Ecuador Acknowledges Limiting Julian Assange's Web Access (reuters.com) 412
Alexandra Valencia, reporting for Reuters: Ecuador's government acknowledged on Tuesday it had partly restricted internet access for Julian Assange, the founder of anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks who has lived in the South American country's London embassy since mid-2012. WikiLeaks said Assange lost connectivity on Sunday, sparking speculation Ecuador might have been pressured by the United States due to the group's publication of hacked material linked to U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. In a statement, Ecuador's leftist government said WikiLeaks' decision to publish documents impacting the U.S. election campaign was entirely its own responsibility, and the South American country did not cede to pressure from other nations. "In that respect, Ecuador, exercising its sovereign right, has temporarily restricted access to part of its communications systems in its UK Embassy," it added in a statement. "The Ecuador government respects the principle of non-intervention in other countries' affairs, it does not meddle in election processes underway, nor does it support any candidate specially."
Curses! (Score:5, Funny)
Assange should have signed up for the unlimited plan.
Well... (Score:3)
He could at least offer to share the utility bills. I mean the security costs for the embassy have risen a lot due to him being there, part of the broadband cost is the least he could do...
Re:Curses! (Score:4, Interesting)
It's still unlimited. Just throttled to 0 Kbps.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder how this is going to stop him, though. Do they really think he doesn't have a backup plan? Do they think he has all the wikileaks information on his personal laptop in the embassy without anyone else outside able to access it?
I bet he has plenty of friends with access to the Wikileaks servers who can bring out the information on a prearranged schedule even if they made him disappear from the planet entirely. I can't possibly imagine him being that stupid.
Mobile phone access? (Score:2)
Re:Mobile phone access? (Score:5, Informative)
He isn't in Ecuador, he's in a flat in London - whether the Ecuadorian Embassy allow him an alternative method of access is debatable at this point, they don't have to allow him the use of a mobile phone or his own line (the issue seems to be with with his actions, not with the fact that they are being done over an Ecuadorian-linked internet connection) and they can ask him to leave if he has an issue with that.
Re: (Score:2)
Legally speaking, he's in Ecuador. Not that it has anything to do with routing the Internet connection.
Re:Mobile phone access? (Score:4, Informative)
Embassies on foreign soil are considered sovereign territories according to the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations [un.org]. Assange may be physically located on UK soil, but as long as Ecuador grants him asylum he is effectively in the domain of Ecuador while inside the Embassy and no arresting party can enter the compound without Ecuador's permission. Once Assange steps outside the embassy property then he is subject to UK authority and can be apprehended.
In the event of hostilities or soured diplomatic relations, it's a different story.
Re: (Score:3)
Ecuador cut him off iirc, not the UK. I am not even sure the UK could cut off the embassy without international implications, like water or electricity.
In any case, Ecuador could use satellite Internet if pushed. But that isn't the issue.
And yet (Score:5, Insightful)
preventing the distribution of information relevant to the candidates, Ecuador effectively allows the influence to be heavily one sided.
Specifically, the side that filters, and releases only approved material in order to promote their candidate.
The only way we truly know who the candidates are is when we have access to information about how they think and act when they believe no one is looking.
Everything else, is just for show.
Personally, I don't care WHO digs up the information. Hackers, Private Investigators, whatever.
It does boil down to this: If you're going intelligently elect a leader, you need to know all there is to know about them. There can be no secrets.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The United States doesn't care about electing the best leader. They care about cheerleading on a party just like 1930s Germany.
Re:And yet (Score:5, Insightful)
Party before all else. Loyalty to the party has killed America.
Re: And yet (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: And yet (Score:5, Informative)
from parent post:
from one of Hillary Clinton's paid Wall Street speeches [wikileaks.org]:
Not only does Hillary Clinton advocate in private paid meetings to Wall Street bankers policies opposed her own public positions, she confesses in one of those meetings that she does. The contradictions between her public statements and private statements made to Wall Street bankers are why she suppressed the release of transcripts or recordings of those paid speeches during the primary and why their release by Wikileaks has been politically damaging to her.
Re: (Score:3)
AC Troll know nothing shows lack of insight. Color me surprised.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're kind of handwaving away the damaging parts of the leaks, though, aren't you?
I don't think most people knew before the leaks that Hillary gets the debate questions from CNN ahead of time. Kind of helps prove the whole thing about politics and the media just being a biased propaganda show? Is that worthwhile?
Re: (Score:3)
If Hillary seizes, shits her pants and falls over you finish the bottle.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It has the verbatim question. Word for word. Same punctuation and everything.
No one is buying the lies anymore. Well actually that's not true. Tons of people are still buying the lies because they're brainwashed retards.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I don't care WHO digs up the information. Hackers, Private Investigators, whatever. It does boil down to this: If you're going intelligently elect a leader, you need to know all there is to know about them. There can be no secrets.
This is what scares quite a few politicians and especially ones with agendas contrary to the public interest. They do not want informed decisions, they prefer obedient and ignorant citizens. This is used on both sides.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree about exposing politicians. But the reason for the 4th Amendment is at least partly to prevent those in power from spying on political opponents to put that info to use. If only one side "gets" to do this, freedom is impossible.
It should not be one sided either way.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
preventing the distribution of information relevant to the candidates, Ecuador effectively allows the influence to be heavily one sided.
And, pray tell, which "one side" are we talking about? Both candidates have free access to media, advertising, TV debates, etc, nothing one-sided about that. What would be one-sided is carefully selected, carefully time leaks of information sourced by a state actor intent on destabilising the USA, which impact one candidate only, who Assange considers his enemy. That's hard
One sided [Re:And yet] (Score:2)
preventing the distribution of information relevant to the candidates, Ecuador effectively allows the influence to be heavily one sided.
And, pray tell, which "one side" are we talking about?
Wikileaks is leaking material only stolen from the Democrats, not anything stolen from Republicans.
That's one sided, by definition.
Actually, I'd very much be curious to see equivalent material stolen from the other side.
Re: (Score:2)
On the balance scale what's coming out the Republicans are balanced fairly well by what comes out of Trump's own mouth.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, I'd very much be curious to see equivalent material stolen from the other side.
I would, too. I suspect it would help Trump, as the RNC email would consist of the GOP establishment shitting on Trump. It would help prove his claims of a "rigged" system in the Republican primaries.
Re:And yet (Score:5, Insightful)
In that case, you really should be clamoring for more from TRUMP. From his medical records to his taxes, he has released less information than any presidential candidate in the last half century. His claims about why should anger you as well. He claims that every one is entitled to privacy, and that's why he shouldn't have to release any such documentation. Or he promises to release it, then doesn't. Notice, also, that these documents are common for every major presidential candidate to release. We're not even getting into the private emails or videos or whatever that you want, we're talking about commonly release documentation that allows for a basic gauge of candidate health and possible financial conflicts of interest. There are rumors swirling around of video tapes and conversations that makes the current drip of Podesta emails look like a joke, and in light of what has already been released about Trump they are more than credible.
Look, I get what you're saying, and for the most part I agree. But I can understand Ecuador's actions. Assange has made it clear that in this case he doesn't care about silly things like government transparency or anything like that. He has a personal vendetta. If it was really about getting the information out there, the hacked data would have been released all at once, as soon as possible, so that it could be thoroughly gone through an analyzed. But Assange's own comments, and the way he has been releasing the data, make it clear that this release is entirely politically motivated.
That political motivation, and the method by which a lot of this data has been obtained, along with the high likelihood that Assange has active connections with the hackers that obtained it, are highly problematic for Ecuador. If Ecuador allows Assange to operate out of their embassy, using their resources, in a politically motivated and illegal manner, then they can be seen as giving government approval for that task. Any state that doesn't want people meddling in its OWN elections illegally had better not do anything that can be seen as meddling in someone else's elections illegally. If they believe that Assange has obtained this information in an illegal manner, through collusion with the hackers that performed the actual hack and exfiltration, and that the use of that material is for political attacks against specific targets and is intended to influence the democratic process of another sovereign state, then for ITS OWN GOOD Ecuador MUST stop their state resources from being used in any way that can be seen as condoning those actions.
Re:And yet (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And yet (Score:5, Interesting)
Both candidates are corrupt scum.
Yeah, I think Douglas Adams had it right: "It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."
Re: And yet (Score:2)
Re:And yet (Score:4, Informative)
You seem unaware that there is now a reasonably strong chain that links Clintons campaign to these faked paedophile allegations (see reddit wikileaks) and an attempt to entrap Assange with a million dollar bribe through a couple of shell companies connecting back to her camp. It appears it was a possibly criminal Democratic conspiracy/fraud/libel', that got quickly sprung
Here's a helpful infographic to connect the dots..
https://i.imgur.com/s27EVHS.jpg
http://www.inquisitr.com/3609216/julian-assange-reportedly-being-investigated-for-alleged-online-sexual-molestation-of-8-year-old-girl/
Assange is a twat, but his antipathy towards Clinton is perhaps understandable when there are reports that Clinton discussed assassinating him back in 2010 (and didn't leave the impression she was joking)
Both candidates are appalling. Trump is an ill-disciplined narcissistic dickhead (though has at least proposed some positive reform - like term limits). But Clinton appears to be a nasty sociopath, and has so much unethical immoral history (going back decades), and what seems like total disregard for the rule of law - from seeming threats to Bills victims' to whitewater, to server shennanigans, to (in last 2 days) filmed admissions from her team about paying people to incite violence at Trump rallies and rig voting. Not really surprising in someone who has been in the game so long and has put up with marriage to Bill to give her the shot at the big chair, but it simply can't be tolerated in a President - even if she might otherwise be a relatively safe pair of hands. Option 3 please.
Re:And yet (Score:4, Insightful)
...If you're going intelligently elect a leader,...
Don't you think that train has left the station a long time ago? When the media and a far too loud crowd dominate everything the way they have done, increasingly, since the days of Bill Clinton, at least, intelligent discourse doesn't stand a chance. I rather suspect that is the intention - these people do not want democracy to work, because their extremist agenda will never win in a fair and honest, democratic contest.
Re:And yet (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally, I don't care WHO digs up the information.
You do, you just won't admit it.
For example, in other posts you explicitly admit that you put more trust in foreign agencies over domestic agencies.
So you clearly DO care, as long as it reaffirms your biases.
=Smidge=
Re:And yet (Score:4, Interesting)
Putting trust (more or less) is often based on experience (bias) but doesn't negate the possibility that the domestic sources information is legitimate.
I have no doubt that the Trump tape is authentic, and trust it is accurate. But the press (MSM) has also been shown to be highly biased against Trump, and supportive of Hillary, and THAT information is coming from foreign sources like WikiLeaks. The fact that US press hasn't covered it much (if at all) is proof that they are not to be trusted.
Simply put, trust isn't about quantity, it is about quality. Broken clocks are correct twice a day, and for a very brief period, I can trust that they are right. Doesn't mean I trust them the rest of the time. That is not confirmation bias, that is having an open mind to look beyond the obvious (the clock is broken, I shouldn't use it at all).
Confirmation bias is only looking to the MSM for "news", in which case, you are unlikely to know much about WikiLeaks exposure of the corruption inside the DNC and its efforts to illegally manipulate the voters. Confirmation Bias is ignoring Project Veritas confirming the WikiLeaks information about "Bird dogging". You think the MSM is going to link those two together and put it on the front page of the NYT or Lead with it on CNN? If this was any (R), you can bet it would be.
So, I do NOT trust the domestic MSM to do its job at all. It is fully incapable of it. That doesn't mean it isn't right twice a day. It just means that it is full of shit the other 23 hours and 58 minutes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is nothing you need to know about Hillary Clinton that isn't known, She will sleep comfortably while you are begging for help to save your life; she has absolutely zero empathy. The Clinton Foundation raked in hundreds of Millions of dollars for the Haitian Earthquake relief and did almost nothing for the Haitians with the money. Hillary Clinton is a pathological liar and that is secondary to bouncing all around the Cluster B personality disorders [wikipedia.org]. If there is a rule or a law, she will break it witho
Re:And yet (Score:4, Insightful)
The same thing could be said of Trump.
He routinely destroys small businesses by refusing to pay them (nearly every project he's ever done), he has zero empathy with any individual. He's so thin skinned that it's likely he'd start a war over a foreign leader insulting him and routinely uses his power, money and celebrity to damage those he sees as enemies. He's a bigot and a misogynist. He's also a compulsive liar so you can't believe anything he says he will do and you can only trust what he's done in the past. That includes not paying taxes, screwing every little guy he can (including fake real estate seminars that screwed the middle and lower class out of thousands of dollars), he routinely lies about doing things then doesn't do them, he routinely lies about helping people and doesn't help them. He's the epitomy of the silver spoon generation of chickenhawks.
Given his actions and the fact he's a compulsive liar I don't know how anyone that's not a silver spoon can even trust him. Just like every time in the past he's claimed to be for the little guy then bent them over and fucked them good and hard he's going to do the same to his supporters this time. The only thing you can be sure of, Trump is for Trump.
Re:And yet (Score:5, Informative)
She will sleep comfortably while you are begging for help to save your life
You're likely just echoing conservative dogma about "Benghazigate". Do you get you get your news from any sources other that Fox? Not to diminish the tragedy, but the Obama administration's errors here (in actuality, lower level security personnel in the State Dept. rather than Clinton directly though she accepted responsibility as Sec.) was in its flawed strategic decisions regarding the size of the ambassadorial mission there and what actions to take in light of the decreasing stability. To portray Clinton as slumbering comfortably while her charges were begging for help is patently false. Further, conservative efforts to discredit Clinton through endless Benghazi hearings are disingenuous, unceasing and utterly wasteful, but shows them as the true exploiters of the tragedy. Ronald Reagan's Benghazi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombings [wikipedia.org] was not politicized at all and it happened six months after the embassy there was bombed.
If there is a rule or a law, she will break it without a moments hesitation if she perceives the benefit in added power, money or prestige outweighs the risks.
Opinion stated as fact. Please support with evidence... BTW, factually speaking, Trump has boasted of sexual assault and is busy right now planting the seeds of insurrection by absurdly claiming the election is"rigged"- sounds like treason (the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government) to me. Tell me who's lawless again.
ask yourself what would it be like if she had the powers of Presidential Pardon and Executive Privilege?
Sorry, too busy pondering what would happen if Trump were CIC. Didn't he say he would carpet bomb ISIS and steal the oil? He knows more about ISIS than "tha generals". K then, Like I said,: too busy pondering Armageddon under Trump....
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
preventing the distribution of information relevant to the candidates, Ecuador effectively allows the influence to be heavily one sided.
Do you even buy the crap your shovelling? A nation state is using assange as its toy to disrupt an election. It's completely one sided. I don't think one thing has been hacked on the republican side. Even the tax returns may have just been someone having a copy, and even then it was only a fraction of what Clinton released.
Donald Trump got crap loads of free press to get this far, and now he is acting like a whining 3 year old and saying its all rigged. It's not. He is getting continuous crap loads of
Re: (Score:3)
The election is not rigged against the Donald.
Yea, just like the Primaries with Sanders... Oh. wait. Ok, just because the conspiracies against Sanders during the primary was proven true doesn't mean that the DNC or Clinton campaign would do the same unethical tactics in the general...
You are a fool.
laughable - even for a 2nd grader (Score:3)
Even a 2nd grader can see the bias in the press against Trump. They aren't even trying to hide it anymore.
Re:And yet (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...despite his paranoid rantings on the subject it is unlikely that he would be extradited there from Sweden (staying in UK on the other hand is a risky decision for someone who thinks they are out to get him... )
it's a risky decision for him because he had paid bail on the promise he would appear (or, more specifically, his friends paid bail) but he jumped bail, and thus is subject to criminal charges in the UK.
Moral High Ground (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, however the reason that Ecuador feels the need to thumb their noses (by offering refuge) at the US is that they are a little angry about the US meddling in Ecuadorian affairs, least of all their own government processes. By allowing Assange to do the same with the US election they would be seen as a bit hypocritical. By not allowing, or more accurately by *publicly* not allowing they are taking the moral high ground, not only thumbing their collective noses again, but drawing to attention the afore mentioned fact. I wouldn't be surprised if they were fully aware of what he was doing and this was all planned out in advance (or at least they took proper advantage of the situation as it evolved).
Slow golf clap. wp.
Re:And yet (Score:4, Interesting)
Sure. Unless you consider Assange's very sanctuary in the embassy is essentially a big, Ecuadorian, middle finger to the US.
A very good point, because it indicates that Ecuador's recent decision to deny Assange internet access is inconsistent with their previous practice and therefore an unexplained contradiction. In the history of Wikileaks, what have they released which not impact an election? Indeed, influencing political outcomes by releasing secrets is Wikilieaks raison d'être. And Ecuador just noticed that now?
My guess would be that Ecuador was threatened either by an official in the Obama administration or by a Clinton functionary promising retaliation after she wins election.
A pringles can is now seen sticking out his window (Score:5, Funny)
A little wiring and duct tape and he's good to go.
Re:A pringles can is now seen sticking out his win (Score:4, Funny)
A little wiring and duct tape and he's good to go.
Few people know that MacGuyver was based on the real-life exploits of Julian Assange.
He was right, it was a state sponsored actor (Score:4, Interesting)
Too bad that that actor was sponsored by the same state that gave him protection.
Just shows how deep corruption and collusion runs internationally.
Re: (Score:2)
He's learning the downside of being no longer useful to unfree regimes.
Re: (Score:2)
And is there any evidence of this? Ecuador has already stated they acted on their own, and they have compelling reasons for doing so. The only people I've seen saying that this was John Kerry are the people who either were effected by the shutoff directly, or those who support their political motivations. None of the claims have any proof behind them, they are just wild assertions or baseless claims at this point.
Unruly house guest (Score:5, Insightful)
It's like having someone stay over and he starts pissing in the neighbor's yard.
As the host, it's up to you to keep him in line or kick him out.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Telling people what Hillary is actually doing is bad manners.
Re: (Score:3)
Why is this "unruly?"
Until Assange started exposing Hillary, there was no problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Well said.
Re:Unruly house guest (Score:5, Funny)
Well. Well. Speak of the devil. You got a lot of questions to answer in this thread buddy. And don't give me that "oh, I am not the Ecuador TFA was talking about. I'm the innocent Ecuador! Promise!" we've heard that excuse before.
Pretty interesting (Score:2)
With WikiLeaks (likely) out of play, whoever has been sending WikiLeaks the Democrats' data will either have to find another channel for release, or stop releasing. In the former case, that may give intelligence agencies a better idea of their target.
I wonder if there was a back-channel conversation with Ecuador -- something like "Whoever is behind this, Ecuador is effectively acting as an accessory to some outside party attempting to alter the US presidential election. Is that *really* how you want us to
Re: (Score:2)
Why would WikiLeaks be out of play? They don't keep their servers in the Ecuadorian embassy, and they have more than just Assange on their staff.
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, I think that the Ecuadorians are getting tired of having a guy live rent-free at their embassy, never leaving the premise, and acting like a privileged scumbag. I think it was fun for them for a week, and now they're having second thoughts and thinking OMG, is this ever going to end?
Election interference (Score:4, Insightful)
When you learn information about Hillary that she doesn't want you to know, it's called election interference. You people out there need to know your place and learn to just do what your designated leaders tell you. When they want you to know something, they'll tell you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The obvious common-sense explanation is that they don't have anything particularly interesting on Trump.
Imagine that you actually had something about Trump that was worse than what he always says in public. (I know, it's hard. But try. Maybe "grab the dick" or something.) So you send the information to Wikileaks, and they just sit on it. Weeks go by, you email Julian, "Hey, what about my leak?" and he doesn't reply.
What would you do?
I think you would leak through another channel.
If he used vi this wouldn't be a problem (Score:2)
If he used vi this wouldn't be a problem, he'd be able to do all his work just fine over a 300 baud acoustic coupler!
On a serious note I still don't get what the big deal is, as even if for some reason he's not allowed to use obvious things like 3G, surely all he needs to do is co-ordinate things with other wikileaks staff over the phone?
Probably the right thing to do (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dems love censoring true information about the Clintons almost as much as they like making unsubstantiated allegations against Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
#Risottogate
I think you should just march in there and grab the Ecuadorian ambassador by the pussy. Don't even wait. When you're famous, you can get away with it.
The story behind the story (Score:2, Troll)
It must get lonely living in an embassy for years. Then again, there's a world full of actual adult women that you can do this with without getting into trouble.
A lot of smoke around some people's online hero. 8 years old? Jeezuz, that's gross.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not clicking on that article, as I'm at work. But does it mention the fact that the "8-year old" Assange is alleged to have talked dirty to was signed on to a dating site using her 22-year old sister's account and profile? Because that's the story I read last night. And in that case, can we really prove that Assange was aware that he was talking to an underage girl? I'd say no. And I'd say if there even was an 8-year old involved, which I doubt, it's an obvious frame-up. Super obvious, like anyone with
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Don't fall for that very crudely made smearing attempt of Assange. It is incredible that they are trying to smear with this as it doesn't stand up under close scrutiny. Check for yourself about some of the details and how this is connected to Hillary Clinton:
GUYS. THE SHILLS ARE UP TO SOMETHING WITH ASSANGE! NOT A DRILL. PLEASE LOOK! FRAMING IN PROGRESS!
https://www.reddit.com/r/The_D... [reddit.com]
Background and Documents on Attempts to Frame Assange as a Pedophile and Russian spy
https://www.wikileaks.org/Back... [wikileaks.org]
WikiLe
Re: (Score:2)
I recommend you to study this even more closely, but here are some of the completely unbelievable things in this smear attempt against Assange:
"Their yellowpages site says they have been in business 5 years. http://www.yellowpages.com/hou... [yellowpages.com]
Ok so how many times has this link been shared on reddit? I googled the URL specific to this site, and it's only come up three times. All within the last 24 hours."
"This shady dating site claims to be the "ONLY Dating Site to ever partner with the UN Initiative" (Now tha
Re: (Score:2)
It seems that Hillarys campaing is usign extremely dirty tricks. Not just paying to cause violence on Trumps rallies, bussing people to vote several times, but also this pedophilia/Russian 1 million dollars smear against Assange:
https://sli.mg/20GoW2 [sli.mg]
https://i.sli.mg/RauCjp.jpg [i.sli.mg]
https://wikileaks.org/IMG/pdf/... [wikileaks.org]
Ah, how refreshing! (Score:2)
I just knew this article would provoke stimulating and well thought out ideas, in a non-partisan way.
Everyone is dirty.... (Score:4, Insightful)
I've got mixed feelings on this.
They are all dirty- Trump, Clinton, and Assange. We all know about Trump and Clinton.
Assange is trying to strike out against a particular candidate, with stolen materials, which are unverified, and seeking some sort of revenge. So has become a defacto participant in the election process- as a foreign actor.
No matter how you dice it, everyone is dirty.
Ecuador on the other hand says: "Assange is trying to influence a foreign election from our embassy and we do not want to engage in that activity".
The only people with principles in this American election- are apparently Ecuador. How sad is that?
If the tables were turned (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
That's correct! What about Julian Assange's First Amendment rights!
First Amendment is not Applicable (Score:3)
Assange is in the Ecuadorian embassy-- technically part of Ecuador-- in Great Britain.
Neither one of these contries use the United States Constitution's bill of rights.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect that while the most vocal and prolific posters on Slashdot seem to be pro-Democrats, the vast majority of silent readers are more pro-Republicans. Outside of Silicon Valley and NYC, engineers tend to be on the conservative side.
Of course that doesn't mean conservative people are pro-Trump. This election is very testing for voters as both candidates are fairly ridiculous.
The Silent Majority Fails to Speak (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect that while the most vocal and prolific posters on Slashdot seem to be pro-Democrats
I haven't notice that.
I'd like to see statistics.
, the vast majority of silent readers are more pro-Republicans.
That was an argument originally made by Richard Nixon [gmu.edu]! How can you disprove that the "silent majority" favored him, when they're silent? The really great thing about that argument is that it is supported by the absence of facts: you're pointing to the silence as support for what you say.
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like they had good arguments, you got triggered, and then warped the memory in your mind to a bunch of rednecks shouting "Murica."
Whaa whaa whaa, Trump's a victim! (Score:2, Insightful)
You Trump spinners, hoisted by your own past bullshit.
Remember when Assange leaked all about the Bush war on Terra with the diplomatic leaks? And the collateral damage video?
Hannity: Assange should be arrested. United States should “go after” Assange and “arrest him” for “waging [a] war against the U.S.”
New Gingrich: Assange is a terrorist and an enemy combatant.
Fox News Bob Beckel excoriated Assange for leaking the State Department cables that have roiled the world in th
Re:Whaa whaa whaa, Trump's a victim! (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
treasonous
This is my favorite word used against Assange. He's Australian - how did he betray Australia with his actions?
Re: (Score:2)
Is that useless election still not over? How long does it take to decide which muppet's cronies are going to plunder the country for the next 4 years?
You act as if it really made any difference to you. Seriously, do you really care which thief is going to rob your home? You're not the one who is going to receive the loot, so why bother?
Re: (Score:2)
I believe it was compliant and unaware voters. A differnce without distinction except to those who do not know how to properly use google.
Re:Uneducated voters, yay! (Score:5, Funny)
Of course. Just compare the way they speak. Trump has far more complex [slate.com] sentence structure than Hillary. That's appealing to educated individuals.
Trumps a brilliant man! (Score:3, Funny)
I'm one of the many many much educated people that went to college and I'm a engineer - BS Engineering Technology in Small Engine Repair from Hillbilly State, NC.
These slghts against us Trump supporters ain't doing anybody no service.
He's got an incredible platforms. He's gonna somehow build a wall and somehow make Mexico pay for it.
He's gonna somehow repeal the H1-b laws - by ordering Congress to do it.
And by Jesus, he knows so much about the Bible, he knows about passages that no one else knows!
And the la
Re: (Score:2)
Technicians and Engineers are not the same job and you should know that by now.
It's like saying I'm a Dr, I graduated with a BSN!
Re: (Score:2)
> He's gonna somehow repeal the H1-b laws - by ordering Congress to do it.
Well, if it's his party then he at least has a fighting chance.
That's how this particular circus works.
I guess you should have paid attention in high school.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The sad thing is that there is a bunch of knuckledraggers out there that actually BELIEVE what you just said (even though you were trying to be funny). :/
Sadder yet is that there is another bunch of knuckledraggers who think Hillary and Bernie are smarter than Trump.
I have never seen a more fitting user name before, and I doubt I ever will again.
Re: Trumps a brilliant man! (Score:2)
there is another bunch of knuckledraggers who think Hillary and Bernie are smarter than Trump.
It's actually quite obvious that the evil, lying manpig has a higher IQ than than the Angry Mullet... not that this necessarily matters (policy is clearly decided a lot higher up than in the White House) but I'll take whatever protections I can get. ;)
Re: (Score:3)
there is another bunch of knuckledraggers who think Hillary and Bernie are smarter than Trump.
It's actually quite obvious that the evil, lying manpig has a higher IQ than than the Angry Mullet... not that this necessarily matters (policy is clearly decided a lot higher up than in the White House) but I'll take whatever protections I can get. ;)
I have no reason to believe that Hillary is smarter than Donald Trump (and I'm high IQ). Trump seems to be playing a character that appeals to a certain "base". Hillary doesn't really appeal to any base - the Democrats like her because she's bought and predictable. Sanders appeals to a base of mainly people who are terrible with math and understanding human nature.
Trump is a master at marketing and branding - look at his TV show. He's a chameleon who can be who he needs to be to win.
I'm not supporting t
Re: Uneducated voters, yay! (Score:3, Interesting)
There's a great study out showing that educated voters tend to prefer Hillary (and then Stein and Johnson on the upper end as levels max out).
The funny thing about the study though is that a plumber running his own business with a dozen employees is "uneducated" while a Ph.D. in Gender Studies working the counter at Panera is "educated".
YMMV, read the fine print .
Re: (Score:3)
You also have this big shaming and peer pressure campaign. Hysterics are first directed at the candidate and then at anyone that might vote for the candidate.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you haven't been reading the Podesta leaks, then we can't help your ignorant and non-involved ass. Go educate yourself or shut the fuck up.
Re: Clintons Evil Knows No Bounds (Score:5, Interesting)
As always, context is key.
First, that quote came from Bill Ivy, in an email to John Podesta -- this is not Hillary's statement, and there's no indication of whether or not she agrees with or condones that statement. So, while it's a rather ugly sentiment, to declare that it's reflective of Hillary's position, absent other data, is impossible.
Second, the comment is made in the context of counteracting Trump's strong presence in the media:
What he is lamenting is the strategic position the campaign finds itself in: for so long, their strategy has been to "demean government and drop civics," and the result is an electorate that takes Donald Trump's positions about government and civics seriously.
Given the repeated condemnations I've seen here in the past few years of the intelligence and critical thinking ability of the average US voter here on Slashdot, I wouldn't think this to be a controversial statement. What he is noting is that both political parties have been happy to cultivate unthinking and obedient voters, and now, when they need the voters to actually do some critical thinking... they're having difficulties with it.
I actually give him high marks for that comment - he's willing to declare that their strategy has failed them, and needs to change such that the political conversation turns back to actual civics once more.
Or were you just knee-jerking because he used the word "conspire", and Trump 2016 has taught you that knee-jerk reactions are the best way to govern?
Re: Clintons Evil Knows No Bounds (Score:4, Informative)
That's a link to Wikileaks's front page, not a link to a "compliant and uneducated voters" statement.
Googling for the phrase "compliant and uneducated voters" only comes up with this comment [slashdot.org], presumably also by you.
As for your "there would be riots in the street", your people are talking about rioting in the streets. Not just riots, but outright coups if Hillary is elected. On camera. And your candidate is deliberately whipping them up to this with all of his repeated "shadowy conspiracy stealing the election with massive fraud" talk.
Re: (Score:3)
The full quote is:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This.
You know when Trump lost his RNC funding the pro Trump posters seemed to disappear.
Now he picked up a cool million and they are back.
Re: (Score:3)
Ah yes, the old "always accuse your opponent of doing what you're doing." Correct the Record actually exists. Has FEC filings and everything. Show me the tiniest bit of evidence of paid Trump shills.
Re: (Score:3)
Rule of Acquisition #34: War is good for business.
Re: (Score:3)
The whole thing has already been debunked. Part 1 [twitter.com] and Park 2 [twitter.com]. It's the sloppiest smear job I've ever seen. You should spread it around like crazy because when someone easily debunks it it helps play into our narrative that the DNC is crooked beyond measure and their supporters like you are either disgusting liars or mad fools. Even the wicked are made to serve God's plan.