Slashdot Mirror
Anonymous's War on Trump Described as Successful and Disastrous (techinsider.io)
CitizensForTrump.com and the Trump Hotel Collection site reportedly went offline Friday, seeming to confirm threats made by the hacktivist collective Anonymous. But TechInsider is reporting that "The 'total war' that Anonymous declared earlier this month against Donald Trump has devolved into a war among hackers fighting within the group and pro-Trump supporters who are trolling them within their chat rooms." They describe two warring factions within the group's anti-Trump movement, also quoting CloudFlare's CEO as saying denial of service attacks "are sort of the functional equivalent of a caveman with a club." But while Trump has warned that law enforcement officials are pursuing the attackers, one Anonymous member unequivocally announced that still more attacks were planned. "This is NOT the last time you hear of this operation. We will be watching, and will act when the time is right."
As a run off the mill left-wing liberal, I'd say that slimy sneaky bastard Ted Cruz is by far more evil than Donald Trump. And so think most established Republicans.
Perhaps these anonymous script kiddies should have been thinking about that a bit more. Not that I appreciate their actions anyway, just saying...
Thanks, anonymous. I was worried that Trump wasn't getting enough media attention; I almost started remembering there are other candidates.
Pro Trump, Anti Trump, Trump Trump, Trump? Trump! TRUMP TRUMP TRUPM TRUPMUTRPRATRRUEMMP
I can't imagine what they could possibly do to derail Trump's campaign. Trump is not cowed by divulging his affairs - he's been a "reality" TV star, and his loud mouth has already exposed all manner of nastiness without derailing the campaign already. His websites are just that - websites. He likely doesn't rely on them either for getting out his message (the MSM is doing a fine job already) or for his business dealings, so shutting them down is useless.
His supporters don't support him because he's a high-and-mighty politician of impeccable ideology. They support him because that's precisely what he isn't. There's simply nothing that Anonymous can do to dissuade Trump's followers from following. And everyone else who might be swayed by anything they uncover is already swayed by the ranting that has already come out of Trump's mouth. I just don't see anywhere they can go from here.
To be fair, the reasoning is more along the lines of 1/2 of the US citenzenry are weak-minded fools, ignorant morons, and rascist twats, and they are eating up Trump's bullshit like its fine dining. To protect these idiots from themselves, and in turn protect ME from what they might do, we need to shut Trump up.
Not saying its the right course of action, but that's the reasoning.
All this "disrupt the process" behaviour is ridiculous.
It started with people at rallies shouting Trump down while he was trying to speak.
What's the point of that? You are so incensed and against that one candidate that you don't want the democratic process to happen?
This goes on for awhile, then protesters come to rallies and get manhandled by the supporters who actually want to listen to what he says.
Next, protesters come to rallies dressed as KKK members and are surprised when they get beat down?
Recently, a 15yo girl protester punched a supporter while he was turning away, got pepper sprayed for doing that... and tried to file sexual assault charges against him? (He was only exonerated because the incident was caught by security camera. And if it *hadn't*, that man's life would be completely ruined with no chance of redemption.)
Anonymous is so against Trump that they want to sabotage the democratic process by taking down his websites?
Elites are so against Trump that they are going against their "support the candidate, whoever he is" pledge? Rubio does not give up his delegates, even though he's out of the race? Delegates are allowed to be "faithless" and vote for whomever? Make an 8-state rule to exclude Ron Paul, but change it to allow Cruz in?
(Trump gets fed up with all of this, decides that if everyone else is breaking the pledge that he can also... and of course the media only reports that Trump broke his promise. Also, breaking that promise loses him delegates, but of course no one else loses *their* delegates for doing the same thing.)
I honestly think that if Trump has a clear majority of support (which seems likely) and doesn't get the nomination, through skulduggery (which is also likely) that there will be riots.
We're often told "it's our fault, we voted for him". If we actually vote for someone and he *doesn't* get in, it is completely rational and just to set fire to the process.
Really. This whole thing is ridiculous.
will work out similar to the War on Drugs/Poverty/etc. it won't.
Why would it be? Islam isn't a race. Even though I'm an atheist, it bugs the shit out of me that ultra liberals will bash Christians just for being Christians, but if you bash a Muslim even if they do their backwards third world shit (i.e. women in burkas) then you get an earful from ultra liberals about how it's racist.
"Why would it be? Islam isn't a race"
Whenever a terrorist atrocity occurs, we are piously lectured to about not judging all Muslims by a small minority of terrorist radicals. Yet whenever some nutbar shoots up a school, the same pious lecturers claim he represents all gun owners.
"protect these idiots from themselves" ... "we need to shut Trump up"
Spoken like a dictator or an angry mob, which is what the left wing bashing of Trump looks like to the rest of us.
I actually didn't really care one way or the other for the Republican candidates this year, but with the crazy left wing reaction to Trump I've decided I need to vote for him.
Where I live, the Muslims are definitely a lot more racist and hostile than the rest of the population, even to the point where a Muslim kid wanting to get a good education is looked down upon by the rest of his community. Instead he's told he should make a living by crime (carefully only picking non-Muslim targets) or by exploiting the welfare system.
How lame can you get. What a bunch of simple, skill-less cowards.
When they first started Anonymous seemed really cool, fighting oppressive regimes etc.
What happened to turn them into a bunch of whiny asshats that supress free speech ad are only capapble of lame skript kiddy DDOS attacks?
Scott Adams had an interesting take on extremism.
If you frame the argument as a disease it becomes non-prejudicial. Describe extremism as a disease, note that there are hotspots of this disease in specific locations of the world, and what is a common-sense reaction?
Imagine that the tiny nation of Elbonia suffers a Zombie Virus outbreak. Luckily, the virus does not spread easily, but prolonged personal contact with an infected zombie increases the odds of transmission. Once infected, the Elbonian becomes a zombie killer. As it turns out, most people are immune to the virus. Over 99% of the public have no risk of catching it. But 1% is far too many zombie killers.
For starters, they would quarantine the entire nation of Elbonia to limit the damage. This is obviously unfair to all uninfected Elbonians but it is also the only practical way to protect the rest of the world. Once the quarantine is in place, the professionals can get to work on a cure.
The problem is, of course, the emotional baggage. If someone tries to talk logically about certain subjects, they can be shouted down simply by being called bad names.
This is how "extreme rhetoric" has become the new clickbait, and how people like Anonymous take it upon themselves to save the world from Trump. This is how a 15yo girl can accuse a Trump supporter of molesting her at a rally, when the video showed no such action.
It's the emotional baggage. People hear "racist" or whatever, close their minds, and let their outrage have free reign.
They believe they are working for the greater good.
The office of the president can exert power without the compliance of congress in the following areas:
1) Foreign policy
2) Arbitrary short term military action; "commander in chief" is not just a meaningless phrase
3) Executive orders (which is a pretty broad canvas to paint on...)
All of the above are potential sources of long term consequences in the areas of military action, social change, international trade and relations.
Having said that, I am very confident that no Republican of any stripe can win the presidency this time around. This is due to the torpedo-at-the-waterline that has been, and continues to be, Trump's effect on the Republican party. I see concern about presidential action by Republicans like Cruz and pseudo-Republicans such as Trump as something that be be safely deferred until the Republicans can rebuild their brand from the mess they've made out of it the last six years or so. I also suspect that will take them quite a while.
I do worry about having Clinton in there; she's Trump-lite as far as I'm concerned. It seems pretty clear from the media bias and the disruption of the Republican party's ability to be effective that it will be Clinton we end up with; the American public has a consistent history of going with what the media tells them. For a while, I nursed some hope that the ability to do one's own research becoming available to most via the Internet would change this, but I have seen very few such signs, and it's been around long enough that I think they would have been easily obvious by now if they were actually there.
Sanders still has a chance; but the odds are, at the very least, quite seriously stacked against him.
I'm most interested in the next iteration of congressional elections. Last time around, voter satisfaction was 14%, and re-election rates were 94%. Recent polling puts satisfaction with congress at this point even lower at 11%; I keep asking myself if that might be enough to make people actually realize that the problem is congress in general, and not "the other representatives in congress." I'd like to think so, but last election's set of numbers doesn't make me optimistic about it at all.
Interesting times, anyway.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Anything with the word "Anonymous" in the title can be directly translated to "FBI/CIA"
Sabu ratted out his comrades in order for a plea deal with the FBI - In exchange the FBI/CIA now own anonymous.
You'll notice a lot more politically motivated retarded shit from "FBI Anonymous now", like some retarded war on ISIS shit, and retarded war on Trump shit.
The real problem here is outlets like Slashdot and the mainstream media still pretend Anonymous is still the old Anonymous, when they know damn well that organization has been infiltrated and revamped to fit FBI/CIA agendas
This sort of abuse is what causes certain freedoms on the Internet to be curtailed or lost altogether.
Tell you what, let's compromise: how about we ban guns and Muslims?
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
Don't assume that I'm defending Christians, because I'm not. What irks me is that if you speak against Islam, you get shouted down, whereas speaking against Christianity is perfectly acceptable. Take this for example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Yet the ones who walked off the stage about a very mild remark about Islam routinely bash Christians.