Transcripts of Clinton's Wall Street Talks Released in New Wikileaks Dump (reuters.com) 394
Emily Stephenson and Luciana Lopez, reporting for Reuters: U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's full remarks to several Wall Street audiences appeared to become public on Saturday when the controversial transparency group Wikileaks dumped its latest batch of hacked emails. The documents showed comments by Clinton during question-and-answer sessions with Goldman Sachs Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein and Tim O'Neill, the bank's head of investment management, at three separate events in 2013 in Arizona, New York and South Carolina. Some excerpts of Clinton's speeches had already been released. For more than a week, Wikileaks has published in stages what it says are hacked emails from the account of John Podesta, Clinton's campaign chairman. Clinton came under fire for months for not releasing full details of her paid speeches to big business audiences, as opponents accused her of a cozy relationship with bankers and other members of the U.S. financial system.
Quick, blame the Russians somehow! (Score:3, Funny)
Quick, blame the Russians somehow!
Re: (Score:2)
Well, of course it probably was Russian hackers. Whether they were actually sponsored by the Russian government, or were freelance Russians who just used tools originally built by the Russian intelligence agency, is another question. The evidence is pretty good. They're not just hacking the DNC, by the way; they're aiming at anything to do with our election they can find.
But the question is: so? With respect to the leask, well, no matter who did them, the leaks are still the leaks.
Wired: https://www.wired [wired.com]
Re: (Score:2)
There are some worrying aspects to the hacking, but at the same time, I'm wondering if the biggest issue is that Hallmark doesn't really have a good thank you card for this situation.
Re:Quick, blame the Russians somehow! (Score:4, Interesting)
Right. The US intelligence services are so dumb as to base decisions entirely on what time zone an attack took place. Got it. I love how they're considered both omniscient and omnipotent with their fingers in every last system, and yet utter morons at the same time.
Concerning "the leaks are still the leaks": the overwhelming majority of people, 99.999%, are not actually reading "the leaks". They're reading random excerpts selected out of massive volumes of text designed to try to make Clinton look bad. Virtually nobody is reading context or anything else that was said. IMHO, they're [wikileaks.org] very [wikileaks.org] interesting [wikileaks.org] geopolitical discussions, if you're at all wonkish.
Note that even in these full versions, the leakers carefully "highlighted" the gotchas to make sure you don't miss them. And it's also funny what they decided would be a gotcha and what wouldn't. For example, they highlighted the section where she discussed being forced to go on a "Clinton Apology Tour" due to the Manning leaks, from one leader to the next who had been characterized by any embassy in less than flattering terms - even though these people actually were as corrupt and whatnot as the embassy memos described. But they didn't see fit to highlight her joke about giving a red state to China right before that:
(That said, she does however have a number of good things to say about most of her Republican colleagues - she only seems to have a trouble with the Tea Party and the sort of candidates they push / pressure they put on moderate candidates to tag to their line, and goes into a number of times where the pressure they've put on their congressmen had a negative impact on US relationships with other countries)
In general, though, while yes there are political angles in there that one can take, most of it is purely policy talk, in a great level of depth. Very much worth a read.
Re: (Score:2)
The denial is strong with this one. Not sure if you've been reading the same e-mails as the rest of the world.
Just not news because it's just nothing new (Score:5, Insightful)
If you already hate Hillary: all that's there is "look! More emails proving that Hillary is exactly like what we've been saying she's exactly like for the last twenty years!
If you don't already hate Hillary, all that's there is "look! More emails that really don't say anything new."
Either way, it's just not news.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You're going to be very depressed come November 28th.
Re: (Score:2)
You've got some old pals on the other side of the Atlantic who are going to be needing some friends real soon.
We promise not to do the "eh" jokes. Well, only a bit.
Too Late (Score:5, Insightful)
The should have released this stuff when she was running against Bernie. This isn't going to change any minds now. Everyone knows now what she is and they're voting for her because of Trump or voting for Trump because of her. The stage was set weeks ago and the only thing that would change it now is absolute proof she killed someone. That's probably worth 5 or 6 points in the polls.
Re:Too Late (Score:5, Insightful)
The should have released this stuff when she was running against Bernie.
Everybody knew (and still knows) she's in bed with Wall Street. That was probably the main issue that let Bernie get to the populist/left side of her.
She changed her tune to neutralize that advantage, but no one seriously believes she's going to get tough on Wall Street.
This is more non-scandal in search of a headline. But everyone should have forseen that as soon as they saw "Wikileaks".
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Her " Environmentalism is a Russian Hoax" (Score:4, Insightful)
Clinton: "We were even up against phony environmental groups, and I’m a big environmentalist, but these were funded by the Russians..."
Silly website: HILLARY SEZ ENVIRONMENTISM IS TEH FAKE.
Is your head not hurting from the cognitive dissonance?
Re: (Score:2)
A real environmental movement can also have bad faith actors posing as real environmental groups and sabotage the movement.
Whoah there, cowboy. That's exactly what I was implying, and it seems most rational folk could see that.
Perhaps you were in a bit too much of a hurry? Because it seems that you (a) managed to "understand" me exactly backwards, and (b) failed to read the post to which I was responding. Or maybe you thought were responding to another post, and not mine? Whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm voting for the green party, but even I don't have an issue with that statement by Clinton. It's entirely possible that some environmentalist groups around the USA and the world were funded by Russia in order to try to raise the price of Russia's primary export. I'd have to see her list of exactly which groups she considers phony in order to decide whether to express disagreement.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, that's not what it says on that excerpt...
Re: (Score:2)
That's probably worth 5 or 6 points in the polls.
You know, I'm beginning to think that is no longer true in this election.
It should be worth 5 or 6 points - in our Norman Rockwell fantasy of American voters with a grip on reality, truth, ethics, and morality,
Unfortunately, this election is political sumo wrestling porn.
It's practically a fetish and an addictive vice that gets off on how much they can humiliate and be humiliated by our own countrymen, albeit political rivals. The winner is the biggest loser that defeats the opponent in a popularity contes
Two points ... (Score:5, Insightful)
.
People bashing Wall Street forget the following :
(a) we (the electorate) have busily shaped the societal and legal environment in which Wall Street could become what it is now. Republicans have always vigorously supported business *in all of its facets) and Wall Street, with Democrats coming in closely behind. That policy has served us well, but is now starting to show some cracks. Time to figure out the minimum change required to fix that. That requires ingenuity. Lots of people see their personal interest compromised (job loss, no perspectives, feeling of not being needed by society, etc.), get "as mad as hell" and demand instant action. Well, they won't get it. Not with either candidate. One tells then they won't get instant gratification (but more of the same instead), the other does (sort of), but is so obviously clueless that his word is worth nothing.
(b) the idea of "Give Enterprise a Free Run and only regulate when the body count becomes too high to ignore" is part and parcel of our society and our culture. There certainly is a lot of anger and an appetite for "change", but I still can't get my head around what it actually wants. It's not prepared to accept the consequence that more prevention means less freedom. Being proactive with policy, (or even enforcing existing laws aimed at e.g. environmental protection) is violently opposed (sometime literally with guns in hand). Take for example that Bundy fellow. In violation of federal laws. Lost several court cases. Shouts his head off in the counterculture media, assembles a band of rogue hillbillies that actually point guns as federal officers. Is cheered on by a certain segment of society, and actually gets away with it. Unlike a steady trickle of you-know-who's who are shot dead in or near their car by police officers for making a false move or not complying fast enough or clearly enough with officers' commands..
(c)" Wall street is the nexus of how we as a country manage wealth. It's a giant market that can (and does) set a price on goods, services, policies, and lives. In doing that, it is a forum that co-shapes a certain part of our national decision making. In that sense it's what has always set the US apart from e.g. the Soviet Union (plan economy) or China. You don't steer or reform a market like that by dropping corporate taxes to 10% as some Republicans (among which a presidential candidate) propose, prohibiting municipalities from offering public services that compete with private enterprise (think broadband initiatives), or annulling wide swaths of environmental protection laws. You might be able to steer it by imposing regulations. Not so much regulations on how it's supposed to trade, but laws that regulate what it's trading in. Well ... try that and watch the (mostly conservative) nay-sayers come out of the woodwork in force.
It's also a major source of our wealth. We need it and we should regulate it only with care and insight. To dump on a presidential candidate for displaying that insight is beyond ridiculous. It's adversarial politics.
(d) It so happens I would have preferred Sen. Sanders to be the Democratic candidate. Or at least see a substantial part of his views acted upon and some of his policies enacted. But there is simply no support for that. The inertia of mainstream politics (well, lets be thankful for that) and Wall-street related views. So it's compromise time. We're going to get a much more business-friendly candidate. Oh, and in case anyone wishes to cavil about Wall Street's influence on politics, remember the rulings those fine Conservative gents on the Supreme Court handed down? Com
Re: (Score:2)
Oh noes, a voice of reason!
If I had mod points right now... alas, I don't. Please mod parent up. Wayyyyyy up.
Re:Two points ... (Score:5, Insightful)
"(a) we (the electorate) have busily shaped the societal and legal environment in which Wall Street could become what it is now."
No we haven't. The vast majority of the population has been too busy working 2-3 jobs to make ends meet. The concentration of wealth created by Wall St has become self fulfilling, since that wealth makes it possible for banking interests to influence politics directly through lobbying, or bribery. The democratic process is significantly distorted and representation is no longer proportional.
This is part of the problem [inequality.org].
Ideas like those here are part of the solution. [amazon.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The system (2-party) is a mess, and congressional inaction is a huge result... which is likely the intent from the invisible hand.
Ultimately, the problem with Wall Street is that it has gotten too big. The stock market is much less attractive today than 10/15/20 years ago because of some of the games played on the Street. This makes it much harder for kids today to build wealth, which will cause major probl
Re: (Score:2)
Wikileaks is useless.
Hillary has made her reputation with bipartisanship reach out. With that type of work you can't just go and blast your opponent all the time. You need to find common ground and work with them. We are all stuck on wall street is evil or the government is evil. While the truth is everyone is working for their own self interests if they have the money or power they will push it. A good politician knows that and will work with everyone to show that their self interests is considered an
Embarrassing (Score:2)
"they're voting for her because of Trump or voting for Trump because of her."
I'm embarrassed for my country that it has come to this. And yet people still won't vote for candidates other than these two clowns. At presidential debates we only see the clowns, none of the other candidates. Just ridiculous.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Stop skewing the conversation. Nobody's upset over a word. It's the perpetuated and pervasive sentiment that women are only worth as much as their physical appearance, and that their bodies belong to men. Or do you feel the same way about your daughter as he feels about his own (which is creepily obsessed)? Twisting the argument to discredit/downplay it is morally bankrupt.
Re: Too Late (Score:2, Insightful)
But honestly who cares?
I certainly don't care if Frump is a dog to women in his personal life. I do care if he's taking bribe money from big banks, big Pharma, mega corporations and foreign governments. These two things are not remotely equal. Enough with the PC/SJW crap that elevates attitudes to women to the same level as political corruption!
Re: Too Late (Score:5, Insightful)
But honestly who cares?
I certainly don't care if Frump is a dog to women in his personal life...
Your mom.
Your sister.
Your girlf--oh, silly me.
Re: Too Late (Score:5, Informative)
Men that treat women like shit are well known for their lack of success with them /s
Re: (Score:2)
She says going forwards, any woman could just be careful around him and not hesitate to report any unwanted Trump attention, but that Hillary striking dodgy deals and war mongering etc will have potentially larger and more significant effects.
What does she think the results of a Trump presidency would be? Kittens and puppies for all, and a chicken in every pot? I think it's more like all the voters are revealed to be chickens, and you have to eat your kittens and puppies because international trade is damaged and the economy goes into the toilet even faster.
I thought equal pay for equal work was a feminist goal, so I really didn't see it as sexist. I think she said it is sexist beccause it implies women don't do the same work as men or something. Yeah I forgot.
That's because feminists want equal pay for unequal work. Granted, the system is not equal now, but they want it to be unequal in the other direction. The wage gap is a problem, where it exis
Re: Too Late (Score:5, Insightful)
I was kinda torn when all this sex stuff started coming out. I stopped even considering voting for Trump before the campaign even started, when he was jumping around cable stations with the birther nonsense, but even had he not exposed himself as a huckster that way, I would have disqualified him when the Trump University story surfaced... and never looked back because nothing they've dug up on Clinton is more than just run of the mill political favoritism which we've survived as a nation for practically all of our history. But then the hits just kept on coming against Trump -- the anti-intellectualism, the continued appeal to the worst parts of his supporter's nature, the charity frauds, the compulsive blatant lying, the compete lack of experience or understanding.... on and on and on with reasons not to vote for this farce.
But since I'd figure Trump University should have kept him from even being nominated by the Republicans, much less polling well in the general, one part of me wanted to say "Really, you were all set to vote for a guy who ran con schemes to steal money from rank and file regular people until some sex stuff came up? That's what it took?" (And incidentally if were really as rich as he says, then the only reason he'd even have done Trump University is out of some perverse P.T. Barnum source of sadistic amusement... take your pick he's either lying about his money, or an economic psychopath.)
But on the other hand the degree of offense evident in the sex material and the overall tone of that campaign towards women is so atrocious the other part of me is like, well, on balance it may be one of the biggest, steamiest turds, on the pile. So even though it took the public so friggin long to realize just how awful Trump is, at least they ended up fixating on one of the more compelling reasons.
Re:Too Late (Score:5, Insightful)
This is all bullshit, both the critique on Trump and this alleged email scandal.
These are both pseudo-scandals and the obvious result of concerted, well-orchestrated media campaigns. In my opinion, both parties run disgusting and immoral smear campaigns, and it really saddens me that (apparently) American voters are so easy to influence and distract from the real topics. Yes, I know that US presidential campaigns have always been a lot about the personality of the candidates, but I've followed many of them and this one is an absolute low so far. And just to make this clear, the Democrats are just as much to blame for this as Trump. There are no real arguments and only personal attacks on both sides, it's a disgrace.
The thought frightens me that the next president of the most important nation on earth (in terms of economic and military power) could be elected, because two days before election someone publishes a video in which the other candidate says "woah, what a nice piece of ass", or the next president could be elected because two days before the election an email shows up in which the other candidate writes "fuck those idiots in Benghazi, they died because they were incompetent" -- or whatever people dig out from the past (up to 30 years ago) or from dubious unconfirmed Internet sources and "leak" to the press.
It's not really my business, but if I were a US voter, I'd completely and deliberately ignore Trump's real or alleged misogyny and whatever emails Clinton has deleted or not, ignore all this mud slinging, and instead make a decision on the basis of the policies and plans that the candidates have laid out. If Clinton and Trump are really the "creme de la creme" of US politics and the whole nation really cannot come up with better candidates for the highest office, please at least make political issues count.
Re: (Score:3)
Stop skewing the conversation.
"Skewing the conversation" is literally all they have.
Re:Too Late (Score:5, Interesting)
So, when he said "they let you do it" there's actually no "they let you" in that sentence?
The quote is "When you're a star, they let you." Like you "let" your boss call you an idiot. "When you're a star," you can use your fame and money to abuse people, because they know they can't fight back. "When you're a star," people will let you do things that they would never consent to.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, the challenges of citing who said what in a thread consisting of AC posts...
I absolutely think the women should have their day in court, and if found guilty, Trump should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
However, we have in this thread (apart from who said it initially) the direct statement that Trump has both advocated and committed sexual assault, as if an established fact.
So far, we have a hypothetical "bragging" statement which, contrary to the claims, neither describes (with clarity) a
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Too bad you can't just turn off her mic [bbc.com], eh.
Re: (Score:3)
There was nothing hypothetical about his statement. He said that's what he does, and now there are a number of women confirming what he said. The one time Trump actually gets caught telling the truth, he and his supporters want everyone to believe that's the time he was a liar.
Re:Too Late (Score:5, Insightful)
people will forgive Trump for daring to say "p***y" off the record. There's still another three weeks, and I think by then people will realize that no matter how outraged they are at Trump saying a "bad word"
No one gave a shit that Trump said pussy.
People cared that Trump bragged about being able to grab women's pussy without consent, aka sexual assault.
And then a bunch of came forward to say that for once Trump was telling the truth, and his habit of sexually assaulting women was very real.
Of course if they ever do get bored they can start talking about how he's telling his followers that they have to watch out or minorities are going to steal the election [washingtonpost.com]. I'm actually wondering at this point, is he deliberately trying to cause election day violence?
Groping (Score:5, Funny)
I'm actually wondering at this point, is he deliberately trying to cause election day violence?
Nah- what's happening here is that he knows he's going to lose, and he's desperately groping for excuses.
Re: (Score:3)
It's amazing how many people are convinced of "voter f
Precisely (Score:3, Insightful)
The issue is NOT language, that's something that Trump's PR people have been trying to spin it as, and you are eating that spin if you believe it. The issue is what he's saying: That he commits sexual assault because he's a star, because he can. THAT'S the deal. The terminology he used isn't the issue, it is what he's claiming he's done.
Trevor Noah put it pretty well: https://youtu.be/LiPjWUn-PUo?t... [youtu.be]
Anyone who thinks this is just "normal guy talk" needs to reevaluate who the fuck they hang out with. None o
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure Trump is done. That thing about grabbing pussy did him in with a lot of the conservatives that normally would have voted for him due to their mutual hatred of Hilliary. Now they'll either vote for Johnson or write someone in or just not vote for president at all. He's sure to lose failing something truly earthshaking. It does set the stage for a horrific presidency. Her opposition in Congress will use these leaks to beat the hell out of her for the next 4 years. Her presidency is damag
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. The PussyLeaks tapes did basically nothing, becuase people who aren't virgin basement dwelling neckbeards know that yes, if you're a star, women let you just grab 'em by the pussy. That's the entire point of becoming rich and famous. While it was crudely stated, all the tapes did was confirm to people that Trump is a real guy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Kennedy was fortunate enough to live in an era when hot mikes were not much of a problem. And the press didn't hate him either.
Re: (Score:2)
Believe it or not there is a significant portion of the conservative right that finds such behavior unacceptable. They aren't basement dwelling neckbeards but little old gray haired ladies and gentlemen that sit in church pews on Sunday and sing hymns about Jesus. You can demean them and sneer at them all you want but there are still a significant number of them and they all vote and they all vote Republican.....normally. They were willing to put up with much of Trump's crap but this is over the line. H
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, are you suggesting that if you're rich and famous, women don't just let you grab 'em by the pussy? I thought that was the entire point of becoming rich and famous.
Why do you think Bill Clinton's intern let him use her pussy as a humidor?
Re: (Score:2)
My take on this is that while Trump may have sexually assaulted a few women, Hillary was on the side of military intervention, which AFAIC translates directly into mass rape and mass murder.
My take on this is that if you think Trump is some kind of peacenik then you are personally the argument for the electoral college, because that is dumber than dogshit.
AFAIC he is running against a mass murderer, rapist and a thief. Himself he maybe a thief at times, a sexual predator maybe, but he is still no mass murderer.
Only for lack of opportunity.
Re: (Score:2)
Denial is a great thing for you, isn't it drinkypoo?
No, it's shit. It's shit because it leads to shit posts like yours. You're in denial if you think Trump won't do as he is told by the money. You're in denial if you think that ignoring the second part of my comment will make it go away. You're in denial if you think that I am suggesting that Clinton will be good for this country. And you're in denial if you think that Trump wouldn't be worse.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's shit. It's shit because it leads to shit posts like yours.
Stay classy, drinkypoo, stay classy!
You're in denial if you think Trump won't do as he is told by the money.
Hillary disagrees with you [commonsens...uation.com], she believes that rich, successful businessmen are much harder to buy, harder to influence. So - are you wrong, or is Hillary wrong?
Only for lack of opportunity.
Potentially, yes - but no proof of that action. On the other hand, we have an impeached potential First Spouse, who paid off one accuser (to the tune of $850,000) and lost his law license over using his authority to sexually assault an employee. And his wife, running for President, enabled that behavior by vi
Re: (Score:3)
Meanwhile, Trump is bragging about how he has sexually assaulted multiple women
Except he didn't. He said they "let him" do it. Stop infantilizing women. Let means some form of consent was given.
Trump is a posturing macho jackass, and this incident makes me think even less of him (as if that were possible), and I want to see him lose this election... but this is not the time to be pushing your microaggression, mind-reading , SWJ-ish definition of rape nonsense. Trump implied that these women all wanted to have sex with him and that they let him do stuff. I think Trump was lying
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:More spin against Trump (Score:4, Informative)
Would you mean this Anthony Gilthorpe [crooksandliars.com]?
WHOLLY BIAS BATMAN! (Score:2)
Web Site Title: Progressive news and media coverage on Crooks and Liars (From DNS: here. [domaintools.com]) Owned and operated by the Progressive Rag Huffpo's own John Amato.
When you start with a bias you end with a bias. Shill much? Yeah...
Re: (Score:2)
Do some critical thinking. If they were false accusations, we'd be hearing accusations about incidents in the 2010s. Nobody who's making stuff up for the purpose of harming a candidate is going to pretend it happened decades ago, they're going to pretend it happened recently so they can show the guy hasn't changed.
Re: (Score:3)
Alternately, you do false accusations about the (distant) past so that there's no possibility of confirming/disproving the allegation.
Since I'm not voting the Trump no matter what, I hardly care. But I'd expect that about half the women coming forward now are doing it for the publicity, and not because they want Trump punished for his crime(s).
Half? (Score:3)
Come on now, everyone saw plain as day that a CNN employee gave Trump a setup question in the 2nd debate. These people were already waiting in the wings to promote the narrative. The most recent allegation has already been proven to lack merit because the person was emailing Trump and praising Trump just prior to making allegations. The oldest case lacks merit due to the age of the case and the unlikely event that in the late 70s men could freely grope women on an airplane and nobody would say anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He said, "and they let me do it" which implies they gave consent.
It implies only that they didn't (successfully) resist. Not the same thing at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Dunno.
Perhaps it implies that any woman who complains about being groped by someone who's become known for bragging about his 'leet groping skills is a sociopathic liar.
Or perhaps it implies something more like, "OMG! That creep who put his hand up my dress in the elevator is running for President!"
But of course there is not *nearly* enough evidence to suggest that either of these things is true, or even likely, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Gee, context matters--who'd've thunk it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
From an outside position (I'm dutch) it's really amazing that there are people (like you) who believe Clinton is a psychotic woman while Trump is the stable one. Clinton has been a politician for ages and has never shown any psychotic tendencies. It is not as if she just emerged from some backwater as a complete unknown. Everybody knows who she is: A competent, if somewhat corrupt(*), politician. Trumps is not unknown either, everybody knows what he is: A ruthless businessmen of the kind who will screw ever
Re: (Score:3)
Clinton has been a politician for ages and has never shown any psychotic tendencies.
The premise of this statement shows the inverse of its conclusion.
But on a serious note Clinton is a career politician. Trump is a little boy. Both have a different flavour of psychosis they display. One dangerous politics like Freddie trying to kill people, the other just your random batshit flavour sitting in a mental ward slowly knocking their head against a soft wall.
Re: (Score:2)
It's just childish mirroring of the things people say about Trump. He goes off on an unhinged rant on Twitter at 3AM, so his followers start accusing Clinton of being psychotic. He sexually assaults women and generally treats them like dirt, so his supporters claim that Clinton freed a rapist and laughed about it, and that her husband (?!) is worse. His sniffing causes speculation that he is on drugs, so he calls for Clinton to take a drugs test.
Re: (Score:2)
his supporters claim that Clinton freed a rapist and laughed about it, and that her husband (?!) is worse.
Except she did laugh about it, and her husband was impeached (and paid off $850,000, and lost his law license) over sexual assault. But I guess boasts are worse than actual actions, eh? Better to kill a dozen people than just talk about it! Better to arrest and blame an innocent video maker [americanthinker.com] about the cause of four people's deaths (including an ambassador in her direct command) than to simply talk about it, eh?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I just hope it sends more people to third party. I know Gary Johnson isn't likely to win, but if he gets close to 10% of the vote it'll change the entire scope of all future elections.
Is he any better? I'm not American but the choices all seem pretty bad. Hillary the classic corrupt politician, Trump the disgraceful misogynist, racist, corrupt 1%er bully, or the loony minorities who aren't even aware of other countries outside their own borders.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You can track Clinton's real positions through her voting record, previous statements, and how they all shifted as she made a carbon copy of the Sanders campaign in order to grab the Progressive vote, despite her own position being a Neo Conservative. Trump is just unbelievable, unreal, no. Both of them way no. .
If you compare Trump on Clinton's positions on Political Compass [politicalcompass.org], Clinton is similar to Thatcher (ie hard right), and Trump is similar to Hitler (right, extreme authoritarian).
So the Hitler comparison are quite valid.
Re: (Score:3)
sure, lets godwin the candidate who threatens the current corruption.
Its too bad that comparing people with Hitler became so common no one takes it seriously when someone's political rhetoric really is as fascist as Hitler's was. The story about the boy who cried wolf comes to mind.
Re: (Score:2)
He has zero chance of winning, which makes his being better or worse irrelevant.
Hardly. Neutral predictions put his odds of winning at about 1 in 6 at the moment, and a lot can happen in the next 3 weeks. Voting for a third candidate might make sense when there are two sane though unappealing mainstream candidates. But Trump is as close to Mussolini as the US is likely to see. It's harder to think of a more dangerous time to use a protest vote.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So Hillary thinks we should vote for Trump?
They say a broken clock is right twice a day, but in this case I think the hands fell off of both of these clocks.
Re: (Score:3)
The Times says he's worth at least $1.8 billion [nytimes.com] if not more, per FEC financials. But I guess that's not successful enough?
Not when you consider how much of his father's money he burnt in the process. Most of us are lucky get one chance at wealth, He has had many and still finds ways to throw it away.
This is not the reputation I'd want looking after the nation's finances.
Re: (Score:2)
I know Gary Johnson isn't likely to win, but if he gets close to 10% of the vote it'll change the entire scope of all future elections.
This is why I'm close to wanting a civics and history test to determine who is allowed to vote (which needs to be taken more recently than an 8th grade civics test). Anyone who thinks a third party candidate getting 10% of the vote would change anything about modern elections doesn't even remember the last 25 years of presidential elections. Ross Perot received 18.9% of the popular vote in 1992 without causing any of the political upheaval you are hoping for.
Young voters, or simply uneducated older voters,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The turmoil within the Republican party that resulted from absorbing the Reform party is why they couldn't manage to kick Trump out in the primary. Their presidential candidate is actually a crazy RINO. If they try to absorb Libertarians as well, they'll lose the religious right.
Let's see what the Democrats do when they try to deal with a strong showing for the Green party.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would anyone thing whaargarbl from certifiable kooks, and/or people selling bullshit to them, change minds? The only people who believe this stuff is their target audience?
p.s. I'm sure if you look hard enough, you can find someone accusing her of chemtrails, faking the moon landing, and having shipped Obama as a baby in from Kenya too.
Just reruns, filtered thru trolls (Score:5, Insightful)
For the most part, it's the same speeches she gives on the campaign trail. Her detractors comb through to find some interpretation that can be spun as sinister, and dance around the news cams with it like a kid who found his lost jaw breaker under the couch.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Regarding releasing the transcripts, on February 5th, Hillary said she would "look into it. I don't know the status." http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hi... [cbsnews.com] She has dragged her feet since then. Now, thankfully, some of them have been released so voters can read them and judge for themselves in time for the election. It obviously was not in her interest to have them made available.
So... what have we found out by actually reading them?
*crickets*
Re: (Score:3)
Same things we already knew: she's an open borders globalist who will do whatever Wall Street wants. If that kind of serfdom appeals to you, vote Clinton.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a bit more speculative and pie-in-sky nature to them than her campaign speeches, which gives more room for pundits to play with her text.
For example, her comment about open borders and open trade for all of the Americas was likely a kind of Star-Trekkian dreaming rather than a policy plan. But pundits against her presented it as her policy.
If the South American countries had more mature economies and governments, an American version o
Why is nobody mentioning the content (Score:5, Insightful)
It's strange that the news is almost entirely about the release of the remarks and, at least in linked article, no mention of what those remarks are. Could it be that the remarks aren't actually interesting or even newsworthy?
Re:Why is nobody mentioning the content (Score:5, Interesting)
More the likely. Also look at the day it's released - I mean, it wasn't released on a day known for big news. Similar to the Friday Afternoon Dump, you release on these days when it's really bad for you, the releaser.
These leaks themselves aren't terribly interesting. So the only thing Wikileaks is cashing in on is goodwill based on earlier leaks that news of leaks is news itself.
And if you're curious, it's likely a political play by Assange - apparently Ecuador is going to have a presidential election and the current president, Rafael Correa, is not running for another term. This scares Assange because it could easily mean the end to his asylum, and if he's handed over to the US, he'd rather be under a president Trump than Clinton. Perhaps hoping he'd at least get a pardon or something out of it. That's the political play, at least
So far there has been nothing interesting (Score:2)
At least nothing interesting to people who have looked at Clinton's past at all. She's cozy with Wall St. Well no fucking shit. Nobody except for everyone knew that one :P
I've been very underwhelmed with the leaks given the "bombshell" claims about them. It's all shit that was already known about her, or shit that is totally unsurprising about any politician. I can't see it changing anyone's mind.
Now maybe I've missed something juicy or there's something major yet to come, but if there's a big thing they th
Re: (Score:3)
SECRETARY CLINTON: That's a really interesting question. You know, I would like to see more successful business people run for office. I really would like to see that because I do think, you know, you don't have to have 30 billion, but you have a certain level of freedom. And there's that memorable phrase from a former member of the Senate: You can be maybe rented but never bought.
Re: (Score:2)
She appears to be arguing that independently wealthy individuals are less prone to being influenced by campaign contributors. It's well known that some politicians are little more than fronts for corporations. If that's the most controversial thing she said, there is nothing here at all.
Re: (Score:2)
If that's the most controversial thing she said, there is nothing here at all.
Agreed. however...
She appears to be arguing that independently wealthy individuals are less prone to being influenced by campaign contributors. It's well known that some politicians are little more than fronts for corporations.
It's a stupid argument at best, because it's provably untrue. The best kind of politician stays bought once bought. And if you buy them enough times, then if they stop staying bought, you can simply leak the fact that you've been buying them all along and their career hits the skids.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you've just prove the other AC wrong.
Saying things often enough DOES make them true. You believe them.
Re: (Score:2)
She certainly manages to bring out the best in you, doesn't she?
Apparently many here aren't paying attention to (Score:3, Interesting)
REAL journalists:
These are all from the last week or so and mostly from the hacked emails. Oldest first. Yes these people go after Trump too but as far as I'm concerned has no chance in hell anyway.
Hillary Clinton Sympathized with Goldman Sachs over financial reform. [theintercept.com]
What Major Donors like Goldman Sachs want from the Democratic Party [theintercept.com] (they also fucking hate Elizabeth Warren - shock.)
Hillary Clinton repeatedly Praised Wal-Mart in paid speeches [theintercept.com] This bitch knows who signs her checks and kisses heavy amounts of ass accordingly.
Clinton aide PLANTED ANTI-BANK COMMENTS in a paid speech to throw off reporters. [theintercept.com]
Democrats trying to work out how to pass huge corporate tax cuts. [theintercept.com] If you read it's essentially the same thing Trump wants. Remember: same corporate hand, different puppets.
BONUS: Hillary Clinton's encryption proposal impossible. [theintercept.com] Because she wanted secure communication between people that could still be monitored by the gov't.
For the record I think Bernie Sanders / Elizabeth Warren would have been the dream team. Fuck Hillary and Trump both.
PS. In case you didn't know The Intercept = Glenn Greenwald = Snowden's choice for disclosure. They're good guys.
Re: (Score:2)
If she did anything, was on the basis of "if you vote for me, those will be your new toys to completely crush any semblance of competition that even dare to appear. Also we will control that internet thing you're afraid of"
Re: (Score:2)
She's probably already working on that. But either her campaign or someone related to the DNC is paying youtubers to endorse her. [youtube.com] And sorry no, "omg, I bet that's infowars" retards. It's Phil DeFranco saying he's been offered money to endorse Clinton and so have others.
Re: (Score:2)
Who's Phil DeFranco, and why should I care?
Re:".....Wikileaks Dump" (Score:5, Funny)
I just can't wait for the "Trump Dump" !
Here ya go [static-economist.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Me, too. I'm really hoping she calls his bluff.
Re: (Score:2)
We used to have this thing called journalists, they would actually fact check and investigate matters like these. They would encourage people to leak documents and protect their sources identities (where we get things like Deepthroat and Watergate). Now the SAME journalists (including Carl Bernstein) that protected Deepthroat and exposed Watergate are being scolded for 'working with the enemy' by calling Hillary reckless and a liar.
These days, the media is just an extension of the political establishment an