What does SJW mean to you? Just someone who cares about social issues, or someone who only pretends to care for self-serving purposes? Or something else?
I really dislike that term, but maybe I'm misunderstanding what exactly people mean by it.
238 karma · joined November 7, 2016
I really dislike that term, but maybe I'm misunderstanding what exactly people mean by it.
That Clinton campaign strategy documents comes from, apparently, the Guccifer 2.0 hacks. Glenn Greenwald and Lee Fang contacted Nick Merrill to confirm the document's authenticity, but received no response.
https://theintercept.com/2016/10/09/exclusive-new-email-leak...
"Here is the quote that Leibovich is intending to use from your conversation with him unless we see a problem. I don’t."
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4213
And one of Haberman's stories being sent to Podesta:
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/51561
Here's a Clinton campaign strategy document that mentions Haberman and how she has "teed up many stories for us before and [we] have never been disappointed":
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3125945-Story-Memo.h...
Doing an advanced search on Wikileaks filtering by "nytdirect@nytimes.com" in the sender field, you'll see that the first drafts of nearly 50 different articles were sent to John Podesta:
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/?q=&mfrom=nytdirect%40n...
I don't believe this, but I could make an equally cogent argument for why Clinton supporters are total idiots who voted against their own interests. I mean, are they really so stupid to think that someone who collects enormous checks from bankers and brutal foreign regimes will be on their side? How can they be so stupid to believe Clinton's pandering to Bernie supporters about her change-of-heart on the TPP? How could they be so stupid to support a candidate who cheated over and over again? Don't they realize that she has a private and public position, and that her public position is entirely determined by poll results? What idiot would support a candidate who is running a fraudulent charity? She's under FBI investigation for god's sake! Only a knuckle-dragging buffoon would vote for her!
I could go on and on, but I won't, because I don't actually believe that Clinton voters are stupid. Clinton didn't have that many gung-ho supporters, and the same was true for Trump. On both sides voters had two terrible choices, and they chose the one they thought would do a little less damage.
Not too mention that Maggie Haberman and Mark Liebovich (and probably a few others too that I'm not aware of) can be found in the Podesta emails sending over their articles to the Clinton campaign for review, prior to publication.
Market yourself better! Use buzzwords like "full-stack" instead of "generalist", and don't hesitate to call yourself a software developer (unless you'd rather do management) but emphasize your flexibility, broad experience, and specialist knowledge in other fields.
I really want to visit or live in this beautiful, progressive country. My wife and I live in Cambodia now, but we've talked about spending a year or two in South America. Uruguay is my first choice!
But yes, Bernie supporters are such idiots for not getting behind a deeply corrupt person who would have been rightfully impeached within 6 months, if elected. How could you not love a candidate who runs a fake charity, has ties to child sex trafficking, and cheated throughout the entire process?
Even Obama agrees with me here. He apparently confronted Clinton about it in 2007.
So you used the word "nigger" to describe your distaste for "hip hop culture"? Nice. You sound like a real class act.
I complained recently that political discussions are too easily suppressed on HN, and dang's response was that they inevitably veer into flame wars, and that preemptively flagging political threads is necessary / ok. I hope this thread continues to disprove that, since HN is an important place for political discussion to be happening.
I personally would have liked to see Jill Stein hit 5%, but that looks unlikely.
My hopes are that 1) the media will keep a better eye on Trump (going off the last 8 years, they'll ignore any atrocity as long as it's committed by the blue team), 2) that Trump is not as smart as Clinton, and therefore less able to deceptively achieve his goals and 3) that 4 years of Trump will mobilize Americans to fix their electoral system and seek out real alternatives to the Democrat / Republican duopoly.
And remember! The blame for a Trump presidency lies with none other than Hillary Clinton. She's the one that cheated a popular opponent in the primaries, that strategized to promote Trump during the Republican debates, that infiltrated the media and turned journalists into self-admitted "hacks", and she's the one that interjected herself into the presidential race despite knowing that her "scandals" -- electoral corruption, mishandling of classified information, pay-for-play at the Clinton foundation, Bill's history of child rape, etc. -- all disqualify her as a viable opponent to Trump.