Trump Organization Owns More Than 3,600 Domain Names, Many of Which Bash Trump (go.com)

With the presidential election just days away, research firm DomainIQ decided to track down the number of domains registered under Donald Trump's organization and Hillary Clinton's campaign. They found that the Trump Organization owns more than 3,600 web addresses, including names of his properties, products and progeny, as well as Trump-bashing names. Some of the domains registered under the Trump Organization include donaldtrumpsucks.com, no2trump.com, trumpmustgo.com and two dozen others that appear to be bashing the billionaire Republican presidential nominee. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton's campaign owns 70 domains, but none of them appear to bash Clinton. ABC News reports: There are 274 domains alone featuring the name of Trump's daughter Ivanka. And then there are the ones that seem better suited for the anti-Trump crowd: eight domains ending in "scheme," eight ending in "fraud" and eight ending in "sucks." Cable giant Comcast owns ihatecomcast.com, and Verizon holds verizonsucks.com. Colleges have made a habit of buying up versions of their names ending in .xxx to prevent them from falling into the hands of pornographers, and Major League Baseball has registered the names of various teams ending in .sex. Hillary Clinton's campaign owns 70, according to DomainIQ, though none appear to be the kind of derogatory names Trump has registered. Her family's foundation owns 214 domains, including four ending in .xxx.

Comments

Including slashdot.org?

[jfdavis668]

Seems to be bashing the Donald all the time.

Re: Including slashdot.org?

[Anonymous Coward]

That and the red scare.

Re:Including slashdot.org?

[Trogre]

Interesting. Can you please link to the policy where he states that?

Thanks.

Re: Including slashdot.org?

[Anonymous Coward]

The democrats support ISIS, which means they support goat rape. Would you back a goat raper appologist? You should be ashamed of yourself.
Try putting yourself in the goats hooves for once.

Re:Including slashdot.org?

[Anonymous Coward]

Supporting (or respecting) President Obama is not a requirement of patriotism any more than supporting (or respecting) President Clinton or Trump when one of them wins the vote. Any time we start saying which thoughts are okay and which are not, we start looking like we are advocates of a 1984 style Thought Police.

Re:Including slashdot.org?

[Anonymous Coward]

Site hasn't whispered a word about the greatest US election political storm in history either.

The editors fear the comments.

Re:Including slashdot.org?

[Anonymous Coward]

And supporting Putin, even when he's invading allies and capturing strategic countries is patriotism? Why give Trump security briefings if he listens more to Putin propaganda than to facts and evidence presented to him?

I *EXPECT* the President of the United States to be Patriotic to his country. That is the MINIMUM requirement for the job. Acting against USA interests and pretending its just political disagreement with Obama is a FALSEHOOD.

He doesn't need to give Obama credit, he just needs to be loyal to his countries interests NOT loyal to Putin's interests.

Re:Including slashdot.org?

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot, "Trump will use our nukes. He's a destabilizing force. He hates women. He's a racist." I mean, if you're going to parrot this stuff, squawk it in its entirety.

Re: Including slashdot.org?

[Anonymous Coward]

The same way every president for the last few generations has supported Israel, or while we supported Iraq in the 80s while they used chemical weapons against Iran?

Re:Including slashdot.org?

[will_die]

As opposed to Obama who told Putin that he would have more flexibility to given Putin what he wanted after the US population had no more control over Obama?

Re:Including slashdot.org?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does selling your country out for $240m to foreign powers make you a patriot?

If so, Hillary has my vote!

Re:Including slashdot.org?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why I'm voting for Hillary Clinton, I can't wait for the incoming nuclear war with Russia!

Re:Including slashdot.org?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did they get DonaldTrumpRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990.com? Because that one could prove embarrassing.

Re:Including slashdot.org?

[HiThere]

I don't think Trump is loyal to anyone or anything but Trump. There is, however, some inconclusive evidence that Putin has some blackmail info (of some nature) on him. That's all pretty murky, and I wouldn't put much credence on it, but it would explain some statements he's made.

That said, I wouldn't support him anyway. And now I can't even vote Green.

This is common

[Anonymous Coward]

Most companies do this to prevent the domains from being used against them.

So, what's the story here? Is this just another pathetic attempt to smear Trump and praise Hillary? Trying to distract from the FBI investigation regarding the 650000 emails found on Weiner's laptop?

Re:This is common

[HanzoSpam]

Does this mean the US is now the Weiner Republic?

Re:This is common

[swalve]

Agreed. If they were a bit more nuanced, they might have have held the domains under a different company, but this is absolutely SOP for anyone with potential haters.

Re:This is common

[msauve]

"Does this mean the US is now the Weiner Republic?"

I know there's a joke about inflation there somewhere.

Re:This is common

[Anonymous Coward]

Hillary stole Huma from him! But he kept a few souvenirs...

Re:This is common

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, yes, it's common. You know what else is common? "Candidate claims they're better than other candidate". Yet you see that story reported several times a day.

Not all news is surprising. Sometimes, "dog bites man" does get reported. There's no need to read any particular ulterior motivation into this. The phrase "slow news day" was coined to describe exactly this, decades ago.

Re:This is common

[ShanghaiBill]

So, what's the story here? Is this just another pathetic attempt to smear Trump and praise Hillary?

No, it is the opposite. It shows that Trump's organization can anticipate potential threats, and preempt them, while Hillary has failed to do the same.

Re:This is common

[kybred]

"Does this mean the US is now the Weiner Republic?"

I know there's a joke about deflation there somewhere.

Fixed that for ya.

Re:This is common

[Anonymous Coward]

So, what's the story here?

The story is there's yet another cum-drenched mealy-mouthed confused little attack helicopter of a techie afraid that the big bad orange man will say mean things to him.

Re: This is common

[Anonymous Coward]

If domain names are considered a threat, I submit that it is both a misapprehension of threats and a futile attempt as the possible choices of expression makes the options far too diverse to manage.

Just think, instead of money on domain names, they could have bought a dock to stuff in Donald's mouth. That is the biggest danger to the campaign.

Well, unless he wanted to fail.

Re:This is common

[CaptainLard]

Holy shit! There were emails found on a computer?! Fuckin-A, every single one is undoubtedly a bombshell proving your conspiracy hyperbole and will finally be the irrefutable piece of evidence that sways everyone to your opinion....but the establishment won't show us cause its rigged and everyone who's ever had a stray negative thought about the Clintons has been caught by the thought police and beheaded which is why all of our rivers are running red with blood! Thank Jeebus for patriots like yourself who who love 'murica so much you want to destroy it and risked their life to remind a message board about more emails because the mainstream media makes you go to their websites to find out about it and they might have flash or an ad.

Seriously though, $100 to whoever can successfully distract me from any talk about emails for the next 2 weeks. Sorry AC, you're out of the running.

Re:This is common

[Anonymous Coward]

except slashdot has clearly shown a bias towards anti-trump articles, and ones that appear to be damage control for hillary.

I'm not a trump supporter, not by a long shot, but if you can't see why this type of reporting non news with a partisan tone is hurtful, then america is worse off than i thought.

Re:This is common

[quax]

The Weimar Republic was never that ridiculous.

Re:This is common

[cdrudge]

but this is absolutely SOP for anyone with potential haters.

I'm actually kinda surprised that the number is only 3,600 domains. I'd expect a lot higher number for Trump.

Re:This is common

[AmiMoJo]

It should upset Trump supporters who are also Free Speech Warriors. The ones who argue that Twitter shouldn't ban people and that Facebook should give everyone a soapbox. Guys like Mashiki must logically oppose attempts to shut down critical speech this way.

Re:This is common

[meta-monkey]

What does this have to do with free speech? I don't think there's any shortage of people saying Trump sucks.

Re:This is common

[Anonymous Coward]

So, what's the story here? Is this just another pathetic attempt to smear Trump and praise Hillary?

When I read that story, it didn't occur to me at all that it was casting Trump or his campaign in a negative light. To me, the story was simply: "oh, they purchase derogatory domain names too -- that's interesting".

But you read the same story, and you lashed out with words like "pathetic" and "smear" -- words that are often deployed when a writer is in a state of emotional agitation.

To me, the most interesting thing about this is that someone read your emotional outburst and gave it a "5 insightful" moderation. I think it's a sad, but telling, commentary on the current state of affairs when a hair-trigger emotional reaction is now viewed as "insightful".

Re:This is common

[AmiMoJo]

Nothing, I don't agree with Masahiki at all. I'm just saying that Trump supporters like him who think that anything which deliberately limits their ability to troll^H^H^H post on Twitter and other private platforms is an assault on free speech should be upset by this too. Check the comic he linked to, and just remember that I don't support it at all and in fact posted a lengthy reply about the many ways it is wrong.

Re:This is common

[unixisc]

Most companies do this to prevent the domains from being used against them.

So, what's the story here? Is this just another pathetic attempt to smear Trump and praise Hillary? Trying to distract from the FBI investigation regarding the 650000 emails found on Weiner's laptop?

During the GOP primary, the Trump campaign also cyber-squatted on a Jeb Bush site to redirect to the Trump campaign page. It would be great if they also bought some Hilary sites and redirected them to themselves

And you are right - most companies do buy these to prevent their use against themselves. But w/ ICANN proliferating TLDs, they'll have to buy up a lot more of them

Re: This is common

[Anonymous Coward]

Did they check all of HRC's attaches or just her campaign? It would be a lot more intresting with a list of all Trump domains and all Hillary domains with aggregates on owners.

Re:This is common

[Anonymous Coward]

I love how the nation is disgusted with Hillary's misuse of technology. Given she's 70 years old I'd sort of expect her to make mistakes with technology, and from the sounds of it she just wanted to use the technology she was already familiar with ... and I'm *sure* deferred the actual implementation to her IT team likely expecting them to handle the security mumbo jumbo or what-ever confusing shit the NSA is blathering about.

Regardless, while Hillary is facing possible legal troubles related to this sort of muddled issue with emails and security .... Trump is being charged in a RACKETEERING and FRAUD case ... under the RICO. He's due in court for that the day after the election, though for what-ever reason America is instead gripped with all this business about e-mails.

If racketeering and fraud weren't enough for you, well you're in luck. In addition to the RICO suit, Trump has been accused of RAPING a 13 year old CHILD. A woman living in California has come forward, alleging that Donald raped her four times at some of Jeff Epstein's parties in NY ... and has two witnesses who have come forward corroborating the allegation. One was present during the most brutal rape.

Now if you don't know who Jeff Epstein is, I'll enlighten you. He's a serial child rapist, with something like 12 or 13 convictions ... though he only spent just 18 months in jail due to some backroom deal he made .. which I assume is because he has some serious dirt on some very powerful people. He's some sort of billionaire too, but the important bit is that he's a pedofile that for many years through rape parties ... and shared his harem of child slaves with his other rich and powerful friends.

Trump claims he barely knows the guy now that he's been convicted, but he said this in 2002:

“I’ve known Jeff for 15 years,” Trump told New York Magazine in 2002. Calling him a “terrific guy,” Trump continued, “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it—Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”

So while we have Clinton facing *possible* legal issues ... Trump is in fact right in the middle of multiple really serious lawsuits ... and had the statute of limitations not expired he'd be facing some really serious criminal ones.

Though instead of all this regularly making headlines, it ends up on page 8 .... while anytime someone in the FBI farts we see Clinton's e-mail troubles plastered across every headline there is.

What's really crazy is that since these are both civil suits, we may end up with a President holding office that also happens to be a convicted rapist. Though even if that were the case I'd doubt even the most morally conservative republican would ever break ranks and demand impeachment ... like was done when Bill got caught lying about blowjobs, cigars, and cumstains on dresses.

Re:This is common

[Anonymous Coward]

Free Speech Warriors

Oh look, AmiMojo, the one who mocks people who use the term "SJWs", is making up his own term.

Does he not understand hypocrisy or irony?

The ones who argue that Twitter shouldn't ban people and that Facebook should give everyone a soapbox.

Who's arguing that?

Guys like Mashiki

Nothing he said in the link equates to what you're accusing him of. Nice post-factual sophistry.

Re:This is common

[Anonymous Coward]

Right? ... and while Hillary is facing *possible* legal issues related to this whole e-mail fiasco, Trump is right in the middle of two really serious lawsuits. He's facing RICO racketeering and fraud charges for his "University".

Though he's also facing a civil charges from a woman who is accusing him of raping her four times when she was 13. I guess it happened in NY, a state with some of the shortest statute of limitations in the country, so he won't be facing criminal charges. Regardless the nation was disgusted with Bill Clinton's extra-marital affairs in the 90s and most republicans called for impeachment ... but Trump is getting a pass on this one?

Re:This is common

[Anonymous Coward]

The Weimar Republic was ridiculous because although it was democratic in name, the politicians didn't listen to the people. Politicians who listen (and act!) to the worries and needs of the people are necessary to have a working democracy, even when it is not what politicians/elites want to hear. For most of its existence it was governed by a minority coalition (or a coalition with less then 50% of the votes), so the majority of the votes weren't even represented in the government.

It's like here in Europe where the media keeps on featuring sad stories about refugees and how we have to open our borders for African and Middle Eastern Muslims, while the majority of the people don't want yet more immigration. It is not what the politicians want to hear of course. For some unknown reason they want to import massive amounts of uneducated, barbaric fortune seekers, but call them refugee, while the collaborating media keeps on censoring riots, rapes, and opposing voices. In my neighboring country an anti-Islam party has over 40%(!) of the votes. Yet their politicians keep on ignoring the will of the people and try to find new ways to demonize people who vote for this anti-Islam party. That's not the way to safe democracy. Some willingness to stop the few radical Muslims from spreading their anti-Western hatred 20 years ago would have prevented such a party from having more then 1%, but political correctness above all caused too many regions to suffer from harassing Muslim youth.
 
It will be very difficult for the establishment to regain trust, and simple old school propaganda doesn't help thanks to the internet. But filtering the internet (which happens on Facebook for example) is a step in the wrong direction. It is almost the story when anti-fascist become fascist themselves.

Quite the opposite

[SuperKendall]

He's not obsessed with his daughter - he has just seen how sickeningly obsessed liberals are with prominent Republican families, like bashing children with Downs Syndrome for example... or pretending a candidate is overly obsessed with his daughter.

So buying domains for his daughter simply serves the same purpose that buying domains like "DonaldTrumpSucks.com" - it prevents his enemies from using lowball tactics they could otherwise employ.

Re:Quite the opposite

[Motherfucking Shit]

He's not obsessed with his daughter

Right, he just thinks she's a "piece of ass." What a stand-up guy...

Re:Quite the opposite

[rmdingler]

If everything were equal, he would object on principle that his daughter is a piece of arse; it is just that the approval of others is so important to him, he spouts off like that to folks who don't really matter, like billy bush.

He's not a sociopath so much as he's an attention whore.

Re:Quite the opposite

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd hit Ivanka. Many would. You're obviously a faggot.

Re:Quite the opposite

[Anonymous Coward]

That was when he was a democrat. He's changed.

Re:Quite the opposite

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you cite where Trump said this? No you can't because he never did. Getting your quotes from the main stream media just makes you look stupid.

Re:Quite the opposite

[Swave An deBwoner]

I think that this is the interview you're looking for:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/08/politics/trump-on-howard-stern

In another interview, from September 2004, Stern asks Trump if he can call Ivanka "a piece of ass," to which Trump responds in the affirmative.

"My daughter is beautiful, Ivanka," says Trump.
"By the way, your daughter," says Stern.
"She's beautiful," responds Trump.
"Can I say this? A piece of ass," Stern responds.
"Yeah," says Trump.

Re:Quite the opposite

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at the expression on his face.

http://qz.com/823649/donald-trump-unfurled-a-rainbow-flag-with-lgbt-written-on-it-at-a-rally-in-greeley-colorado-to-express-his-so-called-support/

Re:Quite the opposite

[MightyMartian]

That a lot of males would like to bed her isn't in question. The problem is that her dad shouldn't be counted among them.

Re:Quite the opposite

[Xenographic]

They're probably worried about her poll numbers falling like a rock due to corruption scandals that aren't even peaked yet.

And "phase 3" from Wikileaks is starting up....

Re:Quite the opposite

[Anonymous Coward]

You either don't know who Lee Atwater was or you are hoping nobody else does.

Re:Quite the opposite

[Anonymous Coward]

"He's not obsessed with his daughter" - Correct, he just repeatedly mentions fucking her.

Re:Quite the opposite

[Kneo24]

And yet, he never said the words. He just merely said Howard Stern can say what he wants. What a fucking shocker.

Re:Quite the opposite

[silentcoder]

Hi Donald.

Yeah, fine, assuming she consents there is nothing wrong with that sentiment ... UNLESS YOU ARE HER DAD ... how hard is this to understand ?

Re:Quite the opposite

[silentcoder]

Oh he won't believe you. Even if he saw it himself - he wouldn't believe it if CNN reported it. The media always lies according to Trump supporters and nothing that was reported can possibly be true.

Re:Quite the opposite

[Anonymous Coward]

> Right, he just thinks she's a "piece of ass."

Meanwhile, in that quote directly from the show, he merely says Stern can say what he wants.

> "She's beautiful," responds Trump.
> "Can I say this? A piece of ass," Stern responds.
> "Yeah," says Trump.

Is that simple enough for you to follow now, you fucking moron? :)

Keep on Correcting that Record.

Re: Quite the opposite

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure every father would react the same way.

Re:Quite the opposite

[AmiMoJo]

The original post, now modded "troll", claimed that he "thought" she was a "piece of ass". He was asked if that description was acceptable, he agreed it was, so it seems to be a factually correct statement.

It doesn't matter if he said it or not, the point here is that he didn't take offence at someone disrespecting his daughter by calling her a "piece of ass". Taken as part of a pattern of behaviour towards women, it suggests he has very little respect for them beyond their value as sex objects.

You may of course interpret it differently.

Re:Quite the opposite

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

He's not obsessed with his daughter

-----------
In 2013, Wendy Williams, host of The Wendy Williams Show, introduced a question-and-answer game called 'Fave Five', a regular feature on the show when Trump appeared with his daughter.

She asked: 'Ivanka, what's the favorite thing you have in common with your father?', who replied with: 'Either real estate or golf.'

When Williams put the same question to Trump, he answered: 'Well, I was going to say sex, but I can't relate that to her', pointing to Ivanka.

-----------

On March 6, 2006, Trump said, speaking about his daughter. “. . .she does have a very nice figure. I’ve said that if Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps, I would be dating her.”

-----------

No, he's not obsessed at all with his daughter. He just wants to fuck her. Seriously, who the hell says shit like this??

Also, who says, "I know more than the Generals, believe me"? Even the Joint Chiefs Of Staff don't say that. Obama doesn't say that. Colin Powell never said that. Eisenhower and LBJ never said that. But Trump, a failed casino owner somehow "knows more than the Generals"?

Re:Quite the opposite

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

You may of course interpret it differently.

No, I think you got it spot-on.

In Trump's world, women exist to be banged by him, and that's the only measure of their value he recognizes.

Re: Quite the opposite

[Anonymous Coward]

I love how you liberals hate the right for denying facts , and then constantly make shit up. When called on it , you slip into "well, he meant this", then finally it's a pattern, etc.

He's not a great dude, but the hipocrosy of judgement from so called academics of the left is depressing.

If you said he's not a great dad for not vigorously defending against what stern said, that would actually be correct.

Re:Quite the opposite

[AmiMoJo]

Even his own daughter, apparently... It very clearly demonstrates that he thinks a woman's worth is down to how attractive he finds her, and he has often intimated that various successful women only got as far as they did because of their looks.

Re:Quite the opposite

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at the expression on his face.

I know, right? Nobody does a mock-the-faggots smug face like Trump. Guy is the king.

Re:Quite the opposite

[Anonymous Coward]

Women have little value other than sex objects. One reason the western world is messed up right now is because men have bought into liberal equality bullshit and have elevated women into positions that they clearly cannot handle. Put simply, female leaders are puppets installed for more powerful men to control. Make no mistake, the kikes that own us push for 'equality' of the sexes not because they believe in it, but because it benefits them. Parasitic manipulators do their best work by proxy from the shadows.

Re:Quite the opposite

[Anonymous Coward]

So buying domains for his daughter simply serves the same purpose that buying domains like "DonaldTrumpSucks.com" - it prevents his enemies from using lowball tactics they could otherwise employ.

This reminds me of an anecdote about Samuel Johnson's, author of the first English dictionary..

MRS. DIGBY told me that when she lived in London with her sister Mrs. Brooke, they were, every now and then, honoured by the visits of Dr. Samuel Johnson. He called on them one day, soon after the publication of his immortal dictionary. The two ladies paid him due compliments on the occasion. Among other topics of praise, they very much commended the omission of all naughty words. `What! my dears! then you have been looking for them?'

Re:Quite the opposite

[unixisc]

Stuff from years ago, yet she is married to someone who is NOT her father, and has 3 kids from her husband. Oh, and she's converted to another religion altogether. Sure sounds like a father who's obsessed about his daughter

Re: Quite the opposite

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember when Hillary smiled when Trump mentioned gays being thrown off rooftops in countries that donated to her.

I remember. It was an evil smile.

Re: Quite the opposite

[Anonymous Coward]

Liberalism is truly a mental disorder.

Re: Quite the opposite

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree but I'm not entirely sure if it is even a liberal vs conservative thing here. It could simply be a step to prevent trolling and scamming in general. That's basically why any other organization would by defamatory or suggestive domains. Simply to prevent trolls from having the domain name or scammed from the same thing. Think about how many people get tricked into giving money or details through scams. If buying extra domain names can help prevent that, great. I have not looked at the domain names that he has registered, but it would be interesting to see how many of the defamatory ones were bought before the campaign.

Re:Quite the opposite

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Stuff from years ago, yet she is married to someone who is NOT her father, and has 3 kids from her husband. Oh, and she's converted to another religion altogether. Sure sounds like a father who's obsessed about his daughter

No, it sounds like you're talking about her, not about him and the weird, pervy comments he's made about her.

Seriously, what father says "If she wasn't my daughter, perhaps I'd be dating her"?? Who says that kind of thing?

Has any father you've ever known said that, and what would your reaction be if you heard it from him?

Face it, that shit is creepy, and no amount of hand-waving or deflection is going to change that.

Re: Quite the opposite

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically showing that if trump doesn't even respect his daughter enough to defend her, then what's that say about the rest of the woman?

If stern said that about my daughter, I'd leap across that table and smack the fuck out of him.

Grab em by the pussy, it's the only way to be sure.

Re:Quite the opposite

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, what father says "If she wasn't my daughter, perhaps I'd be dating her"??

An honest one? If she wasn't his daughter and he was dating her, what would you have to say about that?

Smart

[Anonymous Coward]

People here would be calling him stupid if his team didn't. Oh wait, you all still are...

Re: Yuck

[Anonymous Coward]

It's daddy's little girl, what do you expect. Everyone talks about their children constantly. It your whole life.

Anyways, can we lay off the election crap for a bit, it's killing me...... For real.

Why is this political crap on slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously! There was the other stupid article about the russian bank and now this.

Re:Why is this political crap on slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's always been political "crap" on Slashdot. See Hall of Fame: https://slashdot.org/hof.shtml

Re: Why is this political crap on slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Tech Nerd is not the only kind of Nerd

Re:Why is this political crap on slashdot?

[HiThere]

The story on the bank had some reasonably technical matters...though very poorly explained. This one...

Well, it's only 7 days until the election.

Nope, not bashing

[penguinoid]

They found that the Trump Organization owns more than 3,600 web addresses, including names of his properties, products and progeny, as well as Trump-bashing names. [...] donaldtrumpsucks.com, no2trump.com, trumpmustgo.com and two dozen others that appear to be bashing the billionaire Republican presidential nominee.

These show a blank page; they are defensively bought domains and most certainly not Trump-bashing in any way. The fact that Clinton doesn't own similar ones could reflect on her incompetence, but most likely on her political career pre-dating the internet.

Re:Nope, not bashing

[jittles]

They found that the Trump Organization owns more than 3,600 web addresses, including names of his properties, products and progeny, as well as Trump-bashing names. [...] donaldtrumpsucks.com, no2trump.com, trumpmustgo.com and two dozen others that appear to be bashing the billionaire Republican presidential nominee.

These show a blank page; they are defensively bought domains and most certainly not Trump-bashing in any way. The fact that Clinton doesn't own similar ones could reflect on her incompetence, but most likely on her political career pre-dating the internet.

Another thing is that they included all Trump domains in one count, whether they were owned by his businesses or charities, etc while they counted only those owned directly by the Clinton campaign in her direct count and then later go on to mention "Oh yeah, she also has 214 other domains registered through her charity." While there is still a huge disparity 1) who cares? and 2) why the need for such obvious dishonesty? Of all the things I don't like about this campaign, the internet domains registered by either candidate aren't even on the radar.

Re:Nope, not bashing

[butzwonker]

Yep, it seems that the Trump's team has got better than IT advisors than Clinton's. I wouldn't have thought so.

Re:Nope, not bashing

[silentcoder]

Or just the fact that she is marginally less hated than Trump ?
Or maybe she just doesn't believe that stifling people's ability to hate on you is something a presidential candidate ought to do in a land which is built on freedom of expression - particularly around politics ?

Re:Nope, not bashing

[Anonymous Coward]

You're an idiot and obviously a future Trump voter. A domain name like "trumpsucks.com" or "foolsvotetrump.net" is itself a bash, even without any content.

Re:Nope, not bashing

[Anonymous Coward]

If I was running for president I wouldn't bother snatching up domains to 'defend' myself. I could think up 10,000 domain names that I should buy so that others can't use them, but then all it takes is 1/320,000,000 people to come up with 1 idea I didn't think of, and *poof* they have a domain "aibod.org" (aibod obviously being the acronym for "ac is a bag of dicks", and this particular spelling of 'aibod' slipped my original domain grasp because I had spelled it 'aiabod', but 'aibod' rolls off the tongue a bit easier...oops now I guess my presidential campaign is totally derailed..../s)

So I would say Hillary is just smarter about using resources. You can waste a million dollars grabbing domains and there's still an infinite number of other site names that could be used. And a site's domain name doesn't have to do anything related to the literal meaning of the name. I mean, who knew "steam.com" was about some video game shit, and not about water vapor? Crazy!

Trump, on the other hand, is deluded enough to think that he can grab all/most of the domains that could be used against him, and that the people who are against him would try to register a domain, fail (because he grabbed it), and then just throw their hands in the air - "Well, shit. I had something I thought was important to say, but I can't get the domain name I wanted. Game over, I guess....Trump: 1, Me: 0"

Re:Nope, not bashing

[meta-monkey]

Or just the fact that she is marginally less hated than Trump ?

Depends on who you ask. According to the last WaPo/ABC poll Hildawg has a 60% unfavorable rating, compared to Trump's stellar 58% rating.

Or maybe she just doesn't believe that stifling people's ability to hate on you is something a presidential candidate ought to do in a land which is built on freedom of expression - particularly around politics ?

So she's all for hiring the mentally ill to go beat up her political opponents and pay people to shut down freeways to stop people from hearing her political opposition, but buying nasty domain names is too far for Principled Hillary? Naw. She just didn't think of it. I hear she's not good with computers.

Re:Nope, not bashing

[Cederic]

What's stifling? Someone's stopping you registering trumpisacunt.com? hillaryouslycorrupt.net? stopthisfuckingelectionbeforewenukerussia.org?

Oh no, you mean you can't lazily browse to trumpsucks.com and go 'yeah, Trump, you really suck'? You're so stifled. Would you like me to find you a counsellor?

Re:Nope, not bashing

[Ogive17]

Or that Clinton isn't nearly as thin skinned as Trump.

Before I get accused of being a Hillary supporter, I'm not.. from what I've read so far in this thread anyone that doesn't like Trump is accused of being on Hillary's payroll...

Look at Trump's behavior patterns. The minute someone says something negative, he starts mud slinging. The guy cannot shrug anything off. Sometimes I see parallels between his behavior and that of my 3 year old. I even joke with my wife that we're raising a mini-Trump.. just that he doesn't have a lot of money to start with.

Looks like they bought up as many domains as they could think of to avoid people voicing their negative opinions. If Trump becomes President, will he look to create LÃse majesté like laws?

He's an incredibly rich child.

What I'm hoping for is Hillary gets elected then removed from office and let Kaine finish the term. She's about the only person that can make Trump look like a good idea.

Re:Nope, not bashing

[unixisc]

If Hilary is elected, she'll never be removed. Like the Dems protected her husband in 1998, despite the fact that his removal would have made Algore the president and maybe prevented a Bush presidency, they won't let her be impeached, b'cos that will be a perceived victory for the GOP. If she's elected, she'll be an empress.

Trump, OTOH, has as many enemies within his own party as he has allies. Anything controversial he does - not only will the Dems oppose him, but a good portion of his own party will as well: that will be the automatic check on his power. Only 'trump' card he has - his ability to do deals w/ anyone. So if the GOP tries to shake him too much, like oppose him on trade, all he has to do is reach out to the Dems and cut deals w/ them to undercut the McCains and Ryans within his own party

Re:Nope, not bashing

[UnknowingFool]

Or that Trump cares more about trying to control his image in social media than Clinton does. It doesn't surprise me that Trump's priorities are about social media than the campaign. For example I can imagine Trump devoting lots of time to make that the domains were owned while Clinton was more concerned about staffing offices in battleground states.

Whatever your opinion of Clinton, it is without a doubt that she's spent a great deal of her life and career under public criticism. From being the wife of a governor to her own career, public scrutiny comes with the job. At some point, trying to control the scrutiny it is pointless.

Re:Nope, not bashing

[Anonymous Coward]

and *poof* they have a domain "aibod.org" (aibod obviously being the acronym for "ac is a bag of dicks", and this particular spelling of 'aibod' slipped my original domain grasp because I had spelled it 'aiabod', but 'aibod' rolls off the tongue a bit easier...

Nope, aibod.org is already registered by Mr Murakami. In fact, all the short domain names are taken. Because domain names are valuable, and the shorter they are the more valuable they are.

Re:Nope, not bashing

[silentcoder]

Well if you're going to base your opinions on claims made by sites like breitbart which has been thoroughly debunked and disproven then there's no point talking since we live in two different universes and yours and mine have nothing in common.
That dark dystopia where Obama has taken everybody's guns and Hillary Clinton is actually satan and there is something about Benghazi that isn't also true of the 11 embassies attacked while Colin Powel was secretary of state or something about her e-mail that Powel didn't ALSO do (and was not investigated for), where the land is overrun by crazy communists and ruled by a dark lord... yeah, I don't live in that universe, it doesn't really exist.

Re:Nope, not bashing

[silentcoder]

I never said *I* felt stifiled, but some people would - and smart politicians don't piss of potential voters, even ones who are currently voting for the other side.

Re:Nope, not bashing

[meta-monkey]

Just saying something has been "debunked and disproven" doesn't make it debunked and disproven. Hillary paying people to riot/incite violence has been confirmed. So, enjoy your fantasy world where you're the good guys and not the fascists.

Re:Nope, not bashing

[silentcoder]

No, it really hasn't. The 'confirmation' was just more bullshit.

There is PROOF that it's a conspiracy theory which neither she nor any senior member of her campaign had any part in.

Exactly

[s.petry]

I did not check more than a couple, but the few domains I checked returned blank pages with no content.

Re:Exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

This is actually quite a smart move. Pre-emptively register the domains and leave them empty so your adversaries can't use them.

Could have been relevant in a campaign vs Bernie

[Trachman]

Buying domain names is a smart and preemptive move. Domains could have been relevant in a campaign versus Bernie.

With Clinton.... Trumpists are outnumbering most online polls and forums, such as Reddit.

Many of the Berners no longer give a s**t about Clinton, many of them even will not be voting for her.

Oh my goodness...

[93 Escort Wagon]

There's always been political "crap" on Slashdot. See Hall of Fame: https://slashdot.org/hof.shtml

I looked at that page, and saw a horrible news story I had somehow missed:

World Reacts To The Worst Mass Shooting In U.S. History by EditorDavid

I hope, at a minimum, whipslash fired EditorDavid after he committed such a heinous act!

Hillbully tell

[Okian Warrior]

Trump is more loyal to Putin than to Obama. He's more loyal to Russia than America. If he gets power, he'll hand over control of the middle east to Putin. That's all the oil, that's resources, that's geopolitical advantage. Either by incompetence or design.

Republicans, jfdavis668, I appreciate you want to get him elected, but do you really want your guy in power so much that you'd sell out your country?

You don't hold power when Putin has power, you have fake elections and lots of Putin statues and astroturf.

That's a hillbully tell: hallucinate something outrageous, then ridicule the hallucination.

I think that's #16 on the list.

Tell us about ethics. Tell us why Hillary's brand of integrity would be better for the country.

Re:Hillbully tell

[Darinbob]

Both are going to be terrible. We're now arguing over which one we're more likely to survive four years of. Saying that one is evil and the other one is perfectly find and upstanding is just short sighted. This is not a sports event, so don't treat it like My Team Rules versus Your Team Sucks.

Re:Hillbully tell

[Anonymous Coward]

Tick tock Okian Warrior! Just a reminder Trump loses bigly in one week, and I've got you bookmarked so I can come back and read your angry impotent tears on the 9th after he loses. :) Have a good week!

Re:Hillbully tell

[Anonymous Coward]

If Putin sends fighter jets over Alaska, the way he keeps sending fighter jets over Turkey, would Trump support America in shooting them down? Does America have the right to defend its own airspace against Putin's fighter jets? Bromance is nice, but when its a Bromance with an election rigging dictator that invades your allies, its a basic security problem.

It's nice to be partisan during an election, but when you're trying to elect someone more loyal to a foreign president than his own country, you need to rethink your position.

It's nice to try the smear tactics to get your guy elected, but he's not your guy, he's Putin's guy.

Re:Hillbully tell

[ClickOnThis]

That's a hillbully tell: hallucinate something outrageous, then ridicule the hallucination.

I think you misspelled "strawman."

Re:Hillbully tell

[Anonymous Coward]

#28. Use sarcasm instead of reason because you can’t tell the difference.

This, to me, describes the majority of online discourse these days.

Re:Hillbully tell

[AchilleTalon]

I remember Ronald Reagan was once a friend of Mikhail Gorbatchev and the outcome was the fall of a wall. It took some time because Brejnev wasted a year of Reagan's time before he dies, Andropov did the same and Cherenko didn't want to be a deception and got the good idea to follow his two predecessors after a year as well. Then came Gorbatchev and the fall of the wall.

The escalation Clinton seems to be a big fan of isn't necessarily the way to go.

Re:Hillbully tell

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a hillbully [twitter.com] tell: hallucinate something outrageous, then ridicule the hallucination.

I've gotta say, as someone who is Not With Her, that must the lamest attempt to invalidate a point of view Okian Warrior could have possibly mustered to the debate.

Re:Hillbully tell

[Anonymous Coward]

Russia went to America for a bailout, as a result it lost its empire, the USSR, as the Eastern Block countries saw the opportunity to be free of their dictator while he was weak. Putin is busy rebuilding that empire.

Confusing Gorbatchev with Putin is very very foolish.

Can you tell the difference between Staling and Gorbatchev even?

Re:Hillbully tell

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell us about ethics. Tell us why Hillary's brand of integrity would be better for the country.

Something is better than nothing.
Besides, the last time we had a blowhard noisy but weak President among a lot of other things North Korea got the bomb. With another weak President who is nothing but noise and ego they might end up using it.
 
People who want to use their vote to "shake things up" take note. The world will not stand still while the President and Congress are doing nothing other than yelling at each other for a few years.

Re:Hillbully tell

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, Russia's main goal would be to avoid war with the USA over Syria.

I dunno about you, but I'm certainly not eager for more foreign wars, especially more proxy wars against Russia.

Re:Hillbully tell

[Anonymous Coward]

> would be better for the country.

Anything better than *that* retarded chimp (apologies to the chimps).

Re:Hillbully tell

[Anonymous Coward]

It's "Gorbachev", "Brezhnev", and "Chernenko".

Re:Hillbully tell

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really.

The main goal is to grab as much land as possible. To avoid a war with USA is a prerequisite for that.
Ideally they would like for the US to promise to step back while they finish the job in Ukraine, take care of a few issues along the southern border like Georgia and maybe bring Belarus back to the union.
Land access to Kaliningrad Oblast is probably also on the list somewhere, but it will be hard for the rest of the world to ignore if they started to mess with Lithuania.

Re:Hillbully tell

[silentcoder]

I bet a lot of his supporters won't believe he lost on the 9th - after all, he told them to go vote on the 28th and the media always lies so obviously they are lying when they say the election is on the 8th so all the Trump supporters are going to be showing up at polling places on the 28th and complaining about the evil media calling the election 20 days early !

Re:Hillbully tell

[silentcoder]

Reagan, for all his fault, did have a key difference from Trump: he was sane.

And, of course, as Rod Reagan has pointed - his dad couldn't possibly be elected in the madhouse that is the republican party today !

Re:Hillbully tell

[NotAPK]

"The main goal is to grab as much land as possible"

Why?

Re:Hillbully tell

[Anonymous Coward]

Dat projection tho.

Re:Hillbully tell

[Anonymous Coward]

Bleh, all of this melodrama. They both suck, but neither one of them is going to bring about the end of the world. And it's not going to be any of us who decides which one of them is president anyway.

Re:Hillbully tell

[mjwx]

Both are going to be terrible. We're now arguing over which one we're more likely to survive four years of. Saying that one is evil and the other one is perfectly find and upstanding is just short sighted. This is not a sports event, so don't treat it like My Team Rules versus Your Team Sucks.

The thing is, the worst thing you can say about Hillary is that she'll be a lame duck that occupied an office and stole oxygen.

The best thing you can say about Trump is that he'll be a lame duck who occupied an office and stole oxygen.

Whats even worse is that the above is the most likely scenario for Clinton and the least likely scenario for Trump.

Re:Hillbully tell

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Tell us why Hillary's brand of integrity would be better for the country.

Hillary is a crook, a liar, and she's as corrupt as they come. I can't stand her.

But she's not insane or delusional, as Trump clearly is.

On the other hand, Trump says he "knows more than the Generals", so if you believe that you should vote for him.

Re:Hillbully tell

[stdarg]

What do you mean? If Hillary wins, and there's any down-ticket success as well, then how on earth is she going to be a lame duck who accomplishes nothing?

On the other hand, if Trump wins, the establishment doesn't like him -- Democrat or Republican.

It's actually a more likely scenario for Trump.

Re:Hillbully tell

[Anonymous Coward]

Empire building.

Re:Hillbully tell

[stdarg]

Most politicians of yesteryear couldn't be elected today. Like Trump they wouldn't be politically correct enough to placate the media and the part of the population that cares about that. Also don't forget the media used to be a force for decorum even if it was false. I wasn't around, but I've heard the media either covered up or didn't investigate things like Kennedy's affairs... compare that to the treatment of Bill Clinton, or now Donald Trump as a candidate.

Re: Hillbully tell

[Anonymous Coward]

At least it is a more likely scenario to you. I'm not sure who grants you insight, so please link your sources on the future.

Re: Hillbully tell

[Anonymous Coward]

We have now for 8 years, what makes you think we will change? I doubt a change of president will change how your politics work or don't work

Re:Hillbully tell

[dyslexicbunny]

On the other hand, if Trump wins, the establishment doesn't like him -- Democrat or Republican.

Obviously the Dems won't work with him.

But the Republicans? I think there will be a lot of folks debating whether or not to act for party unity. Keep in mind that Trump's ardent supporters would be happy to throw out politicians that don't want to play ball with him and Trump will be happy to rile up whomever he needs to make it happen. Look at all the folks up this cycle that are having to walk an interesting line throughout their campaigns. Trump will keep note of who doesn't play ball (at least in the House) and burn them when best needed. He'll endorse primary opponents and given lower turnouts in those races, those incumbents may lose.

Re:Hillbully tell

[Cro Magnon]

IIRC, people were saying Reagan was a crazy maniac would would get us into WW3 and end all life on Earth. How does that differ from Trump?

Re:Hillbully tell

[Anonymous Coward]

It's pretty much a matter of stroking Putins ego.
He wants to be remembered as the one who brought back the union.
Imperialism is still going strong in certain parts of the world.

Re:Hillbully tell

[Anonymous Coward]

Odds are that Trump will indeed lose. His win is a long shot. So his supporters and people who fucking hate him but still voted for him because "fuck you" (like me) already assume he will lose.

So there will be no tears from our end. We expect loss. Sure you'll get a few of the low-IQ "duh elecshun wuz rigged!" retards, but for the most part we will just shake our heads, say "shucks", and move on to our jobs and lives.

Now, suppose the long shot comes in and Trump wins. Who do you think will be crying? It will be fucking _delicious_. That's really the main reason I want him to win, actually, is to laugh at you clowns, the riots, etc...from the "peaceful" left.

Re:Hillbully tell

[unixisc]

You forgot Andropov

Re:Hillbully tell

[unixisc]

Ron Reagan ain't remotely similar to his dad as far as politics goes: he's been far to the Left for ever. He has no insight into the GOP - be it then or now

Re:Hillbully tell

[silentcoder]

Reagan isn't THAT yesteryear, like most voters in this election - I lived through his presidency. Anyway the REASONS Rod gives why his dad can't be elected in today's republican party is because the party itself has lost the plot:
1) He expanded medicare and medicaid due to a real need (as opposed to destroying all social safety nets indiscriminately)
2) He dealt with an actual act of war against the united states by defusing the situation diplomatically (rather than call to bomb the country)
3) He raised taxes when the country was going bankrupt, and he raised them the most on the rich

In other words - he was sane enough to temper his ideology and not follow it religiously when the facts of the day required a different response. He was a bad president by every measure I hold - and the Iran/Contra scandal makes anything Hillary has done look downright innocuous (seriously - there is no way it was anything less than high treason and he should have been impeached AND court-martialed for it and gotten the death penalty which is exactly what would have happened if Oliver North hadn't agreed to be a fallguy). But terrible as he was - he was sane and there is no room for sanity in the republican party anymore. It's a party of froth-at-the-mouth insanity.

Oh and there has always been politically incorrect candidates and they often did well. What you think Goldwater was being politically correct shouting from the podium about how good white people shouldn't have to share a neighbourhood with n***rs ?

Re:Hillbully tell

[silentcoder]

With Reagan - they were exagerating.

Not by much either - his approach to dealing with the soviets damn near DID achieve exactly that. He took a calculated risk that frankly was unjustifiably risky, it paid off - but it was a very real risk.
The difference is - he actually had a chance at NOT causing world war 3 with his policies, and he was living in a different time - when the room for risk was significantly larger.
The world powers right now are itching for a fight, every one of them is making moves that threaten peace and stability - and all it takes is one wrong move and we are in world war 3. It took just one dead guy at the wrong time to start the first one, and in fact that same dead guy started the second one since it was directly caused by the first one.
We are, now, for the first time since 1914 in a situation as precarious as we were then. This is the time for a cautious leader if there ever was one.

Interestingly - at the time Americans thought they could keep themselves out of the threatening war by electing an isolationist leader. It didn't work well then and there is no reason to believe it would work this time (not that Trump actually IS an isolationist - he just says he is when speaking to people who want one, and is a complete hawk when speaking to hawks).

Re:Hillbully tell

[silentcoder]

Somebody in the family had to be the smart one. Too bad we couldn't get HIM elected instead of Bush's son.

Re:Hillbully tell

[stdarg]

Anyway the REASONS Rod gives why his dad can't be elected in today's republican party is because the party itself has lost the plot:

The reasons you list actually sound a lot more like Trump than the last few Republicans. Remember one of the attacks during the primaries against Trump was that he's really a New York liberal, which is true in some ways compared to the other Republicans.

Oh and there has always been politically incorrect candidates and they often did well. What you think Goldwater was being politically correct shouting from the podium about how good white people shouldn't have to share a neighbourhood with n***rs ?

Maybe I wasn't clear, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Politicians of yesteryear were less politically correct, and they would NOT do well today. Do you think Trump could openly say that on stage and still be doing this well? He wouldn't have won the primary, that's for sure.

It's just odd to me that people can like Bill Clinton and Kennedy so much, realizing they are a product of their times, realizing that in certain echelons of wealth and/or power that kind of stuff really does happen, forgiving them their sins, etc... but when it comes to Trump it's like "omg he's the next Hitler and did you hear what he said about women zomg!?!?!"

Re:Hillbully tell

[stdarg]

That may be true, but considering people like Bush Jr and Sr have openly said they're voting for Clinton? I don't know. I think there are a decent number of Republicans who just hate Trump. I'm not saying they'll be 100% obstructionists, but the climate in Congress is going to be that pushing back against Trump is just fine even for Republicans, unlike a normal establishment situation where the opposition comes 100% from the other party.

Re:Hillbully tell

[erptree]

yes i totally agree with you from erptree.com

Re:Hillbully tell

[silentcoder]

The fact that there is literally not a single important thing about Hitler (up to and including the circumstances in which he came to power) that is not DIRECTLY equated by the Trump campaign can't have anything to do with that though, right ?

My experiment

[Anonymous Coward]

I just logged onto register.com. The following domains are still up for grabs:

trumptaxdodger.com
trumpdraftandtaxdodger.com
trumpkissesputinsbutt.com
trumpclimatechangetheory.com
trumpnarcissism.com
trumpcasinoempire.com
trumpgroper.com
trumpbonespurs.com
make-america-trumpuniversity-again.com
trump-russian-puppet.com

But the following were taken (!):

Sorry, stiffedbydonaldtrump.com is not available, but you can make a Certified Offer or select another recommended domain.
stiffedbydonaldtrump.shop is available

Sorry, artofthescam.com is not available, but you can make a Certified Offer or select another recommended domain.
artofthescam.shop is available

Sorry, trumpchapter11.com is not available, but you can make a Certified Offer or select another recommended domain.
trumpchapter.shop is available

Sorry, trumpnarcissist.com is not available, but you can make a Certified Offer or select another recommended domain.
trumpnarcissist.shop is available

Sorry, trumplovesputin.com is not available, but you can make a Certified Offer or select another recommended domain.
trumpputin.love is available

Re:My experiment

[Anonymous Coward]

stiffedbydonaldtrump.com is not available, but you can make a Certified Offer or select another recommended domain.
stiffedbydonaldtrump.shop is available

Sorry, artofthescam.com is not available, but you can make a Certified Offer or select another recommended domain.
artofthescam.shop is available

Sorry, trumpchapter11.com is not available, but you can make a Certified Offer or select another recommended domain.
trumpchapter.shop is available

Sorry, trumpnarcissist.com is not available, but you can make a Certified Offer or select another recommended domain.
trumpnarcissist.shop is available

Sorry, trumplovesputin.com is not available, but you can make a Certified Offer or select another recommended domain.
trumpputin.love is available

If you want to make an offer on any of them, wait a week until Nov 9th and the price will go way way down.

Must have a savvy team.

[Anonymous Coward]

He's at least smart enough to hire people who see potential problems and act to prevent them.

And of little value

[Okian Warrior]

They found that the Trump Organization owns more than 3,600 web addresses, including names of his properties, products and progeny, as well as Trump-bashing names. [...] donaldtrumpsucks.com, no2trump.com, trumpmustgo.com and two dozen others that appear to be bashing the billionaire Republican presidential nominee.

These show a blank page; they are defensively bought domains and most certainly not Trump-bashing in any way. The fact that Clinton doesn't own similar ones could reflect on her incompetence, but most likely on her political career pre-dating the internet.

Furthermore, this isn't even very interesting or relevant. Clinton doesn't herself purchase the domains, and if there are a few bashing domains out there they aren't being run by the candidate so... so what?

We should be talking about policy and ethics. The two candidates have very clearly different approaches to national security, trade, border control, the supreme court, and a host of other topics.

Bashing by website name seems 'kinda childish in the face of serious issues.

Didn't get this one

[Anonymous Coward]

DonaldTrumpRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlin1990.com is still available

Re:Didn't get this one

[Anonymous Coward]

Or this one. Trump.wtf

Missed opportunity...

[Narcocide]

... how come I can't ever think up good domain names to squat on? Certainly these weren't all bought preemptively. Some clever jerks got decent payouts from anticipating the paranoia. Damnit.

Re:Missed opportunity...

[MiniMike]

... how come I can't ever think up good domain names to squat on?

Must be an imagination dulled by the relentless campaign. donaldtrumpstolemywebsite.com is available, as are many others, go have fun.

Does he own slashdot.org?

[Anonymous Coward]

'cause they sure as hell bash Trump.

clinton.xxx

[PPH]

"This domain has been reserved from registration."

Hillary probably grabbed that one to keep it out of Bill's hands.

Re:clinton.xxx

[LynnwoodRooster]

Well, carlosdanger.xxx is still available at least!

Propaganda Machine... Check!

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot appears to be part of the propaganda machine...(Remember Propaganda was recently LEGALIZED under Obama...)
They are all like "Hey, lets take some commonplace shit and turn it into a news story and play it off like some kind of scandal! Mua ha ha ha!"

It really shows the character of the opposition, when you see THEM using ALL THE DIRTY ILLEGAL tactics they can get their grubby paws on.

We KNOW who the enemies of freedom are.
We know their names, their places of business, their cohorts, their routines...
We SERVICE EVERY FACET of their privileged, pathetic, elitist lives.

They, are too ignorant to understand this :-)

Freedom (1) - Tyranny (0)

Re:Propaganda Machine... Check!

[PopeRatzo]

Remember Propaganda was recently LEGALIZED under Obama...

Propaganda has never been illegal.

Re:Propaganda Machine... Check!

[Anonymous Coward]

Bwahaha, im loving the RWNJ losing the plot left right and center, I habe no fear of your imaginary sky friend, you pea brained ignoramus.

Re:Propaganda Machine... Check!

[BlueStrat]

Remember Propaganda was recently LEGALIZED under Obama...

Propaganda has never been illegal.

Domestic use of the various US intelligence and law enforcement services was never illegal as in it being classed as a regular criminal act like theft, but there was a law on the books preventing domestic use of US government propaganda tools contained within the Smith-Mundt Act.

https://www.techdirt.com/artic...

"The Broadcast Board of Governors, which produces programming like the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, has been prevented from aiming its programming at Americans since the 1970's when the Smith-Mundt Act (which authorized the State Dept. to communicate with foreign audiences via many methods, radio being one of them) was amended to prohibit domestic dissemination of the BBG's broadcasts. This was done to distance the State Department's efforts from the internal propaganda machine operated by the Soviet Union.

Now, the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 (part of the National Defense Authorization Act) has repealed the domestic prohibition, allowing the government's broadcasting to be directed at/created for Americans for the first time in over 40 years."

The point he made was generally correct, except it was both parties in both Houses of the US Congress plus Obama. Once again, when it counts, both US political parties are in total agreement: "Screw the people!"

But the important thing is don't let the wrong lizard get in!

Right?

Strat

Re:Propaganda Machine... Check!

[BlueStrat]

Domestic use of the various US intelligence and law enforcement services' propaganda resources**

I have no clue why that bit got dropped. I'd typed it and previewed it twice.

Oh, well...

Re:Propaganda Machine... Check!

[dunkelfalke]

And this is why Pentagon is in charge for domestic propaganda in the USA - it is neither an intelligence agency nor a law enforcement service.

Re:Propaganda Machine... Check!

[Anonymous Coward]

http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/14/u-s-repeals-propaganda-ban-spreads-government-made-news-to-americans/

You don't appear to be too bright :-D

(That took me 3 seconds to look up...)

LOLOLOLOL

Re:Propaganda Machine... Check!

[Anonymous Coward]

However, the US Founding Fathers would NEVER have allowed this.

The Pentagon has about as much business writing/interfering with the US News, as the Benghazi Traitor has Running for ANY Us Office...

LOCK HER UP!

Re:Propaganda Machine... Check!

[PopeRatzo]

That law was never enforced or even taken seriously. If it was, the Uncle Sam "I Want You" signs would have never been allowed. When the US government cooperated with Hollywood to make pro-military movies, from pre-WWII to Vietnam right through to post-Iraq, it was not prosecuted for disseminating propaganda.

Every large organization does this

[Applehu Akbar]

Buying up 'X Sucks' domains based on your company's name or product line is routine. NAACP, for example:
http://domaingang.com/domain-n...

This is news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, how does something like this make it to slashdot's front page? It's common for politicians, celebrities and businesses to protect their name by buying domain names that might be used to smear them. The title seems to imply he owns domains that actively smear him when it looks like nothing more than proactive registrations to head off sleazy campaign tactics.

donaldtrumpisashithead.com

[Anonymous Coward]

Still available! LoL

It worked guys and gals, keep it up.

[ckatko]

I was going to vote for Trump, but after seeing this, THIS is crazy and unacceptable. I'm going to vote for Hillary now.

Keep up the great work! And let me know any other things you want me to believe without critically analyzing it first.

Thanks!

Re:It worked guys and gals, keep it up.

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you live in a "swing" state, it doesn't matter what way you vote.

Re:It worked guys and gals, keep it up.

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump: "we have nukes. why can't we use them". Have fun with that.

DumpTheTrump.trash

[Anonymous Coward]

Why isn't there a trash domain? Perfect for Trump.

First drink is on me

[Okian Warrior]

Tick tock Okian Warrior! Just a reminder Trump loses bigly in one week, and I've got you bookmarked so I can come back and read your angry impotent tears on the 9th after he loses. :) Have a good week!

Knock yourself out.

Anyone who thinks of the election as a personal failure larger than, say, losing a game of darts in a pub is an idiot.

We've taken things waaaaay to far in this election, and it's time we stopped and thought about who we are and what we're doing. This is not who we are, We don't fire people for supporting a candidate, we don't beat up homeless people for holding political signs, we don't egg people or key cars that show support.

Anyone American, that is. Americans believe in free speech.

I've thought through both scenarios, and it won't bother me one bit if Clinton wins, and I won't be lording it over people if Clinton loses. Half the country is on either side, so in both cases we'll be in good company.

I'm planning on just shaking hands and saying "good game, the first drink is on me".

(And privately, a CTR on Hillary's payroll posting as AC won't damage my self-esteem. I mean really, you probably base your self worth on the opinion of others, but I don't. I'm good with who I am, and see the insults for what they are: insignificant.)

Re:First drink is on me

[Anonymous Coward]

Tick tock :)

Re:First drink is on me

[Anonymous Coward]

He just fucking owned the shit out of you, anonymous sack of crap, and THAT'S your response? Jesus Fucking Christ what a total loser. What kind of shitburger uses an election in place of their own self esteem? Someone who is worthless, that's who. That kind of mindless partisan idiocy belongs on ESPN where meatheads get into life and death arguments over local sports teams.

Re: First drink is on me

[DMFNR]

I like the way you think. Almost rationally! Dont see a whole lot of that any more!

Re:First drink is on me

[AmiMoJo]

It's never going to end. No matter who wins, the other side will keep campaigning until the next election. It's a continuous process now.

It's been that way for a few years, in fact. Obama never really stopped when he got in the first time. The Republicans have been smearing Clinton for decades, in anticipation of her eventual run for president. This is the new normal.

Re: First drink is on me

[Anonymous Coward]

We've taken things waaaaay to far in this election, and it's time we stopped and thought about who we are and what we're doing. This is not who we are, We don't fire people for supporting a candidate, we don't beat up homeless people for holding political signs, we don't egg people or key cars that show support.

What? Are you from an alternate universe or something? Did you just get back from hunting a T-Rex? Better check your shoes.

Nasty things are nothing new, vandalism has always been a problem, and the laws against public officials taking sides in political contests came from need, not purity.

And then there have been the other laws, some quite inappropriate.

No, you really need to get down from your tower.

Re:First drink is on me

[dyslexicbunny]

We've taken things waaaaay to far in this election, and it's time we stopped and thought about who we are and what we're doing.

Neither side cares and see scorched earth as an acceptable solution to winning the race. I'm not sure what the solution is cause my thoughts aren't someone else's thoughts and there's just more fighting.

Re:First drink is on me

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah bro, CTR is dumping money into Slashdot to tear down the ideology of "Okian Warrior"

Get your delusions checked out homie

How awful!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I was going to vote for Trump after Hillary was found to be selling political favors, peddling influence to foreign governments, bull-baiting opposition political rallies, destroying evidence in criminal investigations, and having big group hugs with the investment bankers robbing the taxpayers blind.

But that was before I found out that Trump owns some domain names. I can't in good conscience cast my vote for that sort of behavior.

Good defensive play.

[clay_shooter]

Makes sense. They took a bunch of obvious names out of play.

The end of a dynasty

[Okian Warrior]

Here's a video you might find interesting. Let's see if it goes viral or is picked up by the MSM.

Clinton's last-ditch efforts have failed, you guys got cock-blocked by the intelligence community.

(Oh, and BTW: it was American intelligence who leaked the E-mails to Assange, not Russian.)

Have a nice day! :-)

Re:The end of a dynasty

[Anonymous Coward]

Heres a video you might find helpful for next Tuesday.

Tick tock :D

Re:The end of a dynasty

[rmckeethen]

Have you actually watched that video you're linking? I mean, really -- have you watched the video? I just did, and what I'm seeing is a guy, Steve Pieczenik, claiming he's behind and staging a real-life, no joke, we're-very-big-and-really-serious, all-backed-by-the military-and-everything, political coup of the American government.

Really? You're supporting this? Do you realize that this is what Mr. Pieczenik is saying?

If so, I just have to ask you; are you truly siding with, and apparently actively promoting, a guy who claims to be working with the CIA, the FBI, the Director of Intelligence and military intelligence (plus 15 other unnamed governmental agencies) to overthrow the rule of law and to stage an actual coup in the United States? Again -- watch the video. He really is talking about his own personal role in staging a coup. He claims that the Clintons have already staged a 'silent' coup, and he's staging a counter-coup, on the Internet, via Wikileaks and what I assume are the Podesta emails, to counter the Clinton's corruption and co-optation, because in his opinion, the Clintons don't deserve power. I'll give him credit for one thing -- at least he says the "second American Revolution" as he calls it is intended to be non-violent and bloodless, but rest assured that he also states that he'll convict the president, Loretta Lynch and many others who, he claims, are involved in the massive corruption of the Clinton Foundation.

Putting aside the plain fact here that Steve Pieczenik is most likely -- and I can't say this strongly enough -- completely Looney Tunes crazy, it sounds to me like rhetoric on the not-Hillary side has expanded to encompass the notion that if it's American government 'patriots' hacking the Clinton campaign, and not Russian spies, that's fine? And you're OK with that, yes? Personally, I'd rather have the Russians, because I'd hate to think that anyone in the *American* government would commit illegal activities to throw an election towards one candidate or party. But your thinking seems to be that an internal government coups d'état via illegal hack is A-OK, because that free and fair election thing just might not work out, and the 'right' candidate, a.k.a. the candidate from your party, might not get in... yes?

I don't know -- sounds to me like Steve, and you too I suppose given your willingness to link the story and your stated hope that the mainstream media picks it up, are going to save the democracy even if you have to destroy it in the process, by making sure that a 'free and fair' election isn't anywhere as free or as fair as it should be.

News is getting interesting

[Okian Warrior]

The newswire is getting pretty interesting.

I don't know when I've had this much fun!

Re:News is getting interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

That a boy, Jimmy, put on that brave face! Don't let the kids see how scared you are.

Mmm mm, I got my mason jars lined up, waiting to fill them with Trumper tears Tuesday night. I wrote your name on this one with a sharpie. You better not get scared off and not post on slashdot when its announced, I've got a quota to fill these jars, mister!

~cry baby cry, make your mother sigh~

Tick tock :)

Pathological liar

[Okian Warrior]

Wow!

A google image search of pathological liar shows:

a) Hillary Clinton as the 1st entry
b) Hillary Clinton at least once on each line

Go get 'em, CTR!

Re:Pathological liar

[Anonymous Coward]

Google image search is fun!

Tick tock, only 6 days left now! :D

Not even close

[Okian Warrior]

That's a hillbully [twitter.com] tell: hallucinate something outrageous, then ridicule the hallucination.

I've gotta say, as someone who is Not With Her, that must the lamest attempt to invalidate a point of view Okian Warrior could have possibly mustered to the debate.

Oh, please. I've made attempts that are way lamer than that!!!

Here's one.

(I'm having far too much fun right now!)

Re:Not even close

[Anonymous Coward]

Nowhere near as much as I will when the Orange bufoon loses, cant wait for the butt hurt to flow, good times indeed.

Re:Not even close

[NotAPK]

Go home idiot.

Re:Not even close

[amicusNYCL]

Nowhere near as much as I will when the Orange bufoon loses, cant wait for the butt hurt to flow, good times indeed.

That comment is a perfect expression of what's wrong with the country today. It's not enough that people want their own candidate to win, but it seems like so many people on either side actively want to see the other side suffer. It's toxic. It's a symptom of a much larger problem. If people are driven to violence because of the political process, it's going to be because of that attitude. We have a history in this country of trying to move forward with each other regardless of who the leader is, this toxic mindset of "us versus them" and wanting to see "the other side" suffer is un-American and has no place here.

BeauHD Clinton Shill filter please..

[bongey]

Can we get a filter for BeauHD keeps repetitively posting crap Trump bashing articles from multiple discredited sites from the podesta leaks.
Just search for Trump , then Clinton.
BeauHD has a majority of articles coming from cnbc, washington post, politco, buzzfeed,vice all have been called on in the podesta emails leaks.

Fucks sakes we got a tech article from Slate yesterday , next up is the huffington post.

Re:BeauHD Clinton Shill filter please..

[bongey]

BeauHDs twitter feed. "Trump is a saggy sack of shit. If any one of you is even remotely considering voting for him this November, please unfollow me. "

Donald insults bigly

[quax]

Nobody insults better than he does. Of course he only wants to be insulted by the very best, so owning these Trump dissing domains makes perfect sense.

Re:Donald insults bigly

[Anonymous Coward]

I get the joak, but you do know he never said bigly right?

Re:Donald insults bigly

[quax]

Maybely?

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazi...

Given the fact Trump is pretty much Hercule

[Z80a]

3600 domains may not be enough to keep his ego in check.
Of course, it still beats voting for Cell.

So Trump is smarter than Hillary

[Anonymous Coward]

Everybody already knows that. Nothing to see here, move on.

Common practice

[MFriis]

I work for a toy manufacturor in Denmark. We buy up all kinds of shitty domains to prevent idiots from squatting, spoofing or mocking. We even bought up our companies name as a TLD, despite having no wish to use it for anything. I really hope ICANN doesn't come up with anymore common TLD's. Buying .xxx domains solely to protect your companies reputation is nothing but extorition and tax.

Not a puppet, not a puppet

[0xdeadbeef]

"And not thin skinned. Most definitely not thinned skinned. I have the thickest skin. Let me tell you, it's thick, really thick."

And golly-bob howdy, his supporters sure are defensive in this thread.

I've been thinking, maybe the cluster fuck of him getting elected might be the only thing that fixes them. The way Paula Bean had to get fired, maybe these people need to see what happens to the country when they actually hold the reins.

Who am I kidding, they'd just find another conspiracy theory, or another ethnic group to blame. The system is rigged. The system is always rigged against them.

Re:Not a puppet, not a puppet

[DNS-and-BIND]

Are we ignoring that we know for a fact that the system is rigged? Hillary screwed Bernie out of the nomination. Again, we know this for a fact. We also have Democrats on tape discussing how they're going to cheat in the election. Hillary is a crook and this is how she does business. Are we really going to expect that during the most important event of her life, she's going to suddenly do a 180 and stop cheating?

And since Donald Trump is literally Hitler, why wouldn't the Democrats engage in massive voter fraud? If you could take a time machine back to 1932 and cheat in the elections that resulted in Nazis in power, wouldn't you? Or I should say, wouldn't you have the responsibility to cheat, and failing to do so would be unethical? Handwaving it away with "DURR HURR CONSPIRACY THEORY" is just stupid, it's not paranoia when they really are out to get you.

Re:Not a puppet, not a puppet

[Oswald McWeany]

If you could take a time machine back to 1932 and cheat in the elections that resulted in Nazis in power, wouldn't you?

I have a dark suspicion that if Trump were to win our ancestors will muse why no one assassinated him before he went to far. I don't condone killing, of course, but I do believe if Trump takes over, democracy in this country will never be truly democratic ever again.

Re:Not a puppet, not a puppet

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice incoherent message there. . .

Re:Not a puppet, not a puppet

[Anonymous Coward]

democracy in this country will never be truly democratic ever again.
 
Um, it's not democratic now. Not even the flimsy version of democracy that we see among flag wavers. But it still floors me that Hillary hijacking the nomination process doesn't have more people going against the two-party scam. I guess as long as a candidate has a little R or D after their name it just doesn't make a difference. The ideology of democracy is dead and this election shows it in spades if you're brave enough to take the blinders off and admit once and for all that those in power are willing to do whatever it takes to stay there, laws be damned.
 
The election itself is an Orwellian circus and anyone who tries to deny it is either a plain faced liar or a stooge. There is no other way about it at this point.
 
The power elite aren't even trying to fool you anymore. They've shown their hand and said "try and stop us" with a laugh and a shoulder shrug.
 
Enjoy it while you can because they're going to juice you like a grape regardless of who takes power.

Re:Not a puppet, not a puppet

[Anonymous Coward]

No you will be ignored. That is the standard tactic. Vote up things that go with your opinion, ignore refutations. That way the other side doesn't get defensive and inspired to up vote facts.

Re:Not a puppet, not a puppet

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a dark suspicion that if Trump were to win our ancestors will muse why no one assassinated him before he went to far.

If our ancestors are that bothered by it then why don't they just stop HIS ancestors from breeding so he's never born? No need to even kill anyone, just keep them apart.

Watch out

[silentcoder]

as Trump supporters accuse Hillary of fraud for not putting nude selfies on hillaryclinton.xxx

Re:Watch out

[Oswald McWeany]

as Trump supporters accuse Hillary of fraud for not putting nude selfies on hillaryclinton.xxx

It goes to show, sometimes fraud can be a good thing.

Re:Watch out

[silentcoder]

Yeah, she's a terrible photographer. Who wants to see blurry nudes ?

Uhh....

[easyTree]

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton's campaign owns 70 domains,

isis-weapons-superstore.com, killing-foreigners.com, amerikkka-world-police.com, suck-it-bitches.com, usa-usa-usa.com ?

Re: Get Real

[Anonymous Coward]

His heart's in the right place but I could only listen to part of that. The lyrics could do with some work too.

Re: Get Real

[mdsolar]

It is meant to be taunting and annoying. Can't beat the Violent Femmes on that though.

Re: Yuck

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll get your 3 month reprieve once the inauguration occurs. Then be prepared to grease your anus for the next year and a half of campaigning for the midterm elections.

Re:Yuck

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think Trump could buy a domain name by himself if his life depended on it. It's someone on his staff who is obsessed with Ivanka.

Still available

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Still available:

TrumpWantsToBangHisOwnDaughter.com
TrumpSucksMonkeyDicks.com
Trump-is-a-clear-and-present-danger.com
Trump-fucked-his-daughter-when-she-was-9.com
TrumpHasTinyTinyHands.com

. . . and so on. This is a game of Whack-A-Mole he can never, ever win.

Another unrelated but somewhat interesting fact:

The Clinton website carries campaign material in 11 Asian languages: Cambodian, Chinese, Gujarati, Hindi, Korean, Tagalog, Tamil, Telugu, Thai, Urdu and Vietnamese.

Trump's website is English only, period. If ya don't speak American, they don't want you.

Misleading Story

[jmac_the_man]

Comparing the number of domains owned by Trump personally with the number owned by Clinton's campaign isn't measuring what it's alleged to measure.

For one thing, the Clintons personally owned ClintonEmail.com, not the campaign. If that was a derogatory name, it wouldn't have shown up in the count.

For another thing, the article doesn't count derogatory names owned by supporters. The Democratic Party has been supporting the Clintons since at least 1992, right? Hillary personally has been running for President since 2000. I bet the Democrats own a bunch of anti-Clinton and anti-Hillary specifically domains that they bought defensively. Those domains aren't measured in the count either.

ABC and DomainIQ picked a dumb way to measure something that gave them an excuse to bitch about Trump, and Slashdot fell for it.

Re:Misleading Story

[Oswald McWeany]

Really, the whole thing is a non-event (and I say this as someone who wants Trump to fail). It really doesn't matter what domains either politician owns with their own (or their families names), it just shows how much they're willing to cover their arse. It doesn't say anything about the quality of their campaign.

Huma Clinton & Wiener

[unixisc]

Reason he got into sexting. Huma, as per the Qur'an (relevant here, since she's a Muslimah), was supposed to be his tilth. But she was never w/ him, so he ended up sexting w/ other women. Incidentally, did he know that the girl was underaged?

One thing ironic about this incident - the Clinton staff gets Brian Pagliano to apply bleachbit to the server, but overlooks Abedin's toys. Did she use the same laptop, or her phone? Given how cheap laptops are these days, I find it strange that they shared a laptop (desktop, I would understand, given the space taken). Or was it that her phone backed up her emails to the cloud - be it iCloud, OneDrive or whatever - and then that automatically got downloaded on Wiener's laptop. Another thing - did the couple share a login, assuming that they were using Windows XP or later, or did they have a Mac, and does the Mac not allow separate logins? I mean, how would the FBI find her emails on the same email client as his? (When I was married, I shared a desktop w/ my wife, but we had separate logins)

While the closeness b/w Humary has been widely reported - Abedin being described as Clinton's other daughter, I can't imagine that that's the case any more. After having her staff violate the law and using bleachbit to delete everything at file system level, her deleted emails are likely a part of the 650,000 emails retrieved on her other daughter's husband's laptop. This is just too hilarious - regardless of whether it was Abedin sharing her husband's laptop, or cloud backup doing its magic and trumping Bleachbit.

Given that she's probably in the doghouse w/ her boss, Abedin should revoke her separation, go back to Wiener, and embrace Wiener fully. Have 6-7 more kids from him, so that he no longer feels the need to text his wiener to other girls - underaged or not

Re:Huma Clinton & Wiener

[amicusNYCL]

Reason he got into sexting. Huma, as per the Qur'an (relevant here, since she's a Muslimah), was supposed to be his tilth. But she was never w/ him, so he ended up sexting w/ other women.

That's exactly right. When your wife, who is your property, has a job or does something else to cause her to not be sexually available to you 100% of the time, then it's your human right to try to fuck other women and make them your property too. Everyone knows that, I'm surprised you even feel the need to point it out. What's equally obvious is that he has very little ego, which may be why he got into politics, and never would have even thought to reach out to other women on his own, but was virtually forced to due to the fact that his wife was literally never with him.

Given that she's probably in the doghouse w/ her boss, Abedin should revoke her separation, go back to Wiener, and embrace Wiener fully. Have 6-7 more kids from him, so that he no longer feels the need to text his wiener to other girls - underaged or not

That's exactly right, she should put her own career and aspirations on hold in order to completely submit to her philandering husband, crank out half a dozen children (because that's exactly what women are supposed to do), and otherwise work at sating his ego in order to stop him from doing what he's always done. It's her fault that he's been cheating on her for years and years, he is not to blame, it is her responsibility to make sure he isn't trying to cheat, and she needs to sacrifice her career to save their relationship, which is obviously totally worth saving.

I'm happy that we agree on so much. Incidentally, I notice that you say you were married, in the past tense. What happened there?

Re:Huma Clinton & Wiener

[unixisc]

She didn't want to support me when I lost my job, even though I wasn't planning to be a stay-at-home dad forever: I'd have taken a job anytime I got it, which I ultimately did

Re:Huma Clinton & Wiener

[unixisc]

Your points are valid, but the reason I stated what I did is that Abedin had in the past - along w/ other members of her family - been the part of the editorial board of an Islamic advocacy paper, and very recently, had been a shrill voice about Trump's Muslim ban. Islam is obviously a big thing w/ her, being as she has been a lobbyist for the Saudis. Normally, I don't believe that women are the property of their husbands, but if the woman in question is a shill for Islam, as Abedin obviously is, I make an exception, since she's being a hypocrite. All the things that you facetiously wrote is what Islam actually believes - women are the property of their husbands, it's their jobs to keep them satisfied, submit to them, give them as many kids as they feel like and sacrifice their careers for them, and so on. Only thing in this case - she married Wiener, who was not a Muslim, and such marriages are forbidden in Islam, which is why some people think Wiener is a closet Muslim.

More seriously, yes, he is a dirtbag, and any woman is fully justified in dumping him. But given what she has been supporting and advocating, she is a hypocrite for not servicing him the way her faith dictates. Unless she thinks that she needn't do that since he is an infidel Infidel

Trump, Obama and Putin

[unixisc]

If Putin was invading US territories and conquering them, the question of patriotism would arise. It doesn't arise when the allies in question are spurious at best - like France or Germany, or deeply hostile at worst, like Saudi Arabia or Qatar.

A president has the prerogative to alter foreign policies, and redefine who our friends are and who our enemies are. There is nothing inate about Russia having to be our adversary: if they happen to share certain common enemies that we share, like Jihadist parties anywhere, they can be defined as an ally, should a president so choose. On one hand, we have to kowtow to the wishes of Europe, even if they made it next to impossible to go into Iraq (that that turned out to be a wrong decision was something else, since Europe didn't have the argument that Iran would be strengthened by such a move). Turkey is an 'ally' despite denying us the usage of Incirliq during that conflict, and secretly supporting ISIS b'cos they both hate the Kurds. Yet we are supposed to oppose Russia.

Also, Obama has not been neutral in this election: he is aggressively campaigning for Clinton in this election, going to the unseemly extent of badmouthing Trump even abroad, while talking to foreign leaders. This from the party that during the Clinton years lectured us about politics stopping at the water's edge. If he is busy doing that, why is Trump morally obligated to support Obama over Putin? Those etiquettes work both ways. Given the way Obama has made it okay for foreign leaders to worry about the outcome of what is really the internal issue of the US - our elections, it's downright false to conflate US interests w/ Obama's wishes. It is Obama's wish that Trump not be elected. The US, as a country, has no interest in whether Trump or Clinton get elected. Actually, it does, since Clinton is the one w/ a record of peddling in classified information, to extents that are yet to be fully comprehended

Trump and Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting. Can you please link to the policy where he states that?

Thanks.

It's a bit grey:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/aug/04/did-trump-campaign-soften-platform-language-benefi/

His comments about NATO are moronic:

https://warisboring.com/trump-wants-to-be-extorter-in-chief-5c45b5ea7675
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/27/donald-trump-nato-isolationist

But many people around him have leanings / dealings towards Russia:

http://www.politifact.com/global-news/article/2016/may/02/paul-manafort-donald-trumps-top-adviser-and-his-ti/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/17/trump-campaign-chief-helped-pro-russians-in-ukraine-move-money-t/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/heres-what-we-know-about-donald-trump-and-his-ties-to-russia/2016/07/29/1268b5ec-54e7-11e6-88eb-7dda4e2f2aec_story.html
http://time.com/4433880/donald-trump-ties-to-russia/

It'd be nice if he released his financial records.

ha, and you can see russia from your porch?

[Anonymous Coward]

You people crack me up - you think all sorts of phony quotes are real. There is absolutely no proof that Trump is clueless about nukes and asked why we cannot use them. There's only a rumor from an anonymous source - like the source that told me that Hillary is a space alien. Even if Trump HAD asked some related question, without some context you would not know what he MEANT given that many liberals have long asked why we have nukes if we cannot use them (while pushing for disarmament)

This garbage reminds me of all the idiots who still think Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house - she never said it. That was a Palin impersonator on Saturday Night Live, and fools who get all their information from late night comics are still convinces Palin said it, thus establishing the FACT that they are dumber then Palin ever was.

I find this funny.

[djnforce9]

Haha, so Donald Trump doesn't want people opening hate websites against him so his solution is to snatch up all the potential domains. How is someone so insecure and egotistical come even close to being a suitable country leader? All a foreign minister has to do to win him over is claim that he'll grow extra large hands and better hair if the US bends over backwards for their country.

Re:Yuck

[djnforce9]

Yeah, he claimed he would date her if she wasn't his daughter. This video sums it up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Fun Fact

[Plumpaquatsch]

The Trump "Organization" doesn't own Trump.org. They could have, but missed it. Here's yet another tiny reason why you should ask yourself: Is he fit to be president?

"TRUMP" WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

One domain he didn't get is trump.wtf