Slashdot Mirror
'The Hillary Leaks' - Wikileaks Releases 19,252 Previously Unseen DNC Emails (zerohedge.com)
Reader schwit1 writes: The state department's release of Hillary emails may be over, but that of Wikileaks is just starting. Moments ago, Julian Assange's whistleblower organization released over 19,000 emails and more than 8,000 attachments from the Democratic National Committee. This is part one of their new Hillary Leaks series, Wikileaks said in press release.:"Today, Friday 22 July 2016 at 10:30am EDT, WikiLeaks releases 19,252 emails and 8,034 attachments from the top of the US Democratic National Committee -- part one of our new Hillary Leaks series. The leaks come from the accounts of seven key figures in the DNC: Communications Director Luis Miranda (10770 emails), National Finance Director Jordon Kaplan (3797 emails), Finance Chief of Staff Scott Comer (3095 emails), Finance Director of Data & Strategic Initiatives Daniel Parrish (1472 emails), Finance Director Allen Zachary (1611 emails), Senior Advisor Andrew Wright (938 emails) and Northern California Finance Director Robert (Erik) Stowe (751 emails). The emails cover the period from January last year until 25 May this year."
The emails released Friday cover a period from January 2015 to May 2016. They purportedly come from the accounts of seven key DNC staffers: Andrew Wright, Jordon Kaplan, Scott Comer, Luis Miranda, Robert Stowe, Daniel Parrish and Allen Zachary.
A quick scan of the emails focus on Bernie Sanders and dealing with the fallout of many Democrats opposing Hillary Clinton and calling the system "rigged." Many of the emails exchanged between top DNC officials are simply the text of news articles concerning how establishment democrats can "deal" with the insurgent left-winger. Update: 07/22 17:41 GMT by M :Guccifer 2.0 has claimed responsibility for the leak.
The emails released Friday cover a period from January 2015 to May 2016. They purportedly come from the accounts of seven key DNC staffers: Andrew Wright, Jordon Kaplan, Scott Comer, Luis Miranda, Robert Stowe, Daniel Parrish and Allen Zachary.
A quick scan of the emails focus on Bernie Sanders and dealing with the fallout of many Democrats opposing Hillary Clinton and calling the system "rigged." Many of the emails exchanged between top DNC officials are simply the text of news articles concerning how establishment democrats can "deal" with the insurgent left-winger. Update: 07/22 17:41 GMT by M :Guccifer 2.0 has claimed responsibility for the leak.
When Assange previously was given front-page status on slashdot for having a cache of Hillary emails to release, I said I figured he was going to do it to help Bernie Sanders win the election. After all, if Hillary were to actually fall out somehow before November, Sanders would be the only choice the party could present. Being as every poll that ever asked voters about Sanders vs Trump showed Sanders completely wiping the floor with Trump, this strongly suggests that Assange has a favorite here.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
It's not a secret that Clinton is a rather vile person, so whatever rude and dirty things she says to other Democrats is of no consequence.
The question is, is there anything in there that's incriminating? If not, it doesn't really matter.
So I can't even hazard a guess as to what's gonna happen this election. The US has a choice between a politician so sleezy as to be a caricature of a cliche politician, and a narcicistic psychopath who would quite happily plunge the world into world war 3 if someone makes fun of the size of his hands.
I mean, really? W. T. F.?
The only real option is if the entire country banded together and voted for an independent, but I just don't see that happening cause all the majority of people can see is the romantic idea of what their "team" represents, rather than look at what's actually happening.
Hmm. If you could be honest with yourself for a minute you'd accept the truth that everyone in America wants it for free. The only difference is that democrats want a safety net that they can't afford, whereas Republicans simply want their roads, their military, and their Medicare and want to live tax-free, apparently paying for the programs with manna from the sky.
They haven't nominated Hillary yet. Her coronation is next week at the Democratic National Convention. Which means it's still conceptually possible that they could nominate someone else.
They won't, of course. But it's still theoretically possible. In some other universe where criminals get charged for their crimes.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
A friend recently showed me 20 acres of land in Texas for $8000.00. Sure there are no utilities and it is in the middle of nowhere, but it's cheap.
Through your own sweat, you could build a little house and live off the grid and off of the land.
I realize that the cost of that "freedom" from my corporate bosses would require lots of sweat equity.
My corporate job provides me with benefits, paid time off, and a relatively stable life. I willingly trade some freedom for those benefits - absolutely no one is forcing me to take that deal.
Where the brainwashing has occured is on the Democratic side. Every year Democrats convince more people that more things are "rights" and therefore the people are entitled to those goods and services - without having earned them.
The people forced to provide those goods and services for those that haven't earned them are the real slaves.
want to live in a society where the government dictates everything from on high
You mean like who I'm allowed to have sex with? What women are allowed to do with their bodies?
You'd almost think they were to the point of micromanaging bathrooms.
In some other universe where wealthy and/or powerful criminals get charged for their crimes.
FTFY
Because if you look at who the emails are from, according to TFS, none are from Hillary. The headline is clickbait.
I've heard:
Democrats are tax and spend. Republicans are borrow and spend.
In that context, Democrats slightly better, at least they realize there's a cost.
Because people have it worse than you, you can't have criticism?
You can always criticize, everyone has free speech. Just be aware that in some cases, you'll seem like a whiny little brat. This might be because you are.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
He says while the US experiences the highest level of income disparity it has ever seen.
No one is complaining that they didn't get a free i-phone six. They are complaining that after working their way through college, accumulating massive amounts of debt, and struggling through a recession, the status quo is to reward the people and companies that are destroying the mobility in American society that you pretend you love so much. You want social mobility? Massive unemployment and huge profits for corporations isn't going to help anyone achieve the American Dream-- it's destroying that dream and creating some neo-fuedalistic society, a sham version of capitalism.
It's not whining to want to make the country a better place. Recognizing that human beings have inalienable rights is something our forefather's did over 200 years ago-- the rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". We have resources to provide people with universal heathcare, to provide people with food, water, shelter, and give them the freedom to pursuit happiness in whatever way they want. What will it cost us? It will mean that instead of earning 1.5 billion dollars a year some company will only earn a billion. It means that being rich in America will mean only being able to afford a 200 room mansion, a private jet and a fleet of sportscars an only have 20 million set aside for a rainy day instead of 40 million.
No one "earned" that money-- they won it in the lottery that is our economic system. They were a lucky bastard who did well. What a lot of people want is the SYSTEM that lets someone become a rich bastard ALSO make sure that the people who don't become rich bastards have a place to sleep, food to eat, and good health. The rich won't be quite as rich and the poor won't be quite as poor-- that' all, no socialist revolution, no communist bread lines.
It disgusts me that this is so hard to understand. People act like they are somehow special and earned their place in our society with no help from the society itself-- as if the crooked rules in the economic system weren't benefiting the rich after they bought and sold the politicians. If "having money" means you "earned that money" then the future of our society is undeniably going to become one of violence. When economic opportunity dies up, people will turn to violence, and all the creative accounting and luck in the market will be useless against one pissed off guy with a .45.
Good luck with your awesome Darwinian society.
Earned is the correct word to use to refer to resources that were paid for with earnings.
I don't withhold my resources (ie my retained earnings) in order to extract labor from people. I've always just offered to pay people a fee for their labor, which happens to be the same way I earn most of my money.
If you don't have any resources I'd suggest a two step approach:
1) Perform labor for a fee
2) Don't spend all the money you were paid for your services
Now I do admit that it is far easier if you can just replace step 1) with "Have someone give you some of their stuff", I can assure you that not working and getting paid only works if the percentage of parasites is sufficiently small. Too many parasites and the host dies.
So. If I risk money and invent a thing, and hire people to make it and pay them an agreed upon wage and after some years I get rich ...
I am now a slave owner that has earned nothing?
There is a reason that loser fucks continue to be loser fucks.
It is because there is no way to convince them that they have any power over their own lives.
They are scared that if they concede that they have power over their lives that they will suddenly be responsible for their own happiness.
They are not happy and get their only "Joy" from blaming others.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?