SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the latest,-latest-read-all-about-it dept.
Partial transcripts of Hillary Clinton's Wall Street speeches have been released by WikiLeaks along with other emails from Hillary Clinton's campaign chair John Podesta. Bernie Sanders had called on Clinton to release transcripts of the speeches, for which she is estimated to have earned around $26 million, during the Democratic primary:
Transcripts of private speeches by US Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton have been released by the whistle-blowing site Wikileaks. In one of the extracts, Mrs Clinton told bankers that they were best-placed to help reform the US financial sector. [...] The excerpts include comments made at an event sponsored by Goldman Sachs in October 2013 in which Mrs Clinton spoke of the need to consult Wall Street over financial reform. "The people that know the industry better than anybody are the people who work in the industry," Mrs Clinton said. At another speech presented to a Brazilian bank in 2013, she spoke of her "dream" for a common trade market. "My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere," Mrs Clinton said.
John Podesta blames the Russians. The emails were posted a few days after the 10th anniversary of WikiLeaks.
Here is "The Podesta Emails; Part One" press release at WikiLeaks, which emphasizes Clinton involvement with the sale of Uranium One to Russian interests:
As Russian interests gradually took control of Uranium One millions of dollars were donated to the Clinton Foundation between 2009 and 2013 from individuals directly connected to the deal including the Chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer. Although Mrs Clinton had an agreement with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors to the Clinton Foundation, the contributions from the Chairman of Uranium One were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons. When the New York Times article was published the Clinton campaign spokesman, Brian Fallon, strongly rejected the possibility that then-Secretary Clinton exerted any influence in the US goverment's review of the sale of Uranium One, describing this possibility as "baseless".
[Continues...]
The leaked emails have further angered former/current Sanders supporters, although that might not matter by Election Day:
Supporters of former Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders on Saturday expressed anger and vindication over leaked comments made by Hillary Clinton to banks and big business that appeared to confirm their fears about her support for global trade and tendency to cozy up to Wall Street. [...] "This is a very clear illustration of why there is a fundamental lack of trust from progressives for Hillary Clinton," said Tobita Chow, chair of the People's Lobby in Chicago, which endorsed Sanders in the primary election. "The progressive movement needs to make a call to Secretary Clinton to clarify where she stands really on these issues and that's got to involve very clear renunciations of the positions that are revealed in these transcripts," Chow said. The revelations were quickly overshadowed by the release of an 11-year-old recording of Donald Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, making lewd comments about women.
Bonus: John Podesta has been an outspoken supporter of the "Disclosure" movement, which seeks to reveal government knowledge of the existence of extraterrestrial life. Here are two emails sent by Edgar D. Mitchell, one of the Apollo 14 astronauts, to John Podesta. Mitchell branded himself as a "Zero Point Energy Consultant" before his death. Unfortunately for Earthlings, extraterrestrials "will not tolerate any forms of military violence on Earth or in space" (good luck with that).
UPDATE: 10 Oct: 14:56 UTC
Another 2086 emails have just been released by Wikileaks: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/breaking-wikileaks-dumps-another-2086-podesta-emails/.
As the article points out:
This ought to make Hillary Clinton's already bad day – even worse.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday October 10 2016, @11:54AM
How many times must conclusive proof of utter corruption be presented before Hillary supporters wise up and drop her like the turd she is?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 10 2016, @12:03PM
Standard refrain, Buzz: "But Trump isn't qualified! And, Trump says mean things! And, Trump is a racist! And, Trump doesn't pay taxes!"
I've not seen one single thing that Hillary has ever done, that was done competently. Except, maybe killing people. But, we can't prove that it isn't just coincidence that people drop dead all around her. Just coincidence.
I encourage everyone to look up interviews done by Secret Service agents about Hillary. The bitch believes herself to be more than human, and/or that all of the people who serve her are less than human.
Is it only coincidence that Hillary and Hitler sound somewhat alike? Hitlery for prison!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2016, @12:15PM
Maybe you'd like Hillary better if she talked about what a nice piece of ass her daughter is.
For a guy who is obviously old enough to have grown up through the Cold War, I find it rather remarkable you support someone who is not only cozy with the Russians, but actively takes assistance from them.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday October 10 2016, @12:18PM
That's not optional this time if you want to vote R or D. Hillary's even cozier with the Russians than Trump. Or did you utterly miss the Uranium One story because you only pay attention to MSM news?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2016, @04:48PM
> Or did you utterly miss the Uranium One story because you only pay attention to MSM news?
Apparently you missed it too because you only pay attention to crazy nutjobber news.
The entire sum of the wilileaks "expose" is that one of the sources used by the writer of the NY Times article on the mine's sale was friendly to Clinton.
O M G!!!!
Whatever involvement clinton had or did not have with the state department signing off on the sale of the canadian company that owned the rights to the mine, State was only one of 9 federal agencies and two nuclear regulators to sign off on the sale:
The Kremlin’s 2010 purchase of a controlling stake in Uranium One had to be approved by the nine members of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.
That included Clinton as secretary of state, but also the secretaries of the Treasury (the chairman of the committee), Defense, Justice, Commerce, Energy and Homeland Security as well as the the heads of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. The deal also had to be okayed by the independent Nuclear Regulatory Commission as well as Utah’s nuclear regulator.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/30/donald-trump/donald-trump-inaccurately-suggests-clinton-got-pai/ [politifact.com]
Remember folks, buzzard doesn't give a fuck about truth or facts, he's happy to lie his ass off because clinton is such a bitch. she deserves it.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday October 10 2016, @04:55PM
You seem to think I said something untrue and that the Secretary of State has influence only in the State Department. Both are false; the second especially when the Secretary's last name is Clinton.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2016, @07:03PM
The sig of The Mighty Buzzard currently reads:
Why go for a Left nut or a Right nut when you can have the Johnson?
He missed the chance to tell you how awesome Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson is.
Y'know, the guy who doesn't know what Aleppo is; who can't name a world leader that he admires; who has said about his complete ignorance of global affairs "I guess I wasn't meant to be president".
...and, contrary to TMB's sig, Gary Johnson *IS* Right-^W Wrong-Wing. [politicalcompass.org]
(Farther Right than Trump, according to that graphic.)
Now, it is true that he's not especially Authoritarian/Interventionist.
Again, that appears to be because he couldn't find on a map a place that he might want to bomb/invade/occupy.
...and, in case any of you took one of those online quizzes that said that you most closely agree with a Libertarian, you should give that a bit more thought.
Gary Johnson Is NOT the Third-Party Candidate You’re Looking For [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [socialistalternative.org]
...and, BTW, those quizzes are deeply flawed.
They will categorize you as "Left" without ever asking the question, "Do you reject the concentrations of wealth that characterize Capitalism and the skewed, anti-democratic power distribution with which that imbues a society?"
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 10 2016, @07:18PM
FFS, Johnson and Stein are both more "qualified" than either Trump or Clinton. The media hasn't dug up any scandals on either of them. Trump and Clinton are so filthy they leave a dust cloud behind them. It doesn't MATTER how smart, how far out, how crazy either of them are - they are BOTH better choices than what the Republicrats are offering us.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday October 11 2016, @01:38AM
He's not that awesome. I just think the slogan's funny.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by Gaaark on Monday October 10 2016, @05:05PM
Starting to realize it yourself! Good for you!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 11 2016, @04:37AM
Oh boy. It's an anonymous fucking douchebag who offers nothing and makes character attacks at the person he's trying to discredit.
Here on SN, the vast majority of readers aren't as fucking retarded as the usual low information idiots you guys target. We understand that when Russia drops tons of cash in a Clinton slush fund at the exact same time as the Clinton State Department approves nuclear fuel to them, there is something suspicious about it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2016, @06:06PM
That's not optional this time if you want to vote R or D.
Which would make them kind of retarded.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by HiThere on Monday October 10 2016, @06:44PM
Not really. Unless you hate the candidates exactly equally to vote for a third party when you live in a swing state is misguided. Use some game theory to analyze it, it's not a difficult problem. The difficulty comes with what degree of risk you are willing to accept that you will get Kang instead of Kodos.
The problem is inherent to a plurality wins voting system. It could be avoided with either Instant Runoff Voting or Condorcet voting. Condorcet is slightly better in most ways, but Instant Runoff is easier to explain, so it's actually been tried. (It has it's own problems, of which information overload is only one.)
In this case I consider Trump probably considerably worse than Hillary, so I wouldn't be willing to accept much risk. But I also don't live in a swing state...so I'll probably vote 3rd party.
P.S.: Every 3rd party I've checked out would be a disaster if they won, but because they have no significant chance of winning, qualified people won't position themselves as candidates. Even so, some of them appear better than Trump.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2016, @07:48PM
qualified people won't position themselves as [3rd party] candidates
Ralph Nader ran in 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008.
Every time, he was the smartest one on the ballot.
He has more experience interacting with gov't people than most people who have been elected to gov't (going back to auto safety advocacy before Congress in the early 1960s).
When Jill Stein opposed Mitt Romney in the Massachusetts gubernatorial debate, The Boston Globe called her "the only adult in the room".
Dr. Stein is currently on the ballot in 44 states plus DC and can be written in in 3 more states.
That leaves only a tiny number of states that are so opposed to Democracy that they will not allow their people to vote for her--just 3 of those. [jill2016.com]
(I recommend View + No Style to get rid of the blinking text.)
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 10 2016, @12:22PM
OMG! THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING! THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING!!
The Russians are a potential external threat. Yeah, you do make something of a point. But, then again - which of the presidential candidates enabled the Russians to buy out one of our supplies of fissionable ores? Let me think about that - was Hitlery not the acting Secretary of Corruption when that deal was made? I don' think Trump has approved of any sales of fissionables to Russia, now has he?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0 [nytimes.com]
Please, don't even suggest that Hitlery didn't know anything about it, or that it was an oversight, or whatever fucking excuse you might want to offer. I'm not as gullible as the left leaning portion of the American population. The bitch sold strategic mineral rights to a former and potential future enemy, it's just that simple. It is precisely as simple as the people who want to vote for Hitlery.
(Score: 5, Informative) by NotSanguine on Monday October 10 2016, @02:09PM
From the article [nytimes.com] you linked:
Perhaps "understanding is a three-edged sword" [goodreads.com] after all, no?
I think we could all do with a little more understanding? Just sayin'.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday October 10 2016, @02:24PM
So, knowing for a fact that she sold access to the President and her own office doesn't make you think even a little that she might have sold other deals where she absolutely did get paid? And it doesn't matter who originally uncovered the information now that it's been confirmed via other sources.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Monday October 10 2016, @02:54PM
So, knowing for a fact that she sold access to the President and her own office doesn't make you think even a little that she might have sold other deals where she absolutely did get paid? And it doesn't matter who originally uncovered the information now that it's been confirmed via other sources.
That was my point WRT to "Understanding is a three-edged sword" (those three edges being your side, their side, and the truth) and the bolded text in the quoted section of the article. There is no actual evidence that she gave these folks favors in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation.
That said, it does seem kind of strange that this went through on her watch. Which, given the donations, makes you wonder if there was some kind of quid pro quo.
At the same time, there were a whole bunch of other people and government agencies (in both the US and Canada) aside from Clinton and the State Department that had to sign off on the deal before it could be approved, which makes it unlikely that she alone was responsible for making it happen. That doesn't disprove her support based on some sort of quid pro quo, but that makes the theory seem less likely.
One side says it's corruption, the other says it was a mixture of Administration policy and happenstance.
Then there's the truth. What that is, I don't know. Nor do you.
I know you're a pretty bright guy, so I suspect you know that people (especially in politics, but it happens everywhere) tend to try to put themselves in the best light possible and their adversaries in the worst light possible. Often, the truth is somewhere in between. The difficulty lies in determining where that "in between" really is.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday October 10 2016, @03:03PM
Oh Trump's not my guy, though I do admire his trolling skillz. Truthfully, I don't really like anyone running this time. I'll likely go Johnson, not because I like him but because I'd like to see Libertarians get federal funding next time and possibly even a seat in the debates.
With Clinton though, I can't help thinking she's actually done worse than anything I suspect. Every factual revelation is worse than the last.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday October 10 2016, @03:17PM
I wasn't implying that you were supporting Trump and I wasn't being partisan. I was just pointing out that everyone has an agenda and Clinton (or Trump or Johnson or anyone else for that matter) isn't as rabidly evil as their enemies make them out to be, and they definitely aren't as angelic as they make themselves out to be.
Which is why a well-informed electorate (which we don't have) is important.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday October 10 2016, @03:41PM
Fair nuff. I disagree not.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Monday October 10 2016, @05:16PM
ABSOLUTELY! You see it here in Canada, as well, unfortunately. Too many people rely on CNN or their local newspaper for their political views. No one is skeptical. They either see that "Hillary is a crook" or "Trump! What an ass!".
They don't seem to see "we need to get something rolling to support a third option".
Everyone call up Pauly Shore and ask him to run. Carrot top. ANYONE! Damn.... anyone at all!
Wish it were possible to get Sanders back in and Hill out (is it too late?).
Get Sanders back, and have him run up against Barney the Dinosaur or Tinkey-winkey instead of Trump. Should be a better race. At least i'd feel better with Sanders, Barney or Tinkey-winkey as President.
The way things are looking, no matter which way it turns, it's going to be a VERY, VERY COLD WINTER. :(
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday October 10 2016, @08:33PM
Where I live we get the "Trump! What an ass!" bit, but all comments about Hillary are "She's so Presidential" or "She won the debate" (whatever that means".
I have never seen or read anything from my local media raising any questions about Hillary except the bald comment that she used a private email server with no analysis at all.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 10 2016, @07:23PM
"Which, given the donations, makes you wonder if there was some kind of quid pro quo."
I gave up on wondering decades ago. The Clintons are dirty, dirty, dirty. The miasma of corruption just follows them around. Teflon Bill - nothing sticks.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Monday October 10 2016, @12:38PM
Maybe if her daughter WAS a nice piece of ass?
And her connection with Russia seem to be pretty deep.....
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 3, Informative) by VLM on Monday October 10 2016, @02:08PM
Gaark's got it.
I donno if its generations of assortive mating or what, perhaps on both sides, but generally speaking right wing chicks are hotter than left wing after correcting for demographics as best as possible. I mean there are anecdotally hot leftie chicks and ugly right wing chicks but its funny to compare attendees and protestors at political rallies, guys are pretty good at the "hot or not" game and its pretty easy to guess which side is R and which is D at a glance. You don't even have to read the signs or listen to the chanting, just look at the women.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2016, @04:17PM
Cool bro, that's the narrative we're looking for to attract female R voters.
GRAB OUR COUNTRY BACK 2016!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2016, @04:34PM
GRAB OUR COUNTRY BACK 2016!
Grab them by the cuntry!
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Monday October 10 2016, @04:55PM
or to be PC,
#c....y
But that's one of the things i like about Trump... who REALLY wants to be PC nowadays. 'They' DEMAND that you be, but no one WANTS to be.
Yeah, call it like it is.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2016, @05:40PM
For a guy who is obviously old enough to have grown up through the Cold War, I find it rather remarkable you support someone who is not only cozy with the Russians, but actively takes assistance from them.
Because those of us who actually DO remember the cold war kind of enjoyed the brief period when Russia and the US weren't enemies. It was a relief - as the next generation is about to find out.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday October 10 2016, @12:16PM
If they're that afraid of Trump, they should have answered Stein when polled instead of Clinton. Stein isn't really worth a shit IMO but at least she's not a corrupt bag of dicks.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2016, @08:44PM
Yeah. That whole **Let's create a whole bunch of American jobs** thing is really the pits. /sarc
Jill Stein on Jobs [ontheissues.org]
That whole **Let's rebuild USA's dilapidated infrastructure** thing is so off-the-mark. /sarc
Jill Stein on Principles & Values [1][2] [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [ontheissues.org]
...and, BTW, the sorry state of USA's cybersecurity would indicate there are plenty of opportunities in her proposed Green New Deal for unemployed|underemployed people with experience in bit-twiddling.
[1] Hey! They fixed their broken page and I can now index the page down to the good stuff!
[2] URL slightly altered by me because of the continued brokenness of the S/N comment engine WRT stuff like %2B and %22 in hyperlinks.
Dr. Stein has a lifetime of experience as a family physician and has the kind of empathy required to do that effectively i.e., she doesn't just "feel your pain", she understand your problems and knows what need to be done to solve them.
She also has 2 successful adult sons and is still married to her first and only husband.
She has also been arrested multiple times while peacefully protesting things she thinks are just plain wrong.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday October 11 2016, @01:37AM
You're never gonna win me over telling me she's a fan of the New Deal. That alone would keep me from ever voting for her.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 11 2016, @06:52AM
The only way a country has ever gotten out of a depression and back to a normal economy in under a decade is building/rebuilding infrastructure.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday October 11 2016, @09:53AM
[Citation Needed]
That aside, unlike you I'm unwilling to take out a mortgage on the next generation's solvency to prop up my own now. Which is exactly what you're talking about doing.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 11 2016, @07:32PM
[Citation Needed]
It's so sad that you slept through History class.
Without direct gov't intervention, The Long Depression lasted 23 years. [1] [archive.li]
[1] It would be a good idea to fix the brokenness of the S/N comments engine so that things like %22 in hyperlinks don't get monkeyed with.
N.B. Additionally, starting in 1929, with Republican Herbert Hoover sitting on his thumb, for 4 years USA went deeper and deeper into depression; FDR's direct intervention, starting in 1933, had USA hitting full stride by 1937.
...and, had FDR ignored the Wall Street idiots and -not- dialed back on The New Deal for a short spell in 1937, there wouldn't have been "The Roosevelt Recession" of 1937.
This stuff was also figured out by Hitler's guy who directed money to autobahns, etc. [google.com]
If we're going to stick with a Capitalist system, it's important to recognize that, under that boom-and-bust paradigm, Keynesianism works the best. [wikipedia.org]
(The gov't becomes The Employer of Last Resort when the Capitalists have completely fucked up everything and are firing USAians instead of hiring them.)
a mortgage on the next generation's solvency
While I'm generally opposed to municipal|state bond measures (a tax increase PLUS INTEREST), that's effectively what this is: AN INVESTMENT WHICH PAYS DIVIDENDS.
People with gov't paychecks spend that into the economy, the Capitalists start to produce again and hire again to meet the increased demand, and pretty soon the gov't workers can find better-paying jobs in the private sector and their old gov't positions can even be eliminated.
See "Keynesianism", above.
In the process, we get improved roads, bridges, public buildings with integrated 21st-Century solar power generation and 21st-Century insulation, parks, water systems, sewer systems, electricity grids, more secure internet, yada, yada, yada.
...and, for well over a decade, the engineers' guild has given USA's infrastructure a D+.
With proper public investment, bridges stop falling into rivers.
...and, if we were to fix our crappy century-plus-old water delivery systems, we could halve our consumption by reducing leakage.
(With weather patterns changing for the worse, that seems incredibly smart.)
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday October 11 2016, @08:22PM
Keynesian policies do nothing except move the burden of paying your way in life to your children. We would have recovered just fine without the New Deal and we would not now have soul-crushing piles of debt.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2016, @01:14PM
I keep forgetting these are two different user IDs with two different people behind them. I remember a place where some regulars created alternate IDs and had conversations with themselves, but I'm thinking this is more of cut from the same cloth rather than ventriloquist dummies.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday October 10 2016, @01:22PM
The only way I'd ever post under a different nick is if I needed to test something and then it'd be on dev [soylentnews.org]. Anyway, he's more conservative than I am. I'm more of a libertarian.
What you're seeing is just both of us hating the Dems quite a lot. Mind you, I hate Reps as well but the Dems are currently the biggest oppressive cocksuckers on the block, so that's where I put most of my effort.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2016, @02:22PM
They're birds of a feather, if you will.
(Score: 4, Informative) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday October 10 2016, @04:34PM
> "But Trump isn't qualified!
I find this quit amusing. Doesn't anyone else remember back in 2007/ 2008 when one of the inescapable right-wing talking points about Obama was that he was unqualified because he'd never run anything more important than a local political office?
It isn't just that Trump is "unqualified"[1], it's that he is fundamentally unfit for the post. If he was unqualified but otherwise intelligent, articulate and ready to learn it would be one thing. But Trump is quite clearly a raging spoilt child who doesn't know when to keep his mouth shut. Hilary's claims that he lives in an alternate universe inside his own imagination are spot on. Whenever he makes a mistake or things don't go away there is absolutely no introspection on Trump's part whatsoever, he just blunders on ahead according to his own version of reality instead, which usually manifests as either claiming that it never happened in the face of all evidence, or making wild accusations and trying to shift the blame. See his response to the results of the first debate for an example. And then when something does touch a nerve - and he seems to have quite a few of those exposed - he just blurts out whatever offensive shit happens to be in his head at that moment, even if it's not in his best interests to do so. Hence his constant 3AM twitter fights that his staff have to clean up after every morning. I know it suits his bombastic "fuck you and your politically correct book-learnin" image to spout offensive crap but it really doesn't make any logical sense for him doing it deliberately. For example that fight with the parents of the dead muslim soldier - All he had to do was say something diplomatic or nothing at all, and he could have avoided alienating the entire US armed forces. Or the "Miss Housekeeping" comment - I'm pretty sure a couple million Latino votes would have been pretty useful for him, but he flushed them all away for what? To appease a bunch of ignorant right-wingers who were already in his pocket? Doesn't make any sense. The only explanation for this behaviour is that he just can't help himself. He runs his mouth off because he believes so profoundly in his own untouchability that he cannot conceive that his actions have consequences, so he just does and says whatever the fuck he wants, whenever the fucks he wants to. Is that really who you want representing your country in sensitive international negotiations? Is this the guy you want in charge of your missiles and drones? He's more than just unqualified, he is UNFIT.
As for your offhand dismissal of his racism - Well, I guess that says a lot. I know I wouldn't want a racist representing me.
The tax thing is a clear indicator that he doesn't represent the average, working, republican-voting, middle-class Joe as he claims, but that he represents the interests of the very wealthy.[2]
[1] Although I don't really see why the word "unqualified" should be preceded by the word "just" - It's an important job and I don't think it unreasonable to insist upon someone with the skills to do it competently.
[2] Or more specifically, of one very wealthy person.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 10 2016, @07:38PM
I've said this a couple different ways, on various posts, but I want to be sure you know my position.
Trump is hardly fit to be president, we all know that. But, Trump will be a lame duck president from day one. He lacks the political clout to do the crazy shit he might want to do. He won't convince very many people of anything, and he can't coerce congress. Trump is an embarrassment, no more and no less than he was as a TV show host. But, Trump isn't dangerous.
Clinton, on the other hand, has a screwy left wing backing her. At least 1/4 and probably more of congress will happily line up to grovel for her. Much of the rest of congress will grovel with a little coercion. Left and right, it doesn't matter - there really is only one party. Hillary plays ball just like the career politicians like to play ball.
And all of that makes her dangerous, even before you consider her positions on issues - whatever those might be this week. She constantly "pivots" - meaning that she tells each handpicked audience whatever the hell they want to hear. She has been quoted as saying that her private position is not the same as her public position. She lies, lies, lies.
Hillary is the most dangerous person in America. She won't be the lame duck that Trump would be. And, precious few of us are going to like any of her positions when they are revealed.
Remember that bullshit, "We've got to pass the bill before you can read the bill"? That's Hillary Clinton.
(Score: 2) by SubiculumHammer on Tuesday October 11 2016, @12:41AM
and how mang times can you forget the foreign relt
ations power that Trump would have. My God, what heve we done, is what we'd say after he sends a missle at Mexico for giving Trump the finger.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 11 2016, @05:10PM
I'm sorry, but you're making an assumption here: that Trump will "play along the rules".
Because: all previous presidents of the U.S.A. (maybe except for Nixon) have "played along the rules", so you're making the assumption that a president Trump will, too.
But that is not how dictators work. That may be how they *get* to power. But I'm sure Trump has enough followers/believers/2nd amendment people who wouldn't mind blindfolding the entire U.S. Congress & putting them against the wall. And, face it, it is really not difficult to spin the execution afterwards as "they had it coming for their crimes against you, the American people!". I'm foreign, but I've seen the documentary/comedy "The Distinguished Gentleman" [wikipedia.org] starring Eddie Murphy.
After the U.S. Congress has thus been "dismissed", I'm sure Ted Cruz will find some like-minded politicians to repopulate the "new & improved" U.S. congress. And they will do as their leaders say; because they can see the plastered-over bullet holes in the Capitol wall.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 12 2016, @02:17AM
Uhhhh, yeah. What you describe is far more likely to happen if Clinton is elected. Whichever chump gets the office, there are checks and balances in place. It seems that you assume those checks and balances have no real power, outside of a court room? There are many different armed services paid for by the government. They answer to several different authorities, such as the president, the governors, congress, justice, county judges, mayors. If the president decides to become the de facto dictator, he's going to have to quell a lot of resistance before it happens. Not to mention armed civilians.
I don't know where your nightmares come from, but they ain't happening for real.
Stop worrying about the bumbling fool, and worry more about the traitorous bitch who sold fissionables to Russia.
(Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Monday October 10 2016, @06:40PM
Well, there was CHIP in the 90's. She spearheaded that legislation and got it through (as a First Lady, by convincing Congressmen). Disagree with her all you like, but she's actually gotten things done.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2016, @12:11PM
Turd Sandwich.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 13 2016, @05:27AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2016, @12:19PM
The excerpts include comments made at an event sponsored by Goldman Sachs in October 2013 in which Mrs Clinton spoke of the need to consult Wall Street over financial reform. "The people that know the industry better than anybody are the people who work in the industry," Mrs Clinton said.
lol calling that evidence of corruption is an amazing reach.
Of course, top executives in the industry that would be affected by reform would be consulted. That is always the case. The difference between D and R Presidents is that Republican presidents only listen to the industry.
So that quote is actually pretty clever on HRC's part.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday October 10 2016, @12:39PM
I dunno what fallacy that is but I'm damned sure it is one to pick out one line out and call it conclusive proof of the absence of wrongdoing. Argue better. We have high standards round here.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2016, @12:47PM
Seems the submitter thought it was pretty damning, it's front and center in TFS.
In other news, Trump made a big deal in last night's debate about a rape victim in which HRC was appointed by the court as counsel for the accused. Just to point out, even defendants accused of heinous crimes have a Constitutional right to competent defense in our country. Even if they're broke.
So in this case the prosecution bungled the evidence and the guy walked. They had tape in which HRC laughed about the prosecutor's mistakes. Whoa! BTW that happened 35 years ago.
These are the best that the Trump campaign can come up with?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday October 10 2016, @01:00PM
If you can't see the difference between hetero male lockerroom talk and laughing about getting a child rapist off, there is no help for you. You're just an idiot.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2016, @01:09PM
I appreciate your time then. Good luck finding a candidate to fill this position.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by zocalo on Monday October 10 2016, @01:44PM
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 4, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday October 10 2016, @01:50PM
Proof? How about even an accuser? Bill's sexual assaults and Hillary's covering up of them have quite a lot of the latter at least. Trumps have neither, which, given his current position, leads me to believe he was talking shit and nothing more.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by zocalo on Monday October 10 2016, @03:29PM
Not that I think Clinton has clean hands either - far from it - just that neither camp is really in a position to be throwing stones about their moral standing over the other. We had exactly the same kind of thing in the UK BrExit referendum; all ad hominem attacks; no facts, and most of the more educated voters hated it - they wanted to make an informed decision and were effectively denied it. Whether that's a failing of the political system, a symptom of the car-crash reality TV shows that are slowly taking over the airwaves, or something else entirely I have no idea, but it it's shameful state of affairs and it's the one thing I do agree with Trump on - the system *is* broken, and it does need to change. Burning the entire house down probably isn't the best way to achieve that though.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday October 10 2016, @03:40PM
From a politician? The hell you say.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Monday October 10 2016, @04:04PM
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday October 10 2016, @04:51PM
That, my friend, was humor. It need not be my actual views on anything. It just needs to be mildly amusing to someone.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Informative) by NotSanguine on Monday October 10 2016, @03:50PM
Proof? How about even an accuser? Bill's sexual assaults and Hillary's covering up of them have quite a lot of the latter at least. Trumps have neither, which, given his current position, leads me to believe he was talking shit and nothing more.
Actually there are two [lawnewz.com] in a current lawsuit and one more [nytimes.com] in another suit from a while back.
Are those enough "accusers" for you? Trump only paraded two against Bill yesterday.
There's as much evidence against Trump as there is against Billy boy.
Not defending Clinton here. I just like getting the facts straight.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday October 10 2016, @04:08PM
Good to know, I stand corrected. I also stand wondering why Hillary's people haven't done a better job of spreading that around. Probably a glass houses thing.
Untrue. Since we're being precise with our words, Clinton has more sexual assault allegations by nearly a factor of four that I can find with a very minimal search. Unless you use wikipedia as your source. Which we all know you should never do.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2016, @05:40PM
The first lawsuit in question looks like a hoax, with no valid contact information found [dailymail.co.uk] for the person who filed said lawsuit.
The more recent lawsuit was allowed to proceed by a judge whose sister is a "legal analyst" for ABC News [theconservativetreehouse.com].
Sure, if anything of actual substance is revealed, fine, hang em high. However, this crap set before us is nothing but that: crap.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 11 2016, @03:36AM
"Proof" for the alt-right crowd means dozens of links to alt-right sites repeating the same rumors and claiming they're fact.
The exact same they did with the Obama birther story.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday October 11 2016, @10:09AM
Ad-hom. Ignored.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2016, @05:33PM
Women are not mindless creatures or mere objects. They are human beings with minds (strange though they may be) of their own. Your statement suggests you believe otherwise, that women are mindless child-things.
The women being discussed were consenting to having a presumably rich/powerful male grope them. That's what differentiates an honest assessment of a sexual crime versus two adults fooling around: consent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 11 2016, @02:20AM
Sounds like consent to me. You know what? They also just let you do it when you have a gun aimed at their head. Is that also consent? Man, you guys really are deplorable...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 11 2016, @03:50PM
You equate Trump's lips to a brandished firearm. You're an idiot or a deceiver - pick one.
(Score: 4, Informative) by NotSanguine on Monday October 10 2016, @02:34PM
If you can't see the difference between hetero male lockerroom talk and laughing about getting a child rapist off, there is no help for you. You're just an idiot.
Facts [politifact.com] are often inconvenient. You'll find that Clinton doesn't laugh about getting a child rapist off. Not even close. Most of the laughing is done by a reporter interviewing her. She laughs a bit, both of them are laughing about some of the stupid stuff that the prosecutor and the judge did. Nowhere do either of them make light of the assault, or of the victim.
You don't need to believe me. I guess you don't need to believe politifact either. They list their primary sources for this. If you're actually interested in the truth, the facts are out there.
That said, I get it. You dislike Clinton (and most politicians -- but then, most of us do), but it seems to me that there are plenty of things to blame her for if you stick to the stuff that's actually true. By mixing in shit that just ain't so, you're weakening the value of your own arguments, IMHO.
I'm not telling you what to do or say, Buzzard. Just pointing out that if you abandon the truth in one instance, people might wonder if you're doing so in other instances as well.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday October 10 2016, @03:16PM
Gotta go pretty deep nuance there to say that's not laughing about what lead to her victory in the case, which got a guilty child rapist off. Laughing about brakes failing on a school bus when you work for a competing brake pads manufacturer isn't really any different than laughing about dead school kids directly.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Informative) by NotSanguine on Monday October 10 2016, @03:37PM
Gotta go pretty deep nuance there to say that's not laughing about what lead to her victory in the case, which got a guilty child rapist off. Laughing about brakes failing on a school bus when you work for a competing brake pads manufacturer isn't really any different than laughing about dead school kids directly.
I think not. The rapist did not get off. He pled guilty and did jail time. From the politifact article:
Lawyers (Clinton included) are required [americanbar.org] "As advocate, a lawyer zealously asserts the client's position under the rules of the adversary system." Had she not done so, she could have been censured by the Bar Association for failing in her responsibilities as a lawyer. Note that Clinton didn't choose this client, she was assigned this client.
Again, you're saying shit that just ain't true.
Whatever. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I just prefer arguments to be factual.
Please feel free to ignore me.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday October 10 2016, @03:52PM
Does it perhaps depend on what the definition of "is" is? You're parsing words pretty hard here. But fair enough. I will endeavor to communicate more precisely in the future.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by goody on Monday October 10 2016, @06:23PM
You're bringing up the child rapist thing? That was debunked so long ago.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Gaaark on Monday October 10 2016, @05:33PM
I think you'll find that he dislikes Trump as well. You'll find that, also, most people dislike BOTH of them.
If i remember correctly, he'd rather see Trump in power (as so would I) because he would be a LAME DUCK PRESIDENT. Unless he turns out to be one of the best Presidents ever, by some chance, he'll be a 'do nothing' Pres. He has no friends in Washington, no one who 'owes' him... not like with Hillary.
He'll get nothing bad done because no one will support him.
Hillary, on the other hand, could get lots of bad done: there are people she owes and will have to pay her back when she comes calling. Also, there are lots of people SHE owes and will have to do pay-back when THEY come calling.
He will be impotent and unable to do harm
She will be able to do lots of crazy smile harm... pulling in favours and doing pay-back could really screw you guys.
Vote for the ass-hole who can do the least harm, is what i think the Buzzard (and I) are saying.
Unfortunately, you don't have box to tick for "Man, this candidate is great!"... you have "Man this candidate is shit" and "Man this candidate is also shit, but is impotent"
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Monday October 10 2016, @05:34PM
Yeah, screwed up the whole "payback" thing there... shoulda proof read better.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday October 10 2016, @05:51PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2016, @06:25PM
Vote for the ass-hole who can do the least harm, is what i think the Buzzard (and I) are saying.
Typical lesser of two evils bullshit. How will this help us topple the corrupt and authoritarian two-party system, which can do far more harm over decades and centuries than even several horrendous candidates? If a third party acts as a "spoiler", then that is good because we may be able to terrify the dominant parties into becoming slightly better, bit by bit.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Gaaark on Monday October 10 2016, @07:34PM
Except when voting 3rd party gets you evil.
eg. (simplified)
1. you have the Nazi party: 49% popularity (seem corrupt and criminal)
2. you have the Dancing Clowns party: 49% popularity (seem buffoonery and balloon animals)
3. you have Urkel: 1% popularity (seems to be Urkel)
1% undecided
Are you really gonna vote for Urkel and chance the Nazi's getting into power?
I'd rather vote for the Dancing Clowns party. At least buffoonery and party animals will be fun.
Nazi's aren't as much fun. Really. Trust me.
Wait until there are 2 candidates that aren't as harmful and there isn't soooooo much at fracking stake! Then vote 3rd party... Urkel all the way, then!
example: real life
I've been voting Green in Canada, but voted for the party that i felt, in the last election, that had the greatest chance of getting Harper out of power (for the most part, he is Hillary + Trump + Bush + Cheney all in one).
Next election, i will probably go back to voting Green to help get their numbers back up.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by SanityCheck on Monday October 10 2016, @08:08PM
U vote for Urkel. You do this often enough so that both sides are stung by it, they will change the system. Since they are the only ones with power to change it, you have to convince them that the system is not working for them.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Monday October 10 2016, @10:05PM
Next election, there's a good chance we'll have either proportional representation or a preferential ballot. In either scenario there is a real point to voting for a "third" party. There will be a realistic prospect that voting for a party will actually help them gain seats in the House of Commons.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday October 11 2016, @02:58AM
Oh Lordy, Lordy, let there be a God who hugs you! (And gives you beer!)
Yes it would be nice to finally have your vote REALLY mean something when voting 'outside the box', so to speak.
Pirate party for Canada! Arrrr!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Monday October 10 2016, @12:51PM
And replace her with....
(Score: 4, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday October 10 2016, @01:06PM
A pet rock. At this point it would be better than either major party candidate.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Funny) by WizardFusion on Monday October 10 2016, @01:30PM
I had a pet rock once, it died though.
(Score: 4, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday October 10 2016, @01:52PM
I trained mine to attack hippies. Sadly, their tainted blood eventually infected it and it moved off to become a crystal at some commune out west.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Funny) by deimtee on Monday October 10 2016, @03:40PM
Mine just sat around the house getting stoned.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Monday October 10 2016, @05:44PM
Mine is from the middle east and it used to be a stoner but now it behaves.
(Score: 1) by EETech1 on Tuesday October 11 2016, @02:06AM
And by trained you mean threw?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday October 11 2016, @10:10AM
Now that you mention it, it did require a but of help to make the attack leap.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Monday October 10 2016, @02:23PM
And there's the problem. The Hillary voters who previously didn't want to vote for her feel pressured into voting for her because Trump cant win. As much as people want to vote third party, they fear those "lost" democratic votes will result in a Trump win. This further enforces the dual party mentality and no one wins except the idiots.
Though, I like the idea of starting a pet rock write in campaign. Vote Rock!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday October 10 2016, @03:38PM
See, I bet the surviving members of Queen would even sign off on letting Pet Rock use We Will Rock You as a campaign anthem.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Monday October 10 2016, @02:23PM
Bernie
I disagree with lots of Bernies stuff, but I trust him not to literally stab people in the back, he's an honest respectable elder statesman who more or less has the best interests of the USA at heart (plus or minus some zionism). I may not always agree with Bernie but I do trust Bernie.
In some alternate history world where its Bernie vs some neo-cuckservative stooge like Jeb, basically the lineup we were "supposed to get", I honestly don't know which I'd vote for. I'd never vote for a neo-, well, unless the alternative were truly awful like our Prez Uncle Tom or even worse, Hillary.
Bernie is pretty cool. I hope Trump recognizes his skills and puts him to work in his administration. Secretary of Treasury Bernie Sanders.... Secretary of Education Bernie Sanders. I could see it... I wouldn't put him in State or HUD or DoD.
For a guy who's wrong about so many things, he's OK about so many more, that I'm cool with Bernie.
As much as I want Trump to win, and as far right as I am, I realize that if he were up against Bernie... Lets just say Hillary is a gift to Trump.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday October 10 2016, @04:00PM
Here's what the script was supposed to be in this election:
- Hillary Clinton would go basically unchallenged in the primary, with the likes of Martin O'Malley, Jim Webb and Lincoln Chaffee being her only opposition. There'd be a few debates to make things look official.
- Jeb Bush would emerge victorious in a much tougher primary, but win out against clowns and also-rans like Carly Fiorina and Chris Christie.
- Liberals would rally around Clinton due to her stances on LGBT issues, racism, etc. Conservatives would rally around Bush because of his "family values" image. One of them would win in the general election.
- Neither Clinton nor Bush would do anything to prevent Wall Street from continuing to go to the bank.
To the degree that either Sanders or Trump were in the script, it was as sideshows. The Democratic Party, which has been basically the Hillary Clinton campaign since 2008, were able to stop Bernie thanks to some illegal maneuvering*, but the Republicans were less organized and didn't really recognize the threat Trump represented until he had beaten them.
But yes, the one thing everyone agrees on: Sanders is basically an honest guy trying to do what he sees as best for the country, and it's a shame he lost in the primary.
* How the Clinton campaign, with the help of the Democratic Party, stopped Bernie Sanders: You remember that dust-up over Sanders' people accessing Clinton's data? Well, the "bug" was something Sanders' people had repeatedly alerted the vendor to, but it was never fixed because it wasn't a bug, it was a feature to allow Clinton's team to see Sanders' data. That gave them the list of people to feed to partisans who worked in state boards of elections, who then could, for example, change Sanders' voters' party registration (which happened, by the hundreds of thousands), or figure out who wasn't going to be at the caucuses so they could bring fake paper votes from people who had no idea they were listed as voting (which also happened, enough to swing Iowa for example).
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by HiThere on Monday October 10 2016, @07:09PM
Sorry, but the maneuvering against Bernie, while unscrupulous, was legal. It would have been legal for the DNC to have just picked their candidate without any primaries at all. And Bernie knew from the start that he was the designated loser, but was willing to do his best in order to get his message out.
Perhaps what the DNC did *should* have been illegal, but it wasn't. They have minimal legal regulation, and are a private rather than a governmental body. Same for the RNC, but they were operating under different rules, so a popular choice was allowed to swamp the appointed choices.
FWIW, I don't think the parties SHOULD be governmental entities, and I don't think they should be regulated. But I don't think much of the "plurality wins" voting system. A majority should be required, even if it means tournament competition as is done in sports matches. (Actually, I prefer dispersal of centralized power and selection by lottery, but that's a more extreme position.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday October 10 2016, @08:11PM
No, it wasn't: Federal election law applies to primaries too, and several of the actions taken (e.g. altering voter registrations) were illegal under those laws.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday October 11 2016, @12:49AM
Altering voter registrations I admit wouldn't be illegal.
OK, the unscrupulous things I'm pretty sure of were legal. Unfair and unscrupulous, but legal.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2016, @02:25PM
At random, choose any American citizen from the prisons?
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday October 10 2016, @01:18PM
At least 1/3 of those supporting Clinton are doing so because they think Trump is worse. At least 1/2 of those supporting Trump are doing so because they think Clinton is worse. So I don't think that most Clinton supporters are under the delusion that Clinton is not a lying scumbag, they simply think that being a lying scumbag is better than bragging about sexual assault. Also, there's some evidence that being a lying scumbag isn't all that much of a liability for a president - Abe Lincoln was absolutely a liar, for example.
Compare this to candidates we had 50 years ago, when the general election was between:
- Dwight Eisenhower. You know, the guy who led the effort to defeat the Nazis. No big deal.
- Adlai Stevenson II. Less well-known, but his resume included being a key part of creating the United Nations, and rooting out a lot of corruption as governor of Illinois.
In other words, these were two guys you could reasonably support, and neither of them would have been a disaster. Both of them ended up having quite distinguished careers after their races in 1952 and 1956: Eisenhower obviously won, and historians usually rate him in the top 10 of US presidents. Adlai Stevenson went on to handle negotiating with the Russians during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and many of his other ideas found their way into the Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson administrations (again, fairly highly rated by historians).
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday October 10 2016, @01:46PM
It's not the lying scumbag part that bothers me. I expect that of all politicians. Hell, I like Nixon and JFK as a former Presidents. It's the astounding extent to which she's proven herself willing to sell her nation out for her own gain. Banks want a bailout? Contribute to the Clinton Foundation and you'll get many times your seed back in taxpayer money! Or see above Re: Uranium One. Or caring more that the American people not be able to see the vile things she was up to than about national security or the law (the email server). Or see last night's debate where she repeatedly signaled her clear willingness to put us into another Cold War just to get elected. Or threatening and otherwise browbeating Bill's sexual assault victims. Or laughing about getting a child rapist off.
The woman is evil. I don't throw that word about lightly but there simply is no better word for her.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday October 10 2016, @02:29PM
She didn't do that [snopes.com].
I agree with everything else in your post: She's a lying, corrupt, warmongering scumbag. Trump, for his part, is a lying, clueless, corrupt, bigoted scumbag who probably would also be warmongering if he were in a position to do so. In other words, if Clinton had been running against somebody other than Trump (e.g. John Kasich), she'd be doing very badly, whereas if Trump had been running against somebody other than Clinton (e.g. Bernie Sanders) he would be losing even more badly than he is now.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday October 10 2016, @03:17PM
See above [soylentnews.org].
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by VLM on Monday October 10 2016, @02:37PM
It's a sanity issue. I'd rephrase the buzzard remarks to I/we can work with a sane crook like Nixon or JFK. A crook from a crime family organization, but a rational, predictable, stable crook.
Hillary's nuts. She's also a crook from a crime family organization, but a crazy one. Irrationally thinks she owns the entire media but don't control enough such that her indiscretions get out and spiral out of control. Thinks she's so far above the law that rather than thinking risk/reward and taking sensible chances she unpredictably flips and goes nuts attack dog mode. No stability, whoever's paying her more today is today's best friend, tomorrow its knife in back time. Irrational, unpredictable, unstable.
The american public and american culture "likes" a stable criminal leader like Tony Soprano or The Godfather. Crazy Charles Manson doesn't have quite the same fan club. They have about the same level of motivation and "go getter" attitude. A bias against people with mental illness is traditional in the USA, and its usually bad, although in the special case of electing a president, I have to admit, its not a job for a crazy person.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by VLM on Monday October 10 2016, @02:47PM
Oh perfect fictional example... thought of it a minute too late. Scarface. Its a tragedy because he starts out as a JFK/Nixon sane criminal, and after way too much coke blows his mind, he flips out and becomes a pitiful tragic figure of an insane ineffective criminal, like Hillary.
I would also add "respect". Hillary has no respect for anyone and viscerally hates the half of the population who won't vote for her. A "good" criminal respects the culture and everyone in it, like the Godfather or Tony Soprano or Nixon or JFK, he's a part of the culture with a role to follow and people to respect. A "bad" criminal doesn't respect anyone, not the cops or the FBI or people who won't vote or the fools who did vote.
Given a choice of voting for JFK as a member of the Kennedy crime family or Hillary as a member of the Clinton crime factory, even if they had the same poltical views, I'd still vote for JFK no contest, because he's a "good" criminal not a "bad" criminal. Its not even close.
That cultural reasoning explains the recent poll results where like 19 in 20 people shrug shoulders at the "Trump talks trash about hotties" scandal. He's not a Clinton style crook, so it doesn't matter, unlike Bill Clinton's womanizing and raping. Folks who don't understand the cultural aspects think that the only thing thats important is a dude talking about grabbing a chick and nothing else matters, therefore its exactly the same, which is obviously wrong.
(Score: 1) by tisI on Monday October 10 2016, @01:58PM
How many times must conclusive proof of utter corruption be presented before politial supporters wise up and drop their chosen corrupt politician like the turds they are?
Fixed that for ya.
"Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself."
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday October 10 2016, @02:05PM
Accurate enough, though you do occasionally find a straight shooter at the local level. My landlord is currently getting badgered by the local cops and firemen to run for Mayor, for instance, and he's as stand-up a guy as you could ever ask for.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by julian on Monday October 10 2016, @06:44PM
Imagine how distasteful someone would have to be for me to think Hillary Clinton is the better choice. You don't have to imagine, the GOP found that person and his name is Donald Trump. If they had nominated anyone else I might not even have voted.
Keeping him out of the Whitehouse is a win as long as his opponent is even a fraction better at anything I care about; and Clinton is, warts and all.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2016, @01:59PM
> How many times must conclusive proof of utter corruption be presented before Hillary supporters wise up and drop her like the turd she is?
How many times are you going to make accusations with nothing more than a shallow understanding of the facts?
I spent a couple of hours going through what has been identified as the most heinous things and all it did was confirm that she's just another run of the mill politician. Cue the insightless sound-bite from Gore Vidal that anyone who wants to be president is by definition disqualified from being president.
(Score: 2, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday October 10 2016, @02:09PM
Either you're entirely too cynical (which is fucking well saying something coming from me) or you deliberately refuse to see what's in front of your face. Hillary is Queen Bitch of Corruptistan. She could give classes to Chicago politicians for $50K/hour and make millions.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2016, @02:39PM
Another fact free "she's a bitch" post from buzz.
No matter how hard you jerk off to your mantra, it doesn't make it true.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday October 10 2016, @03:07PM
No, I'll leave making it true to her own words. I don't need to bother googling what you can yourself or what's in TFA, do I?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Monday October 10 2016, @05:09PM
Wasn't the last debate conclusive evidence that even the candidates themselves acknowledge: This election is not about who is better, in the sense of somehow remotely qualified or decent, but only about who is less disqualified.
I wonder if Trump will at some point lose his temper enough to point to the Epstein stories [thedailybeast.com]...
No idea how credible the article is, I didn't follow the sources yet.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday October 10 2016, @05:17PM
Yup. The fireworks are the only really interesting part of the whole two party race we have going on.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2016, @11:51PM
Here is the thing. She is not really declared guilty of much. But damn if she doesn't ride the line.
Everything she does seems to be legal in the literal sense and if you look at it in a particular way on a moonlight night at the top of a mountain in outer Mongolia in the middle of a pentagram lit with black candles and people singing Michael Jacksons song thriller backwards in Latin. Legal but shady.
In fact the reason I am not voting for her is because of their long history of shenanigans. 30 years is long enough to get a good idea that the Clintons are not nice people. Trump is like the used car salesman. He will fuck you in the small print and make you feel good about it. The Clintons on the other hand everything is an asymmetrical power play where they tell you to your face one thing and have their goons take you out back and beat you and make you say sorry for saying perhaps that wasnt nice.