Slashdot Mirror
Anonymous Goes After Donald Trump
HughPickens.com writes: CBS reports that hot on the heels of its campaign against ISIS, the shadowy hackers' collective known as Anonymous is going after a new target: Donald Trump. The latest Anonymous operation — #OpTrump — was announced in a YouTube video featuring a masked activist claiming to speak for the group. In a computer-generated voice, he takes aim at Trump's proposed ban on Muslims entering the United States, claiming "This is what ISIS wants." He goes on to say that "the more the United States appears to be targeting Muslims, not just radical Muslims," the more ISIS will be able to recruit sympathizers. The video concludes with Anonymous' now-familiar threat: "You have been warned, Mr. Donald Trump. We are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do not forgive. Expect us."
After a video message was posted, the website of Trump Tower in New York City went down for at least an hour. However the campaign has yet to have much success. Despite the group's apparent distributed-denial-of-service attack, which aimed to take down a web server by flooding it with fake traffic, the Trump Tower website was up and running by 11 a.m. and the alleged damage might not have been apparent, to visitors to the page, because a cached version of Trump's site was programmed to hold the fort in the event of an attack or maintenance issues.
After a video message was posted, the website of Trump Tower in New York City went down for at least an hour. However the campaign has yet to have much success. Despite the group's apparent distributed-denial-of-service attack, which aimed to take down a web server by flooding it with fake traffic, the Trump Tower website was up and running by 11 a.m. and the alleged damage might not have been apparent, to visitors to the page, because a cached version of Trump's site was programmed to hold the fort in the event of an attack or maintenance issues.
By bringing his building's website down? What a joke. If they wanted to do some real harm they would release private documents showing something damning. These are teenagers using a ddos not hacktivists.
Doesn't anonymous usually attack groups that legal processes can't/won't stop? We have a process to stop Trump, it's called "Voting". Maybe anonymous should stay out of it.
Anonymous declares war on city of Orlando (28/Jun/2011)
Anonymous vs. Zetas: Hackers Taking On The Drug Cartel (02/Nov/2011)
Anonymous wages war on Westboro Baptist Church (17/Dez/2012)
Anonymous Declares War on Singapore (06/Nov/2013)
Given the fallback on the last weeks hoax declaration of war on ISIS by Mexican cartel leader 'El Chapo' the media is showing that the powers of "the fourth state" given to them is not being used to inform the public but to entertain them, distracting from more important issues (and of course, to sell advertisement).
Seriously, this bunch of retarded brain dead script kiddies believe they have a right to attack anyone else's website because they do not agree with him? They should all be catched and jailed as far as I am concerned. They are totally anti-democratic and equivalent to any evil dictatorship in this world. They do not deserve the media attention they get. Even their attacks are lame.
If all the polls are saying that the side of justice is going to lose, then should you resort to force? After reason has failed, what else can you do against such reckless hate? Do you agree or disagree with the sentiment quoted above?
By the way, this is a real quote, posted by an ACLU Board Member. He was forced to resign but will face no legal issues from his incitement to shoot people who disagree with his political opinions.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Something tells me that this probably isn't the first time that people have taken shots at Trump. He's made a lot of enemies over the years so his staff have probably learned to shore up their defences as well as they can.
Anonymous is becoming willing tool of modern western so called 'liberal' establishment, in its fights against anyone and anything that oppose the said establishment.
terrorist scum in IS arose due to, and fights (barbarically) against, western establishments equally barbaric and inept invasions and mass murders to leech rest of world resources; Anonymous which has effectively done nothing against these western invasions, coups, torture camps, drone killing of children, mass surveillance, etc etc, are on board enthusiastically to support western efforts to crush IS.
western establishment is ruffled by donald trump, Anonymous wants to do it a favor by preventing voters from deciding, by censoring trump' web outlets.
see the pattern.
would, given its tool status, Anonymous be as stupidly ineffective as western establishments other recent tools in have been? certainly Anonymous' silly failed twitter efforts against IS indicate it is well on its way to be latest failed tool of west.
Anonymous is becoming willing tool of modern western so called 'liberal' establishment, in its fights against anyone and anything that oppose the said establishment.
Uh, no. Trump does not oppose the establishment in the slightest. He can't exist without it.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Oh right, only "liberals" are against IS. And when you switched to Trump, it's the "Western establishment", because you know that conservatives are also against Trump.
If you're going to spout nonsense in your political tangents, at least try to be consistent.
I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
There seems to be a bit of a disconnect with regards to 'Anonymous', the idea that "activist claiming to speak for the group", is false. Anyone can and does speak anonymously for 'Anonymous" if they so choose, there is no 'claim' about it, it is fact. The only time people make claims about 'Anonymous' is when they do it publicly and not anonymously 'Anonymous'. Do it anonymously and they are just as 'Anonymous', as any one else ;). Donald Trump certainly is becoming a famous lesson for what not to become, hmm, chemical cocktails to an excess?
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
People study history and psychology to know these things. What works to gain support. Most people who support Trump don't have a college education.
its quite simple. if you get your enemy to fight amongst themselves and demonise the the ordinary muslims, you can create instability and hatred. they are hoping this will convince the ordinary muslims to turn into fundamentalists and start the fight within. All Trump is doing is giving the closet racists a voice and a chance to re-enforce their bigotry under the cloak of "so called" acceptability. Unfortunately the bigots don't quite understand this tactic, a bit like the ordinary germans didn't understand the same scare tactics of their leaders until it was too late..
:- (1893-1946) Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe, President of the Reichstag, Prime Minister of Prussia and, as Hitler's designated successor, the second man in the Third Reich. [Göring]
"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
by: Hermann Goering
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
He's been so public, even with his fairly high-profile failures, that it would probably be difficult to come up with any real dirt that would actually make for a scandal. He'd almost have to do the things that Bill Cosby is accused of in order to be brought down.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
None of the usual rules apply to Trump. He's said so many stupid things that would have ended most campaigns that Anonymous won't be able to stop him, either. If Anonymous wants to make a difference - and not just hand the election to anyone with a (D) after their name (as it is known that all three of the leading democrats poll vastly above Trump in general polling) - then they need to work on building up a republican opponent of Trump.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
No you need to show the documents which show that he is working for Hilary Clinton, the Marsians, the IS, Putin, some other aliens, like the Lizard people, the pope, or Jon Stewart. Most likely I forgot the most important conspiracy theory. Maybe he works for the evil scientists who want to hide the truth about flat earth or global warming.
Activity like this will probably boost Trump's popularity. Anyone would be better than Jeb or Billiary.
Damning documents that do what? Make him look like a moron? A jackass?
Better yet, if they could find something that made him look like a liberal, that would be the surest way to drive away his supporters.
Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
Trump's playing by the rules Obama set, plus a few of his own.
Trump's rules include a fairly standard negotiating tactic- demand 3x what you want, so when the dust settles, you've got about what you wanted. He's also 'assuming the sale.' I don't wish to see him as president, but he's giving a (admittedly bombastic) voice to legitimate concerns many Americans have. The American left is used to being able to shout down politically inconvenient discussions by shouting "RACIST!", Trump simply says 'F you' and moves on. People love that.
As for following Obama's rules, I'll just quote a recent article: (Paywalled; my apologies)
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
The republicans should have long ago left the right out in the cold and come center (fiscally conservative, small government, socially progressive), they would've enjoyed a great deal more support than the religious right can provide
Those are the positions of the Libertarian Party, which typically gets less than 1% of the vote. You are vastly overestimating the level of support for small government and personal freedom. The Republican Party currently has their largest congressional majority since before the Great Depression. 2/3rds of governors are Republican, and most state legislatures are also dominated by Republicans. Pandering to social conservatives and authoritarians has been enormously successful.
" Uneducated supporters " Allow me another explanation if I may. Perhaps Trump supporters are well versed in what the status quo politician does once in office. Perhaps they are tired of voting for what is supposed to be different candidates, only to realize that, yet again, once in office their candidate is merely a clone of the previous administrations ideals. The only way to shake the system up, is to start by not voting in the very same people that want to keep it that way. Nothing scares the two parties more than a potential third party candidate since it effectively says " We the people are quite tired of your bullshit games. " I read on /. all the damn time about how it's the voters fault for re-electing the same clowns that are responsible for where we are today. Yet, when folks are considering deviating from that course, they get nothing but a ration of shit from the very same people because they're not voting for candidate X or Y.
Considering the candidate field and past experience with the typical bought and paid for politicians we currently have, I'm more than willing to give Trump his shot. Seriously, do you think he can possibly to any worse than another Bush ? Clinton ? or Obama ?
I don't care if hes arrogant, condecending or otherwise unpleasant in how he deals with people. If he gets the job done, that's all I give a damn about.
To do so, you have to be direct and to the point. Kissing everyones ass for re-election prospects is how we currently do business and that, more than anything else, needs to change if this country ever wants to be taken seriously again.
First they are disrupting terrorists, then disrupting somebody else who wants to disrupt the terrorists. Maybe anonymous should go after anonymous next.
Of course, I always figured they went after ISIS because they didn't like the competition.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Personally I hate the word progressive. It's a label that somebody applies to themselves when they think they've figured out the right answers to everything, and that only their opinion is the way forward. It's a very smug, asshole way of thinking. Examples of groups that have applied the "progressive" label to themselves include prohibitionists and fascists.
(BTW, I self identify as libertarian.)
No, he already has his liberal bona fides. Whatever the reasons for his popularity, it's not because of any deeply rooted commitment to the Republicans or conservative ideals, generally.
This is the key. Please see here. Sure, it's WaPo, but it's clear that Trump is doing nothing but trolling. Also see here.
That being said, I like a good troll. Trump is doing classic trolling at its finest. <trump>I know a lot of trolls! I'm very good friends with a lot of trolls!</trump>
The republican position says that small government is the American ideal - except with regard to abortion, prostitution, pornography, government-sponsored events to tell citizens who, how and when they should be worshiping, gambling, and a ton of others. They used to push hard for action at the federal level to prevent states from recognising gay marriage - until the supreme court ruling on the issue, at which point they declared that marriage was a state matter and the federal government was overstepping its bounds by regulating that.
The real republican position is almost identical to the democrat position: Politics is expensive. Appeal to voters where possible, but exercise caution not to upset the wealthy and corporate donors that provide the money for political campaigning.
Uneducated, and thus in desperate straits. So what do they got to lose? Their chains? Voting for the candidate that's most likely to cause serious disruption is a perfectly logical choice for more and more Americans. And, frankly, to people elsewhere too.
The party you tend to support has driven things to the point where voting for Trump is starting to look like a good idea. Don't try to shift the blame on "uninformed people" seeking to survive what you had a hand in making.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Even those-formerly-known-as-progressive are abandoning the term now, seeing it has become associated with super-feminists and social justice activists who have no respect for free speech and a tendency towards extremism.
I agree with this. The best part of Trump is he is causing honest discussions about issues important to US citizens (funny to hear someone say that?)
Before Trump talking about closing the border to Mexico was not allowed. If you even suggested deporting a single illegal you were branded a racist. Now we are talking about if it is possible to close the border, if it is possible to deport the illegals, how much it would cost, what are the repercussions, etc. Before Trump you couldn't see a debate like that, which is funny because everyone keeps saying he is so dumb.
Stopping Muslim immigrants until they can be vetted properly. Sounds reasonable to me, but I'm told I'm a bigot for agreeing with that. Now I find out Jimmy Carter did nearly the EXACT same thing with Iran. Is Carter a bigot? Or instead of the right going extreme right has the left gone extreme left. It appears that the left has gone extreme if you look at facts like this.
Yea, people don't like Trump because he is forcing honest debates about issues the left doesn't want talked about because they know they are on the losing side of it.
I like hearing these debates that Trump has made possible. Can he deport all the illegals? Sounds like no, but before he came along we weren't even allowed to talk about trying to do that. Closing the border with Mexico, is that possible? Sounds like yes, but that once again was a debate we were not allowed to hear about before Trump.
As much as they don't like him, he has brought back actual debate on REAL ISSUES.
The old Anonymous (famous for messing with Scientology) used to gather on 4chan's /b/. But then moot started banging some feminist cunt, so he kicked out the old mods and replaced them with SJWs. So the old users have moved en masse to 8chan.
Is Jimmy Carter really the bar we want to set?
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
It is a fact that Trump does poll very low among Republicans with college degrees, somwhat better with Republicans who have a high school diploma, and very well among those who do not have a diploma. This is not an opinion. His supporters are in fact the uneducated, by and large.
> perhaps the most fundamental aspect of the human condition is that we are all trapped in overwhelming ignorance. I don't disagree that Trump is clueless. But I don't see that any of the mainstream politicians and commentators are significantly better
None of them are exactly brain surgeons, are they. Except for the one who IS a brain surgeon, of course. Carson is intelligent, though not well versed in foreign relations and some other political issues. Cruz DOES understand the issues, more so than either of the last two presidents. Certainly there is room to disagree with him, but he knows what he's talking about as far as the federal budget, etc. I'll be keeping an eye on those two.
The republican position says that small government is the American ideal - except with regard to ...
Also ethanol subsidies, fossil fuel subsidies, farm subsidies, massive funding for the military industrial complex, massive funding for the War on Drugs, etc. In other words, they don't actually support small government at all. That makes sense, since small government rhetoric wins votes, but small government policies do not.
This is an absolutely false equivalence.
Not to say that Jimmy Carter made the right call there - I personally am liberal enough to think he probably did not, and likely would have been pretty upset with the decision, as I am with many decisions President Obama has made - but it is absolutely not the same thing. We are NOT in a state of military conflict with the entire religion of Islam, as we were with Iran at the time. If you believe that we are, then THAT is the problem.
You could use this move as an argument to reject Syrian visas and expel Syrian diplomats if you want. Except we already did. We severed relationships and closed our embassy in 2012. Officially they can still apply for immigration visas, but we've essentially made the process impossible. Obviously, we are (sort of) accepting refugees, but they are thoroughly vetted to make sure they are not connected either to the Syrian government or Isis, both of which we are in conflict with. So... yeah. We're already doing everything Carter did, pretty much. Have been for years. And refugees were allowed in from Iran during the Carter period too - one of your quotes specifically says "except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons".
Assuming all people who believe in the religion of Islam are at war with our country is a completely wrongheaded idea that can and should be met with anger and disgust. (Though probably not computer-based terrorism of our own. Let's just vote against Trump and continue to try to overwhelm his narrative with one of reasonable people who are doing their best not to be bigoted.)
I think most of us here agree that mr. Trump is an idiot and thoroughly despicable from an ethical point of view. However I think we can also agree that it's at the very core core of our values that he should be able to speak loudly (well . he needs no help with that, does he?) and clearly. And without being DDOS'ed.
Although I can (usually) be classified as firmly "liberal", I think mr. Trump (and the tea party wingnuts) are doing the Republican party a big disservice.
Conservatives can (and often do) make a lot of sense. Not all of them of course, but enough to listen to their general point of view. People like e.g. Dick Cheney, Henry Kissinger for instance. Or even mr. Romney. I may not agree with them, but I definitely respect the quality of their thinking. The points you mentioned: (fiscally conservative, small government, socially progressive) are worth keeping an eye on.
The sane voice of conservatism is getting snowed under by the more vocal demagoguery we're getting from the Far Right. As provided by people of the calibre of, say, mr. Trump, mrs. Palin, mrs. Coulter, mr. Limbaugh etc.
Also I think it's a bad idea to want to see the Republican party torn to shreds or turned into a wingnuts-only party. Especially since wingnuts need someone to rally around who can actually think. It's dangerous if they get their thought leadership from people like Trump and Palin. For themselves or the rest of us, and for the world at large.
We all that it is only a matter of time before the Trump mask comes off and we find out that it has really been Andy Kaufman all this time. Wake up people!
Wish I had mod points. This is really Republican chickens coming home to roost. They brought these lunatics in, and now the lunatics are demanding what they've been promised, via dog-whistle, for all these years. Trump is actually saying it out loud, which is why they love him. Meanwhile, the Freedom Caucus can hold the party hostage with, what, forty guys? To my mind, they're getting exactly what they deserve.
-- sudon't
Air-ride Equipped
Pandering to social conservatives and authoritarians has been enormously successful.
Being correct (and practical) doesn't work. The Democrats need to grow up and start lying. The ideal Democrat is Jimmy Carter. Great man, bad president. The ideal Republican is Reagan. Alzheimer's, and senile, but a good orater, and told us who to hate and why.
The Libertarians are not a party. The official LP documentation indicates the LP is pro-choice, as the government shouldn't be dictatorial in choices like that. But every LP candidate I've seen with an official abortion stance was anti-choice. When the pro-choice party runs only anti-choice candidates, how can they be taken seriously when they can't even find candidates that believe in their own platform? And no, I don't need the list of pro-choice candidates ever run by the LP. I've been to party meetings and tried to get involved in politics and seen who ended up running, and watched those running in races near me. They were universally anti-choice, but I've usually lived in "red states", so perhaps that's the issue.
Learn to love Alaska
The argument that "the more XYZ ... the more ISIS will be able to recruit sympathizers" is cognitively bankrupt, unless you are willing to admit that this means there are a lot of borderline violent people in the Muslim faith who are ripe for recruitment into a violent jihadist movement. If that is the case, does that not mean that maybe we ought to be far more careful and selective about who we let into this country?
If the Muslim community is so easily enticed into violence that they would join a jihad because we temporarily suspended travel visas while we work out a more comprehensive vetting process, it goes to validate his point. There is a large irony lurking here.
You've already been identified as a libtard/fundie whose response to rational argument is "LOL". Learn to think, or go home.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
As if there's no other way they can send operatives to Europe or America?
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Progressive means striving for improvement. I don't think "we can do better" is smug or arrogant.
No, but calling people who disagree with you names like "racist" or "sexist" because you can't defend what you FEEL is right IS smug and arrogant.
What's smug and arrogant is lecturing to us without having the balls to take credit for your words.
What's the matter, afraid to put your name on your opinions because it will only confirm publicly that you are an idiot?
A man who wants nothing is invincible
What I tell you three times is true:
Islam is not a country. Iran is not a religion.
Learn the difference, and stop polluting your brain with nonsense from Infowars.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Conservatives can (and often do) make a lot of sense. Not all of them of course, but enough to listen to their general point of view. People like e.g. Dick Cheney,
LOL if you are praising Dick Cheney then you are most definitely NOT a liberal. According to PolitiFact Dick Cheney lies 59% of the time:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/opinion/campaign-stops/all-politicians-lie-some-lie-more-than-others.html
Dick Cheney is not "sane voice of conservatism" that you seem to think he is...
A man who wants nothing is invincible
I don't like rule by diktat, however, at least on immigration, Obama is doing a better job of removing illegals than Bush ever did.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/02...
There's plenty to criticize about Obama's administration and policies without making up lies. Please don't do it. it discredits and drowns those who are have legitimate beefs.
--PM
How do you even screen for Muslims? If their name is something like Abu Bassir Al-Mohamadi does that automatically make them Muslim? What about Muslims that have lived in Canada or Europe for 20+ years and maybe practice once or twice a month, would they be barred from entry to the US? Can they recant their faith and be atheist? Would they have to write a letter to some institute of Islam, commit apostasy and face possible death penalties in their respective country?
Iranians are at least citizens of Iran. I don't know if Carter's ban extended to Iranian nationals that moved to other countries and no longer held Iranian citizenship, but it's at least screen-able and clear cut.
Perhaps the most fundamental aspect of the human condition is that we are all trapped in overwhelming ignorance. I don't disagree that Trump is clueless. But I don't see that any of the mainstream politicians and commentators are significantly better.
If only there was a group who takes the time to measure how full of shit each politician is. Oh wait, there is. Others have even taken time to aggregate the claims of each major 2016 presidential nominee (and some past ones).
On one end you have Ben Carson and Donald Trump whose claims are 85% / 76% mostly false or worse respectively, and on the other you have Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton who come it at 28% mostly false or worse. Not to say all GOP are that bad, with Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio coming in at 32% and 40% respectively.
Guys like Trump prey on people who hold the false belief that all politicians lie equally. Everyone lies, but there is a big difference between people who may stretch the truth and people who will flat out say anything.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Progressive means striving for improvement. I don't think "we can do better" is smug or arrogant.
Please define improvement. Does improvement mean that the whole society becomes more Christian? Does improvement mean that we have less beer? Does improvement mean that we all become feminists? Does improvement mean that we all become atheists?
Because everywhere you look, you can find somebody that defines any one of these things as improvement. And if so, you'd be describing somebody like Warren Jeff's as progressive because he thinks his little Davidian like compound is an improvement over other places.
As I noted, I may not be in agreement with him. He's a conservative but one who really does know what he's talking about though. I admire that. Even if he takes advantage of that to manipulate people who don't.
That's not an article, it's an opinion piece. The WSJ exercises no editorial oversight over opinion pieces and does no fact checking. You can claim anything you want in a WSJ opinion piece.
You can frequently find the facts to refute the claims of opinion pieces in the actual news sections of the very same edition of the WSJ.
Anonymous are occasionally useful idiots, but most of the time they are not that useful.
If he wins then he is exactly what Americans see as a good leader. I say let grown-ups make their choices. That's what the 'murrican freedom is all about, no?
I thought they were pretending to oppose the violent evil whackos of ISIS etc. But now they are opposed to Trump because HE had the temerity to say we should stop all Muslim entry into the country UNTIL OUR LEADERS CAN FIGURE OUT WHAT'S GOING ON AND FIGURE OUT HOW TO VET THEM???????
Which is is, Anon?
These dolts can only have it both ways if they are opposing Trump because they are so gullible, stupid, and ill-informed that they get their news from the "mainstream" (progressive-run) press and therefore only ever saw highly edited and editorialized versions of what Trump called for. He NEVER called for a permanent blanket-ban on Mulims, just as he NEVER said "all Mexicans are rapists". All this garbage is manipulation by faux-journalists. In each case, people are perfectly free to search-out the complete videos online and PAY ATTENTION to the complete statement.
I've never been a Trump fan, never watched "The Apprentice", etc and long considered him part of the establishment I dislike, but the way his opponents go insane about him and then seem to need to lie, distort, and edit in order to twist his words into what they wish he had said is starting to change my mind. If the most loathsome people in the nation despise him that much, there must be something good about him.
Tell me about it. As an old school Republican (I still have a framed picture of Ike, and I'm not even a US citizen!) I can only weep for the country I love. Right now, I could only choose between a party that is worse than anything the Swedes could come up with (yes, they're "socialist" but still saner than anything the Democrats cooked up in the past 50 or so years!) and a party that celebrates idiocy and religious bullshittery, with a hairpiece now adding populist bull just to make things worse.
Seriously, with every year I'm more and more glad that I don't get to vote in the US. I love the country. I love the idea that your founding fathers had, with the ideal that everyone can shape his own fortune. That's dead and gone now. It's special interest groups bickering, with now a populist clown saying what mouth-breathers want to hear.
This is just sad. We have our share of idiots in politics over here in Europe, no doubt about that, but I really pity you guys across the pond. At least we still have, at least usually, some politicians that we can sensibly vote for.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
And maybe conservatives who don't want to be lumped into the same bin as mouth-breathers who swallow any kind of populist diatribe the hairpiece spouts.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
"its quite simple."
That's a wonderful, imaginative story! Would be nice to show though that this particular tactic is a terrorist goal.
All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
by: Hermann Goering :- (1893-1946) Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe, President of the Reichstag, Prime Minister of Prussia and, as Hitler's designated successor, the second man in the Third Reich. [Göring]
I'd like to point out that in World War 2, countries were being attacked, and peacemakers repeatedly exposed their country to danger, and thereby fell under Germany's boot. (Some of those peacemakers didn't have a whole lot of patriotism, either.) Germany could have been stopped at low cost several times in the late 1930's, but your vaunted 'peacemakers' held onto their illusions for too long- and millions died.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Trump beat anonymous.
Who woulda thunk?
BTW, he wants to do the same thing Jimmy Carter did years ago, where's the outrage against Jimmy?
Since you seem to have an interest in the numbers, here are some graphs with December numbers that may interest you.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
A few months ago, 30% of Republicans without a degree backed Trump, while 8% with a degree did. Now his support among non-graduates is at 40% or more.
Other poll questions suggest that less-educated people are more concerned about illegal immigration (competition for jobs, wages?). It also appears that people concerned about illegal immigration like Trump. So that's probably one major tie-in; if you're concerned about illegal immigrants affecting your employment opportunities and wages, it would be reasonable to like Trump's tough talk on immigration. So a lesson for other candidates would be to clearly convey that they intend to enforce immigration law.
I actually feel better understanding that. Previously I wondered why people like him. Now I understand, he's taking the strongest position on something that directly affects their ability to support their family.
Trump's misstatements of facts and reluctance to explain -how- he intends to accomplish things are probably less of a negative among people who are themselves not as well educated in the facts. Someone who does not personally understand much about how the federal government works is unlikely to appreciate that fact that someone like Ted Cruz does understand how to get things done and what the logistical challenges are.
I basically called Trump a clueless jerk, so I should mention two of his strengths :
He's a very effective negotiator who gets deals done. That could be helpful if Democrats controlled one or both houses of Congress, and in foreign relations. He'd need a lot of expert advice on what the deal SHOULD be, but he hires experts and then negotiates good deals.
He's a LEADER. Kennedy was a leader, think of his speeches that challenged the country to accomplish great things. Reagan led the country and got things done while Democrats controlled Congress. Obama got nothing done while his own party controlled Congress for two years. Instead, he waited around for Nancy Pelosi to make decisions and lead. That is possibly Obama's biggest shortcoming- he does not lead. Trump is very much accustomed to personally leading companies and major projects. He'll not sit on his hands and fret over the polls.
Again, I do think he's ignorant on the issues, but to be fair I wanted to also acknowledge his strengths. If he does win, hopefully he'll hire knowledgeable advisors and listen to them. He has done so in business, hiring Steve Wynn and other very bright people.
Obama got nothing done while his own party controlled Congress for two years. Instead, he waited around for Nancy Pelosi to make decisions and lead. That is possibly Obama's biggest shortcoming- he does not lead.
Yeah, it would be more accurate to call the ACA PelosiCare.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
He'd just admit to it all and get more support.
Despite the group's apparent distributed-denial-of-service attack, which aimed to take down a web server by flooding it with fake traffic, the Trump Tower website was up and running by 11 a.m. and the alleged damage might not have been apparent, to visitors to the page, because a cached version of Trump's site was programmed to hold the fort in the event of an attack or maintenance issues.
Trump's campaign saw something like this coming and defeated it like about everyone else that's faced him so far.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Which is surprising since Trump is probably the least likely leader for social conservatives ever. He's in Alabama saying that his own book is his favorite book ever, then oops, he says he meant the Bible, and the crowd doesn't seem to disapprove. He won't tell a journalist what his favorite Bible verse is because it's personal and no one seems to care that it's an obvious lie. It's utterly baffling how he's pulling this off. It's like he's the loud angry drunk guy in the bar and all the other patrons are cheering because they're too drunk to understand what's being said.
Subsidies are fine, as long as they go to the right people.
The massive welfare scheme and money funnel that is Homeland Security is exhibit number one. How many millions were spent on those Rapiscan machines that don't work for a start - heck of a golden handshake for the outgoing head.
Then sold weapons to them and gave them the cash to buy them so they would last a bit longer.
It's really strange, would Iran and Hezbolla have been viable without the vast amount of money Reagan sent their way? The Iran-Iraq war was a pretty close thing so it's very likely that the current regime in Iran would not exist without the massive ransom Reagan paid on day one. Hezbolla may have folded without the material support from North and Israel could have been spared a lot of trouble. What would have happened if the hostage rescue mission that Carter ordered had been kept a better secret and succeed?
but only if it agrees with anonymous' way of thinking/talking.
uh huh ...
Start?!! Democrat lying is has been policy so long that for the practitioners it's such an ingrained habit that it's no longer recognized as aberrant behavior.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Politifact is very biased, and so blinded by their own presumptions that they think their evaluations are true.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Which is surprising since Trump is probably the least likely leader for social conservatives ever.
There is plenty of precedent. Reagan was their last hero, despite being a divorcee, almost never attending church, and having a pornographer for a son.
People who think Trump isn't intelligent are going to find plans made on that belief failing. What he appears to lack and may never gain is the ability to recognize, admit to, and correct his own flaws.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Hillary Clinton lies so much that it's hard to believe she ever tells the truth. Her Politifact rating serves to discredit Politifact, not polish her reputation.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
So the only way to save American is to destroy it?
WTF do you do if he gets in? Learn Mandarin or Russian?
Reagan committed Treason in 1980, paying Iran to keep US citizens hostage. The Iran-Contra scandal was the payment. And a separate count of Treason.
The Carter efforts for rescue were likely directly sabotaged, though I've not seen that proven, as the other Treasons I've mentioned have been detailed by people too old to care about prison, and focused more on cleansing their soul as they die.
Learn to love Alaska
Ah yes, the long list of lies. Bill Clinton lied. He lied when he truthfully said he didn't touch Monica's vagina (effectively the specific question he was asked, after "sex" was clarified). And Hillary lied because Benghazi. There were more hearings on her emails than 9/11, and still no direct lies uncovered.
But Trump says he will ban all Muslims from entering the US, even returning US citizens, then re-states to say only non-citizens. And claims he never said he'd ban "all" or citizens, even when faced with recordings of him saying it.
The Democrats need to outline eloaborate lies. Like Fair Tax, a pile of lies, fabricated by insane people as to a wish of what they hope would happen, without any basis in reality for the revenue and expenses. Single payer health care, like England's, is much cheaper than private health care, and with better results. Why aren't the Democrats pushing for single-payer as the next step after ACA? A federal insurance company, started now, and listed on the insurance exchanges of all 50 states, operating at 50% of the cost of all the private insurers, and showing a profit would cut taxes and improve care. Any missing details? Make them up, and make them good.
But no, we get reality. Gun control statistics nobody cares about. You can't argue someone out of religion with facts, and gun-nut is a religion. The cure for religion, is another religion, not facts. But the Democratic Party doesn't see that and attack dogma with dogma, so they always lose.
Learn to love Alaska
Wouldn't a policy of bombing predominately Islamic countries be a much better way to incite hatred of America among muslims and garner far more extremist support than simply denying immigration? In that case, where's the outrage against Obama? Because that's what he's doing right now.
It becomes much more difficult to do so. That's the whole point.
I urge people to do some research on this topic. For most of my life I thought McCarthy was a totalitarian piece of crap, but it turns out he may have been right and that there really were a number of communists that had infiltrated the ranks of the power in the USA at the time.
Doing the right thing for the security of your country is not always a pretty or popular task, especially if the media is against you.
A lot of people knew about them so the list of suspects starts in Iran and goes through many middle eastern states before it even touches anyone who is supposed to be loyal to the USA, although the political backchannels into military and spooks at the time were a worry. Sabotage of the negotiations was overt on the other hand and probably the origin of the "we don't negotiate with terrorists" line that was uttered so often by those that even funded terrorists.
You seem to be suggesting that Carter was the last President that treated citizens with honesty and that led to his downfall, if so I agree with you. Slick expensive PR with a vision of perfection seems to have beaten the imperfect truth.
What I'm trying to say is that Carter reacted to the actions taken by a specific *nation-state* which had declared itself an enemy of the US and was holding a large number of US citizens hostage. He retaliated on that basis, not on any grounds of ethnicity or religion.
Whether Carter's actions were correct is up for debate, but attempting to judge them by equating Carter with Trump, or likening them to Trump's "Keep the Muslims out!" fear-mongering is ignorant at best, and is nothing more than intellectual dishonesty on the part of anyone who knows anything at all about what was going on in Iran at the time.
FWIW, I generally admire Carter and tend to agree with much of what he says, but I don't pretend he's perfect. Claims on the part of those seeing Trump as some sort of white knight that I do so are simply projection.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Calling for a moratorium on Muslim immigration “until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on,” Donald Trump this week ignited a firestorm of historic proportions.
As all the old hate words — xenophobe, racist, bigot — have lost their electric charge from overuse, and Trump was being called a fascist demagogue and compared to Hitler and Mussolini.
The establishment seemed to have become unhinged.
Why the hysteria? Comes the reply: Trump’s call for a temporary ban on Muslim immigration tramples all over “American values” and everything we stand for, including the Constitution.
But is this really true?
The Constitution protects freedom of religion for U.S. citizens. But citizens of foreign lands have no constitutional right to migrate. And federal law gives a president broad powers in deciding who comes and who does not, especially in wartime.
In 1924, Congress restricted immigration from Asia, reduced the numbers coming from southern and Central Europe, and produced a 40-year moratorium on most immigration into the United States.
Its authors and President Coolidge wanted ours to remain a nation whose primary religious and ethnic ties were to Europe, not Africa or Asia.
Under FDR, Truman and JFK, this was the law of the land.
Did this represent 40 years of fascism?
Why might Trump want a moratorium on Muslim immigration?
Reason one: terrorism. The 9/11 terrorists were Muslim, as were the shoe and underwear bombers on those planes, the Fort Hood shooter, the Times Square bomber and the San Bernardino killers. And as San Bernardino showed again, Islamist terrorists are exploiting our liberal immigration policies to come here and kill us. Thus, a pause, a timeout on immigration from Muslim countries, until we fix the problem, would seem to be simple common sense.
Second, Muslims are clearly more susceptible to the siren call of terrorism, and more likely to be radicalized on the Internet and in mosques than are Christians at church or Jews at synagogue. Which is why we monitor mosques more closely than cathedrals.
Third, according to Harvard’s late Samuel Huntington, a “clash of civilizations” is coming between the West and the Islamic world. Other scholars somberly concur. But if such a conflict is in the cards, how many more millions of devout Muslims do we want inside the gates?
Set aside al-Qaida, ISIS and their sympathizers. Among the 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide are untold millions of followers of the Prophet who pray for the coming of a day when sharia is universal and the infidels, i.e., everyone else, are either converted or subjugated.
In nations where Muslims are already huge majorities, where are the Jews? Where have all the Christians gone?
With ethnic and sectarian wars raging in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Yemen, Libya, Nigeria and Somalia, why would we bring into our own country people from all sides of these murderous conflicts?
Many European nations — Germans, French, Swedes, Brits — appear to regret having thrown open their doors to immigrants and refugees from the Islamic world, who have now formed unassimilated clusters and enclaves inside their countries.
Ought we not explore why, before we continue down this road?
In some countries of the Muslim world, Americans who embrace “Hollywood values” regarding abortion, adultery and homosexuality, can get their heads chopped off as quickly as converts to Christianity.
In what Muslim countries does Earl Warren’s interpretation of the First Amendment — about any and all religious presence being banned in public schools and all religions being treated equally — apply?
When is the next “Crusade for Christ” coming to Saudi Arabia?
Japan has no immigration from the Muslim world, nor does Israel, which declares itself a Jewish state. Are they also fascistic?
President Obama
learn from history otherwise you are bound to repeat it.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
WTF? My argument is nothing of the bloody sort.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Since 1971 OPEC is selling crude oil exclusively in US$, starting the friction between Islamic and Western;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... != https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Casteism
Hint: Muslims don't just live in Muslim-majority countries. Plenty of Muslims don't even need a visa to enter the US.
so then prove them wrong.
oh right, you cant.
cause your statement is BS.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
That's crap and you damn well know it.
You always do this, playing word games to try and obfuscate the concept.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Clinton haters are so determined to believe they're lying that they won't believe the truth because a Clinton said it
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
McCarthy was a totalitarian piece of crap. The fact that there were Communist infiltrators loyal to the Soviet Union doesn't change that.
For him to be right, he'd have to be acting against those infiltrators full-time, not attacking Hollywood entertainment figures and the like.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Could you list some policies of his that you support? Some ideals he professes that you like or is it really just "He isn't a politician"? If your only reason for supporting him is because he isn't them, that is not thinking. That is not putting in more thought to the decision and making an informed decision. I haven't heard any policies that he's supported that don't sound super villainy, illogical, or an abandonment of values America was founded on. I may be just misinformed, but I hope you have better reason for supporting him than "He isn't a politician"
I think Slashdot rails against him now not because he's a shitty politician but because he is a shitty person.
He already appears to be clueless; that doesn't matter to his supporters, who are mostly uneducated themselves.
Uneducated, and thus in desperate straits. So what do they got to lose? Their chains?
What have they got to lose? How about: everything? Yes, vote for the candidate who shows by far the least compassion towards the power and the most friendship with those who are interested in fucking them over. If we're talking purely about rational self-interest, Donald Trump is the last person a poor person should vote for.
who shows by far the least compassion towards the power
Ugh, I should have proofread.
Seems odd to me that Anonymous would care so much about Muslims, but who knows when it comes to an anonymous groups.