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

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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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.

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:Including slashdot.org?

[Trogre]

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

Thanks.

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

[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

[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

[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 ?

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:Propaganda Machine... Check!

[PopeRatzo]

Remember Propaganda was recently LEGALIZED under Obama...

Propaganda has never been illegal.

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!

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

[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.

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: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.