Which president will be worse for privacy Sup Forums?

Which president will be worse for privacy Sup Forums?

We all know that both Clinton and Trump are both NSA shill.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis
google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.fec.gov/rad/candidates/documents/CanGuide91013-104.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiBxKnJ_bHNAhXB6x4KHaU6DRcQFggbMAA&usg=AFQjCNHTr_5XgZpqDdlSdFHne_lmRUqC8g&sig2=MOS9cpgw_fu2p-GZZmsv7Q
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Trump will be worse for privacy worldwide.
Hillary will be worse for American's privacy.

Anyone who says otherwise is uninformed, shitposting, or a shill.

Please be bait.

Clinton is the worst in all aspects.

Trump can't be bought and will use the office to wipe out his business rivals.

Hilary can be bought.

Clinton. She doesn't even care about her own privacy.

Which are you?

everyone can be bought, you just need to find out what it is they want. trump doesnt need money but there is always something

What could a man like trump possibly want.

Hair

power. but the thing is even if he is potus he wont get to do any of the things he wants except maybe gun laws as he wants the same as the nra mostly. his wall, banning muslims, etc. just aint gonna happen.

this is what i dont understand about it all. anyone can say random shit like he is doing but that doesnt mean you can do it. hell obama could even get gitmo closed, how the hell do people thinking trump will get mexico to build a wall or ban a nation that literally does trillion dollar business with the US?

i mean COULDNT close gitmo.

Between crooked hillary or the Teflon Don I think you are both fucked but hillary will be better for technology general due to forcing the smart guns.

Clinton had her own email server, trump claimed to not use email when he was trying to sue someone who building a casino where he wanted to build one.

I'm voting for trump because when it comes to privacy and technology, he's the lesser evil. Gary Johnson isn't going to win, I don't want government tyranny replaced with unregulated corporate tyranny.

At least with trump libcucks won't lock up my guns every time some insane chucklefuck decided to go shoot up a bunch of people.

It's hard. Trump strikes me more as someone who goes "muh terrorism, let's get rid of encryption and let's make surveillance mandatory for all citizens". To which other politicians, while fully agreeing with him of course, will still go, "nah Trump, that's to much" and nothing will really come of it, like a lot of his politics will, Eyy!

I think he's certainly the more aggressive one against privacy, but Hillary has the sneakiness to get more shit through I could imagine. She well be more of an Obama who will slowly and slowly try to let slip things through. Trump will argue for more dangerous stuff, but I think Hillary might get more things done in the end.

Either way, America is totally royally fucked no matter which one you vote for.

Power. Powerful people always want more power and control.

His attitude towards can be read through these lenses. He has no need for money, prestige, or friends. He's willing to burn bridges to achieve control and power. Making him a very dangerous president if elected, regardless of his actual policies, they will all be geared toward these points.

>implying it matters who you vote for

Both are terrible. Trump also hates the internet. Hillary will be bought out by cable companies easily

Trump has been bought before and even recently

But dems still have their FCC guy, who's doing somethings.

Well considering hillary is a globalist I imagine she would be more productive surveillance. Trump is also a ziocuck but at least from what I've heard he's anti globalist. I'll take Trump

Immortality

probably doesn't matter much. Sanders would be best for the internet, but some people really don't like him.

>people think Trump could possibly win

Ofcourse. The republicans see somewhat similar picture, but they want corporates to gain control instead of people. Its fucking weird. Trump is literally the definition of corporatism. Yet they believe he stands for common people.

Do you really think Trump-sama would sell our souls?

Trump is pro-freedumb while clinton is pro-NSA police state botnet.

Trump's run is over says increasingly nervous man for the 14th time this week

Import wives

Hillary will be far worse. Not only will she expand what companies can collect, she will create laws forcing backdoors thus weakening overall security. Look at her personal server: a fucking VNC console connected directly to the internet, no firewall, no NAT, nothing.

At least Trump has the sense not to mess with things he doesn't understand.

>Trump is pro-freedumb
Are we telling jokes here?

>At least Trump has the sense not to mess with things he doesn't understand.

Isn't that like his whole thing? Making some outlandish statement on a thing he has no real knowledge about then just sort of ignoring or backtracking on it?

Trump has said that he thinks what the NSA are doing is crazy, but is a situational liar and could change his mind or not even bother.
Clinton censored search results of her on google and pussy foots around every NSA related question.
Pick your poison, burgerland.

Fairly certain both have said straight out they support NSA and surveillance and on some level wants backdoors.

It's funny how Bernie doesn't seem THAT bad anymore when the alternative is Hillary. Shame he's a socialist cuck and all.

In the case of the NSA all you have to do is convince Trump that they're projecting pictures of his balls on big screens and laughing.

>Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson says he'd sign an executive order eliminating America's National Security Agency if he wins the 2016 election. And he's also forcefully arguing that domestic surveillance of internet activity and phone calls in the United States is worse than in China. Johnson took issue with an interviewer at The Daily Beast who pointed out that China monitors political dissidents, saying "What do you call the NSA and the satellites that are trained on us and the fact that 110 million Verizon users are having everything we do on our cell phones being data-collected?"

Johnson also wants to abolish the Internal Revenue Service, replacing both income taxes and corporate taxes with a single federal consumption tax, and says he'd be willing to sign legislation eliminating the Department of Education, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Department of Commerce, which he says fuels "crony capitalism". "I'll sign legislation to eliminate any federal agency that they present me with."

Johnson has also said that if he were elected President, he'd pardon Edward Snowden.


>Shame he's a socialist cuck and all.
Democratic Socialist != Socialist
He's in support of programs much like those in the early 1900s. i.e. 40 hour work week, reasonable pay, etc

To everyone assuming Democratic Socialism is bad, research American history. Capitalism has already proven what a shitshow it can be unregulated.

>intelligent and rational people in post industrial oval office
Never gon' happen.

It's trump going to take our anime away?

Yes, and it serves you right for not making America great again, by not jacking off to Bugs Bunny cartoons.

Yes, Clinton will let you do it, but watch and record it, going on your personal NSA file. Dont get van'd user.

...

Nigga I'm Swedish, I know first hand the horrors of social democracy. For every positive there is a huge looming negative.

Free higher education=highest student loans in Europe, possibly the world
Free healthcare=Understaffed hospitals and Underpaid under performing workers
Public housing=No housing
Social Welfare=Huge taxes and budget cuts
Social Corporatism=No Corporations

And so on.

>the woman who is funded by all the international banksters, muslims, soros, crooks, ISPs, media outlets, the one who has their search results altered by google, scandals buried by the media, and stories altered by reddit, etc.

>or the guy who is self funded and hated by all of them

gee i wonder

To be fair. What does that have to do with their stance on privacy?

I mean Trump himself have have been pretty damn anti-privacy so far.

>unregulated corporate tyranny
that is exactly what you are going to get with Trump.
spot on.
>> At least Trump has the sense not to mess with things he doesn't understand.
>what are politics

who wants anti-privacy? thats right, the people who control hillary. hillary is an actor performing for her masters. under her, its a guarantee you have no privacy. under trump, at least theres a chance since he is his own man.

Lolbergs want the government to be so minimal that its a puppet to powerful megacorps, not trump.

I mean. Fair enough but that doesn't change Trumps stance. They are both anti-privacy.

How it would pan out in the US with a Democratic-Socialist president:

Free Higher Education - never (unless it's amended to only apply to degrees in need)
Free Healthcare - Let's be honest, there are too many poor Republicans for the country to be able to afford this. The good news is they'll all vote against it.
Public housing - Would never happen in the US
Social Welfare - We have this as well although it is on a limited basis and is primarily used by those whose companies don't pay them adequately. The actual "welfare kings" are corporations that get tax breaks for doing business in certain areas.
Social Corporatism - Never in the US

Bernie isn't the first socialist-leaning candidate. FDR was. Eisenhower was. Nixon enacted tons of socialist-leaning laws/regulations.

>Lolbergs want the government to be so minimal that its a puppet to powerful megacorps
So. He wants keep the status quo you mean?

Trump absolutely craves attention, and he doesn't care whether it's good or bad. Someone like that will never be their own man.

ITT: Not a single source for any of these claims.

You don't know how to google?

>Free Higher Education
I think some states or country was testing that in a different way. Basically give them free higher education, however when they work, portion of their money gets taken out until fully repaid.

>Public Housing for homeless
This could reduce the money spend on prison/jail and keep the homeless out of the cold. Two way street that works but the initial investment is something people don't want to pay. Need a smarter city that can plan ahead to implement these features.

>Social welfare
America doesn't have smart politicians to do this properly, whatever system there is would be a disaster. Only way it will be done is through a huge collapse of economy, like the 20s' social security.


Still though, a single biggest thing that could change the US population's outlook is increase of unions.

Do you?

I'm fairly adept at it.

>Trump can't be bought
But he's already doing deals with Sheldon Adelson for campaign financing.

Clinton is like a taxi cab driver in NYC. Guaranteed to be shitty and rip you off but you'll most likely get to your destination.

Trump is like a brand new Uber driver with no reviews but has a nice profile. Could be the best ride of your life or you could end up dead in an alley.

Then you should be able to provide sources, google isnt one.

>I'm voting for trump because when it comes to privacy and technology, he's the lesser evil. Gary Johnson isn't going to win
If you're voting for the lesser of two evils, you're still voting for evil. Vote for who you agree with, not who you think might win. If everyone wastes their votes on Gary Johnson together, he'll win.

I'm far to lazy to do that.

bu- bu- but trump is self-financed!

>I wonder why he's loaning himself all that money, and why his normal contribution amount is so low...

>like the 20s' social security.
Social security had nothing to do with stock prices plummeting. Based on the cycle of the economy we can expect this to occur every 90 years.

>a single biggest thing that could change the US population's outlook is increase of unions.
Eh, there's a balance that has to be struck with unions. They can strongarm small business just as much as they help employees.

>"He is rich therefore he can't be bought"

It's pointleas to vote for someone who's not going to win.
>but if le everyone would vote vor...
Fuck off

Normal sized hands

So instead you vote for a candidate that goes against something you believe in?

Your values equal that of Moot.

Not him but if Trump isn't that much better than Clinton that means Clinton isn't that much worse than Trump. If Clinton gets elected not much will change but a Gary Johnson presidency will make things infinitely better.

>I don't want government tyranny replaced with unregulated corporate tyranny.
At least this guy gets it. Unaccountable power is worse than an even mildly accountable power.

Something happened in 73 that changed the course of US economy.

>Trump will be worse for privacy worldwide.
>Hillary will be worse for American's privacy.
Shillary is pro ttip and tpp, afaik Trump has spoken against them

Honestly from his speeches, it's pretty clear he loves America. He's tired of govt incompetency and wants to take control of the wheel to MAGA.

Not saying that he's capable of doing that nor the best person to try it but at least I think we can say he's genuine.

Doesn't matter.

If you're using social networks and free internet services, your internet privacy is mostly likely already long gone.

As for your local data, as long as you don't install anything stupid in your PC and keep your drives encrypted, there's nothing the government can do.

NSA is the least of my concerns when it comes to the candidates.

Self funds go into the same category as candidate loans

Nixon gambit. Freezing wages and prices. Obviously a failed policy.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis

That was the major catalyst for bringing in all the Neoliberal policies that caused wages to lag behind productivity so much (privatisation, deregulation, trade liberalisation, destruction of unions, tax cuts for the rich, end of capital controls etc.).

It seems to me he focuses to much on some issues I.E, LET'S BUILD A WALL DUDES! and to little on other areas to the point where he himself doesn't even know where he stands and just goes along or against stuff seemingly at random.

Are you sure? Are you sure they don't go under 'Candidate contributions'?

>as long as you don't install anything stupid in your PC and keep your drives encrypted, there's nothing the government can do

If you still want that then the NSA should be of your concerns. Backdoors are troublesome enough as it is. Soon there won't even be any point in encrypting stuff if the NSA gets their way.

google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.fec.gov/rad/candidates/documents/CanGuide91013-104.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiBxKnJ_bHNAhXB6x4KHaU6DRcQFggbMAA&usg=AFQjCNHTr_5XgZpqDdlSdFHne_lmRUqC8g&sig2=MOS9cpgw_fu2p-GZZmsv7Q

Privacy is going down the shitter either way, but Clinton is basically South America tier as far as being transparently corrupt goes.

A lot of people here are probably too young to remember when she kept hundreds of her political enemies' FBI files in the White House for a few years, or how her lacky was caught smuggling secret documents literally jammed down his pants.

Trump will literally wall off beaners and muslims, but Hillary will likely use every ounce of power available (legal or otherwise) to further empower herself and punish her enemies and critics.

Better hope you haven't been too critical of her on the interwebs, ever, or you might just find your future a less pleasant existence.

That was the GOP nomination you twat, do you really think Hillary would lose
Worse comes to worse the results will be fabricated

>too little on other areas to the point where he himself doesn't even know where he stands and just goes along or against stuff seemingly at random

Genuinely curious but do you have an example? Sure, I totally get that he flip-flops a lot but I think he flip flops on the things that really don't matter except to the PC police (i.e. transgendered bathrooms, gay marriage, etc.). His general stance on these social issues is leave it to the states.

That doesn't prove your claim at all.

Yes it does

>Trump will literally wall off beaners and muslims, but Hillary will likely use every ounce of power available (legal or otherwise) to further empower herself and punish her enemies and critics.

That's a good point. If Trump wins nothing will really happen. He's too wacky and extreme for a lot of his stuff to ever go anywhere. He's not a medieval king, a president is more just a figure head that slightly stear the country in certain directions. While if Hillary wins she might actually do smaller stuff that while it looks small at first, will end up having big consequences down the line.

Oh sorry, I thought you'd actually read it. Seems like you didn't.

That's for reporting TO the FEC. Not getting information FROM the FEC. It also says that contributions and loans are handled differently.

ie. You're wrong.

Well. He whole abortion issue springs to mind.

...

Again, Trump probably thinks that abortion either way doesn't really matter when it comes to improving the government. The poor are going to have kids either way if we subsidize it.

Funny how everyone bought into the Bernie memes created by HRC shills even here on Sup Forums

>The poor are going to have kids either way if we subsidize it.
Abortion is cheaper. Economically it makes sense to allow it.

>Again, Trump probably thinks that abortion either way doesn't really matter when it comes to improving the government.

He would be right if that was the case

I'm sorry words confuse you. Especially the words 'loan' and 'contribution'

People were afraid that Sanders was going to raise their taxes. You can't really win on a "I'm going to raise taxes" platform. It doesn't matter if there will be long term savings because people don't think long term.

Everyone knows that Hillary is corrupt as fuck, but they don't care because she's the status quo candidate. People who are happy with the way things are are voting for Hillary.

Interestingly it may well be that the Democrats are becoming the "conservative" party and Republicans are becoming something else altogether.

It's a long shot for Trump because by trying to shift the GOP platform, he's alienated millions of old voters who simply want traditional GOP values. When Trump spouts off crazy shit, these old people literally can't wrap their minds around it.

Lol, you still haven't proved me wrong.

What are the odds that Hilary paid Trump to act like a retard so she'll get those votes?