Slashdot Mirror


Clinton Campaign Breached By Hackers

An anonymous reader writes: Hillary Clinton's campaign network was breached by hackers targeting several large Democratic organizations, Reuters reports. Clinton's campaign spokesperson Nick Merrill confirmed the hack in a statement. 'An analytics data program maintained by the DNC, and used by our campaign and a number of other entities, was accessed as part of the DNC hack. Our campaign computer system has been under review by outside security experts. To date, they have found no evidence that our internal systems have been compromised,' he said.

The hack follows on the heels of breaches at the Democratic National Committee and at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee earlier this year. More than 19,000 emails from DNC officials were published on WikiLeaks just prior to the Democratic National Convention, casting a shadow over the proceedings. Some security experts and U.S. officials have attributed the breaches to Russian operatives, although the origin of the email leak is less certain.

265 comments

  1. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't care which country did it, it only proves how lackluster our security is in this country. Maybe if they stop outsourcing and under appreciating IT, this will stop happening.

    1. Re:Good by tripleevenfall · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Remember everyone, the DNC can be hacked and the Clinton campaign can be hacked, but there's NO WAY IN THE WORLD that Hillary's homebrew email server was hacked. Nope. Not possible. Pure as the driven snow.

    2. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Who cares if her server was hacked? It never stored any classified information, and if hacked, all they would get is her yoga routines & wedding plans for her daughter.

      We have the assurances of the Clinton herself to validate that truth with.

    3. Re:Good by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      And so what? What's the obsession here?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:Good by AlphaBro · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, who cares if one of the most powerful people in the world violated federal law and put national security at risk. Stop obsessing about it.

    5. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pull your head out of her ass

    6. Re:Good by StevenMaurer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Remember everyone, the DNC can be hacked and the Clinton campaign can be hacked, but there's NO WAY IN THE WORLD that Hillary's homebrew email server was hacked. Nope. Not possible. Pure as the driven snow.

      You mean that sarcastically, but it's basically true. Hacking a server is one thing. Hacking a server without leaving any tracks whatsoever is insanely difficult. Hillary Clinton's server was examined by top FBI forensic analysts, and no breach was detected. This is unlike the system she supposedly "should" have been using, OpenNet (the state.gov email system), which has been hacked so many times, they judge them by how bad they are Sources: State Dept. hack the 'worst ever'. Every other hack has been detected and analyzed - it strains credulity that of all these emails servers, only clintonemail.com would have been hacked so perfectly that there was no trace left, even in the many backups.

      This doesn't mean that the Russians don't have her emails, since anything sent to a state.gov email address was copied by them. But that's not Secretary Clinton's fault, and the sheer incompetence of State's IT department (their "solution" to her emails going to people's spam bucket wasn't to whitelist clintonemail.com, but to turn off all spam filtering), lends credence to the idea that she was just trying to work around some very incompetent people in the bureaucracy to get her job done.

      What is absolutely proven at this point, is that if she'd done things the "right way", then all her emails would be now in the possession of foreign intelligence agencies. Having clintonemail.com didn't hurt, and may in certain ways, helped.

    7. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Remember everyone, the DNC can be hacked and the Clinton campaign can be hacked, but there's NO WAY IN THE WORLD that Hillary's homebrew email server was hacked. Nope. Not possible. Pure as the driven snow.

      Okay, first off Clinton was not hacking together an email server in visual basic in her spare time. She probably didn't understand the security implications herself, and hired someone she thought competent, who obviously wasn't. Most likely it had whatever passes for the default security Microsoft provides, which is not horrible, but not world class either. It also likely had all the automatic updates, which are pretty important these days. I have no idea if it was hacked, but I do know what was. The official state department email system was hacked. email hack

      It seems to me that while running her own was a bad idea, the net result was no different. Also, running your own server is in no way shape or form illegal. It is unwise, but not illegal. The real problem was accidentally sending a small amount of classified material through that system. That is known as a data spill, and may have been easier to clean up if it was on the government system, but in no way shape or form was the official system rated for classified material either. That would be a completely different system.

      The only completely secure system is one that is not connected to an external network, and then it is only secure from external threats. You can increase the security by isolating systems behind VPNs and generally being very careful with what runs on every connected system. Of course then you have to sill update things, which adds complexity.

      Now, I watch quite a bit of news, and no one is really giving Clinton a free pass here. So pretending that she is getting one is just not true. What is true is that she is far better than the alternative, and, like it or not, it is for all intents and purpose a binary choice.

      Finally, all of this is why it is necessary and vital for encryption to thrive. Encrypt by default. Isolate applications by default. Applications should be able to write to their own areas, but nothing else should be able to. Application data needs to be encrypted with unique keys, so even if a process can run as root, it can't access another processes data. Any key storage needs to be particularly hardened. Defense in depth needs to be by design. Any time you hear a three letter agency tell you that encryption is bad, remind them of this crap.

      I predict that more political campaigns and such will switch, if they haven't already done so to BSD and similar variants, that take security seriously. Well, either that or they might just switch to solid web providers that take security seriously by default.

    8. Re:Good by quenda · · Score: 0

      Context bro! After all the crimes of recent and current administrations - mass surveillance at home, invading foreign countries, countless thousands dead, ...
      partisan interests are obsessing over one email server? The crimes are real, but the narrow obsession is insane.

    9. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And so what? What's the obsession here?

      If we had done the same thing we would be cellmates with Manning or on the run with Snowden and Assange.

    10. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Turn in your Nerd Card, it has been revoked!

      Once a machine is compromised, absolutely nothing on it can be trusted. With full access to a machine, log files can be erased or modified to cover all traces of intrusion. Couple this with the fact the machine was wiped, like with a cloth, and it is plainly obvious that any forensic analysis will be a waste of time. The fact is, the server in question was actively running insecure services on Internet facing ports, insecure as in there were known exploits at the time.

      It was once reported that a fresh install of Windows (an ancient version) would be compromised within minutes (10-15?) of being connected to the Internet due to the number of random scans. Clinton's server was running a wide-open vulnerable service for MONTHS. Let that sink in.

    11. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Context bro! After all the crimes of recent and current administrations - mass surveillance at home, invading foreign countries, countless thousands dead, ...
      partisan interests are obsessing over one email server? The crimes are real, but the narrow obsession is insane.

      If we had done the same thing we would be cellmates with Manning or on the run with Snowden and Assange.

    12. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So because a service is run by a department with less than a $300B budget then it's insecure?

      Sorry, that doesn't follow. Nothing is secure because money. If anything we're more secure because of the LACK of it (nobody wants to hack an impoverished service). Sure, Windows XP installations can be hacked within minutes but we're not looking at Windows services here.

    13. Re:Good by AlphaBro · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How's this for context: this article is about the Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, not mass surveillance, unjustified wars, or previous administrations. Hillary's server is especially relevant.

    14. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Yeah, who cares if one of the most powerful people in the world violated federal law and put national security at risk. Stop obsessing about it.

      Yeah, I totally agree, it was pretty fucking irresponsible of Trump to invite a foreign nation to hack a presidential candidate's systems...

    15. Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Come on, how many wedding plans can her daughter possibly have? 5000 max? Still, that leaves 25000 yoga exercises, and that's just hard to believe, to say the least.

    16. Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a lie, what actually happened was he asked them to publish the missing wedding plans and yoga lessons, all 30000 of them.

      Yoga has nothing to do with national security, so what is all that concern about?

    17. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What is absolutely proven at this point, is that if she'd done things the "right way", then all her emails would be now in the possession of foreign intelligence agencies. Having clintonemail.com didn't hurt, and may in certain ways, helped."

      Maybe you missed the point were tens of thousands of emails were hacked directly from Clinton's private server?

      Its all about hiding information, especially FOI requests on 'earned' income. But hey - in today's world - facts are pointless.

    18. Re:Good by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

      Neither the FBI nor anyone else found that any laws were violated. So stop obsessing about it!

    19. Re:Good by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1

      (...) She probably didn't understand the security implications herself, and hired someone she thought competent, who obviously wasn't.

      How competent is she to hire someone she thought is competent? That's the whole point and the prime reason these matters should be left in the hands of the experts at the government level. It these so called experts are not experts, solve the problem there in first place. Do not spread the problem by adding more unsecure stuff in a vain effort to make it secure.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    20. Re:Good by AchilleTalon · · Score: 2

      Remember everyone, the DNC can be hacked and the Clinton campaign can be hacked, but there's NO WAY IN THE WORLD that Hillary's homebrew email server was hacked. Nope. Not possible. Pure as the driven snow.

      Hillary Clinton's server was examined by top FBI forensic analysts, and no breach was detected.

      As far as I know, FBI didn't say no breach was detected. So, reference please. What came out of the FBI is it is not possible to relate Clinton to the breach or prove without doubt in order to build a case for court on the evidence they have Clinton's responsability. By all means, this doesn't mean not breach was discovered.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    21. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Neither the FBI nor anyone else found that any laws were violated. So stop obsessing about it!

      WUT?!?!?!?!

      Evidence Hillary Clinton Broke Federal Laws And Jeopardized National Security, No Charges Recommended... WTF, FBI?!

      FBI Director James Comey gave a press conference on Tuesday, July 5th, discussing in surprising detail the three main aspects of the investigation: What they did (a lot). What they found (she broke the law and jeopardized national security). ...

      And that's the Huffington Post - hardly a hotbed of anti-Democrat obsessions.

      What's the color of the sky on your planet? Because it sure as shit ain't blue.

    22. Re:Good by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not obsessed about it, actually. I don't particularly care about US federal law or national security anyway. What I find somewhat more troubling is attempts almost on the eve of elections at conveniently removing one of two major candidates for the leadership of a global superpower in a world I happen to live in, even if I happen to live in a different part of it.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    23. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So because a service is run by a department with less than a $300B budget then it's insecure?

      Sorry, that doesn't follow. Nothing is secure because money. If anything we're more secure because of the LACK of it (nobody wants to hack an impoverished service). Sure, Windows XP installations can be hacked within minutes but we're not looking at Windows services here.

      Strawman alert. GP poster never once mentioned money.

      Clinton's illegal bathroom server that was set up to avoid FOIA requests and government records retention laws was hacked because it was run by incompetent system admins.

      That harpy can't even hire a good sysadmin. And you really think she's qualified to be President? Does your standard for President begin and end with just the "D" after the name? Go grow a brain.

      Crooked Liar Hillary! must be getting desperate.

      If Wikileaks does have more dirt on Crooked Liar Hillary!, the next few months are going to be fun - seeing her get knocked down bit-by-bit, day-by-day as things like her speech to Goldman Sachs and her hypocrisy on things like TPP all become public. All the shit the media won't cover because they're in the tank for her - and the DNC emails prove that.

      And then President Trump actually acts on the fact that Crooked Liar Hillary! committed multiple felonies with that server and Crooked Liar Hillary! get indicted, tried, convicted, and jailed - and all her dirt becomes public.

      And you KNOW that's a quite possible - and it must stick in your craw to know you've hooked your wagon to such a slimeball. But you don't have the balls, standards, or even the basic intellectual honesty to admit it.

    24. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh, laws were violated. They just were excused. Comey is on record saying that anyone else Hillary caught doing what Hillary did with the same evidence, would be prosecuted. How does that sit with you? I guess it sits pretty good as long as some ass official says it's ok for one but not for anyone else. Try getting past your cognitive dissonance. You're failed logic is the pillar of corruption.

    25. Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It came out about a year ago, far from the eve of the election. And it concluded before the convention. The FBI doesn't get to choose when some corrupt asshole breaks the law and the info leaks out.

    26. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only wiped by the people that hacked it but by Clinton's staff and Clinton herself prior to the FBI getting it. StevenMauer is a tool, and communist sympathizer. By the way she did knowingly send classified material to people that weren't even employed by the government or have any security clearance such as Blumenthal and many others on numerous occasions. That's OK for commie sympathizers like Steven though. This tool thinks O is doing a great job. He's so brainwashed Hillary is writing her sequel titled, "It Takes A Village Idiot" about him. FYI the reason the email is separated on her own server has nothing to do with getting hacked, that's just the fallout of getting caught. 1. It has to do with the fact that she conversed with people, who we don't know at all of them at this time, tried to delete the evidence that she did, and still completely lies about it, to the American people and the the federal authorities. Steven thinks that's OK though. Steven doesn't realize that fast and furious was much more than a gun running operation from dealers in the southwest. It was a front to move heavy arms from military installations in Utah and Virginia through Mexico to Libya to people in Syria and Afghanistan. This was coordinated by Obama, Clinton, Rice, and Amb. Stevens through Clinton's email server. People in Libya found out about it, didn't like it, and put and end to it. But it was just about a video right? Lie. They couldn't get there. Lie. Obama and Clinton let them die on purpose. Isn't it strange how none of the other survivors have really been interviewed by anybody, not a peep out of them really. I'm sure they got the "shut up or die" speech, "see what happened to your colleagues?". 2. How about the super secret uranium deal to sell off American uranium mineral rights to the Russians. Steven the useful idiot that thinks that's OK too. It must be coincidence that she and her husband did the same thing in the 90s selling coal mineral rights to the Chinese, selling rocket guidance tech to the Chinese. On and on and on, this shit doesn't end. As far as I'm concerned, at this point, anyone that helps the Clintons are guilty of sedition.

    27. Re:Good by Spazmania · · Score: 1

      The Clinton campaign was not hacked. That's a misreport. The DNC was hacked. Two organizations. Two networks. Two different sets of staff.

      The misreport is like saying that because VISA was hacked, Bank of America was hacked. No. Bank of America does buy services from VISA and they are impacted by a (theoretical) VISA hack but that doesn't mean that they have automagically been hacked solely because VISA has.

      And no, Hillary's email server wasn't hacked either. Some of the folks she communicated with were hacked. She was not.

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    28. Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh they did, just not intentionally :)

    29. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Turn in your Nerd Card, it has been revoked!

      Once a machine is compromised, absolutely nothing on it can be trusted. With full access to a machine, log files can be erased or modified to cover all traces of intrusion.

      Actually that's not strictly true. If services are properly protected with MAC like SELinux or Capsicum, it is entirely possible for a daemon like an MTA/MDA to get compromised, exfiltrate all the spools it has access to, but be impossible for it to erase the system logs as it isn't running with ambient authority. Ditto for jailed services. Ditto for quality hardware like IBM AIX boxes and mainframes, which have separate hardware and processors for storing audit logs. Ditto for servers that are setup competently, because they log to an external, separately secured log server (basically what AIX and z do, except the log server is integrated inside the physical enclosure).

      Of course servers designed to competent security engineering standards aren't typically hackable, and follow the POLA principle to minimise the harm and exposure if they are hackable. Writing code with Capsicum or pledge for example is incredibly not-difficult; people not putting these basic and easy to use techniques into practice are wilfully negligent.

    30. Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You clearly haven't seen Hillary's exquisite "downward facing dog" whoop whoop....
      --Bill

    31. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember everyone, the DNC can be hacked and the Clinton campaign can be hacked, but there's NO WAY IN THE WORLD that Hillary's homebrew email server was hacked. Nope. Not possible. Pure as the driven snow.

      Someone probably already has her by the lady balls (Imagine it is Russians). Moment she steps out of line, emails will somehow show up. BOOM. Political shitstorm might be unpleasant (depending on the perspective) but it will teach the next president to play ball.

    32. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing prevents her admin to erase logs (probably w/o her knowledge as she was too dumb to know what's going on) if Clinton's email server was found to be hacked.

    33. Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would agree with you, if it were actually true. Other people caught doing what Hillary did were not prosecuted. Because there was insufficient evidence to PROVE it adequately.

      Yes, on the balance she totally probably did break the law, same as people in the past. But was it provable in court? The answer was no.
        Just like there other couple past cases exactly like Clinton's.

    34. Re:Good by JustBoo · · Score: 1

      Who cares if her server was hacked? It never stored any classified information, and if hacked, all they would get is her yoga routines & wedding plans for her daughter.

      We have the assurances of the Clinton herself to validate that truth with.

      Here is a short (One minute, 40 seconds) film showing the inside story of the yoga routines and emails and a stunning analysis of its impact.

      Mrs, Clinton and Yoga

      (If she is taking so much yoga, why is she still wearing pantsuits?)

    35. Re:Good by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      And so what? What's the obsession here?

      Well, Trump gave them permission to hack her.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  2. Hillary Clinton server hacked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *yawn*

  3. Oh No! All those Yoga Routines Stolen! by LittleBigScript · · Score: 1, Funny

    I blame the hack on a Youtube video.

    1. Re:Oh No! All those Yoga Routines Stolen! by AlphaBro · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Let's ignore the emails about rigging the election and instead focus on how these hackers are trying to rig the election.

    2. Re: Oh No! All those Yoga Routines Stolen! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except Trump isn't Bernie, so he won't just sell out and congratulate them for rigging the actual elections.

      I was all for Bernie but now that he has betrayed us we can either vote Trump or move to Canada.

  4. Untouchable criminal by rfengr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That criminal witch is untouchable, so I don't see the point of further hacks. She should be headed to prison instead of the White House.

    1. Re:Untouchable criminal by mozumder · · Score: 0

      Yet, we liberals will ensure she gets to rule over you and control your life, for our liberal benefit.

      America is a liberal country - Love it or leave it.

    2. Re:Untouchable criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Between Libya and Honduras she killed a lot of people

    3. Re:Untouchable criminal by bobthesungeek76036 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Stop acting as if she killed someone...

      2012 Benghazi attack...

      --
      Karma: Bad
    4. Re:Untouchable criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If this is the mindset of the common liberal democrat, then I understand why Clinton can still run for present even after the FBI confirmed her crimes. You have no regard for the law. She should not be allowed to run for president. She's an non-convicted, uncharged felon, and she would have your ass in jail were you to commit the same crimes.

      But perhaps you are right. We no longer seem to live in a country of laws. Perhaps it is time to get out.

    5. Re:Untouchable criminal by skids · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Stop watching movies and thinking they are real.

    6. Re:Untouchable criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the hate crimes Trump is spouting every times he open his dirty mouth.

      So saying things some people don't like (while lacking any immediate calls for violence)... is now considered a hate crime?

      Truly the SJW's have won the cultural war... if you are right... which thankfully you are not.

    7. Re:Untouchable criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You want to "rule" over me? Are you willing to use force of arms to attain this goal?

      There isn't a chance in hell I will allow my children to be "ruled" by anyone.

    8. Re:Untouchable criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That criminal witch is untouchable, so I don't see the point of further hacks. She should be headed to prison instead of the White House.

      Hillary was careless with sensitive information and a small amount of classified information. No one is going to prosecute for that. If you had listened to the FBI report, you would understand why. Prosecuting her for that would literally be treating your political enemies different than everyone else. It is bad enough that we do live in one where you can waste millions of tax payer dollars to try to find some law that can be used to attack your political enemies. You sir, want to destroy democracy completely by locking up your political enemies. It is bad enough that Trump is practically encouraging violence at times. This prison meme is just flat out wrong. It is trying to short out any kind of rational discourse by simply encouraging mob hatred. Hell, I just heard a trump campaign rally where they were all shouting, "Lock her up!". It takes so very little to go from that to someone trying to take action and he encourages it.

      What is just as bad is Trump is encouraging a foreign government to intervene and help him win the election. That is so far beyond the pale as to be totally unforgiveable and instantly disqualifying. American politics should stop at the border. No government should be permitted to influence them. He should be denouncing this intervention in the strongest terms, yet since they serve him, he smiles and asks for them to keep helping him, and then pretends that he was only kidding. Personally, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he owes some Russian banks a ton of money, and that is what is in his tax returns. It certainly would explain their support. They may have already compromised him. For that matter, I wonder who he doesn't owe money to?

      Who are his creditors, for they are his true masters...

    9. Re:Untouchable criminal by skids · · Score: 4, Informative

      So Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith.Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty weren't killed there in large part due to Hillary?

      Nope, they were killed there. But not "in large part due to Hillary" except on your fantasy island.

    10. Re:Untouchable criminal by ogdenk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hateful speech is not a crime. This is not the EU. You can be a NeoNazi and drape your house in swastikas if you want. It's only a hate crime once you start gassing people or telling other people to do so.

    11. Re: Untouchable criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes you will, sheep.

    12. Re:Untouchable criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck off you idiot! Keep your crap in the small empty space between your ears.

    13. Re:Untouchable criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HIllary Clinton is paying 6 Million a year for people to post in her favor. DNC system administrator found dead after DNC E-Mails hacked.

    14. Re:Untouchable criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That criminal, Hillary Clinton, is untouchable. There. Softened?

    15. Re:Untouchable criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/another-clinton-associate-found-dead-bill-hillarys-body-count-increases/

    16. Re:Untouchable criminal by J053 · · Score: 4, Informative

      16 US embassies and/or consulates were attacked during GW Bush's presidency. 60 people were killed. There were NO congressional hearings. Double standard, much?

    17. Re:Untouchable criminal by jpapon · · Score: 1

      In fact, 46 people who were close to the Clintons have died during their 3 decades of political power.

      In what world is that weird? The Clintons must have had thousands of people working for them over the past 30+ years. That 46 of those people have died should surprise nobody.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    18. Re:Untouchable criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should work on hiding your support of corruption, while you're at it. Whatever their reasons are for hating Hillary, it doesn't excuse the way she's able to be above the law.

    19. Re: Untouchable criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah? No.

      It's really sad though -- I always thought of liberals as well meaning, if rather silly. If it ever does come to hostilities, I really do wish you well, though it'll be my great honor and privilege to stomp your twisted and depraved ideology back into the ash heap of history where it belongs.

    20. Re:Untouchable criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Was there evidence that they were being actively denied support? Were lies used as cover-ups later?

      I would love to see Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld charged with war crimes, but the more pressing issue is that the woman of today's topic has a very good chance of becoming president and doing far more damage than she's ever done before.

      The people need to know the truth about her and her sponsors in order to be informed voters.

    21. Re:Untouchable criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a conservative country that was founded on conservative ideals. It flourished as a conservative nation. Free market capitalism, respect for individual freedoms and all that. Once the liberal/socialist ideas started to infiltrate government, it was all downhill.

      If you loony lefties want socialism and communism so much, why don't you move to Venezuela or China? Or is it just in your nature to try to drag others down with you, like most self-loathers do?

    22. Re:Untouchable criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      the hate crimes Trump is spouting every times he open his dirty mouth.

      So saying things some people don't like (while lacking any immediate calls for violence)... is now considered a hate crime?

      Truly the SJW's have won the cultural war... if you are right... which thankfully you are not.

      Extreme political correctness is the reason some people want to vote for Trump. He's extreme in the opposite direction.

    23. Re:Untouchable criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol, how are things in far right deluded bizzaro world?

    24. Re:Untouchable criminal by Bartles · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How many embassies were destroyed, and how many ambassadors were killed?

    25. Re:Untouchable criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That criminal witch is untouchable

      You need to work on disguising your misogyny. Words like "witch" show us what your real problem is.

      Men can be witches too, faggot.

    26. Re:Untouchable criminal by Bartles · · Score: 2

      Are you saying warlock would be more appropriate?

    27. Re:Untouchable criminal by ogdenk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why? Because we don't jail people for thought crimes and believe everyone deserves a voice even if they're stupid? Since when is not liking people a crime?

      NeoNazis are ridiculed quite mercilessly here in the US. You have the freedom to say whatever you want. And people have the freedom to call you an irrational douchebag and wish that someone would kick your ass.

      It's called LIBERTY. We still have a little bit of that left in spite of the best efforts of "progressives" and SJW retards. If liberty scares you and you enjoy a nanny state that punishes people for being meanieheads, then enjoy the EU. A nanny state for your "protection" goes against the principles on which this country was founded. And nanny states are happy to turn on their own citizens eventually.

    28. Re:Untouchable criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like committing treason by asking Russia to hack his opponents and then waving it off as sarcasm?

    29. Re:Untouchable criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how many of those saw a private citizen and a youtube video being blamed?

      see? its not simply a numbers game... the facts at hand are what should matter... which to you they clearly do not.

    30. Re:Untouchable criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop your misuse of the word 'misogyny', unless your goal is to dilute its meaning.

      witch: an ugly or mean old woman; hag: the old witch who used to own this building.

      The word is appropriate use in this case. There is nothing misogynistic about the post.

    31. Re: Untouchable criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to Donald Trump himself (and he would know), Hillary Clinton was asleep in her bed.

      This means unless she is a Dream stalker, she is innocent of those killings in Benghazi.

      Sorry, but that is her alibi.

    32. Re:Untouchable criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given how far we've swung in one direction... free speech zones & kangaroo courts for sexual assault on campus, trigger warnings, micro aggression, racial supremacists advocating for cop killing (and some acting on it)... the list goes on.

      Sometimes... the only solution is a swing in the opposite direction.

      Afraid it might go too far? Thank those who supported Obama and moved the Overton Window to the point that a Trump candidacy wasn't just a possibility, but an attraction for many.

    33. Re: Untouchable criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have the freedom to say whatever you want.

      Except, of course, when you call something a hate crime, as that just goes much too far. It is unacceptable. Unacceptable. That cannot be tolerated at all.

      Seriously, the arrogant pretentious with which you conduct yourself as if you were the only rightful person in existence makes you look like an irrational douchebag.

      You're quicker to leap to the outrageous than you may realize, and your purported offense at describing the words of Donald Trump as a hate crime is probably feigned. It'd be one thing if you could have kept yourself to the high road and stuck with a guarded tone yourself, but you have not.

      Not even close. You're just looking for an excuse to flaunt your superiority and sneer down at others. It's the nanny state you despise. The political correctness that is evil.

      Whatever. Spare us. Especially the concern for a government turning on you, because you know what also becomes dangerous? The vicious braying mob out for blood and goaded into a frenzy.

      Consider whose side you are on. Or not. Thinking is optional. You can just kick someones ass when they upset you.

    34. Re:Untouchable criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bribery of a government official who gives out favours from their position of power isn't a crime now? Or is it just another one of those "any reasonable prosecutor wouldn't prosecute"?

      Short take on story...
      Hillary took bribes, FROM RUSSIA, the evil empire that is now our mortal enemy since Trump mentioned them, and approved the sale of 20% of US uranium to Russia. This was to benefit her and Bill's friends and they received a total of $145 MILLION in "donations" to their foundation for it.

      Not sure what else she could POSSIBLY do to be more corrupt or would be more illegal for someone like the head of the State Department to do.

    35. Re:Untouchable criminal by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      There's country as a state and country as a people. The former is uncivilized if bigots are denied a voice and the latter is uncivilized if bigots are present.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    36. Re:Untouchable criminal by Mashiki · · Score: 5, Informative

      You mean besides the part where the Benghazi embassy requested extra security and she along with her underlings said there wasn't any money for it? But they could come up with the money for electric car chargers for the embassies in Europe?

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    37. Re: Untouchable criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In your PC Fascist state, reciting facts becomes hate crime. Taking actions that might improve the wages and lives of the citizens of the country is also hate crime, apparently.

    38. Re:Untouchable criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That criminal witch is untouchable

      You need to work on disguising your misogyny. Words like "witch" show us what your real problem is.

      Actually the real problem is it's insulting to witches.

    39. Re:Untouchable criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or is it just in your nature to try to drag others down with you, like most self-loathers do?

      They sort of have to. If they leave non-socialist countries out there that are more prosperous it defeats the crazy they're selling. Once everything is worse than what they're selling, theirs becomes the best.

    40. Re: Untouchable criminal by AlphaBro · · Score: 1

      It's not a hate crime, idiot. That's what you're missing here.

    41. Re:Untouchable criminal by reboot246 · · Score: 0

      Forgive the Europeans. They wouldn't know liberty if it bit them on the butt.
      They don't have a set of balls amongst them. Pansies all. Cupcakes. Overly sensitive little girls.

      The EU = a government without a country. Now what could possibly go wrong with that? Uh, maybe tyranny?

    42. Re: Untouchable criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or arranging to give significant control of US uranium supplies to Russia. Which is worse, words or deeds?

    43. Re:Untouchable criminal by RoccamOccam · · Score: 1

      Ack. Undoing moderation.

    44. Re:Untouchable criminal by AlphaBro · · Score: 1

      Pointless semantic games. That aside, bigotry is a natural property of mankind and will exist as long as people do. Get over it.

    45. Re:Untouchable criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there any "country as a people" that is civilized by your standard?

    46. Re: Untouchable criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, no, AlphaBro, defending Trump's words had not been Ogdenk's intent or purpose, in fact, the particulars of them or any words is immaterial, as Ogdenk's defense is explicitly applied to all Hateful speech, and the example offered by Ogdenk was Neo-Nazis.

      That group would be succored under the tree of liberty that Ogdenk had planted. Whether or not you feel that way about them, or about Trump, he would defend them under the aegis of free speech even though he would identify them as despicable.

      Of course, that he shows such obvious contempt and resentment towards liberals and SJW retards as he calls them, makes me think he would not long hold his standards, but regardless of that doubt, your apprehension of the thread of the discussion is faulty.

      We are not discussing the merits of Trump's proclamations or orations, but a more general approach to the subject itself.

      Do you have anything to say on that?

    47. Re:Untouchable criminal by RoccamOccam · · Score: 1

      You mean like committing treason by asking Russia to hack his opponents and then waving it off as sarcasm?

      Definitely not a Trump supporter, but I have to take issue with that statement. He didn't call for hacking, he said that they should "find" the missing emails. Since the server is already off-line, it's not there to be hacked.

      Presumably, he is suggesting that the server had probably already been hacked (maybe by any number of individuals or countries) and he thinks they could be found.

    48. Re: Untouchable criminal by ogdenk · · Score: 2

      LOL Freedom of speech is outrageous because people can't control themselves and need the gubmint to make sure people don't listen to harmful ideas and bad thoughts or it might turn them into violent monsters LOL

      I found the butthurt SJW! This is almost as fun as fishing. And yes, I sneer at those who invite tyranny into our lives.

      I know which side I'm on. And it's certainly not yours.

    49. Re:Untouchable criminal by quantaman · · Score: 1

      That criminal witch is untouchable, so I don't see the point of further hacks. She should be headed to prison instead of the White House.

      Using a non-governmental account wasn't unprecedented, or illegal.

      The illegal part was that classified information was occasionally sent on the servers, but there's no reason to think that was deliberate. High level State Department officials would constantly be dealing with information that was classified, but carried no indication of being classified. Any communication channel they regularly use was going to see the occasional classified document.

      That's why people who do what Hillary did, regardless of political influence, don't get charged and certainly don't go to jail.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    50. Re:Untouchable criminal by Crashmarik · · Score: 4, Informative

      https://pjmedia.com/homeland-s...

      Hillary Obstructed Boko Haram's Terror Designation as Her Donors Cashed In
      In January 2015, I was one of the first to report on a massive massacre by Nigerian terror group Boko Haram in Borno State in northwest Nigeria, with reportedly thousands killed. Witnesses on the ground reported that bodies littered the landscape for miles as towns and villages had been burned to the ground, their populations murdered or fled.

      And yet, as Boko Haram began to ramp up its terror campaign in 2011 and 2012, Hillary Clinton obstructed the official terror designation of the group over the objections of Congress, the FBI, the CIA and the Justice Department.

      Nice deflection onto Bush. I gotta ask how is he running for office again and what the hell makes you think it absolves her sins.

    51. Re:Untouchable criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no such thing as a hate crime. No crime is friendly or meaning to be friendly. An assault is an assault. You may dislike the person you assaulted but your crime is assault. Hate crime, is a media propaganda expression it is meant to intimidate you make you submissive. For example:
      Criminal Justice Act 2003.
      Examples of "hate crimes" ( is registered has a hate crime by the police. But that is NOT A ( crime ) IT IS A REGISTERED INCIDENT you are actually being charged with assault IF YOU VIOLENTLY ATTACK SOMEBODY.

      Here are examples of hate crimes:
      assaults.
      criminal damage.
      harassment.
      murder.
      sexual assault.
      theft.
      fraud.
      burglary.
      hate mail (Malicious Communications Act 1988)
      causing harassment, alarm or distress (Public Order Act 1988).

      And incidents not crimes but incidents "hate incidents".
      Offensive jokes.
      Bullying or intimidation by children.
      Graffiti.
      Throwing rubbish into somebody's garden. Malicious complaints for example over parking smells or noise.

      ( If you answer to this and your answer is abusive I can say you have committed a "hate crime". But you have not committed a criminal offence. ).
      I can register you in my diary as a hateful person who has just committed a hateful crime against me. BUT you haven't committed a criminal offence
      just because I have registered you in my diary.

        "Hate crime" cannot be defined in law. I hate Kelloggs cornflakes. I probably hate you. The U.N. SAYS THERE IS NO SUCH CRIME AS HATE CRIME. BECAUSE HATE CRIME CANNOT BE DEFINED IN LAW. IS WAR A HATE CRIME? IS A POLITICAL DISAGREEMENT A HATE CRIME. NO.. NO.
      Burglary is burglary. Assault is assault. Criminal damage is criminal damage. Murder is murder. Sexual assault is sexual assault. Theft is theft. Fraud is fraud. And so on. There is no such thing as a hate crime.

    52. Re:Untouchable criminal by quantaman · · Score: 2

      You mean besides the part where the Benghazi embassy requested extra security and she along with her underlings said there wasn't any money for it? But they could come up with the money for electric car chargers for the embassies in Europe?

      WTF do electric car chargers have to do with security? Do you imagine that embassies must have "perfect" security and only then are the employees allowed to have chairs?

      I'm not even sure if they were making a tradeoff, there's an actual security budget which suggests the electric car chargers came from a completely different pool of money than security. (though I could see a valid security argument for the chargers)

      --
      I stole this Sig
    53. Re: Untouchable criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Face it, the dems should have nominated anyone else if they wanted to win. It's not like anything we hear about her is much suprising. Her reputation was already as bad as it gets and they still want her to be president. That's just a bad sense for PR.

      And this is why we're getting Trump in the white house. Because we deserve him.

    54. Re:Untouchable criminal by ljw1004 · · Score: 1

      And nanny states are happy to turn on their own citizens eventually.

      Really? Which nanny states are you thinking of?

      Sweden? Denmark? -- No turning on citizens. Just improving their lot. Singapore? Yes it did ban bubble gum, but on the list of "turning on your own citizens" that seems pretty minor. UK? Yes it does have the same Orwellian surveillance of its own citizens as the US, but that's not really "turning on your own citizens" and it's not really associated with nanny states.

    55. Re:Untouchable criminal by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Insightful

      WTF do electric car chargers have to do with security? Do you imagine that embassies must have "perfect" security and only then are the employees allowed to have chairs?

      Well let's look at it from an IT pov shall we? You'r UID is low enough you should get it. Imagine you've got two satellite offices, one is in a relatively stable, secure area where you can get away with simple keypad lockouts and the occasional guard. The other location is in a shit hole, there's roving bands of thugs and not only do you have heavy security you also have all the existing security.

      Now your nice safe office in order to look trendy in their new hip area wants 143 cappuccino and espresso machines, because that'll make them look good. And your other office wants more on the ground bodies and further hardening of the existing security measure to make sure your hardware is secure. So you decide that trendy and hip is the way to go, your other office gets trashed, people get killed and you just say "well there wasn't any money to help with that..." while you just finished spending several hundred thousand dollars for cappuccino and espresso machines.

      So the money was there, it could have been reallocated by dispensation to the security fund. But instead of doing that you're now responsible for the deaths of a couple of people, destruction of your hardware and other issues. And your response is: "what difference does it make?"

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    56. Re:Untouchable criminal by NotAPK · · Score: 1

      "American politics should stop at the border. No government should be permitted to influence them."

      The USA should definitely stay within its own border, and leave other governments well enough alone.

      I think this shit needs to end.

    57. Re:Untouchable criminal by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      That's not liberty. If you are a Jew, how can you enjoy your life, go freely about your business without fear if your neighbour's house is covered in swastikas?

      Besides, you are being selective. Even in America you can't turn your back yard into a sewage processing plant without a permit, because it's understood that when people have to live close together they can't have the freedom to do absolutely anything they want.

      The EU does far more to protect individual freedom.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    58. Re: Untouchable criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, what is really suprising is that only 46 have died from all those thousands during all these years. From this it seems that the Clintons actually bring luck.

      I think you've just helped me decide who to vote for. If you were paid by Hillary I'd say you deserve every dime.

    59. Re:Untouchable criminal by sumdumass · · Score: 2

      Give it up. You will never win with any argument of logic or fact when they excuse political incompetence with Bush did it. We know for a fact that help wasn't sent for fears of the political fallout but that isn't important. Sitting on your hands and doing nothing while American officials are being killed is somehow justifiably because under different circumstances Bush did it.

    60. Re:Untouchable criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      16 US embassies and/or consulates were attacked during GW Bush's presidency. 60 people were killed. There were NO congressional hearings. Double standard, much?

      B-b-b-b-b-but BOOOOOSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Grow

      the

      fuck

      up.

    61. Re:Untouchable criminal by ogdenk · · Score: 2

      That's not liberty. If you are a Jew, how can you enjoy your life, go freely about your business without fear if your neighbour's house is covered in swastikas?

      Because assaulting and killing people is still considered a crime. Being offensive isn't.

      Besides, you are being selective. Even in America you can't turn your back yard into a sewage processing plant without a permit, because it's understood that when people have to live close together they can't have the freedom to do absolutely anything they want.

      That would actually be a public health risk and put the property of others at risk of being contaminated. Now if you live in a rural area, this would be less of an issue.

      The EU does far more to protect individual freedom.

      No, not at all. If you can be cited for offending people, speaking out against religion, being insulting or owning defensive weapons.... you are not free. You do not have an inherent right to be shielded from offensive ideas or to never have your feelings hurt.

    62. Re:Untouchable criminal by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      What is just as bad is Trump is encouraging a foreign government to intervene and help him win the election. That is so far beyond the pale as to be totally unforgiveable and instantly disqualifying.

      Did you actually listen to the speech where he said this, or just your Democratic Information Masters? It's blatantly obvious it's totally tongue in cheek if you actually listen to it. Trump says a lot of stupid stuff; why don't you attack the stuff that he's serious about, rather than jokes?

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    63. Re:Untouchable criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By that line of reasoning its perfectly understandable why we have money to build tunnels under highways for the mating routes of turtles, but we cant provide funding for sufficient mental health care for the TWENTY TWO US VETERANS who commit suicide every day. (https://www.22kill.com/)
      They come from different budgets.

      Here's a list of stupid shit the government has spent money on : http://www.fool.com/investing/...

      Would you argue that any of these are more important than some other project you think is vital? Do you think they are more important than, say, wellfare support for the elderly? How about for funding food for underprivileged kids? How about wellness checks for people with disabilities?

      Would you look any of the people directly impacted by the lack of funding in those programs in the eye and tell them that they really have no argument at all for their concern about the waste in the list above because "they come from a completely different pool of money".

      You're a fucking hypocrite and/or a complete moron.

    64. Re:Untouchable criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's country as a state and country as a people. The former is uncivilized if bigots are denied a voice and the latter is uncivilized if bigots are present.

      True. We'd be a lot more civilized without of all those racist "Kill the Pigs!" bigots who force people of a certain color to sit at the back of the bus.

    65. Re: Untouchable criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL Freedom of speech is outrageous because people can't control themselves and need the gubmint to make sure people don't listen to harmful ideas and bad thoughts or it might turn them into violent monsters LOL

      I found the butthurt SJW! This is almost as fun as fishing. And yes, I sneer at those who invite tyranny into our lives.

      I know which side I'm on. And it's certainly not yours.

      I'd be somewhat concerned if you were to purport to be on my side. Not because I believed it, but because I'd hate to be associated with you in that manner.

      Like I already said, I could respect you if had taken the path of wanting to moderate discussion, and avoid overblown rhetoric, as certainly there is a valid position that such hysteria causes many problems in discussions, but your real desires are coming out much more clearly. You just want to make pompous proclamations yourself, and rail against those you despise. That is what you would prefer to do.

      A pity, really. There could a lot of improvement in the level of discourse which in turn would probably produce better results than the unfortunate development towards screaming hyperbole. For that matter, there could be an honest and genuine discussion on the merits of self-control, but actually, government exists because people can be misled by their passions, because people can act inappropriately in a variety of fashions, and so a mechanism exists to forestall that. Of course, government needs to be controlled itself for that same reason.

      You don't care. You prefer to just rather fret over SJW and scream about freedom and tyranny.

      No surprise. It's a lot easier. No thinking required for that. Just kick ass!

      Spare us the attempted deception, please. All your ego-stroking is revealing your true tendency, you'd leap into any number of forms of repression for those who offend you.

    66. Re: Untouchable criminal by Feyshtey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Who decides what is hate speech? You? Hillary? Obama?

      I tell you what, I think it's hurtful and mean to say that I have white privilege. I believe that I am being singled out purely based on the color of my skin and it being assumed that because of that skin color I am somehow a hazard to society. I think it's further hateful and harmful that I am assumed to be misogynistic because I have a penis. Based purely on my gender I am assumed to be a destructive element to society. I believe that the terms "white privilege" and "male-dominated" are micro-aggressions, that they are racist and sexist generalizations, and by every comparative definition to anyone that chants them while quite literally RIOTING in the streets, they are undeniably guilty of hate speech.

      Where is your outrage for harms done me?
      Where is your campaign slogan to protect me from the wildfire of anger and hate directed at me?
      Or will you admit that by your definitions that free speech is for you to stir anger toward me, but that you personally mean to deny me any rights to turn that speech back on you.

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    67. Re:Untouchable criminal by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      You are confused. I'm not taking about just insulting people, that's fine. I'm taking about creating an atmosphere were a reasonable person would be justifiably afraid.

      It wouldn't be acceptable to point a gun at someone's head without pulling the trigger. No physical harm done, but it's a clear threat and would justify a response.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    68. Re:Untouchable criminal by ogdenk · · Score: 2

      You are confused. I'm not taking about just insulting people, that's fine. I'm taking about creating an atmosphere were a reasonable person would be justifiably afraid.

      The problem is defining terms like "justifiably afraid" and "reasonable person" are almost impossible to do in a legal sense and such laws tend to incredibly broad and open to interpretation.

      Some Christians believe they are "justifiably afraid" because their kids walk by liquor stores or a gay club on their way home from school. The KKK believes they are "justifiably afraid" of black protests. Some people think they are "justifiably afraid" because people can carry a holstered pistol without wearing a badge. And "reasonable person" in the eyes of most people means "people who think like me".

      It wouldn't be acceptable to point a gun at someone's head without pulling the trigger. No physical harm done, but it's a clear threat and would justify a response.

      That's a direct threat of violence, which is NOT acceptable. There's a difference between someone saying "You should be shot" and "I'm going to shoot you".

    69. Re:Untouchable criminal by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The problem is defining terms like "justifiably afraid" and "reasonable person" are almost impossible to do in a legal sense and such laws tend to incredibly broad and open to interpretation.

      That's for courts to decide. You could make the same argument about all sorts of things. Was it negligence or could no reasonable person have foreseen it? That was one of the earliest uses of it (Vaughan v. Menlove).

      Without this standard, it would be impossible to prevent your neighbour playing loud music 24/7. They could argue that you are being overly sensitive and could just sleep through it like they do.

      That's a direct threat of violence, which is NOT acceptable.

      Is it? Maybe they just like waving their gun around. They told you it's not loaded, and you can trust them, surely... Or are you saying that any reasonable person would interpret it as a threat of violence?

      Maybe now you understand the problem with adorning your home with swastikas. Most reasonable people would interpret using Nazi imagery, associated with a group of ultra-violent bigots who murdered millions of people, as a fairly clear statement of hostile intent.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    70. Re:Untouchable criminal by ogdenk · · Score: 2

      That's for courts to decide. You could make the same argument about all sorts of things. Was it negligence or could no reasonable person have foreseen it? That was one of the earliest uses of it (Vaughan v. Menlove).

      Without this standard, it would be impossible to prevent your neighbour playing loud music 24/7. They could argue that you are being overly sensitive and could just sleep through it like they do.

      And if they argued that, they could be right. Your definition of loud could be quite different from theirs. That's why such laws in my area have stated decibel limits in residential areas during certain times of the day to avoid broad interpretation and selective enforcement. Some people are just obnoxious and report anyone playing music they can hear. Especially if it's a form of music they don't like. Anyone who doesn't see things their way is not a reasonable person.

      Is it? Maybe they just like waving their gun around. They told you it's not loaded, and you can trust them, surely... Or are you saying that any reasonable person would interpret it as a threat of violence?

      No, brandishing a firearm and waving it around is a crime. You don't even need to be all that reasonable to understand waving a firearm around or sticking it in someone's face is threatening. Loaded or not. Walking around with a weapon slung over your shoulder or holstered is not a direct threat and legal in many areas.

      Maybe now you understand the problem with adorning your home with swastikas. Most reasonable people would interpret using Nazi imagery, associated with a group of ultra-violent bigots who murdered millions of people, as a fairly clear statement of hostile intent.

      Not all Nazis were violent. Not all of them gassed jews. So no, swastika decorations by themselves don't demonstrate hostile intent. They just show how much of an asshole you are. And sympathizing with violent groups or displaying associated imagery is not a crime otherwise all the dumbass wannabe commies displaying Che Guevera or Mao t-shirts would have a problem. Committing a violent act or directly threatening violence IS a crime.

    71. Re:Untouchable criminal by ogdenk · · Score: 1

      Maybe now you understand the problem with adorning your home with swastikas. Most reasonable people would interpret using Nazi imagery, associated with a group of ultra-violent bigots who murdered millions of people, as a fairly clear statement of hostile intent.

      Also, using such logic would justify outlawing Islamic imagery because their holy book calls for murdering Jews. Or outlawing Christian imagery because their religion condones violence and stoning under several circumstances.

    72. Re:Untouchable criminal by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Islam is a bit different because most Muslims don't act that way, or at least most of the ones living in the west. A few do, but the majority, like the majority of Christians, have rejected the violent parts of their religion's dogma. Nazism is primarily about hating and doing harm to others, it serves little other purpose.

      To be clear though, we absolutely should take a hard line on the aspects of Islam that are incompatible with human rights and our system of law, and our social norms. Banning halal meat would be a good start.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    73. Re:Untouchable criminal by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      And if they argued that, they could be right. Your definition of loud could be quite different from theirs.

      That's why you need a more objective measure. You are agreeing with me.

      Decibel limits are one option, but there was an interesting case in the UK recently that wouldn't be covered by such a limit. There were two professional piano players in a house who would practice for hours on end every day. The practice was extremely repetitive and irritating for the neighbours, even if the overall volume level wasn't too bad and they only did it during the day.

      Another example of the decibel limit being inadequate is when a baby is involved. In the UK you can't complain about babies crying or children screaming as they play if it's just part of a normal childhood. It's annoying and can keep you up all night, but courts applied the "reasonable person" test.

      No, brandishing a firearm and waving it around is a crime.

      Yes, but why is it a crime? It's not physically hurting anyone, just like adorning your house with Nazi imagery is not physically hurting anyone. It's because a reasonable person would see that behaviour as unreasonable, despite the lack of immediate physical harm.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    74. Re:Untouchable criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would like to echo this sentiment.

      Even if the phrase really isn't derogatory towards women, people who disagree with you will fixate on details like that, and blow them out of proportion, in an attempt to discredit your argument (especially if they have no other way to do so). So, it is in your best interest to speak in a really sanitized way (at least if you want to be taken seriously).

    75. Re:Untouchable criminal by ogdenk · · Score: 1

      No, brandishing a firearm and waving it around is a crime.

      Yes, but why is it a crime? It's not physically hurting anyone, just like adorning your house with Nazi imagery is not physically hurting anyone. It's because a reasonable person would see that behaviour as unreasonable, despite the lack of immediate physical harm.

      Imagery is not an immediate threat. A weapon being waved around with the barrel pointing at people could actually result in harm, whether intentional or not.

      Now if the Nazi wannabe was waving around a weapon and saying he was going to cleanse the town.... you might have a case. If he's just raving about how he thinks Hitler was awesome, Jews are vile and that "untermenschen" are worthy of extermination.... that's his right. Even if he's misguided, bigoted and stupid it's still not illegal. Just like moron baptists saying that gay people are disgusting and worthy of execution isn't illegal. It's stupid and they need to be called out for it. But it's their right to think that way. The same right that gives these morons the right to be assholes, gives gay folks the right to hold pride parades and for us to hold protests against police over-reach and government corruption.

      Remember, not too long ago.... "reasonable people" believed homosexuality was amoral, disgusting and a crime. I don't give the views of "reasonable people" much merit. And the "social norms" argument is a crock of shit. I am not required to adhere to what the majority thinks is normal by any means.

    76. Re: Untouchable criminal by AlphaBro · · Score: 1

      Something to say? Of course! Go away.

    77. Re:Untouchable criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... And nanny states are happy to turn on their own citizens eventually.

      That may be difficult as it could lead to the collapse of EU.

    78. Re: Untouchable criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In your PC Fascist state, reciting facts becomes hate crime. Taking actions that might improve the wages and lives of the citizens of the country is also hate crime, apparently.

      Well, actually, as a matter of observation, many people claim to simple facts for their bigotry, and that their actions are salutatory, even if they are unlawfully discriminatory. Facts are often distorted and manipulated, or even fabricated, and solutions are themselves questionable.

      So you'd best consider carefully what someone who defends their words that way is really saying. It's not like the intolerant and vicious among us are unaware of the need to appear as if they were legitimate. They must cover their rot with a veneer that is more pleasing.

      Which is why my criticism was directed as it was towards ogdenk, who would have us believe in some stand for freedom, yet underlying that is a rather obvious streak of resentment towards others.

      It's a very exploitable state of mind, with a tendency to run off the rails. Just like trusting in somebody who "just gives you the facts" or "presents the unpleasant solutions that nobody else dares to say" as you may or may not be aware.

      I would suggest more caution myself. Those strings are easy to pull, but the song is often quite deceiving.

    79. Re:Untouchable criminal by ogdenk · · Score: 1

      Islam is a bit different because most Muslims don't act that way, or at least most of the ones living in the west. A few do, but the majority, like the majority of Christians, have rejected the violent parts of their religion's dogma. Nazism is primarily about hating and doing harm to others, it serves little other purpose.

      Looking down on those who don't share your beliefs and subjugating them is definitely a core part of Islam. The majority of white supremacists aren't running around killing people either. People only "reject" such views as good PR. When things get rough for them they bubble back to the surface and are used as justification for all sorts of evil. And while western Muslims aren't killing Jews en masse, ask a random one how they feel about Jews or homosexuality.

      Again, to hold violent opinions or display symbols associated with hatred is not a crime. And personally, I find crosses offensive, it's like me displaying an electric chair. Doesn't mean that I can go around forcing people to take them down.

      To be clear though, we absolutely should take a hard line on the aspects of Islam that are incompatible with human rights and our system of law, and our social norms. Banning halal meat would be a good start.

      Halal meat has nothing to do with human rights or our system of law in the US. It's a mean practice and people are welcome to speak out about it and refuse to offer it in their restaurants but ultimately, it's up to Muslims to reject the practice. Besides, it gives them good practice for slitting throats and/or beheading infidels.

    80. Re: Untouchable criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Something to say? Of course! Go away.

      Well, that is saying something about yourself, namely that you'd rather fume and drive others off, than take the time to engage in discourse.

      But I'd like to remind you that your participation in this discussion is entirely voluntary, so it would be much better for you to be responsible for your own actions.

    81. Re: Untouchable criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I found the butthurt SJW!

      That's like saying you found the screeching child in the grocery store. It's not like SJWs make any effort to hide their precious Widdle Feewings, is it?

    82. Re:Untouchable criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Singapore?

      Guess you never heard about Lew Kuan Yew's nasty habit of shutting down opposition newspapers or having the army grab people off the streets and cut their hair if they thought it was too long.

    83. Re:Untouchable criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are a Jew, how can you enjoy your life, go freely about your business without fear if your neighbour's house is covered in swastikas?

      Easy. I just carry a sidearm so that I'm prepared in the event that he turns out to be more than pathetic blowhard.

      Don't use my people to try to rationalize your fascist policies, asshole.

    84. Re:Untouchable criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The EU does far more to protect individual freedom.

      BULL SHIT.

      The EU routinely violates the most important human right of all: the right to defend one's own life.

    85. Re: Untouchable criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who decides what is hate speech? You? Hillary? Obama?

      Yes, I do, and they will make such decisions I expect. So will you. So will all others with consciousness. People decide things. Some of them will contradict either other. Some of them will decide poorly. That's a rationale, but not all-knowing mind for you.

      I tell you what, I think it's hurtful and mean to say that I have white privilege. I believe that I am being singled out purely based on the color of my skin and it being assumed that because of that skin color I am somehow a hazard to society. I think it's further hateful and harmful that I am assumed to be misogynistic because I have a penis. Based purely on my gender I am assumed to be a destructive element to society. I believe that the terms "white privilege" and "male-dominated" are micro-aggressions, that they are racist and sexist generalizations, and by every comparative definition to anyone that chants them while quite literally RIOTING in the streets, they are undeniably guilty of hate speech.

      Well, then you're acting pretty much like ogdenk, who if you didn't notice, was asserting quite a level of offense towards that same set of people.

      Notice how ogdenk complained about "progressives" and "SJW retards" taking away freedom and liberty. Did you not notice that I had already responded to such notions? Or did you not understand what I meant? That such remarks indicate a willingness to suppress others, which in turn makes the protests of free speech to be more hypocrisy and pretense.

      You should really rethink your presentation. Your argumentation is having a decidedly poor result.

      Where is your outrage for harms done me?

      I'm afraid I've yet to see you present to me outrages that I believe are actually real, right now, it comes across more as fake. A sham. A show.

      That does not provoke any sense of defense towards you, except maybe in the way where I wish I could give you more enlightenment to your conduct.

      I suppose somebody somewhere could have done harm to you, as they impaired your own thinking, but well, I'd have to know you better to tell you where I'd place that blame. It might be that the decision is entirely willful on your part. Well, I suppose we could discuss other options, but that would be diverting into some more esoteric branches of philosophy.

      Where is your campaign slogan to protect me from the wildfire of anger and hate directed at me?

      Where am I running a campaign that has slogans? Your expectations seem unjustified.

      Right here, we're having a discussion on an internet forum. No slogans nor banal platitudes needed.

      Honest dialogue is what I provide to you, and what you should provide to me. Unfortunately, I find you deficient in that regard.

      Or will you admit that by your definitions that free speech is for you to stir anger toward me, but that you personally mean to deny me any rights to turn that speech back on you.

      In case you haven't noticed, I haven't defined anything (there are people in this thread who have defined things, but I am not bound by them), and were I do do so, I would not define them the way you believe I would, you're the one presuming a set of definitions, without asking me what I truly think, let alone understanding it. You response as it is, indicates a poor understanding of my own comment, like say, AlphaBro who remarked on Trump's conduct, when the discussion had become somewhat different. Not at all in the same character, so it's a very limited similarity, but still, I hope you could observe that and apply the same lesson.

      That is I do deny your complaint. It doesn't seem honest or legitimate, it's just empty and pointless rhetoric with no genuineness to it. I don't even believe you're honestly confused. However, and it is important that you understand this, this is not attacking your ri

    86. Re:Untouchable criminal by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Isn't the point that it is hypocrisy for one and the same group to excuse Bush while blaming Clinton for basically the same thing? I don't see anyone justifying anything, merely using it as an example of someone's hypocrisy. Or do you also habitually accuse people who point out inequal treatment of individuals in courts of justifying crimes?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    87. Re:Untouchable criminal by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but that's because state provided health care is communism, and you can't have that :-p

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    88. Re:Untouchable criminal by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 0

      Speaking of terror groups, any US government is guilty of collaborating with Saudi Arabia. That's a much worse offense than nitpicking about the designation of a group of people that is orders of magnitude smaller than Saudi Arabia. So maybe if you clean up your act, I'll start taking your minor offenses seriously. Until then, there's the big ones.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    89. Re:Untouchable criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called LIBERTY. We still have a little bit of that left in spite of the best efforts of "progressives" and SJW retards.

      In fact, they depend on it: the tens of thousands of SJWs calling for genocide on Twitter ("#killallmen") would be in prison if we had the sort of laws they're calling for (and if they were fairly enforced).

    90. Re:Untouchable criminal by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Probably not yet in absolute terms. But you can help by not being one of them. Improving humanity, one man at a time...

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    91. Re:Untouchable criminal by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Once again how does this absolve her of any sin ?

    92. Re:Untouchable criminal by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      You mean like all discussions except those that are pointless syntactic games instead? Also, if bigotry is natural, then it must be perfectly fine. I mean, cancer is too, right?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    93. Re: Untouchable criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I found the butthurt SJW!

      That's like saying you found the screeching child in the grocery store. It's not like SJWs make any effort to hide their precious Widdle Feewings, is it?

      The people you have to worry about hiding their feelings are usually the ones who are engaging in some form of deception regarding them. It's quite a common practice, as it were, and rather sorrowful.

      Rarely, it's somebody who won't tell you that they're hurt, or upset.

    94. Re:Untouchable criminal by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The reasonable person is a hypothetical, not based on the views of the population. It only covers estimations of risk and interpretation of language.

      If you think this is a bad idea you need to offer an alternative. How would you determine if, for example, someone was negligent or it's just a case of no one being reasonably able to predict the harm done.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    95. Re:Untouchable criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Is it? Maybe they just like waving their gun around. They told you it's not loaded, and you can trust them, surely... Or are you saying that any reasonable person would interpret it as a threat of violence?

      What you just described is called brandishing, and it is a crime in most, if not all, U.S. jurisdictions (although the details differ state-to-state). So yes, by the reasonable person standard, "waving a gun around" is most definitely interpreted as a threat of violence. As for the not loaded part, if you knew anything about firearms safety, anything at all, you would know that firearms are to be treated as loaded at all times.

      Maybe now you understand the problem with adorning your home with swastikas. Most reasonable people would interpret using Nazi imagery, associated with a group of ultra-violent bigots who murdered millions of people, as a fairly clear statement of hostile intent.

      No, you are still wrong here, and are comparing apples and oranges. Imagery is just that, and holds no inherent threat. Or maybe you fear for your life from everyone that's ever played Wolfenstein? Perhaps you should educate yourself on the law before you try to hold an argument about aspects of it.

    96. Re:Untouchable criminal by gzuckier · · Score: 2

      That criminal witch is untouchable, so I don't see the point of further hacks. She should be headed to prison instead of the White House.

      yes, since ken starr, trent gowdy, and james comey are all conspiring with their fellow democrats to not indict her just because there is no evidence of any crime, she should be imprisoned just because of your general feelings. that's the problem with america these days, we can no longer just throw people in jail or execute them because we just don't like them. make america great again!

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    97. Re:Untouchable criminal by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      the argument that the secretary of state should be prosecuted for handling security as she saw fit, in a manner which was legal and actually avoided breaches which occurred in the actual state department server, is similar to the argument that the CEO of a company should be fired for discussing business on his personal phone when he gets an urgent call one day when he's at disneyland with his kids. the fact is, in any organization people who set policy are to a large degree permitted to violate said policy on their own judgement to a degree to which underlings are not allowed.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    98. Re:Untouchable criminal by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      16 US embassies and/or consulates were attacked during GW Bush's presidency. 60 people were killed. There were NO congressional hearings. Double standard, much?

      also, there was that weird iraq thing, but hey, no use crying over spilt milk.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    99. Re:Untouchable criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you are still wrong here, and are comparing apples and oranges. Imagery is just that, and holds no inherent threat. Or maybe you fear for your life from everyone that's ever played Wolfenstein? Perhaps you should educate yourself on the law before you try to hold an argument about aspects of it.

      Wolfenstein involves killing Nazis, and is a game, rather than say, a monument or shrine.

      Still, you'd find that it was censored. in Germany.

      A better argument might that the Swastika symbol is not exclusive to Nazi Germany, but then, that's the problem with this discussion, it's so muddled nobody is really being coherent about it.

    100. Re:Untouchable criminal by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      You mean besides the part where the Benghazi embassy requested extra security and she along with her underlings said there wasn't any money for it? But they could come up with the money for electric car chargers for the embassies in Europe?

      to begin with, the benghazi post wasn't an embassy. It wasn't even a consulate. That speaks to the mastery of the details possessed by the Hillary lynchers, and and also to the priority level of attending to security there.
      but since we're discussing budgets for security:
      "GOP cuts to embassy security draw scrutiny, jabs from Democrats
      By Alexander Bolton - 09/18/12 10:41 PM EDT
      Republicans have sought to cut hundreds of millions of dollars slated for security at U.S. embassies and consulates since gaining control of the House in 2011.
      Democrats enacted $1.803 billion for embassy security, construction and maintenance for fiscal 2010, when they still controlled the Senate and House. After Republicans took control of the House and picked up six Senate seats, Congress reduced the enacted budget to $1.616 billion in fiscal 2011, and to $1.537 billion for 2012.
      The administration requested $1.801 billion for security, construction and maintenance for fiscal 2012; House Republicans countered with a proposal to cut spending to $1.425 billion. The House agreed to increase it to $1.537 billion after negotiations with the Senate.
      The administration requested $1.654 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program for fiscal 2012. House Republicans proposed funding the program at $1.557 billion. Congress eventually enacted $1.591 billion after the Senate weighed in.
      For fiscal 2013, the administration requested $2.15 billion in funding for the worldwide security protection program, a larger increase from the previous year. The House countered with a proposal to increase the program to $1.934 billion.
      Embassy security funding will be reduced further if automatic spending cuts established by the 2011 Budget Control Act take place as scheduled. Under the so-called sequestration process, embassy security, construction and maintenance funding would shrink by $129 million, or 8.2 percent."
      http://thehill.com/homenews/ho...
      CNN Anchor Soledad O’Brien: “Is it true that you voted to cut the funding for embassy security?”
      Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah): “Absolutely. Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have 15,0000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, a private army there, for President Obama, in Baghdad. And we’re talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces. When you’re in touch economic times, you have to make difficult choices. You have to prioritize things.”
      http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2012/10/10/exp-point-chaffetz-two.cnn.html

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    101. Re:Untouchable criminal by gzuckier · · Score: 2

      WTF do electric car chargers have to do with security? Do you imagine that embassies must have "perfect" security and only then are the employees allowed to have chairs?

      Well let's look at it from an IT pov shall we? You'r UID is low enough you should get it. Imagine you've got two satellite offices, one is in a relatively stable, secure area where you can get away with simple keypad lockouts and the occasional guard. The other location is in a shit hole, there's roving bands of thugs and not only do you have heavy security you also have all the existing security.

      Now your nice safe office in order to look trendy in their new hip area wants 143 cappuccino and espresso machines, because that'll make them look good. And your other office wants more on the ground bodies and further hardening of the existing security measure to make sure your hardware is secure. So you decide that trendy and hip is the way to go, your other office gets trashed, people get killed and you just say "well there wasn't any money to help with that..." while you just finished spending several hundred thousand dollars for cappuccino and espresso machines.

      So the money was there, it could have been reallocated by dispensation to the security fund. But instead of doing that you're now responsible for the deaths of a couple of people, destruction of your hardware and other issues. And your response is: "what difference does it make?"

      except that the security budget is specifically allocated by the house and senate.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    102. Re:Untouchable criminal by gzuckier · · Score: 0

      WTF do electric car chargers have to do with security? Do you imagine that embassies must have "perfect" security and only then are the employees allowed to have chairs?

      Well let's look at it from an IT pov shall we? You'r UID is low enough you should get it. Imagine you've got two satellite offices, one is in a relatively stable, secure area where you can get away with simple keypad lockouts and the occasional guard. The other location is in a shit hole, there's roving bands of thugs and not only do you have heavy security you also have all the existing security.

      Now your nice safe office in order to look trendy in their new hip area wants 143 cappuccino and espresso machines, because that'll make them look good. And your other office wants more on the ground bodies and further hardening of the existing security measure to make sure your hardware is secure. So you decide that trendy and hip is the way to go, your other office gets trashed, people get killed and you just say "well there wasn't any money to help with that..." while you just finished spending several hundred thousand dollars for cappuccino and espresso machines.

      So the money was there, it could have been reallocated by dispensation to the security fund. But instead of doing that you're now responsible for the deaths of a couple of people, destruction of your hardware and other issues. And your response is: "what difference does it make?"

      except that the security budget is specifically allocated by the house and senate.

      excuse the afterthefact support for my statement by replying to myself, please.
      "GOP cuts to embassy security draw scrutiny, jabs from Democrats
      By Alexander Bolton - 09/18/12 10:41 PM EDT
      Republicans have sought to cut hundreds of millions of dollars slated for security at U.S. embassies and consulates since gaining control of the House in 2011.
      Democrats enacted $1.803 billion for embassy security, construction and maintenance for fiscal 2010, when they still controlled the Senate and House. After Republicans took control of the House and picked up six Senate seats, Congress reduced the enacted budget to $1.616 billion in fiscal 2011, and to $1.537 billion for 2012.
      The administration requested $1.801 billion for security, construction and maintenance for fiscal 2012; House Republicans countered with a proposal to cut spending to $1.425 billion. The House agreed to increase it to $1.537 billion after negotiations with the Senate.
      The administration requested $1.654 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program for fiscal 2012. House Republicans proposed funding the program at $1.557 billion. Congress eventually enacted $1.591 billion after the Senate weighed in.
      For fiscal 2013, the administration requested $2.15 billion in funding for the worldwide security protection program, a larger increase from the previous year. The House countered with a proposal to increase the program to $1.934 billion.
      Embassy security funding will be reduced further if automatic spending cuts established by the 2011 Budget Control Act take place as scheduled. Under the so-called sequestration process, embassy security, construction and maintenance funding would shrink by $129 million, or 8.2 percent." http://thehill.com/homenews/ho...

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    103. Re:Untouchable criminal by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Give it up. You will never win with any argument of logic or fact when they excuse political incompetence with Bush did it. We know for a fact that help wasn't sent for fears of the political fallout but that isn't important. Sitting on your hands and doing nothing while American officials are being killed is somehow justifiably because under different circumstances Bush did it.

      You will never win with any argument of logic or fact with somebody whose definition of fact includes "We know for a fact that help wasn't sent for fears of the political fallout".

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    104. Re:Untouchable criminal by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      the hate crimes Trump is spouting every times he open his dirty mouth.

      So saying things some people don't like (while lacking any immediate calls for violence)... is now considered a hate crime?

      Truly the SJW's have won the cultural war... if you are right... which thankfully you are not.

      good point. trump is only spouting support for hate crimes and war crimes. they won't be actual hate crimes until his supporters start taking his advice as incitement.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    105. Re:Untouchable criminal by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Hateful speech is not a crime. This is not the EU. You can be a NeoNazi and drape your house in swastikas if you want. It's only a hate crime once you start gassing people or telling other people to do so.

      like:
      "The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families."
      or “If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. Okay? Just knock the hell — I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees.”
      or “I’d like to punch him in the face, I’ll tell ya.”
      or “Maybe he should have been roughed up because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing.”

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    106. Re:Untouchable criminal by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Pointless semantic games. That aside, bigotry is a natural property of mankind and will exist as long as people do. Get over it.

      yes, also defecating in common public spaces is a natural property of mankind and will exist as long as people do. Get over it.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    107. Re:Untouchable criminal by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      And nanny states are happy to turn on their own citizens eventually.

      Really? Which nanny states are you thinking of?

      Sweden? Denmark? -- No turning on citizens. Just improving their lot. Singapore? Yes it did ban bubble gum, but on the list of "turning on your own citizens" that seems pretty minor. UK? Yes it does have the same Orwellian surveillance of its own citizens as the US, but that's not really "turning on your own citizens" and it's not really associated with nanny states.

      who can forget the tyranny of canada, whose suffering citizens are forced to not undergo bankruptcy because they get severely ill and their insurance maxes out?

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    108. Re:Untouchable criminal by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      You are confused. I'm not taking about just insulting people, that's fine. I'm taking about creating an atmosphere were a reasonable person would be justifiably afraid.

      The problem is defining terms like "justifiably afraid" and "reasonable person" are almost impossible to do in a legal sense and such laws tend to incredibly broad and open to interpretation.

      Some Christians believe they are "justifiably afraid" because their kids walk by liquor stores or a gay club on their way home from school. The KKK believes they are "justifiably afraid" of black protests. Some people think they are "justifiably afraid" because people can carry a holstered pistol without wearing a badge. And "reasonable person" in the eyes of most people means "people who think like me".

      It wouldn't be acceptable to point a gun at someone's head without pulling the trigger. No physical harm done, but it's a clear threat and would justify a response.

      That's a direct threat of violence, which is NOT acceptable. There's a difference between someone saying "You should be shot" and "I'm going to shoot you".

      and yet, almost every law includes a "reasonable person" provision. from traffic laws to homicide.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    109. Re:Untouchable criminal by ogdenk · · Score: 1

      like:

      "The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families."

      Kinda like Obama when he killed an American citizen and then targeted his son? Or when we nuked Japan? Or firebombed Dresden? Doesn't sound like "hate speech" to me. Sounds like a demoralizing strategy for less restricted warfare. You know, warfare that actually works. War is ugly. Not that I support military intervention in the middle east but when they kill on American soil, retaliation is the only response. Being nice to them and giving them free room and board is not working in Germany, that's for sure.

      “If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. Okay? Just knock the hell — I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees.”

      An obvious joke. Besides, what do you think happened to the guy who threw a shoe at Bush? Not a wise thing to say but certainly no worse than things I've heard from folks like Nixon or even LBJ in the past. What about the Dem supporters actually punching people after a Trump rally and following them to their vehicles?

      “I’d like to punch him in the face, I’ll tell ya.”

      And you've never stated that you'd like to punch someone in the face? I don't know about you but there's plenty of people I'd LIKE to punch in the face, including Trump. Doesn't mean I'll actually do it.

      “Maybe he should have been roughed up because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing.”

      Again, not a threat. Simply him expressing anger. There's plenty of people that I've thought needed their ass kicked.

      Now, I'm certainly not voting for him but making him out to be Hitler is stupid. And I'm sure Hillary says MUCH worse behind closed doors away from the cameras. I'm certainly not voting for her corrupt ass either. The only sane choice in this election is Gary Johnson/Bill Weld. Both have more governing experience than Trump and HRC combined and have a much more sane outlook on where we need to be heading as a nation.

    110. Re:Untouchable criminal by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I just sent a pair of 'Trucknutz' back to Germany with my cousin (for a friend of hers).

      There is at least one set of balls in europe (chrome green). Likely hanging from the ridiculous tiny trailer hitches they all have.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    111. Re:Untouchable criminal by ljw1004 · · Score: 1

      And nanny states are happy to turn on their own citizens eventually.

      Just to repeat my question (since you didn't answer it before): [citation needed] which nanny states are you thinking of which have turned on their own citizens?

      I think there aren't any.

    112. Re: Untouchable criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tell you what, I think it's hurtful and mean to say that I have white privilege. I believe that I am being singled out purely based on the color of my skin and it being assumed that because of that skin color I am somehow a hazard to society.

      Or will you admit that by your definitions that free speech is for you to stir anger toward me, but that you personally mean to deny me any rights to turn that speech back on you.

      Well how does it feel white man?
      My people have had to put up with this shit every since your white ass landed here and you stole our land and killed our women and children.

      Oh go cry me a river.

      Asshole

    113. Re:Untouchable criminal by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/05/18/Why-Hillary-Clinton-Was-Right-Boko-Haram

    114. Re:Untouchable criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kinda like Obama when he killed an American citizen and then targeted his son?

      Obama gets attacked for that all the time, of course, it doesn't help the criticism is often from a segment of the population that blames Obama for everything.

      Or when we nuked Japan? Or firebombed Dresden? Doesn't sound like "hate speech" to me. Sounds like a demoralizing strategy for less restricted warfare.

      And yet we see that the ultimate treatment of Japan and Germany was far less vicious and scorched earth than that.

      You know, warfare that actually works. War is ugly. Not that I support military intervention in the middle east but when they kill on American soil, retaliation is the only response.

      And how has that worked so far?

      Being nice to them and giving them free room and board is not working in Germany, that's for sure.

      One thing people forget is that the news never reports a dog not biting.

      An obvious joke.

      Comedy is often truth.

      Besides, what do you think happened to the guy who threw a shoe at Bush? Not a wise thing to say but certainly no worse than things I've heard from folks like Nixon or even LBJ in the past.

      Bush's response was moderate:

      When asked about the incident by another reporter, Bush said, "It's a way for people to draw attention. I don't know what the guy's cause was. I didn't feel the least bit threatened by it."[8] When later asked to reflect on the incident, Bush said, "I didn't have much time to reflect on anything, I was ducking and dodging. I'm not angry with the system. I believe that a free society is emerging, and a free society is necessary for our own security and peace," he added.[9] White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said: "I don't think that you can take one guy throwing his shoe as representative of the people of Iraq."[10]

      Of course, some people allege there was eventually torture involved, which would be a terrible thing, a case of viciousness that demonstrates the perils of such emotional responses. But that is common in the justice system, hence the need for restraint.

      What about the Dem supporters actually punching people after a Trump rally and following them to their vehicles?

      I believe we've all been told they're totally evil and all that, so what's your point? Nobody's lauding them.

      And you've never stated that you'd like to punch someone in the face? I don't know about you but there's plenty of people I'd LIKE to punch in the face, including Trump. Doesn't mean I'll actually do it.

      Most people have felt and said things they regret in the fullness of consideration, but then there's people who make it out of glee.

      Sadly, things like that, when said, tend to punish the former, not the latter.

      Again, not a threat. Simply him expressing anger. There's plenty of people that I've thought needed their ass kicked.

      And perhaps others hope you exercise restraint and judiciousness. Or at least, recognize that "ass-kicking" is a perilous moral position.

      Unfortunately, Trump is not demonstrating that, and that's a scary position to put someone in who doesn't.

      Now, I'm certainly not voting for him but making him out to be Hitler is stupid.

      Stupid, in the sense that comparisons to Hitler have become overdone, assuredly, but recognizing the decidedly vicious character and its appeals to the worst in humanity is another story.

      And I'm sure Hillary says MUCH worse behind closed doors away from the cameras. I'm certainly not voting for her corrupt ass either. The only sane choice in this election is Gary Johnson/Bill Weld. Both have more governing experience than Trump and HRC combined and have a much more sane outlook on where we need to be heading as a nation.

      Well, the American electoral system won't give you much other choice, but that's a different problem.

    115. Re:Untouchable criminal by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      It doesn't. It just shows that sin is a job requirement for US administrations.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  5. Red October by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am reminded of the scene from red October.

    "youve lost .... another submarine"

  6. How were the servers accessed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, we're already getting the usual political blather from the mouth breathers, but of real interest to /. readers, does anyone know how the data on the DNC and Clinton campaign computers was accessed? What was the hole by which the servers were breached? Was this a zero-day vulnerability? Were the servers breached by a known vulnerability? Social engineering? Sloppy configuration? I've maintained mail servers that, to my knowledge, have never been hacked. Is this just because I've never been targeted by someone with this set of resources, or am I don't something that the administrators of these servers were not?

    1. Re:How were the servers accessed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've maintained mail servers that, to my knowledge, have never been hacked. Is this just because I've never been targeted by someone with this set of resources, or am I don't something that the administrators of these servers were not?

      Nobody knows your servers exist, nobody loves you, and if you died, nobody would notice.

    2. Re:How were the servers accessed? by AaronW · · Score: 2

      I see regular attempts to get into my mail server, almost all of them from Russia or eastern european countries and a lesser extent China. I'd love to just blackhole all of Russia. Most spam attempts come from Russia and to a lesser extent China from what I see in my logs.

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    3. Re:How were the servers accessed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't seen any attempts to break into my servers since I implemented port knocking. I have the dumbest knock sequence imaginable, and it's 100% effective. They just don't try.

    4. Re:How were the servers accessed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the same as my luggage combination, isn't it?

    5. Re:How were the servers accessed? by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      Down the list:
      An insider walks it out and the hint about another nation is the pre placed cover story that holds thanks to fragments left for any teams looking over systems later.
      The insider is fully protected and pre placed cover story holds for decades.
      So many people and other nations are discovered have had physical and network access that a short list of skilled nations is selected from and thats the presentable story.
      A person or group uses a list of common tools and finds a huge number of other nations and people are also accessing the data. A trail is created to what is expected.
      A smaller power or allied nation with insider help feels the need to see the material released and uses advance methods to ensure a common adversarial nation gets the full blame. i.e. they have their own virtual methods like QUANTUMSQUIRREL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      Fragments of past tools, ip ranges, time of day would not be left by any advanced nation or other method. Someone created a trail, wants the trail to be found or understood the result would be great cover.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  7. It's like the old saying goes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hack me once, shame on you.
    Hack me twice, shame on me.

    1. Re: It's like the old saying goes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I thought it was "hack me twice, won't get hacked again".

  8. Analytics program==spreadsheet by bigsexyjoe · · Score: 0

    They mean someone downloaded their spreadsheet. Because a spreadsheet is an analytics program.

    1. Re:Analytics program==spreadsheet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know from first hand experience it isn't a spreadsheet.

  9. Oh man I feel sorry for the people working there by Crashmarik · · Score: 0

    You know this is going to be nothing but a blamefest there, Odds on the wicked witch will have flying monkeys coming out her ass.

  10. Here's an idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not stop doing shit you have to hide, like treason, election fraud, and murder? Then when they breach your email, they won't be able to do anything with it.

  11. Re:Oh man I feel sorry for the people working ther by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't. They're bad people and they deserve to suffer.

  12. It's better than a sitcom by seoras · · Score: 0

    Trump asks Russia to hack Hilary.
    Trump then says "I was being sarcastic"
    Russia Hacks Hilary (apparently it was them, they deny it.)
    Oh and not forgetting the feminist ho-ha over Hilary not making the front pages for her nomination.
    My Questions are:
    1) Can Hilary really continue to be a "victim" (as she was when Bill got a BJ in the Oval) and be voted for as leader? People don't vote victims into power, they vote for strong leaders.
    2) If you are mad enough to consider voting for Trump does the fact that the Russian's are trying to help him put you off. If it does who do you vote for?
    3) Maybe McAfee isn't such a bad choice? :)
    4) Should there be a box on the ballot saying "keep the guy's who's already in the white house. I don't like any of the above." ?

    1. Re:It's better than a sitcom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4) Should there be a box on the ballot saying "keep the guy's who's already in the white house. I don't like any of the above." ?

      The 22nd amendment would make that a bit harder... however Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 of the constitution offer an out... though it's success depends on the particular configuration of congressmen & senators elected... which coincidentally is why Al Gore had no legitimate chance of winning the Presidency in 2000... however we could have easily have ended up with a Bush/Lieberman administration as of a result of it.

    2. Re:It's better than a sitcom by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I want to know how much money Trump really owes to the Russian oligarchs? Would he pay them back in political favors if he become president?

    3. Re:It's better than a sitcom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm down with that. Let's find out how much they've "donated" to Bill & Hill while we're at it.

    4. Re:It's better than a sitcom by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      Does Trump have a long history of being bribed and offering services in return of those bribes? Because Hillary has.

      Mind you, I am not a fan of Donald Trump; I think he's moron and a jingoist, but he scares me less than Clinton. With Clinton I am sure we'll (meaning the entire world, since I don't even live in the US) will be plunged in wars. She just doesn't care, she has already created misery in parts of the world as a secretary of state.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    5. Re:It's better than a sitcom by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      Hillary was actually the first person on the right side of Citizens United. Has she taken campaign contributions from corporations? Sure, but so has every other presidential candidate in history.

      The reason why Wall St is backing Hillary is not because they want favors, it's because they don't want to see a con artist destroy the stock market.

    6. Re:It's better than a sitcom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course they want favors, who wouldn't?! To say otherwise is akin to saying that Paulson joined the Treasury because he was solely committed to public service.

    7. Re:It's better than a sitcom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hillary was actually the first person on the right side of Citizens United. Has she taken campaign contributions from corporations? Sure, but so has every other presidential candidate in history.

      The reason why Wall St is backing Hillary is not because they want favors, it's because they don't want to see a con artist destroy the stock market.

      Well, except for the fact that Wall St was backing Crooked Liar Hillary! even before that con artist said he was going to run for President.

      Gonna be interesting to have the Russians show us all the emails that were deleted - presumably the ones that Crooked Liar Hillary! and her lawyers thought were more damaging than the classified ones they left behind.

    8. Re:It's better than a sitcom by jittles · · Score: 2

      I want to know how much money Trump really owes to the Russian oligarchs? Would he pay them back in political favors if he become president?

      To be quite honest, I suspect the reason that Trump doesn't want to release his tax data is because he's pretty broke. I mean that relatively, of course. I'm not saying he's on the verge of destitution but I am guessing his tax returns show just how much of a fraud his entire life is.

    9. Re:It's better than a sitcom by will_die · · Score: 1

      What I want to know is since all these liberals know that Russia has a time machine what does the USA need to do to get one?

    10. Re:It's better than a sitcom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I want to know how much money Trump really owes to the Russian oligarchs? Would he pay them back in political favors if he become president?"

      Having a incompetent clown as a president of the USA is THE absolute dream for Russian oligarchs. It would pay back it millions of ways.

  13. Love it and stay by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Insightful

    America is a liberal country - Love it or leave it.

    Point 1: America is 38% conservative and 24% Liberal. (source).

    Point 2: "Love it or leave it" is effectively "shut up and sit down". It calls for a suppression of free speech typical of tyrannical, abusive dictatorship. Turkey can say "love it or leave it" with some justification. America cannot.

    That criminal witch is untouchable [...]

    Insults are the domain of the Democrats, have some couth. Republicans don't generally use insult as a substitute for rational thinking, that's a Democratic play.

    We could easily build stories about Hillary being Marie Antoinette ("let them eat cake"), or Lucrecia Borgia (for all Clinton's opponents who have died under mysterious circumstances), or even Lilith ("Mother of demons"). Some of them would even have a rational basis. It would be a counterpoint to Trump being Hilter, Stalin, or Cthulhu.

    But we don't, because we believe the head rules the heart. We have smart people here at Slashdot, we don't have to descend to common name calling.

    "Heart rules the head", IOW emotional thinking, is what Democrats do.

    We don't *need* to spout lies or insults.

    Don't descend to their level.

    (And if you're a Democrat reading this and are angered: take the challenge. Post a reason why Hillary would be better than Trump as president, without outright lying, insulting, or wishful fantasy. In other words, cite their stated positions instead of "he'll do *this*" or "she'll do *that*. I don't think anyone can, but if anyone can, they'd be here on Slashdot.)

    1. Re:Love it and stay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      (And if you're a Democrat reading this and are angered: take the challenge. Post a reason why Hillary would be better than Trump as president, without outright lying, insulting, or wishful fantasy. In other words, cite their stated positions instead of "he'll do *this*" or "she'll do *that*. I don't think anyone can, but if anyone can, they'd be here on Slashdot.)

      The following are quotes from Hillary Clinton Economy Jobs Moodys. They speak for themselves.

      "Moody's Analytics estimates that if the Democratic presidential nominee's proposals are enacted, the economy would create 10.4 million jobs during her presidency, or 3.2 million more than expected under current law."

      "Moody's published a similar analysis of Donald Trump's plans in June. It concluded that the Republican presidential nominee's policies would result in an economic downturn that would last longer than the Great Recession. About 3.5 million Americans would lose their jobs, unemployment would jump to 7% and home prices would fall."

    2. Re:Love it and stay by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Point 1: America is 38% conservative and 24% Liberal.

      If this is true, why aren't conservatives winning every seat in every election, including the Presidency? The reason is because most voters are more liberal than they are conservative. That's undeniable at this point.

      The fact is that America is no longer a conservative country. For example, for the first time in history there are more "nones" (people with no religious affiliation) than any other voting block. That statistic is never going to go back down, ever. That's clearly not the sign of a conservative country.

      Religious belief and attendance is down more than ever before in history. There are fewer churches and places of worship in this country than ever before in history. Religion is dying off here, both figuratively and literally. That's not the sign of a conservative country.

      Deny it all you like, but the fact is that America is slowly but steadily moving towards more liberal social and political systems, not away from them. It's been doing this since the late 50's, but has sped up a bit considerably the last decade or so. The people got a taste of freedom from conservative values, and they liked it.

      Pot is now fully legal for recreational use in multiple states with more coming (count on it). That's not the sign of a conservative country.

      So go ahead and claim it's a conservative country if you want, but it's not. This isn't 1950, it's 2016 and the country is liberal and getting more so. And I'm all for it.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    3. Re:Love it and stay by JeffAtl · · Score: 0

      Was Moody's one of the companies that rated the MBS (Mortgage Backed Securities) at AAA even though they were junk?

      Look, the ratings agencies work for Wall Street - they do what Wall Street tells them.

    4. Re:Love it and stay by Bartles · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Didn't the guy that wrote that report donate the maximum to Hillary Clinton?

    5. Re:Love it and stay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, where to start with this one.. Even just from the linked article:

      " Moody's Analytics is an independent research group, but the lead author of the report on Clinton is Mark Zandi, who donated $2,700 to her campaign last year, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics.

      So Zandi's a big personal donator to Clinton's campaign. Conflict of interest alarms ringing...

      Zandi was a vocal supporter of the stimulus package President Obama deployed during the financial crisis of 2009,

      He's a big fan of QE, despite it not working, over and over again.

      but he has also served as an economic adviser to former Republican presidential candidate John McCain. "

      Ah, this explains his love for QE. He's an "economic advisor"...to a shifty warmonger who was involved in the Savings & Loan crisis.

      The reports are based on a forecasting model similar to those used by the Federal Reserve and Congressional Budget Office.

      Please, my sides are splitting from laughing so hard!

      Moody's found that several of Clinton's key policies would boost the economy: Her immigration proposal would increase the number of skilled workers in the country

      Translation: More H1-B workers. Out of these 10.4 million jobs being "created", how many will be for Americans? How many existing jobs are destroyed for each new job created?

      Gradually hiking the minimum wage to $12 would reduce employment by 650,000 as businesses chose to hire fewer low-wage employees. However, pay would rise substantially for workers that kept their jobs.

      Oh that's wonderful news, unless you're one of the 650k who gets the axe so that a coworker can get a few extra bucks.

      And of course, the actual analysis is not available to the reader, so you're just supposed to take their word for it. What's the track record on the word of a Democrat these days?

    6. Re:Love it and stay by srichard25 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There are plenty of conservatives who aren't religious and many liberals who are religious. Not sure why you think conservative = religious.

      Also, I suggest you take a look at how many states are currently being run by Republican governors and legislatures.

    7. Re: Love it and stay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hitler, Stalin, those are just lazy maker calling. But when you mentioned Satan you got me thinking. See Trump has no positions. Or rather, he has all of them. Everything he says is a "joke" or "sarcasm" when he is pressed to defend it later. It's a brilliant strategy of course, his supporters simply believe the statements they want to believe, and treat the rest as "he was just kidding, lighten up you upright liberals". But a president can't be ambiguous and wishy washy in everything they say. Words have consequences. Is Hillary perfect here? Not by a long shot, she has plenty of her own secrecy and minced words. But at least we know where she stands. Trump in contrast does seem to have parallels to the devil - shape shifting, whispering in your ear exactly what you want to hear. The brilliance is how he has been able to take advantage of cognitive dissonance to craft that unique whisper to each supporter. It's not just a populous message, it's mass customization. Hillary is still fighting the old game, peddling a fairly consistent center left (with corporate backing) package of "promises" to a large audience. Whereas she's just a typical politician (I say that with appropriate contempt), is Trump's behavior really so far removed from common depictions of the devil, Sauron, or whatever your personal pet depiction of insidious, divisive evil?

    8. Re:Love it and stay by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      The fact is that America is no longer a conservative country. For example, for the first time in history there are more "nones" (people with no religious affiliation) than any other voting block. That statistic is never going to go back down, ever. That's clearly not the sign of a conservative country.

      I'm not sure that this is the best metric of a "conservative country," but where do you get this data from??

      Here's the history of Gallup polls on religion for example. According to them, in 2015, 38% of people identified as Protestant, 23% as Catholic, 9% as other Christian... that's 60% Christian right there. The "None" only accounted for a measly 17%. Pew polls put the number more at 70% Christian in 2014, with only 23% unaffiliated.

      Moreover, when you start looking down that Gallup Poll list, you find stuff like, "Do you believe in God?" 1944 - 96%, 2016 - 89%. A downtick for sure, but hardly the sign of lack of religious belief.

      "Do you believe in heaven?" 1968 - 85%, 2011 - 85%
      Hell - 1968 - 66%, 2011 - 75%

      Belief in angels is still up there in 2016 at 72%, which is a little lower than it was in the early 2000s, but about the same as it was back in the 1970s.

      And heck, 73% of Americans believe in the virgin birth of Jesus, including about 1/3 of your "unaffiliated" no-religion group.

      Now, there are other polls that put the numbers a little lower. The Harris Poll for example only puts belief in the virgin birth at 57%, with 68% saying he is the Son of God.

      Religious belief and attendance is down more than ever before in history. There are fewer churches and places of worship in this country than ever before in history. Religion is dying off here, both figuratively and literally.

      Is church attendance down? Yes. And the percentage of folks who say religion is "very important" in their lives is down (though still the MAJORITY of Americans, according to polls). But given that the majority of Americans still seem to strongly subscribe to religious beliefs, including significant numbers of your "unaffiliated" folks, I'd hardly say it's "dying off" yet.

      I have absolutely no idea where you get your idea that there are more "nones" than any other voting block. It may be true that the majority of Americans no longer attend church every week, but it's still a highly religious country.

      the fact is that America is slowly but steadily moving towards more liberal social and political systems, not away from them. It's been doing this since the late 50's, but has sped up a bit considerably the last decade or so.

      I agree with this, though to go back to your previous point -- the number of people identifying as "Evangelical Christians" has been fairly constant over the past few decades. It hasn't even declined as much as the other general religion numbers. So... it's not like the true "conservatives" (in terms of religion) are going away... it's more like the people in the middle are becoming less concerned about religious values holding sway over their lives. But there's still a rather huge contingent of people with far right values (certainly larger than your "none" contingent), and that block isn't going away anytime soon.

      Pot is now fully legal for recreational use in multiple states with more coming (count on it). That's not the sign of a conservative country.

      We MIGHT just be getting back to the level of acceptance of recreational/medicinal drug use enjoyed in the 1900-1930 era or so. If that's "liberal" and "progressive" to you... well, gosh, that's great!

    9. Re:Love it and stay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The people got a taste of freedom from conservative values

      You mean after a generation or so of school/university indoctrination, society has shifted? No way.

      However, if you by freedom you mean actions without consequences, do what I want, when I want, and how I want type behavior that small children are so feverishly attached to -- yes, you're right. It's the same reason my kids used to like going to grandma's house.

    10. Re:Love it and stay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This might be a function of the No True Scotsman fallacy. Everyone seems to do it.

      In regards to Trump, No True Conservative would support an increase in the minimum wage or an expansion of government.

      In regards to Hillary, No True Liberal would allow Wall Street to accrue billions.

      These are extremists positions when there are in fact "shades of grey" politics. (Trump would more accurately be described as a populist. Hillary - I don't know - status quotarian?) People with middling positions get screwed over these arguments. (Maybe I'm okay with state-funded welfare, but don't mind people become rich legitimately. I'd get dinged by both extremes.)

    11. Re: Love it and stay by kenh · · Score: 1

      Deny it all you like, but the fact is that America is slowly but steadily moving towards more liberal social and political systems, not away from them.

      The election and re-election of a novelty President ("The First Black President!"), Democrats (liberal) have lost both the house and senate since the 2010 election, but sure, convince yourself otherwise if it makes you feel better. Republicans (conservatives) have been winning elections since President Obama told them if they want their ideas to be considered they needed to start winning elections.

      --
      Ken
    12. Re:Love it and stay by Xyrus · · Score: 0

      And if you're a Democrat reading this and are angered: take the challenge. Post a reason why Hillary would be better than Trump as president...

      What the fuck does this have to do with "the heart rules the head" bullshit you spouted off before?

      If you want evidence of which party is "ruled by the heart" how about looking at something objective, like...oh I don't know...how about basic scientific understanding?

      Republicans don't spout lies and insults? Did you sleep through the past 20 years or so? Live in a cabin in the woods for the past couple of decades? Happen to miss the RNC this year?

      Both parties do this. That's why sites like FactCheck actually have a job. Republicans do it more, and are better at it to be sure, but they both do it.

      Basically, the two things Hillary has going for her is she has experience and she knows the game. Those are both positives and negatives in my opinion. But that's overshadowed by all her other..."qualities", which make her (or should have made her) unelectable. Trump is just batshit insane; a US version of Kim Jong Il. He's said shit that would have gotten any other candidate I can think of over the decades burned at the stake (Democrat or Republican).

      So you have a cold calculating ruthless sociopath and an idiotic batshit insane sociopath. It's the worst election I can remember. It's not even an election. It's a choice between the devil you know and the devil you don't. Usually I just vote third party in this situation, but in this case the thought of Trump in the Whitehouse is so damn terrifying there isn't much of choice.

      I think there's a large number of people out there who feel the same way. They aren't voting for Hillary as much as they are voting against Trump.

      --
      ~X~
    13. Re:Love it and stay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Post a reason why Hillary would be better than Trump as president, without outright lying, insulting, or wishful fantasy.

      Hillary lies much less than Trump does. This is a statement of fact which you can easily verify, unless you have already, so it's neither a lie, insulting nor a fantasy.

      In combination with not completely insane policies, that makes her the less bad candidate of the two.

      I would much prefer someone else, but there you go.

    14. Re: Love it and stay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whereas she's just a typical politician (I say that with appropriate contempt), is Trump's behavior really so far removed from common depictions of the devil, Sauron, or whatever your personal pet depiction of insidious, divisive evil?

      A typical politician doesn't have as much blood on their hands as she does. No need to look for imaginary examples from LOTR.
      She is here and she is real.

    15. Re: Love it and stay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump tells you what you want to hear, it's called marketing and it worked for Obama, twice!

      Hillary lies to protect herself from going to prison, that's the difference. Also, we know for a fact that she very much likes killing and torturing, so there's that.

      You should definitely reconsider your criteria if you see yourself as a decent person. Vote Johnson if Trump is too extreme for you, just don't vote Killary.

    16. Re:Love it and stay by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      "Not sure why you think conservative = religious."

      Because it's intended as broad-brush, in-group signalling and a sneering slur against people who have non-"Progressive" values (lump 'em in with the strawman "religious wackos"). It's what they do, they're Progressives - they play the man, not the ball. Control the message, make the narrative. Ample use of sophistry, bait-and-switch, goalpost moving.

      Bye-bye, another Karma point. Oh, did I mention that they function in packs, displaying mob mentality and group think and drown out differing opinions?

    17. Re:Love it and stay by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 2

      There are plenty of conservatives who aren't religious and many liberals who are religious. Not sure why you think conservative = religious.

      Because that is generally the way things break out, and we both know it. Yes, there are plenty of conservatives who aren't religious and many liberals who are religious, but overall, the generalization holds.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    18. Re:Love it and stay by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      Pot is now fully legal for recreational use in multiple states, with more coming.
      More "nones" than ever before, and that metric is increasing.
      Gay marriage is legal across the entire country.
      Church membership at record low levels.
      An African-American elected as president in two back-to-back landslide elections.
      Gay rights recognized in most states.

      How is this not a liberal country, especially compared to 20 or 30 or 40 years ago? The trend is clear: the country is liberal and becoming more so, regardless of whether or not you can admit it to yourself.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    19. Re: Love it and stay by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 0

      but sure, convince yourself otherwise if it makes you feel better.

      Pot is now fully legal for recreational use in multiple states, with more coming.
      There are more "nones" than ever before, and that metric is increasing.
      Abortion is legal in every state.
      Gay marriage is legal in every state.
      Church membership is at record low levels and dropping.
      An African-American elected as president in two back-to-back landslide elections.
      Gay rights recognized in most states. Most people are fine with gay neighbors and coworkers.
      A woman is most probably going to be elected as president in the next election.

      Face facts: this a liberal country, especially compared to 20 or 30 or 40 years ago. The trend is clear: the country is liberal and becoming more so, regardless of whether or not you can admit it to yourself.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    20. Re: Love it and stay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pot being legal in STATES is rooted in conservative small federal government based values. Good try though.

    21. Re:Love it and stay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Economic forecasting is about as accurate as tarot readings. This is because the rate of market-disrupting technological change is so fast that any predictive model we can build is outdated by the time we have gathered enough data to build it.

      I am unbiased in this regard...economic forecasts of how Trump will make the economy boom whereas Hilary will destroy it are equally valueless.

      Given the current pace of labor-automation, the only sort of economic policies that will keep people employed are ones that arbitrarily create work where there is no economic need. Eventually, American culture (and government) will no longer be able to ignore this fact, no matter who is in office.

    22. Re:Love it and stay by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      Hillary lies much less than Trump does.

      They're both liars. Trying to decide which one lies less is an exercise in masturbation, unless you have an agenda, in which case whichever one you happen to support will always be found to lie less.

      You can't even argue magnitude as a means to differentiate them. Hillary has plenty of "yuge" lies of her own (like claiming she landed under sniper fire and had to run for safety).

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    23. Re:Love it and stay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did Hillary ever speak at Moody's or maybe clients of Moody's perhaps?

    24. Re:Love it and stay by PJ6 · · Score: 1

      Insults are the domain of the Democrats, have some couth. Republicans don't generally use insult as a substitute for rational thinking, that's a Democratic play.

      "Heart rules the head", IOW emotional thinking, is what Democrats do.

      Oh, and because there are no examples of the other party being like that at all.

      Holy shit, dude.

      This whole R versus D thing is highly destructive to intelligent discussion, especially when adding generalizations and ad-hominem.

      Please get off Slashdot.

    25. Re:Love it and stay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, I suggest you take a look at how many states are currently being run by Republican governors and legislatures.

      Gerrymandering

  14. Lol, ask and ye shall receive by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 0

    Well, Trump did ask Russia to hack her emails, so maybe they said, "Fine, we will."

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    1. Re:Lol, ask and ye shall receive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we accept that idea (which is silly, as the Russians (like most governments) don't require the suggestion of a foreign individual to engage in hacking/espionage)... who was it who suggested to them that they hack the DNC servers first?

    2. Re:Lol, ask and ye shall receive by Bartles · · Score: 2

      Can you give me the quote that asked that? I've been following the story pretty closely and never saw anything like that. I think you're just drawing conclusions from headlines, just like they want you to.

    3. Re:Lol, ask and ye shall receive by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 0

      You're not following it closely at all because I've seen that clip at least 10 times already. He asks Russia to hack Hillary's emails and when he gets called on it (it's supposedly an act of treason) he says he was being sarcastic.

    4. Re: Lol, ask and ye shall receive by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Quotes please.

    5. Re: Lol, ask and ye shall receive by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      Just google "trump russia hack" or something, it's everywhere.

    6. Re: Lol, ask and ye shall receive by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Yeah. You got nothing, because it didn't happen. And in the end, facts matter.

    7. Re: Lol, ask and ye shall receive by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      *Sigh* He's not saying it didn't happen, he's saying he was being sarcastic when he said it.

    8. Re: Lol, ask and ye shall receive by Bartles · · Score: 1

      No, I'm saying that trump never asked Russia to hack Hillary's server.

    9. Re:Lol, ask and ye shall receive by RoccamOccam · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Repeating my reply to another similar post : I'm definitely not a Trump supporter, but I have to take issue with that statement. He didn't call for hacking, he said that they should "find" the missing emails. Since the server is already off-line, it's not there to be hacked.

      Presumably, he is suggesting that the server had probably already been hacked (maybe by any number of individuals or countries) and he thinks they could be found.

    10. Re: Lol, ask and ye shall receive by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      Why stop there? How about if he never said any of the things that he admits that he said and there's clips of him saying?

    11. Re: Lol, ask and ye shall receive by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Look. He never asked Russia to hack Hillary's server. You know this.

    12. Re:Lol, ask and ye shall receive by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 0

      Presumably he's addressing the Russian hackers who leaked the DNC emails, but you're right, he could be addressing his buddy Putin or the oligarchs who fund his business enterprises.

    13. Re:Lol, ask and ye shall receive by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Can you give me the quote that asked that? I've been following the story pretty closely and never saw anything like that. I think you're just drawing conclusions from headlines, just like they want you to.

      I assume you're playing cute with semantics, because he doesn't actually asked them to hack her emails, he asks them to "find" the emails. The implication being of course that they already hacked them.

      It's not hugely better of course, rather than asking Russia to hack her server he's saying that it's great that Russia hacked her server, and Russia should use that intel to help his campaign.

      And of course his backtrack that he was being "sarcastic" is stupid. But since it was obviously Trump talking he couldn't blame it on a young intern.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    14. Re: Lol, ask and ye shall receive by Bartles · · Score: 2

      Now we're starting to get somewhere. What would have been better would be if there was no question about the security of Hillary's emails in the first place.

    15. Re: Lol, ask and ye shall receive by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Now we're starting to get somewhere. What would have been better would be if there was no question about the security of Hillary's emails in the first place.

      It would be great if Obama could be chummier with Republican legislators.

      It would be great if Sanders was a little more wonkish and had a solid economic plan and foreign policy.

      It would be great if Trump was competent, honest, or remotely sane.

      There's no such thing as a perfect candidate, it defies belief that among everything else people are now looking at an ill-advised email server as some sort of failed litmus test.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    16. Re: Lol, ask and ye shall receive by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Right. It was just an I'll advised email server. You're judgement is worse than Hillary's.

    17. Re:Lol, ask and ye shall receive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless we're at war with Russia and I somehow missed the memo, it wouldn't be an "act of treason" even if Trump had directly asked them to launch a cyberattack.

      Hang on, I need to shut my window. Some asshole is blowing some kind of horn.

    18. Re: Lol, ask and ye shall receive by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Right. It was just an I'll advised email server. You're judgement is worse than Hillary's.

      So you think she's the devil incarnate, so what? The choice is Hillary or Trump so it should be Hillary by a landslide.

      If I were American I'd vote for Bush II over Trump, hell I'd vote for Nixon over Trump.

      The guy's been running for President for over a year and he still knows nothing about policy nor has he shown the ability to exhibit self-control for any period longer than a few hours. Can you really imagine him reacting well to even the mildest crisis?

      --
      I stole this Sig
    19. Re: Lol, ask and ye shall receive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're underestimating the power of denial. They already realize that Trump will be the next president and this explains why they're so nervous, but it will still be entertaining to watch them act surprised in November.

    20. Re: Lol, ask and ye shall receive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The guy's been running for President for over a year and he still knows nothing about policy

      If by "policy" you mean killing people all over the world, then yes, he's a total outsider.

      To even think of nominating Hillary while knowing how hated she is for what she has done all these years, is insane. And then you wonder why people vote for Trump.
      He will win due to the corruption and incompetence on his opponent's side, not because he's the best possible candidate.

    21. Re: Lol, ask and ye shall receive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And here we are...with two distinct camps.

      The people that support Trump will say it was tongue-in-cheek.
      The people that support Hillary will say he was poking the Russian fire.

      Either way this creates two camps. It's nice and polarizing like that.
      Y'all go and fight over semantics while this country burns in hell.

    22. Re: Lol, ask and ye shall receive by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      Oh I think I see. If it wasn't on Fox News it didn't really happen. I guess there's no point arguing with that.

    23. Re: Lol, ask and ye shall receive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNa2B5zHfbQ

      Claims he doesn't know Putin and asks Russia to get the emails pretty much inviting them to come and get it.

      Here's the 2013 video of him talking about his relationship with Putin.

      http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-putin-tried-meet-moscow-three-years-ago-source-n619006

      There's your quote for the emails and there's a bonus of him saying he doesn't know Putin when really he does.

    24. Re:Lol, ask and ye shall receive by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 0

      Watch and learn:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. Let's see if that happens, that'll be next."

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    25. Re: Lol, ask and ye shall receive by Bartles · · Score: 2

      So where does he ask them to hack Hillary's server?

    26. Re: Lol, ask and ye shall receive by Bartles · · Score: 1

      It's not tongue in cheek. If you look at the exact words he used in an objective manner, he never called for them to hack hillary's server.

    27. Re: Lol, ask and ye shall receive by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Why don't you cut and paste them for me. I know why you won't do that. It would expose the fact that you're lying. I have read all the quotes, and none of them ask Russia to hack Hillary's server.

  15. You can't wipe corruption away with a towel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nail the bitch to the wall

    1. Re:You can't wipe corruption away with a towel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And there it is, yesterdays man, a pathetic misogynist with yesterdays attitude, gullible as hell, believing the lies and fictions of the far right.

    2. Re:You can't wipe corruption away with a towel by footNipple · · Score: 2, Informative

      Forgive me if some of us don't get all weepy
      and faux offended over the GP's hyperbole.
      The woman is an international gangster
      whose entire adult life has been, essentially,
      a crime in progress. She should be incarcerated...
      in all seriousness.

    3. Re:You can't wipe corruption away with a towel by ngc5194 · · Score: 1

      Stay classy.

    4. Re:You can't wipe corruption away with a towel by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      Well I guess we know which channel you get your news from.

    5. Re: You can't wipe corruption away with a towel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah sure, go ahead and blame it on a youtube video if you want.

      You know he's gonna win don't you.

    6. Re:You can't wipe corruption away with a towel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then there is Gary, an upstanding member of society who stands for real freedom and liberty.

      Vote for Gary Johnson.

    7. Re:You can't wipe corruption away with a towel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MSNBC?

  16. I don't mind Russian hackers by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

    2) If you are mad enough to consider voting for Trump does the fact that the Russian's are trying to help him put you off. If it does who do you vote for?

    That's an interesting point.

    I think the Russians did the country an enormous favour by bringing the actions of the Democratic party to light. It's like Snowden outing all the illegal activity of the intelligence organizations.

    I'd be completely OK if they, or some other country, did the same thing to the Republicans. It would only shine a light on the corruption, and help bring us to a more fair political process.

    And we also have to consider recent events. Our own Federal Election Commission won't investigate massive money laundering that effectively neutralized Sanders campaign funds, or working directly against the Sanders campaign.

    Also, the GCHQ was hacking around the Arab Spring, and the US deposed the democratically elected leader of Iran and put the Shah in power.

    We can't blame Russia for doing what every other country is doing, and that we are doing as well.

    The Democrats would have every right to be upset except that they were involved in massive wrongdoing!

  17. Obi Wan Kenobi 2016 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're our only hope

  18. What I don't understand is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why didn't Trump just ask his campaign manager (Manafort) to relay the message to the Kremlin?

  19. Maybe? by argStyopa · · Score: 2

    Perhaps the servers would have been safer at her house?

    --
    -Styopa
  20. Re:Oh man I feel sorry for the people working ther by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who knows how far they'll go to fix this one up?

  21. Clinton's Security Trumped by Russians. by penguinoid · · Score: 1

    I wonder if they found those missing emails?

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  22. Moody's is good by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

    I didn't previously respond to your post because I want to encourage you and posters like you. Don't get discouraged when other people jump on what you wrote.

    You raise a valid point, and it should be discussed. I'd like to see you get an account and repost this, and any other rational points you want to make, so that we can discuss these issues.

    Clinton will come up again as a topic, let's take this up at that time.

    For now, I unreservedly admit that your post is good and you've completed the challenge.

  23. It wuz teh haxx0rz wif de haxx!!!!eleventy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Breathless, uninformative, and obviously so from the headline. Efficiency!

  24. Continual email hacks = keyword dilution scheme by frankenheinz · · Score: 1

    The idea is that if Hillary/Clinton/DNC/Inc. email gets hacked enough, no one will be able to find evidence of the H"Hillary Clinton Email Controversy" on the internet any more.

    --
    The law is not an ass. No really.
  25. Most transparent campaign ever by istartedi · · Score: 1

    Most transparent campaign ever.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  26. BS by frovingslosh · · Score: 0

    I call B.S. Hillary herself has assured us, under oath, that her email has not been hacked. And since the server absolutely had no sensitive information on it there would be no reason for Russia or any other foreign government to hack it. Yup, lots of B.S.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  27. She's obsessed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With embarrassing info coming out NOW she wants to know who hacked her. Before she just blew it off. Now it's deflection mode.

    By Trump jokingly asking that the hackers find the missing 30k emails, the media NOW thinks those emails could hold national security info where they didn't think before.

  28. hi all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    president of a 3300 member hackr group here....GO TRUMP ...down with dumbocrats......

    and don't worry trump there is a lot more on hilary to come and it aint from russia you need to ask

  29. lololol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    your an idiot

    go look up what an elite proxy server is and why we use them OUTSIDE northamerica to do things here

  30. GUESS WHO IS INVESTIGATING THIS BIG BREACH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The FBI mole team. To top it off, Hillary passed away over a month ago. Big trouble brewing I think.

  31. National Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The concept of National Security is the biggest lie if them all.