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.

Comments

This is a gift...

[Bartles]

...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?

Re:This is a gift...

[Bartles]

Yes, if Hillary is known for anything, it's truthfulness and correct statement of fact.

Re:This is a gift...

[phantomfive]

It is difficult to impossible to defend yourself against actual facts.

I see this is your first presidential election.

Re:This is a gift...

[drinkypoo]

And just for comparison, Bernie Sanders:
http://www.politifact.com/pers...
True + Mostly True: 51%
False + Mostly False + Pants on Fire: 30%

Not only is politifact biased, but your reporting of their reporting is shit. The most interesting thing about these ratings is not true+mostly true vs. false+etc. It's the pants on fire ratio. Politifact gives bernie a pants on fire score of zero but you've managed to conflate it there to make it look like he's a deceiver... because you're attempting to deceive. Luckily, I saw these charts this morning, so I know exactly what kind of nefarious bullshit you're up to.

"Change", versus "stay the course"

[Okian Warrior]

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.

Re:"Change", versus "stay the course"

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump has a list of 7 things that he will change [donaldjtrump.com], with a concrete list of changes for each. All of his proposed changes are aimed at making peoples' lives better.

Leaving aside that it would hardly be likely for him to propose worsening people's lives, your definition of concrete seems off.

Pay for the Wall? Proposal that relies on Mexico doing something and yet does nothing in itself. Wow, that's...kinda not concrete, when you look at it with a discerning eye. Sure, it seems like he's going to do something, but heck, just the issue of setting the borders is a complicated matter, let alone constructing anything along it.

Same with Immigration reform. Triple the number of ICE officers? That seems concrete, until you realize how much work it'll be. You can't just wave a wand and hire people. Same with his detention plans. Let's do it! Oh wait, how much will that cost? And you won't see any real proposals to make enforcement of E-verify a reality.

China? Oh, let's bring them to the bargaining table. As if they weren't already being negotiated with. Oh oh but he's going to have a zero tolerance IP policy. Durp, apparently we don't have any talks about that already. Oh but wait, he's going to be vigorously eliminating waste, fraud and abuse in the Federal government, ending redundant government programs, and growing the economy to increase tax revenues. How specific is that? Not at all, perhaps?

Healthcare? The only thing it gets right is that simple repeal isn't going to do shit. Unfortunately, it doesn't give us more than "Hey, Block Grants, let the states solve it" and "No more blocking drugs, let the pharmaceutical companies solve it!" and other stuff that won't help people's real problems.

VA? Oh my, going to any Medicare provider. But that assumes there are existing providers who can do the job. But he's going to INCREASE funding. Wait a second, I thought throwing money at problems was a bad idea? But wait, he's going to Transform the VA to meet the needs of 21st century service members! Is that supposed to be concrete?

Tax Reform? It claims to be revenue neutral. No numbers are shown. It can't even avoid talking about the estate tax as the death tax.

Gun Rights? Oh my, he says he's going to enforce the laws on the books. Yeah, that's very specific. Oh wait, he's going to make right to carry nationwide. IOW, he's going to tell states that they have to accept anybody with a gun that some state says is ok, with no safeguards. But he thinks that the right to travel isn't a right, and that recognizing that automobiles are used for that travel? What the fuck? Does Trump not know the Constitution at all? Or does he just buy into the empty NRA-style rhetoric without thinking about it? And the military doesn't want firearms uncontrolled on their bases. This is a deliberate and intentional choice to control the very serious danger of firearms. They have enough accidents in areas where they to have people armed, they aren't going to want to change that just because some idiot thinks it needs to be changed.

Sorry, but I see a blow-hard promising all sorts of shit, but actual delivery? That's another story.

Re:"Change", versus "stay the course"

[scatbomb]

Interesting that politicians appeal mostly to people's fears and insecurities. Fear of criminals, mass murders, fear of losing your job, xenophobia, fear of any number of disasters which each claims the other will bring if you don't elect the opposite as leader. Terror is just another word for fear, and one who uses terror to achieve political goals is a terrorist. Break the cycle, vote for somebody who doesn't need to scare you to get your support.

Re:Gamergate logic?

[PopeRatzo]

Apropos of nothing, does your Gamergate logic explain why so many people voted for him?

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.

Re:what matters

[KozmoStevnNaut]

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.

Re:Pray tell...

[dywolf]

this is the same ignorance that insists on demanding that muslims denounce terrorists, claiming they don't.

here.
LMGTFY

* Graduated from Yale Law School
* Worked as staff of a U.S. Senate subcommittee
* Staff of the Presidential Impeachment Inquiry Commitee,
advising the U.S. House Judiciary Committee during the Nixon impeachment proceedings.
* Faculty, University of Arkansas Law School
* Part-time chairman of the Legal Services Corporation, appointed by President Carter.
* Member of the Rose Law Firm
* National Law Journal named her twice one of the 100 most powerful lawyers in America
* Co-founded Arkansas Advocates for Children and Family
* Chaired the Arkansas Educational Standards Committee
* First Lady of Arkansas for 12 years
* First Lady of the United States of America for 8 years
* Chaired President Clinton's National Task Force on Health Care Reform
* Elected United States Senator from New York; served for eight years
* Served for five years as President Obama's Secretary of State, fourth in line of succession of the Presidency

http://addictinginfo.org/2015/...

Even though her major initiative, the Clinton healthcare plan, failed (due to Republican obstruction), you cannot deny that it laid ground for what we have today, the Affordable Healthcare Act, something Clinton supports and would continue.
She played a leading role in the development of State Children’s Health Insurance Program, which provides the much-needed state support for children whose parents cannot afford nor provide them with adequate healthcare coverage.
She was also instrumental in the creation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act and the Foster Care Independence Act.
Successfully fought to increase research funding for prostate cancer and asthma at the National Institute of Health (NIH).
She spearheaded investigations into mental illness plaguing veterans of the Gulf War; we now have a term for it – Gulf War Syndrome.
At the Department of Justice, she helped create the office on Violence Against Women.
She was instrumental in securing over $21 billion in funding for the World Trade Center redevelopment.
Took a leading role in the investigation of health consequences of first responders and drafted the first bill to compensate and offer the health services our first responders deserve (Clinton’s successor in the Senate, Kirsten Gillibrand, passed the bill).
Was instrumental in working out a bi-partisan compromise to address civil liberty abuses for the renewal of the U.S. Patriot Act.
  Proposed a revival of the New Deal-era Home Owners’ Loan Corporation to help homeowners refinance their mortgages in the wake of the 2008 financial disaster.
Was a major proponent of sensible diplomacy which brought about a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel, and brokered human rights with Burma.
Oversaw free trade agreements with our allies such as Panama, Colombia, and South Korea.
Was the most traveled Secretary of State to date.
The Clinton Foundation, founded by her and her husband, has improved the living conditions for nearly 400 million people in over 180 countries through its Initiative program.

These are not all of her accomplishments. Her activism on behalf of women a children across the world is renowned. Her activism for raising the minimum wage and combating climate change is stellar. You do not have to support what she does or stands for. But do not say she doesn’t have any accomplishments. The conservatives who say this are the ones who are pushing for Ted Cruz – who brought on a $24 billion shut down. That, to them, is an accomplishment?

Yes, Hillary Clinton has accomplishments. You don’t have to like them, but they do, in fact, exist.

Besides, after the abomination of Bush the Lesser...now you're worried about qualifications?