Intercept Greenwald Klein Talk Waffling Full Disclosure

Razer rayzer at riseup.net
Thu Oct 20 18:56:45 PDT 2016



On 10/20/2016 04:12 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

> May be Trump with his love to "drain the swamp", would consider
> all government expenditure as a valid, legitimate target for fully
> detailed, transaction by transaction, publication? 

He'll run the US government just like he runs his businesses.
Intentionally opaque... blacked out.You won't know he's totally fucking
peter-principled and his advisors, like the econ advisor whose a
director for a hedge fund that thinks the fund's benefit is more
important than a retirement accountholder's, will run the show.

Hillary Clinton is even scarier.

The only vote truly worth casting is a 'none of the above' vote leaving
the 'victor' ruling the US government and it's people with 5% or so of
eligible US voters having voted for the winner, and insurrection in the
streets.

It can't come soon enough.

Rr




> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 08:30:44AM -0700, Razer wrote:
>> On 10/19/2016 12:45 PM, grarpamp wrote:
>>> https://theintercept.com/2016/10/19/is-disclosure-of-podestas-emails-a-step-too-far-a-conversation-with-naomi-klein/
>>> youtube-dl https://soundcloud.com/the_intercept/disclosure_glennnaomi_v1
>>>
>>> Some news organizations, including The Intercept, have devoted
>>> substantial resources to reporting on the newsworthy aspects of the
>>> archive of emails of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta that was
>>> published last week by WikiLeaks. Numerous documents from that archive
>>> have shed considerable light on the thought processes and previously
>>> secret behavior of top Clinton campaign aides and often the candidate
>>> herself. While the significance of particular stories has been
>>> debated, there is no denying that many of those disclosures offer a
>>> valuable glimpse into campaign operatives who currently exercise great
>>> political power and who, as of January of next year, are likely to be
>>> among the most powerful officials on the planet.
>>>
>>> Despite her agreement with those propositions, the author and activist
>>> Naomi Klein believes there are serious threats to personal privacy and
>>> other critical political values posed by hacks of this sort,
>>> particularly when accompanied by the indiscriminate publication of
>>> someone’s personal emails.
>>>
>>
>>
>> That's the downside of having power in a corporatist shitstem and it
>> applies to their whore politicians too. Hillary Clinton is a public
>> person in a high profile position. She HAS NO "Personal emails" afaic.
>> Just like a corporate director has to get up at 3 am while in mid-fuck
>> of some prostitute he hired for the night and get on a plane to 'put out
>> a fire' threatening the corporation, someone whose secretary of state or
>> president HAS NO PRIVATE LIFE.
>>
>> Nor should they.
> 
> 
> May be Trump with his love to "drain the swamp", would consider
> all government expenditure as a valid, legitimate target for fully
> detailed, transaction by transaction, publication? Including of course
> direct (government bodies, individuals) and indirect (all private and
> corporate contractors etc) payments. Every expense, every receipt for
> everything - although perhaps excepting payment to prostitutes?
> 


More information about the cypherpunks mailing list