting voters who class themselves as "independent".

Unless something causes an inordinate number of voters from one party or the other to stay home, it is generally impossible to win the Presidential election with just the voters that you can automatically count on. You have to attract voters from outside those blocks.

And Trump hasn't been doing so.

Sure, he's gotten a few. Can't argue that. But he's spent so much time actively insulting blocks of voters that he's effectively reversed the inroads that the Republican party started making among (for example) Hispanic voters after Romney's defeat in 2012. Not to mention African-American voters, some Jewish voters, some Asian voters....

He's trying (whether he means to or not) rely on the angry older white voter, and hey, he's gotten that block fairly well nailed down. But it's been at the expense of every other block of voters that he would need to win.

The "easiest" path for a Trump victory in two weeks is to carry every state that Romney won in 2012 and then flip enough states to make up the 64 electoral votes that Romney fell short of.

The problem there is that not only is Trump apparently failing to do that (it's unlikely that he's going to flip Pennsylvania or Florida, and Ohio might be out of reach as well), it's possible that he's going to lose some of the states that Romney won. He might lose Arizona, he might lose North Carolina. Hell, he might lose Utah.

Facebook and other social media don't need to do anything to make Trump look bad. They just need to give him a forum, and Trump will do that himself.

Re:MSM and social media are in the bag for the DNC

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump is not "my" candidate. I'm voting for Gary Johnson.
Still, the opposition to Trump from the political establishment and mainstream media is like nothing I have ever seen. It's clear that someone is very angry at Trump for disrupting the Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush election that had been scripted since November 2012. Trump is a colossal ass, but he sure as hell is my enemies' enemy. The hatchet job that the MSM is doing on him, along with the negative treatment he's getting from the Republican establishment is the most compelling reason to vote for him.

Re:MSM and social media are in the bag for the DNC

[Anonymous Coward]

"Leaning left" and being for the DNC are entirely different things. Fact-based researches "lean left" because reality "leans left".

The rest of the stuff in the first paragraph is exactly the kind of claim that is laughed at by those who care about correctness because it is laughable. If that's your measure of how "true" claims are, you will never be satisfied.

Re:MSM and social media are in the bag for the DNC

[Anonymous Coward]

Its their fault for not reporting on Hillary's criminal behavior that has actually occurred and affected each and every Citizen.

There are two different problems going on here. One is pro vs. anti-trump. I think criticism of Trump is fair.

The other is pro vs. anti-Clinton. I think Clinton deserves a whole truck load more negative media attention. What the MSM is going is basically the same as lying by omission. Paint Trump as the devil but don't talk about Clinton's much worse issues. What we need is for Clinton and Trump to die and then we can have a real election.

Sure the Trump talk is bad but how can the MSM ignore the corrupt to the core person who has sold America to the highest bidder, committed massive pay-to-play schemes, she is literally a treasonous felon by the definition of the law; (she just hasn't been prosecuted by Obama's justice department (surprise surprise the guy flying her around in air-force one to campaign isn't prosecuting her!!); she has violated nearly every campaign finance law, her non-profit is a sham slush fund for her pay-to-play schemes and would have its non-profit status revoked if it was any one of us running it, this isn't even the start but the media doesn't even touch this stuff.

Re:MSM and social media are in the bag for the DNC

[Anonymous Coward]

> * The Intercept -- reporting on Trump includes thorough analysis and opinion, reporting on facts critical of HRC include no analysis or commentary

Nice try. The Intercept has been the most vocal and coherent critic of HRC this whole election, including during the primaries.

As a lifelong progressive, it's fairly obvious to me that there is now one single political party. Clinton is the pinnacle of corporate politics. She gives the right wingers everything their hearts could desire, while offering lip-service to the meaningless 'cultural issues' like abortion and gay marriage. Clinton, and the Democratic party, represent the complete abandonment of working class issues that started in the 80's and was near complete with the election of the corporate shit-weasel Obama. This silent coup was carried out quietly and efficiently over the last few decades while we all bickered over what Freud called 'the narcissism of small differences'.

Re:MSM and social media are in the bag for the DNC

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be going to the Church circular, because I have NEVER in all my years seen a Western election where the media has so clearly, relentlessly, and shamelessly picked a side and gone on the attack against a candidate.

The simplest answer is best. Trump is that bad. He created most of the material that is being used against him. He tweets crazy shit and then vehemently denies doing it while the media is showing his tweets on the screen. He only pretends to apologize to quiet the critics only to commit the same offense again before the damn interview is over.

Trump did this to himself.

Re:MSM and social media are in the bag for the DNC

[Anonymous Coward]

Fox sold out, duh. They dont want Trump TV competing with them when Trump becomes the president. How many exclusives do you think Trump TV will get when he is president. I cant believe people dont see this.

Re:MSM and social media are in the bag for the DNC

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to have a fairly narrow definition of "Western". France is definitely part of the West, and certainly the Front National (their extreme-right party) had an even worse MSM reception. Of course, in most democracies it's unusual for media to all pick the same side, because there are more than two sides to pick from. So even if there's one idiot, you still have choices left. But MSM still can still hate the same idiot even if they disagree on the alternatives.

Revenge also works out differently in those situations - see CETA (Canada/EU trade treaty) which was torpedoed by Walloons in a revenge vote against the Flemish, or the Dutch voting against an EU-Ukraine treaty to spite the ruling Dutch coalition. Neither was related to MSM, or even tied to some "99%". So there are actual counter-examples against the hypothesis that revenge voting is caused by MSM.

Re:MSM and social media are in the bag for the DNC

[david_thornley]

What you appear to be objecting to is polls and other reporting that doesn't agree with your preconceived notions. There are two possible reasons for a given story being anti-Trump: bias, or the facts are anti-Trump. There are two possible reasons for arguing that Clinton isn't that bad: bias, or her really being not that bad. You also seem to have this delusion that PACs colluding with parties and mudslinging against candidates are at all new or unusual. I have no idea where you get your conceptual model of politics. Watergate was a case of strong evidence that Nixon was involved in interfering with the selection of a Democratic nominee. There's no evidence that Clinton was involved in giving Trump the nomination. Nothing is off limits to the same group that doctors videos to show that Planned Parenthood sells fetus parts.

There's plenty of racism out there, and Black Lives Matter is largely about the fact that most police officers who shoot blacks get off with nothing worse than paid administrative leave. Once some of them start serving prison terms for something like walking up and just shooting a black child, things will get better.

What we've reliably seen out of Facebook is that, for whatever reasons, the "Trending" part tends to have pro-Clinton stories. There's plenty of pro-Trump people on Facebook who haven't been silenced, no matter what stupid things they say.

Re:MSM and social media are in the bag for the DNC

[david_thornley]

I have never, in all my years, seen a US election where one candidate was so incredibly unqualified in so many ways. Reagan and the Bushes were much better suited to be Presidents. Heck, Quayle and Agnew and even Palin were better choices. We know what Michelle Bachman stood for, and she had some government experience (unfortunately).

Trump has been saying all sorts of different things. His record as a businessman is spotted at best, and in my lifetime the only President who had no previous elective experience had commanded an entire theater of operations in Europe, and got involved in a lot of diplomacy. Trump has been insulting and offending people right and left.

Trump's policies don't matter, because approximately nobody knows what he'd actually do, and he hasn't made his campaign about his policies. It's fairly easy to pick out things he says that match whatever you want, and that gives a lot of people the impression that Trump will do what they want.

Revenge sucks as a political motivation. Things can get far worse.

Re:MSM and social media are in the bag for the DNC

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Fox wants the pro-business, big money, status quo candidate in office. They certainly would prefer it be a Republican, but they'll take Clinton because at the end of the day, she can still be bought. It's not like 8 years of Obama was really all that bad for them anyway. Trump's comments and hounding of the media seals the deal for them. Fox isn't going to come out and outright say they support Clinton, but they would rather see her elected than Trump.

Google News

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget to count google in on the social engineering game. For months they only showed anti-Trump news in the non-personalized version of their streams. They recently stopped, but only after enough people called them out on it. They might not be a large part of the population, but the power (((they))) wield is amazing.

Re:Google News

[mt2mb4me]

That is funny, because, in my phone's google now feed (and I am a moderate) has been a 3 to 1 conservative poppycock to real news stories. Maybe in the non-personalized versions, but I have blocked some conservitive news sights, and now it's filled with breitbart, rt, and crazy sites like "Center for Research on Globalization"

Re:Google News

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude you are arguing with a anti-semite - note the use of silly parenthesis to say "they" == "the jews."
You can't reason someone out of an opinion they never reasoned themselves into.

So says every SJW attacking Peter Thiel

[MikeRT]

Thiel gave $1.25M to Trump and every SJW in the country wanted his head. Zuckerburg gives $35M to the Clinton campaign and... nothing.

Re:So says every SJW attacking Peter Thiel

[stinerman]

You realize why, right? Those people think it's wrong to give Trump money.

I think Peter Thiel is an asshole, and I'm happy to give any company shit that employs him or takes money from him or helps him in any way. That's my right. Your right is to think the same about Zukerberg. Don't use Facebook. Don't give him or any company he has an interest in any money directly or indirectly. That's completely fine by me.

Re:So says every SJW attacking Peter Thiel

[Anonymous Coward]

Except all the screaming Trump-heads who are now going to be out for the blood of Facebook.

Who already have been, to be honest.

Re:So says every SJW attacking Peter Thiel

[squiggleslash]

Both sides!!!1!?!!!

Thiel gave $1.25M to a candidate who'd just had it revealed he has serious problems with women (to put a politically correct spin on it), who is/was telling people he wouldn't accept the results of the election if he loses, and who previously has supported violence against his opponents, who is threatening legal sanctions against his opponents and the press, and who has engaged in racial scapegoating and in dehumanizing minorities.

Clinton has done none of those things (with the possible exception of one dubious comment about "predators" aimed at criminals in the 1990s that she's since apologized for.) So yeah, even though we don't like Clinton very much, we absolutely reserve the right to be angry that someone's response to a candidate boasting they can sexually assault women and get away with it is to give him money.

If Thiel had given money to Jeb Bush, nobody would have bat an eyelid. Nobody was angry when numerous billionaires gave Romney, McCain, or Bush Jr lots of money at the last few elections either. The fact you can't tell the difference between donating to Trump and donating to those guys or Clinton suggests you've been living under a rock this election campaign - or else actually think there's nothing wrong with sexual assault, opposing democratic elections (and supporting violence in politics), silencing critics, and attacking minorities.

Re:So says every SJW attacking Peter Thiel

[CajunArson]

"Thiel gave $1.25M to a candidate who'd just had it revealed he has serious problems with women (to put a politically correct spin on it),"

Sure sounds like Hillary/Bill to me.

" who is/was telling people he wouldn't accept the results of the election if he loses,"

Maybe you have a point there. After all, it sounds like Trump is agreeing with Al Gore and that's not a good look.

" and who previously has supported violence against his opponents,"

Yeah, Hillary supports violence right now and violated campaign finance laws to coordinate the violence. Ever seen Project Veritas?

" who is threatening legal sanctions against his opponents and the press,"

Sounds like Clinton to me too.

" and who has engaged in racial scapegoating and in dehumanizing minorities."

Basket of Deplorables. Not to mention the racist lynch mob waiting for any "minority" who gets uppity and doesn't lick Massa Hilary's boots like a good little house slave.

Re:So says every SJW attacking Peter Thiel

[Anonymous Coward]

Thiel gave $1.25M to a candidate who'd just had it revealed he has serious problems with women

Washington is revving up the gunboats for a fucking Nuclear War with Russia and you people are wasting time over this bullshit!?

Why has everyone gone fucking insane?! When did this happen? Did everyone drop LSD over the last two years? I'm tired of feeling like the last fucking adult in room in nearly every internet forum I go to. It's like I want to wake up from some crazy dystopian dream by I just can't do it!

Re:So says every SJW attacking Peter Thiel

[Anonymous Coward]

"Nobody"? Billionaires can support whoever they want without anyone "bat[ting ]an eyelid"? 2 word for you: Koch Brothers.
Come on... be honest. :)
(And yes - Trump is a terrible candidate, but so is Hillary)

Re:So says every SJW attacking Peter Thiel

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you! Neither person is perfect, but its nice to see some facts and honest conversation.

Re:So says every SJW attacking Peter Thiel

[wisnoskij]

I cannot tell if you are lying, or are so deluded and uninformed you actually believe the things you say.

Re:So says every SJW attacking Peter Thiel

[Anonymous Coward]

1. The fact you have to say "Bill/Hillary" and can't just attack a candidate based on what she has actually done is pretty hilarious. And, incidentally, being a defense attorney is not a scandal. Not that Bill has actually been shown to have done anything other than consensually get his dick sucked in the White House, but I'm not going to pretend that he's likely to be clean.

2. Hey, look, it's a Trump supporter engaging in false equivalency and rewriting history. What a shocker. Al Gore sought legal remedy in an election where the difference between winning and losing was maybe hundreds of votes. And when a decision was finally made, even though his supporters were still upset he said, "Okay, everybody stop. Let's move on." What he did not do was go into an election where he was polling 7+ points behind his opponent screaming and whining like a gigantic, orange baby about how the election is already rigged against him. The implication of, "I won't necessarily accept the results of the election," when you're already saying, "The election is rigged!" while clearly handily losing in pretty much every poll is huge. If you think that's the same thing as someone wanting a recount when the difference between winning and losing is tiny, you're delusional.

3. Ever read about how James O'Keefe is an insufferable liar that got a perfectly reasonable program shutdown by selectively editing videos and incensing people? Ever read about how he has been caught MULTIPLE TIMES engaging in misleading filming and editing, usually by him actually releasing the raw videos he took and proving himself that he was lying his ass off? You'll forgive me if I don't buy something he put out weeks before the election, when there's conveniently no time to do any vetting of anything on the video.

4. You are literally making this up.

5. See 4.

Re:So says every SJW attacking Peter Thiel

[Anonymous Coward]

You know why Trump's claims that the elections are being rigged resonates with so many voters? Because things he say constantly get twisted to mean things he's obviously not saying. Such as:

a candidate boasting they can sexually assault women and get away with it is to give him money.

Which candidate is that? It certainly isn't Trump. He was boasting he was amazed at what women would offer to do with him due to his star power, but that's not sexual assault. That's women being turned on by power, something I'm guessing you've never experienced.

Trump never said he'd refuse to accept democratic elections. He said that he's not going to decide whether to accept the results as fair until after they've happened which is the sane approach. The elections aren't over yet. Given the email leaks and the clear voter fraud that occurred during the Democratic primary, why would Trump agree to elections that haven't happened yet?! The man's no fool. He's a powerful and proven business leader.

The amount of crazy bullshit being slung in Trump's direction will is causing undecideds to swing his way. Hillary's relentless and somewhat bizarre fixation with going to war with Russia is probably helping.

Your problem with Trump is that he isn't afraid to speak the truth and isn't afraid to ignore the "politically correct" method of phrasing things. It's something refreshing, and it's what's going to get him in the White House in November 8th. Assuming, of course, the elections are fair, which is something no one can claim at present.

Re:So says every SJW attacking Peter Thiel

[pnutjam]

Citations please...
And please provide one that show how you are so terribly discriminated against and can truly understand the plight of the "house slave".

Re:So says every SJW attacking Peter Thiel

[Anonymous Coward]

... that she's since apologized for...

I guess it's all okay then. I suppose we should also forget that her husband is a sexual predator with numerous accusations occurring before any kind of leak that opened the floodgates -- he has had them since he was in college while he was in college!

Let's forget that Trump was recorded unbeknownst to him and he admitted that this was locker room talk that he was not proud of and apologized for it. It was clearly just that. Stupid-as-hell man-talk.

Think about it: the news networks were able to illegally dig up a tax return from 1995, but they couldn't find one woman willing to push sexual harassment on a man as arrogant as Trump, until such an odd, gross statement was made public? Please. He is reportedly a billionaire (who knows) and an incredibly easy target for lawsuits, if anything recently reported was remotely true, then these women would have had multi-million dollar paydays.

It's true that not all victims come out, but it's also true that 1 in 4 victims do come out. He had zero before October.

Nobody was angry when numerous billionaires gave Romney...

That's an outright lie or at least a gross misstatement. It was an extremely common campaign attack against Romney that he was so rich and out of touch on his own, at that his rich donors (e.g., the Koch Brothers) were also out of touch or evil, even though Obama is himself a mega-millionaire who was also receiving donations from the likes of equivalent political billionaires (e.g., George Soros).

You may disagree about the politics of it, but there is no difference between the candidates on how they're making their campaign money: donations. Not to mention that, this election, Hillary has literally outspent Trump by 2:1 margins and gotten significantly more money from questionable individuals.

Re: So says every SJW attacking Peter Thiel

[Anonymous Coward]

No, those people (the SJWs) think it's wrong to have an opinion that differs from theirs. That's different than disagreeing. They literally think you shouldn't have the right to a different opinion and that if you have one you should be punished in any way possible.

Re:So says every SJW attacking Peter Thiel

[Anonymous Coward]

Clinton and DNC hired 3 parties to start trouble at trump rallys ..this is fact

they just fired the people/companys who they hired to act like racists or birddog supporters till they lashed out

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/18/undercover-video-shows-democrats-saying-they-hire-/

oh but trump said mean things ..that makes others corruption okies

Re: So says every SJW attacking Peter Thiel

[Anonymous Coward]

Sexual assault? Are you out of your mind? Trump said that women will allow rich guys to do certain things--in a private conversation that some slimeball stole and gave to a media outlet that deliberately sat on it to time for maximum damage instead of reporting on it when they got it.
  He said nothing about assaulting anyone. Somebody allowing something is now equal to being assaulted? Really?

Perhaps you refer to the manufactured accusers, most of which have had no critical investigation of their allegations done--and the few that have been fact checked have turned out to be made up devoid of fact nonsense. More political orchestrations, but of course that notion fails to fit your narrative.

Re:So says every SJW attacking Peter Thiel

[dcollins117]

... a candidate who'd just had it revealed he has serious problems with women (to put a politically correct spin on it), who is/was telling people he wouldn't accept the results of the election if he loses...

We have a little over 318 million people in this country. If one of them is upset over the election results I'm not going to get too upset over it. I fully expect Mr. Trump to make a spectacle after he loses the election, but it's going to be funny, Comedy gold, not something to be concerned about.

Re:So says every SJW attacking Peter Thiel

[ProfBooty]

Clinton did pay for play.

Trump gets it on with a lot of women.

So do we pick the playboy, or the woman who puts the interests of foreign governments before America?

Re: So says every SJW attacking Peter Thiel

[orgelspieler]

Yes, really. As a survivor of sexual abuse, I can tell you that you don't always have the presence of mind to complain right away. You may fear retribution or violence. You may be in a no-win situation with somebody with more power/authority than you. Besides, it can be quite shocking when somebody does something horrifying out of the blue. If Trump brags about grabbing people's genitals, and that they let him do it, does not mean that they wanted him to do it or allowed it. I'm not a "only yes means yes" type of guy, but I know that "not yes" sometimes means "no." To pretend otherwise is to tacitly approve of blaming the victim (which by the way is a tradition that dates back to the Old Testament).

Re:So says every SJW attacking Peter Thiel

[quax]

"Trump gets it on with a lot of women."

Too bad that he doesn't ask for consent before he grabs them by the pussy. (Not my words but his).

You, like so many Trumpkins, don't seem to understand the concept of sexual assault.

Re:So says every SJW attacking Peter Thiel

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the concept is something like: "If the guy is funny, attractive and powerful it's the women's fault and she was lucky to be targeted anyway", and "If the guy is sleazy he is misogynist scum".

Re:So says every SJW attacking Peter Thiel

[quax]

Sadly, you may be on to something.

Re: So says every SJW attacking Peter Thiel

[Anonymous Coward]

> and that they let him do it,

A man walks into a bank, hands over a bag and tells the teller to fill it. He takes it and leaves. When arrested he claims he did nothing wrong because they 'let' him do that.

Yes, he did have a gun.

In many cases Trump was the boss and would have fired the women who complained, or ejected them from the pageant. The lack of complaint does not imply consent, only that Trump is bully.

Re: So says every SJW attacking Peter Thiel

[Anonymous Coward]

Your use of "SJW" says, "I have no basis for this other than my emotions and prejudice," and the rest of your post confirms it.

Re:So says every SJW attacking Peter Thiel

[PatientZero]

Are you willfully ignoring the context surrounding the Koch Brothers? Most people don't fault them for donating to candidates that support their position. That in and of itself is how politics works. It sucks that they can do so at such an extreme level compared to everyone else when it's supposed to be one vote for every person, but that's beside the point.

The problem is that the Kochs profit massively off of fossil fuels and have been funding any candidates that will deny climate change and thwart any meaningful discussion, investigation or mitigation of it. They are willing to compromise our species' long-term survival on this planet for their own short-term gain.

Re:So says every SJW attacking Peter Thiel

[Anonymous Coward]

Hilary made for damn sure that her husband got away with using his position to coerce women into sex.

Re:So says every SJW attacking Peter Thiel

[pastafazou]

Huma, stop posting as an AC.
1. Bill's history of abusing his position of power in order to exploit women is very well known and documented. There are plenty of interviews and books written about it by many of the women he's used and abused. And Hillary has a documented history of attacking these same women, in order to silence them or destroy their credibility. Finally, we have actual rape accusations against Bill that have been swept under the rug by a Democrat loving media. Why didn't NBC ever release the full interview they did of Juanita Broaddrick?
2. Did he say he was not going to accept the results at all? Or did he say he'll keep you in suspense?
3. The only people claiming O'Keefe is a liar and that he's engaging in misleading filming and editing are those that have been made to look bad by his revelations. The fact that the people in his videos "he put out weeks before the election" have RESIGNED tells you there doesn't need to be any vetting, they know they've been caught. And the fact that YOU don't want to believe any of it, and want to dismiss all of his revelations as fraudulent tells me you're a huge partisan Democrat hack.
4. http://www.thegatewaypundit.co...
5. http://downtrend.com/71superb/...

Re:So says every SJW attacking Peter Thiel

[david_thornley]

O'Keefe has been found to lie with his videos. After his claim that Planned Parenthood sold fetal parts, some states that sure look hostile to PP conducted investigations and found nothing. His video on Project Acorn was fake, and unfortunately succeeded in destroying the organization. There's no reason on Earth to trust him.

There's plenty of reasons why people would resign, and that includes being unfairly attacked and deciding it's better to resign than to defend themselves, for whatever reasons.

You can swipe arguments form anywhere. Facts are different, and O'Keefe doesn't deal in facts.

Re: So says every SJW attacking Peter Thiel

[orgelspieler]

Did you even read my comment? That was exactly my point. Trump brags that they let him do it, when in fact they were just too stunned or afraid to push him away. Can't believe I got modded troll. WTF /.?!

There is a difference

[Anonymous Coward]

Big difference between blocking real, actual information that conservatives should know and the the BS excho chamber non-sense about Hillary having a body double and worse that gets passed around on Facebook as fact. Facebook isn't taking any of this bogus information down, but it doesnt need to be in all of our trending feeds. Some of our live in the actual world.

Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikileaks, a site that is being used for Assange's personal vendetta against Hillary Clinton, leaked information that Facebook may be biased for the Clintons.

Shocking! wake us up when Julian Assange decides to release leaks about Donald Trump despite how uninteresting he believes them to be.

Re:Irony

[Sperbels]

In other news, Fox seems to favor Trump. Scandalous!

Re:Irony

[spacepimp]

Wikileaks only "leak" what is supplied to them. They are not making stuff up about HRC, and i'm fairly certain if they had equal dirt on Trump. they'd put it out there on a shingle for the world to see. So tell me are you in possession of evidence that Julian Assange has leak information on Trump, that is not being released? Do you feel that Assange has always had a cozy relationship with the GOP too?

Re:Irony

[stdarg]

Is that true? Some personalities on Fox support Trump but I've seen plenty of people attacking him as well, particularly during the primaries.

Re:Irony

[Sperbels]

I have no idea. I assumed so since Fox leans right. I'm simply pointing out that a company officially or unofficially favoring a political candidate isn't especially new or noteworthy.

In Soviet Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia, *Trump* shills promote *Putin*!

Do you think if you throw a few allegations around, you can make people forget everything Trump has said, done and tweeted, in this election in front of all those cameras? What was all that? Bad lighting? Bad editing? What exactly do we blame for all of that? Maybe Donald J Trump had a tiny wheeny part in that train wreck?

Re:In Soviet Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not a Trump supporter. However, many would say they'd rather have a politician who embarrasses himself publicly than one that engages in limitless corruption privately. At least the former is in the public eye, and the public has an honest accounting of who he is.

Re:In Soviet Russia

[ganjadude]

none of the things he has *said* are worse than the things she has *done* is the issue

Re:In Soviet Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

"many would say they'd rather have a politician who embarrasses himself publicly than one that engages in limitless corruption privately."
So all you need to do is get him to stop being corrupt and you've got your perfect candidate!

"the public has an honest accounting of who he is"
Where did his tax returns go to?
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/11/politics/donald-trump-tax-returns

"In interview I told @AP that my taxes are under routine audit and I would release my tax returns when audit is complete, not after election!"
We're two weeks away and he still hasn't released his tax returns despite promising to release them before the election (or not after election as he put it).

Re:In Soviet Russia

[TangoMargarine]

Who the fuck cares about his tax returns? As if Trump doesn't have enough other problems?!

Re:In Soviet Russia

[Rei]

Right. So let's take a look at how this "excerpt the gotcha" plays into that.

Slashdot writes about Zuckerberg:

a later exchange between Sandberg and Podesta showed that Mark Zuckerberg was looking to get in on the action a bit, and perhaps curry favor with Podesta and the Clinton camp in shaping public policy.

Except that the email from Shelly about Zuckerberg very clearly begins:

Mark is meeting with people to learn more about next steps for his philanthropy and social action and it’s hard to imagine someone better placed or more experienced than you to help him. He’s begun to think about whether/how he might want to shape advocacy efforts to support his philanthropic priorities and is particularly interested in meeting people who could help him understand how to move the needle on the specific public policy issues he cares most about

Likewise on the other email from Cheryl. They mention the "She came over and was magical with my kids" re. Clinton. They don't bother mentioning the reason for Hillary's visit, which can be seen in what she's replying to:

To: Sheryl Sandberg
Subject: At a loss for words

Can't imagine your pain, but know that you are surrounded by people who love you. Mary and I are praying for you, the kids and, in our Catholic way also for Dave.

... and the part before the excerpt:

Thank you – means a lot to me that you reached out.

And I like that you are praying for Dave. I have to believe in heaven now.

This wasn't some buddy-buddy campaign visit, this was a "person I know's husband just died" visit. Likewise, the implication that they're supposed to give here is that they know her because of Facebook. No bothering to mention that the reason that they actually know her is because she was Larry Summers' Chief of Staff during the Clinton administration.

Almost anything can be made to look sinister when you take it completely out of context. Which is the whole purpose of these emails.

Furthermore, do you honestly think you couldn't do the exact same thing by picking through the Trump campaign's internal messaging? Do you have any clue how many people of note a major campaign interacts with, how many people work for them, etc? We know given Trumps record on server security that hacking him would have been a breeze, but miraculously nobody bothered. Why do you think that is?

Lastly: take everything you read with a grain of salt. I know everyone's reaction to statements that emails could have been altered (and scattered amongst real ones) is going to be "You just don't want to discuss them!" No, the reason you should take things with a grain of salt is that the other anti-Clinton hacks this year have done exactly that. Leaks posted by the hackers in different places involved cases where they had involved changing the same file to say different things (such as a donation list where they added a donation from Soros to a Russian democracy activist, but had different values for the donation in different versions of their release), cases where files were dated to after the hack occurred, and cases where file metadata showed the changes they'd been making. Salting real data with fake is something that they've been doing this year, so it'd be naive to think that they're just going to stop doing it now. Come on, even the most die-hard Clinton hater is going to be hard pressed to actually believe that the Clinton Foundation has a directory sitting around literally called "Pay for Play".

Yes, the majority will be real. But don't be naive when viewing them and assume that you can just take everything at face value.

Re: In Soviet Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. CTR is literally everywhere online.

Re: In Soviet Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

Alas, nobody cares or is willing to acknowledge this.

Re:In Soviet Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

notably, the people who've been called out on the contents of the emails, immediately push the "Stolen by Russia" narrative, and never address the actual contents of the emails. ...Which can be verified by DKIM sig

https://www.reddit.com/r/DNCleaks/comments/58il3v/dkim_rules_out_the_it_may_be_altered_defense/

Re:In Soviet Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

But locker-room talk about women is literally rape! This is the real rape culture: talking about how women will consent to anything from wealthy men.

Re:In Soviet Russia

[Rei]

1. Very few of the emails are DKIM signed. Check for yourself.
2. Even where DKIM is signed, it relies on the following assumtions.
A: The attacker has not compromised the Google private key
B: The attacker has not compromised DKIM or any of the technologies it relies on
C: The attacker had not compromised the sending account at the time of sending.

The requirement of assumption C is applicable regardless of who the attacker is. Assumptions A and B fail when considering a highly motivated state actor. It should go without saying that everyone here knows that major powers actively work on things like A & B, and C is their bread and butter.

Do I think that a power like, say, Russia, has compromised DKIM itself, or any of the technologies it relies on? Probably not, but I certainly wouldn't put it past them. Do I think that said entity has compromised the Google private key? Probably not, but again, I certainly wouldn't put it past them. I absolutely would not put C past them - but it depends on the importance attached to the topic at hand.

To reiterate: the majority of the leak will be real. But there is an active, demonstrable history this cycle, of the attackers salting the leaks with fakes, using the real content to try to legitimize the fakes, so try not to be naive about all this.

Re:In Soviet Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

Almost anything can be made to look sinister when you take it completely out of context. Which is the whole purpose of these emails.

"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."
-- Cardinal Richelieu

And that, right there, is the story of the Clintons. Hundreds of millions of dollars, much of it tax dollars, spent on finding something, anything, to hang them with. There were nine, NINE benghazi investigations and when it was all over, the most rabid attack dog, Trey Gowdy couldn't name one thing to pin on Clinton, instead all he could do was deflect the question with "read the [800 page] report yourself."

She's not a saint, but she's no devil either. She's just a run-of-the-mill, ambitious and competent bureaucrat with liberal leanings. She'll probably be more effective than Obama (he believed in bipartisanship to achieve consensus, she believes in the cold and bloodless wielding of political power to force the other side to grudgingly accept compromise, the last 8 years have proved Obama wrong). And as presidents go, I'll take that kind of president over the Cheney presidency and the Reagan presidency any day.

Re:In Soviet Russia

[TheReaperD]

I'm curious to see if he's broke and living off bank loans like I beleive.

Re:In Soviet Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

It's quite easy to believe they'd have a directory labeled "pay to play". Our so-called leaders have never been shy about taunting a little something called hubris.

Re:In Soviet Russia

[ganjadude]

and none of that matters or as hillary would say "WELL, WHAT DIFFERENCE does it make!!!"

Re:In Soviet Russia

[ganjadude]

maybe because they wont cooperate?? i mean maybe teh fact that thousands of emails disappeared may have played into it??? ffs man

Re:In Soviet Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's rephrase this: Who would you rather play a tactical game against: Daffy Duck or Machiavelli?
You KNOW Daffy's an idiot, and you can think your way around him, Machiavelli would smile and compliment you while destroying you.

Re:In Soviet Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

If Hilary is an example of "just a run-of-the-mill, ambitious and competent bureaucrat with liberal leanings", then I can think of no better argument to start a revolution against the run-of-the-mill status quo.

Or, "He was just a run-of-the-mill Austrian painter who didn't like Jewish people."

Re: In Soviet Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

Replace "philanthropy" with "donating millions to the Clinton Foundation to political influence."

Re:In Soviet Russia

[david_thornley]

Trump likes to present himself as an able businessman. It would be nice to know exactly how false that is.

Company leaders CAN favor whoever they like ...

[King_TJ]

Of course, it's often a bad business decision to make one's political views public. Just ask the CEO of Chick Fil-A, for example.

But sure, it wouldn't normally be a problem..... except with Facebook and other forms of social media, their purpose is supposed to be to give a voice to EVERYONE who wants to use it and contribute content. If that can't be done impartially, it means the site can't be used properly for its stated purpose. (If you have to worry that your content might get censored/deleted or somehow marginalized so it shows up far less often in feeds than those expressing other viewpoints -- you need to find a different web site to use.)

Fox News can report the news any way they see fit .They hired their staff to do things the way they wished, and they own the network. That's not the same thing.

Re:Company leaders CAN favor whoever they like ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, it's often a bad business decision to make one's political views public. Just ask the CEO of Chick Fil-A, for example.

Agreed. There's one of those moving into town now. If he would have kept his mouth shut, it wouldn't be on my list of businesses I don't go to. (Note: if money is speech, well, there we are wrt Brendan Eich. Keep your damned mouth shut if you hate faggots but still want my gay homo money. Still not sure what to make of Peter Thiel.)

Re:Company leaders CAN favor whoever they like ...

[pauljlucas]

... except with Facebook and other forms of social media, their purpose is supposed to be to give a voice to EVERYONE who wants to use it and contribute content.

There's no evidence that Facebook is censoring anything. The only grief they received was over the Trending Topics thing (which nobody really cares about anyway) --- and this case isn't related to that.

To use her own words

[argStyopa]

"Why at this point does it even matter?"

Seriously, the media organizations in this country have decided that HRC would be our next president. It doesn't actually matter what she did or didn't do, the legality, the money, etc.

To be clear: the voting is a pointless detail.

Re:To use her own words

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's more accurate to say that they decided Trump wouldn't be president. Clinton's just a side effect of our broken two party system.

Re:To use her own words

[david_thornley]

Voting is important. The media can only influence things. The final decision is with the voters.

If you don't like the candidates you get, get involved. I supported Sanders in the nomination campaign, and he did indeed get a lot of delegates. If he could get that many, he could have done better and gotten the nomination. The process was slanted against him, with good reason, but he could have won.

Who cares?

[Theovon]

So Hillary has made friends in businesses. So has Trump. The fact is, few politicians are completely clean. If you get into politics, you’re almost forced to play dirty because you know your competition isn’t going to pull any punches either.

Karma

[fulldecent]

Anybody that still has karma, I recommend that you do NOT make comments in this thread.

Here be dragons!

What bothers me more

[93 Escort Wagon]

It bugs me that this is even an issue. Why are so many people apparently willing to get their news from Facebook?

Develop some critical thinking skills, people.

Re:What bothers me more

[ooloorie]

It bugs me that this is even an issue. Why are so many people apparently willing to get their news from Facebook?

Because people are social creatures, and they trust their friends more than they trust some random journalist. And that would actually be a good thing if Facebook didn't censor and manipulate how people communicate.

Re:What bothers me more

[Anonymous Coward]

Develop some critical thinking skills, people.

Facebook is a gloried RSS feed that is given articles from your favorite news sites. Why visit multiple webpages when they all come and push stories into your feed? It's less efficient to get your news from anywhere else, though you'll never realize you're living in an echo chamber.

Re:What bothers me more

[swb]

How many people take "getting their news" seriously period?

I still get the printed local newspaper and the NY Times on the weekend. I get up early and usually see the delivery person drop off papers on our street. 10 years ago they stopped at most houses on my block, now it seems like they deliver to only a handful of houses.

Obviously this process started years ago with TV news as the alternate source, but with "news" available so easily online many people don't get the paper at all, and of them I would bet few are serious readers going through the whole web site to get the equivalent of paging through an entire newspaper and discovering stories and reading them (one reason I get the paper is I often find stories I missed online).

But nowadays, so many people are plugged into Facebook that they don't even have a pretense of reading the news, they just kind of click through links on major stories.

IMHO, I doubt these same people are factually less ignorant than they would have been 20 years ago (they may not have been newspaper readers then, either). What's really bad about is the echo chamber effect. Your "friends" on Facebook all have a similar world view, so you just end up getting hammered with the same reinforcing information.

What I think is curious in this election cycle are the number of "anti-Trump" posts by people I'm pretty sure don't have a single Trump supporter in their friend list. Why are they (repetitively) posting information on how horrible Trump is to an audience that already agrees nearly completely with them? I'm starting to think this isn't about being in favor of or against Trump per se, but some other kind of social reinforcement behavior designed to demonstrate to their friends how much they share a common world view.

It almost takes on a quality like a religious piety, like a testifying their religious faith in front of other believers. They're not trying to convince their friends to change their views, they're trying to convince their friends how *strong* their religious beliefs are.

Re:What bothers me more

[AHuxley]

Selecting and sorting of news by staff while still branding as a free and open commons kind of alters that freedom to think and link.
Or have account freedom after speech.

Re:What bothers me more

[david_thornley]

Facebook has had impartiality problems with its "Trending" section. If you have evidence that people who favor Trump and do not otherwise offend have been silenced, please post.

Re:What bothers me more

[ooloorie]

Facebook has had impartiality problems with its "Trending" section. If you have evidence that people who favor Trump and do not otherwise offend have been silenced, please post.

I didn't say Facebook "silenced" people, I said it "censored and manipualted". You just agreed with that.

Re:What bothers me more

[david_thornley]

Censoring people is preventing them from saying anything, which isn't as far as I can tell happening on Facebook. There is a section on trending stories, which has been accused of being pro-Clinton, and may well be so, but that isn't censorship. That's opinion, like you'll find pretty much everywhere in media. If you want to call that manipulation, then every media player I know of manipulates, and the word loses meaning.

Re:What bothers me more

[ooloorie]

Censoring people is preventing them from saying anything

What do you think censors do other than suppressing the publication of news stories and book? How would traditional censors ever have "prevented people from saying anything"? Cut out their tongues? Censorship is about manipulating mass communication, not interpersonal communications. In societies with censorship, people can still "say anything" to each other, and they do. It's how people behind the iron curtain retained their sanity and knew what was going on.

There is a section on trending stories, which has been accused of being pro-Clinton, and may well be so, but that isn't censorship.

That is exactly what censorship is: manipulation of mass communication.

That's opinion, like you'll find pretty much everywhere in media. If you want to call that manipulation, then every media player I know of manipulates, and the word loses meaning.

You're mixing up levels of description there. Even if every single newspaper censors information based on their biases, the press as a whole doesn't censor as long as the newspapers hold politically diverse biases.

The reason Facebook censorship matters is because it dominates the social networking market; furthermore, Twitter, Google+, and other US media companies share the same biases, so they tend to all suppress the same information. That is what makes the US media as a whole increasingly censorious. Media in other countries have a much better balance between support for different political parties than US media.

Re:What bothers me more

[david_thornley]

Censorship, as far as I've always known, is preventing someone from saying something. Manipulation of the news by one party isn't censorship. The US media has serious problems (which can be blamed on the US public), but censorship isn't among them.

Re:What bothers me more

[ooloorie]

Censorship, as far as I've always known, is preventing someone from saying something.

Well, and now you know better. I explained to you why: you can look at countries where censorship was widely practiced, and "censorship" refers to the practice that mass media did not include statements or information that ran counter to the interests of the political class. Likewise of sexual content in the US wasn't about preventing people from taking dirty pictures, it was simply about keeping those dirty pictures off television and out of newspapers. Your definition of censorship as "preventing someone from saying something" simply makes no sense and has no connection with actual, historical censorship practices.

And given the massive political imbalance of US journalists and tech workers, that kind of biased selection of public messages is exactly what is happening in the US.

Re:What bothers me more

[david_thornley]

No, I don't know better. You present me with examples of people unable to say certain things to certain audiences and call that censorship. I entirely agree that those are censorship, because the government stopped people from saying things. Perhaps I should be more clear: censorship is preventing people from saying certain things to certain audiences. In some cases, the audience is a whole country, or many countries. In some cases, the audience is just a few people (in WWII, letters home were censored, in that the soldiers couldn't write anything in them that was likely to help the enemy if found out). So, if you'd find people who were kicked off Facebook or Twitter on the basis of political beliefs, I'll believe they're censoring. Slanting the news is not censorship, unless you do it by silencing some people. Providing biased news isn't censorship.

Is that it?

[OneHundredAndTen]

Goppers have being accusing Hillary Clinton of all sorts of terrible misdeeds for years, and this is the best they have been able to dig up? If she is, in fact, such a horrible person, the goppers have so far done an incredibly sloppy, incompetent job at bringing that to the light.

Re:Is that it?

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as the headline seems menacing, that's good enough.

Re:Is that it?

[Anonymous Coward]

20+ years and half a billions dollars of investigations and nothing. That makes her the most brilliant criminal mastermind ever.

Apparently it impacted news trends, not posts

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

Yeah, it's unreal how many posts in my feed I get pushing a pro-Trump agenda, even from people who I know that I never in any way respond to anything they post. In fact, the crazier the post, it seems like it makes more likely to get a big push from Facebook. I remain appalled by a post a former classmate shared from another person who equated voting for Hillary Clinton to be identical to being a Jew "willingly" matching to the Nazi gas chambers in WWII. No joke. I have a policy that I don't post political stuff in my account and I almost never respond to what others post, but that is just so appealingly wrong that it amazes me that people actually don't think at all about what they pass on that others say. I see stuff constantly from right wing friends who post insisting that the US is teetering on the edge of disaster and that if Hillary Clinton becomes president it is GAME OVER for the USA. Apparently Facebook has some trending news stories section that I never use but enough people do use and that's where the shaping of articles was going on.

Re:Apparently it impacted news trends, not posts

[ganjadude]

so they are playing games. I get nothing but pro clinton and bernie stuff on my wall when i cant stand either of them

Re:Apparently it impacted news trends, not posts

[Anonymous Coward]

Or more likely you're both suffering from negativity bias.

Let's not forget false dilemma

[Anonymous Coward]

I like how you replied to a guy who gave two options but glad you did.

We already know this

[rickb928]

Virtually all mainstream media is in collusion with the hegemony that is the Democratic Party, the Republican party leadership, the federal bureaucracy, popular media, banking, and the capital markets worldwide. Only those not paying attention or those relying only on the most popular and most loyal media for their information. You wonder why I include the Republican Party leadership? Do not. They are only interested in preserving their positions of power. They collude with their traditional opposition to do so, and have for more 30 years or more.

This is indisputable.

The actions of Facebook and others, especially Twitter (which is the worst), in deleting or censoring right-wing and conservative thought are undeniable. This occurs regularly without explanation or acknowledgement, and has been happening since before this election cycle. Even the last cycle. The state of affairs is such that they, the hegemony, are becoming brazen and overt. This is unfortunate for them, for there are fewer secrets than ever.

I appreciate the advice to avoid commenting for fear that I will burn karma, but the truth is always an offense to the guilty and the ignorant. I plead with the ignorant to look carefully and make up their minds.

The guilty are beyond redemption at this point.

Re:We already know this

[david_thornley]

The actions of Facebook and others, especially Twitter (which is the worst), in deleting or censoring right-wing and conservative thought are undeniable.

I deny them. There's plenty of partisan crap floating around FB (I barely follow Twitter). If they're deleting or censoring right-wing and conservative thought, they're doing a bad job of it.

Facebook no!

[AndyKron]

Facebook is a worthless piece of shit, and so are its employees

it's about money and power

[ooloorie]

Sandberg is angling for a cabinet position: after having graduated from growing up in a wealthy and privileged family to becoming a billionaire, her ambitions are higher, and what else is there other than political power? And even if she doesn't get the cabinet position, sucking up to the Democrats is good business for Silicon Valley companies.

Of course, there is an enormous amount of hypocrisy and self-delusion in Sandberg's positions. She has led such a privileged life that 99.9% of the men whose backs she walks on can only dream of.

Re:it's about money and power

[Anonymous Coward]

Insert "Trump" for "Sandberg" and it sounds the same

Re:it's about money and power

[Anonymous Coward]

Check your privilege, white male. It is now time to Correct The Record!
This strong, independent womxn has overcome the misogyny, racism, homophobia, transphobia, and islamophobia of the patriarchy. So stunning and brave!

Re:it's about money and power

[Anonymous Coward]

When executive branch officials are forced to sell assets, they are allowed to defer paying the capital gains tax owed if they buy "permitted property" within 60 days of the sale. Permitted property includes Treasury securities and/or a diversified investment fund, such as an stock index mutual fund or something similar if approved by the Office of Government Ethics. A conservative guess is she will save a few hundred million in taxes on the divestment of 1.4B in facebook stock. See Henry Paulson example here: http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/2...

Correction - which "The New American":

[jhecht]

Wrong group. The New American is indeed a magazine published by the John Birch Society, as clearly stated on their web site . However, the original poster made an error. Lina Khan is a fellow in a program run by The New America Foundation , which was founded in 1999. According to Soucewatch, the New America Foundation received over $6 million through 2013 from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and lesser amounts from other foundations. https://tech.slashdot.org/stor...

WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

[FWIW, this story happens to get it right, but it links to a previous Slashdot summary which totally describes the situation in a fucking weird way.]

Since when is having an agenda to prevent Trump from becoming president, going to have much to do with suppressing conservative news? Conservative news is just as must a disaster for Trump as liberal news is. If you have basically any politics at all, left or right, you're probably going to vote against Trump.

Finally, they're getting it right: it's the support for Clinton that might be worrisome. Not necessarily wrong (some people probably have politics where Clinton is the right choice), but maybe inappropriately biased.

But there's the rub: it's only inappropriate if you had viewed Facebook as a general-purpose, general-population site for everyone. If you already think of it as a niche site (even politics aside, its functionality is pretty damn weird and inconvenient for most people) then it's no problem. That'd be like complaining that Slashdot has too many tech news stories!

TA DA!

[Woodmeister]

SURPRISE!

OY VEY

[Anonymous Coward]

DELET THIS

Oh gee...

[njrabit]

How unfair that Facebook isn't equally close to the raving sociopath? GTFO!

The real WTF...

[bbsguru]

"questions begin to arise about Facebook's impartiality in the political race."

Why would anyone think that [Facebook | Google | Microsoft | Famous Amos Cookies] was supposed to be impartial?
Did I miss something extra in the first amendment about only speaking if you present all views equally?
Aside from the wishful fiction that they are somehow required to be, since when is anyone even claiming to be "fair and impartial"?
(OK, other than the claims of Fox News)
If you grant them any more credit for impartiality than what you allocate the wild-eyed crazy on the overpass with a bullhorn, you deserve what you get.

ALL information you get must be weighed against the source, and if you blindly accept as 'truth' everything from anyone, you are going to get burned.

In this case, of course, when enough of us get burned, we all (U.S. and 'the World') have to deal with the fallout.

Re:The real WTF...

[stdarg]

Why would anyone think that [Facebook | Google | Microsoft | Famous Amos Cookies] was supposed to be impartial?

Because don't these same companies rely on the public perception that they are merely conduits for other people's words, not publishers themselves? If someone posts child porn on Facebook, tell me which Facebook executives go to jail? Nobody, because as long as Facebook makes a reasonable attempt to get rid of it (and waiting for others to report it counts) they are fine.

So why WOULDN'T someone think that Facebook was impartial? How is it legal for them to make the effort to be impartial about some subjects, but plead ignorance/innocence/inability when it comes to other subjects?

Re:The real WTF...

[david_thornley]

Because don't these same companies rely on the public perception that they are merely conduits for other people's words, not publishers themselves?

Actually, I don't think the public is quite that stupid, and most stuff I see on Facebook is somebody else's words. Facebook may have impartiality problems with the "Trending" section, but they appear to let people make ridiculous arguments without being censored..

Sandberg - a JEW.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wants to become Treasury Secretary. How very apt...

And Zuckerberg is a JEW. Who'd a thunk it?

Every media outlet? Really?

[AF_Cheddar_Head]

So you are saying the following are shilling for Clinton:
- Fox News
- Breitbart
- EIB (Rush Limbaugh)
- Wall Street Journal
- New York Post
- Forbes

I could go on but you get the point.

Drain the swamp

[misophist]

People are commenting and comparing the GOP and DNC, taking at face value that they are truly separate and non colluding parties. In the past this may have been true but in the run up to the primaries it was very apparent that they are two sides of the same corrupt coin. They are both beholden to the same corporations and dependent on the same lobbying groups for money. Bernie who I initially supported was destroyed by the DNC machine because he wanted real change. Trump was bashed on by the GOP because he wasn't getting in line with the party interests. At this point you'd have to be a fool to vote for more of the same old same old with Clinton. She's gotten tacit and open support from the Bushes! Trump is the only choice to drain the damn swamp or at least attempt to do it.

Re:Drain the swamp

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump is the only choice to drain the damn swamp or at least attempt to do it.

The problem with this is that we live in a houseboat.

Change is needed, but it has to be change in a constructive direction otherwise we will be worse off than before. The change that Trump is promising is misguided and destructive. It will be harder to get the change people actually want during or after a Trump presidency. He will leave the disillusioned public reminiscing about the good times under Obama. Hillary certainly has her own raft of problems, and I think several of the other Republican candidates would have had a good change to beat her- but they're not the ones selected. That she has support from the Bushes shows not that there's some giant conspiracy, rather it shows just how bad Trump is.

Re:Drain the swamp

[david_thornley]

Bernie did very well for a self-styled Socialist who wasn't a Democrat in the first place. The Democratic process is set up to not favor people like him, in an effort to avoid another McGovern or Trump.

At this point

[nehumanuscrede]

I don't know why folks are still arguing about X is better than Y because of Z.

Short of some epic revelations that we don't already know about or suspect, folks are pretty much set in who they're going to vote for.
If they bother to vote at all. ( I certainly don't plan on it. My vote is meaningless when facing off with the Fox, CNN or Facebook hordes )

At this point, I liken the whole election process to a late stage terminal illness.

The end of it can't possibly get here fast enough.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Politicians pander to their biggest supporters?!?

[Vermonter]

Yeah, let's get a politician who doesn't pander to all the people who have the power (read: not you or me), and see how successfully they run for office. A politician who doesn't pander to the most powerful players is a politician who is going to lose to their competitor who does. And people who complain about politicians being in bed with big business are ignorant. Yeah, it sucks, but it's how politics works. It's how it has always worked, and it is how it's always going to work, until we are ruled by robots (and even then I'm not sure the game will change). You want Hillary or Trump to pander directly to you, but once they get elected, what good are you to them? Maybe $5000 in annual tax revenue if you're lucky. Maybe you're lucky enough to be a part of a voter block who collectively has enough power to get a bit of support in the form of a tax break or a subsidy, but odds are, you mean nothing to any politician.

Except

[AF_Cheddar_Head]

Most of what she has supposedly "Done" are outright fabrications.

How many "investigations" have to come up empty before you admit that there is no fire behind the smoke that Republicans call Benghazi?

Clinton Foundation is shown to have average overhead expenses.

Etc.

Re:Except

[ganjadude]

no most things have not been proven to be fakes. in fact the corruption just seems to get worse

notice how she never claims the wikileaks dumps are fakes, just deflects responding and blames russia (with no real proof), potentially inciting ww3????

Re: Except

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty sure the burden of proof of on the one alleging wrongdoing, something that they have failed at miserably.

Re: Except

[ganjadude]

have they failed or just paid off the people who have the final say? there is news today that even huffington post is saying is bad news about comey getting money from the clinton camp during the investigation. lets also not forget the guy set to testify on her shot in the back 2x in a robbery....where nothing was taken not long ago. (and the 40+others) 1 is a coincidence, all of them is a pattern

Re:Except

[TapeCutter]

If Clinton stopped to scrape off all the mud thrown at her she wouldn't have time to say or do anything else.

Re: Except

[david_thornley]

So you think Corney was lying when he truthfully said she wouldn't be prosecuted normally, and you think one death is a pattern?

Not just old, ancient news

[Anonymous Coward]

What is so entertaining about this is that news agencies have been doing this for decades, no, centuries. By writing opinion pieces that present a particular point of view, 'enhancing' parts, suppressing others, drawing connections that may or may not exist. Especially, invoking a real or imagined enemy that is coming for them... Implicitly this is well known -- some people like to read the Sun, Times, Plain Dealer and so forth in part because the official opinions resonate with their own point of view -- lets face it, everyone loves an echo chamber. To some extent it used to be harder to BS the public, but with the collapse of news gathering budgets these agencies cannibalize each other. Who really knows what the 'truth' is? Especially when it is not objective physics but cross-cultural, like the Hatfields and McCoys... Its not that we cannot handle the truth (assuming such a thing existed) but that there are no financial incentives to allow it -- its all spin and truthiness. So Facebook execs are playing with our 'news' feeds and fishing for political office as a reward. What else is new? I am sure that one could find shards inscribed with cuneiform that, allowing for cultural differences, complains about the same thing. Remember, knowing a trap exists is the first step in its evasion -- if we assume that everyone is doing this we are in a better position to make our own decisions, which may even be right.

On the other hand...

[Yunzil]

Donald Trump has long claimed that Clinton is too cozy with big businesses

Meanwhile, Donnie literally brags that he is big business.

They didn't keep it hidden, we caught them!

[Anonymous Coward]

You say that as if we haven't caught them doing anything!

Employees remove Trump posts as "hate speech"

The group "Assassinate Donald Trump" does not violate Facebook community standards:
This sort of thing, even as a joke, normally gets people a visit from the Secret Service...

Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News

Banned for talking about getting censored:

So no, they weren't able to keep the conspiracy hidden. You, however, seem to have managed to be ill-informed about it.

I haven't covered everything, either.

Establishment vs outsider

[melted]

You need to look broader than parties: it's the establishment vs everybody else game. GOP doesn't want Trump either, especially now that he vowed to upset their gravy train by imposing term limits and banning ex-congressmen and senators from lobbying for 5 years after they get kicked out (due to term limits) or leave. That's literally tens of billions of dollars that will not go directly into the pockets of interested parties.

So aside from Breitbart, everyone is just serving their corporate masters who are scared shitless of the fact they don't own Trump. Breitbart doesn't really have a corporate master, and it benefits from controversy, so it'll publish whatever the fuck it wants.

Re:Establishment vs outsider

[Darinbob]

Strong brand of Kool-Aid there. It's like you almost believe Trump when he goes into his most-persecuted-person-on-earth routine.

The new Wall Street

[Anonymous Coward]

Silicon Valley is the new Wall Street. Polliticians are discovering that's where the money is, which is the only thing they care about, and without the baggage of Wall Street.

We are headed for an oligopoly of information, controlled by the oligarchs of Slicon Valley. Only the EU might be able to slow that down, but I doubt it.

Clinton too narrow a focus.

[Tablizer]

Both are plutocrats and we've almost always had plutocrats as candidates. It's not just a "Clinton thing". I find it hypocritical that so many conservatives suddenly "care" about the croniness in crony capitalism. (Remember Halliburton's no-bid contract, and Boehner's tobacco-cash envelopes?)

Hillary (and Trump) are merely a symptom. If you keep focusing on symptoms you'll never cure the disease, and possibly make it worse. Hillary just happened to get heavily X-rayed in public this time.

Trump blatantly and proudly admitted to bribing most of the candidates on the debate stage in one of the GOP debates. He ain't no angel in that regard. Being the briber instead of the bribee is not a big difference in my book. We live in a bribocracy.

And this is news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Facebook COO is close to HRC... is no different from Breitbart being close to Trump.

Hold it wait--Isn't he running Trump campaign?

As a conservative

[TylerJWhit]

I don't see what the big deal is. CEO's and higher ups of businesses have political opinions. How is this news?

To insinuate that, as a result of said opinions, Facebook and other corporations have this hidden agenda to brainwash United States citizens to vote for Hillary seems to be unverifiable and short-sighted.

Both Google and Facebook have come under allegations that they are purposefully slanting the news. But perhaps another argument can be made that statistically, articles and/or sites that are favorable toward Hillary and unfavorable toward Trump seem to have more click traffic. Regardless, I highly doubt that Zuckerberg's opinions are going to make a difference to mine.

Another Explosive Revelation!

[PatientZero]

The story says that Mark Zuckerberg was looking to "get in on the action a bit, and perhaps curry favor with Podesta and the Clinton camp in shaping public policy." Let's check the email they quoted.

Mark is meeting with people to learn more about next steps for his philanthropy and social action and it’s hard to imagine someone better placed or more experienced than you to help him

He’s begun to think about whether/how he might want to shape advocacy efforts to support his philanthropic priorities and is particularly interested in meeting people who could help him understand how to move the needle on the specific public policy issues he cares most about. He wants to meet folks who can inform his understanding about effective political operations to advance public policy goals on social oriented objectives (like immigration, education or basic scientific research).

Mark wants help learning how to make his philanthropic efforts more effective? What a monster! How long will we allow these billionaires to spend their fortunes trying to improve education and support scientific research? It sounds like he wants to become a more useful citizen by reaching out to people in his professional and social network—and we can't have any of that!

Trump created his opponents

[Tenebrousedge]

By definition, Trump can either have extreme opinions or he can represent the majority view, but he can't do both. Getting elected is the art of getting lots of people from the middle of the political spectrum to agree with you.

Getting nominated of course is a different matter. To get nominated you just have to get a plurality of a subset of voters, and ones predisposed to agree with you at that. News organizations were also predisposed to like Trump. He sells a lot of newspapers, and drives a lot of pageviews. However, he seems to have mistaken "getting attention" for "getting votes", and even if everything else were going his way, what drives the media out of his corner is his decision to attack them for anything resembling negative coverage. Threatening lawsuits is probably not a good move there. Saying that as President you would push for more expansive libel laws is flat-out stupid.

Trump is socially pretty extreme. That's why people know who he is. It's possible to be socially outré as a politician (Churchill comes to mind), but pretty difficult. His politics are also pretty extreme, and that puts him at a mathematical disadvantage with the electorate. However, if there is a media conspiracy against him, [1] they don't have much work to do, given the above, and [2] he should probably have gone for a strategy of appeasement rather than aggression. There is an appropriate phrase here: "Never argue with a man who buys ink by the barrel." Given that Trump continues to ramp-up his anti-media rhetoric, are you really surprised that the media is less inclined to support him?

Re:Trump created his opponents

[stdarg]

By definition, Trump can either have extreme opinions or he can represent the majority view, but he can't do both.

Only if you assume an "extreme" opinion is measured by the public view. If you're talking about extreme compared to what other politicians are saying, then it is possible to do both.

Re:Trump created his opponents

[Tenebrousedge]

Yes, but in the real world polls are statistically valid indicators of public opinion, and politicians' views are strongly correlated with poll results. They are not perfectly correlated, but that's one of the reasons we have a republic, not a direct democracy. If your fundamental argument is that our democracy has failed then I suppose you have some boxes you can use. I would caution you that challenging the rules of the game after it's clear you're losing is likely to result in universal censure.

Re:Trump created his opponents

[stdarg]

and politicians' views are strongly correlated with poll results

No, politicians' public views are correlated with poll results. Like Hillary said, it often "makes sense" for a politician to have different public and private views. If the polls say Hillary should take a tough stance on bankers, she says she will take a tough stance on bankers, but when she's talking to the bankers she says don't worry about it.

If your fundamental argument is that our democracy has failed

I'm not saying that, I'm just saying it's more complicated than you're presenting. There's not a simple measure of "extreme" when it comes to politics. You yourself claimed Trump has extreme social positions, but I just don't see it, and by your own argument how can you call Trump extreme if a sizable part of the population agrees with him? Most people would call deporting all illegal immigrants "extreme" -- but that's either because the media tells you it's extreme, or because it's extreme compared to what other politicians are saying. Fact is a lot of the public agrees with deportations. Maybe not an outright majority, but enough that you can't call it extreme.

Re:Trump created his opponents

[Anonymous Coward]

"a sizable part" is weasel words. The word used was "majority". Can you show that deporting illegals is the majority view? If not, then it can be considered extreme in the sense of the parent poster, that Trump has go slog uphill to sell that one to the masses. Trump has a lot of views which aren't what everyone else is selling; that helps him with his base and hurts with everyone else. I'm not sure what part of this is surprising.

However, the other two issues, at least if you can count Trump's talent for insulting people and his predilection to sue media outlets as separate things, remain, and would be problematic for a far less controversial candidate. If you're waffling about the definition of "extreme" then you seem to have missed the point. Any campaign might be able to ignore one of those issues. All three are a hopeless scenario.

But if you were wondering, yes, there's about 49% of this country and most of the world that considers Trump to be completely insane.

And the republicans aren't in bed with everyone el

[Anonymous Coward]

Halliburton war machine? Big Money?

The President Trump Show

[Tenebrousedge]

You're right. The press should be all for him, because he sells papers. Now if he would stop reacting to any hint of negative press like a stung bull, they might be able to see the financial angle. However, at the rate at which Trump's attacks on the media continue to escalate, are you really surprised he's not getting better press coverage?

Trump so far has not had to worry about what the media thinks of him, and vice versa. Now he has picked a fight with the men who buy ink by the barrel, and in point of fact, he has threatened all of them. I'm sure he would make wonderful headlines -- and he has promised to sue over every one of them. I can't imagine why he's not more popular.

Re:The President Trump Show

[lucm]

Can you name one Republican politician that has enjoyed positive press in the mainstream media since Eisenhower? Or one Democrat president that had an hostile press corps?

Here's an example. Which President spent more on the military in the last 20 years? Bush? Wrong. At the end of this term, Obama will have spent $800 billions more than Bush on the military. So why are the New York Times and others not getting their panties in a bunch over military spending lately, while they did during Bush administration?

Obama:
- spent more on the military
- increased the domestic intelligence programs (while the newspaper still blame Bush for the Patriot Act)
- has released 3x less prisonners from guantanamo than Bush
- helped large corporations triple their annual profit compared to the Bush era
- manages to spend more *every year* than the total amount spent by Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Johnson, Ford and Carter combined (in their entire terms), and that's accounting for inflation.

The obscenity that is the Obama administration can probably only be topped by Clinton. But mysteriously we never hear about those things, all we hear about is women that suddenly remember being groped by Trump 15 years ago.

You know what's really funny? That people remember that survey showing that 2/3 of people who watch Fox News think that WMDs were found in Iraq; but what nobody seems to realize is that 99% of the people who read the New York Times don't understand that Obama is bankrupting the country and that Clinton is a sociopath.

Re:The President Trump Show

[david_thornley]

but what nobody seems to realize is that 99% of the people who read the New York Times don't understand that Obama is bankrupting the country and that Clinton is a sociopath.

They're smarter than you are. Obama has cut the deficit more than any other President (partly because no other President was handed such a deficit disaster to begin with), and has done a good job with the economy. Typically, in my lifetime, Republican Presidents have raised the deficit and Democratic ones have reduced it. Clinton even got a balanced budget with some smoke and mirrors. Bush, with a Congressional makeup similar to Clinton's, sent the deficit way up.

Psychological diagnosis is normally done by competent people who have private knowledge of the person being diagnosed, and I doubt you qualify on either count. Clinton, to me, appears to be a politician. I don't know whether you consider that being a sociopath, but she's not out of the ordinary.

Re:The President Trump Show

[lucm]

under Obama, federal spending went up 45%. He spent about 1/3 more than Bush on the military. And his healthcare program (which mostly benefited insurance companies) is going to weigh on the governement for decades.

I don't know where you buy your weed, but dude if you think Obama "balanced the budget" you've found an amazing pot dealer.

Speaking as a Canadian

[Kernel Kurtz]

We would really appreciate if you folks don't let Donald Trump anywhere near any nuclear launch codes as well.

Thanks in advance!

Whether it be Clinton or the military industrial c

[Rujiel]

Rei is always there to Correct the Record, with false choices like these.

Guy sounds like a mole/saboteur to me.

[Anonymous Coward]

Given the claim that it would compromise the source of the leaks, but given the huge amount of data in some of those deleted datasets implies he was doing it for reasons other than preventing injury to specific parties. I assume most of the leakers understood they could get hung out to dry and that while they were leaking anonymously it could eventually lead back to them. The destruction of that data however could have had grave consequences relating the level of scrutiny places upon the groups they were leaked against, directly benefitting both the corporations and the US government and its international cronies.

CTR is everywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

50 karma is easy to get again. CTR can go cuck themselves if they think I care about getting downvoted on Slashdot.

Illegal speech

[pax humana]

When a private party acts to give one candidate or party a decisive edge in an election (this excludes endorsements), that is called donation in kind. If the private party does not disclose the act(s), that violates state and federal campaign finance laws. Since FB is based out of Menlo Park, CA, I imagine that Ms. Sandberg is subject to CA laws (CA Gov. Codes 85500, 84203.5, 84204, and 82036.5) in addition to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974. If you want to be informed, I suggest you start with the FEC Act. I am sure I have missed some due to the brambly nature of laws upon laws that never expire.