The tech world is in shock after Hillary Clinton's call at this week's debate as to a "Manhattan project for the internet" to defeat encryption; fiery criticism can be heard from all corners of silicon valley and beyond.
2421 2015-12-21 by AssuredlyAThrowAway
In what was perhaps the most egregious policy gaff at Saturday evening's Democratic Presidential Debate, former Senator Hilary Clinton proclaimed the need for a large scale government operation to undermine encryption at all costs. The former senator then explained to a befuddled moderator, "I don't know enough about the technology, Martha, to be able to say what it is".
The response from across the tech world was instant and consisted of mockery-laden comments from the likes of Edward Snowden and Netscape founder Marc Andreessen. With Snowden pointing to the instant alienation of nearly all tech-savvy voters;
Aaaaaaaaand Hillary just terrified everyone with an internet connection.
Displaying a professed wanton ignorance surrounding the importance of privacy rights within the Democratic party, Hilary seemed to double down on her lack of understanding surrounding her voting base with the following perplexing statement;
I would hope that, given the extraordinary capacities that the tech community has and the legitimate needs and questions from law enforcement, that there could be a Manhattan-like project — something that would bring the government and the tech communities together to see they're not adversaries, they've got to be partners.
Ms. Clinton's stance is quite confusing in light of the fervent tone of the discussion surrounding attempts by government agencies to use "back door" technologies to undermine personal security on technological devices.
Perhaps a glaring testament to her age and unwillingness to understand the issues facing contemporary voters, Ms. Clinton was brazen enough to actually acknowledge her own ignorance with regards to the very policy proposal she had just put forth.
This is, perhaps, a fitting tribute to an American political sphere dominated by bought-and-paid-for news coverage; which presents vacuous controversy as the epitome of informed opinion while neglecting the core tenets of a legitimate political order as reflected in the opinions of the polity.
What can be said of a Republic wherein public officials not only do not consider themselves beholden to public opinion, but mock the very nature of democratic participation by encouraging policies directly contrary to the will of the constituency?
What can be said of a country that can do nothing in the face of monopolized television/newspaper interests, which shove candidates down the throat of an unwilling polity ad nasuem?
I am left to wonder how Americans can look themselves in the face in light of current developments without feeling a hopeless, fleeting, sense of uselessness in the face of large scale corporate-political machines. It's one thing to rue the loss of a vibrant democracy, it's another matter entirely when the reverberations of that decay come in the form of brazen public calls for "A Manhattan project for the internet" from the mouth of a self-professed ignorant charlatan.
If these words, proclaimed by Ms. Clinton from on high, do not spell the end of her legitimacy as a candidate in the modern world, then our Republic is dead; and we have killed it.
139 comments
205 Elaus 2015-12-21
I've learned that when people are thieves, they project that onto everyone else. They suspect everyone else has sticky fingers just like they do.
Hillary Clinton has suspicions about people who use encryption? What does that say about her? We can imagine all the shady shit she's done with her private servers.
66 calvinshobbs 2015-12-21
Lots of death surrounds the Clintons. Whether the deaths are or are not the result of being linked to the business/politics of the Clintons I do not know. But I do know that most people do not have as many associates die of suicides, car wrecks, plane crashes, etc, as do the Clintons.
If she understood the technology, she would likely want to keep her records safely encrypted.
26 Manalore 2015-12-21
Well of course under these new plans someone like Hillary wouldn't have to worry about anything. These laws are created to apply to the "common people."
8 [deleted] 2015-12-21
[deleted]
8 one-man-circlejerk 2015-12-21
Because it's about broad strokes. They don't aim to stop individual "terrorists" (however they choose to define that word), in fact the occasional terrorism incident helps add fuel to their fire.
Rather, the big picture with mass surveillance is stopping any threat to the power structure before it can gain critical mass, thus entrenching those who are already at the top of the pyramid, making revolution far less likely.
The knowledge that they're being surveilled also causes self censorship among people, which helps keep society in line with no overt effort.
1 Eureka_sevenfold 2015-12-21
exactly and also a lot of encryption comes from mathematicians
3 killercritters 2015-12-21
I'm interested in this. Is there a source I can read up on this?
1 imightbejen 2015-12-21
Search "Clinton body count." You'll find lots of information to take with a grain of salt, but it is notable how many people surrounding them (especially during Whitewater) wound up dead.
1 calvinshobbs 2015-12-21
Here you go:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/BODIES.php#axzz3v1QNiGIc
-4 errie_tholluxe 2015-12-21
She has people for that. I want people for stuff =\
10 JUSTIN_HERGINA 2015-12-21
Very good points.
7 DenSem 2015-12-21
Like with a cloth or something?
2 ilmmad 2015-12-21
What does that say about the regulars on /r/conspiracy? Because you guys suspect everyone has sticky fingers :P
2 Mahat 2015-12-21
The difference is people are here out of worry. Paranoia comes naturally with that, certainly. When all you can see is the negative, it's hard and furthers that depressive state that seems to accompany uncomfortable fact.
It's easy to be wrong when trapped in that state. I'll take occasionally being wrong while being highly skeptical instead of trying to maintain ignorant bliss. That whole cognitive dissonance thing, hiding from the unhappy truths of our world, that will eventually lead to our downfall. /r/collapse had a great discussion recently on the irish potato famine and how people chose to ignore the unhappy truths about it, the parallels with that where pretty indicative of those sticky fingers regulars here like to keep an eye out for.
1 holocauster-ride 2015-12-21
Which were not encrypted by the way.
1 colombiom 2015-12-21
Seriously this. Jesus Christ people better start waking up to her shady shit and shady proposals that she doesn't even understand. What the fuck lol
82 AvalonBright 2015-12-21
That's our secret, mate. We can't.
28 slightlystartled 2015-12-21
It's not fleeting, it's persistent, and flares up with every new article or news report.
11 Officer_shagnasty 2015-12-21
Lmao I worry for America
27 JUSTIN_HERGINA 2015-12-21
The rest of the world will follow suit.
America is the 'canary in the mineshaft' for the rest of us in the world. And that canary isn't looking too well.....
11 George_Tenet 2015-12-21
Golobalism. Nwo
5 HollywoodMitch 2015-12-21
I appreciate it. Somebody has to, I'm out and about town today, running errands and every person is so wrapped up in Christmas that I'm not sure they would give a shit if they knew.
1 kingcubfan 2015-12-21
Right as the rain finally falling on California.
55 ParanoidFactoid 2015-12-21
You can write.
21 Daftney_Punk 2015-12-21
Writes better than most "professional" articles I've read lately
4 revised_and_updated 2015-12-21
Can't tell if that was a hamfisted allusion to Nietzsche, a complete coincidence, or an excellently executed allusion to Nietzsche at the end of the article.
51 TeChinga 2015-12-21
Hillary is such a bullshitter. She tried to make it sound like she didn't want to break [removed: inscription] encryption, but then she said she wants there to be an "agreement" between security agencies and tech about what to do.
Does she think we're idiots? She obviously wants to just say fuck encryption, but knows she'll get flak for it.
56 BookwormSkates 2015-12-21
Should home lock companies have an "agreement" with the police so they have master keys to our homes and can check in on us any time they want?
14 BourbonAndFrisbee 2015-12-21
That's the most apt comparison I've heard yet. Well said!
11 BookwormSkates 2015-12-21
not my original thought
-16 AutoModerator 2015-12-21
While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
8 HAESisAMyth 2015-12-21
It's called a battering ram... Except there isn't a battering ram to break encryption and they're terrified that they don't have 100% control anymore.
1 Eureka_sevenfold 2015-12-21
well there is some truth in that if you're using High encryption is almost impossible to crack but even the NSA has backdoors in the hardware here's a video talking a little bit about it
3 George_Tenet 2015-12-21
But terrorists!!!\s
1 [deleted] 2015-12-21
[deleted]
1 uberduger 2015-12-21
Isnt that what the TSA have?
"Oh, sure you can lock your suitcase but if we want to steal your valuables, we are cutting your lock off and taking your shit. And you can't do anything about it because we apparently stop terrorism."
3 Sister_Lauren 2015-12-21
Yes, she thinks we are idiots.
1 Telenerd 2015-12-21
inscription...
1 TeChinga 2015-12-21
Whoops lol
1 Telenerd 2015-12-21
Oh well haha. We know what you meant.
-5 DornishMasterPlan 2015-12-21
From what I recall, Bernie said something similar but no one's talking about that.
The only one who was downright against that was O'Malley.
6 TeChinga 2015-12-21
Really? I don't remember that.
8 MeatAndBourbon 2015-12-21
I watched the debate, and I didn't hear it either. O'Malley didn't say anything significantly different than Hillary, and they didn't let Sanders answer that particular question (which is odd, since he does support a free and open internet and it would have been a differentiating factor between them, which I thought is what the debate is about)
7 TeChinga 2015-12-21
That whole debate was just one big Clinton commercial
26 BookwormSkates 2015-12-21
FUCK HILLARY
another donation to sanders.
3 every1wins 2015-12-21
Every time Hillary speaks an angel gets an opportunity for wings.
23 shadowofashadow 2015-12-21
E-Commerce as we know it cannot function without encryption. This is just stupid politicians saying stupid stuff they know nothing about. If they really tried this it would be disastrous for the American tech industry. As well as others. No more company secrets, no more industry knowledge sharing...it would all be up for grabs by the highest bidders.
7 JUSTIN_HERGINA 2015-12-21
Very true, and another point is that if this powerful decryption service/machine is created (already is) then it's a security threat in itself: falls into the 'wrong' hands, used by bad apples etc.
Nothing is perfect, and /u/masterm 's comment is valid in this respect also.
6 Telenerd 2015-12-21
Exactly. People fail to see that these agencies and security contractors already have access to tools that can decrypt almost anything with a certain degree of success. The point is that those clusters are used to decrypt important things, and Hillary and other idiots want there to just be no encryption for the general public. There's no actual security increase from this. People who want to encrypt and obfuscate things will use their own methods to do it anyway.
6 tamrix 2015-12-21
They'll try and license encryption and mandate that the government gets a key to snoop in to protect the people from the terrorists.
Without a license, you're a suspect.
2 SharpTits 2015-12-21
what will keep me from using my own program to encrypt my files on my own? i don't think anyone is worried some of the very strong encryption methods will be broken. if they are, then we can solve np-complete problems. I'm not sure that's gonna happen anytime soon, but, if it did, it might be worth it.
obligatory disclaimer: not defending shillary. just saying, encryption that is available for free now can be used until some serious mathematics breakthroughs occur. and i feel confident hillary can do nothing about that. it's not like she can kill blowfish to get aes to talk.
1 tamrix 2015-12-21
Your average user and most companies would follow these rules because they're scared of being locked up or losing money.
But you're missing the most important part. This could usher in the war on computation.
2 Frankly_George 2015-12-21
You see a bug, our politicians see a feature. Big Business would like nothing more than to roll back the changes that being able to buy online has made in the way people purchase their goods.
4 yougetmytubesamped 2015-12-21
You're kidding, right? Online sales are fucking HUGE and represent a turning point in the economy where we are on the better side of now. There's no going back unless something absolutely cataclysmic happens.
2 Frankly_George 2015-12-21
When major retailers are complaining about showrooming yes, I think they would be overjoyed to turnback the clock.
Remember these are the types of people who though that disposable DVDs were a good idea. They thought installing infectious rootkits on audio cds was a good idea. That making ebooks expire would be a feature.
Think about who we're talking about here. These are not tech saavy people and they don't care what they break so long as they can maintain control.
1 VapingLiterateWolf 2015-12-21
Not only that but imagine the nightmare for the medical industry. Hospitals love encryption to protect patient data as HIPPA requires.
1 swampbear 2015-12-21
Not just e-commerce but MOST commerce except hyperlocal small business. How does she think Wall Street operates or Fortune 500s operate? They're not trading bits of paper or faxing the earnings reports to the other office.
16 BurtMaclin11 2015-12-21
That remark gave me flashbacks to PNAC's call for a catalyzing event such as "a new Pearl Harbor" to justify entering the Middle East again.
9 Horus_Krishna_2 2015-12-21
sheesh I hope she was referring to the manhattan project that made the atomic bomb not the project her pnac pals did in manhattan circa 14 years ago . . .
3 penguinv 2015-12-21
Is this what PNAC is?
10 BurtMaclin11 2015-12-21
I guess that is how they define themselves.
They made the call for a "new Pearl Harbor" in a report titled "Rebuilding America's Defences. Strategy, Forces, and Resources for a New Century", release roughly 1 year before 9/11. It states...
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor"
Source: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
(the report itself)
It is the very first full paragraph on page 51. There is also some context from the paragraph before that, hence the quote starting with "Further".
10 DronePuppet 2015-12-21
Its time to open up government secrets! Stop with all this hiding behind National Security BS!
10 masterm 2015-12-21
Well hold on, this could very well lead to stronger encryption. Cat and mouse is important in security, if we have a big cat we need a faster mouse
7 NonThinkingPeeOn 2015-12-21
what happened was Hillary's handlers talked to her about this operation and how it is ongoing. Being the brain dead tool that she is she couldn't quite articulate the finer nuances of the technology. Also, she wasn't supposed to talk about this until after she became president. It's so hard to find good assets these days.
7 -o-o-o 2015-12-21
George Bush II
-3 Beatle7 2015-12-21
You're protecting Hillary!??
How does it feel being a total fucking tool?
1 malcomte 2015-12-21
5 RMFN 2015-12-21
Nice to see you AATA.
5 theboxmx3 2015-12-21
does anyone have a link to a really well written ELI5 explanation of this and the serious concerns it raises?
people that have absolutely zero technical knowledge really need to understand what is at stake here.
2 malcomte 2015-12-21
Encrypting your data means it transforms your data into apparent nonsense by using math. That math depends on randomness and putting a 'backdoor' into an encryption scheme fundamentally weakens it by significantly compromising the randomness. 'Bad guys' can detect this (well their computers using math) weakness and can easily compromise the robustness of encryption.
It is literally impossible for it to be any other way because of the math. Politicians and cops think that if they say otherwise, it will be, but any scheme they try to institute will eventually be figured out, especially any public project (that would be a huge target in non-sympathetic 'hacking' circles).
4 applextrent 2015-12-21
I hear people from her generation say stupid stuff about the Internet and technology in general all the time, and I live in San Francisco where people are supposedly tech savvy.
This just simply shows how out of touch Hillary is, and alienates her from anyone who understands technology.
What her lack of technology understanding tells me is she doesn't even understand what technology is capable of. She won't be able to use tech to solve problems because it's foreign to her, and that's a huge problem.
If she's elected she's only going to serve the rich Baby Boomer elite, because she's too out of touch to even understand Millennials or anyone under the age of 45. She's just old and saying things she doesn't understand.
4 asmosdeus 2015-12-21
Ugh. Hillary is the Trump of democrats, but even worse.
She can do no wrong because she has a vagina, at least in the eyes of her worshippers.
4 TooterMcgavin716 2015-12-21
This is the exact opposite of what we need. We need a Manhattan project to develop unbreakable encryptions. There was a story this week about how vulnerable our electric grid is to hacking. This is a much bigger threat than a crazy lone wolf with a AR-15 could ever be.
3 errie_tholluxe 2015-12-21
If these words, proclaimed by Ms. Clinton from on high, do not spell the end of her legitimacy as a candidate in the modern world, then our Republic is dead; and we have killed it
Problem is , most people will never see / hear about this. debate on a crappy night, news people not reporting.. its horrid.
3 [deleted] 2015-12-21
"We need to ban encryption," she said "But not for the FBI documents."
3 HollywoodMitch 2015-12-21
Very well put, I appreciate you taking the time to do this.
3 kingofcrob 2015-12-21
Are people really surprised about this insanity coming from a Clinton
3 Cloughtower 2015-12-21
Beautiful and succinct. Posts like this one keep me subscribed.
We have absolutely terrible candidates for next year's election. I'm not old enough to know if this is abnormal or not.
We can choose between a Bush, a Clinton, a socialist, or Trump.
I feel crazy to say that I support Trump. There's so much hate for supporters of any of them, and most people don't care enough to be alienated from social circles because of who they support. A more divided country with less political participation. Awesome.
2 happiness_isawarmgun 2015-12-21
Don't feel crazy. Make your own opinions, watch the history channel documentary about his life from a relatively non biased point of view. I've been doing this for a long time and, shockingly enough, I have to say I think he's for real. The man owns skyscrapers and a fleet of jets, he has everything he could ever want except a legacy.
http://www.history.com/shows/the-making-of-trump/videos
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions
2 Cloughtower 2015-12-21
I appreciate that!
I like him as a businessman and a person. As far as the leader of our country? I'm not sure...
He's certainly better than the opposition.
0 happiness_isawarmgun 2015-12-21
Here watch a few minutes of this. He's really a great leader and a smart guy, he has an ivy league degree, raised a classy, non degenerate family. Name one thing that's really bad about him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rksd80-FCAw
3 Sumner67 2015-12-21
well people have been warning the country that this is the "endgame" times by "the Establishment". For decades ever since Kennedy's assassination (he stood against them and paid for it), politicians on both sides have been quietly and slowly building up a dictatorship in the shadows. No 2 party system, just 1 party that has worked hard to keep the people at each other's throats so they don't focus on what's been really going on in DC.
Now with the current administration we've seen them come out of the shadows and blatantly attack the constitution and the freedoms of the people because they no longer fear any repercussions. We put another "establishment" puppet into office for the next term and we're fucked as a nation.
3 Toaster1388 2015-12-21
When all the controversy came out about her emails, the thing that bothered me the most was thinking about how all my private emails are accessible to the government when they want to read them. While on the flip side, her emails which are supposed to eventually be public, were kept on a private server and wiped when things got hairy.
1 ItsAJackOff 2015-12-21
And god forbid you should bring that up to your average informed liberal (informed bastardized into meaning having watched msnbc and read up on the democraticunderground).
its old news
Old news it may be, pertinence is not necessarily bound to age.
1 malcomte 2015-12-21
She, or technically her server, is still being investigated by the FBI.
3 WhereIsMyVC 2015-12-21
There already is such a "Manhattan Project" to end encryption.
It is called Bitcoin.
You have millions of computers solving complex equations, and no one has any idea what those equations are for. The similarities to the actual Manhattan Project are striking; there were thousands of scientists and mathematicians who were just handed equations, solved them and passed them back up the chain with no clue they part of the development of the atom bomb.
When all of the bitcoins are mined, all encryption will basically be solved. Maybe people will devise new encryption methods, but existing systems will be totally compromised.
Someone is sure to respond to me here that no no no I'm crazy, Bitcoin equations are meaningless. That's what lots of people say. But none of those people have phds in mathematics and encryption, so they're just repeating the propaganda.
Even if Bitcoin isn't some massively distributed NSA encryption breaker, it is exactly what such a project would look like. It doesn't cost the government anything, the government can't really be held liable for its use, the incentive for private persons to use it is built right into itself. Yes, if I were to design a Manhattan Project for encryption, it would look exactly like bitcoin.
Adding that Hillary now calling for such a Manhattan Project works as a limited hangout disinfo. It makes us think that such a project isn't already underway.
2 creq 2015-12-21
I'm totally confused by what you're saying. Those pools are processing transactions and by doing so mining bitcoins. Not sure what you think they're doing but if it was really nothing no one would be doing it. It's working just as advertised and all transaction are recorded in something called the block chain. It's a completely honest system.
Well, okay here's the funny thing. What it has done is put an enormous bounty on breaking the encryption the network is using. Anyone able to do so could make themselves wildly wealthy, but so far no one's been able to do it :)
1 thrhooawayyfoe 2015-12-21
this is the kind of thinking we're here for. thank you for this brother I fucking love it; you made my day
2 OswaldWasAFag 2015-12-21
false flag attack against select internet hubs?
2 SixVISix 2015-12-21
None of this outrage matters if they don't fucking vote.
8 nakedtime313 2015-12-21
Lol@voting
2 1337Gandalf 2015-12-21
0 gombo223 2015-12-21
There is only one way to stop them.
2 EnglishIndividual 2015-12-21
You can be sure that such a project would already exist before it was anounced to the public.
1 spacemoses 2015-12-21
Except, you know, when every major corporation in the U.S. Needs to implement those new 'encryption' standards.
2 malcomte 2015-12-21
SSL is already broken by the NSA.
2 Alcorr 2015-12-21
A lot more than SSL.
They have backdoors on every new intel die, most encryption is useless regardless of which ones you are using because both ends are already compromised if you are using a machine made in the past few years and onwards.
2 DronePuppet 2015-12-21
Too funny because she knows absolutely nothing about "wiping a server" before handing it over to the DOJ or FBI.
2 Eat_The_Muffin 2015-12-21
Hillary got stumped
2 Xtorting 2015-12-21
Defeating encryption would leave more vulnerabilities then ever before.
2 [deleted] 2015-12-21
Well, it's official. She's a blathering idiot.
2 1337Gandalf 2015-12-21
Annnnd Hillary has lost her campaign.
1 malcomte 2015-12-21
There are still going to be more people over 45 voting for her without understanding how terrible this answer is. They don't understand encryption, "Manhattan project" with the "brillant tech" is good enough for them.
1 1337Gandalf 2015-12-21
I was actually talking to my mom whos turning 45 in a few days, and knows absolutely NOTHING about encryption, and she understood that it's nessacary to keep amazon orders and whatnot secure, so I'm hopefull the majority will see through this shit.
2 Nick246 2015-12-21
I hope this allows more people to feel the Burn 2016
2 duckspeak84 2015-12-21
Days after thousands of people reading, cross posting, and sharing content related to an encryption based INTERNET VOTING concept, hillary then goes on to request a "Manhattan-like project” to break encryption. You can't write this stuff. Check out some of the posts.
2 Frankly_George 2015-12-21
The problem is it's too late to fix the republic but too early to just shoot the bastards without getting funny looks from our neighbors. Not to worry though sooner than later the lack of ability to effect peaceful revolution will inevitably result in violent revolution taking place. Just ask the French Aristocracy...
2 PolishHypocrisy 2015-12-21
"I am left to wonder how Americans can look themselves in the face in light of current developments without feeling a hopeless, fleeting, sense of uselessness in the face of large scale corporate-political machines."
Easy , you learn to care ALOT less , I sure have. In the end , their going to do what they want , no matter what you OR the people want , it's just that simple , look at them sneaking shit in with NASA stuff. Their flat out evil , nothing CAN be done even if you want it to be done. People like to pretend we have this illusion of free choice/will , we don't , as Carlin said "THEY OWN YOU"
2 Joshthathipsterkid 2015-12-21
And liberals that champion free internet will vote for her anyways, I don't get it she's bulletproof and slippier than Teflon. I don't want to hear well she's not a Republican. There's no excuse to vote for this conniving woman with a trail of bodies and scandals in her wake.
2 omenofdread 2015-12-21
So she's saying that we need a massive compartmentalized project to eliminate the private communications of individuals that the public will only find out about after it has completed its objective?
1 Lonecrow66 2015-12-21
She's toast now
2 thinkB4Uact 2015-12-21
That's only if the information propagates. Watch the media ignore it.
1 AlvinGT3RS 2015-12-21
Defeat encryption .. What the actual fuck..
1 nimbusfool 2015-12-21
brb encrypting all the drives that still need it
1 transfire 2015-12-21
Defeat Privacy in 2016!
1 KingClam2 2015-12-21
ad nauseam*
1 koji8123 2015-12-21
This is it. If Clinton or Trump take office I swear there will be an assassination or WWIII
1 kingcubfan 2015-12-21
Isn't she just trying to cover her ass for getting busted in the first place, but it totally just backfired on her?
1 jonasthewicked 2015-12-21
"Welcome to 1984, are ya ready for the Third World War" - Dead Kennedys
1 AlexBirio323 2015-12-21
She's got more than emails to worry about
1 kiwisdontbounce 2015-12-21
This is great for Sanders.
1 squishles 2015-12-21
so... like 1-5%
1 jacks1000 2015-12-21
+1
1 TR0LL_T0LL 2015-12-21
This fucking bitch is poison
1 RyanBlack 2015-12-21
All of these proposals for internet "security" and decryption are from old-people like Clinton and Trump who have no idea how the internet actually works. Sick of the elderly commanding the young. Its our planet now, you've had your time, fuck off.
1 BLANkals 2015-12-21
If people do not take an interest in their own future then yes. At the end of it all we have no one to blame but ourselves. The information is there, it is your civic duty to be informed. Most people are derelict in this duty.
1 elnino550 2015-12-21
I use encrypted internet messaging as i do not want people like her reading my personal messages
1 dinkblagger 2015-12-21
"Silicon valley", the Congress of the Internet and all things computer.
1 Bacore 2015-12-21
Why don't they just put us all under the jails and prisons so they could project us all the time?
They could cut off all contact with the big, bad, outside world and we'll all be safe as convicts in solitary.
Exactly like convicts in solidity.
Speaking of convicts, what ever happened to Hill's emails and private server problems? No arrests yet?
1 Romek_himself 2015-12-21
and all this started with "war on terror" ... what a money waste
1 ChangeTip_SquatcH 2015-12-21
BERNIE, now has the support of the metal workers if he can gain the support of the pba "police" it will be game over! no more drug war, actual equality... people getting along and shit.
1 Quantumhead 2015-12-21
Fucking scary.
It is exactly statements like this which make it so fundamentally obvious that the system is not representing us as a people. Is it the voting majority who want her to launch a "Manhattan Project" against internet encryption? Or is it her private campaign backers?
I think we all know.
-5 Horus_Krishna_2 2015-12-21
you can vote for her . . . or one of the republicans who all also support NSA spying.
3 nakedtime313 2015-12-21
Um , rand?
3 Horus_Krishna_2 2015-12-21
not sure I believe him he sells out too much.
tho I would say he is best repub to vote for, but like Bernie, it's unlikely GOP let's him run.
1 1337Gandalf 2015-12-21
He's beholden to the Kochs...
3 1337Gandalf 2015-12-21
Or vote for Sanders, the only non-shill on the stage...
-2 Ephingahol 2015-12-21
Ted Cruz...
1 Ephingahol 2015-12-21
Could you people at least do some research before knee-jerk downvoting? Didn't say I support the guy, jesus.
-8 OFF_THE_DEEP_END 2015-12-21
/r/titlegore
10 AssuredlyAThrowAway 2015-12-21
Hello reader,
We at "Assuredly A News Agency" strive to provide high quality content and we apologize for our failure to use a title acceptable to your tastes.
We hope our future content will serve to better represent your interests and syntactical precision.
Regards,
The editorial team of a non existent news agency
4 OFF_THE_DEEP_END 2015-12-21
It's not a bad title. I read a few times and it made sense.
2 AssuredlyAThrowAway 2015-12-21
I thought I spelled "fiery" wrong the first few times I read it tbh. I linguistically-cheat by using semicolons to allow fragments to stand alone in titles as well, so I don't fault you for finding it odd to read.
Anyway, just messing around with these articles as it is; mostly mocking the tone of regular press outlets while driving an uncorrupt/non payola-fueled narrative.
0 gombo223 2015-12-21
There is only one way to stop them.
2 happiness_isawarmgun 2015-12-21
Don't feel crazy. Make your own opinions, watch the history channel documentary about his life from a relatively non biased point of view. I've been doing this for a long time and, shockingly enough, I have to say I think he's for real. The man owns skyscrapers and a fleet of jets, he has everything he could ever want except a legacy.
http://www.history.com/shows/the-making-of-trump/videos
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions