Clinton Campaign Chair: 'The American People Can Handle The Truth' On UFOs (usatoday.com) 287
An anonymous reader writes: In what seems like an April Fools' Day prank story but is surprisingly real, Hillary Clinton's campaign chair, John Podesta, says that he has convinced Hillary Clinton to declassify as many documents as possible related to Area 51 and UFOs. On the matter of alien visitation, Clinton has previously stated that "I think we may have been [visited already]. We don't know for sure." Meanwhile, Democratic rival Bernie Sanders has been dismissive of UFO talk. And on the other side of the isle, everyone surely already knows how likely Republican nominee Donald Trump feels about illegal aliens.
"The U.S. government could do a much better job in answering the quite legitimate questions that people have about what's going on with unidentified aerial phenomena," said John Podesta, who was also a chief of staff to President Bill Clinton.
Well that would be refreshing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well that would be refreshing (Score:5, Insightful)
Hillary and The Truth haven't been getting along for years, their differences are irreconcilable.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Well that would be refreshing (Score:4, Funny)
What if the truth is that Monica is an alien?
Slick Willy pales in comparison to James Tiberius Kirk.
That we know of... (Score:2)
Depends on your definition of "is".
Also, definitions of "green", "bitch", "sex", "have" and "avocado".
Re: (Score:2)
"But I still came..."
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"What if the truth is that Monica is an alien?"
So that's where the seminal receptacles are on her species!
Re: (Score:2)
Except those are both metaphors. You fail at facts as well as vocabulary.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Well that would be refreshing (Score:5, Funny)
Many will recall that on July 8, 1947, witnesses claimed that an unidentified object with five aliens aboard crashed onto a sheep and cattle ranch just outside Roswell, New Mexico.
This is a well-known incident that many say has long been covered up by the U.S. Air Force and the federal government.
However, you may NOT know that in the month of March 1948, exactly nine months after that historic day, Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., Hillary Rodham, John F. Kerry, William Jefferson Clinton, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, Charles E. Schumer, and Barbara Boxer were born.
See what happens when aliens breed with sheep.. This piece of information may clear up a lot of things .
Re: (Score:3)
If you're going to make up a conspiracy, at least try to make it somewhat factual. The estimated range for birth would have been Apr 17, 1948 to Apr 23, 1948. None of them were born then.
Jun 22, 1933 - Dianne Feinstein
Mar 26, 1940 - Nancy Pelosi
Nov 11, 1940 - Barbara Boxer
Dec 11, 1943 - John F. Kerry
Aug 19, 1946 - William Jefferson Clinton
Oct 26, 1947 - Hillary Rodham Clinton
Mar 31, 1948 - Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.
Nov 17, 1948 - Howard Dean
Nov 23, 1950 - Charles E. Schumer
You do have some legitimate choice
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, "isle" should be "aisle", but that's not the editorial problem I'm referring to here.
It was obviously an obscure "Gilligan's Island" reference.
Re:Why the jab at Trump in the summary? (Score:5, Funny)
I thought it was about the Isle Of Lucy.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
[...] they're going to have to accept that Trump is very likely going to be the next President of the United States of America.
If the Republicans can't accept a black man in the White House, what makes your think that the Democrats will accept a talking hairpiece in White House?
These normal Americans are going to elect President Trump.
As a moderate conservative, I can tell you that the rest of America aren't going to elect Donald Trump. In fact, the numbers are indicating that he will lose the election to Hillary by double digits and endanger the Republican majorities in Congress.
Re: (Score:2)
As a moderate conservative, I can tell you that the rest of America aren't going to elect Donald Trump. In fact, the numbers are indicating that he will lose the election to Hillary by double digits and endanger the Republican majorities in Congress.
As a person who does statistics as his day job I call bullshit.
The *best* you could say is that there is not enough information to make that claim. The information that we *do* have is one of a) Trump's support among democrats is higher than his support among republicans(*), or 2) 20% of democrats would defect to Trump [thehill.com] in a general election.
In previous elections, both Republicans and Democrats have gotten about 50% of the vote; hence, the dustup with Al Gore and George Bush in 2000.
Getting over half the pop
Re: (Score:3)
Trump hasn't gotten over 50% of the votes in any state primary, so far. So, I don't see how he could have "over half the popular vote" in total. Cruz is the only candidate that has gotten over half the votes in any state.
Re: (Score:2)
So you cite one single poll of 916 people made 3 months ago and base your entire argument on that.
I'd say don't quit your day job, but...
Do all Democrats have no memory? (Score:3, Informative)
If the Republicans can't accept a black man in the White House
Says the person who apparently can't remember it was only recently Ben Carson dropped out, a widely respected candidate who was surgeon... and oh by the way happened to be black.
It never boggles the mind how someone intelligent enough to type can confuse being against a persons ideal rather than the color of his or her skin. But these days all democrats can see is color or gender, ideas being utterly incomprehensible to them. To you Democrats i
Re: (Score:2)
Says the person who apparently can't remember it was only recently Ben Carson dropped out, a widely respected candidate who was surgeon... and oh by the way happened to be black.
I would have loved to vote for Ben Carson but he dropped out after Super Tuesday.
It never boggles the mind how someone intelligent enough to type can confuse being against a persons ideal rather than the color of his or her skin
I voted for Barack Obama because he had better VP pick then John McCain did in 2008. I would have voted for McCain if he had picked Joe Lieberman as he originally planned. Unfortunately, the party leadership told the "maverick" to pick someone else who less qualified, and, worse, mostly for gender rather than her ideal. That boggles my mind.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the Supreme Court would beg to differ. And that's just one of many examples.
Hey, remember when Obama was first elected and the RNC immediately found a black politician and made him head of the party? Those were fun days...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If the Republicans can't accept a black man in the White House
Really? Are you one of those people who still plays the race card in order to avoid dealing with the fact that half the country doesn't agree with the other half about some pretty serious philosophical matters, mostly when it comes to the nature of the relationship between the people and the government that works for them? Obama said he would, and has set out to change that relationship, and a lot of people don't like the way that was going to (and did) manifest itself (see the "Affordable" Care Act, etc).
Re: (Score:2)
Are you one of those people who still plays the race card in order to avoid dealing with the fact that half the country doesn't agree with the other half about some pretty serious philosophical matters, mostly when it comes to the nature of the relationship between the people and the government that works for them?
Nope. I'm one of those people who talk about race because that's America today. As a white male conservative in a minority-majority state (California), I have no problems living as minority among minorities. My neighbors are black, Latino, Indian and Asian. We're all one people. We're Americans.
But no, you'd rather call them all racists.
If it makes your feel better, you can call me an asshole. You won't hurt my feelings. I work in IT. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. I'm one of those people who talk about race because that's America today. As a white male conservative in a minority-majority state (California), I have no problems living as minority among minorities. My neighbors are black, Latino, Indian and Asian. We're all one people. We're Americans.
So which is it? You're one of those people who use the race card because "race is america today" or because you're all americans.
Re: (Score:2)
You're one of those people who use the race card because "race is america today" or because you're all americans.
We're all Americans. We all have race problems. We all need to deal with it.
Re: Why the jab at Trump in the summary? (Score:3)
Why is it a white people problem? I am no more responsible for all the assholes that happen to have the same skin pigmentation as me than all Muslims are responsible for the assholes that happen to share the same religion as them.
Re: (Score:3)
Combine those extremes for averages for each, and not only is he most likely to LOSE, he will lose VERY badly.
Somehow the Republican Party forgot that they needed to do better than Mitt Romney in 2012. Alienating every voting bloc in America to appeal to the party base is not a sound strategy.
Re: (Score:3)
Alienating every voting bloc in America
They ... they're ... Oh my god...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
They ... they're ... Oh my god...
The 2016 election is going to be one hell of a chest buster. O_o
Re: (Score:2)
You have no fucking idea what you're talking about.
This is what the Republican Party had to say about the 2012 election. Read it. Educate yourself.
http://goproject.gop.com/rnc_growth_opportunity_book_2013.pdf [gop.com]
And you demonstrate your ignorance every time you post, yet like the idiot you are, you just keep at it.
I love trolling the trolls on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
You're applying traditional political analysis to Trump, when it should be clear by now that his situation is very different from that of just about every candidate of the past 50 years, and perhaps much longer than that.
We need to look at the 1920's, especially if Donald Trump loses in double digits and takes the Republican Congress with him.
But victory can be a fleeting thing. In 1928, Republicans won 270 seats in the House. They were on top of the world. Two years later, they narrowly lost their majority. Two years after that, in 1932, their caucus shrunk to 117 members and the number of Republican-held seats in the Senate fell to just 36. To borrow the title of a popular 1929 novel (which had nothing whatsoever to do with American politics): Goodbye to all that.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/11/1928-congress-last-time-republicans-had-a-majority-this-huge-112913 [politico.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't long ago that "the numbers" were indicating Trump wouldn't do well at all during the primaries. And what happened? He exceeded all initial expectations and polls to become the leader!
Trump has almost never exceeded his polls. In fact, he usually under performs them. What the analysts got wrong was that Trump supporters didn't peel away to other, more mainstream candidates. While his supporters are incredibly loyal he hasn't really managed to pick up any more, even as other candidates have dropped out. He's stuck at ~35%, it's both his floor and his ceiling.
Eleven Million People. (Score:2)
The first estimate I saw on Google for the cost to deport someone was about $28k. There are eleven million illegal immigrants in the US. That's slightly less than the population of Ohio, the seventh largest state. What's your plan to deal with that?
Conservatives are generally not fond of increasing taxes, increased government intrusion, or "big government", so your plan should probably avoid any of those things. I'm personally not a huge fan of having lots of police around whose job is to hassle anyone with
Re: (Score:2)
It's the unnecessary attack on Trump that just isn't needed or valuable here.
This isn't an attack. It was a joke -- a ban pun, but mildly amusing. I don't read this even as a criticism of Trump's position: it was just making a joke using a candidate's well-known views.
I would suggest that it is you who are reading this as an "attack" or with malicious intent. If you are imagining a neutral statement of your candidate's position in the context of a stupid pun must be an "attack" -- well, maybe you should consider why you are so self-conscious and defensive. Maybe you're not as
Re: (Score:2)
Even if left-leaning folks, like the submitter and perhaps the editors here, don't like Trump, they're going to have to accept that Trump is very likely going to be the next President of the United States of America.
You're delusional, Trump isn't even popular among Republicans, he's gotten an average of 35% of the vote across all primaries. His favorability rating among the general electorate is the lowest of any potential nominee in the last 9 Presidential elections.
A majority of Americans do support him now, and will support him during the election, even if they can't publicly admit it at this time.
I love this kind of argument: "The fact that the evidence doesn't support me shows that I'm right." If a majority of Americans support him, then who the hell are the people stopping them from publicly admitting it?
Re: (Score:2)
"Bends" the truth? She completely fabricates all sorts of things about minor personal anecdotes and major policy and security-related matters.
No examples here.
Her entire ability to be in political power is based on her willingness to have trashed the reputations of the women her husband abused.
A valid example only if she knew that the women were telling the truth, which I see no evidence of.
She's thrown subordinates and peers under the legal bus for decades.
Again insinuations with no actual examples. Also throwing people under the bus isn't lying.
Her handling of her time as SoS was a debacle, in terms of judgement, but specifically showcased her willingness to lie about how she handled her official affairs.
Bad judgment is a matter of opinion, I asked for examples of lies.
What I read is more insinuation without any examples.
She didn't "bend" the truth about it, she outright lied, repeatedly, and is still doing so.
And yet you've somehow failed to list a single actual lie.
Re: (Score:2)
No examples here.
OK, so in order to remain a loyal Clinton follower and still look yourself in the mirror, you're deliberately staying uninformed. That's your choice. But please don't do anything important like voting, OK?
Re: (Score:2)
No examples here.
OK, so in order to remain a loyal Clinton follower and still look yourself in the mirror, you're deliberately staying uninformed. That's your choice. But please don't do anything important like voting, OK?
By most measures I'm actually quite well informed, well informed enough that when I accuse someone of lying I can generally bring up specific examples. Or when someone is BS'ing me by throwing out unspecific generalizations instead of facts I'm able to smell it.
I'll happily admit Clinton is far from perfect but that's hardly disqualifying since all politicians have serious flaws. But this overall sentiment around her just looks like the results of a smear job.
Re: (Score:3)
How about any of the lies she's told about Bernie Sanders?
Remember how she claimed that Bernie Sanders did nothing to help push health care reform in the 90s, and then people later pointed to pictures and televised speeches of both her and Bernie Sanders talking on that issue?
Possibly a lie, could also have been subjective opinion (ie she thought he didn't do enough) or she simply forgot.
Or the more recent thing where she tried to white-wash Bill's involvement in mass incarceration of black people?
White-washing does not equate lying.
I mean for crying out loud, you've seen what she'll do in her lust for power to members of her own party!
You mean run a primary campaign?
Even if you ignore Benghazi and the email scandals
I'm not ignoring them, I'm not aware of any lies there, certainly poor judgment and a potential crime with the email but I don't recall any deception involved.
you've still seen the lies she'll throw out against her opponents in her own party. How blind can you possibly be?!
Your post contained one specific example of something that might be a lie.
Here, I'll help you out [politifact.com], there's a few in there, of course Sanders is more-or-less the same [politifact.com].
Heck,
Whoa....! (Score:3)
It's just an aircraft test area. I am sure they are happy letting clowns claim mysterious UFOs with strange capabilities -- the more to scare the Rooskies with. Who, by the way, are the only ones who don't think those are real UFOs.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah there are people who have come forth and openly spoken about what actually went on there around the time period of the UFO conspiracy theories (i.e. Roswell.) I remember one dude even mentioned how they had to avoid Russian spy satellites, and decoy them by painting the image of an oddly shaped aircraft on the ground. I am curious if there is more to the Roswell story itself; if not a weather balloon, then probably some kind of experimental craft that went off course.
I highly highly highly doubt we've
the e.t. vote (Score:4, Insightful)
She is just trying to get votes. 50% of Americans believe we have been visited by extraterrestrials, that is a large voter base worth going after. It takes very little effort for her to make a campaign promise like this that she does not even need to keep. And, garners her potential votes that could tip the scale when it comes time for the election. Welcome to politics 101.
Re:the e.t. vote (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's more likely about a good distraction. Get that conversation riled up to draw attention away from anything scandalous that would prevent her from getting elected.
I gotta agree. The 1990s want their belief crazes (and stupid TV show and acid wash jeans) back.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that Sanders just got a Papal invite I'm guessing she decided to try something, anything.
Hilary's UFOs vs Ron Paul would be fun (Score:2)
If she's going off into UFOs and magic pyramids now, I'd LOVE to hear her debate Ron Paul, perhaps in Haight Ashbury.
Re: (Score:2)
50% of Americans believe we have been visited by extraterrestrials
My bullshit detector is going off. There is no way that could be true. Do you have any citations?
I love his optimism (Score:3)
Yeah, it made me want that phone, and I can still remember people thinking that it was as cool as the Firebird popup headlights.
But no. People can't handle the truth about Global Warming and cardboard pretenders to the Presidency... so no, alien life would be widely interpreted as the promised return to earth of someone's religious savior.
Wait, what? (Score:2)
Are you high? This is a presidential campaign, the very LAST thing people can handle here or would possibly expect is any kind of truth!
Big problem with Hillary Clinton: Communication. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
So, basically, she's the polar opposite of Trump?
Good point. I was thinking of years ago. (Score:2)
Truth is simple. (Score:5, Insightful)
Face it, any fool can ask questions. Asking questions is not difficult. Answering it is difficult, and it is impossible to wake up someone pretending to be asleep.
Yeah, probably (Score:2)
Clinton Campaign Chair: 'The American People Can Handle The Truth' On UFOs
Handle the truth that, actually, it's a lot of fuss about nothing that was whipped up into a pop-culture thing for a while and still keeps a few radio hosts in business, but actually has no substance to it and never did? Yeah, they can probably handle that.
Thing is, the ones who actually care at all won't (want to) believe it.
How about the secrets of the Clintons? (Score:3, Insightful)
Instead of bothering with UFO's, why not deal with things like:
* What was being discussed between Clinton and Goldman Sachs?
* What role did her husband have with supporting a known rapist on a certain Caribbean island?
* What is the truth in the matters of oddly convenient "suicides" like Vince Foster?
* What is the truth in the matters of Benghazi, given that they wanted the Ambassador dead?
Re: (Score:2)
John Podesta, Podesta Group and the Clinton Fund. Google that for some king of sleaze stuff.
http://freebeacon.com/issues/p... [freebeacon.com]
How is this not a conflict of interest? (Score:2, Insightful)
Instead of bothering with UFO's, why not deal with things like:
* What was being discussed between Clinton and Goldman Sachs?
* What role did her husband have with supporting a known rapist on a certain Caribbean island?
* What is the truth in the matters of oddly convenient "suicides" like Vince Foster?
* What is the truth in the matters of Benghazi, given that they wanted the Ambassador dead?
Adding to your list, I have a question: how is this not a conflict of interest?
The campaign chair of someone running for president convinces the secretary of state to declassify documents in order to boost the campaign?
How is this not a conflict of interest?
Should the Secretary of State make declassification decisions based on the state of her campaign?
Beyond conflict of interest, how is this not outright illegal?
Re: (Score:2)
they wanted the Ambassador dead
Citation needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone want to speculate (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All the crazy people will vote for this sole reason. FWIW, Jimmy Carter said the same thing.
Why would the USA get a visit rather than others? (Score:2)
I gather that Clinton and friends have crunched the numbers a believe that there is enough votes amongst those on the fringes of reality to risk making a fool of herself?
Re: (Score:2)
Why even humans?
So long. And thanks for all the fish.
Alien UFOs and the laws of physics (Score:4, Insightful)
I personally go with the last option.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, OK, joining you out on your four various limbs of one tree, I can offer some conversational points to each:
1 "Species" in this sense could be broad. You could be talking about a species that has already been star-hopping for some time, and it would still be this same species here on Earth. If to allow for that we would need to lend some discredit to theories of evolution from apes to humans, we could accept that the current state of research in that area is kind of messy and fumbling. We could even in
Re: (Score:2)
. It doesn't sit well with me that an alien race can cross millions of light years and then crash
They were probably mass locked by earths gravity, engaged FSD too early and overheated.
Panama Papers distraction (Score:5, Insightful)
John Podesta, who was also a chief of staff to President Bill Clinton and CEO of an organization implicated by the Panama Papers.
UFO's are just a distraction compared to recent events.
Playing with Google Rank (Score:5, Insightful)
MOST LIKELY, he noticed just like I did, that googling his name puts UFO ranked higher. So he is trying to influence his google ranking to have recent UFO related results attached to his name rather than Panama.
I remember Bill Clinton's Chief of staff over a decade ago talking about how he looked into UFOs early into Bill's years in office and Bill told him to see if he could find anything. In the interview I remember him saying he found nothing but also felt like he was getting the run around by the system. This is either still a thing for him or it is a tactic being employed again.
how to build suspense (Score:2)
I personally really, highly doubt that our government has anything revelatory or unprecedented to say about the fullest extent of their knowledge about visits by E.T.
I'm not going to go all-out and say we've never been visited. Personally I've stuck most of my life with the ideal (while fully acknowledging it as idealistic) that until you know for sure one way or the other, most proposed limits to possible phenomena in the universe deserve a 50/50 consideration. That is, it's just as likely said phenomenon
I'm all for Legal immagration (Score:2)
Whatever (Score:2)
Yeah, this PLANET might have already been visited by extra-terrestrial intelligences. But the odds are very, very slim.
And even slimmer are the odds that we (as a species) were visited.
And even slimmer still that our government has collected any information on.
And even still slimmer that our government would manage to keep such a secret.
Hilarious (Score:2)
Wrong again (Score:2, Insightful)
We can't handle the truth. Our society is getting DUMBER, not smarter. We can't handle the thought of beings from beyond arriving. There would be cults worshipping them, cults demonizing them (this ALREADY happens in certain major religions, claiming UFO's are the work of Satan.) And suicides and suicide cults and people wanting to marry them within an hour of meeting them.
Re: (Score:2)
(honestly, it's not like a certain amount of suicide wouldn't help the various governments of the world)
Re: (Score:2)
I will only worship them if they have cool blue sex robots and spaceships that look totally wizard.
Re: (Score:2)
I will only worship them if they have cool blue sex robots
I'm holding out for warm pink.
As possible (Score:2)
Why not release it all? "as spossible" just allows for restrictions. Even if we release everything up to 1996, that's still 20-year old tech. Ok, 1986, - year old tech... All the juicy alien stuff was super to happen before then.
They'll do anything (Score:2)
They'll do anything to shift focus away from their lack of honest governance on things that actually matter.
Buzz Aldrin has been talking about monoliths (Score:2)
I heard Buzz Aldrin (one of the few people to have walked on the moon) on DC news radio the other day talking about moon monoliths. I thought he was talking about Earth's moon, but some googling shows he's talking about a monolith on one of Mars' moons, if that's what he was referring to. He explicitly talked about off-world life forms - aliens - as well.
So that's interesting - Hillary talking about extraterrestrial life, as well as Aldrin talking about it, around the same time.
I do think there's extraterre
Don't tell Donald Trump! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Walls? We're going to need a ceiling as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Donald Trump would want built if he believed extra terrestrials were real?
Just ask yourself:
Does Trump's hair resemble anything from this planet?
Re: (Score:2)
Donald Trump would want built if he believed extra terrestrials were real?
Just ask yourself:
Does Trump's hair resemble anything from this planet?
Everyone knows that Trump's hair is one of his horcruxes. Once you introduce dark magic into the equation, who can really say what his hair piece really is (besides a horcrux, obviously)?
Re: (Score:2)
Can you imagine the wall Donald Trump would want built if he believed extra terrestrials were real?
We'll have to tell Freeman Dyson that he isn't getting a sphere named after him after all.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump also promises to get the aliens to pay for the Dyson sphere. Just one problem: what are we going to do with that giant pile of xygrax skins?
The truth? (Score:2)
Shut it down! [youtube.com]
Selective truth (Score:2)
Everything about UFOs was already released.
It's a cheap way to sound like she believes in transparency when, of course, she doesn't.
That is a unique campaign promise (Score:5, Funny)
John Podesta? Putin's man in DC? (Score:5, Informative)
This is not exaggeration. John Podesta is literally (not figuratively) a registered lobbyist for Vladamir Putin's bank [battleswarmblog.com], as shown by the recently released Panama Papers:
Russia’s biggest bank uses The Podesta Group as its lobbyist in Washington, D.C. Though hardly a household name, this firm is well known inside the Beltway, not least because its CEO is Tony Podesta, one of the best-connected Democratic machers in the country. He founded the firm in 1998 with his brother John, formerly chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, then counselor to President Barack Obama, Mr. Podesta is the very definition of a Democratic insider. Outsiders engage the Podestas and their well-connected lobbying firm to improve their image and get access to Democratic bigwigs.
Which is exactly what Sberbank, Russia’s biggest financial institution, did this spring. As reported at the end of March, the Podesta Group registered with the U.S. Government as a lobbyist for Sberbank, as required by law, naming three Podesta Group staffers: Tony Podesta plus Stephen Rademaker and David Adams, the last two former assistant secretaries of state. It should be noted that Tony Podesta is a big-money bundler for the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign while his brother John is the chairman of that campaign, the chief architect of her plans to take the White House this November.
Sberbank (Savings Bank in Russian) engaged the Podesta Group to help its public image—leading Moscow financial institutions not exactly being known for their propriety and wholesomeness—and specifically to help lift some of the pain of sanctions placed on Russia in the aftermath of the Kremlin’s aggression against Ukraine, which has caused real pain to the country’s hard-hit financial sector.
It’s hardly surprising that Sberbank sought the help of Democratic insiders like the Podesta Group to aid them in this difficult hour, since they clearly understand how American politics work. The question is why the Podesta Group took Sberbank’s money. That financial institution isn’t exactly hiding in the shadows—it’s the biggest bank in Russia, and its reputation leaves a lot to be desired. Nobody acquainted with Russian finance was surprised that Sberbank wound up in the Panama Papers.
Though Sberbank has its origins in the nineteenth century, it was functionally reborn after the Soviet collapse, and it the 1990s it grew to be the dominant bank in the country, today controlling nearly 30 percent of Russia’s aggregate banking assets and employing a quarter-million people. The majority stockholder in Sberbank is Russia’s Central Bank. In other words, Sberbank is functionally an arm of the Kremlin, although it’s ostensibly a private institution.
And yes, he's Hillary Clinton's campaign manager. no conflict of interest there...
Attempted distraction (Score:3)
Is this stunt anything other than an attempt to distract the press and public from the damaging combination of Bill Clinton's recent ugly interaction with the African-American movement of the moment (which is a dig on the current crop of youngsters with their millisecond attention span and utter ignorance of history; while in office Bill Clinton was called America's first Black President, that's how close he was to the black vote), and the ties with dirty money that the Clintons have that are being revealed in the Panama Papers?
I mean, seriously, UFOs? Is that anything other than a Hail Mary pass?
The REAL truth about UFOs (Score:2)
They fly, and we don't know what they are. Otherwise they'd be UOs or FOs or even just Os.
Area 51 UFO sighted (Score:2)
http://www.core-sound.com/jeck... [core-sound.com]
(Disc microphone)
I have no doubt at all hundreds of people can actually witness a real UFO from another world and nobody would care or believe it. It would drown under the noise of Venus, aircraft sightings, weather, flares, hoaxes and accounts of those not exactly operating on all thrusters.
Most of the UFO stories Area 51 included are nonsense but there were always a few interesting jems..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
UFO == Unidentified Flying Object (Score:2)
br>The declassification time for military aircraft is typically 10-20 years. There will obviously be a whole lot of UFOs flying around...
Re:WTF. (Score:5, Funny)
No, he was talking about the other side of the isle. Pen Island, to be exact, where they sell pens online through penisland.com
--
BMO
Re:Extra-Trumpestial (Score:4, Funny)
"They Live" [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Trump thing is that people want to vote for the most destructive candidate to fuck the system due how corrupt and anti-population it is at the moment.
That said, he's totally winning it when he reveals his plans to convert the moon into an anti immigration security system with potential to blow entire planets.
Re: (Score:3)
It's a disturbingly plausible idea that Trump's hair is actually an alien brain parasite.
Re: (Score:2)
How about speeches to Wall St. and Clinton Foundation donations. Also, what about the running of the private email server.
What about Donald Trump's tax records?
http://static2.politico.com/dims4/default/739614e/2147483647/resize/1160x%3E/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2F04%2Ff7%2Ff20a98ff4804bd684ea9f53e250b%2Fwuc160406-1160.jpg [politico.com]
Re: (Score:2)
What about your tax returns?
I'm not running for POTUS.
They're a private matter between Trump and the IRS.
Hillary disagrees.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/tax-returns/ [hillaryclinton.com]
All they'd really show is that he's an amazingly successful business man with far more real-world experience in running successful enterprises than any other candidate left, which everyone already knows.
If that was so, why didn't Mitt Romney released his tax returns in 2012. I'm still curious as to how he got $100M into an IRA account.