Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday September 16 2016, @12:57PM   Printer-friendly
from the need-better-pipes? dept.

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37364189

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell has reportedly called Republican nominee Donald Trump a "national disgrace," according to leaked emails. The Republican retired four-star general's comments were revealed in a hack on his personal emails. The emails were posted on DCLeaks.com, which has reportedly been tied to other recent high-profile hacks. Mr. Powell, who has been quiet during the election, said he had "no further comment" but was "not denying it".

[...] Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who crossed party lines in 2008 to endorse Democratic [candidate] Barack Obama, has tried to float above this year's tendentious presidential election. So much for that. First the government released his note to Democrat Hillary Clinton advising her on how to use personal email for back-channel communications while secretary of state. Now - in an ironic twist - his personal email has been hacked, revealing sweeping denunciations of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump and some sharp criticisms of Democrat Hillary Clinton.

[...] "Yup, the whole birther movement was racist," the email read. "That's what the 99% believe. When Trump couldn't keep that up he said he also wanted to see if the certificate noted that he was a Muslim." But the leaked emails also revealed Mr Powell's frustrations with Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and her handling of her use of private email while at the State Department. "Sad thing... HRC could have killed this two years ago by merely telling everyone honestly what she had done and not tie me into it," the email read, referring to Mrs Clinton. "I told her staff three times not to try that gambit. I had to throw a mini tantrum at a Hampton's party to get their attention."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday September 16 2016, @01:48PM

    by Thexalon (636) on Friday September 16 2016, @01:48PM (#402771)

    Former Secretary of State Colin Powell has reportedly called Republican nominee Donald Trump a "national disgrace," according to leaked emails.

    Well, he is:
    - He's a liar [politifact.com] to a degree that's unusual even for a politician. (And don't give me that "he's not a politician" nonsense: If you're running for president, you're a politician, regardless of what job you had before that.)
    - He's generally been a lousy businessman [gawker.com], who is rich primarily because he inherited the money [nationaljournal.com].
    - He has mob ties [politico.com].
    - One of his companies, Trump Model Management [motherjones.com], routinely violated immigration laws, and used tactics not too different from human traffickers to prevent the models from leaving.
    - He by all appearances is sexually interested in his daughter Ivanka [mediaite.com], even if he hasn't acted on it beyond kissing her, talking in glowing terms about her boobs, and groping her butt on national TV.
    - He's hiding his personal finances [time.com] in a way no presidential candidate has for 40 years.
    - He's racist [vox.com].
    - He's obviously incredibly sexist.

    And that's just a few of the more obvious problems. I'm not much of a fan of Hillary Clinton, but the fact is that this guy should never have been taken seriously. If you want to understand how far the Republican Party has fallen, compare Donald Trump to Mitt Romney or John McCain.

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Troll=1, Insightful=3, Underrated=1, Total=5
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @01:51PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @01:51PM (#402773)

    True, but think how fun it will be to see all the establishment figures wring their hands and talk about going to Canada when Trump wins!

    • (Score: 2) by computersareevil on Friday September 16 2016, @05:17PM

      by computersareevil (749) on Friday September 16 2016, @05:17PM (#402872)

      Why don't any of them talk about moving to Mexico? Are they racist? Or just hypocrites?

      • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday September 16 2016, @09:41PM

        by tangomargarine (667) on Friday September 16 2016, @09:41PM (#402956)

        Because Canada is a better place to live? How is picking Canada over Mexico hypocrisy?

        People who constantly call everything hypocrisy drive me nuts.

        --
        "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
        • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @11:22PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @11:22PM (#402981)

          Because lefty elitists say we should all be equal but when push comes to shove, they will not live in a 3rd-world country?

          People who assume questions are statements drive me nuts.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @11:36PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @11:36PM (#402985)

          Mexico is pretty nice. Not all of it, but there aren't many genuinely nice places in Canada either.
          I've heard that a work visa is a lot harder to get in Mexico than it is in Canada.
          But that's just going by the complaints of white nativists who want to build a wall.

  • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @01:59PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @01:59PM (#402777)

    Heck, you can even compare Trump to George W. Bush and still see how far they have fallen!

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @02:14PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @02:14PM (#402789)

      8 years earlier, Dubayah could've been the first president to get a peace prize for doing nothing instead of Obama.

      For the record, I don't think either of them or Clinton deserve one, but we've all seen the standards going down, whether in office, or awards.

      Hey, maybe next year Xi Jinpei can be given a Human Right's Award. I think he has more than earned it :P

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @08:52PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @08:52PM (#402935)

        I think if you are a US president and you don't start a war, you deserve the peace prize. Of course I am not sure if there has been one to date that has not started one. Obama started several, from Libya to Syria.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @10:22PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @10:22PM (#402966)

        ITYM Xi Jinping not Xi Jinpei

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Friday September 16 2016, @02:35PM

    by bradley13 (3053) on Friday September 16 2016, @02:35PM (#402801) Homepage Journal

    Some of your points about Trump are right, others are wrong, many are debatable (Gawker criticizing his business sense is a bit rich). All of them are completely irrelevant.

    You have forgotten that the Republican party wanted nothing to do with him. They never took him seriously. They assumed his candidacy would provide a few laughs, but they had already designated Jeb Bush to be their candidate.

    The Democrats did exactly the same thing with Hillary. Bernie Sanders was never meant to be more than a foil.

    It turns out that voters are tired of having sham primaries with pre-designated winners. They elected Trump as a way of telling the Republican party to stuff itself. The same thing would have happened to the Democratic party, except that their primary system is even more corrupt than that of the Republicans.

    Trump has already won. This election is dominated by voters fed up with sham elections, where the winner has been pre-selected. Just about anyone with a bit of charisma, able to run outside of the established system, would win this election. The only thing that could stop Trump now would be if the political elite manage to arrange some sort of strange and unfortunate accident [zerohedge.com]. I sincerely hope Trump has good security people, entirely independent of the Secret Service.

    --
    Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday September 16 2016, @03:04PM

      by Thexalon (636) on Friday September 16 2016, @03:04PM (#402819)

      So if I'm understanding your argument correctly, it doesn't matter who's president of the United States, really, so long as they aren't part of the corrupt political establishment that is rigging elections. Right?

      Based on that same argument, who you should really be backing is not Trump, but Vermin Supreme [wikipedia.org]. Unlike Trump [politico.com], Vermin Supreme has no connections whatsoever to the political establishment, has never been involved in rigging an election in his entire life, and his winning would tell both the Republican and Democratic parties to stuff themselves. So why not back Vermin Supreme instead? I know for a fact he's a very nice and smart guy: A number of my friends got to hang out with him at the RNC, where he spent most of his time diffusing situations that could have turned into riots by turning them into comedy instead.

      Trump has already won.

      Except that he hasn't, because nobody's voted yet.

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
      • (Score: 3, Funny) by bradley13 on Friday September 16 2016, @03:26PM

        by bradley13 (3053) on Friday September 16 2016, @03:26PM (#402830) Homepage Journal

        No, I'm not saying that is doesn't matter who is president. It does matter, or at least it should matter.

        I'm just saying that this election is going to go to whoever was *not* pre-designated by the R's or the D's. People would appear to be fed up with the political elite - at least, enough people to make a real difference. Trump could have any anyone, as long as that anyone was a billionaire and could speak in public.

        If I could vote in the US elections, I would be one of those people. And absolutely, I would vote for Vermin Supreme before voting for Hillary or Jeb.

        That's not how it should be. That's just how it is. Barring disaster, Trump will almost certainly win in a landslide: I'll be shocked if he doesn't get 60% of the vote.

        --
        Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
    • (Score: 3, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday September 16 2016, @03:42PM

      by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Friday September 16 2016, @03:42PM (#402837) Journal

      Bernie Sanders was never meant to be more than a foil.

      It turns out that voters are tired of having sham primaries with pre-designated winners. They elected Trump as a way of telling the Republican party to stuff itself. The same thing would have happened to the Democratic party, except that their primary system is even more corrupt than that of the Republicans.

      You lose a little credibility when you make a statement like that in the middle of a mostly insightful post. I agree that Bernie would have likely been a better candidate than Hillary (though both have their flaws, but I'm no fan of Hillary as some of my other posts can attest), but claiming that Hillary won just because "their primary system is... corrupt" borders on the "conspiracy theory" level.

      Hillary won ~55% of the Democratic votes, to Bernie's ~42%. She won a clear majority of voters, exceeding Bernie's count by over 3.5 million. Meanwhile, Trump received millions *fewer* votes than Hillary, roughly 47% of the total Republican votes, though that was in a race with more viable candidates until later... so Trump was over 5.5 million votes ahead of his closest competitor, Cruz.

      Is the Democratic Party corrupt? Of course. Were there some decisions and actions in various states that the party took that disadvantaged Bernie and in some cases were completely unfair? Sure. Did the Hillary campaign use its leverage with contacts in the media to get a huge advantage there? Sure.

      But, in the end, Hillary got over 3.5 MILLION more votes in the primaries than Bernie. That is NOT some small amount. So, if you're going to claim that Bernie only lost because of "corruption," you're endorsing the view that the Democrats somehow fraudulently created 3.5 MILLION more votes for their chosen candidate. I'm willing to believe the Dems are corrupt, but that's just a bit unbelievable, don't you think?

      • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @04:03PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @04:03PM (#402848)

        Were there some decisions and actions in various states that the party took that disadvantaged Bernie and in some cases were completely unfair? Sure. Did the Hillary campaign use its leverage with contacts in the media to get a huge advantage there? Sure.

        http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427026/why-democrats-buried-their-debates-times-no-one-will-watch-brendan-bordelon [nationalreview.com]

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/harry-reid-bernie-sanders-dnc_us_5799259fe4b02d5d5ed42db6 [huffingtonpost.com]

        https://theintercept.com/2016/07/22/dnc-staffers-mocked-the-bernie-sanders-campaign-leaked-emails-show/ [theintercept.com]

        • (Score: 2) by Arik on Friday September 16 2016, @11:43PM

          by Arik (4543) on Friday September 16 2016, @11:43PM (#402988) Journal
          "Were there some decisions and actions in various states that the party took that disadvantaged Bernie and in some cases were completely unfair? Sure. Did the Hillary campaign use its leverage with contacts in the media to get a huge advantage there? Sure.

          http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427026/why-democrats-buried-their-debates-times-no-one-will-watch-brendan-bordelon

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/harry-reid-bernie-sanders-dnc_us_5799259fe4b02d5d5ed42db6

          https://theintercept.com/2016/07/22/dnc-staffers-mocked-the-bernie-sanders-campaign-leaked-emails-show/"

          That's a good start.

          Another post has pointed out the whole superdelegate system which mean the fix was in from the start.

          Then you also have this curious bit of statistics:

          http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/16/clinton-does-best-where-voting-machines-flunk-hacking-tests-hillary-clinton-vs-bernie-sanders-election-fraud-allegations/

          No, he's right, if it's possible to be even more corrupt than the RNC the DNC did it. It wasn't enough to preselect your candidate and insure her win no matter what the little people decided to do in the booths, no, if they only wanted to ensure Clinton got it in the end they wouldn't have needed to pull half these maneuvers. They didn't even want anyone to remember him as an also-ran.

          --
          If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @06:35PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @06:35PM (#402894)

        So, if you're going to claim that Bernie only lost because of "corruption," you're endorsing the view that the Democrats somehow fraudulently created 3.5 MILLION more votes for their chosen candidate.

        People who think like you are describing are not bernie voters. By that I mean they don't give a damn about the issues that bernie ran on. They only care about over-throwing the system and they would have made the same rationalizations about any candidate. Note that fits Bradley perfectly.

        Anyone who thinks over-throwing a system is a good idea need look no further than "mission accomplished" Iraq. Over-throwing without a competent plan to replace is a recipe for disaster. Trump is nothing more than chaos, he is on all sides of every issue. Bernie was a man with a plan. Its no surprise he's whole-heartedly endorsed Clinton because Trump's chaos is going to suuuuuuck and suck for the most vulnerable because the poor and out of work have the least cushion to survive chaos.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by bradley13 on Friday September 16 2016, @06:37PM

        by bradley13 (3053) on Friday September 16 2016, @06:37PM (#402897) Homepage Journal

        What I meant by the Democratic primaries being corrupt: superdelegates. It was always obvious that the superdelegates would go almost entirely to Hillary, because they are all insiders, not bound to any sort of popular vote. To win, Sanders would have needed a massive landslide.

        This distorted the entire primary process. It undoubtedly discouraged many potential supporters, it certainly limited his ability to raise funds. Who wants to invest time and money supporting a candidate who cannot win? When it is so obvious that "the fix is in", it's amazing that his results were as good as they were.

        --
        Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Friday September 16 2016, @06:40PM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 16 2016, @06:40PM (#402899) Journal

        "borders on the "conspiracy theory" level."

        You did notice that Wasserman-Schultz resigned in disgrace, when the conspiracy was revealed? There WAS a conspiracy!!

        I've been told that Bernie won in every state that has open primaries. That is, in those states where the D's and R's have banned independents from participating in the primaries, Hillary had a big advantage. Those states that welcome people like myself to the primaries went to Bernie. In short, Hillary won by disenfranchising millions of voters.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @07:04PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @07:04PM (#402905)

          Correlation is not causation.
          That applies to both of your points - about the resignation and open primaries.
          The resignation was PR management.
          Open primaries aren't the only factor at work. And the very first state I bothered to check, South Carolina [synonym.com] went heavily for Clinton and has open presidential primaries.

          • (Score: 2) by tibman on Friday September 16 2016, @08:54PM

            by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 16 2016, @08:54PM (#402936)

            The resignation was PR management.

            Wait, are you saying she did nothing wrong? Or that there was no "conspiracy"?

            --
            SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @09:10PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @09:10PM (#402943)

              I'm saying there was no conspiracy. What she did wrong was fail to enforce policy and consequently partisans in the organization acted out. They sent some stupid emails and while there is no proof, they probably made some selfish choices that should have been over-ruled. But anyone who takes her resignation (and the subsequent resignation of a couple of staffers after the convention) to be anything more than PR management to avoid pulling focus from the campaign is someone seeking confirmation of their own biases.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @05:42PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @05:42PM (#402880)

      Trump has already won. This election is dominated by voters fed up with sham elections, where the winner has been pre-selected. Just about anyone with a bit of charisma, able to run outside of the established system, would win this election. The only thing that could stop Trump now would be if the political elite manage to arrange some sort of strange and unfortunate accident. I sincerely hope Trump has good security people, entirely independent of the Secret Service.

      Citation needed. Last I heard, Clinton has about a 60% chance of winning, and Trump has a 40% chance [fivethirtyeight.com]. The only people I've heard talking about the election being rigged is Trump (whom, I note, constantly complains about things being rigged when he is losing, but stays silent when things are to his advantage; see Republican nomination process; nice confirmation bias).

      It's possible all the polls, the "Mainstream Media," international news sources, and verifiable metrics (donations to campaign, voter registration numbers, etc) are all conspiring to make it look like Trump is losing despite his advantages... but I think it is more likely that the majority of voters are hesitant with a non-politican who constantly lies, U-turns, refuses to release financial information and ties, wants a 5-trillion-dollar deficit budget funded by tax cuts for the wealthy, and who endorses unconstitutional immigration policies.

      (That he is a serious contender speaks volumes for how bad Clinton is, too. All he had to do was stop sticking his foot in his mouth for 3 weeks for his credibility to shoot through the roof.)

      If you have real evidence, please provide it. Otherwise you sound just like a raving conspiracy theorist saying how it is "obvious" how lizard people control the world. I'll admit that some conspiracy theories are true, but far more are just wacko baseless ranting.

      Oh, and "[John Ashe] was not about to testify against Hillary Clinton or the DNC at the time he died — he was set to begin pre-trial meetings related to corruption charges against himself. [snopes.com]" But I guess Snopes could be in on the conspiracy, too. Who knows how deep this goes?!

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @06:34PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @06:34PM (#402893)

      You are dramatically overstating the importance of being outside the establishment.

      Most of trumps appeal is to older white guys and his message of "lets make America great again" really should be translated "lets make America white again, and get the little lady back in the kitchen (or bedroom) where she belongs".

      Trump is a bully...nothing can change that.; it is in his DNA. He says the first thing that comes into his head regardless of whether there are facts behind it or not. I firmly believe he is not really "lying" as he believes on some level everything that he says. That may differentiate him from other politicians as many of them will say things for calculated reasons knowing they are false.

      I think Trump sees something, formulates some simplified set of facts that could lead to what he sees if they were true, and then believes the facts that he just made up.

      Not presidential material in any sense of the word....

      The funny thing is that those who want to be "led" by him, aren't really suffering in any sense of the word. They are average middle class people who think they could have it better, but probably would live the exact same under any president.

      I too am not a Hillary fan, but I will vote for her in my swing state because a vote for any third party candidate may lead to a Trump victory.

      If I lived in Red State or a Blue State, I would certainly not vote for Trump or Hillary.

  • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday September 16 2016, @02:47PM

    by tangomargarine (667) on Friday September 16 2016, @02:47PM (#402806)

    - He's hiding his personal finances [time.com] in a way no presidential candidate has for 40 years.

    Is this a thing we really need to be caring about? It seems like the last 3 or 4 elections in a row somebody's been whining about a candidate not releasing their blah blah blah and it never means anything.

    If Trump is actually running on the merits of his business savvy, not doing so reads like a bad joke, but I doubt we'd find anything particularly shocking if he did release them.

    --
    "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @03:27PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @03:27PM (#402831)

      Except that he pays a likely tax rate of near 0% (which isnt uncommon for land developers) and it would likely piss some voters off.

      Though if forced he'd pull the usual huckster trick:

      "See!? The system is so corrupt that rich guys dont even have to pay taxes! A Trump Presidency means a more honest tax code because I'll simply instate a 0% tax on the ultra-wealthy instead of them having to do it through accounting tricks and loopholes. Honesty and transparency folks!"

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday September 16 2016, @04:21PM

      by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Friday September 16 2016, @04:21PM (#402856) Journal

      If Trump is actually running on the merits of his business savvy, not doing so reads like a bad joke, but I doubt we'd find anything particularly shocking if he did release them.

      A few things:

      (1) We'd likely see Trump's net worth is a LOT less than he claims. Quite a few experienced folks have questioned Trump's own estimates of his net worth over the years -- not just in this election cycle. How big is the disparity? We can't know, though some people think it's pretty significant. There was a well-known 2005 incident when Trump was claiming a net worth of $5-6 billion -- and in some brochures closer to $10 billion, which is about what he claims these days -- but those with intimate knowledge of his finances told the New York Times [nytimes.com] that his net worth was more like $150-250 million. Trump sued for libel, but lost the case largely partly because he refused to turn over unredacted financial documents to prove his actual net worth. Is that actually shocking news? Probably not. But a large disparity (which is likely) speaks to Trump's continuing pattern of misrepresenting the truth. What if Trump isn't actually even a billionaire? (He certainly owns more than a billion dollars in assets, but estimates on his loans and debts vary widely.) If the New York Times piece was close to true in 2005, Trump was then inflating his claimed wealth to be 20-40 times what it actually was.
      (2) We'd likely see how little Trump pays in taxes and how he avoids them. Again, not a particularly shocking thing for a rich person, but to average folks who support him, will they really feel it's okay if he's paying half or a third or less of what they pay (in terms of income percentage)?
      (3) Trump has claimed to have donated to various causes during the election, for example his support of veterans. Perhaps those numbers are much lower or less significant than what he has claimed.

      Is any of this likely to change the mind of a die-hard Trump supporter? Probably not, unless perhaps it could be shown Trump isn't even a billionaire. (Unlikely, but seems possible given his known past manipulations of his net worth.) But for those still on the fence, it's cause for more doubt with the propensity for exaggerating, misleading statements, and sometimes outright lies from Trump.

    • (Score: 1) by shipofgold on Friday September 16 2016, @09:06PM

      by shipofgold (4696) on Friday September 16 2016, @09:06PM (#402940)

      I doubt we'd find anything particularly shocking if he did release them.

      I disagree....I am guessing there is some bombshell that he doesn't want reported. Perhaps a loan from Russia or some other leverage they have on him, but could be a lot of places/things where his finances would show he is campaigning on one thing and doing something else.

      The guy has no morals, and will say anything he thinks you want to hear..

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by jelizondo on Friday September 16 2016, @03:04PM

    by jelizondo (653) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 16 2016, @03:04PM (#402817) Journal

    Most of the coverage is against Trump and omits what Powell wrote about Clinton:

    I don't like Trump, I think Powell lied to Americans and the UN to get us into Iraq and I don't trust HRC at all. So I am as far from partisan as one can get on this issue. What I'm saying is, if we're going to call the kettle, let's call the pot as well.

    So get off your arses and vote for Jill!

    • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday September 16 2016, @03:31PM

      by Thexalon (636) on Friday September 16 2016, @03:31PM (#402834)

      Yes, I agree with that assessment as well. I'm not a fan of Hillary Clinton.

      I'm saying I'm voting for Jill in the polls. If it looks like my state will be close, I'll probably vote for Clinton, because while I'm not a fan of her by any stretch of the imagination I don't think she's as dangerously stupid as Trump.

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
      • (Score: 4, Touché) by BK on Friday September 16 2016, @05:29PM

        by BK (4868) on Friday September 16 2016, @05:29PM (#402876)

        I'm saying I'm voting for Jill in the polls. If it looks like my state will be close, I'll probably vote for Clinton

        So you'll vote for Jill unless it seems like it could matter. If it seems like it could matter, you prefer someone who has a track record of screwing up everything she touches instead of someone competent. Surely that's an interesting perspective.

        --
        ...but you HAVE heard of me.
        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @06:49PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @06:49PM (#402901)

          > So you'll vote for Jill unless it seems like it could matter. If it seems like it could matter,

          Er no. Jill is not going to win. Its going to be Trump or Clinton. No ifs ands or buts.

          The value of voting for Jill is to signal your discontent with current policies. That signal is measured by the number of votes she gets. But, if you believe in Jill's ideals then letting Trump win is a net loss - Jill gets a marginally stronger signal but the country is looking at a significantly worse set of policy implementations.

          If you do not give a damn about Jill's ideals then yeah, let Trump win. But if you care about how the country is governed for the next 4 years and however long the aftermath lasts then a voter in a swing state should vote clinton. Lie on the poll to keep them scared. But don't let an American Brexit happen.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @09:55PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @09:55PM (#402960)

            a voter in a swing state should vote clinton

            A swing state will not be decided by a single vote and the SCOTUS would step in if the margin was even around 1000 votes.

            You should just vote for who you want.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @11:38PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @11:38PM (#402986)

              > A swing state will not be decided by a single vote

              Because there is only one person in a swing state considering this choice.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 17 2016, @01:32AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 17 2016, @01:32AM (#403006)

              In a swing state a vote for clinton or trump has a lot more value than a vote in a safe state because swing.

              But when it comes to 3rd party candidates without a chance of winning any state, all votes are equal regardless of state.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @09:35PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @09:35PM (#402953)

        If it looks like my state will be close

        Unless you think your state will be so close that your individual vote will change the result, then it will not matter. It also won't matter because even if your individual vote would break a tie, then SCOTUS would be making the decision.

        Just vote for whichever candidate you actually want.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday September 16 2016, @03:04PM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 16 2016, @03:04PM (#402818) Journal

    And - even if all of that is 100% true - he is still a better person than his opponent. Damn, that really sucks, don't it?

    • (Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Friday September 16 2016, @04:29PM

      by Nerdfest (80) on Friday September 16 2016, @04:29PM (#402858)

      Touch choice. It comes down to a choice between stupid or evil.

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday September 16 2016, @05:55PM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 16 2016, @05:55PM (#402885) Journal

        Most of us have been dealing with stupid people all our lives. (I suppose that a few of our members may BE stupid, but, let's not even go there, alright?) I'll take stupid over evil, any time, thank you. The evil bastard will stick a knife in your back, just for fun. Stupid may screw you in dozens of different ways, but he won't knife you for the fun of it.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @07:56PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @07:56PM (#402917)

        I don't find T a bastion morality either. H is not slimier than the average politician. Most politicians ARE slimeballs. You have to be to win such an ugly game.

        T admires Putin, who is as slimy as they come.

        But the important difference between her and T is that H can shut-up when she wants to. When dealing with world leaders and diplomats, the skill to STFU at the right time is paramount.

        Reality-TV-politics perhaps can fly in the USA, but not the entire world. The don't "get" that style, and won't tolerate it.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @08:30PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @08:30PM (#402925)

        > Touch choice. It comes down to a choice between stupid or evil.

        Oh please.
        Do you find pleasure in being a low information voter?
        Sure, you've got just enough of the information spoon fed to you. But you've applied no critical thinking.

        For example, just to pick a recent meme of evil: The fact that clinton had her phones smashed with a hammer is yet another example of her being evil because “People who have nothing to hide don’t smash phones with hammers.”

        Except, duh! Of course she had something to hide. She was secretary of state, destroying the phones is expected because its a cache of info about her and her job. If anything they should have been more thoroughly destroyed.

        With clinton its always working backwards from the facts to prove she's evil. She did X and since we know she's evil, we know she did X to be evil. Any other mundane explanation for X is just partisanship. I used to dislike Clinton, but shit what I dislike more are people who fail to apply critical thinking and think they are insightful. The constant stream of shallow, uncritical arguments about Clinton being evil has been the most persuasive factor in convincing me that she's not evil.

        • (Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Friday September 16 2016, @08:39PM

          by Nerdfest (80) on Friday September 16 2016, @08:39PM (#402929)

          Being beholden to corporations that are are turning the US into a serfdom is what I consider evil, not smashing phones. There are other items on the list, but that's the big one. I'm sure the idiot would sell out as well, but he's in it for the narcissism.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @09:14PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @09:14PM (#402945)

            > Being beholden to corporations that are are turning the US into a serfdom is what I consider evil,

            Ok. Lets do this. Name your best evidence for that belief. Something that you and I can both dig deep into and verify.
            I'm talking about the application of critical thinking and analysis, not working backwards from the assumption she's evil.

            Be warned, I've done this sort of thing about a dozen times just for my own edification. And every...single...time it turned out to be other than the surface presentation. So if you haven't done this before, if you've just been content with the surface analysis, you are probably going to have some cognitive dissonance.

            • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday September 16 2016, @09:38PM

              by tangomargarine (667) on Friday September 16 2016, @09:38PM (#402955)

              How about you log in first

              --
              "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @09:47PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @09:47PM (#402959)

                This is not about me, or you, or whoever it is that I've asked to convince me why clinton is evil.
                Having an account does not change the truth.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 18 2016, @11:43AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 18 2016, @11:43AM (#403335)

            I'm sorry to see that you aren't going to follow up and put your money where your mouth is. Although I can't say I'm surprised. Critical thinking is hard. Hating on someone with power is easy, even if it just enables the powerful to be evil.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @07:28PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @07:28PM (#402909)

    Stop spreading lies. The truth is that it takes about 40 hours to counter all of the media's lies about Trump:

    https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLMNj_r5bccUx2XNPeFH5d9xsZPra4zvyS [youtube.com]

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @11:00PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @11:00PM (#402974)

    https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/534dp9/trump_visits_little_haiti_in_florida_reporters/ [reddit.com]

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5IS6Ya005E [youtube.com]

    tl;dw? Trump sits and watches an ex Haiti senator detail the financial abuse of the clinton foundation.

    From one of the comments on reddit

    5:40 - 11:15 The President of the Haitian Senate in 1994 speaks of his experience with the "Clinton Invasion." At one point he explains Clinton sent a messenger to him explaining that if he went along with their "invasion" he would be the richest man in Haiti. He refused. His visa was immediately revoked by executive order. Says less than 2% of donations to the 2010 Haiti fund were spent on relief. Has records to back up claim. Asks Trump to bring up the Haitian Relief Audit during debate

    others give their remarks regarding Haitian poverty and the effect the Clinton Foundation has had on their home

    14:30 Press walks out

    This is who you are backing.

    With the email leaks we are finding out that the clintons 'conspiracy theorys' are not that. They are looking to be very true. I used to just shake my head and go jeeze guys stop with the hyperbole of clinton for prison. It is looking more and more like yeah these people need to be in jail.

    That is just from *today*. I am starting to think Trump has a long list of stuff. He has had years to get the research he needs. He probably will be popping up every other day with little gems like this.