A key part of Clinton server scandal: she cheered imprisonment of whistleblowers, citing sanctity of classified info.
Source: Hillary Clinton on the Sanctity of Protecting Classified Information
I'm pretty neutral on Obama. So I will offer this:
I think it is the attitude they are frustrated with. I have heard people (even supporters) comment:
As to the bad luck timing of his public assessments
He said ISIS was "contained," then a few days later was Paris.
He then made fun of people who want to carefully screen immigrants as being, "afraid of women and children".
A. The next day it was revealed a Paris terrorist was a woman (as was the SB woman, a woman terrorist)
B. Then two little children went into an African market and detonated.
Then he talked about the radicalization problem as though it was offshore -- and then the San Bernardino terrorist mini-cell detonated.
So that is my sense from the people who discuss it. Your water cooler may have different talking points.
Edit: Thank you for gilding this post, I really appreciate it.
Edit2: To answer some replies, I added a link to the Al Arabiya report from Reuters confirming the ISIS claim of responsibility for San Bernardino. And a link showing the ISIS connection to the Paris terror cell leader who it says joined ISIS while in Syria.
The Intercept did a series of articles last year, based on leaked documents (Snowden? not sure).
The findings were up to 90% of people killed by drones were innocent civilians.
The article series is called The Drone Papers
Edit - Fixed: The findings were up to 90% of targets who were assassinated by drones were innocent civilians.
Exactly. They should be thankful she didn't also ask them to pay $1,000 a piece to see her, you know, so she can fight for the middle class.
>Saudi Arabia Continues Hiring Spree of American Lobbyists, Public Relations Experts
This is a new multibillion industry, putting lipstick on a pig.
Hillary Clinton Wants to Regulate Fracking, but Still Accepts a Lot of Fracking Money
>Many of Clinton’s largest fundraisers are lobbyists for oil and gas corporations. Some of her largest contribution bundlers are lobbyists representing Chevron, Cheniere Energy, and TransCanada — all companies that use fracking.
Oh snap, I didn't even know about this - wonder why she wasn't against Keystone XL right up to when Obama cancelled it?
>Prior to announcing her candidacy, Clinton also received $990,000 for speeches she made to the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce — a heavy investor in TransCanada and the Keystone XL pipeline.
>After a rally in Iowa last December, Clinton claimed to be unaware she ever received donations from fossil fuel companies. “Well, I don’t know that I ever have. I’m not exactly one of their favorites,” she said. “Have I? OK, well, I’ll check on that. They certainly haven’t made that much of an impression on me if I don’t even know it.”
Remember, how she was asked the same at the Univision debate 1 month ago? And she also said she doesn't know anything about it and it's nothing to worry about. Her campaign couldn't make-up a good enough lie in all that time?
The sad fruits of decades of Islamaphobia.
Edit: for people whom think Islamaphobia is an unsubstantiated media buzzword, Glenn Greenwald expresses:
>A 2014 Pew Poll found that Americans feel more negatively toward Muslims than any other religious group in the country.
>There are all sorts of obvious, extreme harms that come from being a nation at permanent war. Your country ends up killing huge numbers of innocent people all over the world. Vast resources are drained away from individuals and programs of social good into the pockets of weapons manufacturers. Core freedoms are inexorably and inevitably eroded — seized — in its name. The groups being targeted are marginalized and demonized in order to maximize fear levels and tolerance for violence.
> But perhaps the worst of all harms is how endless war degrades the culture and populace of the country that perpetrates it. You can’t have a government that has spent decades waging various forms of war against predominantly Muslim countries — bombing seven of them in the last six years alone — and then act surprised when a Muslim 14-year-old triggers vindictive fear and persecution because he makes a clock for school. That’s no more surprising than watching carrots sprout after you plant carrot seeds in fertile ground and then carefully water them. It’s natural and inevitable, not surprising or at all difficult to understand.
Edit 2: I'm literally not condoning the state of affairs in the religious world by pointing out that our nation has (in certain circles) developed especially heightened prejudices to a specific ideology.
This represents my largest issue in supporting Hillary if Bernie does not win the nomination, her tendency to surround herself with industry insiders does not bode well for appointments and enforcement.
Hillary Clinton in 1994:
> I believe that by the year 2000 we will have a single payer system. I don’t think it’s — I don’t even think it’s a close call politically ... it will be such a huge popular issue in the sense of populist issue that even if it’s not successful the first time, it will eventually be.
Hillary Clinton in 2016:
> People who have health emergencies can't wait for us to have a theoretical debate about some better idea that will never, ever come to pass.
What changed? I dunno. Maybe $2.8 million in speaking fees from various corporations in the health industry. Or nearly $15 million in campaign contributions. Or maybe the millions and millions of dollars donated to the Clinton Foundation by Pfizer and P&G and Humana and Blue Cross/Blue Shield.
Let's all say it together: vast right-wing conspiracy.
Lobbying is an interesting proposition.
It's basic premise is actually perfectly okay to me. It's not like the lobbying firms are slipping $20s down some senator's underwear or anything.
Are you an expert in Everything? Do you expect your elected officials to be an expert in Everything, or at least have an expert for any given topic on staff?
No, probably not. (not if you're sane, anyway). That's what lobbyists are -- experts in their fields who's jobs it is to convince government officials that their viewpoint is accurate and reasonable. So the, I dunno, Atlantic Cod Fisherman's Association lobby group would spend time meeting with various politicians talking about how there are factories dumping waste in the oceans affecting the Atlantic Cod catch, and how regulations requiring them to use Xyzver standards compatible fishing line are out of date and should be changed/removed... and how making those changes will add 10,000 jobs to their district.
Experts aren't cheap, DC apartments aren't cheap, those meetings themselves aren't cheap. So yeah, lobbyists spend tons of money but, in theory at least, none of it really goes to the politician's pockets.
That's not to say that none aren't bribing, and that politicians can't otherwise profit from things they learn from lobbyists -- hell, the House of Representatives might as well have said they're guilty of insider trading by telling the courts that they shouldn't be allowed to be investigated for insider trading
So yeah, there isn't anything inherently wrong with lobbying, I think they have a huge PR problem and really should be required to open up their finances like non-profits are, to make sure it's a lot harder for shady things to happen.
YES! He said Palestinians are people and that Saudi Arabians are not saints in the same week.
P.s.: At this point we should change the name of "Saudi Arabia" to -> "ISIS that made it"
P.s.2: Emails Show Hillary Clinton Aides Celebrating F-15 Sales to Saudi Arabia: “Good News”
I would say any time you have personal information belonging to somebody else, you are now acting as a steward of someone's data and you should consider setting up a warrant canary.
One of the subprojects that we want to do with Canarywatch is help define a legal standard for warrant canaries. We have applied for funding for this project in the past but not been successful at finding someone to subsidize getting a technical writer and lawyer to work through this for a few months. If anyone can help us find funding for this please let me know.
There is no such open standard at this point, which makes it difficult for organizations to deploy canaries since they have to essentially reinvent the wheel, and it also makes it difficult for us to main the Canarywatch site since for each canary we add, we need to write custom code to try to scrape the canary and identify changes while minimizing false positives.
In the mean time, The Intercept wrote a piece of free software to automate setting up your own canary that you might want to have a look at.
From a few years ago -
>Records and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse — an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks.
More recently -
>Opinion columns published in California newspapers over the last year in support of the Trans-Pacific Partnership use language nearly identical to drafts written and distributed by public relations professionals who were retained by the Japanese government to build U.S. support for the controversial trade agreement.
>Saudi Arabia has an army of Washington lobbyists to deploy as it tries to stop Congress from passing legislation that could expose the country to litigation over the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
>The kingdom employs a total of eight American firms that perform lobbying, consulting, public relations and legal work.
>Five of the firms work for the Saudi Arabia Embassy, while another two — Podesta Group and BGR Group — have registered to represent the Center for Studies and Media Affairs at the Saudi Royal Court, an arm of the government. PR giant Edelman, meanwhile, is working for the Saudi Arabian General Investment Authority to encourage international investment.
There are so many more examples, it's insane. As someone who graduated with a degree in PR, it makes me sad.
Let us also remember that Hillary Clinton made more money from 12 speeches for big banks than most of us will earn in a lifetime.
Let that sink in. That's the candidate who tries so desperately to "relate" to the middle class. She says her plan for Wall Street reform is "the best" while simultaneously raking in millions to her personal coffers.
Hillary is not - and will never be - like Bernie. Donate to the <strong>REAL</strong> progressive candidate today
>Clinton’s most lucrative year was 2013, right after stepping down as secretary of state. That year, she made $2.3 million for three speeches to Goldman Sachs and individual speeches to Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley, Fidelity Investments, Apollo Management Holdings, UBS, Bank of America, and Golden Tree Asset Managers.
Seriously, guys. She's one of us.
For the time being.
I wonder how long it will be, before a government comes into power in the US, that decides to start curtailing the right to free speech just as current governments have obliterated the right to privacy in communications?
Surveillance states all progress in the same direction: toward ever-greater tyranny. Only total collapse of such a state halts this progression.
Seems it won't be long now.
>The suit calls the torture program a “joint criminal enterprise” and a “war crime” in which the CIA, Mitchell and Jessen colluded and from which Mitchell and Jessen financially profited.
My friend, the keys to cellphone encryption have already been stolen, meaning the NSA and GCHQ can already monitor all communication from your phone. All because of completely illegal breaking-and-entering and blackmail carried about by the governments of the US and UK, mind you...in order to commit further criminal acts with illegal mass wiretapping.
What the United States' Justice Department now wants is backdoor access to the information on everyone's phone that hasn't been communicated in any way...and compelling companies to create/rewrite phone operating system software (and presumably all mobile devices that could be used for telephony, such as iPads, etc) to allow them to access your devices for your information whenever they want, without oversight.
We really are living in the '1984' world that Orwell foretold, where the "Justice Department" is more about circumventing justice than administering it.
And in regard to the entire Bernie Bro bullshit, there was first the Obama Boy...
It would be cutting out the middle man. Trump IS the corporation lobbyists lobby for.
Yes, i know there are other corporate interests (pharma, oil, etc) but electing Trump would be handing the keys over.
This is not a comment about Clinton. I'm not saying she'd be better or worse. I'm just pointing out that if Trump wins, the system won't collapse, it will have come to its logical conclusion.
Neither CNN nor New York Times have a single mention of the word "drone" on their big frontpages today (arguably the biggest whistleblowing story of this year, showing that 90% of the US assassinations targets innocents). Both contain "lamar odom" though, so I guess all is fine.
>A secure password will take longer than the heat death of the universe to guess.
PSA: for the unaware, most pass*words* aren't secure. If you want to be as safe as possible, you need a long, random pass*phrase*. Here are a few article from The Intercept about how to protect your computer, your phone and yourself in general.
Obviously, how secure you want to make your passcode is up to you. As a victim of an illegal search of my computer that cost me a $250 bribe on the Ukrainian border in 2011, my computer and phone are encrypted with secure passcodes and sensitive computer files are kept on an encrypted disk file. Once I memorized the passcodes, it is as easy as before to open my computer or phone. I've just accepted that an extra 1-2 seconds to type in my code is worth my privacy.
And if they even look like they're about to go off the reservation, they "die in a car accident" before they even get the chance, like Scott Gerwehr:
The Intercept: Blowing the Whistle on CIA Torture from Beyond the Grave
Torture & The War on Terror: James Risen Exposes the Whistle-Blower That Wasn't
>Investigative reporter James Risen has spent years exposing the dark underbelly of the War on Terror. And in his latest book, "Pay any Price: Greed, Power and Endless War," Risen tells the troubling story of a man named Scott Gerwehr.
>Gerwehr, a RAND corporation researcher, was essentially given permission to experiment on Iraq and Afghan detainees with behavioral science techniques—techniques that were designed to elicit information.
>Risen says that Gerwehr had intricate knowledge of American detention and torture systems, and the close collaboration between American psychologists and the national security establishment. Gerwehr wanted to come forward as a whistle-blower, but died before he had a chance.
Yep. That's the world we live in, sure enough.
Veteran Deaniac here. Dean and Bernie obviously go way back and have a very public love/hate relationship. It started when Dean was the head of Burlington's Democratic Party at the same time an independent socialist became mayor, and it continued when the Vermont Progressive Party, born from Bernie's mayoral campaigns, were at odds with Dean's fiscal conservatism. Dean and Bernie tended to toss back-handed statements all the time, but usually came together because they both ultimately had common goals, especially in matters of healthcare.
Dean knows better than anyone else that Bernie is going to fight until the end. I may have lost a lot of respect how Dean ever since he became a healthcare industry lobbyist, sigh, but he's still Howard Dean and he hasn't forgotten how his best frenemy rolls. This is a good sign.
No worries, I enjoy it when people learn about what happens in the world around them.
These sort of things still happen to an extent, mostly with "un-named officials" being quoted in the media. Here is an interesting article about that happening with Snowden reporting.
>Western journalists claim that the big lesson they learned from their key role in selling the Iraq War to the public is that it’s hideous, corrupt and often dangerous journalism to give anonymity to government officials to let them propagandize the public, then uncritically accept those anonymously voiced claims as Truth. But they’ve learned no such lesson. That tactic continues to be the staple of how major U.S. and British media outlets “report,” especially in the national security area. And journalists who read such reports continue to treat self-serving decrees by unnamed, unseen officials — laundered through their media — as gospel, no matter how dubious are the claims or factually false is the reporting.
You might also enjoy reading about Operation Mockingbird if you are not already familiar with it - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird
>Operation Mockingbird was a secret campaign by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to influence media. Begun in the 1950s, it was initially organized by Cord Meyer and Allen W. Dulles, and was later led by Frank Wisner after Dulles became the head of the CIA. The organization recruited leading American journalists into a network to help present the CIA's views, and funded some student and cultural organizations, and magazines as fronts. As it developed, it also worked to influence foreign media and political campaigns, in addition to activities by other operating units of the CIA.
Clinton supporters are unaware of her actual record and she tries to hide it.
Absolutely, here is a great example of that at work :
Except our drone program is perfectly fine with killing 200 people to kill 30 or so targets. We already target civilians for the crime of being related to targets. This is basically an extension of what we already do.
We just wouldn't be waiting for them to be standing near a target.
We're talking about one of the most powerful seats in the world here. Of course they would try to stifle momentum and support of one of the biggest social media sites. Look at what Reddit was capable of with SOPA. It has the potential to be a massively disruptive force.
We're not in Kansas anymore guys.
NYT? Really? They're practically a government propaganda mouthpiece (source below). At least Salon still cites their sources and explains their reasoning rather than telling you what to think.
I'm seeing a lot of anti-Salon comments recently, many calling for an outright ban on the site -
Wonder if it's astroturfing since facts and critical thinking are inconvenient for the status quo.
Here's a classic investigative piece only Salon seems to still have a link up for - http://www.salon.com/2002/05/07/students/
If it wasn't for Salon, I'd have no idea about this story. It's long but so very interesting.
It's also interesting that this comment goes from +5 karma 10 minutes in to 0 karma once I posted the Mossad piece. Nope, nothing suspicious there.
Are they investigating the Clinton Foundation/Saudi ties? Now that everybody is talking about the genocide in Yemen do you think that would change the investigation?
Were her speech transcripts in the back-up with the 30,000 emails the feds got? Is that why she won't/can't release them?
> In October 2015, DNC chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., reportedly huddled with dozens of lobbyists to plan the convention in Philadelphia, and provided the influence peddlers involved with a menu of offerings in exchange for donations. In February, news reports revealed that the DNC had quietly lifted the Obama-era ban on federal lobbyist donations to the party and convention committee.
> The Host Committee’s finance chair is Daniel Hilferty. In his day job, Hilferty is CEO of Independence Blue Cross, a health insurance giant that covers nine million people. In December, Hilferty became board chairman of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association of America, a trade group that lobbies for the insurance industry, and he serves on the board of directors of America’s Health Insurance Plan’s (AHIP), the insurance industry lobbying group that spearheaded the campaign against the Affordable Care Act. Lobby registration documents show the BCBS Association is actively supporting a number of Republican bills to roll back provisions of the ACA.
> In an interview conducted late last year, Hilferty said he plans to make “sure to work closely at the congressional level, with the administration, with the Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, to have input” into how the ACA is implemented under the next administration.
Would you like to know more?
(OT) If you are going to link to an article please link to the original article, which is from the The Intercept not Boing Boing.
Much as a love Boing Boing, please reward decent journalism, not just generate hits for other places reposting that content.
/rant (Sorry it's not just you, I see it all the time)
Color me crazy but isn't this whole CNN gate kind of what Bernie has been talking about? In fact, I'm pretty sure he said during the debate the media is part of the problem. ~~Of course, that's been edited out.~~ (Note: This isn't 100% true, please see edits and comments below) Besides, can't we both campaign and hold CNN accountable? I mean, if it were just the polling data, I'd say this is a waste of energy. But, c'mon. We all know this is about more than a couple of online polls. What about the Facebook sponsored ads? The edited debate? The senseless copyright claims against YouTubers (BernieTV) hours after the debate aired? The petty news pieces about Bernie's VA remarks in the debate (another sponsored Facebook ad btw)? It all reeks of some serious fuckery. The dude will not stand for this aggression man!
Edit: While it does appear there are unedited versions available on YouTube, I originally extracted my data from Ellis' Bernie TV video and the following writeup: https://theintercept.com/2015/10/14/cable-news-edits-out-rousing-sanders-attack-on-vapid-media-coverage/
Just going to leave this here for those interested in another view on this.
I'll probably be downvoted because the overwhelming majority of Brazilians on reddit support this impeachment.
no but "Black Americans for a Better Future" is a superPAC that is 100% funded by white dudes.
An article was just written about this actually -
>The agency collects so much communications data from around the world that it often fails to realize what it has. That is why many surveillance experts contend that mass surveillance makes it harder to detect terrorist plots as compared to an approach of targeted surveillance: An agency that collects billions of communications events daily will fail to understand the significance of what it possesses.
"In the Panama leaks it is not the illegality that is shocking but the extent of what they have made legal" - Greenwald
Legal yes; moral, YMMV; fair, no ?
If it was moral why so blinking secret ? Why do the electorate pay tax and suffer austerity when they are don't & aren't.
This is a lie.
We would never have found out about all the freaky illegal shit the NSA has been doing "without encrypted apps." So there's that.
Fun fact: it would be hard to be more wrong about Bernie having Super PAC money.
Bernie has about a million spent by super PACs. National Nurses United, a labor group for nurses and the only significant group to pour money into a Super PAC supporting Sanders, has indeed backed the Vermont senator by spending a little more than $1 million on “independent expenditures,
Looks like 45 million in super pac money for Hillary.. Compared to about 1 for Bernie. Her super PACs just spent 5 million on ADs against Bernie...
Edit: in response to the continued falsehoods, read here. New York times was being disingenuous. This has been debunked by people who have not already endorsed Hillary for president..you can read here.
Further, Hillary Super PACs have collected over 45 million. They are "saving it for the general" because they expected a coronation. Now that it is a race, they are spending 5 million in Ads. Which is 5x what the Nurses Union has spent for Sanders.
I don't get why people don't just link The Intercept article to begin with. They did a much better write-up and as far as I know, the first to break the news until others started copying them.
There's more to it than that.
"CNN’s parent company, Time Warner, is represented on Capitol Hill by Steve Elmendorf, an adviser to Clinton during her 2008 campaign, who is also known as “one of Washington’s top lobbyists.” He’s lobbied on a number of issues important for media companies like CNN, including direct-to-consumer advertising policy.
Elmendorf, according to disclosures, has raised at least $141,815 for Clinton’s 2016 bid for the presidency.
Comcast, the parent company of NBC Universal, which includes cable networks NBC, CNBC, and MSNBC, has a number of lobbyists on retainer who are working to raise cash for the Clinton campaign, including Justin Gray, Alfred Mottur, Ingrid Duran and Catherine Pino."
Looks like at least 4 have polled their members before endorsing her.
Edit: Also this.
Holy shit you're right!
The Intercept: Hillary Clinton’s Top Financial Supporter Now Controls “The Onion”
Onion, you were great while you lasted.
CIA has made public statements that infiltrating or recruiting spies in the DPRK has been extremely difficult. One IC leader called US human intel there a near blackout. That said, The Intercept recently ran this story about a US missionary that had been operating a relatively vast logistical network in the country, helping CIA and NSA move monitoring equipment around the country.
All the talk about how a vote for Sanders is a vote for Trump is proof that we're on Stage 6 of the 7 stages of Establishment Backlash. Just look at the way the media handled Susan Sarandon for daring to not vow her support to Clinton, even though we're not out of the primary yet.
And now with Hillary ramping up her attacks, it looks we're moving on to stage 7. I'm so excited!
Meet Obama Boy.
We need to spread these like wildfire. The corporate media won't report it. It's up to us to get the word out there. I hope TYT, Secular Talk, and/or Thom Hartmann pick this story up.
> It also greatly bothers me that many of the most vocal Bernie supporters are so vocal against Hillary supporters with the name calling and other BS. I know it leans towards the "why can't we all get along" sentiment, but c'mon. If Bernie wants to run as clean a campaign as he can. Why can't we as supporters follow the same guidelines?
FWIW, mostly, we do. The "Bernie Bro" thing is largely a campaign/media affiliate invention to smear Sanders, not a wide-scale problem
When there is a case of someone being a jerk on the internet, it's less to do with the campaign and more to do with the internet, and a safe bet that just as many actual Clinton supporters are doing the same thing. What matters is what the higher profile folks with influence and pull are saying, but you don't hear any of Sanders' higher profile supporters saying insulting things about Clinton.
But today, we heard Bill Clinton saying plenty of irredeemable shit about Sanders.
She is dangerous. Her support of the patriot act and NSA spying is dangerous. Her unapologetic warmongering is dangerous.
Or my personal favorite “Black Americans for a Better Future” which was funded entirely by rich old white dudes.
Eh, the new revelations from the Drone Papers released by the Intercept last week have me very wary of the efficacy of drone attacks. Drone attacks run the risk of becoming the new normal. The info that goes into generating a kill order is sometimes dubious at best and the number of EKIA (anyone but the intended target killed) outweighs the number of jackpots (intended targets killed).
At best, they prevent the further deaths of American troops in highly hostile mountain regions in Afghanistan, which of course I'm all for. At worst, they serve to radicalize individuals previously (begrudgingly) accepting of American occupation, create increasingly volatile environments for locals and kill women and children more often than intended targets.
But, like you said, we'll never know for sure.
damn right. you know what's more important than getting our first female president? universal healthcare, a real commitment to combating climate change, a $15 minimum wage, & paid family leave. o yeah, & A FUNCTIONAL DEMOCRACY. nevermind electing somebody who is actually interested in representing US rather than giving empty lip service & playing dirty tricks.
goddammit. i get so frustrated about older women who support hillary. listen, i know you want to see a woman president before you die, but we're going to have to live with the consequences of this election far longer than you & it's simply not a worthwhile trade off. think of your children & your grandchildren, ffs.
(been out canvassing a lot, needed to blow off that steam. so sick of pundits & what have you being baffled as to why an old white dude might be a better choice for a young female feminist. FREAKING LISTEN TO HIM...THERE'S YOUR ANSWER! THIS ISN'T ROCKET SCIENCE.)
The Intercept posted one of here speaking contracts. She explicitly retains all rights to her speeches. She could release them today if she wished.
While Erdogan is credited with brokering a truce by instigating peace talks in 2013, the hope of stability was recently destroyed when, following Turkey’s decision to join the U.S.-led coalition to fight the Islamic State, Turkish fighter jets pummeled several PKK bases in northern Iraq — an alleged attempt to create an ISIS-free zone for Syrians fleeing the terrorist group. In reality, these actions — either purposefully or accidentally — caused more destruction to the PKK than ISIS, rendering the peace process meaningless, in the eyes of the rebel group, and catapulting Turkey into a two-front war between ISIS and the PKK.
There's a perfect example: the TSA locks on your luggage.
Recently, someone was careless and posted a photo of the keys online. This was enough for some hacker to figure out the shape of the keys and 3d print them. If you have a 3D printer, you can print your own set of keys that will open all TSA-approved locks.
Now, no one's luggage is secure. The locks are worthless. You can't rekey the locks. You can't disable the TSA keys without disabling the lock. And anyone who wants to steal from locked luggage can easily do so, and there's not much you can do to prevent it.
Guess what, the TSA doesn't even care. Their point is that the security of your luggage isn't their concern, national security is. This is what happens when you have government mandated back doors. They want things to be easy for them, they have no concern if that makes things easier for criminals to steal your shit at the same time.
> Most of us are actually stunted by the terrible effects of late-stage capitalism
Tell me about it.
Today's young people are more highly educated, more skilled, more qualified, more flexible, more mobile, more adaptable, and more open-minded than any generation the world has ever seen.
And yet, most of us are treated like disposable cogs, or as living robots, to be used until burnt-out and then discarded.
The number of basic entry-level jobs that require good degrees, 5+ years experience, and 2-3 references is getting out of hand.
I should know: I have a degree and a PhD in a hard STEM subject from a good university, and it barely helps at all in finding a decent job.
Even if you can get a job, the pay will likely be low (lower in real-terms than it has been for a very long time), the job stressful, and your continued employment precarious.
And yet living costs keep going up, to the point that many young people are either delaying or completely abandoning the idea of marriage, starting a family, or owning a home.
And even the distant relief that retirement might bring is being pushed back. Retirement ages keep creeping up, and there's even talk by the ruling elite of moving 'from retirement as an aspiration to lifelong work as an aspiration'.
Previous generations have wrecked the economy and wrecked the environment in the name of ever-more growth, ever-more profit - creating one of the most unequal societies in the history of the world (it's reported that the 62 wealthiest people now own more wealth that the poorest 50% of the world combined).
And now, it's us - their children and grandchildren that have to bear the costs.
It's little wonder that depression, anxiety, and suicide continue to become more and more common.
Ha Ha: Hillary Clinton’s Top Financial Supporter Now Controls “The Onion”
RIP The Onion, once America's Finest Marxist News Source, now officially a propaganda outlet for the Clinton campaign.
$2.9m in speaking fees from financial corporations between 2013-2015
The image bouncing around twitter is from this article
I'm not going to comment on the headline. Reddit is often very harsh on Hillary when it comes to her gender, and I generally don't like to participate in that. But from the interview,
> "My life experiences, what I care about, what I’ve been through just make me perhaps more aware of and responsive to a lot of the family issues that people are struggling with, whether it’s affording child care or looking to get their incomes up because everything is increasing in cost," Clinton told Time.
Does she really want to start talking about her life experiences as an assets when it comes to relating to ordinary people's problems? When she's running against Bernie Sanders? Hillary's been upper class almost all of her life. As I know many of you saw the other day, she's made more in 12 speeches to big banks than most of us do in a lifetime.
I always kind of assumed Hillary thought who she spent time with wouldn't affect her choices as a politician. If not, what's the excuse for having done more than fifty $2700 a plate fundraisers so far this year? What's her excuse for frequently meeting with her biggest donors?
But apparently she recognizes that your life experiences shape your way of thinking, and change what you push for in policy. Seeing who she largely associates with, this troubles me.
>A US airstrike appears to have hit a hospital run by Médecins Sans Frontières in the Afghan city of Kunduz, killing nine staff members and injuring up to 37 people.
Afghanistan... wasn't that one of those two countries where Obama supposedly ended the war? I guess those are friendly peace-bombs then.
That's not what /u/kilsafari is saying, at all. He is saying:
This voter suppression benefitted Clinton, as she won early votes by approximately 60-40 and lost day-of voting by approximately 60-40.
Voter suppression in America should be a front-page story on every media outlet, including detailed journalism on how this could have affected the race and outrage on how this could happen.
The mainstream media is very quiet on this.
Now, combine with the facts that:
Time Warner owns CNN
Disney owns ABC
Comcast owns NBC
These parents companies have collectively donated millions to the Clinton campaign and have hosted fundraisers
So, yes, we are upset it isn't being covered in more detail, and like much of what the media does, their coverage clearly has a Clinton bias.
For example, the Intercept had a great piece on "TV Pundits Praise Hillary Clinton on Air, Fail to Disclose Financial Ties to Her Campaign."
This stuff happens routinely, and nobody is happy about it.
First of all, this article kinda depicts how absurd super PACs are: https://theintercept.com/2016/02/01/top-hillary-clinton-pac-donation-amounts-to-222000-bernie-sanders-donations/
Second of all: Clinton's super PACs/Carey PACs have raised at least $51.3 million at this point. Her campaign has raised at least $112 million. This means that the 90% small donors figure accounts for only 11.6% of Clinton's overall candidacy funds. Again: 90% of Clinton's donors are financially represented by only 11.6% of her candidacy's funds.
Comparatively, Sanders' small money donors are financially represented by 74% of his candidacy funds. 74% to 11.6%. Very stark difference.
All 3 of those parent companies have made large donations in the hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars to the Clinton campaign. Comcast even hosted a fundraiser for her.
So, yes, the largest media companies absolutely want Clinton to win, as shown by campaign contributions.
Bonus journalism from The Intercept:
<em>TV Pundits Praise Hillary Clinton on Air, Fail to Disclose Financial Ties to Her Campaign</em>
Trump is already against this and NAFTA.
Bernie is also against it, and this entire article blatantly shows how the establishment works.
If we elect Clinton, expect an environmental disaster. This is straight from the Sierra Club, we can yell "climate change" all we want, words don't mean shit especially when behind our backs our elected officials do the complete opposite. Not only that but our internet privacy is gone, expect 100% surveillance. So keep bashing Trump, keep labeling him a racist/sexist. Keep doing what the media/establisment wants while big oil/shale/coal/Monsanto fucks up the environment. Bernie/Trump I don't care, just not Clinton however if you idiots are too hung up on stupid words that hurts your feelings especially when you think its more important than the environment you are living in or the air you breathe, well then God help your children.
A real world example of this is when the TSA demanded a universal master key be made for all luggage locks so they could unlock any luggage. Well, the design of the master key leaked, and suddenly everyone could get a copy of the master key made and open anyone else's luggage.
Meanwhile we have DWS opposing marijuana legalization....while having alcohol PACs as one of her largest campaign funders
> The fifth-largest pool of money the congresswoman has collected for her re-election campaign has been from the beer, wine, and liquor industry. The $18,500 came from PACs including Bacardi USA, the National Beer Wholesalers Association, Southern Wine & Spirits, and the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America.
It's a pretty ludicrous idea that people would blame Snowden, as we've been told for years before him that terrorists use encryption and stay off phones and email. Not to mention...
> One key premise here seems to be that prior to the Snowden reporting, The Terrorists helpfully and stupidly used telephones and unencrypted emails to plot, so Western governments were able to track their plotting and disrupt at least large-scale attacks. That would come as a massive surprise to the victims of the attacks of 2002 in Bali, 2004 in Madrid, 2005 in London, 2008 in Mumbai, and April 2013 at the Boston Marathon. How did the multiple perpetrators of those well-coordinated attacks — all of which were carried out prior to Snowden’s June 2013 revelations — hide their communications from detection?
That's from the real source of the story, https://theintercept.com/2015/11/15/exploiting-emotions-about-paris-to-blame-snowden-distract-from-actual-culprits-who-empowered-isis/ I wish we could see more links to the Intercept, the genesis of so many good stories. Pretty unsettling that we don't...
This is an extremely powerful tool that the media uses to push the story they want (mostly, the story that sells) regardless of how vaguely related the news is.
As an example, this is one of the top articles on /r/politics right now.
The headline is "Thanks to Republicans, Nearly a Quarter of Florida's Black Citizens Can't Vote".
Without reading it, the assumption is there. Republicans are intentionally disenfranchising black voters! Voter suppression! Racism! Republicans are terrible people!
This is reinforced by the opening of the story - a personal, emotional appeal of an individual who's had a rough life who now can't vote. The large, bolded text throughout the article says "Among Florida’s black population, the rate of disenfranchisement is high, with nearly a quarter of African-Americans prohibited from voting.", further reinforcing the idea. The picture shows dramatic scenes of an older black men staring off into the distance next to traffic signs saying "STOP" and "DO NOT ENTER".
The story, however, is actually about felons being denied the right to vote. There's no targeting of any race. It is a somewhat unusual policy, with only 2 states having all felony convictions deny the right to vote (in that state only) indefinitely, but it's not a new policy, just one that the current Republican Governor has yet to do anything to change.
Now, imagine I wrote basically the same article, but changed the headline to "New survey reveals that nearly 1/4 of black men in Florida are convicted Felons", it would completely change the feel of the story - despite providing exactly the same information.
That's the power of headlines. It helps to know that, particularly when reading news online. Most people aren't trying to report the news to you - they're trying to make you feel a specific way about it.
The media is doing an excellent job of covering the fact we're allying and supporting a state that sponsors ISIS and other extremist groups. The Intercept just called out the BBC for their cover up of this as well.
The Saudis have openly admitted that they are funding the "Army of Conquest" which consists of terrorist groups like Al-nusra (al-qaeda affiliate). The BBC covered this up.
For those who love sources, the infographic is taken from this article: https://theintercept.com/2016/03/21/women-hate-donald-trump-even-more-than-men-hate-hillary-clinton/
The article uses HuffPost averages (very good), not a single poll. If more in detail, that's the infographic's methodology:
>(Methodology: Results are an average of all polls for the relevant metric listed at HuffPost Pollster, for which polling began February 1 or later and for which cross tabs were available. Net favorability results are an average of the following polls: Morning Consult, February 2-3; PPP, February 2-3; Quinnipiac, February 2-4; Morning Consult, February 10-11; Quinnipiac, February 10-15; Morning Consult, February 15-16; CNN, February 24-27; Morning Consult, February 24-27; Gallup, February 26-March 3; Morning Consult, March 4-6; Economist/YouGov, March 10-12; Gallup, March 9-15. Head to head Clinton vs. Trump matchup results are an average of the following polls: PPP, February 2-3; Quinnipiac, February 2-4; Morning Consult, February 3-7; Ipsos/Reuters, February 6-10; Quinnipiac, February 10-15; Suffolk, February 11-15; Morning Consult, February 15-16; Ipsos/Reuters, February 13-17; Fox, February 15-17; Ipsos/Reuters, February 20-24; CNN, February 24-27; Morning Consult, February 26-27; Rasmussen Reports, February 29-March 1; Ipsos/Reuters, February 27-3; Morning Consult, March 4-6; Ipsos/Reuters, March 5-3/9; Economist/YouGov, 3/10-12.)
"collateral damage" the phrase that can always be used to excuse the slaughter of any number of innocent people through air strikes.
crazy thing is the us/afghan gov'ts can't seem to even agree if it was "collateral damage" or actually on purpose: https://theintercept.com/2015/10/05/the-radically-changing-story-of-the-u-s-airstrike-on-afghan-hospital-from-mistake-to-justification/
Amongst others, they did their absolute best to conceal who bombed it. Nearly every single respectable organization stated it was US in headlines (since that was not ever under dispute), but NYT used every trick in the book to avoid saying it was US in the headline over the course of at least a week.
So Glenn Greenwald was right, again.
April 22: https://theintercept.com/2016/04/22/to-see-the-real-story-in-brazil-look-at-who-is-being-installed-as-president-and-finance-chiefs/
May 11: https://theintercept.com/2016/05/11/brazils-democracy-to-suffer-grievous-blow-today-as-unelectable-corrupt-neoliberal-is-installed/
I guess they rejected his offer to come because he said he wanted and equal playing field for both Israel and Palestine. Too much for AIPAC to swallow, I guess.
Heh another bank that paid Hillary Clinton a few hundred thousand dollars that isn't going to pay their entire fine.
Snowden leaked materials that showed the USA also does extensive industrial espionage.
Jimmy Carter also said the USA is now an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery and the media are apart of it. And strangely enough NO major news outlets reported it.
Check a quick Google.
No CNN. No Fox. No CBS. No ABC. No NBC. They're all in on it.
But he was just head of the most power country in the world. There's no way an ex-president saying the entire system is corrupt would be newsworthy.
Kind of like how ex high-ranking intelligence officers who are all saying the NSA and the rest of the intelligence community are bloated and corrupt and yet somehow... that doesn't get much air time.
Jimmy Carter is definitely becoming one of my favorite politicians. Near the end of his life, he's got nothing to lose, and not hesitating to tell the truth about our government.
Funny thing about Hillary and Isreal -
>LEAKED INTERNAL EMAILS from the powerful Democratic think tank Center for American Progress (CAP) shed light on several public controversies involving the organization, particularly in regard to its positioning on Israel. They reveal the lengths to which the group has gone in order to placate AIPAC and long-time Clinton operative and Israel activist Ann Lewis — including censoring its own writers on the topic of Israel.
>The emails also provide crucial context for understanding CAP’s controversial decision to host an event next week for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. That event, billed by CAP as “A Conversation with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu,” will feature CAP President Neera Tanden and Netanyahu together in a Q&A session as they explore “ways to strengthen the partnership between Israel and the United States.” That a group whose core mission is loyalty to the White House and the Democratic Party would roll out the red carpet for a hostile Obama nemesis is bizarre, for reasons the Huffington Post laid out when it reported on the controversy provoked by CAP’s invitation.
> Don’t get me started on the various conspiracy theories.
How's this for conspiracy?
This investigative piece shows Correct the Record coordinating directly with CNN to falsify an op-ed. I'd say that qualifies.:
>One email describes how Torres was introduced to Daniel Wessel, a press secretary for Correct the Record, by Johnson.
>On the morning before the column was published, Torres sent an email to Correct the Record asking Wessel to send her the “final version.” She sent over Reed’s bio and headshot and wrote, “Let me know if you need anything else.”
>“Attached is a slightly modified version after CNN ran a fact check,” Wessel wrote back. The attached Word document shows a number of revisions through track changes, with multiple Correct the Record staffers providing edits. (The metadata of the document shows that Wessel created the document.)
Clinton also, off the top of my head:
Voted for the Iraq war and continues to press for military intervention around the globe. Was one of Obama's most hawkish advisors that pressed for bombing without regard for civilian casualties in seven different countries. Trump, to his credit, has been very critical of the Iraq War in a Republican primary. You can expect him to crucify her with this if they are both in the general election.
Voted for the Patriot Act, continues to support wanton NSA surveillance, and voted for the NDAA of 2012 which gave the military the power to detain any American citizen indefinitely without charge.
Supports a neoliberal approach to trade, which hurts American workers and relies on the exploitation and debasement of people and the environment abroad.
Consistently just follows the polls on domestic issues from crime legislation to LGBT rights. Like Bill, she simply cannot stand up against popular pressure and shows poor leadership where it often matters most.
Most of all, is also just an incarnation of the greed, corporatism, and plutocracy that is driving this country into the ground. This issue is an emergency, and if we don't make a clear statement now that this government is for everyone then frankly how we feel about any of these other things won't matter. Whether you think Trump is worse or not, it's hard for many people to give a shit when they feel like the whole system is compromised and the distinction doesn't seem that big. Trump, in many ways, is just cutting out the middle man.
I mean, she's just not much of a liberal candidate. You can't be surprised that she only attracts lukewarm support from liberals.
For the record, I will not be voting for Trump.
Here is a great article being buried by BS articles, proving the gov knew about encryption issues before they had any scapegoats (snowden). As quoted in the article, these acts are pretty shameless.
Hmm, the TSA master keys are already known to every criminal:
"NSA-approved" weak crypto would suffer the exact same fate in short order, and thus fail everyone in no time.
The only way to teach the democratic party a lesson to not vote for their candidate, which most people didn't even get to do in the first place thanks to a corrupt system.
>that blacks kill 81% of white homicide victims
Bill Clinton made the same kind of statement, Bill and Hill defended their crime bills on multiple accounts. the Clinton's are undeniably vile racists responsible for "The New Jim Crow".
It's ridiculous to have liberals claim that Trump is a significant racist or fascist when Hillary clinton supports genocide in Israel, and pushed for every savage military action possible against non-english speaking countries. Hillary will also go to war with Iran over literally nothing, which will be on the same scale if not worse than Iraq where over a million people died as a result of the Iraq War.
>Trump said that:
>""The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing >non-competitive."
Hillary Clinton does not have a different point of view on climate change, it's why she's employed by goldman sach's to say things exactly like this but less moronic in speeches.
Every single argument casting Trump as a hitler-esque villain ignores the fact that Hillary Clinton (family friend of trump) believes in virtually everything Trump does, but has actually provably ACTED ON her savage and ignorant beliefs without a single doubt in her mind for her entire career.
>And for those who call Hillary a hawk
This is absurd, you are one unbiased article away from silencing any doubt that hillary is one of the MOST violent warhawks in US politics, and yet you sit here and post this shill garbage instead of educating yourself.
Sorry for your loss, Erica.
Now here are a couple facts:
NRA Lobbyist Co-Hosts Hillary Clinton fundraiser.
In 2008, Hillary Clinton thought Obama was too tough on gun owners.
But, I guess Hillary has "evolved" once again.
I think we just hit stage 7
"STAGE 7: Full-scale and unrestrained meltdown, panic, lashing-out, threats, recriminations, self-important foot-stomping, overt union with the Right, complete fury (I can no longer in good conscience support this party of misfits, terrorist-lovers, communists, and heathens)."
Any journalists/news orgs you prefer to NPR and BBC? They are much better than corporate news, but that isn't saying much.
Ben Swann is pretty good.
Also see The Real News.
DemocracyNow is okay...
The deleted submission has been flagged with the flair (R.2) Editorializing.
As an additional hint, the top comment says the following:
> The OP's title is misleading on two points: his guilty conviction is on a separate issue from whether he carried out the physical act of the murder (in fact, the reporter fails to mention the title of the crime he was convicted of); and there is no proof presented in this news article that he was innocent.
> N.B.: Only commenting in the interest of accuracy and fairness.
This might give you a hint why the mods of /r/todayilearned decided to remove the link in question.
^(It could also be completely unrelated or unhelpful in which case I apologize. I'm still learning.)
I hear you. HRC Board of Directors must have thought before that Bernie wasn't electable in the general election. Things are different, He is now more electable that Hillary.
Bernie Sanders Gets Group Endorsements When Members Decide; Hillary Clinton When Leaders Decide
Why are you linking to the Washington Times instead of directly to the report linked in the article? First of all the Washington Times is absolute garbage journalism. Second of all, the ads loading on that page made it take 30+ seconds to load and I got a pop up from visiting the page.
~~Second of all, h~~ How could we kill terrorists while killing fewer civilians? I'm not crazy about the drone program, either, but the critics of Obama's drone program are hardly the pacifist that I am. They are certainly not against killing terror suspects using limited intelligence. Hell, we've got leading GOP candidates talking about killing the families of suspected terrorists based on the same limited intelligence.
EDIT: Removed the second "second of all" ;)
> Il y a un ordi sous Ubuntu [un logiciel libre, ndlr] , et là ça n’a pas marché
Leçon retenue. Je dépose ça là :
The Seven Stages of Establishment Backlash: Corbyn/Sanders Edition
>STAGE 1: Polite condescension toward what is perceived to be harmless (we think it’s really wonderful that your views are being aired).
>STAGE 2: Light, casual mockery as the self-belief among supporters grows (no, dears, a left-wing extremist will not win, but it’s nice to see you excited).
>STAGE 3: Self-pity and angry etiquette lectures directed at supporters upon realization that they are not performing their duty of meek surrender, flavored with heavy doses of concern trolling (nobody but nobody is as rude and gauche online to journalists as these crusaders, and it’s unfortunately hurting their candidate’s cause!).
In Florida, 9% of the total adult population, 25% of the black population, is ineligible to vote because they are ex-felons. This is the only reason Florida is a "swing state." Republicans are trying to turn these Southern states into near-apartheid states; they are undoing Reconstruction.
And before anyone says, "it's their fault for committing crimes," here's an example of how law enforcement in Florida treats black people.
> and facebook, twitter, etc. to take down unwanted speech
At least we have no problems with tits.
> bring on the downvotes and excuses, you fools
I really try hard not to become anti-american and every time I'm on the verge of succeeding somebody like you (or a GOP candidate) comes along and I'm back at step one.
> you have 0 right to make fun of Americans
Fortunately I need no allowance. I just do it.
> The attack had “further [brought] division to the world,” the group said, boasting that it had polarized society and “eliminated the grayzone,” representing coexistence between religious groups. As a result, it said, Muslims living in the West would soon no longer be welcome in their own societies. Treated with increasing suspicion, distrust and hostility by their fellow citizens as a result of the deadly shooting, Western Muslims would soon be forced to “either apostatize … or they [migrate] to the Islamic State, and thereby escape persecution from the crusader governments and citizens,” the group stated, while threatening of more attacks to come.
Haim Saban, owner of Univision, just bought a 40% stake in the onion with an option to buy it out right in the future.
Guess who Haim Saban is???? Hilary. Clinton's number one doner. I wonder if the Hilary camp doesn't want any satire or comedic reporting to blow up against their candidate.
Speaking this morning on Democracy Now, Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., a CBC member, said she has not endorsed in Democratic primary, and reminded viewers that the CBC “has nothing to do with the” CBC PAC, which is a legally distinct entity.
> If you're being fired upon, circumstances do not permit a warning.
There's a legal requirement for proportionality too.
If you're being fired upon, it would still be illegal to destroy a hospital.
International humanitarian law allows for collateral damage to hospitals if a strike in the vicinity causes destruction that is not excessive compared to the direct military advantages gained by the attack. HRW’s Smith pointed me toward the latest draft of the Pentagon’s Law of War Manual, released in June, which reinforces the necessity of proportionality. It notes that “forces receiving heavy fire from a hospital may exercise their right of self-defense and return fire. Such use of force in self-defense against medical units or facilities must be proportionate. For example, a single enemy rifleman firing from a hospital window would warrant a response against the rifleman only, rather than the destruction of the hospital.” - (source)
> If they weren't being actively fired upon, then it's a bit murkier.
No, that would be straightforward.
So you want to keep the government agency responsible for murdering innocent civilians in order to cover their tracks, while wiping their ass with the constitution by violating the fourth amendment?
The Snowden leaks have shown that the NSA had been involved in industrial espionage for the rich and powerful.
Their purpose is control of plebs like us, not 'national security'.
Their purpose isn't for the benefit of your average American citizen so why should we support it?
Edit - For the uninformed who still believe the NSA actually increases national security - they have been shown to weaken national encryption standards by installing backdoors. This means the NSA has purposefully undermined national security for the sake of being able to spy on you.
Also, I never argued whether or not the CIA or NSA does wetwork.
In the article above, the NSA went rogue by reactivating a nationwide Greek wiretap that was supposed to be turned off after the Athens Olympics without telling the CIA leading to the CIA killing the Vodafone technician who found it and wanted out.
This is cause and effect.
What boxcarboatfest says is classic misdirection. For those who wish to inoculate themselves against JTRIG and propaganda, here's a decent primer.
It's also interesting that right after I post this link, it goes from +8 karma straight to the negatives. Nope nothing suspicious whatsoever.
While I don't have that info, what I can tell you was that there was an immense media blackout in the early months of Bernie's campaign. For instance, headlines featuring Trump outnumbered headlines featuring Bernie 23 to 1.