SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Friday September 16 2016, @02:35PM
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
"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
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
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
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
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
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.