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.
From perusing the table of contents, it looks like almost all of this is already well known (see the last couple weeks of NYT for articles about what a horrible real estate business man, husband, father, uncle, and University executive Trump has been).
Indeed many of the items listed are actually marketed as Trump himself and his followers as selling points (offensive and demeaning attitude to foreigners, for example).
But in the end, none of it matters. His followers are willing to forgive any behavior, no matter how crass, ignorant, or even downright evil. Trump literally would be able, as he pointed out, shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and still get elected president. They just don't care. And in fact will see this "oppo" research as more proof that the establishment is "out to get him" and so therefore must be elected.
...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.
You realize Hillary is responsible for probably over a million deaths and a good part of Europe being overrun ?
There hasn't been a Secretary of State without blood on their hands since the "Monroe Doctrine."
"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
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.
GOP primary voters.
Approximately 14 million of them, and well, maybe you esteem their judgment, but I can't say I do. And 7.7 million of them picked Cruz, 3.5 million picked Rubio, and 4 million Kasich. What does that say?
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?)
OK, let me unpack it for you, because I've studied this particular pathology in depth.
First, Trump has not really gotten that many votes, as a proportion of the total electorate, or even the Republican electorate. he's gotten about 13 million votes actually cast for him so far. In those same Republican primaries, there have been over 15 million votes cast against Trump. So a couple of million more Republicans voted against Donald Trump than for him. By the way, Hillary Clinton has also gotten over 2 million more primary votes than Donald Trump.
But here's the kicker: There are about 130,000,000 people who will vote in the next presidential election. Right now, Donald Trump has captured 10% of those votes. Do you think there are a lot of people who have been saying, "I'm going to wait to see what this Donald Trump is all about before I go out and actually cast a vote for him"?
This is why you hear about how "the demographics" overwhelmingly favor whomever the Democrats run in 2016. First, there are a lot more Democrats than Republicans in the US. Second, independents have actually been breaking against Donald Trump in the primaries. Third, even Republicans voted more often against Donald Trump than for him, and finally, the dude has a 70% disapproval rating since the end of the primaries. That means his disapproval numbers have jumped 10% in one month. His approval rating is at 29%, which is about the same as the approval rating of the mosquitoes that carry Zika virus.
It's time for you to start thinking of excuses for why Donald Trump got blown out in the general election. I suggest going with the, "they robbed him" excuse. That's a favorite of mine, and it's always been effective when my sports teams lose. Plus, it's almost certainly the excuse Donald will use because he seems constitutionally lacking in self-awareness. Come up with a good conspiracy theory and you'll be good to go for the next four long years that the unpleasant Mrs Clinton will be president.
You are welcome on my lawn.
One of the Koch brothers has said he'll vote for Hillary over Trump.
Google search the phase "Swiftboating". Then look up the stuff Karl Rove does.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Really I imagine he'll probably lose in the general election. I suspect further that it wouldn't matter which Republican was running they'd lose as well. In fact I think Trump has a better chance than any of the others in the field. The reason is that I know a lot of people who voted this time around who haven't voted in years. Many who have never voted and registered so they could vote for Trump. He is not a politician and all the people that hate the lying fucking whores like Hillary finally got someone else to vote for. Sure he's a blowhard and a dirty bastard but compared to a shit stain like Hillary he looks pretty damn good. She's going to continue fucking us just like the bastard before her and the bastard before him. They're all a part of the same machine they just market them differently. I have no doubt that if by some miracle Trump managed to win it'd be a very short term before his aircraft malfunctioned or some nut case shot him. Can't have someone fucking up the system.
Sorry for the rant....I'm feeling especially cynical tonight. Can you blame me? I get to choose between a Crazy Bastard and a Crooked Bitch. Democracy??????
I'm pretty sure that "Crazy Crooked Bastard" applies in this case:
http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/3...
http://dailycaller.com/2016/06...
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballo...
"Crooked Crazy Bastard" is also appropriate. I'm not sure why you'd think this indicates someone who would shake up the corrupt system.
http://img2.timeinc.net/people...
You are welcome on my lawn.
Guccifer isn't a hacker, he's a dumbass who guessed password reset questions then dumped the contents for lulz.
Yet suddenly he claims to have actual "break into a server" hacking skills, uses those skills to crack into one of the biggest profile politicians on the planet, but suddenly thinks the contents are boring and doesn't dump anything??
He's just attention whoring as usual, when he was free he got attention by releasing dumps of emails that he has. But now he's in jail he can claim to have other super-duper important emails and he'd totally show them to you but he's in prison.
Stop feeding the damn troll!
I stole this Sig
Just WHAT are her much touted qualifications?
Worked as young lawyer on Democrat congressional team handling Nixon impeachment? - yes, but she was ejected by Democrats for being too unethical
Married a governor? So is Chris Christie's wife.
Married to a president? Ok...so was Nancy Reagan (both married to a governor and married to a president).
Given a safe senate seat? Very few are given such a safe seat, and she was not the first choice. The Democrats in NYC made no secret that they were holding other viable democrat candidates off from that race in the hopes that JFK jr would take it. Then he crashed his plane and the Democrats gave the seat to Hillary where the only thing of note that she did was to vote for the Iraq war.
Given the Sec State position? Sure. What was her training for that job? More importantly: what did she DO with that power? That "Arab Spring" worked out real well, right? The Russian "Reset" button? The woman practically lit the world on fire. Steve Erkel couldn't have done worse.
Instead of continually repeating the mantra from her campaign about being "the most qualified..." her supporters need to come up with a single example of what actually qualifies her to be president more than the nearest bus driver or public pool lifeguard most of whom have at least done SOMETHING useful with actual success.
When I look at the US presidential candidates I can help but think of the South Park episode where they had to choose between a douche and a shit sandwich.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Oh, it's just ketchup.
The specifics is, the technology wasn't working, she was traveling, she needed to communicate normally-secure travel plans, and they used a non-secure channel. None of it was classified at the time, it gets a classification afterwards. But it was sensitive information, because it affects her security. But those are decisions you have to make when traveling and the "secure channel" is broken. If you just hunker down whenever that happens, that also creates a security risk.
None of the "accusations" involve documents that were classified at the time.
Yeah, I also live in Europe, and I'm not seeing anywhere that's being overrun.
In fact, the only real danger we're facing is the rapid rise of new nationalistic extreme right-wing political parties, due to the general escalation of hatred and mistrust in western society, caused by the FYGM policies enacted by our shitheel politicians.
Eat the rich.
No, it just takes someone who lives in reality.
reality being the acknowledgement that bush had ~60 benghazis and you twits don't even acknowledge that.
reality being that you shouldn't get your talking points frm Michael bay movies.
reality being that no one was "left to die"
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
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
Okay, what did Clinton do wrong with Benghazi? She had limited resources, and Congress refused to provide the additional resources she asked for. She distributed her security forces in a reasonable way, and that's all she could do. Once the attack started, there was nothing she could do to affect the outcome. If you're accusing her of causing the deaths of diplomats, everything that happened after the attack is irrelevant.
She went through more than a dozen Congressional inquiries from a very hostile Congress, and none of them was able to pin wrongdoing on her.
It's things like the constant harping on Benghazi that make me slow to believe anything bad I hear about her, since so much of what bad stuff I hear is malicious lies and half-truths.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes