SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956
Paul Krugman did something that he made clear he regarded as quite brave: He defended the Democratic Party presidential nominee and likely next U.S. president from journalistic investigations. Complaining about media bias, Krugman claimed that journalists are driven by “the presumption that anything Hillary Clinton does must be corrupt, most spectacularly illustrated by the increasingly bizarre coverage of the Clinton Foundation.” While generously acknowledging that it was legitimate to take a look at the billions of dollars raised by the Clintons as she pursued increasing levels of political power — vast sums often received from the very parties most vested in her decisions as a public official — it is now “very clear,” he proclaimed, that there was absolutely nothing improper about any of what she or her husband did.
Krugman’s column, chiding the media for its unfairly negative coverage of his beloved candidate, was, predictably, a big hit among Democrats — not just because of their agreement with its content but because of what they regarded as the remarkable courage required to publicly defend someone as marginalized and besieged as the former First Lady, two-term New York Senator, Secretary of State, and current establishment-backed multi-millionaire presidential front-runner. Krugman — in a tweet-proclamation that has now been re-tweeted more than 10,000 times — heralded himself this way: “I was reluctant to write today’s column because I knew journos would hate it. But it felt like a moral duty.”
[...] The reality is that large, pro-Clinton liberal media platforms — such as Vox, and The Huffington Post, and prime-time MSNBC programs, and the columnists and editorialists of The New York Times and The Washington Post, and most major New-York-based weekly magazines — have been openly campaigning for Hillary Clinton. I don’t personally see anything wrong with that — I’m glad when journalists shed their faux-objectivity; I believe the danger of Trump’s candidacy warrants that; and I hope this candor continues past the November election — but the everyone-is-against-us self-pity from Clinton partisans is just a joke. They are the dominant voices in elite media discourse, and it’s a big reason why Clinton is highly likely to win.
That’s all the more reason why journalists should be subjecting Clinton’s financial relationships, associations, and secret communications to as much scrutiny as Donald Trump’s. That certainly does not mean that journalists should treat their various sins and transgressions as equivalent: nothing in the campaign compares to Trump’s deport-11-million-people or ban-all-Muslim policies, or his attacks on a judge for his Mexican ethnicity, etc. But this emerging narrative that Clinton should not only enjoy the support of a virtually united elite class but also a scrutiny-free march into the White House is itself quite dangerous. Clinton partisans in the media — including those who regard themselves as journalists — will continue to reflexively attack all reporting that reflects negatively on her, but that reporting should nonetheless continue with unrestrained aggression.
Source: The Intercept
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2016, @11:41PM
What value is there to running this op-ed piece here?
Some pundits, not reporters but people whose job it is to have opinions, have the opinion that the press's unrelentling reporting on someone they have an affinity for has been smoke — lots and lots of smoke — but very little fire.
OK. Meanwhile the grass is green and the sky is blue.
So now all the "she's a bitch, she deserves it" people get to express their membership in the "she's a bitch" tribe. Anyone who says she's not a bitch will be accused of being a shill, probably a paid shill because that's the only logical explanation since everybody knows she's a bitch.
Basically the same clinton disscusion we've been having for months now.
⁽ᵈᶦˢᶜˡᵃᶦᵐᵉʳ⁾ ᴾᵒˢᵗ ᵖᵃᶦᵈ ᶠᵒʳ ᵇʸ ᶜᵒʳʳʳᵉᶜᵗ ᵗʰᵉ ʳᵉᶜᵒʳᵈ ᴵᶠ ʸᵒᵘ ʷᵒᵘˡᵈ ˡᶦᵏᵉ ᵗᵒ ʳᵉᶜᵉᶦᵉᵛᵉ ᵖᵃʸᵐᵉⁿᵗ ᶠᵒʳ ʷʳᶦᵗᶦⁿᵍ ˢʰᵒʳᵗ ᵃʳᵗᶦᶜˡᵉˢ ᵒⁿ ᵗʰᵉ ʷᵉᵇ ᵍᵒ ᵗᵒ ʷʷʷ ᶜᵒʳʳᵉᶜᵗʳᵉᶜᵒʳᵈ ᵒʳᵍ
(Score: 3, Funny) by takyon on Tuesday September 06 2016, @11:58PM
Name of org spelled wrong! That's a lawsuit!
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @12:03AM
Who says it is spelled wrong?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday September 07 2016, @12:06AM
The FEC!!! [fec.gov]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Yog-Yogguth on Wednesday September 07 2016, @12:59AM
So they pay you 8 dollars an hour for that or am I confusing different parts of the Hillary machine?
Anyway my commiserations to you and may you and everyone like you find better and less soul-corroding employment. I'd like to say I would never do anything like that but long ago when I was nineteen and just before I became homeless for a very brief time I did a short stint in "telemarketing" so I can't: desperation is desperation, extremely few truly choose such jobs.
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 3, Interesting) by RamiK on Wednesday September 07 2016, @01:12AM
Giving credit where credit it due, posting that disclaimer was the most honest bit of propaganda I heard from either side since this bullshit "elections" started.
For what it's worth, it earned my mod point through integrity.
compiling...
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Yog-Yogguth on Wednesday September 07 2016, @01:26AM
I took him at his word but I'm guessing he wasn't actually posting on their behalf but added it to draw attention to the fact that people are being paid to post for Hillary.. And then even if this person wasn't there are people who do (but likely not here at Soylent). I don't think they usually sign their posts with disclaimers :D
Anyway maybe we need a +1 Ironic :)
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @01:40AM
Its a literary rorschach test - what you make of it reveals how you perceive the world to be.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Yog-Yogguth on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:26AM
You're right but that applies to everything, some people go as far to include anything that is not written but that gets too bothersome (and even more prone to error) for me. Language & human communication in general is deficient & narrow, it's Babel all the way down (or up or sideways) :) or maybe that ought to be :|
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 1, Informative) by Yog-Yogguth on Wednesday September 07 2016, @01:19AM
I realized I need to correct myself, it wasn't before but about a year afterwards, several small stints before I managed to escape into the postal system (which is heaven in comparison: real work combined with university studies). I'm sure I'm the only one who cares (or would know) but anyway.
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Sulla on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:32AM
I think the elephant in the room is /pol/. You can see it on reddit with the deletion of pro-trump and anti-hillary stuff. You can see it on twitter with the removal of trending topics that are anti-hillary. But /pol/ has seen its entire community be changed. In waves (usually following Hillary bad press) one in two threads will be "Trump BTFO" sliding threads talking about the emails, the foundation, anything Hillary into the archieve. /pol/ has a lot of crap, a LOT of crap, but this is beyond the raids of old. Same user responding to himself three or four times with pro-hillary and agreeing with oneself.
Some of this is trolls, no question. But there is an outside element. Someone here called me out on the existance of online communities with borders. But there are definite communities and definite attitudes of communities, they change over time and it is very evident when there is an external influence.
The level of discussion on 4chan vs reddit is different, reddit is different than soylent. There is some free exchange of ideas and people going on, but once people find their place they tend to have a primary. Seems to me that there are a lot of people who feel their online "home" is threatened. I know that at least I try to keep them separated.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by Hawkwind on Wednesday September 07 2016, @03:47PM
Only an n of 1 here but I didn't know 4chan was relevant. And I had to look up what '/pol/' means. The elephant in the room sure looks like a small ant.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Sulla on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:35AM
Easy for there to be "very lirrle fire" when everyone says there is no fire
FBI says guilty but not gonna charge because incompetant?
Wow how dare you say that they said she is not guilty therefor she is qualified you are just sexist
Her defence to breaking confidentiality laws is that she had a concussion and was counting on her employees.
How dare you kick her when she is down, she was sick! You cant judge her for not knowing stuff she cant because she was sick!
Etc. Easy for there not to be a fire when you keep changing the definition of how much has to burn before it qualifies as a fire.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Gaaark on Wednesday September 07 2016, @04:19AM
"If you immediatley know the candle light is fire then the meal was cooked along time ago"
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 3, Insightful) by driven on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:41AM
"she's a bitch" is all you've heard negatively about Clinton? If that's all it was I would support her wholeheartedly.
No, look at all the bold-face lies she has told. I wouldn't trust a pathological liar to keep _any_ promises.
Don't take this as an endorsement for Trump, either. They're both poor choices.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @03:14AM
"she's a bitch" is all you've heard negatively about Clinton? If that's all it was I would support her wholeheartedly.
No, look at all the bold-face lies she has told.
"She's a bitch" is what I hear after drilling down past the superficial reporting of those "lies" and finding out that they are so much less than they've been made out to be. Instead of acknowledging the facts, cognitive dissonance kicks in and "she's a bitch" is the fall back.
For example:
“I never received nor sent any material that was marked classified.”
That's one of her "bold-faced lies" right?
The email was marked classified. But it was actually declassified and someone forgot to fully remove all of the markings, leaving just a "(C)" on two line items from her declassified telephone call sheet. [state.gov]
So, you tell me now - is that a "bold-faced lie" or a non-issue?
(Score: 2, Informative) by driven on Wednesday September 07 2016, @03:25AM
I'm sure you can find a few gems here: http://www.mediaite.com/election-2016/heres-all-40-times-hillary-clinton-told-the-fbi-she-couldnt-remember-something/ [mediaite.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @03:36AM
Wow. Answer the question. Why is it so hard to admit that one of the biggest "lies" turned out to be nothing at all? Is it because your opinion isn't actually based on facts?
I've literally spent hours digging through "bold faced lies" and the end result has always been the same -- with the full details they barely even qualify as lies, much less "bold-faced." If you can't be bothered to spell out even one lie you think is too heinous, why should I go dig through the trash for you? You are so utterly convinced, then tell me what exactly convinced you. Otherwise you're just doing a variation on "she's a bitch," which is exactly where we started.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @04:01AM
Hey look! I got the "-1 Troll" aka "-1 She's a bitch!" mod on both those posts.
I kinda wish scores could go down past -1 just to see how many people will non-ironically give me a "-1 She's a bitch!"
(Score: 1) by driven on Wednesday September 07 2016, @05:01AM
Re-read what I said. I never said anything specifically about the classified emails - you did. I also never asked you to "dig through the trash" - you did that on your own.
As for a specific lie, I'm not going to bother pointing one out because it doesn't matter. If only 25% or 50% of the "lies" turn out to be really lies, that's still a shit load of lies. Even of the "obvious" lies I have no way to prove them myself, and even if I could there's nothing I can do about it. The media itself is allowed to lie by law, so half of what I read could be complete bullshit. Now with all the lies and misinformation and selective coverage out there, I try and not worry myself to death about it all thus my reluctance to get too deep into this topic with you. I am not out to convince you or anyone else. You have an Internet search like the rest of us and can form your own opinion. If you really think she's totally above board then good for you. Maybe she is, maybe she isn't. But damn, there is a wealth of material out there that suggests she isn't.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by captain normal on Wednesday September 07 2016, @05:23AM
Just when did you stop beating your wife? What percent of what you write is untruthful? Is that a shit load of lies? Or just a a load of shit? Are you actually getting paid to post this crap?
The Musk/Trump interview appears to have been hacked, but not a DDOS hack...more like A Distributed Denial of Reality.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @06:47AM
Don't you know?
Whenever there is smoke, there must be fire.
Even if its just somebody blowing smoke up your ass - it burns!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 24 2016, @03:40AM
Here you go, pal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kypl1MYuKDY [youtube.com]
Learn to use Google.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @05:33AM
Yes, I picked the classified emails because that's the big, big, big one nowadays and I had the links at hand. It was illustrative of how one of the biggest "bold-faced lies" was actually nothing. Others which I have looked into over the last few months include Vince Foster, Travelgate, Filegate, Whitewater, her Saul Alinsky connection, her palling around with a KKK organizer, her "misconduct" during Watergate and even her support for Barry Goldwater. All completely mundane.
> I'm not going to bother pointing one out because it doesn't matter.
Well if you aren't willing to go into specifics, don't pretend that your opinion is based on anything more than the feels. I have spent the time to look into specifics and EVERY SINGLE TIME it was bullshit. There may well be non-bullshit cases I have not looked into. But I am not interested in campaigning for her, so I don't have enough time to run down every accusation against her from her entire career. I went with the highlights.
I started out with a very low opinion of her, but long ago I learned the hardest thing to do was to doubt what I want to believe. So now I always try to "prove me wrong" and it turned out it was pretty damn easy to do in her case. I don't have a positive opinion of her (I had no interest in her highlight reel) just that at worst she is a competent bureaucrat who sucks at "shaking hands and kissing babies."
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:39PM
Yes, I picked the classified emails because that's the big, big, big one nowadays and I had the links at hand. It was illustrative of how one of the biggest "bold-faced lies" was actually nothing.
If all these emails allegations are "actually nothing," then why the hell did they go to so much trouble to try to cover it up?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Francis on Wednesday September 07 2016, @06:31PM
Covering them up and deleting all those emails is obstruction of justice even if there wasn't an issue to begin with. The DoJ should have taken her to task for that alone. Not to mention that she was supposed to turn over all the work emails when she left office and didn't do that until 2 years later.
Even under the most generous interpretation of her antics, she's still a criminal.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @10:29AM
Then it was classified as she received it.
This was and is irrelevant in the classified environment. If it has markings of classified on it then it is required to be treated as classified, no further questions asked.
Therefore, her failure to follow protocol for items marked classified was an illegal act on her part, and she should be found guilty of treason and executed. No excuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @05:06PM
I work for the DoD and I'm required to sign a NDA for employment; I assume Hillary had to sign a similar NDA as a requirement for her employment. From memory, the NDA I signed says that I could be liable for administrative action as well as civil and criminal penalties if I improperly disclose classified information. I don't recall any wording suggesting I could be tried for treason. I assume that Hillary's NDA has similar wording. You need to dial your hysteria back down to 11. Just sayin'.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday September 08 2016, @01:33AM
It isn't hysteria at all. "Mishandling" classified data would include selling that information to foreign hostile entities. Which would become spying and treason. It's only a difference of degree, and possibly motivation. But any mishandling qualifies as a crime.
I'm going to buy my defensive radar from Temu, just like Venezuela!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 07 2016, @01:52PM
“I never received nor sent any material that was marked classified.”
Notice she didn't say that she never received nor sent any material that was classified. Markings don't make such material classified, but she choose to imply that. And let us note that while she can legally order the striping of security classifications off of State Department documents and propagate them via a promiscuous and poorly protected email server in an "extremely careless" (and of course, feloniously, grossly negligent) way, she can't do the same legally for documents that don't come from the State Department such as spy satellite photos or discussion of undercover sources and agents.
And that brings up another point here. There are more sorts of classified markings than the portion markings you speak about above. And some of the top secret stuff apparently would be loaded with classified markings. Your "three documents" are merely some unclassified leftovers. Nothing was said of the markings of classified stuff that is not publicly available. But the FBI is curiously disinterested in such illegal activity where either classification markings were stripped from documents which Clinton and her staff had no authority to do so, or they weren't and the illegal handling of classified documents may have been even more brazen than claimed by Clinton.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 09 2016, @02:48AM
According the FBI, there were 8 chains that contained top secret, 36 that included secret, and 8 that included confidential. So yes, "I never received nor sent any material that was marked classified." is a fucking bold-faced lie.
PS. She's a bitch.
(Score: 1, Troll) by aristarchus on Wednesday September 07 2016, @03:04AM
Somewhere in the darkness, cubancigar11 lies weeping. Will no one think of the little cubans???
https://soylentnews.org/~cubancigar11/journal/ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday September 08 2016, @04:07AM
Modded down for showing concern for a fellow Soylentil! Oh, the huge manatee! "Redundant" I could understand, but "troll"? Seriously, moderation seems to have been taken over by alt-right flamers of questionable taste in clothing. Could we just admit that Hillary is going to the be president, and that there is absolutely nothing your Anti-social Injustice Quibbler self can do about it? And, you are hurting cubancigar11! Read his journal! The man is in serious pain, just waiting for the whole thing to be over, and people keep posting tripe like this (looking at you, Runaway, you might actually know what tripe is! And chittlins. And sweetbreads. And Headcheese.) So, please, just stop with the rightwing political hit pieces. Although it is nice to know that jmorris is seriously deranged, possibly from eating the brains of others, but mostly from trying to pass on the alt-right "Hillary is sick!" meme. Do you not know that the Donald has a huge growth on his head that sucks all rational thought out of him? Google for videos of it! It's true, I tell you, true! And no one wants to know!
And that is all I have to say about that. Shut up, Francis!
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2016, @11:48PM
Given that we have to choose between a moron and a liar, I might have to spoil my ballot or sit this one out.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2016, @11:57PM
http://www.zoltanistvan.com/ [zoltanistvan.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @12:00AM
Show me one politician who is not a "liar" -- hell show me one person who is not a "liar" -- and I'll be right there with you, skipping the voting booth this year.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @11:28AM
Lies
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Wednesday September 07 2016, @12:00AM
Not a moron, not a compulsive liar/serial killer either.
The worst I've ever heard anyone say about him is he's too moderate and too softspoken.
It's good to be softspoken, just as long as you have a big stick.
I think Johnson would make a great President. I'm afraid our country will once again prove it does not deserve a great President.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Wednesday September 07 2016, @12:04AM
I'm not too sure about this but I've heard that getting to a certain percent in one election cycle could help G. Johnson (or another third-party candidate) get onto more polls during the next one. Which could lead to him having a better chance of polling at 15% and being able to get on the debate stage. Is that about right?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Informative) by Arik on Wednesday September 07 2016, @12:09AM
I started campaigning for the LP in '88 when Ron Paul made his first run for President, IIRC it ate over 95% of our resources SIMPLY TO GET ON THE BALLOT in all 50 states.
The rules are different in each state but generally speaking if you poll somewhere around 10 or 15% in one election, you get treated more like a real party for the next election. Less busy work just qualifying to put your candidate on the ballot, means more time and money to actually try to spread the message and turn out voters.
Even if he doesn't win a strong showing would help alternative candidates in many different areas next election.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @12:49AM
being able to get on the debate stage
I don't know about that. IIRC Nader polled above the required percentage, then the requirement was raised so he still couldn't participate.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday September 07 2016, @01:13AM
Yeah, it was raised from 5% to 15%. I know that Gary J needs 15%.
Would they raise it to 20% in a blatant show of corruption? Call me optimistic, but I'd have to believe there would be enough backlash to prop him up if Gary was polling 16% and they raised it to 20.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday September 07 2016, @01:23AM
but I'd have to believe there would be enough backlash to prop him up if Gary was polling 16% and they raised it to 20.
No there wouldn't be, because the media would completely ignore it, or paint it as a positive, and most people wouldn't care.
Those who go on about "Liberals" and "Conservatives" have entirely missed the point.
The US system is set up to ensure the ruling class continues to rule.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @01:43AM
> The US system is set up to ensure the ruling class continues to rule.
As have been all "systems" in the history of mankind.
Really, your analysis is pretty banal.
Unless you support a 100% inheritance tax and raising all children in creches you support a system that ensures the ruling class continues to rule.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Arik on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:28AM
G_D FUCKING DAMN IT you have triggered me.
How on earth does my determination to pass the tiny scraps I have managed to set aside while wasting my life trying to make the world a better place on to the heirs I designate give you any mistaken perception of a right to take those kids away and raise them on garbage?
Are you a man or an insect anonymous coward?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:52AM
He could very well be a lizard. I'll admit, I've toyed with notions about somehow taking parents out of the equation, but it either ends up at Brave New World or The Giver. It's a tantalizing idea that everybody is literally born equal.
I don't think it can work in practice. If we aren't scrimping and saving so that we might one day bestow on somebody from the next generation our own leg up, what's the point? I say that even as somebody who can't have kids. When the time comes, I'll find a way of choosing. I'd rather it be up to me than some corruptible bureaucracy.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:58AM
Equally rich or equally poor?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Wednesday September 07 2016, @03:50AM
I'll admit, I've toyed with notions about somehow taking parents out of the equation, but it either ends up at Brave New World or The Giver.
I admit I was intrigued (in a "that'd be a nifty trainwreck" way) by Newt Gingrich's proposal to emulate "Boystown" by sticking poor kids in orphanages, though I'm not sure what novel or film that would end up resembling in reality. (Probably something post–apocalyptic in the long run.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @08:14PM
If I'm not mistaken, Native Americans have already been there, done that. The results have been, at best, somewhat mixed. Not quite post-apocalyptic, but it just didn't go over too well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @03:26AM
Are you trying to Poe's Law me?
Look, if you don't believe in creches and inheritance tax, that's fine.
Most people don't.
Just don't be a hypocrite.
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Wednesday September 07 2016, @12:42PM
That is what I have been encouraging people to do. If there ever was an election to just say fuck-it screw these two this is it. If you lean more environmentally liberal vote Stein, if you lean more fiscally conservative vote Johnson. The best thing would be for the candidate from either of the major parties to be elected with like 27% of the vote so it is very clear that they don't have a mandate and that the majority of people don't want what they are selling. With the first debate coming and it likely that Johnson or Stein won't be in it I have joked that I would welcome some Russian intervention [wikipedia.org] in our election process.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @12:05AM
> The worst I've ever heard anyone say about him is he's too moderate and too softspoken.
The great thing about not being taken seriously is that no one bothers to do any investigative reporting on you.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bob_super on Wednesday September 07 2016, @12:12AM
> I'm afraid our country will once again prove it does not deserve a great President.
Since we still have work to fix the mess W left, I'll take "good enough" if I can't get Great.
Maybe I'm narrow-minded when I'm hiring someone to play around with my money, but: "former First Lady, two-term New York Senator, Secretary of State, and current establishment-backed" is the best of the four resumés, and then some cover letters are better written than others.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @12:32AM
Uh... what? Are you kidding me? Did you miss the part where she supports mass surveillance, supports encryption backdoors, supports more war, supports (but is now pretending not to, as she simply won't do anything to stop it) the TPP, and is a typical politician who is pro-corporation? Will Clinton legitimately try to get rid of the TPP, abolish the TSA, stop mass surveillance, stop corporate bribery, avoid war, and just generally follow the Constitution? Because that sure doesn't seem to be the case. And Trump is no better.
You're only looking at job experience, and disregarding whether or not the candidate is a corrupt, authoritarian piece of shit. That's a recipe for disaster.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:32AM
You are really a caricature. 30 years ago you could have made a ton of money in Hollywood playing the devil, but today, I fear, you are blasé and simply too tame to get a rise out of anyone but us old folks.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday September 07 2016, @07:07AM
> a bloodthirsty criminal who has demonstrated complete lack of regard for both US law and universal humanity in charge of the nation
Well, you do get the president you deserve: Will you please remember that both major candidates now hold the record for most primary votes ever?
I've observed a few years of a petty angry vindictive self-obsessed egomaniac with a Napoleon complex lead a major US ally. While I can't see Trump fucking up as badly as W, I also don't want the repeal-50-times-suggest-nothing gerrymandered idiots to go unchecked, and the supreme court to be filled with ayatollahs.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by TheRaven on Wednesday September 07 2016, @01:36PM
Will you please remember that both major candidates now hold the record for most primary votes ever?
And yet they have the two lowest opinion poll ratings of any US presidential candidates. Which probably tells you that you need a new way of selecting candidates.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Sulla on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:40AM
Really confuses me how someone who supported everything negative that W did can be trusted to fix what he broke.
Patriot Act
Iraq invasion
Poking the Russian bear
Insulting our European allies
Overspending
Hey its a good thing Hitler is gone, we really need to fix everything he did wrong, how about this Goring guy seems pretty qualifed, he has been there all along so he knows how to fix it.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Magic Oddball on Wednesday September 07 2016, @04:11AM
I'm not a Clinton fan, but to be fair, keep in mind the social atmosphere during the Bush Administration — newsmedia was parroting the White House's claims as factual truth, and anyone that even questioned his policies was promptly attacked as a terrorist-loving anti-American by the "My President Right Or Wrong" bridgade. Unless virtually all of the Democrats had joined forces (unlikely given how many were/are conservative), refusing to support things like the Patriot Act was political suicide.
Which is likely why we also didn't see Donald Trump using some of his money, power & influence to combat the fascistic policies & bullshit propaganda. It wouldn't have wrecked his career like it would a politician, but the reaction would've been bad enough that his businesses would've likely suffered.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Sulla on Wednesday September 07 2016, @05:03AM
Committing trea,, acting against the American people because you are afraid how it will effect your chances of being re-elected is no excuse. This is not the Wilson administration where you could and would be locked up for going against the administration. They knew what they were doing.
Example from a state I am familiar with is representative Peter Defazio. He tried to fight the patriot act and failed, but he tried. He is still in congress today and has never faced a serious opponent.
She was not just a bystander who stood by and let it pass. She argued that it was necessary and helped bolster Democratic support for it.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @04:12PM
A friend of mine's daughter said she liked Trump because he wore a suit, so she'd vote for him because he looks good in a suit.
She's six years old. For some reason, your arguments are just as valid to me. The fact you site no actual job requirements or skills, and only previously held titles without any discussion as to why Hillary was good in these positions--it leads me to believe you are not clear on the concept that it takes more than adornment, via a suit or a resume heading, to effectively lead. You cited no reasons as to what makes her better. Why not tell us she is presently unemployed considering her campaign pursuits? When she loses, we can deny her a position based on the unfeasible reason for the gap in her resume, rather than what she was doing during that time.
Or perhaps you're just in the echo chamber. Soylent may have some that are ignorant, but this isn't Cosmo where our heads need to be filled with simple descriptions because complexity is too hard.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday September 07 2016, @05:36PM
If I quoted articles claiming she was regarded as a decent senator, or a good Secretary of State, you'd reply with some that say the opposite, and we'd just spend the day arguing about who's biased.
But you got to hand her the fact that other world leaders do not feel the need to voice their negative opinion of her, and over a dozen bitch-hunt investigations from the Republicans have only turned up mishandling of classified information (which is bad, but nowhere near as world-ending as they try to make it sound, since they haven't successfully connected it to any actual negative effects). She's got skeletons in her closet, but she's president-grade good at hiding them.
Also, the last time the whole world, including our best allies, tried to tell Americans who not to vote for, and we ignored them (ish), we ended up with W. I think we should have learnt to listen.
(Score: 3, Touché) by bob_super on Wednesday September 07 2016, @12:22AM
> Not a moron, not a compulsive liar/serial killer either.
USA 2016: if we set the bar as high for the Olympics as we do for the Presidential election, we wouldn't bring home much gold.
Not sure whether I should laugh or cry. Can we lend the nukes to Switzerland for the next 4 years?
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @01:53AM
All we expect of athletes is that they entertain us, whereas the President...OH!
(Score: 4, Informative) by el_oscuro on Wednesday September 07 2016, @12:36AM
I'm voting for him. Both Johnson and Weld were popular moderate Republican governors in Democratic states. They turned to the 3rd party because both the Republicans and Democrats went batshit insane.
Today on the Grant and Danny sports talk radio show, I literally heard my first political ad - for Johnson (the few TV shows I watch are DVRd). The ad basically boiled down to this:
<HHGTTG>"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said Ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"We're not lizards. Vote for us.
SoylentNews is Bacon! [nueskes.com]
(Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:36AM
Should that still not taste, the reader (or eater) is advised to wrap the thing in an old sock, and let it age for a week. The result is sweet and sultry and never fails to please the palate, however tart the initial product might have been.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Wednesday September 07 2016, @01:05AM
Take a look at my most recent journal entry (just finished it), watch that video, ignore the commentator if you have to (angry northern British English can put people off but I don't mind), just listen to Gary Johnson rip into that journalist.
Gary Johnson is not a libertarian in my opinion. Not anywhere close.
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:39AM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:21AM
It's good to be softspoken, just as long as you have a big stick.
With a name like Johnson I think the big stick is implied.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Wednesday September 07 2016, @03:24AM
This explains how Gary Johnson lost my support:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLeleSWBKRU [youtube.com]
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:53PM
Not a moron, not a compulsive liar/serial killer either.
Trump raped and murdered a girl in 1991?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday September 07 2016, @12:00AM
Name the last non-liar on a Presidential ballot ...
Take your time.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday September 07 2016, @12:05AM
Gary Johnson, 2012, Libertarian, endorsed by Ron Paul after the RNC proved themselves incurably corrupt.
Took me less than a second to think it and a couple more seconds to type it.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday September 07 2016, @12:18AM
If you've been campaigning for his party for the last 28 years (thank you for promoting multi-party elections), I suspect I'll have to grab a spoonful of dehydrated Dead Sea when you claim your candidate does not lie.
I will give you that he's saner than most, especially if we count primaries, but I have not fact-checked his individual statements.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @12:20AM
Ah, you got me beat. It took me about 30 seconds to google these:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/22/gary-johnson/gary-johnson-says-us-bankrupt/ [politifact.com]
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/15/gary-johnson/gary-johnson-said-pentagon-has-endorsed-eliminatin/ [politifact.com]
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/09/gary-johnson/libertarian-candidate-gary-johnson-mischaracterize/ [politifact.com]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @03:48AM
Gary Johnson is not Libertarian. Independent maybe, Libertarian not even close. He is almost check mark by check mark a tea party Republican with a couple of very minor differences. Trust me I have been dealing with them in my party for 15 years. His whole platform is bigger gov with more control. Hardly libertarian. If his actual platform was libertarian I would probably give him a vote. Yes, TPP is a deal breaker for me.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @12:15AM
I'll use my ballot to wipe my Hillary after taking a Trump.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @03:19AM
Given that we have to choose between a moron and a liar, I might have to spoil my ballot or sit this one out.
1) Clinton is far less of a liar and moron than Trump is. Trump fits both insults more.
2) There are more than two options if the US voters really say "Clinton and Trump are both bad" then they should vote for someone else.
However, it does seem like both Clinton and Trump actually have lots of _supporters_.
So what the other candidates should do is do test polls (not first past the post, but the other) to see if they really have a chance. If the results show that they have a reasonable chance then the voters who think they are better should vote for them, or at least work out who the 3rd lesser evil is and vote for them. If none of the alternative candidates even have a chance according to the test polls then the voters will have to vote for "lesser evil" again.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday September 07 2016, @12:19AM
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @12:27AM
What is this, TMZ?!
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:44PM
Political power is widely perceived to be a legitimate use of violence against despised other people. For the remaining supporters of political violence who don't actually desire to use violence, it is fought over in self-defense: they try to seize the political cudgel for themselves in an attempt to keep from being struck by it.
In the USA, this horrific cycle will continue until enough individuals first realize that the maximum legitimate authority of government is limited to that possessed by a single individual person, and any government action that exceeds such limits is literally criminal [soylentnews.org], then begin to treat government and its agents like the criminals they are. (e.g. If I find out one of my clients is a member of the violent drug cartel MS-13, I choose to stop doing business with them. If they get mad and attack me for peacefully disassociating, I am justified for using violence in self-defense.)
Initiating violence against others by proxy is still illegal, even if the proxy is government.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @12:31AM
Trump is a dangerous man. In his light, anyone is a saviour.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:04AM
Trump doesn't have the political clout to get his bullshit through congress, Hillary does. Who's scarier again?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @03:57AM
> Trump doesn't have the political clout to get his bullshit through congress,
You are a fool if you think Trump is the risk. Its the other way around. He doesn't have the strength of character or attention span to stand up to the onslaught of lobbyists pulling the strings on their pet congresscritters. He'll go along with whatever crazy-ass shit they are selling just as long as he gets to sign the laws with gold ink.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @04:49AM
This is exactly the case. Remember the last incompetent fool we had for a president (Dubya, in case you forgot)? He sure as shit didn't do anything, but Cheney and everybody else sure ran the country into the ground with that idiot as their puppet. Expect an even worse repeat if we get an even bigger idiot in the white house.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @06:58AM
That Cheney-esque covert take-over seems to be Peter Thiel's motivation [medium.com] for endorsing Trump. He's hoping to become the "shadow" president.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday September 07 2016, @03:59PM
During Dubya's term, he and Cheney had a very agreeable Congress. I don't think the same will necessarily be true here. And Pence doesn't seem to be as awful as Cheney, though I could be wrong.
It seems to me that we really need to elect Trump/Pence, and then pack Congress with partisan Democrats. Then nothing will get done, but that's better than the alternative.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday September 07 2016, @10:20AM
Um, yeah, that's what I just said.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @08:33PM
I'm not so sure about that. In my estimation, this guy appears to be just one twitter-rant away from starting WWIII...and he will have his finger on the nuclear button! If he becomes President, I don't think I will be sleeping well for the next four years.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @07:45AM
you dont need congress to fuck the nato treaty, like trump already started doing; you dobt need congress ro invade countries; you dont need congress to tell the attorney general to prosecute all brown people for whatever.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @08:40AM
you dobt need congress ro invade countries;
And you don't need to read to read the constitution, because spelling is, like, for losers! And stuff! Make A'mericca Grate Agan! Let's take back Germany for Germans! Deutschland uber alles! Lebensraum! Zeig . . . Um, what did I just say?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday September 07 2016, @10:19AM
You do if you want the money to pay for any of it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Gaaark on Wednesday September 07 2016, @11:29AM
Yes, I don't get these people.
If two people are incompetent, reckless, criminal, soulless, evil: vote for the one who has no friends, has no one who 'owes' him favours... the one who has no power!
Voting for the criminal that everyone is afraid of and who owns them is just (to be PC) the 'R' word. (Damn, even the FBI is afraid of her)
Vote for the lame duck who will be stymied at every turn and will be able to do no harm!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 2, Interesting) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:41PM
This makes a great deal of sense.
However, if things don't pan out that way, it's horrifying how bad things could get with a president egging on the alt-right. There's also the supreme court to consider. The SJWs have gone too far, and the backlash will be powerful. Just like the SJWs, the anti-SJWs also always miss the target. On the other hand, maybe that would open a path to move to Germany as a refugee!
Frankly, I guess I don't give a damn as long as cannabis stays legal where it currently is legal. That means my candidates are Johnson, Stein, and Clinton. Trump is right out, not because of anything he's done or not done, but because of the assholes he gives legitimacy to. I wish the anti-SJW fuckers would at least give me time to exorcise a financial vampire that's gotten ahold of me so I can just fucking move already.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @06:33AM
Trump is 'dangerous' because that is the narrative the DNC wants you to think. http://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/1041 [wikileaks.org] Do all of these look familiar? They should. The HRC campaign uses them all the time and the media repeats it.
But the media will hold them to account right?
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/13366 [wikileaks.org]
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10945 [wikileaks.org]
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/6107 [wikileaks.org]
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/12450 [wikileaks.org]
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/8806 [wikileaks.org]
Someone in the 'media' even asked her a softball question today of 'what do you think about the CNN poll'. She basically huffed off and ended the 'press conference' and didnt answer. She could have easily said something like 'we are within MOE and need to work harder to get our message out to the American public'. The message was clear to the rest on the plane. Dont talk about that and dont mention the health thing.
But ignoring all of that. We cannot ignore her record while acting on behalf of the US. She pretty much took out Libya and Syria. Both of those fuckups are at her feet and Obama helped her do it. But he realizes now what a major fuckup it is. I would bet cold hard cash he states it is a mistake after the Clintons are dead and he is writing a memoir. John Kerry is trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube. But she royally fucked up and the Russians are all over it politically. The TPP which she HAD to have had a hand in writing is fairly terrible for everyone involved other than copyright holders. She is claiming it is bad now. The G20 summit where china basically told Obama to fuck off? Because of TPP. How about her other bills? Signed off on the patriot act. Twice. How about earlier. Lets try her time in the whitehouse as first lady, Hillarycare. The single bit of legislation that basically kicked off 10x the cost across the board on all healthcare in the united states. Which Obama and the DNC tried to bandaid but fucked it up even worse, woopsie 3x the cost again. The shady shit is just noise (Benghazi, whitewater, got a pedophile off). But these sorts of things shows what she does. Thats what she lets us see. The behind the scenes is as bad as we thought (email leaks prove that).
Compared to her laundry list of deeds Trump looks like a saint. He is not even close to that and has his own list. But we can not ignore her long list of deeds for power and money. Trump Jr asked a question a couple of days ago what product do they sell? They have lots of money but do not really sell anything. Trumps money is easy to figure out. He is a landlord with lots of side businesses. The Clintons sell access and power.
(Score: 5, Informative) by dyingtolive on Wednesday September 07 2016, @12:38AM
...this is the same Paul Krugman, of the NYT, economist, that was putting out hit pieces on Bernie LITERALLY (per the definition of literally, not the common modern usage) every single day before the primaries? Like, even though a lot of what he actually wrote was the kinds of things Sanders wanted to implement?
I see a lot of parallel between Krugman and Scott Adams. They both went from being a relatively-only-somewhat-crazy-but-manageable to just throwing the fucking anti-psychotics out the window and tossing the full extent of their unmanaged disorder toward all but worshiping another human being for no apparent* reason**.
* Okay, so I think Krugman was sucking Clinton dick cause he wants a job, and he WANTS IT BAD.
** This still doesn't explain Adams though. Maybe it's the same deal, though he talks SO loudly about how well off he is. Maybe they're right and it's just because Trump's not a woman.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 5, Funny) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday September 07 2016, @01:17AM
I'll have to give that a try.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Wednesday September 07 2016, @01:33AM
First of all, well played, sir.
Second of all, damnit. I'm sorry :(
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday September 07 2016, @01:39AM
What really does get me down is the people who won't give me a job because they've found out I'm mentally ill.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @08:01AM
Very few sane and smart people would go for the job (you might as well be one of the congress critters - lower responsibility/blame, lower assassination risk, no term limits, not very much lower pay, better lifestyle; or one of those behind the scenes pulling the strings ;) ).
(Score: 4, Insightful) by TheRaven on Wednesday September 07 2016, @01:45PM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @02:37AM
Out of curiosity, since I have a mental illness but choose (and fortunately am able to) to hide that fact, what percentage of your prospective clients would you say don't give you a job because they discriminate against you?
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Thursday September 08 2016, @02:44AM
Clients and prospective hiring managers have a way of growing very, very quiet.
I figure they googled my name.
while discrimination against me is unlawful under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act as well as the various state age-antidiscrimination laws, I have no way of knowing who googled me first then chose not to contact me.
I know that I'm quite good at SEO, and I have lots of Top 10 keywords, so I should be getting scads of clients.
It is a sacrifice, but I chose to go public largely to help people like you who wish to remain private.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @08:37AM
I thank you for it, and I hope you're doing well in spite of others' xenophobia :(
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday September 09 2016, @12:40AM
I would do it anyway, but it helps a great deal that you are grateful.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:11AM
I'm mad as hell
But I'm not going to take it anymore
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @03:40AM
Adams is just yanking your chain. You have not paid attention to what he actually writes.
1) plug book.
2) claim to be master in hypnotism.
He even tells you what he is doing but no one seems to notice. He does not care about who wins. Either can win and he still looks good. He even hedged his bets a few months ago.
He has set everything up as win-win. The very thing that he says Trump is doing.
Here is his play outs.
1) Trump wins. 'I been saying this for a whole year see how smart I am, buy my book'.
2) Hillary wins. 'The godzilla changed the game. Just like I told you. Buy my book'.
EITHER way he looks smart and 'wins'. It looks like he predicted the future. He then shows you how he predicted jack shit (my prediction). He just said both outcomes and made you think he knew what was going on. He keeps going on and on about how no one actually makes decisions. We create systems to reinforce our beliefs. I have not read the book but I suspect it is a large theme in it.
What he is doing is a confidence magic trick. A pretty long running one too with a lot of patter. He however is trapped into a long running one due to the nature of what he is 'predicting'.
All of the political punditry is just to keep you interested. People like to talk about Trump and Hillary. It draws in an audience. To .... 'buy his book'.
Notice a theme? Hint: buy the book.
Still not convinced? It is the same way Hillary and Trump sell themselves to you. State crazy thing. Media tears it apart for free and puts it in front of everyone. If it turns out to be true you look like a wizard. If it turns out wrong claim they misheard it and took it out of context or something was misunderstood.
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Wednesday September 07 2016, @01:11PM
I thought something like that at one point, but man, like you say that's a long game to play.
A couple things made me actually think he was actually seriously attempting to campaign for him though, in spite of the insistence he wasn't:
- It's a willful eagerness to give Trump a crazy amount of free press (by Trump's definition of press).
- He waited a little too long to do anything about it when his site turned into a hangout for Stormfront and other creeps.
- It was that same single minded OCD focus that Krugman had going on for MONTHS. It wasn't until he started getting called out on it that he occasionally slipped other blog posts in-between.
I mean, maybe Adams just got a little too much into it or something. I can understand that. He says what he claims he's actually doing, but I don't think anyone takes him at face value on this (and this might be another of his snarky points) because people are so used to the "persuader" trying to say one thing while actually meaning the other. Again, that might be part of his game, but I honestly kind of think he's convinced he's just a little bit deeper than he actually is, and I'm usually a fan of his material. Of course, I would say the same about Krugman before he joined the Clinton Sycophant Squad
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @01:15AM
Having a few non-tech stories is one thing, but a daily diet of anti-Hillary pieces makes this site useless and disgusting, except for Trump voters.
Congratulations, editors.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @01:20AM
Here's a shekel for that thought.... Carry on shilling
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Wednesday September 07 2016, @01:40AM
Aaaand, how many stories have you submitted?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @01:49AM
I'm not going to say, but that's a lousy excuse. Breitbart or Daily Kos type stories shouldn't be posted here, period, regardless of whether the submission queue is slow or not. Space out the stories if you have to.
That's really basic. That's about the integrity of this site and what it supposedly stands for.
BTW on the other site, well over half the stories now seem to be written by the editors themselves. Timothy and Samzenpus used to do some of that ("An anonymous reader writes...") but the new crew does it much more, it's the main diet of the site instead of a last resort. Not saying that's good, but it can be done and it is way better than this shit.
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:00AM
See my other comment. If you submit a story with just one link, we can quote some text and do the work. It should take less than 2 minutes to submit if you're on the ball.
I have submitted over 900 stories. Most of them are apolitical or draw few complaints. How many should I submit to satisfy our readers? 10 every day? Should the editor team delete everything Runaway1956 submits from IRC (I deleted some inflammatory bullshit sub just the other day)?
I have made damn sure to keep the science/tech diet healthy around here. I don't want to see election stories every day.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by CoolHand on Wednesday September 07 2016, @06:55PM
Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job-Douglas Adams
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday September 08 2016, @12:12AM
2 minutes sounds about right. Find a story you like, grab a meaty paragraph and a link, and you're done. The only one who'll really grouse is wonkey_monkey. Everyone else will appreciate it and enjoy discussing it.
I would also like to personally and publicly thank all the hard-working editors who kept the lights on while many, including myself (took the family on an 8,500 mile, 6-wk road trip around the US), were checked out for the month of August. I felt guilty that I wasn't helping, the few times we had connectivity and could check the site. You guys are heroes.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:14AM
See, the thing is, this site's content is determined by the community. If you're seeing political subs (and don't give me this "you're pro Trump" bullshit, read some of gewg_'s subs) it's because someone wanted to talk about it enough to sub it.
If you disagree with TFA's slant, say so in the comments. Or sub something you'd rather discuss. Part of not censoring the community is making sure every community viewpoint gets their say in subs as well as in comments.
Mind you, I'm just as guilty of having bitched about crappy, biased subs myself. I was wrong and so are you.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:47AM
I'm not going to say, but that's a lousy excuse.
I'm sure you could have come up with a better excuse.
(Score: 3, Touché) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday September 07 2016, @03:02AM
Look, AC. If you have something pro-lizard person to run, run it! Even somebody like me, a mammal supremacist, is softening their views about the lizard people. I'm still not 100% comfortable with my decision that the lizard people are preferable to the alt-right. Explain it to me! Make a believer out of me! But these stupid AC posts aren't going to get you anywhere.
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Thursday September 08 2016, @06:35PM
I'd give you a +1 Funny/Insightful but please be kind; I'm an "alternative right" European who thinks small geckos are cute! XD
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday September 07 2016, @11:59PM
It's not a lousy excuse. It's the truth. If members of the Soylent community want better stories, they must submit them. Nobody gets paid to build, edit, or maintain the site. It's all volunteers. You would think that the least they might get for their efforts was a daily pat on the back wrapped in hearty thanks, but instead they get lashes like this.
I value the site. I value the community. I do what I can to help keep them going. If you do, too, then consider substituting a complement or a compliment for a complaint. It's really easy, and much appreciated.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday September 07 2016, @01:54AM
Since I am anticipating an objection to my "how many stories have you submitted?" comment, I used a stopwatch and measured how long it took me to open Google News, open the Submit Story page, open the Google News technology section, think of a headline, and submit a submission with two links (no text, no quotes, but likely to get published if it is not crap). How long did it take me? A whopping 1 minute, 29.31 seconds, including an accidental reload of the submit page.
Take matters into your own hands.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:16AM
Then there's the ever popular hop on IRC, type #submit , bitch about MrPlow sucking ass, type ~submit , and be done.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:19AM
I don't think you can sub 2+ links at once that way. Maybe you can, but it would probably look like a mess.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:32AM
Still waiting for the days old political commentary submission in the queue to make it to the front page.
It doesn't say its about Trump, but it is about Trump.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @03:01AM
I personally will probably vote for Trump. But yeah holy fuck the media buzz is annoying. Whoever cleaned out the queue yesterday is a hero. No less than 10 different political things.
Political things usually just end up being coke vs pepsi.
Politics is nothing more than the collision of money and feelings.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @03:34AM
I'm not the parent, but I've submitted six stories today. My average is usually about 20 minutes to put together a decent submission that requires very little to no editing.
I appreciate how many stories you submit and you're clearly better at it than I am. You've put in a ton of work for this site and it wouldn't have survived this long without you.
That being said, I think there are a lot of people in the community that are not happy with the submissions (including my "obituary" and "Slow News Day" submissions). Perhaps we could use another Meta/Ask Soylent story about submissions. A lot of problems would be solved if we had more submissions, but I don't know how we can get more people to submit (hopefully we can come up with something).
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday September 07 2016, @03:49AM
Well, obituaries sometimes cluster randomly as a bunch of people that users in the community like or thinks interesting die. Not everybody will think that Person X is noteworthy or belongs on the front page, and there's usually not much to say other than tributes and highlighting the individual's accomplishments.
If you mean the smallpox eradication obituary from a couple weeks ago, users seemed to like it.
Slow News Day depends. Someone could complain that the Japanese balloon story is 72-year-old news, but that might be better than a 3-4 hour gap on the weekend and lead to an interesting discussion.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday September 08 2016, @12:19AM
That sounds about right to me. It's how long it takes me once I'm in the swing of things.
Many think that they need to spend hours composing story submissions, and then don't because nobody has that kind of free time. Others think that submissions assembled with celerity are slapdash, but that seems shortsighted because efficiently accomplished tasks say 'practiced' to me.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by janrinok on Wednesday September 07 2016, @08:39AM
Don't tar us all with the same brush please. I've been arguing against politics on this site because a. It is already reported and discussed ad nauseum elsewhere, and b. The debate just turns into a insult match without any intelligent discourse.
However, I feel your pain and share your views. I am even more disinterested in this argument than many, being a European and not an American. It seems to me that America is trying to make the run-up to the next election last the full 4 years that the President is in office. And, nowadays, this site does descend into the reddit/4chan mentality from time to time. Such stories, if they must appear at all, should be saved until the weekend imo.
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday September 08 2016, @12:31AM
I believe it's because the First American Republic is in its death throes. Too much political chatter on Soylent is an epiphenomenon. I would rather see and discuss tech/science/geek topics, but the passing of the world's most powerful democracy is stuff that matters. So perhaps we should try to appreciate all this for what it is, the build-up to a shattering historical transformation for which we have front-row seats.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday September 08 2016, @07:04AM
You may well be correct in your assertion, but I would still suggest that all the political bickering that we are getting currently is not stuff that matters. The result will matter - not the sort of rubbish that is being discussed in many of these political pieces. There is no discussion on policies and how they will affect the US and the rest of the world. There is no detail of what will change if candidate X is elected, merely exaggerated claims as to how the world will suddenly become all rainbows and pink ponies, or the arrival of the Apocalypse, depending on one's point of view. Most political submissions here consist of mud-slinging, dirty tricks, and repeating of op-ed pieces. And, if you are correct, even the result will not matter as the outcome will clearly be the same.
Voting is a personal choice. I just wish people would keep it to themselves or discuss it in one of the many political fora that already exist today. I do resent to some degree that we are expected to edit stories which will generate such low quality discussion. But my views on the topic are, I suspect, becoming quite well known.
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Thursday September 08 2016, @10:24AM
I agree it's not terribly illuminating on an intellectual level when you consider the mud-slinging itself. It is different to note that this time there is nothing but mud-slinging. It's a tacit acceptance of the fact that discussion of policy is irrelevant because what a US presidential candidate says on the question of policy before an election has no connection to what he does after being elected. Think about that. It is a clear sign that democracy in America has failed, because the public no longer accepts its basic premise, namely that voting matters in terms of the direction a country will take on a policy level. All pretence has been stripped away and the limbic foundation of the political process has been laid bare. Now we have one candidate who is clearly a criminal, who has knowingly committed crimes, and another that shamelessly panders to bigotry, and yet neither of them has been disqualified either by law or by the court of public opinion.
It's not much consolation for a tech community that would much rather, collectively, discuss cool tech and science than political drivel, but historical dislocations have a tendency to sweep all along with them and we are no different. There is a unique opportunity here, since we cannot escape the dislocation in the coming months, to transmute the tedious Red vs. Blue slog into an interesting meta discussion of how a system falls. That should interest everyone no matter where we live, because the system that is falling is larger than the United States alone. Rather, it is the global financial & economic consensus that has obtained since Bretton Woods in the wake of WWII.
How often does that sort of thing happen, once every few generations? Afterward people ponder questions like, 'But how could someone like Hitler have come to power?' or, 'What on earth drove the Chinese to undertake something like the Cultural Revolution?' I think this community might garner some insight on questions like those as this whole thing is happening, if we examine it through that kind of lens.
Anyway that's my suggestion for how to get through the next two months at least.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Thursday September 08 2016, @06:47PM
I actually like that there are political stories! :o Even if it means I end up annoying people I like.
It's not that I don't understand people being tired, I'm tired too and when I'm too tired I skip it, but when I'm not too tired then SoylentNews is the only place I can comment like this where it doesn't go directly into some 3rd party marketing/surveillance machine like Disqus or Facebook but instead makes the Five Eyes etc. at least have to harvest it on purpose at some point.
That on its own is worth a hell of a lot to me.
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday September 09 2016, @07:29AM
In which case we need a 'Politics' nexus or topic - and some way of filtering them out for those that don't want to see them.
I'm sorry Yog, but I will still try to avoid editing them as much as I possibly can! :)
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Friday September 09 2016, @09:06AM
I don't mind at all (I don't decide for you and don't want to either because I'm among those who usually find it very annoying when other people decide on my behalf) but I will point out that there's not that much need for a nexus etc. since people will quickly see by a title or a summary if they're interested or not. It's not difficult to avoid.
Slashdot tried to separate it out and people who didn't like the stories still sought them out to complain about them :)
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday September 10 2016, @08:37AM
I agree with much that you have written. The difference with adding a new nexus is that, if the original proposal is still thought to be the way ahead, different editors will be supporting different nexuses. That way, stories can be edited by those having a. an interest in the topic, and b. the editors with specialist subject matter knowledge will be editing those stories. For the time being, it will still be falling on my plate - ah c'est la vie!
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Saturday September 10 2016, @09:26PM
Aah I get the point now and it makes a lot sense. Thank you! :)
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:51PM
a daily diet of anti-Hillary pieces
Reality has a non-progressive anti-globalist bias. So any site that doesn't pander for money or political favors will naturally be full of anti-left stuff.
Hillary specifically is highly unlikable and seems to be running on an "emperor has no clothes" strategy where everyone personally dislikes her and her beliefs while also simultaneously knowing that everyone else is paid or politically forced to like her so they best go along to get along. Its basically the "Hitler in the 30s" strategy. "Well, I'm not personally a huge fan of the final solution, but everyone I know likes the guy so rather than rock the boat I'll just kinda agree with everyone else... who happens to be in the identical situation...". No one is braver than a democrat, LOL.
The neocons are equally morally dead so that's how the /pol/ candidate crushed them, hopefully permanently, and is going to win. And its going to be pretty awesome. Progressivism, globalism, crony capitalism, socialism, communism, imperialism, all have failed. Lets try something that works, or at least is different, or at least hasn't failed lately.
Honestly I think she's faking her lung cancer and brain cancer to get some sympathy votes. Pragmatically "emperor has no clothes" strategy has mostly resulted in Trump winning in the polls. It doesn't seem terribly controversial that the "dying grandma" meme will net her more votes than what she's been doing.
The most enjoyable thing about this election cycle is watching normies wake up to mainstream media propaganda. In the long run even if Trump loses, he wins because nobody believes the news anymore.
Another enjoyable thing is watching the haughty and arrogant press get entirely neutered in public. Like they've been handed a jar with their balls in it, forbidden city style, and they don't even seem to realize they're holding a jar or their balls are in the jar. Oh 100% of the press are lefty liberal progressives and they all hate Trump and incessantly propagandize against him, and he's gonna win anyway, and they're gonna cry on camera like they did all thru the primaries? I'll drink a beer to that! I love the sweet sweet tears of progressive journalists slowly learning their media empire is in fact completely and permanently impotent.
I do have a question about Hillaries incredibly bad health, if her obviously late stage cancer finishes her off before the election, does that mean her veep is getting sworn in, and should the veep be participating in the presidential debates and so forth? I mean she's pretty sick and can't keep up with Trump even at this "relaxed" pace, so later on she's just gonna be lost. Or worst case, what if she wins and ends up in a hospice for a couple years... will she be of sound enough mind to resign (understanding she's a power mad sociopath, I'm guessing "no").
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mechanicjay on Wednesday September 07 2016, @07:13PM
My VMS box beat up your Windows box.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday September 08 2016, @12:40AM
You took the words out of my mouth. The media outlets are corporate mouthpieces; that's why they all change their tune about the Establishment after the elections are done. Before the election, they play up the horse race and controversy to generate high ad revenue, but as soon as the ballots are counted (or not, as it were) they step and cheerlead for the Whitehouse, whoever it is, until it's time to start the whole election charade over again. Just consider how much the Washington Post and NY Times prevaricated against W before he was (s)elected, and how quickly they stepped up to help sell his Dept of Homeland Security, PATRIOT Act, Iraq Invasion, etc afterward.
Of actual leftist media there are relatively few. Bill Maher, MotherJones, and Michael Moore are a representative handful. They're the real deal because, as you said, they base their criticism of elected officials on how far their actions depart from their stated policies and how distant they are from what they believe to be philosophically sound and laudable, which means they criticise Democrats as much as they criticise Republicans.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Wednesday September 07 2016, @01:43AM
Ok, he's at about 7% now. Let him in the first debate, if he doesn't get to 30% then he's out of the second one.
HRC is corrupt as fuck, Trump is an asshole, 60% of the country think neither should be running, let alone president. I'm guessing 60% of the country don't even know Johnson and Stein exist, let alone think about voting for them. Put one or both in the debate and that changes.
It was a once in a lifetime experience. Which means I'll never do it again.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:08AM
You're commenting in the wrong place. You need to comment at:
1200 New Hampshire Ave NW #445, Washington, DC 20036
(202) 872-1020
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:43AM
When Hillary is doing well the media downplays Johnson, when Trump is doing well they talk about how Johnson might get in. The bullshit election committee will only let Johnson in if he can hurt Trump. So keep praying for Trump to do well and we might get some Johnson.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:53AM
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Covalent on Wednesday September 07 2016, @01:45AM
I'm a liberal. I don't like Hillary much, but I'll vote for her over Trump any day.
That said, I have two problems with this piece:
1. I don't think it belongs on SN, when there's legit science, tech, and nerd stuff to report.
2. This piece is entirely devoid of facts.
Of course there are media outlets that lean left. There are media outlets that lean right. But show me the actual facts that Clinton broke the law. Believe me - she didn't. She came REALLY close plenty of times. She was shady, shifty, and sneaky. She found loopholes in loopholes and exploited each of them to the fullest. She's incredibly good at that.
We have a word for people like that - politician.
You can't rationally argue somebody out of a position they didn't rationally get into.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:07AM
You need to find a relatively normal person who happens to hold a security clearance, and ask them how much jail time they would be doing if they did what Hillary did with the classified documents.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:56AM
You need to find a relatively normal person who happens to hold a security clearance, and ask them how much jail time they would be doing if they did what Hillary did with the classified documents.
Here.
Well, my clearance is inactive because I'm retired.
The answer to your question? No jail time.
I've witnessed multiple cases of TS SAP material accidentally being transferred to unclass systems.
Nobody was fired, much less jailed. They were reprimanded and an entry went into their HR file. The systems were sanitized, disks that could be sanitized (due to bad sector allocations that were not over-writable) were destroyed.
And that's way worse than what clinton did which was to receive unmarked classified material sent to her through email across the public internet by someone who did not hold a clearance and did not even work for the government (Sidney Blumenthal).
Oh yeah, she also had two entries from her list of scheduled phone calls that were improperly marked confidential [state.gov] because they had already been declassified.
These facts change nothing. She's a bitch, so lock her up!!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @04:27PM
I've handled classified from TS SCI to Nato for over 30 years until retirement. I agree with you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @11:18PM
No, I don't have to know what jail time she'd get.
Actually, for me, it's more like, "She allowed the appearance of impropriety, regardless of crimes committed, and was in the words of the Director of the FBI, "Extremely Careless." She should have known better, and should have had experts to tell her that."
She doesn't have to be a bitch, and she doesn't have to be locked up.
But no, she shouldn't be President of the United States, either. It's this little thing called Ethics? Which includes appearances just as much as actual violations?
And now we can talk about appearance of improprieties while having a family Foundation while being SecState? (Like trying to grease the wheels for a Foundation employee to travel diplomatically despite never being hired by State or confirmed by Congress? On what I truly know is a great humanitarian mission but said employee still shouldn't be the one to go with Bill as anything but a regular civilian?)
Finally, just because she may not be criminally guilty doesn't mean she's not corrupt either. Or, part of the system. Same thing, these days. (as always...)
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Wednesday September 07 2016, @03:00AM
Ask John P. O'Neill about that. One lost briefcase caused him to go from being the #1 expert on Bin Laden in the FBI to out on the street... where he ended up working security in 'private industry'... at the WTC and died on 9/11. So you will need a Ouija Board to ask him. Or ask General Patraeus(sp?) about it. Shared his f*cking calendar with his mistress and got ruined when it came out. Hillary put her entire email stash on a goddamned Microsoft Exchange Server with no real security. Seriously, if you don't know how reckless that is you have no business posting here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @03:43AM
Hillary put her entire email stash on a goddamned Microsoft Exchange Server with no real security. Seriously, if you don't know how reckless that is you have no business posting here.
From your mouth to God's ears.
If you don't know how vulnerable that made her to getting hacked, [cnn.com] you have no business posting here.
Sayonora jmorris.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Wednesday September 07 2016, @04:05AM
Thanks for making my point. Did you notice the line in that article with "only affected its unclassified email system" in it? The State Dept was having trouble keeping the nasties out of an Internet connected system with full time professional system administration, Hillary had what exactly? That is why serious 'official business' is normally conducted on an internal system, not the Internet. Except when anyone needed the SoS, who only had clintonemail.com as a contact.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @07:05AM
You have no idea WTF you are talking about.
Seriously.
This whole "internal" system for unclassified "official business" does not exist.
And no, people don't use classified systems for unclassified work if they can help it because its a PITA.
If you ever had used a classified system you'd know better.
But total ignorance has never stopped you before, so why should it now?
She's a bitch! Lock her up!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @12:44PM
You're obviously a sanctimonious poser, whose experience in classified environments probably amounts to no more than access to the Colonel's secret KFC recipe.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:53PM
Hm. Something looks off. I just can't quiiiite put my finger on it...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @07:12PM
You mean, "When O'Neill heard of upcoming leaks to the New York Times about the May 2000 incident in which his briefcase had been stolen, he decided to retire in favor of a higher-paying job in the private sector, as chief of security at the World Trade Center [wikipedia.org]?"
Even assuming he was forced out of office (which is not 100% clear, but is very plausible), was he ever in jail for the mistake? Did a prosecutor ever suggest that they would seek jail time for him?
Have you ever had a security clearance? There are numerous people who have spoken both here and other forums who have said time and again that people don't get thrown in jail for mishandling classified information. They lose clearances (and subsequently jobs), but they are not prosecuted unless it is willful espionage.
So why would Hillary be the first person ever you want prosecuted for gross negligent handling of classified information? Oh wait, I think I just answered my own question. It sounds like you aren't complaining that Hillary is getting special treatment; you are complaining that Hillary is NOT getting special treatment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @01:49PM
It is very unlikely to accidentally set up a mail server. It is usually a deliberate act.
Now, what's that other word that means deliberate? Oh, that's right wilful.
There is a bit of a difference between having a briefcase stolen, and deliberately setting up a mail server.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:08AM
> We have a word for people like that - politician.
In the private sector they are "successful business people."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 09 2016, @03:02AM
Her email server was not authorized. If she had seeked authorization (which she did not), she would have been denied.
She didn't hand over the emails when she left office. She didn't hand them over until a couple of years later when it came out that she had a private server. Even then, she didn't hand over all the emails like she was required to. She tried to claim that she didn't need to hand over "personal" emails (irrelevant, not for her to decide), and even after she said she handed over all the work-related emails, it was obvious that she did not actually do so.
The whole point of the server was to break the federal record-keeping laws, and her intent to do so is obvious.
Then there's the whole mishandling of classified materials on top of it.
I don't care for Trump either (I'm not voting for him), but I'll still take a buffoon like Trump over a criminal like Hillary.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:20AM
Please don't turn SoylentNews into another cesspit website with crap articles like this.
This is ultrablatant partisan junk. Those who already hate Clinton will love the article because it preaches to the choir, those who love Clinton will hate it for being a fact-free hit piece, and anyone in the middle will see this as a junky "filler" article meant to get clicks.
if you want to turn this into some hard right politics website, just announce it now so I can adjust my expectations and seek out another website. Filler!
(Score: 4, Informative) by Magic Oddball on Wednesday September 07 2016, @05:04AM
This EXACTLY. The article's the sort of thing that the SN submission guidelines indicate should be posted to a personal journal, not the front page — it doesn't resemble news in any form. Yes, some people with power over content will abuse it in line with their biases if given the chance, and powerful orgs will nudge things whenever they can as well. It has happened on a similarly blatant scale in favor of one side or another (whether politics, operating systems, religions, pets, or other conflicts) many times before. It's not like we haven't heard this particular complaint at least a couple of times this year already; I think Runaway1956 was the submitter those times as well. :-/
Seriously, if I wanted to read this kind of crap, I'd still be spending (wasting) my time over at sites like Salon & Slate, read my hyper-partisan relatives' blather on Facebook, and so forth.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Wednesday September 07 2016, @10:47AM
We had this some years ago, the hugh pickings articles, the john katz crap, it turned many of us away.
At least with Katz you could block it. It would be a nice feature to be able to block articles from the usual suspects, although those submitted via IRC will get round that
(Score: 2) by n1 on Wednesday September 07 2016, @08:04AM
I didn't realize that The Intercept and Glenn Greenwald are on the 'hard right' of the media's political spectrum.
As one example of the partisan junk... Pretty much every election based politics story on HuffPo has this editor's note attached at the end:
They do not include a note giving examples of why Clinton is a poor choice for president so we can determine the lesser evil on their individual merits. Maybe it doesn't need to as Clinton donates so much to the Clinton Foundation, you cant be that generous and also an amoral career politician.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:13PM
n1, the name of this website is "Soylent News", not Huffington Post.
What connection does Huffington Post have to this website?
(Score: 2) by n1 on Wednesday September 07 2016, @04:27PM
My general point was, which granted was not explicit.... As an independent, non-commercial volunteer powered website... We have the opportunity to discuss and critique the commercial media for their biases, on both 'sides', without fear of pissing off advertisers/sponsors/controlling interests, which even The Intercept has.
This is a community powered news site, created after a commercial news site lost it's way. If we can't/shouldn't go meta on journalism/news reporting and related subjects, then that's a real shame and missed opportunity in my opinion.
If this kind of story is not your bag, that's fine, no one's demanding you RTFS+RTFA+Comment on stories that are irrelevant or filler for you.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:48AM
This article [zerohedge.com] talks about articles disappearing from Huffington Post and the author's publishing access being revoked without explanation when he wrote two articles about Clinton's health.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Wednesday September 07 2016, @03:31AM
That is a rich vein of news just waiting to be mined by someone. Someone willing to kiss their career in journalism goodbye of course.
An example: Hillary Clinton Has Parkinson’s Disease, Physician Confirms
Dare anyone to read that one to the end and still hold to the position Hillary doesn't need to release any medical records. Remember how important it was for Sen. McCain (spit!) to release his entire medical history? Eight years later that evil bastard is still going strong, she can barely walk.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @04:19AM
(Score: 2, Informative) by jmorris on Wednesday September 07 2016, @04:53AM
I should have previewed.... But I usually don't pooch a link like that. Lemme try again.
Hillary Clinton Has Parkinson’s Disease, Physician Confirms [dangerandplay.com]
(Score: 2) by Hawkwind on Wednesday September 07 2016, @11:36PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @04:25AM
Pundits spin? OMG! Asteroids and zombies be upon us!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @05:48AM
If Hilary wins the media will spend 4-8 years of puckering up to her ass and thinking every shady thing is sunshine and lollypops.
If Trump wins the media will spend 4-8 years of trying to nit pick every little thing he does apart.
One will have a transparent gov where the media does their job. The other will have a media that colludes to 'look good'. Which do you want?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:46PM
Just change the website background to green and be done with it.
Seems to be where SN's runners are taking it.
I guess you can take the user out of S****d**, but you can't take the S****d** out of the user.