Slashdot Mirror
DNC Hacker Releases Trump Opposition File (gawker.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Following the report that Russian hackers penetrated the DNC's database and stole research on Donald Trump, a 200+ page Democratic anti-Trump playbook compiled by the DNC has leaked online. In the book, Trump is called a "bad businessman" and "misogynist in chief." The document was created on December 19th, 2015, and was sent to Gawker by a hacker calling himself "Guccifer 2.0." (Guccifer is a popular Romanian hacker who hacked various American political figures, most notably Hillary Clinton and her private server.) The hacker said in an email to Gawker that the package contains a variety of donor registries and other strategy files, "just a few docs from many thousands I extracted when hacking into DNC's network," adding that he's in possession of "about 100GB of data including financial reports, donors' lists, election programs, action plans against Republicans, personal mails, etc." His motive is to be "a fighter against all those illuminati that captured our world." The "Donald Trump Report," as it's called, appears to be a summary of the Democratic Party's strategy for delegitimizing and undermining Trump's presidential aspirations. There's a section titled "Top Narratives" that describes a seven-pronged attack on Trump's character and record. The hack was first revealed Tuesday by the cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike, linking the hack to Russian intelligence. Wikileaks founder Julian Assange says later this year it will publish enough new information about Hillary Clinton to indict her.
...to Donald Trump. Who wouldn't want to know the other team's strategy and the information they are going to use to attack you?
There's a really obvious reason why Trump is so popular.
A lot of people are facing complete ruin and are scared, holding their breath hoping that something will change.
Trump is the candidate for "change", and Clinton is the candidate for "stay the course".
I'm not a Clinton supporter, but I don't think that statement about Hillary is particularly controversial even among her supporters. She's definitely a political insider, is funded by moneyed interests, and her website has a list of issues that give a sense of "direction" without promising anything concrete. Typical of politicians for the last 50 years - nothing bad or unusual about that.
Trump has a list of 7 things that he will change, with a concrete list of changes for each. All of his proposed changes are aimed at making peoples' lives better.
People who are secure in their position, who have a job and don't see themselves being laid off or expect to find a new job quickly if they are laid off, should vote for Hillary. There are a lot of these people in the country, and "stay the course" is the least risky choice for them to make.
People who are unemployed, struggling, or in fear of losing their situation should vote for Trump, because he's proposing to make changes.
As the theory goes, when you're doing well you should minimise risk - don't do anything that could change your situation. When you're doing poorly, you can tolerate more risk in the hopes that it might help.
So it really all boils down to the proportion of people in the country who are at-risk and scared, versus the proportion who think the current situation is "pretty good".
We're presented with a never-ending stream of depressing news about this here on Slashdot, and you really can't trust the MSM any more, so it's easy to believe that majority of the country might be shivering in fear hoping for something to change, but that might not be an accurate view.
"Change" or "stay the course"? The voters will probably decide this November.
"that wasn't an intentional crime"
Intention doesn't matter when classified materials are inappropriately handled. She was informed of, and signed off on, what the relevant legal rules were. There's also the smoking gun email, where she wrote "turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure" with regard to a classified fax, which does show intent.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
The reason Trump is so popular is that he's actually not popular at all.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelli...
It's like a zen koan for morons: "He's so popular that 70% of people can't stand him."
Gamergate logic.
Apropos of nothing, does your Gamergate logic explain why so many people voted for him?
Votes would seem to be a better measure, but then I'm not familiar with Gamergate logic.
Sad, but a president must be able to send their people to die. It's part of the job. It's a qualification, not a liability.
Your guy is disliked by a far bigger proportion of the population than the proportion that like him. He is disliked far more than Hillary Clinton, according to the polls.
Your guy has little acquaintance with facts in his public rhetoric, but that doesn't make them go away. Trump will lose the general election to Hillary. The remaining question is whether his negative impact on the Republican vote will cost the GOP the House and Senate as well.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
The Republican race started with at least 12 candidates who were better than Trump. (hedging here because there were a tiny number who were probably worse)
It all depends on your definition of the word "Treason." In the US today that is defined as opposing Queen Hillary. She is above the law as you very well know and can not be bothered with trivialities such as rules and regulations.
It's irrelevant, really. Trump has absolutely no chance of winning. Christ, even the GOP knows it, and the number of senior Republicans who are either starting to say "No comment" a lot or outright stating they won't vote for him themselves is growing every day. At this point, I can only assume it's either Trump's utterly delusional fanbase or grumpy GOPers who still think that if they just attack enough times, somehow Trump will win.
I honestly hope the Republicans finally excise the lunatics from the party. They're going to have to, because the demographic war is not in their favor, and the more they cater to grumpy old men and Libertarian fruitcakes, the worse their long term fortunes will get.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Whatever Schwarzenegger is, he's no Trump. Most of his platform was fairly reasoned, though he did have to give the odd policy nod to the Republicans.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
She's done as much as some fairly well respected presidents. Lincoln was lawyer and a legislator before he became president. By the same token Grant lead the Union to victory and was a fairly shitty president. Frankly your objection is spurious, and I susoect you know if.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
It makes me sad you can actually post in public comparing Hillary Clinton's early life to Lincoln's
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Just up top there Lincoln was an abolitionist, inventor, and soldier.
Hillary Defended Pedophiles, and married a draft dodger.
Governator was a moderate with a lot of Democratic supporters. "If I'm paying a lot of taxes, I must be making a lot of money."
No comparison at all. He's even a Kennedy by marriage.
I am not opposed to Hilary because she is a woman. I am opposed to Hilary because she has a decades long record of making horrible decision, which often result in the unnecessary deaths of civilians and other non-combatants.
If that is your real reason you need to actually read some history of presidential decisions then, because they have all done that.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range