Hillary Clinton's Campaign Creates Way To Make Money From Donald Trump's Tweets (adweek.com) 331
Hillary Clinton's campaign has created a new fundraising tool called Troll Trump that lets supporters sign up to automatically donate money to the campaign when Donald Trump tweets. Adweek reports: The tool's landing page populates a new Trump tweet each time the site is refreshed to offer a sampling of the candidate's social media style. "Show Donald that his unhinged rhetoric comes at a cost," according to the Clinton campaign's website. "Sign up to donate to Hillary's campaign every time Donald tweets!" The idea was apparently inspired by a tweet by Matt Bellassai, a former BuzzFeed editor and social media star, who made a joke on Twitter threatening to donate to the campaign every time Trump tweets. (When the tool went live, Teddy Goff, a digital strategist with the Clinton campaign, tweeted Bellassai a thank-you.)
Hmmm... (Score:2)
So, she can charge your CC at will, then. (Score:2, Insightful)
Not sure what she's going to do with a few bucks from a few random Twitter followers who let her charge their credit cards on demand when they can get million dollar birthday gifts from the wonderful country of Qatar [wikipedia.org]:
OMG that's a dodgy check (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, that's a real eye opener, I am glad you brought that up Igor. That Clinton Foundation is obviously using charity work as cover for evil crook bad business. You have wokened my eyes with your amazing exposes of the Clinton and her evil deeds.
From:adesai@clintonfoundation.org
To: blindsey@clintonfoundation.org, lgraham@clintonfoundation.org, doug@presidentclinton.com, justin@presidentclinton.com
Date: 2012-04-16 18:56
Subject: Qatar, Brazil, Peru, Malawi, Rwanda
Last Thursday, April 12, I met individually with the Ambassadors from Qatar, Brazil, Peru, Malawi, and Rwanda, in Washington, DC. Below is a summary of key points from each meeting, and we are following-up on each point. I'd welcome your feedback. Sincerely, Ami
QATAR
- Would like to see WJC "for five minutes" in NYC, to present $1 million check that Qatar promised for WJC's birthday in 2011.
- Qatar would welcome our suggestions for investments in Haiti - particularly on education and health. They have allocated most of their $20 million but are happy to consider projects we suggest. I'm collecting input from CF Haiti team.
BRAZIL
- President Rousseff may come to NYC for UN in September; I pitched CGI, again, and will continue to do so.
- We agreed to try to arrange a WJC-Rousseff meeting whenever she and he are next in the same city.
- With regard to Rio climate conference, Ambassador's team is going to think about any sites that WJC could visit to highlight Brazil's leadership on climate issues. [I made clear WJC visit to Rio is undecided.] They said they'd be happy for WJC to come.
- I committed to send them details on CCI in Brazil.
- Ambassador mentioned Lula receiving an award in Iowa and how much Lula enjoyed Iowa. I suggested Lula come to Little Rock when WJC convenes meeting of former heads of state (Club of Madrid). Also discussed Ambassador going to Little Rock to speak with Clinton School students - he said he'd like to. I'll work with Stephanie on this.\
- We discussed Lula's health - Ambassador said he's recovering and still committed to agriculture work in Africa. We agreed it would be good for WJC and Lula to do something together on agriculture in Africa.
PERU
- Per CGSGI, I asked for Ambassador's ideas on which sectors/parts of Peru to focus on in order to create jobs. He suggested we speak with his son, an alderman in Lima, about jobs projects for young men who otherwise could be recruited by gangs. Ambassador also suggested speaking with Minister for Women and Vulnerable Populations, Ms. Ana Jara, for jobs projects for women.
MALAWI
- Ambassador told story of Mutharika's death (said he collapsed with no prior symptoms during a morning meeting, was taken to hospital, then flown to South Africa but passed away en route); and emphasized significance of smooth transition to successor, within their constitutional framework. Sounds like new President is laying low until the memorial service for Mutharika, and then plans to announce her new government.
- Ambassador again urged that CDI consider dairy/cattle projects; I reminded him we'd be happy to speak with minister of agriculture or whoever Ambassador suggests in the industry; he said he'd let us know.
RWANDA
- Kagame is organizing an event in June to commemorate closing of Gacaca process for the genocide. They asked if WJC could go. I said Africa trip is probably in July and we haven't decided countries yet but if there's anything they'd want WJC to do in Rwanda in July, to let us know. I also said to let us know if they'd want a message from WJC for the June event; they'll let us know.
- Ambassador asked if WJC/CF/CGI could do anything to help on education/universities in Rwanda. I explained we are constrained by funding but if they have specific ideas, to let us know. He said they'll put together some ideas for us.
- Ambassador asked about attracting more investments/businesses to Rwanda, including mining/natural
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I guess it's a morality question you have to answer for yourself. Is donating blood money a net moral good?
Are 2 children helped in Africa helped by the Clinton Foundation worth the homosexual that was hung by some Saudis?
Re:OMG that's a dodgy check (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess it's a morality question you have to answer for yourself. Is donating blood money a net moral good?
Are 2 children helped in Africa helped by the Clinton Foundation worth the homosexual that was hung by some Saudis?
You do realise that Qatar and Saudi Arabia are two different countries yeah?
Re:OMG that's a dodgy check (Score:5, Funny)
Don't stop him, he's on a roll.
Re:OMG that's a dodgy check (Score:5, Insightful)
They both gave her money and they're both under Sharia law. Does that mean you don't realize how many questionable foreign sources are funding her?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't stop him, he's on a roll.
Hell, I'm having poppcorn for breakfast today. Pepe' is running at full dudgeon!
Re:OMG that's a dodgy check (Score:4, Insightful)
You do realize that the Saudis have given tons of money to the Clintons too, right?
And many millions of those donations weren't even for helping children in Africa, they were for letting the Clintons build a monument to themselves, the Clinton Presidential Library, which makes it even worse.
Re:OMG that's a dodgy check (Score:5, Informative)
You do realize that the Saudis have given tons of money to the Clintons too, right?
And many millions of those donations weren't even for helping children in Africa, they were for letting the Clintons build a monument to themselves, the Clinton Presidential Library, which makes it even worse.
Yes, the Saudis gave about $10 million for the Clinton Presidential Library. But they gave the same amount for George H. W. Bush's library. [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:3)
It's almost as if the Bush and Clinton families are both criminal enterprises...
Re: (Score:2)
It's almost as if the Bush and Clinton families are both criminal enterprises...
They were certainly both culpable in collecting money for Haiti that went into pockets of people that did little or nothing to actually help the people of Haiti.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the Saudis gave about $10 million for the Clinton Presidential Library. But they gave the same amount for George H. W. Bush's library. [washingtonpost.com]
How much will they give to the Hilary Clinton Email Archive?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the Saudis gave about $10 million for the Clinton Presidential Library. But they gave the same amount for George H. W. Bush's library. [washingtonpost.com]
That was okay though.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that perhaps 10 million for the Saudi royals is like spit in a pond. It is a gesture.... but for people who don't have that kind of money it seems significant.
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot to mention the part about the Saudi weapons deals that she helped broker as payment.
https://www.theguardian.com/us... [theguardian.com]
Re: OMG that's a dodgy check (Score:5, Informative)
You do understand that the Clinton foundation proves only a small percentage to an actual charity. The bulk of every dollar is overhead
That's based on a misreading of the Foundation's tax forms. [politifact.com]
TL;DR: The foundation does provide only a small percentage of its donations in the form of grants. But that does not mean that the rest goes to overhead. The overwhelming majority of its funds are spent directly on programs and services that benefit the intended recipients. Only 10 to 20 percent is spent on fundraising and other overhead. That puts it on par with the best charities out there.
Re: OMG that's a dodgy check (Score:4, Funny)
benefit the intended recipients
Meaning the Clintons, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Mercury One spends almost all of its donations on the work itself.
In fact it has an entirely separate fund that you donate to for operating expenses. If you donate for a relief efforts, then 100% of that money goes to that. You have to specifically donate money for operating expenses.
Fact check (Score:5, Informative)
You do understand that the Clinton foundation proves only a small percentage to an actual charity.
Politifact rates that statement: false.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/25/reince-priebus/reince-priebus-false-claim-80-clinton-foundation-c/
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Hey, when any "news source" manages to contradict your own personal first hand experience the only rational reaction is to be VERY skeptical.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, they source things and explain why they rated things the way they did (like rating Obama's statement that "people buy guns over the Internet without a background check" during a speech calling for better background check laws as TRUE by qualifying the statement with "He never said people do that legally).
But no one ever looks at that. They look at the rating which often has twisted justifications that are, yes, clearly biased. But, like I said, no one looks at the justification. In fact, they will p
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You do understand that the Clinton foundation proves only a small percentage to an actual charity. The bulk of every dollar is overhead
Where "small percentage" is 86.9% [charitynavigator.org]?
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Unmeasurable results (Score:5, Informative)
Whereas Trump has settled multiple lawsuits using charity money.
http://people.com/crime/donald-trump-used-money-from-charity-to-settle-lawsuits-report/
Although in more recent 7 years he hasn't used charity money at all for ANY donations, instead just using it for his own expenses:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-promised-millions-to-charity-we-found-less-than-10000-over-7-years/2016/06/28/cbab5d1a-37dd-11e6-8f7c-d4c723a2becb_story.html
You do realize that he's committed *actual* criminal offenses don't you? Perhaps you should avoid mentioning charities, that's a big minefield for your guy Trump.
Re:Unmeasurable results (Score:4, Informative)
"Is it interesting that the Clinton Foundation has no measurable results?"
Wot? Not even bought a giant portrait of Hillary, like the Donald did with his illegal 'charity'?
Re: (Score:2)
"Is it interesting that the Clinton Foundation has no measurable results?"
https://www.hillaryclinton.com... [hillaryclinton.com]
Re:Unmeasurable results (Score:5, Insightful)
If lobbying were ineffective businesses wouldn't spend billions on it. Just because the results are hard to measure, doesn't mean that there are none.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess it's a morality question you have to answer for yourself. Is donating blood money a net moral good?
Are 2 children helped in Africa helped by the Clinton Foundation worth the homosexual that was hung by some Saudis?
Do you seriously want to go there?
Re: (Score:3)
> My Jesuit education tells me that the Saudis were going to hang that homosexual anyway. Taking their money and using it for some good is a gain.
Depends what they get for that money, doesn't it? If it helps them keep doing business with the US instead of getting called on human rights abuses, it doesn't look like a great deal.
Re:OMG that's a dodgy check (Score:4, Interesting)
Saudis have been doing business in the US for a long long time. One owns a big chunk of Fox News, for example. Here is another:
http://www.esoterically.net/im... [esoterically.net]
I don't remember you clutching your pearls over homosexuals being hanged back then. Why is that?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
First, what the fuck are you talking about? Second, I wend to Jesuit high school and undergrad. That doesn't make me a Jesuit.
Re: (Score:2)
I think she threw out a pretty big number at the last debate. Considering was sorry shape Haiti was in before the last hurricane, I really have to wonder where it all went.
It clearly didn't go into repairs from the last hurricane or preparations for the next one.
Haiti's salacious death toll from the last hurricane could have been mitigated considerably with a bit of money spent in a sensible manner.
Re: (Score:3)
You'll have to get them to have it penned by someone even slightly more credible than Dinesh D'Souza, the poor little rich Indian kid who's grown up to excel at blaming the American Left for the misdeeds of the global Rich--er, Right.
Maybe you missed how full of praise D'Souza was for the 9/11 terrorists--I *saw and heard him myself* on Politically Incorrect talking about what brave warriors they were. Maybe you've missed his suggestion that American conservatives to join forces with conservative Muslims to
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, that's a real eye opener, I am glad you brought that up Igor. That Clinton Foundation is obviously using charity work as cover for evil crook bad business.
Yup. For all of the anticipation of the killer revelations, there is precious little beef in all of this stuff.
Some have noted that these leaks serve more as boring day to day workstuff that ends up either boring for us or even helping Clinton.
And that's the problem - even the server debacle pales in comparison to the bankruptcies, the grab her pussy crap, the (alleged) rape and (alleged)sexual assaults and fascinating allies and inciting to violence of the other party in this sad silly season electi
Re: (Score:2)
> Trump is now utterly crushed, he was a total failure in all the debates, even breitbart has Clinton wining todays debate 62-38.
No it doesn't.
It's bad form to make up shit that anyone can verify in 2 seconds.
so trump could (Score:2, Funny)
bankrupt clinton donors by doing what he does best.. being a raging lunatic that can't shut up.
oops (Score:2, Insightful)
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-19/hillary-clinton-linked-mysterious-front-associated-julian-assange-pedophile-smear
Re: (Score:2)
Just to note, it looks like that may be the address of a registered agent, so the connection is less strong than it looks, though it's still an odd coincidence.
The rest of the story is just nuts, though and hard to make sense of. How many other shady porn sites that are UN partners and just what kind of cam girl leaves their 8 year old sister alone with the camera!?
Proverbial (Score:5, Insightful)
How far America has fallen (Score:5, Insightful)
The campaign for the highest political office in the land is based on cheap shots, empty hyperbole, and crass corruption. Talk about bread and circuses! The presidential race IS a circus; not even a classy one like Cirque du Soleil, but rather a seedy low-rent carnival sideshow. There are disquieting similarities between this election and any given episode of Jerry Springer or Maury Povich. I suppose that's fitting, given that one of the 'contestants' really is a reality show star, and now the other one is taking her cues from him. When I think about the situation I'm torn between sadness and disgust, and end up feeling both. Yuck. Is this really how things are done now, in what arguably used to be the greatest nation in the world?
Re: (Score:2)
What it looks just exactly like a corporate advertising campaign for junk food, the news coke/pepsi wars (so why is it coke taste like crap after you have drunk pepsi for a while). They both are really in line for a massive mocking and trolling campaign, unless they start behaving themselves. Why not give the USPS some work and write those candidates a snail mail (they have to be collected, sorted, opened, read and filed, ohh the masses of paperwork, remind them who is the boss and who is the servant, who i
Re: (Score:2)
Election of 1968 (Score:5, Interesting)
During the election of 1968, Johnson was trying to bring an end to the Vietnam war. Nixon feared a breakthrough at the Paris Peace talks designed to find a negotiated settlement to the Vietnam war, and he knew this would derail his campaign, so he contacted Hanoi [smithsonianmag.com] and told them, essentially, "if you delay the peace talks, you'll get a better deal once I'm elected".
This was known to Johnson and the FBI at the time, who chose to do nothing.
From the article: “Once in office he escalated the war into Laos and Cambodia, with the loss of an additional 22,000 American lives, before finally settling for a peace agreement in 1973 that was within grasp in 1968,”
You probably aren't old enough to remember that era, but a lot of us are. The peace talks were constantly delayed by demands that, for instance, the table be round or square. This seemed odd at the time, but now we know why.
Nixon committed treason in the literal sense of the word, interfered with the US operations of state, and extended a war for 5 years just to get elected.
We only recently found this out because the records were sealed for 50 years, and recently unsealed.
I'm told that other, previous elections were worse. This one is just more heavily televised.
Be grateful for the bread and circus, because it's not actually killing people.
Re:Election of 1968 (Score:5, Insightful)
Be grateful for the bread and circus, because it's not actually killing people.
Unless you live in the Middle East, or Africa, or Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nixon committed treason in the literal sense of the word
I come to bury Nixon, not to praise him.
That being said, while you may think he committed treason in the literal sense, he did not in the legal sense.
Treason is defined in the US Constitution as aiding or giving comfort to an enemy at a time of war declared by Congress. Congress did not declare war officially on Vietnam. In fact, Congress has not declared war officially on any nation since 1942.
Re: Election of 1968 (Score:2)
It's almost as if the worst of your country represent you.
You should be ashamed that your whole country is so horribly corrupt that these monsters can get away with this and everyone goes passively along for the ride.
It's a disgrace to humanity as a whole.
Re: (Score:2)
It's almost as if the worst of your country represent you.
You must be new here (Earth). The top tiers of every government in every country are the worst of us, because the worst of us are attracted to the power and wealth that can be extracted from such positions and have no qualms about doing whatever it takes to get these positions. Where do you live where your politicians are angels (or even decent people)? Looking back through history, how many kings, emperors, presidents, and prime ministers can you name who were not monsters in one way or another?
Re: (Score:2)
Once in office he escalated the war into Laos and Cambodia, with the loss of an additional 22,000 American lives, before finally settling for a peace agreement in 1973 that was within grasp in 1968
1968, the year of the Tet Offensive and the siege at Khe Sanh, which Johnson insisted the US win? The same Johnson who decided not to run for re-election in 1968?
I just don't see a peace agreement in 1968 as being something that would have actually happened, especially after Johnson had stopped the bombing in the north as well.
Maybe if Johnson had *increased* bombing in the north to Linebacker II levels and allowed Westmoreland to go after the Ho Chi Minh trail and NVA bases in Cambodia and Laos he could h
Re: (Score:3)
This.
Jerry Springer should moderate the final debate.
Mike Judge should direct the movie adaptation.
Re: (Score:2)
Jerry Springer should moderate the final debate.
Only if they do a paternity test for Chelsea so Jerry can say to Bill "You are.......not the father! It's Webb Hubbell!!!"
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just glad my country hasn't sunk to this level.
Counter-Troll? (Score:3)
Oh god I hope Trump trolls them back by instead of tweeting out a sentences he tweets one word at a time.
Hillary
Clinton's
tax
plan
is
the
worst
thing
since
N
A
F
T
A
!
Just to be clear (Score:2, Insightful)
So when Trump's campaign sets up the same tool, so that every time HRC twats, Trump gets $?
Is that just as neat?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No we won't hear about from the Hillary shill editors on slashdot. Scott Adams just Hillary supports are brainwashed, but we get this.
English language obfuscation contest: First prize! (Score:4, Insightful)
Congrats.
Abusing Trump's compulsive behaviors (Score:3)
Of course the amazing thing is that Trump probably thinks the tweeting is helping his campaign. He doesn't even want to stop, though Hillary would be helping him greatly if this gimmick discouraged him from tweeting. Like Sun Tzu says, you shouldn't interfere when your enemy is punching himself in the face. (Actually, I'm still entertaining the hypothesis that Twitter actually brainwashed Trump with Alt-Right links.)
I still think it's kind of unfair for Hillary to exploit his weaknesses, but then again, I think Trump is asking for it. Near as I can tell, no one forced him into this ritual humiliation. Kind of a shame he didn't have any good friends who could persuade him not to, and if he thought Bill Clinton was being a good friend when he encouraged him to run against Bill's very own wife... Well, there goes any claim to high intelligence, as if the Donald's campaign hadn't been proof enough.
If there were some similar comments already, I would have appended mine. Nothing showed up yet, and the participation in Slashdot these days is so low that I'm not expecting much before the article dies. The moderation is not helping (as usual), but I have a new question about some discouraging "award" I recently received. Couldn't find out anything about it, so I guess I should care even less, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
Of course the amazing thing is that Trump probably thinks the tweeting is helping his campaign. He doesn't even want to stop, though Hillary would be helping him greatly if this gimmick discouraged him from tweeting.
Trump is too narcissistic to change his ways. If he had toned it down a bit and stayed on message about the economy & national security instead of pursuing every petty comment made about him, ranging from gold-star families to beauty pageant contestants, he'd probably be in the lead right now. Heck, if the GOP had nominated Kasich, Paul or Rubio, this election would be lopsided in the other direction. Instead, they decided to go for the stooge who would make Hillary a shoo-in. Unless Trump wins, there's
Am I the only one (Score:4, Insightful)
Am I the only one who feels like the stories regarding the election that filter onto slashdot have been pretty seriously biased and generally uncalled for?
Preferably I wouldn't see any campaign news here unless it's extremely specifically about tech, but it seems like anything with a hint of tech and related to the election is getting pasted to the front page regardless of the relevancy.
From the technology-but-really-election stories, to the pretty-much-clickbait stories; I'm getting sick of this site. I've been getting more and better tech related news from the fucking technology board on 4chan for christ's sake.
I can't trust these news sites anymore - I've even been hearing of shadowbans on slashdot in discussions outside this site - if I ever see proof of that, I'm done with this place. What the fuck is happening to our online media?
Re: (Score:2)
Scott Adams calls Hillary Clinton supporters brainwashed. That includes /. editors.
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1... [dilbert.com]
Scott Adams is a world class fucking idiot. (Score:2)
As proof, please see your same link.
Why this site seems pro-Trump (Score:2)
[Scott Adams is a world class fucking idiot] As proof, please see your same link.
And this is why Slashdot seems to be pro-Trump.
Scott Adams is a trained hypnotist, and has had many insights into this election from that point of view. When he says people are brainwashed, he's speaking professionally with some background. And the posted article uses analogy and example to explain his point.
If you think he's wrong, just pasting a random insult ain't 'gonna do it.
Anyone can show pro-Clinton articles and posts on Slashdot, it only takes insight and background, which anyone could do.
Raw, unsu
Re: (Score:3)
[Scott Adams is a world class fucking idiot] As proof, please see your same link.
And this is why Slashdot seems to be pro-Trump.
Scott Adams is a trained hypnotist, and has had many insights into this election from that point of view. When he says people are brainwashed, he's speaking professionally with some background. And the posted article uses analogy and example to explain his point.
If you think he's wrong, just pasting a random insult ain't 'gonna do it.
Anyone can show pro-Clinton articles and posts on Slashdot, it only takes insight and background, which anyone could do.
Raw, unsupported insults simply aren't good enough.
In the linked post, Adams never argues why the illusion is an illusion. He simply asserts it is (in an exceptionally patronizing way, incidentally). The furthest he goes in explaining that Trump is not a racist/sexist clown with a dangerous temperament is simply to say that "a guy who uses provocative language (as New Yorkers do) while succeeding across several different fields. And he knows risk-management." So basically, we should not take Trump at his word on anything because he's from New York and just
Re: (Score:2)
Some people call Trump Hitler - when he's not (which I 100% agree with Scott on that one)
The DNC have spent a lot of effort spinning opinion against Trump.
Because of that, clearly the arguments against Trump are an illusion that's shared with most anti-trumpers
My counter argument would be:
Comparing him to Hitler isn't the only argument against Trump. There are many others which I believe are valid.
GOP have been smearing her for her p
Re: (Score:2)
"Some people call Trump Hitler - when he's not (which I 100% agree with Scott on that one)"
_When_ is he not Hitler, when he sleeps? Or did you mean 'while'?
"The DNC have spent a lot of effort spinning opinion against Trump."
That's is sorta their job, isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
Dilbert used to be funny (Score:2)
I think the money went to his head a long while ago and it became a boring business. I think he lost his sense of humor, too, but he's getting ideas from around the Web and he has hired a couple of editors to pick the ones he illustrates for his strip. Nothing that feels like his originality there.
As regards Trump, I think it was a head fake. If Trump wins, he gets to say "I told you so" and if Trump loses he'll claim credit and say "If I hadn't scared, you then Trump could have won."
I still can't understan
Re: (Score:2)
From your link:
Here I pause to remind new readers of this blog that I'm a trained hypnotist and a student of persuasion in all its forms.
He's also a certified genius level IQ. We mustn't forget that!
And I'm here to tell you that if you are afraid that Donald Trump is a racist/sexist clown with a dangerous temperament, you have been brainwashed by the best group of brainwashers in the business right now: Team Clinton.
Well, if you're merely afraid of that then you might have been brainwashed by someone. Anyo
Our 4-yearly pon-farr (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been here through a couple of elections, and I can say definitively that this place goes to hell just prior.
About 6 weeks before an election this place starts to get crazy with spammers and sock puppets, and about 3 weeks prior it goes completely bonkers. It's happened before, it'll happen again in 4 years. If you're worried, just ignore it for the next 3 weeks.
Apropos shadow banning, I myself was banned from Slashdot for about a day [slashdot.org] because of trolls modding my submissions as "spam" (and triggering Slashdot's anti-spam auto ban).
I sent an E-mail to feedback, an op read it, and I was unbanned. To my total astonishment.
Slashdot is awesome, please don't paint us with the same brush as Twitter or Facebook.
It's just our 4-yearly version of pon-farr.
Re: (Score:2)
I've had this happen too, twice. First time with troll mod-bombing on comments, and then the second time with spam modding of submissions. In both cases, a quick email sorted it out. I can't fault the Slashdot team on that front, they fix moderation abuse quickly.
Relationship of technology to this election? (Score:2)
Interesting post, and if I ever saw a mod point, I might give it to you, even though you only posed the questions.
Anyway, it's obvious that technology is influencing elections in many ways, but mostly for the worse. Just picking a few examples off the top of my head:
(1) Scientific polling that makes voting feel meaningless
(2) Precise gerrymandering that distorts the House of so-called Representatives
(3) Trump's self-immolation via Twitter
Still no funny comments and the ones modded insightful weren't, and th
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Scientific polling that makes voting feel meaningless
My problem with the polling is it's not really scientific. The pollster picks the demographics for the poll, but never justifies why those demographics are reasonable. Frequently they're very unreasonable. If I made a poll for California but made my sample 80% Republicans and said "Trump will win California," would you trust it? But I could do that, say it's a "scientific poll" (because it uses numbers?) and then people would bandy it around for propaganda purposes.
The polls aren't falsifiable right now bec
Re: (Score:3)
The pollster picks the demographics for the poll, but never justifies why those demographics are reasonable.
As far as I am aware, the normal procedure is to record the demographics from a random poll, and then adjust the weightings of each demographic group based on the actual recorded demographics from the last similar election.
The rest of your comments display a considerable amount of the Dunning-Kruger effect [rationalwiki.org]. I really don't think you should write about things you so clearly know nothing about. Maybe you should spend some time and educate yourself about polling procedures, practices and organizations?
Different election this time? (Score:3, Interesting)
i just don't think raw $ is going to have quite the effect it's had in the past. Information control isn't bought quite as easily, nor is it nearly as effective, as in the past. Far fewer are glued to their TVs for their world-view. I can't imagine Trump getting in this if he knew of some true skeletons to hide. I can't imagine Hillary ever imagined how quickly her closets would fill up way back before meeting Bill. Hiding skeletons seems to be all she's ever done. And too many of you are too young to realize how long some of us have been watching the "Slick Willy" crime syndicate operate.
Campaign Finance Laws anyone? (Score:3)
Basically, it it's tied to Tweet count, Trump can cause these people to violate campaign finance laws, simply by being prolific.
Though, realistically, it would more likely just cause financial hardship as a big chunk of cash disappears from their account.
Anyone who uses this is basically a moron who basically WANTS to be stolen from.
Uhh.... (Score:2)
I'd have thought she'd have a 'Donate arms to ISIS whenever Donald Trump tweets" campaign
Damn 1%ers (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
According to who?
Trump just nailed yet another debate. The polls are all being done by the same media that's biased against Trump. People don't want to admit to supporting Trump because Hillary supporters are prone to acts of violence against Trump supporters. Don't forget that Clinton's campaign sent thugs to pretend to be Bernie supporters to cause riots at Trump rallies.
Wikileaks isn't done leaking material yet. Ecuador (at John Kerry's request) may be trying to delay them, but there are contingencies in
Re: (Score:2)
The polls are all being done by the same media that's biased against Trump.
Really? [foxnews.com]
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump just nailed yet another debate.
Strange, it looks like he admitted defeat to me. Why else not agree to accept the result? That's what a child does when they know they are going to lose.
there's still time to finally break through the mainstream media's pro-Clinton firewall.
The mainstream media, especially Fox and other right leaning "news" outlets, have been attacking Clinton for decades. They gave extensive coverage of the email scandal, Benghazi, her husband's actions and the allegations against him... You can't honestly say that they have been easy on her, or given her a free pass because they don't report outlandish conspiracy theories about the number of people she has had murdered (although Fox mentioned it).
The simple fact is that she got her dirty laundry out years back and people have lost interest now, not that it was ever as bad as some make out. But Trump doesn't have a history in politics so there is more dirt left to unearth. The fact that a lot of the stuff he says is clearly off the cuff on issues any serious politician would have nailed down a position on just invites scandal and ridicule too.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Strange, it looks like he admitted defeat to me. Why else not agree to accept the result? That's what a child does when they know they are going to lose.
I took it as a warning to the Democrats. The Dems have a long, long history of voter fraud and Trump is putting them on notice that he's wise to their schemes, and we're not taking it this time.
Re: (Score:2)
I also thought that answer was a bit peculiar too since we recently had a contested election. On the one hand, you can't say that you will blindly accept any nonsense with no question. On the other hand, you can't completely destroy the idea of a peaceful transition of power.
People still have rights. Something bad may happen to you, but you don't have to take it lying down. You can fight it through perfectly civilized means.
You don't have to let people walk all over you.
Re: (Score:2)
And betting markets show the same pattern as with Brexit -- more overall money on Hillary, but more individual bets on Trump.
Re: (Score:3)
I think it's time we retired the word "whom" for lack of use. "Who" in this sense is more intuitive. Besides, we need fewer "special case" words.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you're going to have a bad time in 3 weeks.
Re:Stupid (Score:5, Funny)
Internet Tough Guy [encyclopediadramatica.se] detected.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny that people think loading guns is really a threat.
When you post such things people know you have guns.
If you work, it is easy enough for anybody to come and get your guns while you are out.
They might even leave a thank you for loading them all up before they take them.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm already oiling my guns
heh heh so am I, nudge nudge wink wink, know what I mean? say no more.
Oh you're serious? In that case, might I interest you in a subscription to the following magazine:
http://rationalwiki.org/w/imag... [rationalwiki.org]
Re: (Score:3)
LOL. You're the same fucking idiot who was paying 10x for ammo when Obama took office.
The gun companies sucked you dry. I hope you enjoyed it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Bilk? They have to sign up for it.
But nice, stupid try.
Re: (Score:3)
http://observer.com/2016/09/ex... [observer.com]
I did not need to be told that (Score:2)
Even if I wanted to give her money, her organization is not exactly know for being brilliant at security.
Re: (Score:2)
Millionaire tech titans back her.
Like Peter Thiel.
Rich celebrities back her.
Like Charlie Sheen.
Wealthy media members back her.
Like Rupert Murdoch.
Well paid millionaire athletes back her.
Like Mike Tyson.
Abusive government leaders back her.
Like Vladimir Putin.
Re: (Score:2)
What about percentage-wise, though? Think celebrities split 50/50 on Clinton vs Trump?