Slashdot Mirror


Guccifer 2.0 Releases More DNC Documents (politico.com)

For the past several months, the hacker who calls himself "Guccifer 2.0" has been releasing documents about the Democratic National Committee. Today, he has released a new hoard of documents. Politico reports: The hacker persona Guccifer 2.0 has released a new trove of documents that allegedly reveal more information about the Democratic National Committee's finances and personal information on Democratic donors, as well as details about the DNC's network infrastructure. The cache also includes purported memos on tech initiatives from Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine's time as governor of Virginia, and some years-old missives on redistricting efforts and DNC donor outreach strategy. Most notable among Tuesday's documents may be the detailed spreadsheets allegedly about DNC fundraising efforts, including lists of DNC donors with names, addresses, emails, phone numbers and other sensitive details. Tuesday's documents regarding the DNC's information technology setup include several reports from 2010 purporting to show that the committee's network passed multiple security scans. In total, the latest dump contains more than 600 megabytes of documents. It is the first Guccifer 2.0 release to not come from the hacker's WordPress account. Instead, it was given out via a link to the small group of security experts attending [a London cybersecurity conference].

333 comments

  1. Summary missing important piece... by meta-monkey · · Score: 5, Informative

    What about the large number of donors who, immediately after their hefty donations, received cushy ambassadorships?

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    1. Re:Summary missing important piece... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
      We have moved on from this now. The real question on everyone's minds is

      What about the large number of donors who, immediately after their hefty donations, received pneumonia?

    2. Re:Summary missing important piece... by Iconoc · · Score: 5, Informative
    3. Re:Summary missing important piece... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      The ZeroHedge analysis is quite useful, I recommend people read it.

      What the Obama administration, the Democrats, and the Clinton campaign have been up to, their level of corruption and influence peddling is utterly disgusting.

    4. Re:Summary missing important piece... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      When you think about the fact that the George W Bush administration started a fucking war for no other reason than to try to impress his daddy, your comment is utterly laughable.

    5. Re:Summary missing important piece... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Right, because every other president before hasn't paid off political donors with ambassadorships, including George Dubya Bush

    6. Re:Summary missing important piece... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    7. Re:Summary missing important piece... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, the Bush administration was also corrupt. What's your point?

    8. Re:Summary missing important piece... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but it was glorious when St. Bush did it!

    9. Re:Summary missing important piece... by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 5, Funny

      Naah, that's overblown. She was just having a routine problem with her human suit. Happens all the time. Those things don't last forever, you know. Gotta be replaced every now and then. The real trick is getting the aging correct since you can't just show up looking like you're 20 again. Humans tend to get suspicious when that happens.

      It's actually a rather complicated procedure because of how tightly integrated human suits are with lizard person physiology, so that's why she needed so much time off in August. "Skinning" can actually be a form of torture and can be fatal without the proper medical attention.

      It should be smooth sailing now!

    10. Re:Summary missing important piece... by the_saint1138 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Details on cushy ambassadorships via Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/The_D...

    11. Re:Summary missing important piece... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You gotta remember, liberals love to justify bad behavior, by pointing to (often unrelated) ... bad behavior.

      It is as if they are four year olds getting in trouble, and saying "but Billy's Mom lets him drink beer/smoke dope". The problem is, nobody calls it "childish" behavior (which it is), because that is insulting to children.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    12. Re:Summary missing important piece... by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bush is a low bar to judge yourself against.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    13. Re:Summary missing important piece... by evilRhino · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you would never hear a Republican saying that a person that didn't obtain legal entry papers being murderers or rapists because those crimes are completely unrelated.

    14. Re:Summary missing important piece... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the republicans are low bar for anyone to judge themselves with it

    15. Re:Summary missing important piece... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Apparently the democrats are too. It's sad that we as a country can't do better than this.

      If you start asking people, "which businessperson do you think would make a good president?" they will start listing celebrity CEOs (woohoo! Steve Jobs for president! Nevermind that his temperment is totally unsuited for it).

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    16. Re:Summary missing important piece... by pushing-robot · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ambassadorships to friendly countries, the UK in particular, have always been given as rewards to political friends. You could count the number of people who became UK ambassador on merit on one hand which had been run through a wood chipper.

      The reason you didn't know about this before is because it never became an issue. Tuttle made a bit of a kerfuffle a decade ago, but it takes a lot to start a diplomatic incident with a close ally and being ambassador to the UK or France or Australia really requires no great skill as a peacemaker. If you were being particularly charitable, you could even say that fundraisers and diplomats have a lot in common.

      Everyone has plenty of dirty laundry, including you and me. 'Innocent until proven guilty' is an excellent attitude in criminal court, but the attitude 'innocent until doxxed' skews our perceptions and gives power to doxxers. Honestly I'm a bit surprised these leaks haven't found more than 'omg, politics at political party!'

      Remember, parties are not obligated to be democratic or unbiased. Legally and constitutionally there's only one vote, the general election in November. Anyone* can be nominated as a candidate for that election, and if both parties decided to nominate whomever they pleased they might be breaking their own rules but not the law. Everything up to and including the conventions is just meant to give supporters a feel of involvement and to remove unpopular candidates without invoking the wrath of their supporters. But the parties want to win, and if one candidate seems more 'electable' you can bet the party will give then a leg up on the rest.

      * you know what I mean

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    17. Re:Summary missing important piece... by Penguinisto · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you start asking people, "which businessperson do you think would make a good president?" they will start listing celebrity CEOs (woohoo! Steve Jobs for president! Nevermind that his temperment is totally unsuited for it).

      Pretty sure he's calmed down a little since he died... and maybe a corpse would be an improvement over the current top two candidates?

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    18. Re:Summary missing important piece... by meta-monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So it's okay to give money to a private political organization in order to get favors from the government?

      Why don't we just auction off ambassadorships then?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    19. Re:Summary missing important piece... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What about the large number of donors who, immediately after their hefty donations, received cushy ambassadorships?

      Where have you been? It's worked that way, with both parties, since forever.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    20. Re:Summary missing important piece... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the fundamental tenets of your political party are the destruction of society to support the privileged few, it's pretty hard to say anything coherent.

    21. Re:Summary missing important piece... by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      You gotta remember, liberals love to justify bad behavior, by pointing to (often unrelated) ... bad behavior.

      Nope. That's not justifying bad behavior, that's pointing out hypocrisy.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    22. Re: Summary missing important piece... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      eBay for all government considerations. Let's be honest about how our system works and WHO is actually benefitting from purchasing favors.

    23. Re:Summary missing important piece... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he did not commit the first crime, he could not have done the second.

    24. Re:Summary missing important piece... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      And ... I rest my case !

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    25. Re:Summary missing important piece... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Which party are you complaining about? Because from where I sit, both the D and R parties are ... guilty of that charge.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    26. Re:Summary missing important piece... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 5, Informative

      You mean, like when Bill Clinton said "Make America Great" is racist, even though he used that same exact phrase a number of times during his own presidential campaign?

      That, is hypocrisy, because it is actually word for word comparison. Rather than when talking about email servers and health of a presidential candidate, try to change the subject by calling Trump a racist for saying "Make America Great". (actual example)

      No, I am not supporting Trump either. Vote Gary Johnson.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    27. Re:Summary missing important piece... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      both parties, since forever.

      Why Democrats and Republicans stay in power despite leaks like this.

    28. Re:Summary missing important piece... by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      We don't need Guccifer for that, because (for both Dems and Republicans) the answer is "nearly all of them".

      --
      -Styopa
    29. Re: Summary missing important piece... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hold on now...under Hillary, being an ambassador is not so cushy. Just look at what happened to the one in Benghazi.

    30. Re:Summary missing important piece... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      words also have context

    31. Re:Summary missing important piece... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My problem is that neither party shows any inclination at all of manning up and stopping the childish bullshit. Instead, based on the candidates they've put forth as the Best They Can Do, it appears to me that both parties are doubling down on childish bullshit this year.

      I'm voting straight ticket libertarian, once again. Too bad the libertarians are voting Trump as their protest vote against Gary Johnson, Republican Lite. They might have actually gotten somewhere this year.

    32. Re:Summary missing important piece... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm bad at thinking of celebrity CEOs......ok, got it.
      Tony Stark for president! Everybody loves Tony. As a bonus he can be a nuclear shield.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    33. Re:Summary missing important piece... by MrNiceguy_KS · · Score: 1

      The corpse of Steve Jobs can't run for president... The Democrats already have their candidate, and she's in slightly better health than Mr. Jobs.

      --
      Redundancy is good And also good.
    34. Re:Summary missing important piece... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 5, Interesting

      RIght, when a (D) says something like "Make America Great Again" (Bill Clinton, running for President) it isn't racist, because Bill isn't a racist. But when an (R) (Trump running in 2016) says something like "Make America Great Again" it is racist, because Bill says in the south, that phrase has a particular connotation. Trump being from New York State, would know that, and that is why he is a racist, but Bill 24 years ago (from Arkansas) wouldn't have known.

      Context like that?

      Or you just making excuses because ... well you like (D) and not (R) politics, and will use the "Racism" card even in situations where it wouldn't fit, and if it did fit, wouldn't go in the direction you'd like?

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    35. Re:Summary missing important piece... by pushing-robot · · Score: 3, Funny

      So it's okay to give money to a private political organization in order to get favors from the government?

      Well, in the sense that it's not illegal, has been going on for 200+ years and the country has survived, it's 'okay'.

      If Hillary was really a modern William Tweed there would be a lot more interesting stuff in those email dumps.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    36. Re:Summary missing important piece... by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Its been my experience scofflaws tend to be scofflaws. Someone who obviously and blatantly disregards one law will do so with others.

      There is plenty of evidence to support he idea that illegal aliens are disproportionately murders and sex offenders compared with the general population.

      Just be cause they are not ALL murders and sex offenders does not make what Trump said untrue, nor does the fact that you dislike it. If we really care about reducing the number of murders and sex offenders on the lose in our society cracking down on illegal immigrants would be a reasonable step.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    37. Re:Summary missing important piece... by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Well, when you get Trump supporters interpreting "Make America Great Again" in clearly racist terms, then you start to understand the dog whistles that are clearly hitting their mark.

      There was a CNN panel (yes, admittedly absurd sampling) where the biggest Trump supporter was saying stuff like "they give all this stuff to the illegals, that I as a regular white person can't get". First of all, the ignorance is pretty astounding. I don't know what 'stuff' she was talking about, but all government benefits are available to all qualifying citizens. And non-citizens don't qualify for any of it. But in any case, she's been fed a constant diet of 'reverse racism' against white people, and that's the mindset in which she hears "Make America Great Again". And Trump is fully aware of this - and courting it. So how is this the same as Clinton again...?

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    38. Re:Summary missing important piece... by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Ambassadorships to friendly countries, the UK in particular, have always been given as rewards to political friends.

      True enough but traditionally those have also been friends who were long time loyal public servants, with some qualifications other than being able to make a sizable campaign donation. I blame the Kennedys starting with Joe sr. for changing that.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    39. Re:Summary missing important piece... by um...+Lucas · · Score: 1

      No ones excusing them Dems, but it's the height of hypocrisy that R's (old and newfound) cast such a scrutinizing gaze at the Dems while ignoring the HUGE PILES of rubbish on their own front yards. It's like they climbed the Mount Everest of lies and corruption so that they could survey the smaller mountains below them.

      So no, two wrongs don't make a right. But if you want anyone to believe the seriousness with which you perceive a problem, your first step ought to be cleaning house, not looking at anyone elses house. Otherwise you're just a hypocrite, pouncing on a controversy to further your agenda and that's all. Don't even pretend its about morality or ethics or anything else.

      OK

    40. Re:Summary missing important piece... by um...+Lucas · · Score: 1

      No.

      It's that we Liberals see Conservatives giving pass after pass to their own party, and when you then speak up and point out woes on the other side of the aisle, our first reaction is "Really? Like WTF man? If this stuff is as bad as you say, then why in the world did it not bother you when your guys were doing it?"

      Clean house on your own side of the street before you point out anyone elses messes.

    41. Re:Summary missing important piece... by meta-monkey · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There's been plenty of interesting stuff in previous releases of Hillary's particular emails. I would say the most amazing was acknowledgment that the reason we backed the moderate beheaders in Syria against Assad was so the Israelis would feel better about a nuclear Iran without a stable Syria as a base of operations for Hezbollah. The 400,000 war dead, the creation of ISIS, the blowback attacks in Paris, San Bernardino, Brussels, Nice, Orlando, and the refugee crisis that threatens to destabilize all of western Europe...no problem for Hillary and her supporters. It's unreal. But here we are.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    42. Re:Summary missing important piece... by Sri+Ramkrishna · · Score: 2

      Ah yes, the false equivalence argument. Both sides are corrupt equally at all times regardless of facts.

    43. Re:Summary missing important piece... by Sri+Ramkrishna · · Score: 1

      Never mind, re-tweeting tweets from avowed racists or making hiring decisions that include far right wingers who clearly have a racist agenda.

    44. Re:Summary missing important piece... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Therefore we shouldn't care about it.

      Thanks for Correcting the Record!

    45. Re:Summary missing important piece... by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 2

      The ambasadorships are not a problem. I have seen a few directorships and assistant directorships of government agencies in the list.

    46. Re:Summary missing important piece... by Sri+Ramkrishna · · Score: 1

      In fact, relatively boring I would say. The press is really disappointed and I know is looking for another batch in hopes for something. They think they smell a scandal that hey can use to sell newspaper and get ad money. That's generally the whole point of the exercise.

    47. Re:Summary missing important piece... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure [Steve Jobs] calmed down a little since he died... and maybe a corpse would be an improvement over the current top two candidates?

      GOP is trying to re-animate Reagan, using Disney's Abraham Lincoln technology

    48. Re: Summary missing important piece... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We do, that's the point. It's just not supposed to be public.

    49. Re:Summary missing important piece... by Yunzil · · Score: 2

      It's not justification, it's pointing out the blatant hypocrisy of the right. Like complaining about Benghazi while ignoring similar attacks that happened during the GWB administration. Or spinning nutty stories about HRC's health while simultaneously idolizing Ronald Reagan, who wasn't suffering from Alzheimer's. Or Newt Giungrich attacking Bill Clinton over the Lewinsky affair while he himself was cheating on his wife at the time.

      Nobody's justifying anything, just saying that glass house you're living in is awfully fragile, so you probably shouldn't be chucking boulders around.

    50. Re:Summary missing important piece... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize how ironic it is for you to say this don't you?

    51. Re: Summary missing important piece... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Unfortunately it doesn't even matter who's the SOS, they all bow in front of AIPAC and put the wellbeing of a certain middle-eastern country ahead of US interests.

      For all his faults, Obama tried to tone down this unilateral ass-kissing, and the R(etards) in Congress promptly flipped him the bird by inviting that jackass aptly nicknamed Bibi.

    52. Re:Summary missing important piece... by Zak3056 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Remember, when someone like David Duke endorses Donald Trump and Trump says, "Who is David Duke, and why should I care?" this proves Trump is a racist. When Hillary Clinton talks about how Robert Byrd was her "friend and mentor" this also proves that Trump is a racist. See how easy that is?

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    53. Re:Summary missing important piece... by jodokast98 · · Score: 2

      There's no such thing as reverse racism .... it's just racism. And yes white people can be the victim of racism, it's not just for non-whites. Go back and look at all the recent BLM protests, riots, whatever you want to call them. White people have been targeted in these instances just because of the color of their skin. Hell I've had a Nigerian immigrant family that used to live next to a friend of mine project their hatred at me just because I'm white. Never interacted with them at all or did anything to draw their ire, other than just exist in the close vicinity. It went so far as them calling the county police on me one night under the notion that I was some how dealing drugs or weapons to others ... yet I was just sitting on one of those green power/cable boxes talking on the phone with a friend. (might have had something to do with the punk attire and mohawk, in reality) As for a diet of racism ... that's coming from the mainstream media, both sides equally. Great way to frear-monger, spread hatred and contempt among the classes and races so they're at each others throats; then swoop in like a knight in shinning armor with your list of solutions on how to fix things.

    54. Re:Summary missing important piece... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forget that Bill was "America's first black president."

      So he literally can't be racist. Also, racism requires power and he never had anything like that.

    55. Re:Summary missing important piece... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many Trump supporters do YOU personally know? I know over a dozen, and none of them are racist.

      I stopped watching CNN when I caught them in a direct, vicious lie about Turmp in August: I watched a youtube stream of a Trump speech (RSBN channel), then later saw a CNN anchor LIE his guts about what Trump said... that I watched just hours ago.
      That convinced me who's evil, and who's racist... CNN guys that shamelessly lie to my eyes.
      If you care to educate yourself, I'm happy to post the link to the video.

      The fact that the Clinton News Network manipulators go out and find THE one racist to put on national TV is exactly what they do: they are evil, manipulative. they mislead you. CNN and other Killary cronies are scared shitless of the Trump change... because he might, just might clean their corrupt shit out.

    56. Re:Summary missing important piece... by martinX · · Score: 1

      Tuttle? Don't you mean Buttle?

      --
      When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
    57. Re:Summary missing important piece... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      Actually, there are plenty of benefits that Illegals get, that Citizens don't get. The lack of proper "documentation' gets them a lot of linenacy in criminal situations that I do not get. That, and "sanctuary cities" go above and beyond to "protect" undocumented people (aka "illegal"). In addition to these overt "benefits" there are things like documentation needed to get driver's licenses and proposals to grant right to vote to undocumented people, where I, being a citizen have to prove I am a citizen and who I say I am to vote.

      While not "free stuff" there are a lot of Tax Payer resources that are available, expressly for Undocumented people, that I do not qualify for, such as legal support and help.

      Then there is the actual benefits granted to citizens and legal residents that are also being granted to illegals.

      But it is easy to cry "Racism" (what race is an "Illegal alien" ??) And quite frankly illegal immigration is affecting the suppression of wages and those are affecting Black Americans disproportionately, so, while you claim it is racism, some of us actually want to protect actual US Citizens, regardless of their race. And it is a big part of why you see upto 25% of blacks starting to support Trump (not that I am voting for him, I am not) but they are at least waking up to the idea that they are going to be replaced as the defacto "slave" of the DNC party by Hispanics. And that isn't going to be good for "black Americans" ... hardly a racist position.

      CNN is also known as the Clinton News Network, and recently reported that 78 degree temperatures was "sweltering" when attempting to defend Clinton's collapse on Sunday. So, I don't believe anything they say.

      Vote Gary Johnson, for sane America. .

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    58. Re:Summary missing important piece... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wealthy donors being given patronage ambassadorships to places that don't have "important" shit going on is as old as time and everyone does it. And on the scale of "things politicians (on both sides) in FedGov do that are outrageous" it rates about a 2/10. What does the American ambassador to $SMALL_EUROPEAN_COUNTRY or $TROPICAL_ISLAND_NATION do? Host receptions, schmooze, make friends. In the event that some vacationing American frat boys get rowdy, the staff handle the incident.

      The American ambassador to... Saudi Arabia? Turkey? England? China? Russia? So long as THOSE are reserved for actual diplomats, I truly can't bring myself to care.

      Seriously. Bush appointing a dancing horse trainer to run FEMA was outrageous... because FEMA, if one were to look up what the second letter stands for, by definition deals with Important Shit. Bush appointing wealthy GOP donors, or Obama appointing wealthy DNC donors, to out-of-the-way places where a friendly schmoozer is frankly what you're looking for? no1curr. 404 fucks_to_give.html not found.

    59. Re:Summary missing important piece... by dbreeze · · Score: 1

      Except, unfortunately, that's pretty much the case these days. I would have never given Trump even the first look until I saw how horrified the
      GOP was at his very appearance. Now the question is, is even that a scam?
        I didn't vote for him, but I did get my hopes up a bit that Obama might be for real. Then I watched him laugh at the American people when a fair majority of them expressed their top priority on whitehouse.gov....

      --
      When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
    60. Re:Summary missing important piece... by dbreeze · · Score: 1

      "And non-citizens don't qualify for any of it."
      You need to go spend a day in a southern health clinic or SS office my friend. I think you'll find it quite enlightening....

      --
      When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
    61. Re:Summary missing important piece... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it "okay?" No, on the absolute scale of comparing the operation of our government with some sort of hypothetical perfection, no.

      If you look at ALL the bullshit that goes on our government, all of the things that are broken and in need of reform, and conclude that giving ambassadorships to places that don't require a real diplomat is something to be OUTRAGED about? You have a serious problem with prioritizing.

    62. Re: Summary missing important piece... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dick Cheney's suit is holding up pretty well...

    63. Re:Summary missing important piece... by dbreeze · · Score: 1

      And then there's a few like me, watching both of you glass house dwellers chucking rocks at each other, and thinking, "me and mine are so fucked...."

      --
      When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
    64. Re: Summary missing important piece... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two wrongs DO make a right. Our entire justice system is based on that theory.

    65. Re: Summary missing important piece... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You pulled that "hypothesis" out of your ass. Where are the numbers showing illegals commit more crimes? Since the number of illegals is significantly lower than legals, there's no way that can be possible. You're busy trying to pick fleas while ignoring the lice and ticks...

    66. Re: Summary missing important piece... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's some grade a conservative logic you got there. You said they discriminated against you because you're white but then said it was because you looked like a punk. Punks have historically always been disliked and untrusted. Race had nothing to do with it. Classism did. All the -isms tend to look the same so it's easily confused.

    67. Re: Summary missing important piece... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know way more than a dozen and they're all racist. I live in the south. That's how shit down here works. So my anecdote "trumps" your anecdote. See how this works?

    68. Re: Summary missing important piece... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes it is. Just like it's ok for you to give up your time to an employer for monetary gain. Just like you can donate to your church for favors from god. You just don't like the political donations because they don't benefit YOU.

    69. Re:Summary missing important piece... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you talk about the 400,000 war dead, be sure always to remember the 500,000 Iraqi children who died under the sanctions regime in the decade from 1991 to 2001. (UNICEF 2001 estimate.)

      When you talk about "the creation of ISIS" as if that had something to do with Hillary... frankly I assume you're just trolling.

      This is an excellent example of how Trump's campaign works: make lots of ludicrous accusations without context and without an ounce of substantiation, then move on. The next thing you know, Hillary is "controversial", "crooked", "corrupt", "tarnished" etc., although when challenged to name specific things that she'd done wrong, nine out of ten people repeating these memes couldn't go beyond "something about leaking emails, oh yeah, and also murdering everyone".

    70. Re: Summary missing important piece... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isn't false if it's true, dipshit. Otherwise you could dismiss any argument that way.

    71. Re:Summary missing important piece... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      That's quite the left brain/right brain thing you have going on. First, you want us to remember the half a million kids that died under Clinton sanctions, then you want to deny another Clinton's responsibility for the rise of ISIS.

      Which is like denying that water is wet.

      Of course the U.S. is responsible for ISIS, with Hillary playing a starring role. Destabilizing the entire region with regime change after regime change, and arming "militants" everyone to fight people the U.S. doesn't like, whether it's in Iraq, Syria or Iran.

      The only distinction between an ISIS radical in need of a good droning and a heroic freedom fighter taking it to Assad is a line on a map.

    72. Re: Summary missing important piece... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Where are the numbers showing illegals commit more crimes?"

      Maybe the the fact that ALL of them have committed at least one crime? All illegals are, by definition, criminals. They get a score of "1" on the crime scale right off the bat for the act of coming into the country ILLEGALLY.

    73. Re:Summary missing important piece... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      When Hillary Clinton talks about how Robert Byrd was her "friend and mentor" this also proves that Trump is a racist. See how easy that is?

      What's easy to see is the idiocy of wingnuts who want to chicken-fuck Byrd without mentioning the fact that he flip-flopped on race issues - in the early 80's. If you wanted to lambast Democrats for being racists, you'd blast the Clinton's for their 90's crime bills, and their "super-predator" dog whistles, which they defend to this day.

      But, that would require you to be honest for five seconds, and most of the chicken-fuckers heartily approve of those aspects of the Clinton legacy, anyway.

    74. Re: Summary missing important piece... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But when someone calls the cops on or simply crosses the street to avoid a confrontation with a gang-banger-thug-life-style black guy, the liberals are all screaming "racism!", because it's now all about the color of his skin, and not the dangerous appearance he puts on.

      This is why the Left gets pointed out for being hypocrites all the time.

    75. Re:Summary missing important piece... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're living in your own delusional frame of mind.

      Go back 10 years and look at the slashdot posts. It was a full-on hate-fest for the Bush administration. There was no "pass" you speak of.

      Your bias is quite evident though, with your phrasing of "nutty stories of HRC's health". The woman has all the symptoms of Parkinson's disease, and any inquiries about her health are met with distractions, silence, or outright lies. No surprise there. The Left is synonymous with hypocrisy. Their attempt to deflect when confronted with it is to accuse their opponents of the same crimes, just as you have done. Textbook psychological projection.

    76. Re:Summary missing important piece... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      You gotta remember, liberals love to justify bad behavior, by pointing to (often unrelated) ... bad behavior.

      You're using that word, "liberals", but who you're really referring to is right wingers who lie to themselves a lot.

      It is as if they are four year olds getting in trouble, and saying "but Billy's Mom lets him drink beer/smoke dope".

      Did your self-awareness at least tickle a little bit when you wrote that?

      You mean, like when Bill Clinton said "Make America Great" is racist, even though he used that same exact phrase a number of times during his own presidential campaign?

      Was he being a raving racist moran towards latinos and muslims when he was saying it? No? Then your lazy false equivalency is duly noted.

      Actually, there are plenty of benefits that Illegals get, that Citizens don't get. The lack of proper "documentation' gets them a lot of linenacy in criminal situations that I do not get.

      Is that what Santa told you? Cuz believing in that jolly old elf is just as rational as this alternate universe you've constructed for yourself. Both cops and the DHS have quotas, and busting anyone they can for deportation helps boost those numbers, even if they have to deport American citizens to do it.

      While not "free stuff" there are a lot of Tax Payer resources that are available, expressly for Undocumented people, that I do not qualify for, such as legal support and help.

      That was you in Missouri in 2003, wasn't it? Immigrants without documents subsidize your ignorant ass by paying into benefits they will never try to collect on, least they get deported.

      And quite frankly illegal immigration is affecting the suppression of wages

      Responsibility for which you are laying at the feet of businesses and capitalists eager to exploit these workers, yes?

    77. Re:Summary missing important piece... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, I think I saw that episode.

    78. Re:Summary missing important piece... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So straight-up corruption with Pay-For-Play is okay with you when it's Dem doing it. Bet the story would change if the shoe were on the other foot. You'd be screaming for impeachment and execution for the traitorous right-wing scum that committed these heinous crimes.

      Democrat supporters repeatedly show themselves to be brainwashed, unethical apologists for crime and high-level corruption, as long as its THEIR party doing it.

      Keep up the hypocrisy!

    79. Re: Summary missing important piece... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In addition to these overt "benefits" there are things like documentation needed to get driver's licenses and proposals to grant right to vote to undocumented people, where I, being a citizen have to prove I am a citizen and who I say I am to vote.

      Actually, the driver's licenses still require documentation, just not proof of citizenship or even legal residency, since the states don't need that for driving and they would much prefer you to have ID for their own purposes. But the people imposing a burden upon you to prove your citzenship, oppose those aforementioned licenses anyway. They aren't related.

      Luckily for you a command of the facts isn't required to vote.

    80. Re: Summary missing important piece... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Commiting an illegality is commiting a crime? I must be a criminal because I got a parking ticket the other night.
      You completely avoided the question. Where did you pull out your murder and rape numbers?

    81. Re: Summary missing important piece... by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      So if
      2 x (wrongs) = right
      3 x rights = left
      then
      6 x (wrongs) = left
      right?

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    82. Re:Summary missing important piece... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      There was a CNN panel (yes, admittedly absurd sampling)

      I remember seeing either an XKCD or SMBC comic on this subject where the punch line was basically:
      And now to provide an opposing view is the dumbest person we could find

      --
      Time to offend someone
    83. Re:Summary missing important piece... by meta-monkey · · Score: 1, Insightful

      On what planet did Hillary not help create ISIS? We have the DoD memo that said if we back moves against Assad then AQI will unite all the jihadi forces under one banner. They did exactly that, and called it ISIS.

      Without Hillary's meddling, there would be no ISIS. And she knew something like ISIS would be the result of her actions, and she did it anyway.

      Also, what the hell do the Iraqi children have to do with Syrian war dead?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    84. Re: Summary missing important piece... by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      You just don't like the political donations because they don't benefit YOU.

      No, I don't like quid pro quo donations because that's the definition of corruption. How do you defend this?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    85. Re:Summary missing important piece... by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      You're the one who said "OUTRAGED." I said I don't like it.

      Also, I can be outraged about many things, and I gave no indication as to where the list of things about which I am outraged the purchasing of ambassadorships falls.

      Basically you're beating up a strawman and attacking me because you know the DNC is indefensible on this. You're not very good at shilling.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    86. Re:Summary missing important piece... by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Ah, the old "corruption is find because everybody does it" bullshit. No thanks.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    87. Re:Summary missing important piece... by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      You seem to think I'm a Trump supporter or otherwise a "wingnut." I am, in fact, neither. I'm just irritated by hypocrisy, and Clinton supporters have that in spades (to be fair, so do most Trump supporters).

      But hey, in the post above, you've called me dishonest, implied I am a racist, and used the words "chicken-fucker" just because I made a pointed joke. Might want to look in the mirror next time you're thinking about how fucked up American politics are.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    88. Re:Summary missing important piece... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Why don't we just auction off ambassadorships then?"

      That's pretty much how it's been forever.

    89. Re:Summary missing important piece... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      George W Bush administration started a fucking war for no other reason than to try to impress his daddy

      Which war was that? Iraq was about WMD, despite Democratic politicians trying to rewrite history, and Afghanistan was about breaking Al Qaeda's training grounds.

      Some WMD were found (buried chemical weapons, as well as the ones used in Syria to attack the civilian population), and if you paid any attention before the Iraq war, you would have seen Saddam acting like he was going to gas Iran and that he was building a nuke. At the time, he was denying weapons inspectors access to the facilities that were believed to be being used for building a nuke (which turned out to be hot air) and manufacturing chemical weapons (also turned out to be hot air), but there was no way to know at the time, unless you were psychic.

      http://politics.slashdot.org/c...

      Even Hillary was all out for the war, and not too long before Bush took office, Bill Clinton was suggesting we would have to invade to stop their WMD production.

      Perhaps you should stop parroting that crap when I am sure you know it is crap.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    90. Re:Summary missing important piece... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      You need to go spend a day in a southern health clinic or SS office my friend. I think you'll find it quite enlightening....

      Or an ER. It is amazing how many people use them as their doctor's office.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    91. Re:Summary missing important piece... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      The funniest thing is that very early on in the David Duke "controversy" Trump was told who he was and said he would never support someone like that, but yet the "controversy" went on for weeks after.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    92. Re:Summary missing important piece... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Or "Don't ask don't tell"? Now they are all for gay rights, whereas when in office Bill was completely about keeping people living in the closet.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    93. Re:Summary missing important piece... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      The thing is, Conservatives can say the exact same things about Liberals. Perhaps instead of telling the other party to clean up, you should instead be telling your own party to clean up their acts?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    94. Re:Summary missing important piece... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      When exactly did we lose an ambassador under Bush?

      What about the Liberal attacks on McCain about his health in 2008? Hillary is like 3 years younger than he was, and the only reason he walked like he did was because he was a POW who was tortured., not because he was frail.

      If you think the Lewinsky affair was about the cheating, you just don't get it. It was the perjury, and rape (it is rape to have sexual contact with a subordinate in case you didn't know).

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    95. Re:Summary missing important piece... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      There's some things to consider.

      First, we're always going to have some level of corruption going on, and we have to deal with that. Saying that Party A has some level of corruption is pretty useless, without having some idea of what a minimum achievable level would be, and comparing Party A and Party B is useful in judging that. Context is everything.

      Second, if Party A was corrupt and Party B wasn't, we'd have a fairly easy problem to address. If both are corrupt to some extent, we've got a much harder problem that can't be addressed simply by voting for the good party and not the bad one.

      In this case, someone is pointing out unsavory things in Party A, and it's very easy for people to think those things don't happen in other parties. Large-scale politics is a dirty business of necessity, dirtier than people like to think.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    96. Re:Summary missing important piece... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Someone who obviously and blatantly disregards one law will do so with others.

      Which would explain the waves of violent crime caused by Pirate Bay users, right? Lots of people on Slashdot are openly contemptuous of copyright law, so they must be dangerous, right?

      People think of laws in different categories. Someone with multiple terabytes of illegally downloaded stuff isn't particularly more likely to be a murderer. Someone who violates zoning laws is not particularly likely to be a burglar.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    97. Re:Summary missing important piece... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The Iraq war was not about WMD. That was an excuse.

      If it was about WMD, then either the known facts would have justified it or Bush would not have launched the invasion. There would have been no need to distort what was known the way Bush and Cheney did. Get a copy of Powell's book "It Worked For Me". For this purpose, I suggest the audiobook read by Powell. Near the end, he discusses the situation in which he gave his speech supporting going to war, why he did it, and the disgust in his voice is unmistakable. It's not surprising that anyone in Congress would have supported the invasion, since they did not know what was going on and had some justification in believing the Bush/Cheney line.

      What we found in Iraq was remnants of programs from earlier, not any actual threats.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    98. Re:Summary missing important piece... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      And this is out of the ordinary in what way? International politics tends to be uglier even than party politics. Also, we didn't have that much influence in Syria, and a lot of unforeseen things happened, not all of which were our fault.

      We simply don't know what would have happened in such a volatile area of the world if we'd done something else. I'm not saying this was the right decision, but I really can't say it was the wrong one.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    99. Re:Summary missing important piece... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think a bunch of religious fanatics are responsible for ISIS.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    100. Re:Summary missing important piece... by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      If we hadn't interfered the Syrian war wouldn't have happened. Pretty sure we wouldn't have 400,000 people dead, the migrant crisis, and ISIS would still be a bunch of different scattered jihadi groups instead of the coordinated effort it is. It was definitely the wrong choice.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    101. Re:Summary missing important piece... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Did you click the link I offered? It is a bunch of quotes from all those people who would never have supported an invasion according to you. Most of them from before Bush was even in office.

      Amazing how Bush and Cheney distorted Bill Clinton's mind while he was still president.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    102. Re:Summary missing important piece... by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      Folks, racism involves a power imbalance and systematic oppresion. Without that it's just prejudice, or resentment... or something. Racism implies inferiority - perceived, or made up in order to justify some resentment-based discrimination.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    103. Re:Summary missing important piece... by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      Well, to be fair, they didn't include one unabashed Hillary fan on the panel.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    104. Re: Summary missing important piece... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps one of the main differences is that the poor white people who support Trump have been in situations where they need these benefits whereas the average Clinton supporter hasn't.

    105. Re:Summary missing important piece... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Hell, it was a matter of weeks before SCOTUS legalized marriage equality before Hillary fully supported gay marriage. Not just Obama's "state's rights" position that simultaneously endorsed state bans on marriage while applauding marriage in states that had legalized it.

    106. Re:Summary missing important piece... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      And if the Clinton's had buddied up to the 1950's edition of Byrd, you might have had a point with your "joke". As it was, you echoed a dumbfuck talking point of equating the post 70's Byrd with current racist Republicans, and thus was taken to be a dumbfucker. Kinda like going on about Obama and "birth certificates". Protip: don't use tired troglodyte GOP talking points, and you wont be taken for a troglodyte GOPer. Instead, talk about how more minorities have been thrown into prison because of the Clintons, or how Obama has deported far more immigrants than Bush. Honesty plus a good talking point, it can be done.

    107. Re: Summary missing important piece... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if 2 x (wrongs) = right 3 x rights = left then 6 x (wrongs) = left right?

      Naw, man, 6 x (wrongs) is a 180, 7 x (wrongs) is a left.

    108. Re:Summary missing important piece... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Quite possibly, but I'm sure other bad things would have happened. Using hindsight, siding with rebels was probably a bad idea, but Iraq was already thoroughly destabilized and things were going to get messy and unpleasant no matter what. (Not that living in a country ruled by Assad or Hussein is necessarily pleasant.)

      Another question is what part of this was apparent when the decision was made, and the answer is certainly not all of it. I doubt anyone really expected ISIS. There's a lot of decisions that are bad in retrospect, but it's a lot harder to understand that they may have been correct given available information. Human nature is to make stories. If you give people a situation with a result, they'll selectively look at the clues in the situation and construct reasons why the result was predictable. Studies have included giving people the same written situation and different results, and people tend to think that their given result was predictable.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    109. Re:Summary missing important piece... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      There's a very large difference between thinking an invasion might be necessary (or even thinking it would probably be necessary) and launching one.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    110. Re:Summary missing important piece... by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Here's the 2012 DoD memo that outlines their predictions for the region. Of particular interest is the last paragraph on page 5 where they exactly predict the rise of ISIS.

      This is about as close to metaphysical certitude as you're going to get out of an intelligence report. No one can guarantee they can predict the future, but these are experts on the region, it's their job to understand it, it's the state department's job to understand it, and to be honest if you know anything about the region it shouldn't have been hard to predict. Obviously there are jihadi forces that have been suppressed by secular governments (Iraq, Libya, Syria). Obviously they want to depose the secular government and establish an Islamic government. Obviously if you weaken the secular government the jihadi forces are going to unite against them.

      So when you say:

      I doubt anyone really expected ISIS.

      This is completely false. The department of defense expected ISIS, the state department expected ISIS, and they went ahead with their plans anyway. There are only two possibilities:

      1. They wanted to create something like ISIS.

      2. They knew something like ISIS would almost certainly form and they gave subzero fucks about it. Hillary's goal was making Israel happy with a nuclear Iran and no other considerations matter.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  2. is this all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    yawn...

    1. Re:is this all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      COUGH...

      FTFY

    2. Re:is this all? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      COUGH...

      FTFY

      Get some more rest Hillary that still sounds pretty bad.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  3. We need small inboxes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Back in the 1990s email was a lot less secure, but at least if you did get into someones inbox you only had 3 megabytes of email to get at since most of it got tossed after a while since hard drive space was so expensive. I wish we had more options like that.

  4. bernie sanders by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 0

    bernie sanders is better then trump and it not Hillary

    1. Re:bernie sanders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      bernie sanders is better then trump and it not Hillary

      My dog is better than Trump, but his shit is surprisingly way too much like Hillary!

    2. Re:bernie sanders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The bacteria living on my toenails are better than Hillary, but at least they don't lie.

    3. Re:bernie sanders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *than

  5. Some hacker, he's not found anything real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Where's the evidence of the DNC specifically employing people to go to every polling place in the nation pretending to be somebody else to vote? Where's the evidence of Hillary having her own personal hit squad? Where are the obvious ties to the Communist party? Where is the document showing how literally Hillary Clinton and President Obama created ISIS?

    1. Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Since when did Trump supporters need evidence for, or proof of, anything that supports their political agenda in order to fervently believe it?

    2. Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when did Trump supporters need evidence for, or proof of, anything that supports their political agenda in order to fervently believe it?

      Yeah. Let's see her birth certificate.

      Her LONG FORM birth certificate.

    3. Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly what Hillary asked Obama in 2008, starting the entire "birther" movement.

    4. Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real by Mashiki · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Since when did Hillary supporters decide to bury their head in the sand over anything she does, while screaming the pepe the frog is a racist meme(never mind that they were masterfully trolled over it), and went so far as to write up hit pieces on it.

      From an outsiders perspective on Clinton, she's managed to pull both a "How do you do fellow kids" and "I'm batshit insane" all in one week.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    5. Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      Exactly what Hillary asked Obama in 2008, starting the entire "birther" movement.

      [Citation needed]

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    6. Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [Citation needed]

      Which brings us right back to my point above about Trump supporters and evidence.

    7. Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, as long as the DNC is merely selling out the government, I guess we're OK!

    8. Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because "alt-right" is racist, because ... democrats say so?

      But Hillary's "Super Predators" and "Bring them to heel" comments aren't. Her (and her husband's) use of Confederate Flags wasn't racist. "Make America Great Again" is racist, except when Bill used it for his campaign.

      Here is the problem, as I see it. The most racist thing out there, is the whole DNC platform that expects black people to continue to vote DNC candidates, without so much as even pandering, simply by tossing out the race card over every little thing.

      It is obvious that crying Racism is the ONLY thing left the Democrats have with respect to Hillary's campaign. And that is, by itself racist. And the black community is starting to wake up to the pure racism of low expectations that the DNC has of them.

      Can't have voter ID laws, because the DNC says Black people can't figure out how to get a free voter ID. But that isn't racist.
      Can't have single day voting, because DNC says Black People can't figure out how to fill out an absentee ballot or get to the polls on time. But that isn't racist.

      IF you simply look at the excuses being made on behalf of black people, they are all telling black people that they are incapable of doing normal activities, simply because ... they are black.And I find that extremely distasteful and as fucking racist as anything.

      Black people aren't as stupid, lazy, incapable as the DNC is making them out to be. But I am a racist for pointing out how stupid the DNC position is for these people.

      NO - I am not voting for Trump, this isn't about Trump, this is about racist DNC positions on how they actually treat black people as a "group" of incapable lazy idiots, who need special treatment and help to do normal things.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    9. Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real by swb · · Score: 1

      So if only run of the mill malfeasance is found it's OK, nothing to see here, move along?

      Nothing less than validating every paranoid conspiracy theory counts as a meaningful disclosure?

    10. Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Since when did Hillary supporters decide to bury their head in the sand over anything she does (while bashing Donald Trump)

      I'll take a stab at this. Since never. You've formed a false equivalence in your head. Anti-Trump protests != fervent Hillary Clinton supporters. At least not always. I realize that the choice SEEMS binary because of our flawed electoral system, but it's not. People can be extremely opposed to Donald Trump's message and yet still be extremely opposed to Hillary Clinton's practices. They may end up voting in a binary way, but please stop with this "us vs them" mentality. It does everyone, including you and the side you support, a disservice.

    11. Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's on the real secret personal email server.

    12. Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Can't have voter ID laws, because the DNC says Black people can't figure out how to get a free voter ID. But that isn't racist.

      Literally nobody has argued that in the history of Voter Suppression Laws. What has been argued is:

      1. Minority voters are disproportionately unlikely to have an existing photo ID (say, a driver's license.)
      2. Once enacted, states with Voter ID laws have a habit of erecting roadblocks to make it harder to get them if you live in areas with high minority populations. For example, closing offices that issue driver's licenses.
      3. If you've never had ID, it can be - depending on your situation - difficult to meet the criteria for obtaining ID, requiring the gathering of paperwork that most people don't actually keep, and in some cases is - in practice - impossible to obtain.

      There's also been at least one court case where a Voter ID law was thrown out specifically because the Republicans that created it fashioned it knowing that Voter ID laws would disproportionately impact legitimate Democratic voters. I actually heard a Republican pundit argue that they weren't being racist, because, uh, yeah blacks were disproportionately affected, but they overwhelmingly vote Democratic, and attempts to suppress their vote were based upon the fact they were Democrats, not because they were black as such.

      Yeah, right.

      IF you simply look at the excuses being made on behalf of black people, they are all telling black people that they are incapable of doing normal activities, simply because ... they are black.And I find that extremely distasteful and as fucking racist as anything.

      You're basically making stuff up in order to justify the "But Democrats are the TRUE racists" spin. Have you considered listening to what the big bad Democrats are saying, rather than inventing absurd caricatures? You'll look less ridiculous.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    13. Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Have you considered listening to what the big bad Democrats are saying, rather than inventing absurd caricatures? You'll look less ridiculous.

      With Black Panthers, Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, Bill Ayers, Al Sharpton, etc. on the Democrat side it's trivial to find plenty of racist bullshit over there. They're as deplorable as David Duke, yet I don't see Hillary getting all upset about them supporting her.

    14. Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://lmgtfy.com/?q=hillary+birther#

    15. Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yay strawmen.

      Because "alt-right" is racist, because ... democrats say so?

      No... they are saying alt-right is racist because of comments they make and how they act. For example, the comment of Trump about how (illegal?) Mexican immigrants are rapists and criminals. Or the correlation between a person's skin color and their probability of being pulled over by the police, being arrested, and of being convicted of a drug crime rather than just being left off with a stern warning.

      Can't have voter ID laws, because the DNC says Black people can't figure out how to get a free voter ID. But that isn't racist.

      I'm guessing you have complained about the Byzantian, inefficient, terrible government processes, during tax time if nothing else. Do you know how to get a free voter ID, because I sure don't. You can just search online, but what if you are indigent and don't have internet access, or worse that you don't even know the internet exists. I'm sure there is a small but non-trivial number of people who are like that' especially within ghettos or who are poor.

      Plus you need the cost of the bus or whatever to get where you are going (probably at least twice because who has all the paperwork the first time?), and the time to do so (which is hard when you are an hourly worker, a part-time worker struggling to make ends meet, and/or have children).

      CEOs can spend $50,000 on an impulse without a second thought and can take a spontaneous trip. So that means that it's a trivial burden for everybody, right? You might not care about 4 hours and $50, but if you are poor and are literally struggling to put food on your table for the week?

      I'll grant you this is hopefully a minority of people, but let's say it's 1% of the population... do we just ignore them?

      Can't have single day voting, because DNC says Black People can't figure out how to fill out an absentee ballot or get to the polls on time. But that isn't racist.

      See previous statement about being time poor and money poor. Why do we have elections in the middle of the working week, when it is hardest for people to get time off of work? Have you tried waiting in line for an election? I've waited for 2 hours to vote, and it was a exceptional pain. Fortunately I'm in a position where I have flexibility in my hours, but if were merely part-time day labor owner and easy to replace (or a small business for whom time is money) I'm not sure I would be able to take the time to vote.

      As a challenge to you, try living a month on only $980 (poverty level of 1 person of $11700 / 12 months). Be sure to count your rent/mortgage, car payments, food, internet, electricity, phone, and everything else. I'm pretty sure you'll find it eye-opening how even simple things become complicated; and at worst you'll have saved a few hundred-to-thousand for a nest egg. And that's ignoring the time constraints of a low-skill job

    16. Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Have you considered listening to what the big bad Democrats are saying,

      Yes, I have. They are liars and cheaters, and I don't believe anything they say, unless it is proven true. Same for Republicans.

      1. Minority voters are disproportionately unlikely to have an existing photo ID (say, a driver's license.)

      This is fucking racist. There is absolutely no evidence that this exists. And that is not the argument when "free government issued ID" is included in the Voter ID laws. There is NO ability loss just because skin color. The fact that you're making excuses as to why skin color actually matters in getting a photo ID (often Free, low cost), when so many other government services and purchasing things like alcohol, opening a bank account, getting welfare, having a job ... all requires a photo ID. You're basically saying that skin color matters in ABILITY (and without proof, I might add) .. which is patently racist at face value. You are so blinded you can't even see how your view of Race is remarkably ... sad.

      2. Once enacted, states with Voter ID laws have a habit of erecting roadblocks to make it harder to get them if you live in areas with high minority populations. For example, closing offices that issue driver's licenses.

      Strawman and slippery slope fallacy. And Racist. You're making the case that Government is racist (I wouldn't disagree), is an excuse to continue racism in other forms. And You have no facts to actually back up this claim, because there are no Voter ID laws that are actually valid, since "black people are not capable of getting IDs to vote" (See racist point #1)

      3. If you've never had ID, it can be - depending on your situation - difficult to meet the criteria for obtaining ID, requiring the gathering of paperwork that most people don't actually keep, and in some cases is - in practice - impossible to obtain.

      Bullshit. And fucking Racist. It is so easy to get Voter approved ID, that Illegal immigrants without any form of ID can get Driver's Licenses in many many states. You're saying that a Hispanic person ("undocumented worker") is more capable of getting ID than a black person, do you realize how fucking racist that is?

      The fact is, you're making excuses for people based solely upon the color of their skin, and don't even realize how fucking racist that actually comes across when someone actually questions your motivations. Yes, I believe you're unintentionally racist because you think your big heart excuses your racism, because of intentions. Real racism isn't intentional, it is white guilt masquerade of low expectations.

      You see, I see black people as FULLY capable of doing anything and everything a "white" person can and does do. Without exception or excuse as to why they don't. Yes, that puts me in a rare situation where I can see the Racism of white guilt throughout the DNC, that perpetuates the myth that black people need white people to help them, because they aren't white.

      They don't need our help, they are fully capable.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    17. Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real by Mashiki · · Score: 5, Insightful

      1. Minority voters are disproportionately unlikely to have an existing photo ID (say, a driver's license.)
      2. Once enacted, states with Voter ID laws have a habit of erecting roadblocks to make it harder to get them if you live in areas with high minority populations. For example, closing offices that issue driver's licenses.
      3. If you've never had ID, it can be - depending on your situation - difficult to meet the criteria for obtaining ID, requiring the gathering of paperwork that most people don't actually keep, and in some cases is - in practice - impossible to obtain.

      Really? Just going to say it, people who are against voter ID are insane, in the worst case I'd call you anti-democratic. Even us people in "liberal Canada" and those "ultra liberal" people in Norway, Germany and Denmark have mandatory requirements for voter ID. FYI, voter ID doesn't mean picture ID either. So stop pulling bullshit out of your ass. Seriously, get your fucking shit in order and stop blocking it. If you don't even have two items listed in the accepted section that we use in Canada, you don't fucking exist, and know zero people. Since you can file for an affirmation under oath from a friend. Voter ID isn't racist, it's fundamental to a secure democracy. Hell you can't get really can't government benefits of in the US without some form of ID.

      You're basically pro-voter fraud as long as you keep pushing this BS. There are multiple cases of it happening.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    18. Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You will notice that (2) is a very long list. Voter ID laws in the US tend to have somewhat peculiar and short lists of acceptable IDs on them. For instance, student IDs do not count in many states, even if issued by government organs (school districts, public universities). Simultaneously, government ID cards and driver's licenses issued out of jurisdiction don't count either. Since many out-of-state college students are eligible to vote but don't have cars, and so have no reason to get a local driver's license, that's a pretty obvious attempt to raise hurdles against voting by eligible students. On the other hand, IDs often carried by preferred groups (e.g. gun permits in Texas) do count. The free voter ID cards that you (sometimes) can get are often issued only in obscure places that require hours of travel and are open at strange and inconvenient times. There was a case recently in Wisconsin where one of the offices was only open for one day a month, then only for a few hours, it was a work day, and the day in question was the fifth Wednesday of the month, which most months don't even have.

      In many countries, national IDs are mandatory and everyone really does have them, so it's fine to require them, but that isn't the case here. Think about it from this perspective: there have been a small -- but non-zero -- number of cases of in-person voter fraud. Maybe a few dozen cases in the last ten years nationally. That's a crime and we should put a stop to it if we can. But the cure has to be better than the disease. Do you really think only a dozen people nationally don't have the right kinds of ID?

    19. Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real by Rob+Y. · · Score: 2

      I'm sure you can find such a citation on Breitbart ;-)

      In 2008, Hillary did imply that white, working class voters wouldn't vote for Obama, making her the safer nominee. And that's pretty nasty, but at least it was basically true - they mostly didn't vote for him. She never raised the birther issue - in fact, I don't think that came up until after Obama was actually elected. Trump didn't raise it first either, but he rode it well beyond its lifetime even as a useful lie - to the point that even now he can't even disavow it for fear of having to acknowledge what a blatantly opportunistic panderer to racists he was when he was talking about it back then.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    20. Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      I'll take a stab at this. Since never. You've formed a false equivalence in your head. Anti-Trump protests != fervent Hillary Clinton supporters. At least not always. I realize that the choice SEEMS binary because of our flawed electoral system, but it's not. People can be extremely opposed to Donald Trump's message and yet still be extremely opposed to Hillary Clinton's practices. They may end up voting in a binary way, but please stop with this "us vs them" mentality. It does everyone, including you and the side you support, a disservice.

      FYI: Not a US citizen, can't vote in the US, don't live in the US. Your basic idea on false equivalence falls flat on it's face in just that. Hillary just pulled a Romney with the "binders full of women" on her deplorables(and alt-right stuff) remark. And just pulled a Bush 1 on her "pepe the frog is racist" crap. The fact that hardcore democrats fall in line with this is no different then either case as to why they weren't elected, or elected for a second term. And considering the number of articles from the press on the "alt-right" BS, it seems that not only is the press pulling an "all in" but many of her hardcore supporters are. All the while, they just pushed those who lean slightly democrat, or are independents right into the Trump camp and don't even realize it. In fact they're doubling down on it.

      Hell the Clinton camp came out and re-affirmed Hillary's deplorables comment after she said well maybe it wasn't a good idea.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    21. Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Exactly what Hillary asked Obama in 2008, starting the entire "birther" movement.

      [Citation needed]

      How about New York Times writers, speaking on CNN?
      During the 2008 primaries, the Clinton campaign spread rumors (based on Obama's own lies in his first book's biography) that he was born in Kenya.
      She herself never made the claim, but many people in her campaign did - at least until the primaries were over. Almost as if it was another lie spread by the Clintons for political gain...

    22. Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real by Sri+Ramkrishna · · Score: 1

      Well said.

    23. Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know it is pointless to discuss this with you, you've twisted your views of racism to fit nicely within your own ethnocentric worldview that any evidence to the contrary will be minimized or dismissed. However, since I want to assume you have an open mind and actually participate in a discussion instead of a lecture.

      There's loads of evidence, you just have express some intellectual curiosity and go find it. It's not just about the ID itself and the challenges aren't associated with people being black or white, but instead it's simply harder for the poor, which statistically are disproportionately minority, to be able to get an ID even if it's free. They have to take off work, have less access to childcare, less access to transportation, etc. I don't think they are directly racist, but the analysis holds that voter ID laws are designed to suppress Democrats from voting. It's mere coincidence they are poorer and blacker.

      See: http://www.brennancenter.org/publication/challenge-obtaining-voter-identification

      Secondly, you indicate there are many states where you can get a drivers license with no identification. There are 12 that have the ability for some form of limited identification. http://immigration.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=005535 Many, not all, still require items like proof of residence, tax payer id proof, etc. It's just not factual to say "many many" states give IDs for nothing, and that those same IDs are acceptable to vote.

      Oddly enough, they are almost all more liberal states. None of those are the same are states that have enacted voter ID laws...

      You want to call me a racist, and that's fine, but that's not it. I don't think Black people need to be coddled, but I do want for us to be honest about what's happening. There are so few incidents of voter fraud (something like 300 verified out of 1 billion votes casts), and so many ways that IDs don't actually stop fraud (like voting in multiple states, etc.), so it's only logical there's another reason. It's pretty clear from the evidence I see that reason is voter suppression of Democrats.

    24. Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God damn, you're a stupid motherfucker. Overall, poverty rates are higher for minorities. That's not racist. It's fucking statistics! You know what makes people capable, you prick? Money. Now look up statistics for who is more likely to have money in America and who isn't. Now shut the fuck up.

    25. Re: Some hacker, he's not found anything real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That swings both ways. I am completely anti Hillary but that doesn't mean I'm pro Trump, but there is still a lot of Trump calling in these comments. Im still looking for the one post you made defending someone who slammed Clinton and was called a Trumpet, to say hey just because he doesn't like Hillary doesn't mean they support trump... Where is your comment on that... Yeah, I thought so, fix yourself.

    26. Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real by Kierthos · · Score: 0

      Also, let's face it, voter ID laws only stop one amazingly rare type of voter fraud - in person voter fraud. How rare? Try 31 documented cases out of 1 billion votes cast.

      But we _have_ to have those voter ID laws to stop that sort of thing. Because... you know, fraud. Evil, evil fraud. Evil, so damned rare as to be non-existant fraud.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    27. Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real by Yunzil · · Score: 0

      Even us people in "liberal Canada" and those "ultra liberal" people in Norway, Germany and Denmark have mandatory requirements for voter ID.

      Difference is, you can probably get an ID in those places easily. The government probably issues you one for free. That doesn't happen in the US.

      And it doesn't help that certain states in the US also make it very difficult to get if, if, for example, you don't have a car, or have to work every day. "It's easy to get an ID! You just have to take a day off from your minimum wage job that you absolutely need the money from and drive 3 hours to the one location that's open on Tuesdays from noon to 2 PM! Sheesh, what are you complaining about?"

      Voter ID isn't racist

      As it currently stands in the United States, yes, it is. Sorry.

      There are multiple cases of it happening.

      Wow. A whole 4 cases!

    28. Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > 1. Minority voters are disproportionately unlikely to have an existing photo ID (say, a driver's license.)

      Umm, err... every state offers a non-driving photo ID. And it's always less than a driving-ID. People have four years between elections to get such a bargain ID.
      If someone does not get this cheap ID after four years they do not want to be ID'd, or are REALLY bad with money. I mean really bad.
      This is not a campaign against certain persons, some persons just do not want to participate & prefer to paint themselves in a corner. Easily said.

      _

    29. Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because "alt-right" is racist, because ... democrats say so?

      Because we can examine their conduct and messaging to recognize what it is? The National Review and Rolling Stone did.

      But Hillary's "Super Predators" and "Bring them to heel" comments aren't. Her (and her husband's) use of Confederate Flags wasn't racist.

      Oh those, were pandering to racists for sure. So was Reagan's Welfare Queens, and Bush I's Willie Horton ads. News to you, for what reason? You've never heard of Dogwhistles? Lee Atwater could tell you about them. Clinton's actions were a deliberate and calculated strategy to pander to the scared whites who thought all Democrats were nigger-lovers.

      Trump? I'm not sure about the calculated part, or even the deliberate, but racist, yes.

      "Make America Great Again" is racist, except when Bill used it for his campaign.

      No, it's not racist, it's just patriotic hogwash, I swear, it's like you can't identify and differentiate among the problems with Trump.

      Here is the problem, as I see it. The most racist thing out there, is the whole DNC platform that expects black people to continue to vote DNC candidates, without so much as even pandering, simply by tossing out the race card over every little thing.

      So it's not more racist for you to assume that blacks are incapable of making informed decisions and deciding that Democrats are serving their interests better than Republicans? That the only reason is because of pandering?

      (And one wonders if you can even recognize the pandering to others in this country, let alone affirmatively identify it...)

      It is obvious that crying Racism is the ONLY thing left the Democrats have with respect to Hillary's campaign. And that is, by itself racist.

      No, the racism concerns are about Trump's campaign. Among others, including his tendency to bombastic proclamations like shooting Iranian boats on a whim, corruption (like the Trump university business and Pam Bondi bribes), and his lack of honesty. Plenty to criticize there, it's not just racism.

      PS, your pulling out the "race card" card seems to be the only thing you have.

      And the black community is starting to wake up to the pure racism of low expectations that the DNC has of them.

      Wait, wait, since when did you get to speak for the black community? Or do you think Trump's "Go with me, what do you have to lose" is somehow persuasive?

      Well, maybe if you're dumb enough not to realize how much the conservative agenda has driven affairs in this country in the past few decades.

      Can't have voter ID laws, because the DNC says Black people can't figure out how to get a free voter ID. But that isn't racist.

      Way to show you can't accurately identify a problem. The Voter ID laws are an attempt by the GOP to influence the electorate in their favor, by denying Democrats their right to vote by putting up needless barriers which the Republicans constantly scream is about a phantom problem with voter fraud. That they never explain why so many of them are in office if the elections can't be trusted is one question among many. Nonetheless, it is not, strictly speaking, against the law to make laws that are biased in a partisan manner. It is, however, illegal to take actions that racially discriminate against the right to vote.

      Of course, since you don't know it, I'll explain something. The ID isn't about figuring out how to get one, though the fact that many state DMVs don't even seem to know they are supposed to provide them makes you wonder. But no, it's about the burden imposed, which is akin to the old stan

    30. Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you considered listening to what the big bad Democrats are saying,

      Yes, I have. They are liars and cheaters, and I don't believe anything they say, unless it is proven true. Same for Republicans.

      In that case, one wonders at your ability to honestly listen to what they are saying, let alone represent it accurately.

      1. Minority voters are disproportionately unlikely to have an existing photo ID (say, a driver's license.)

      This is fucking racist. There is absolutely no evidence that this exists.

      Except, you know, the actual evidence.

      And that is not the argument when "free government issued ID" is included in the Voter ID laws. There is NO ability loss just because skin color. The fact that you're making excuses as to why skin color actually matters in getting a photo ID (often Free, low cost), when so many other government services and purchasing things like alcohol, opening a bank account, getting welfare, having a job ... all requires a photo ID. You're basically saying that skin color matters in ABILITY (and without proof, I might add) .. which is patently racist at face value. You are so blinded you can't even see how your view of Race is remarkably ... sad.

      Oh my, are you confused, and think that it's individual ability that matters? You should know by now that it's about the purpose of the Voter ID law. Which is to restrict voter's to those desired by Republicans.

      2. Once enacted, states with Voter ID laws have a habit of erecting roadblocks to make it harder to get them if you live in areas with high minority populations. For example, closing offices that issue driver's licenses.

      Strawman and slippery slope fallacy. And Racist. You're making the case that Government is racist (I wouldn't disagree), is an excuse to continue racism in other forms.

      Oh no, you're the one making that excuse, since you want to perpetuate these voter ID laws.

      And You have no facts to actually back up this claim, because there are no Voter ID laws that are actually valid, since "black people are not capable of getting IDs to vote" (See racist point #1)

      That is what this judicial ruling said. Because as already noted, it is illegal to impose a disparate burden.

      3. If you've never had ID, it can be - depending on your situation - difficult to meet the criteria for obtaining ID, requiring the gathering of paperwork that most people don't actually keep, and in some cases is - in practice - impossible to obtain.

      Bullshit. And fucking Racist. It is so easy to get Voter approved ID, that Illegal immigrants without any form of ID can get Driver's Licenses in many many states. You're saying that a Hispanic person ("undocumented worker") is more capable of getting ID than a black person, do you realize how fucking racist that is?

      The fact is, you're making excuses for people based solely upon the color of their skin, and don't even realize how fucking racist that actually comes across when someone actually questions your motivations.

      Oh no, you'll find that states which issue such licenses do not correlate with the Voter ID states very well. But even then, as you can see, they also require documentation. Just not for citizenship.

      Yes, I believe you're unintentionally racist because you think your

    31. Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 2

      It's surprising how this was modded up to 3 or 4, then down to flamebait. Particularly surprising for a post that is entirely factual.

      It strikes me that there's a group of people who are finding posts like this that make Hillary look bad and gang up on them. Really weird behavior. It's slashdot, not the front page of the NYT or something.

    32. Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Minority voters are disproportionately unlikely to have an existing photo ID (say, a driver's license.)
      2. Once enacted, states with Voter ID laws have a habit of erecting roadblocks to make it harder to get them if you live in areas with high minority populations. For example, closing offices that issue driver's licenses.
      3. If you've never had ID, it can be - depending on your situation - difficult to meet the criteria for obtaining ID, requiring the gathering of paperwork that most people don't actually keep, and in some cases is - in practice - impossible to obtain.

      Really? Just going to say it, people who are against voter ID are insane, in the worst case I'd call you anti-democratic. Even us people in "liberal Canada" and those "ultra liberal" people in Norway, Germany and Denmark have mandatory requirements for voter ID. FYI, voter ID doesn't mean picture ID either. So stop pulling bullshit out of your ass. Seriously, get your fucking shit in order and stop blocking it. If you don't even have two items listed in the accepted section that we use in Canada, you don't fucking exist, and know zero people. Since you can file for an affirmation under oath from a friend. Voter ID isn't racist, it's fundamental to a secure democracy. Hell you can't get really can't government benefits of in the US without some form of ID.

      You're basically pro-voter fraud as long as you keep pushing this BS. There are multiple cases of it happening.

      We already have to register to vote in the U.S.

    33. Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With Black Panthers, Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, Bill Ayers, Al Sharpton, etc. on the Democrat side it's trivial to find plenty of racist bullshit over there. They're as deplorable as David Duke, yet I don't see Hillary getting all upset about them supporting her.

      ArchangelMichael wasn't complaining about black racism towards whites, his complaint was the Democrats were racist towards blacks, but I guess you don't know, the Clintons already had their Sister Souljah moment.

      Trump's whiffed on his numerous chances, I don't know why, maybe he just is that racist. He really can't be that ignorant. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton would probably pass on the Black Panthers, Wright, and maybe Farrakhan. Easy for her to walk away from all of them. The McCain campaign tried to make hey out of Ayers, but it fizzled because there was no real connection. Al Sharpton gets a lot of bad press, but that more often tells us about the ones who criticize than him.

    34. Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's surprising how this was modded up to 3 or 4, then down to flamebait. Particularly surprising for a post that is entirely factual.

      It strikes me that there's a group of people who are finding posts like this that make Hillary look bad and gang up on them. Really weird behavior. It's slashdot, not the front page of the NYT or something.

      Not at all, people often read high-end comments and correct what they consider to be pumping instead. But no, it's not actually factual, it's an agenda-based post, with an obvious partisan bias. It's just a random scrawl of "Hey look at these guys, they're racist, and they're Democrats so..." when actually, I can't recall any importance being given to their support, I don't even know that they do support Clinton. Clinton, however, has identified Wright as being akin to David Duke. In 2008.

      So...what was the point? That you can name racists who haven't a real connection to Hillary Clinton? Ok...

    35. Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      I was actually saying the (racist) POLICIES supported by the Democrats are racist, because they basically are saying to the entire black community "You can't do it because of your skin color, and we will help you". Every time they pander to the Black community about how aweful the government is, police are, white people are, and that they are the ONLY ones who can help. And, they use the same "government" that they claim is racist on one hand (Police, Voter ID, ...) to provide them with special treatment because ... they're black.

      If you think about it for half a second, beyond the complete hypocrisy of marketing Racist Government will fix racist government, it is actually fucking insulting to all black people because it is so fucking racist.

      I've asked a lot of my black friends if they think that they are helpless folks who need help from "rich white people" like the Clintons or if the feel any sort of rage at the notion being propagated that they can't do things like white people because they are black. When they realize what I am saying about the DNC, they really do become pissed off, but the ingrained nature of the whole "Race card" thing is really hard to overcome.

      There is a huge racist culture of dependency built into the whole DNC propaganda designed to keep the black people dependent on the DNC. Having a 85-98% voting block is a nice cushion for otherwise close elections. IF the Black community ever realized how much power they have given up by voting DNC as a lock step block for the past 50 years, the DNC is dead.

      AND you can see it in this race, where the only thing Clinton can actually run on are the Deplorable Phobic people (ie. racists)

      No this isn't a defense of Trump. This is a rant against Hillary and the DNC. Vote for Liberty, vote Gary Johnson.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    36. Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're surprised? Do you seriously think the Black Panther Party is in any way comparable to the KKK, a terrorist group? If you think Black Power is an equal an opposite response to White Power, maybe it's time for you to reevaluate reality.

    37. Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every single examination of MILLIONS of votes in search of this mythical "in person voter fraud" has found that it is so, So, SO far below the list of "problems with voting in America" that claiming we should do anything other than acknowlege that yes it does occur at a finite (barely) measurable rate is like losing one's mind over deaths by lightning strike and not caring about deaths by auto accident.

      To claim that being *opposed* to voter disenfranchisement laws is anti-democratic is a terminal case of projection. We only, after all, have Republicans explicitly stating on record that the purpose of their proposed id laws is to prevent Democrats from winning elections: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuOT1bRYdK8 But yes, please keep trying to tell us how the people behind voter disenfranchisement laws are only concerned with the integrity of our electoral process.

    38. Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      If you don't want black people to be coddled as you say, then stop coddling them with "you can't do it without white people's help" attitude.

      Don't take my word for it, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/li...

      My viewpoint isn't based on MY race, it is based on what actually is. I have no doubt there are racists, I have given plenty of examples of racism via "low expectations" logic presented by liberals in defense of their own racist policies.

      Oddly enough, they are almost all more liberal states.

      You're actually making my point. ;) Black people (and minorities) need help because they are black (or other minority) , so liberals help them with their policies. I happen to live in one of those states, and the reasoning given for these laws is patently racist (unintentional as it may be) "Minorities can't do normal things because they are minorities.

      As for voter fraud, you can't substantiate that which you cannot measure. We can't measure fraud, because we can't check for it. Because to check for fraud, implies racism because .. black people (and minorities) need all the help they can get to vote. Never mind that any illegal vote is disenfranchises all the other votes. ;)

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    39. Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Difference is, you can probably get an ID in those places easily. The government probably issues you one for free. That doesn't happen in the US.

      Actually, this is false. There have been Vote ID laws passed, that included FREE OF CHARGE voter IDs to anyone, that have been over turned because "black people can't get to the government offices to get their free ID" and one disenfranchised black person is a tragedy, but voter fraud by one disenfranchises the whole vote of everyone.

      Apparently it isn't racist to have such low expectations of an entire community that you come up with some ridiculous legal argument why Free ID is hard to get, just to over turn it. Think about it for even half a second, and you'll realize that it is only RACIST low expectations that would even consider that lack of effort as some sort of systemic (racist) problem in our society.

      I don't consider lack of effort to be a racial trait. But it is if you are a democrat / lawyer. I have to bother going and getting an ID for banking, buying alcohol, guns tobacco. I have to show ID to get into the DNC convention, and all sorts of government buildings .To claim it is a "hardship" is nothing short of Racism. Pure, simple racism, mostly by rich white liberals.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    40. Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not the original AC, but wow, way to entirely look past the point you're replying too. It's a wonder that anyone would even try to discuss this with you, your posts sound like Rush Limbaugh on a tape loop. Just saying the same thing over and over with the words slightly rearranged.

    41. Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real by Magius_AR · · Score: 0

      Can't have voter ID laws, because the DNC says Black people can't figure out how to get a free voter ID. But that isn't racist.

      Literally nobody has argued that in the history of Voter Suppression Laws.

      No, I'm pretty sure if minorities weren't involved, voter suppression or enabling would be perfectly fine (see gerrymandering). At any rate, there's plenty of examples of new laws disproportionately affecting one party over another (see allowing felons to vote, or lowering/raising the voting age) and they're seen as legal. They're clearly painting this issue as a racial one. Stupidly, I might add. The two political parties attempt to get every advantage they can all the time...either all of it is discriminatory or none of it is. The selective BS is just that...BS. The courts won't freakin touch gerrymandering...but this they won't shut up about. That doesn't make one lick of sense.

    42. Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Umm, err... every state offers a non-driving photo ID.

      Which costs time to get. And money, if you need to get a birth certificate or other papers from the state. Which mostly affects poor people who don't vote R.

      This is not a campaign against certain persons, some persons just do not want to participate & prefer to paint themselves in a corner. Easily said.

      Of course it is. Invariably, all the examples the voter ID proponents point to would not have been prevented by an ID. Felon? Nope. Hadn't yet established residency? Nope. Voted absentee and then in person? Nope, nope and nope. The number of actual cases of in-person vote fraud - John Smith trying to vote as Micky Mouse - are insignificant next to the number of legitimate voters tripped up by voter ID laws.

      By design.

    43. Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Really? Just going to say it, people who are against voter ID are insane, in the worst case I'd call you anti-democratic.

      Hosreshit. Stem to stern. Voting is a right. Do you have to show ID to engage in free speech? Do you have to show ID to enter a church? Do you have to show ID to have a public attorney present at a trial? No, no, no and no. If you want to bring up the 2nd Amendment, make sure and read the first sentence of it first.

      You're basically pro-voter fraud as long as you keep pushing this BS. There are multiple cases of it happening.

      Try 31 cases out of a billiion cast, moron.

      Yes, moron. 70,000 eligible voters were stripped from Florida voter rolls in 2000, and that was just one state in one election - not to mention more than two thousand times higher than the number of in-person voter fraud cases total over a much longer period of time, across a much wider area.

      You're basically pro-voter fraud as long as you keep pushing this BS. There are multiple cases of it happening.

      Or you have no idea WTF you're talking about. All the cases mentioned by voter ID proponents, virtually none of them would have been prevented by showing ID. It's all examples of felons trying to vote, people voting absentee and then in person, or people not meeting residency requirements. Not Micky Mouse showing up at the pools and trying to cast a vote.

    44. Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      It's surprising how this was modded up to 3 or 4, then down to flamebait. Particularly surprising for a post that is entirely factual.

      Entirely a series of bullshit racist tautologies, you mean, and thus the definition of flamebait. Or did you think no one would notice your rattling off a list of names without bothering to cite a single thing any of them said? Lazy winger....is lazy.

    45. Re: Some hacker, he's not found anything real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was actually saying the (racist) POLICIES supported by the Democrats are racist, because they basically are saying to the entire black community "You can't do it because of your skin color, and we will help you".

      Nonsensical allegations of yours, but as I said, you aren't complaining about black being racist towards whites, now are you?

      You didn't even say a word about any of them here.

      Every time they pander to the Black community about how aweful the government is, police are, white people are, and that they are the ONLY ones who can help.

      The only ones? What, do you not know how political campaigns and voting works? Or have you noticed a reluctance on the GOP'S part to say they havd the true path of rightness? Maybe the Tories? The CDP? The Jimin-to? United Russia?

      And Trump goes out of his way to say he has ALL the answers, has ALWAYS had the answers, and to be honest, so do you. Arrogance is pretty much your stock in trade.

      And, they use the same "government" that they claim is racist on one hand (Police, Voter ID, ...) to provide them with special treatment because ... they're black.

      Nope, not about special treatment. It's about the unequal treatment of voter ID, the unequal treatment of police, and even schools.

      Affirmative Action is that you take steps to not be racist, not that you give handouts. You just want to believe it is the latter.

      Maybe if you weren't so obsessed with the race card, you'd be able to see that.

      If you think about it for half a second, beyond the complete hypocrisy of marketing Racist Government will fix racist government, it is actually fucking insulting to all black people because it is so fucking racist.

      Well, you're the one assuming blacks aren't smart enough to act in their best interest, but are so easily fooled and deceived. That's kinda racist on your part, isn't it?. But no, it isn't about racist government fixing racist government, because the opposition to Voter ID, to police racism, to school discrimination, it's actually about making government not do racist things.

      I've asked a lot of my black friends if they think that they are helpless folks who need help from "rich white people" like the Clintons or if the feel any sort of rage at the notion being propagated that they can't do things like white people because they are black.

      Does this include not veing forced to take literacy tests like white people? Does this include getting a fair treatment from the police and a jury like white people? Does this include not being forced to go to an underfunded school, but going to a school that white people would send their children? Especially rich white people?

      When they realize what I am saying about the DNC, they really do become pissed off, but the ingrained nature of the whole "Race card" thing is really hard to overcome.

      But don't worry, you'll teach them better, after all you know better than they do! You just have to conivince them of your wisdom.

      While can't even grasp that deliberately using the process of law to limit the electorate to those who will vote as you want is a vile practice.

      The only probem you're able to express is that it is somehow racist to point out that the laws can't be racist.

      There is a huge racist culture of dependency built into the whole DNC propaganda designed to keep the black people dependent on the DNC. Having a 85-98% voting block is a nice cushion for otherwise close elections. IF the Black community ever realized how much power they have given up by voting DNC as a lock step block for the past 50 years, the DNC is dead.

      In reality, it has actually been the opposite. There was a reason why Nixon and Reagan were able to get such massive sweeps across the countr

    46. Re: Some hacker, he's not found anything real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, this is false. There have been Vote ID laws passed, that included FREE OF CHARGE voter IDs to anyone, that have been over turned because "black people can't get to the government offices to get their free ID" and one disenfranchised black person is a tragedy, but voter fraud by one disenfranchises the whole vote of everyone.

      Actually, if you read the decision in Pennsylvania, the judge found the free ID was inadequately provided to everyone. Yes, that's right, the state wasn't fulfilling its burden, many employees even denied that the ID existed. Besides, disenfranchising anyone, for partisan reasons, also disenfranchises everyone, since it means that the electorate is deliberately unfair. Of course, making it a systematic effort compounds the problem.

      Apparently it isn't racist to have such low expectations of an entire community that you come up with some ridiculous legal argument why Free ID is hard to get, just to over turn it. Think about it for even half a second, and you'll realize that it is only RACIST low expectations that would even consider that lack of effort as some sort of systemic (racist) problem in our society.

      You have it backwards, it is actually the state that has high expectations toward it, namely that even the appearance of impropriety is to be avoided, especially in regards race, due to past actual conduct.

      Which was why the ridiculous arguments about fraud failed when they faced up against the facts of the discrimination involved having a racial bias and the facts of the failure of the state to issue ID properly even when it was supposed to be free.

      I don't consider lack of effort to be a racial trait. But it is if you are a democrat / lawyer. I have to bother going and getting an ID for banking, buying alcohol, guns tobacco. I have to show ID to get into the DNC convention, and all sorts of government buildings .

      Oh, there is a lot of discrimination when it comes to banking, the banks themselves have owned up to it. But they didn't pass a law requiring ID that they knew had a racial bias for their own partisan purpose. As the Wells Fargo incident shows, they'd merely soak the customer. Same with alcohol and tobacco sales.

      And those government buildings, not a problem, they have to come to you if they won't let you in. Assuming you have legitimate business as a citizen anyway.

      The DNC, being a private entity doesn't though. Sorry.

      To claim it is a "hardship" is nothing short of Racism. Pure, simple racism, mostly by rich white liberals.

      You're the one who thinks that it racially harder to get ID, when it is actually a problem of being racially disparate. Slightly different, but quite unlawful. See you aren't allowed to do something that has an unequal impact even when you don't mention race. That's why literacy tests were found unlawful. And the GOP decided to go forward on this Voter ID plan knowing it would have such disparate impact, in fact they were counting on it. Their own studies showed that blacks and other minorities were less likely to have ID, which made them very happy. They thought they could steal some elections.

      They weren't counting on Scalia to die though, which meant they'd never get five votes to overturn the VRA, especially not with Trump sinking this election.

    47. Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Difference is, you can probably get an ID in those places easily. The government probably issues you one for free. That doesn't happen in the US.

      I can get a US drivers license in 40 minutes from the DMV in Florida no less. I should know, a few years ago I had my wallet stolen and all my ID. The only things I had were a Florida bill for my phone and a bill from Ontario(not with my current address)--NO picture ID, I walked in and had the entire thing done the same day, temporary full permit done and got a full FL permit in a week.

      That was actually faster then getting my ID replaced in Ontario, including the affirmation under oath I needed at the police service for various replacement ID. The 3 week wait and dickering to get my OHIP card replaced, the 2mo wait for replacement credit cards.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    48. Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      If you can't find something stupid said by anybody in that list in 3 seconds of Google, I can't help you.

    49. Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      It's surprising how this was modded up to 3 or 4, then down to flamebait. Particularly surprising for a post that is entirely factual.

      It strikes me that there's a group of people who are finding posts like this that make Hillary look bad and gang up on them. Really weird behavior. It's slashdot, not the front page of the NYT or something.

      Not at all, people often read high-end comments and correct what they consider to be pumping instead. But no, it's not actually factual, it's an agenda-based post, with an obvious partisan bias. It's just a random scrawl of "Hey look at these guys, they're racist, and they're Democrats so..." when actually, I can't recall any importance being given to their support, I don't even know that they do support Clinton. Clinton, however, has identified Wright as being akin to David Duke. In 2008.

      So...what was the point? That you can name racists who haven't a real connection to Hillary Clinton? Ok...

      Yeah, but Duke has a "real connection" to Trump, right?

    50. Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can get a US drivers license in 40 minutes from the DMV in Florida no less. I should know, a few years ago I had my wallet stolen and all my ID. The only things I had were a Florida bill for my phone and a bill from Ontario(not with my current address)--NO picture ID, I walked in and had the entire thing done the same day, temporary full permit done and got a full FL permit in a week.

      That was actually faster then getting my ID replaced in Ontario, including the affirmation under oath I needed at the police service for various replacement ID. The 3 week wait and dickering to get my OHIP card replaced, the 2mo wait for replacement credit cards.

      A few years ago? Not today? Oh my. A lot can change in a year. And you hadan existing ID somewhere (perhaps Florida itself?), which meant you were in the database, rather than having to start from nothing. Your experiences may have been all fine and dandy, doesn't mean everybody else gets along with it. Some have real problems.

      Here is a review of the problems others have had

      Look, here's the question you have to answer: Is it a bad thing if someone cannot vote due to the burden placed on them due to the government?

      Think and consider what it means.

      Then ask yourself why the GOP would do what they've done, and whether you'd allow it. Be honest. Do you think it's a good thing that they're allowed to use the strictures of government to shape the electorate? Or should that be avoided?

      But ok, let's say you have an honest interest in Voter ID. You genuinely believe in it. Then what you have to do is commit to one thing. The obligation has to be the state's. It has to provide ID. If nothing else, make them put a camera with a printer at the ballot box.

    51. Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Out of curiosity, how do you think this mythical person working minimum wage without an ID gets paid? You cannot cash a check without ID, you can't buy alcohol or cigarettes, you can't even get government assistance without ID. Technically, you shouldn't even be able to get a job without ID, as the employer is supposed to verify that you are a citizen.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    52. Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      How exactly can you examine the votes looking for fraud when you can't even prove that ANYONE that voted was who they said they were? Without voter ID laws, how would we even know if there was fraud happening?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    53. Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but Duke has a "real connection" to Trump, right?

      Wasn't really the problem.

      More an issue that Trump handled it poorly. Trump's amnesia for David Duke..

      Even his VP can't do it.

      But as far as I know, Hillary Clinton doesn't that problem, she's already identified Jeremiah Wright.

    54. Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but Duke has a "real connection" to Trump, right?

      Wasn't really the problem.

      More an issue that Trump handled it poorly. Trump's amnesia for David Duke..

      Even his VP can't do it.

      But as far as I know, Hillary Clinton doesn't that problem, she's already identified Jeremiah Wright.

      Yeah, 4 years ago. At this point shit Hillary said 4 years ago is claimed to be racism if Trump says it.

      What's amazing to me is that Trump is easily the worst candidate the GOP could come up with - definitely within my life time - and they still have to make stupid stuff up about him. He's bad enough in reality.

    55. Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the post you're replying to had some mistakes.

      For "minority", read "poor". Poor people tend to vote Democrat a lot, and blacks are disproportionately poor (for reasons I'm declaring out of scope here).

      I drive to work daily, and have a job that easily supports that rather expensive commute. My wife and I own a house. We're well above average in income and net worth, and so I've got a valid ID and other ways of establishing who I am. There was a time when I didn't drive, because I could get to work and back on public transport (can't do that with this job). I really did not have acceptable government ID. The closest I had was my student ID from the U of Minnesota, and that's not something a poor person would be likely to have. I think it's very reasonable to expect poor people to lack acceptable ID in much larger numbers.

      The fact that voter ID laws have come with proposals to make it hard to get valid IDs if you live in a black neighborhood is pretty well established. I'm not claiming anyone's being racist here, but blacks vote Democrat in very large numbers, and hence Republicans want to discriminate against them.

      You say that Hispanics in this country illegally can get ID, and that may well be true in many places. It isn't true in all, and it isn't likely to be true in a state that's using voter ID laws against blacks (as a proxy for Democrats). Where voter ID is used to keep blacks from voting, it's safe to think that it won't be easy to get an ID.

      So, the Democrats want to avoid a practice that typically hinders blacks from voting, which may be due to a lack of racism or a more practical concern that they'd lose votes. There's nothing racist about that.

      What's so important about voter ID? There's plenty of ways to illegally influence elections, and having individual people vote multiple times seems like a very inefficient way to do it. There are other ways, such as making it difficult to be eligible to vote, or sending out blanket lists of possible felons, or providing insufficient polling opportunities to poor and/or black neighborhoods. Voter ID doesn't stop any of these. It stops people from going from precinct to precinct, claiming to be different registered voters at each polling place, and given reasonable polling place observers that's a fairly dangerous way to cast extra votes.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    56. Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      If you don't want black people to be coddled as you say, then stop coddling them with "you can't do it without white people's help" attitude.

      How about "you can't do it against the opposition of rich white unscrupulous people"? Voter ID laws are normally meant to make it artificially hard for some people to vote.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    57. Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      You're still not getting it. It's not the cost of the ID (although that is a further barrier in some cases). It's the difficulty in getting it. Declaring that the voter ID must be free doesn't imply that there will be offices in easy-to-get-to places that are open outside normal work hours.

      In all the cases I am aware of, voter ID in the US has been set up as a way of disenfranchising people, and if the Republicans are capable of getting voter ID through they're capable of tailoring voter ID requirements to favor groups that normally vote Republican.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    58. Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      If you can't find something stupid said by anybody in that list in 3 seconds of Google, I can't help you.

      You're too stupid to help anyone. It's the job of the person making the assertion to back it up. Don't think so? Then I causally assert that Trailer Trash likes to have sex with pigs in the mud, and leave you to disprove that assertion.

    59. Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      If you can't find something stupid said by anybody in that list in 3 seconds of Google, I can't help you.

      You're too stupid to help anyone. It's the job of the person making the assertion to back it up. Don't think so? Then I causally assert that Trailer Trash likes to have sex with pigs in the mud, and leave you to disprove that assertion.

      Crap, I *knew* not to send that video to my ex :(

  6. Slashdot censoring anti-Trump news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Surprise! I've submitted this news and slashdot refuses to run it. Just one more example of blatant pro-Trump bias on slashdot.

    1. Re:Slashdot censoring anti-Trump news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not surprising. The level of Trump-fellatio on this site is amazing.

    2. Re: Slashdot censoring anti-Trump news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe no one cares. If I want to read an anti-Trump article I go to CNN, there are at least 5 on the front page at all times.

    3. Re: Slashdot censoring anti-Trump news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Well, at least there's one place you can go that isn't kneeling before Trump and sucking noisily.

    4. Re:Slashdot censoring anti-Trump news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is slashdot. This article is about a computer hacker. Calm down, put your tin foil hat back on and get your pacifier.

    5. Re: Slashdot censoring anti-Trump news by Mashiki · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What are you talking about? Every media outlet except FOX is sucking at Hillary's big toes, and even at times FOX is sucking her toes and licking them. Whether it be in the US or Canada or the bloody UK. Hell NBC deleted a segment from a broadcast last night when Bill Clinton said Hillary "Frequently fainted" sorry I mean "occasionally fainted" that of course saved them all of 1.5 seconds from their 1hr broadcast time limit, which was their excuse. Nearly every site is sucking at her toes. Even on reddit from /r/politics to /r/news to /r/worldnews is deleting anti-Hillary stories, even when they use the exact title.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    6. Re: Slashdot censoring anti-Trump news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, talk about delusional. The Media has had it out for Trump since the beginning. Typical lefty spewing falsehoods when the chips are down.

      captcha: "brownies" because even the web site can tell you're smoking something.

    7. Re: Slashdot censoring anti-Trump news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The media has given Trump uncountable millions of dollars of free advertising.

      They think he's the best thing that ever happened to them. They built Trump. Without the media, relatively few people would ever have even heard of him.

    8. Re:Slashdot censoring anti-Trump news by Penguinisto · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Surprise! I've submitted this news and slashdot refuses to run it. Just one more example of blatant pro-Trump bias on slashdot.

      Because your submission didn't involve, you know, hackers... because this happens to be a, you know, tech site.

      Dunno who modded your post up, but they're apparently just as unable to grasp that concept as you are.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    9. Re: Slashdot censoring anti-Trump news by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It is like when the talking heads on one news program (CNN I believe) described New York City on Sunday as "Sweltering", when it was 78 Degrees out, in an attempt to make Hillary's lie about dehydration seem more legitimate. Obviously they are "pro-Trump".

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    10. Re:Slashdot censoring anti-Trump news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except for the tons of political and social justice stories that have nothing to do with tech. Those get through all the time.

    11. Re: Slashdot censoring anti-Trump news by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't surprise me. Here's the thing on CBC editing the news earlier too. Figured I'd post it since I fucked up and posted the wrong news org, my bad.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    12. Re: Slashdot censoring anti-Trump news by squiggleslash · · Score: 0

      Wow, talk about delusional. The Media has had it out for Trump since the beginning.

      The media has barely covered Trump beyond the occasional racism scandal, despite overwhelming evidence he lies about pretty much everything and runs multiple scams. Clinton is still being questioned about her emails, despite a (hostile) congressional investigation and the FBI both clearing her of any serious impropriety, and this weekend's "health scare" is still being treated as a serious story.

      You think Trump is being criticized by the media because you already know he's a slimeball and you just assume that a media you never follow would be up there attacking him for it. The reality is rather different. Last Monday, for example, CNN spent less than 30 minutes discussing the recent revelations that the Trump Foundation is essentially a completely fraudulent charity (how much time have they spent on the Clinton Foundation, BTW? You know, that charity that actually spends money on fighting AIDS in Africa?), while it found over five hours to devote to Clinton's health. MSNBC, the former "liberal" news channel (that never was) that people forget was recently revamped as a general news channel? Worse - only 20 minutes on the Trump Foundation, 5 hours and 20 minutes on Clinton's health.

      The media hypes every Clinton non-story as a serious scandal. It ignores every Trump scandal with the odd exception of when Trump seriously offends a group that protests.

      But yeah, pretend the media is in the tank for Clinton. Because it fits your prejudices.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    13. Re: Slashdot censoring anti-Trump news by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 0

      Every media outlet except FOX is sucking at Hillary's big toes, ...

      FOX usually likes sucking (on and at) other things...

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    14. Re: Slashdot censoring anti-Trump news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you paid by the hour or per post?

    15. Re: Slashdot censoring anti-Trump news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "But yeah, pretend the media is in the tank for Clinton. Because it fits your prejudices."
      ----
      But yea, pretend the media is not in the tank for Trump. Because it fits your prejudices.

      FTFY.

    16. Re: Slashdot censoring anti-Trump news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Bullshit.

      "Here is a list of gaffes, mistakes, or scandals that came out of the Trump campaign, just in the last seven days, just off the top of my head:

      Let’s begin with the Commander and Chief Forum. Trump lavished praise on the Russian dictator Vladimir Putin. He then made the unprecedented error of discussing his classified intelligence briefings and claiming his briefers were unhappy with the current President. After that, Trump lied, yet again, that back in 2003 he opposed the Iraq War.

      It was then revealed by the Washington Post that Trump had taken credit for charitable giving by others. It reported he lied to the IRS, claiming donations he never made. What’s more, he illegally used $20,000 earmarked for his charity to buy a six-foot portrait of himself.

      Trump then gave a TV interview to the Kremlin’s propaganda network RT, and afterwards claimed he only did it because he was “tricked” by Larry King. In another appearance he gave an incoherent monologue about something he called “nuclear warming,” which included false accusations against Clinton and sentences like, “Uranium is big, big stuff because it means the ultimate.”

      Next, as the terror attacks of 9/11 were remembered, a radio clip emerged of Trump (on the very day of the attacks!) boasting that his building was now the highest in New York. Then it was reported Trump has publicly lied about helping to recover bodies at Ground Zero. He also claimed he personally had “hundreds” of friends who died in the attack, not one of whom his campaign was able to name.

      While all of this was going on, he made an unprecedented personal attack on the chair of the Federal Reserve, Janet Yellen. He renewed his attacks on Elizabeth Warren, once again calling her “Pocahontas.” He promised he would start a war with Iran if its sailors made inappropriate gestures. After his VP released his own tax returns, Trump once again refused to do the same. His son tweeted a neo-Nazi meme. And one of his chief surrogates disavowed the Geneva Conventions."

      And here we are still talking about Clinton's irrelevant bullshit email story without a single fucking mention of any of those. Add to that the fact that pro-Clinton comments are downmoderated, pro-Clinton or anti-Trump stories are never posted, etc all goes to show how fundamentally slanted covetage on slashdot and every other site has been. Then there is the bullshit AP coverage, the bullshit New York Times coverage. It all adds up to the media, mainstream AND non-mainstream, all working hard to push Trump.
       

    17. Re: Slashdot censoring anti-Trump news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hillary must be in real trouble if she's got professional trolls like yourself trying to convince people the media isn't biased against Trump. What's next you'll claim the sky is purple?

    18. Re: Slashdot censoring anti-Trump news by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      in an attempt to make Hillary's lie about dehydration seem more legitimate.

      I'd suggest applying Hanlon's razor.

      TV news are all rush-job cheap-skate slop-heads.

      Perhaps they wanted to make it sound like they had a ground crew when they really didn't because they are cheap or late. There's many possibilities besides kissing H's ass.

      (By the way, if it's humid, 78 degrees *is* hot in my opinion.)

    19. Re: Slashdot censoring anti-Trump news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They did that to make sure he was the GOP nominee, now that he is that favorable media has turned to anti trump media like MOST Republicans said it would. Trump was one of the only GOP candidates Hillary could beat (based on polling) they helped her out, gave trump billions in free MSM coverage, succeeded in getting him to the GOP nominee and now the only issue is we have two fucking terrible candidates and the Media is having a hard time deciding which piece of shit they hate most.

    20. Re: Slashdot censoring anti-Trump news by Yunzil · · Score: 1

      Every media outlet except FOX is sucking at Hillary's big toes

      What color is the sky in the world where you're posting from? Is it pretty?

      The media has basically giving giving Trump nearly a free pass on everything he does so they can run more stories about Hillary coughing.

    21. Re: Slashdot censoring anti-Trump news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E96lAHygeIU

      Yeah the are totally making a big deal out of it and not trying to just let it be a one time forgettable deal.

    22. Re: Slashdot censoring anti-Trump news by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      My wife would agree with you. She thinks 70 is hot, regardless of humidity. Me, I think 64 is freezing cold.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    23. Re: Slashdot censoring anti-Trump news by Time_Ngler · · Score: 1

      Yea, and Hillary "stumbled" when getting into her campaign van. When in reality, she was carried by her SS bodyguards, with her feet dragging on the sidewalk.

    24. Re: Slashdot censoring anti-Trump news by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Clinton is still being questioned about her emails, despite a (hostile) congressional investigation and the FBI both clearing her of any serious impropriety,

      No. They didn't. If she were anyone else, she'd already be in jail, and looking at a century of prison time. Just ask the sailor being prosecuted by the DOJ for taking pictures of a submarine on his phone - they agree that he didn't intend to distribute them, but is still prosecuting him for mishandling classified evidence.

      And that's for for a few pictures, not tens of thousands of emails on an unsecured, unauthorized, public-facing email server.

    25. Re: Slashdot censoring anti-Trump news by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Okay, put up or shut up. Name one person who negligently got small amounts of classified data where it shouldn't be and faced serious criminal prosecution. The most I've seen was a misdemeanor charge that was dropped.

      The sailor deliberately took pictures of the submarine. This isn't negligence. This was a deliberate action, and presumably known to be illegal at the time.

      I don't know what the law says exactly, but I do know how the cases are usually handled. Deliberately put classified material where it doesn't belong and you get seriously prosecuted. Do that negligently and you aren't.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    26. Re: Slashdot censoring anti-Trump news by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think a bunch of religious fanatics are responsible for ISIS.

      Actually that's continuing to stick fingers in the ears. Who armed those religious fanatics? The United States. Who's the greatest recruiter for religious extremists? The U.S. military, when it bombs weddings and funerals and schools and markets and apartments and hospitals. Who's ensured that more countries are run by religious extremists? The United States, when it props up the most repressive government in the world, Saudi Arabia. The United States, when it overthrows secular governments in Afghanistan and Iran and Libya and Iraq and Syria (work in progress).

      Okay, put up or shut up. Name one person who negligently got small amounts of classified data where it shouldn't be and faced serious criminal prosecution.

      On what planet is Hillary's email server "small"? In order of proportion, you're comparing an anthill (sailor's cell phone) to Mt. Everest. With Mt. McKinley parked on top it (HRC's email server). Sandy Berger, by comparison, had a literal handful of documents (he had them in his pants pockets) and pled to 2 years probation, a $50,000 fine, and the loss of his security clearance and law license.

      Do tell us how this election would go if Hillary was entering the debates with Trump on probation, disbarred, and without a security clearance for the first three years of her presidency. Oh, and part of the reason Berger was prosecuted? He destroyed the classified material he had. How many emails did Hillary delete from her server? Over 30,000. Sure, she claims those were personal, but she also claimed that none of them were marked classified at the time (pure mendacity as that information is inherently classified) but lied about that too.

      Anyone else, the charges would include Obstruction of Justice, in addition to mishandling classified evidence.

      The sailor deliberately took pictures of the submarine. This isn't negligence. This was a deliberate action, and presumably known to be illegal at the time.

      Yes, taking pictures on his phone was a deliberate act. Setting up a private, unsecured, unauthorized email server to run 100% of your highly classified email communications was also a deliberate act. How much power does a cognitive dissonance generator require to ignore the parallels and the scale involved? Is it powered by a fusion reactor?

      Deliberately put classified material where it doesn't belong and you get seriously prosecuted. Do that negligently and you aren't.

      Nope. Going back to the sailor again, even the the DOJ prosecutors agree that he had no intent to distribute the pictures. Because intent is irrelevant in the government's eyes, only the action matters. The act of mishandling classified evidence. Just ask any whisteblower to face the DOJ's wrath, like John Kiriakou. The only person to go to prison for the CIA's brutal torture program....is the man who revealed it's existence.

  7. Bad news for NSA by charliemerritt03 · · Score: 1

    All of these leaks will (finally?) let everybody know that if you are not "NSA Proof" you are not secure.

  8. It has always been a leftist scho chamber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My real account has been modded to oblivion. I haven't had a mod point in 20 years.

    1. Re:It has always been a leftist scho chamber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My real account has been modded to oblivion. I haven't had a mod point in 20 years.

      As usual, the problem isn't me. It's that the world doesn't understand why I'm so right!

  9. The last set showed laws broken by DNC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The last set of documents showed that the DNC broke campaign finance laws and yet absolutely nothing was done about it.

    Since any damning evidence in documents from democrats will be ignored, why do they even try? It won't make any difference.

    Now, if a similar trove of documents from the RNC was dumped, you can bet the DOJ would be all over it. Under Obama's administration political considerations trump the law every time.

    1. Re:The last set showed laws broken by DNC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      "Under Obama's administration political considerations trump the law every time."

      What unfortunate wording there.
      You should have gone with "Borks the law".
      But Your Kind has never been known for either humor or a long attention span.

    2. Re:The last set showed laws broken by DNC by T.E.D. · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Now, if a similar trove of documents from the RNC was dumped, you can bet the DOJ would be all over it.

      ...which leads one to ask why that isn't also happening?

    3. Re:The last set showed laws broken by DNC by Jiro · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...which leads one to ask why that isn't also happening?

      Trump is an outsider. He's a Republican, but not part of the Republican establishment. The RNC wasn't on his side until the absolute last minute when they had to accept him as a candidate. So there isn't going to be any dirt about things the RNC did behind the scenes to help Trump.

    4. Re:The last set showed laws broken by DNC by OzPeter · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Now, if a similar trove of documents from the RNC was dumped, you can bet the DOJ would be all over it.

      ...which leads one to ask why that isn't also happening?

      That's a question I've asked before but never gotten a good answer. But I think there are 4 possibilities (some more likely than others, but I don't have the knowledge to pick which is the current situation)

      1. The RNC can't be hacked
      2. The RNC can be hacked, and is clean.
      3. The people doing the hacking are anti-DNC/anti-Hillary and haven't even tried to hack the RNC
      4. The people doing the hacking are actually pro-Hillary (or at least anti-Trump) and have the goods on the RNC, but are waiting to dump them just before the election so that they remain fresh in voters minds, while the anti-DNC stuff is long forgotten.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    5. Re:The last set showed laws broken by DNC by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...which leads one to ask why that isn't also happening?

      Same reason that the FBI refused to turn over all documents to an internal committee when Obama didn't declare executive privilege? The same reason why the IRS ran a campaign against tea party groups and people resigned over it, but no charges were laid? It's heavy with insiders, and there is likely dirt on them *not* to do anything against the DNC or Hillary.

      But as to why there hasn't been any leaks from the RNC? Combination of 3 things just my guess: Better security, last story I saw on the CBC said there'd been a dozen attempts all unsuccessful. Someone really has a hate-on for Hillary after the last batch showed the DNC throwing in for her against their own rules. The third is she's such an establishment candidate that is working against her own party and liberal-leaning ideas, that no fucks are given at all.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    6. Re:The last set showed laws broken by DNC by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      So there isn't going to be any dirt about things the RNC did behind the scenes to help Trump.

      That may be the case, but wouldn't that just shift the target from the RNC to Trump himself? Given everything that Trump has been accused of, there is sure to be some juicy tidbits floating around somewhere.
      (and I wish that I had thought of your point before my own reply to the OP)

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    7. Re:The last set showed laws broken by DNC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Funny, I remember reading something on Slashdot about Trump being hacked and the documents revealing nothing that he hasn't said publicly. I don't care to dig through the Slashdot history for it.

    8. Re: The last set showed laws broken by DNC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? What laws were broke?

    9. Re:The last set showed laws broken by DNC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The last set of documents showed that the DNC broke campaign finance laws and yet absolutely nothing was done about it.

      Which specific document(s) showed that the DNC broke campaign finance laws?

    10. Re:The last set showed laws broken by DNC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      1. They are not corrupt scumbags
      2. They are minimally competent at IT security
      3. All of the above

    11. Re:The last set showed laws broken by DNC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How about: 5. The RNC is too paranoid to use email for these kinds of arrangements/conversations

    12. Re:The last set showed laws broken by DNC by hey! · · Score: 1

      Which set of laws would that be?

      In this enviornment, you have to be specific. The media and partisans are too lazy to go into details, they deal in "appearance" which can be manufactured.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    13. Re:The last set showed laws broken by DNC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The same reason why the IRS ran a campaign against tea party groups and people resigned over it, but no charges were laid?

      No, that was because the IRS was doing its job to investigate political groups masquerading as tax exempt organizations (non-profit 501(c)(4)'s), which could only lobby and otherwise engage in political activity as a secondary activity. The recent "Tea Party" identity being very much political, such scrutiny was obviously justifiable, but the Republican hysteria brigade wanted to portray it as bullying and persecution for even more political points, which is why the House produced a report that "wrung its hands" and told us what a tragedy it was. This political agenda was in contrast to the duties of the FBI and DOJ who had to find real crimes that would actually survive the scrutiny of a court of law.

      People resigned because it was easier than fighting any charges, and they wanted to remain team players, rather than get the reputation for making trouble when their resignation would simply defuse the situation and somebody else could take their place.

      IOW, politics as usual. Which actually does explain the situation vis-a-vis the RNC.

    14. Re:The last set showed laws broken by DNC by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      If the Republicans were actually held to account, Bush and Cheney would be in prison right now for war crimes leading to the death of nearly 5,000 American soldiers.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    15. Re:The last set showed laws broken by DNC by Terwin · · Score: 1

      How about: 5. The RNC is too paranoid to use email for these kinds of arrangements/conversations

      I prefer:
      6. the RNC is so divided that all the dirt of any relevance they can find is already being flung, so by the time hackers find anything juicy, it is already plastered across CNN

      A little like 2(The RNC can be hacked, and is clean.), but more realistic.

    16. Re:The last set showed laws broken by DNC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. The RNC can't be hacked

      That's true. They can't be. I haven't seen a single remote exploit on the Internet for that new punch card reader they installed last month.

    17. Re:The last set showed laws broken by DNC by TrancePhreak · · Score: 3, Informative

      According to Assange, supposedly they don't have anything surprising about Trump. Nothing that he hasn't already talked about or that has been brought up about him. So it sounds like there's lots of accusations without anything out there to back them up. The same thing happens with Clinton, but somehow we end up with the data to verify it.

      --

      -]Phreak Out[-
    18. Re:The last set showed laws broken by DNC by TrancePhreak · · Score: 1

      That goes along with what Assange said about them having only stuff that is already known or acknowledged about Trump.

      --

      -]Phreak Out[-
    19. Re: The last set showed laws broken by DNC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amazing, I also saw a story on slashdot that stated that teh Donaldz shit never stinks. When he takes a shit, perfume makers gather around to bottle the aroma to sell to fans.

    20. Re:The last set showed laws broken by DNC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well.... consider the timing, and the likely source, Guccifer 2.0, being Russian or Russian backed.

      If you want to discrete the Democratic party in an election year, and by extension Democratic nominee for the presidential run, especially when not much has come out in these leaks specific to Hillary..... roughly trying to insure a Republican victory this November, this is one of the strategies to go about it.

      Regarding a RNC dump... Yea. Where is it? It will be pretty telling, if it never is released, or doesn't exist to begin with, something I seriously doubt. But if we never hear a peep, it pretty much confirms this is an attempt at election swinging and voter manipulation from these timed releases.

    21. Re:The last set showed laws broken by DNC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lets just say for shits and giggles that there were war crimes. Those crimes were also facilitated by Hillary and most Democrats voting for authorization for the war and for the media cheer-leading it on.

      If you weren't such a partisan Progressive, you'd know the intelligence data at the time seemed to indicate a threat that turned out to be wrong. Bush made a bad decision based on bad data. He was caption of the ship so all those deaths are on him and history will reflect that. But the war wasn't a big war crime. Maybe you do know all of that, but ends justify the means and all that.

      When I think about it on my soapbox, Progressives like to harp about soldier deaths like this. Soldiers tend to be Republicans so I'm betting in private that Progressives get giddy about dead U.S soldiers. I mean from your smug moral high-ground, you probably think these soldiers are feeble-minded so they deserve to die to cleanse the population of these types. Progressives did bring us eugenics so it's not a stretch to make these assumptions. /soapbox

    22. Re:The last set showed laws broken by DNC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But if we never hear a peep, it pretty much confirms this is an attempt at election swinging and voter manipulation from these timed releases.

      The important thing is you've convinced yourself that lack of evidence for your position is evidence for your position.

    23. Re:The last set showed laws broken by DNC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Democrats have been calling every war an illegal war since the Copperhead Democrats in the Civil War.

      Bush got every I dotted and T crossed in his authorizations in Congress and the U.N.'s blessing. If you got anything to prove that the WMD intel was faked... well, you probably think Bush knocked down the towers, too.

    24. Re:The last set showed laws broken by DNC by Frank+Burly · · Score: 1

      Could you provide a link to the actual emails in question? Is the violation more or less serious than Trump soliciting contributions from foreign officials? Has anyone every been prosecuted for the violation? TIA

    25. Re:The last set showed laws broken by DNC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the people in government were actually held to account, Bush and Cheney would be in prison right now for war
      crimes ...

      FTFY

      Democrats have been in charge of the Justice Department since 2009. If the Republicans are the evil ones, why didn't the Democrats prosecute ALL of the Bush-era criminals?

      Shortly after taking office, Obama said " we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.â
      Uhhhh ... even though a criminal investigation is an inherently backward-looking process?

      It's not about Republicans vs. Democrats it's about Government vs. The People. Government officials and government employees take care of their own.

    26. Re: The last set showed laws broken by DNC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So much this.

    27. Re:The last set showed laws broken by DNC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "The same reason why the IRS ran a campaign against tea party groups"

      Please stop repeating this deranged nonsense.

      There was no "campaign" against anyone, some groups were asked to provide some additional documentation of their apolitical status (how outrageous, asking groups with politically-charged names to show that they are actually the non-political foundations they are claiming tax-free status under). More liberal-named than conservative-named groups had additional documentation requested. Not a single one conservative group was denied tax-free status as a result. Do you even know why they were doing a keyword search? Because thanks to Republicans attacking the IRS' budget, they don't have enough people to have a human review them all.

      The only truly insulting thing about the matter is, none of the flapping heads in the "liberal media" even tried to convey these facts.

    28. Re:The last set showed laws broken by DNC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The IRS was probably targeting conservative groups because they were laundering money through non-profit groups!
      https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2016/sep/14/john-doe-files-scott-walker-corporate-cash-american-politics
      Not that the Dems are any less naughty...

      * * * BERNIE 2016 * * *

    29. Re:The last set showed laws broken by DNC by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      Ask a hard one. The Democrats have steadfastly maintained the whole collegial solidarity tradition, even though it became obvious not long after the window closed that the Republicans were simply interested in spitting on a hand extended in friendship rather than compromising on anything.

      And if you didn't know, there is a window of opportunity for that kind of thing. Years down the road, they can't suddenly decide to charge the ex-President without being accused of political opportunism.

      Also, unlike Republicans, Democrats have never cultivated the utter indifference to hypocrisy needed to oppose the right...which would rather destroy the country and rule the ashes than work with their "liberal" opposition on anything at all.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    30. Re:The last set showed laws broken by DNC by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      Nice straw man argument. I bet it does just fine with the other morons in the conservative echo chamber you obviously inhabit.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    31. Re:The last set showed laws broken by DNC by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      Bush made an evil decision based on cherry-picked data, and sold it to a bunch of Democrats too spineless to call him on it.

      Nobody's clean here, but Bush and Cheney are the ones with blood on their hands.

      And I'm far from "progressive". I'm just not some fascist wanker who would give a pass to the asshats who put nearly five thousand American soldiers in the ground "because oil".

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    32. Re:The last set showed laws broken by DNC by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

      Option 5. There is no hacker, and Seth Rich is unable to leak any more, because he is dead.

      Note that this isn't necessarily my opinion. I find the idea interesting, but I haven't looked into the matter enough to decide if it is even possible. Too busy to delve into leaks these days, so for all I know there are emails in there from after his death. But this theory has a lot of buzz in certain parts of the internet.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    33. Re:The last set showed laws broken by DNC by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      It was actually a rhetorical question. We know for a fact who is doing it, and why. Yes, they are in fact Pro-Trump. They are also anti-US, and in particular anti-NATO. However, they've also hacked the RNC, and even in the DNC hack were particularly interested in their oppo research on Trump. The fact that they haven't publicly released that info they gathered just tells you they plan on using it privately, but don't want to hurt them publicly.

      The fact that I can ask a rhetorical question with a well-known answer, and an answer with multiple possibilities listed got modded insightful, tells you everything you need to know about the ignorance of the mods here on /. lately.

    34. Re:The last set showed laws broken by DNC by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I trust Assange about as far as I could throw the Ecuadorian embassy. He's a paranoid asshole who wants to be seen as relevant still.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    35. Re:The last set showed laws broken by DNC by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      There were war crimes, specifically at Abu Ghraib. There were doubtless numerous others, since that's how war works. There were prisoners that were illegally tortured by the CIA. I don't know if Bush was guilty in those. I rather doubt it, and even if he were it would almost certainly be impossible to prove.

      I believe the war to have been illegal and in defiance of treaty obligations, but I'm not real sure about that. I think there's enough evidence to justify an investigation, but I'm not an international lawyer and could easily be wrong. Bush would have been guilty of that, if so.

      Congress, IIRC, authorized the use of force against Iraq rather than mandated it, because that's how such acts go. Authorizing an action is not the same as performing it. Bush is responsible for the invasion actually happening.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    36. Re:The last set showed laws broken by DNC by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      When I read UNSCR 1441, it didn't look like a blessing of invasion to me. It looked one step short of that, with a very dire implied "or else".

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  10. Wonder what the RNC is doing about now? by John+Jorsett · · Score: 1

    You've got to know that a lot of left-leaning hackers must be targeting the RNC for this same sort of info in order to balance the scales. If the RNC is smart they'll have taken all of it off of internet-exposed computers and limited access to it for even trusted employees. Or, probably better, destroyed it completely. I think this represents the full emergence of cyber warfare for retail political means. What a strange new world awaits.

    1. Re:Wonder what the RNC is doing about now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've got to know that a lot of left-leaning hackers must be targeting the RNC for this same sort of info in order to balance the scales.

      They surely already long since have.

      It's just that the media won't publish any of the information that's negative for the RNC, because it doesn't support The Narrative.

    2. Re:Wonder what the RNC is doing about now? by oic0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      BS. The majority of the media is left leaning. They would love to pan the RNC.

    3. Re:Wonder what the RNC is doing about now? by Mashiki · · Score: 5, Informative

      Shh. Don't tell the partisan hacks that. They'll get upset when you show that only 7% of the US media identifies as republican. And nearly 30% identify as democrats, which is less then 1992 when nearly 45% of the media self-identified as democrats. Or that democrats get more positive press. Or that90% of reporters in the DC area AKA beltway reporters either are declared democrats or vote democrat.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    4. Re:Wonder what the RNC is doing about now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail. When you're a whacko fascist, everything looks "lib'rul."

    5. Re:Wonder what the RNC is doing about now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If the RNC is smart they'll have taken all of it off of internet-exposed computers and limited access to it for even trusted employees. Or, probably better, destroyed it completely.

      Or perhaps the RNC is simply not quite as corrupt as the DNC.

    6. Re:Wonder what the RNC is doing about now? by stinerman · · Score: 4, Funny

      Perhaps we need some sort of affirmative action program to ensure that conservative journalists aren't blackballed like that.

    7. Re:Wonder what the RNC is doing about now? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      destroyed it completely.

      But hey, when the GOP destroys campaign related servers, I am sure the Justice Dept will be all over that for tampering with potential evidence, in an ironic partisan flip flop.

      It is really bad when you can see how obvious the responses would be if certain things were reversed.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    8. Re:Wonder what the RNC is doing about now? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      only 7% of the US media identifies as republican. And nearly 30% identify as democrats

      That's probably because education makes one less conservative in general, and most reporters are well-educated.

      If you have a good education, you are less likely to believe climate change is a scientific conspiracy, or that the world is 6k years old, for example.

      And due to your critical thinking skills, you learn to actually check the Bible to see if homosexuality is condemned more often than greed & gluttony rather than just accept a pastor's weighting.

    9. Re:Wonder what the RNC is doing about now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      only 7% of the US media identifies as republican. And nearly 30% identify as democrats

      That's probably because education makes one less conservative in general, and most reporters are well-educated.

      If you have a good education, you are less likely to believe climate change is a scientific conspiracy, or that the world is 6k years old, for example.

      And due to your critical thinking skills, you learn to actually check the Bible to see if homosexuality is condemned more often than greed & gluttony rather than just accept a pastor's weighting.

      That's probably because >90% of college educators are democrats/left wing liberals themselves. It's no big surprise that the students they churn out turn out to be democrats as well. Your claim that educated = democrat, uneducated = conservative is about the stupidest, most bigoted claim I could imagine.

    10. Re:Wonder what the RNC is doing about now? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Perhaps that's because science and logic ultimately indicate that most conservative positions are either full of bunk or based on questionable theories that have competitive alternatives.

      Conservatives often seem to value (what they see as) "common sense" over scientific analysis, and/or go by religion alone. That's essentially anti-education. It's partly why they reject man-made global warming. If global warming is not in (their interpretation of) the Bible, then it must be false. You don't need college and education to apply that kind of "reasoning".

    11. Re:Wonder what the RNC is doing about now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      By reading this less partisan website, you're taking that affirmative action right now. You pick your news sources.

    12. Re:Wonder what the RNC is doing about now? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      most reporters are well-educated.

      [citation needed]

      I'd wager that the most well-known reporters are well-educated, but most in general? I very much so doubt that. Just think of how many ditzes and idiots you've seen reporting the news over the years, if not live, then in blooper reels and the like. They're way more common than the smart ones.

    13. Re:Wonder what the RNC is doing about now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Education only makes you liberal because the American university system is a liberal indoctrination camp. Most remain liberal until they get a job, earn money and pay taxes. Generally it takes a good 10 - 15 years for idiots that get brainwashed at a public university to go back to being conservative.

      It's almost hilarious that people are surprised that after going to a liberal indoctrination camp (public university in the USA) that you would turn out more liberal. Being forced to read books and take tests about the plight of minorities and hoe everything is the fault of corporations and white people. Being forced to take ethics classes where the professor tells you what your "ethics" should be while quietly dismissing his past poor ethical behavior: "Do as I say, not as I did".

      The "authority" of professors makes them all the more convincing to a young, naive mind. When they say blacks had it bad and it is white people's fault... this will be on the test, the kids listen, write it down, and repeat it to their friends because it is "new knowledge".

      All you need to know about universities is that they are the most racist institutions on this planet. They hate white people so much that they a) would rather take a poor performing minority than a high performing white person b) Would rather plaster their advertisements with minorities even if the student population is 75%+ white c) Hire based on minority's first d) Create "safe spaces" whereby transfer of knowledge is restricted to what someone has already determined they want to hear (thus no transfer of knowledge) e) Create policies that dictating how people speak, what constitutes racism, etc. f) Consider any commingling of ethnicity is "cultural appropriation" (i.e. whites must be 100% white so we can keep berating them).

      I could go on....

    14. Re:Wonder what the RNC is doing about now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only 6% of the DC area voted republican... So 90% seems about right.
      Did you know that 90% of Huston area journalists are republican? It's almost like there's some kind of regional.. bias...

      http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/news/housing-complex/blog/13124106/mapping-d-c-s-party-affiliations-from-republican-georgetown-to-democratic-washington-highlands

    15. Re:Wonder what the RNC is doing about now? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      If you have a good education, you are less likely to believe climate change is a scientific conspiracy

      That's because you've been indoctrinated to trust the scientific establishment.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    16. Re:Wonder what the RNC is doing about now? by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      That's probably because education makes one less conservative in general, and most reporters are well-educated.

      If you have a good education, you are less likely to believe climate change is a scientific conspiracy, or that the world is 6k years old, for example.

      It'd be really good if the partisan hacks grew up at one point and realize that's not actually true. Some of the most ignorant people I've ever met were very well educated and claimed they were worldly. I'm sure you're going but, but that's just your viewpoint! Really, ask yourself how many well educated people you know who are completely ignorant on the basic things that your average high-school or tradesman knows off the top of their head. You can also read this if you're bored.

      And due to your critical thinking skills, you learn to actually check the Bible to see if homosexuality is condemned more often than greed & gluttony rather than just accept a pastor's weighting.

      Then again, the left(in general) has a serious problem with those and "social justice" don't they? If you have to retreat to your safe spaces every time someone says something that's contrary to your worldview and you need to ban speech in order to push your point of view, perhaps they need to get their shit together like conservatives did and get rid of the extremists. Oh, I'm sure you're going but-hur-dur conservatives never did that. And here's that fancy reminder that they did, right through the 90's and 00's. The left on the otherhand decided to embrace people like Hillary, Merkel, and so on who are pushing authoritarian agendas, wanting to ban things on the internet that have viewpoints contrary to their opinions. Remember it was Hillary and Tipper Gore that wanted to ban "rap music" and "video games" not people on the right. Much like it is today with social media, and them banning conservatives and other people who have view points contrary to what those platforms consider acceptable. It's those same people on the left that are pushing for no-platform policies, and claiming that men can't talk about reproductive rights in any form.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    17. Re:Wonder what the RNC is doing about now? by dadelbunts · · Score: 1

      Like "common sense" gun laws?

    18. Re:Wonder what the RNC is doing about now? by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      BS. The majority of the media is left leaning. They would love to pan the RNC.

      The majority is left leaning because women don't like working in places where they're sexually harassed. :P

      --
      ~X~
    19. Re:Wonder what the RNC is doing about now? by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      "Conservatives often seem to value (what they see as) 'common sense' over scientific analysis"

      Like "common sense" anti-gun legislation that leftists advocate ... even when "analysis" done by the FBI and CDC show that firearms-related homicides are down by 50% since the 1993 peak and non-fatal injuries associated with firearms-related crime are down by nearly 70% over the same time period?

      From what I've seen, leftists believe in government just as fervently as monotheists believe in their old books and deities.

    20. Re:Wonder what the RNC is doing about now? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      even when "analysis" done by the FBI and CDC show that firearms-related homicides are down by 50% since the 1993 peak and non-fatal injuries associated with firearms-related crime are down by nearly 70% over the same time period?

      What's your point here exactly? Crime in general has been dropping. The disagreement is over the cause.

      From what I've seen, leftists believe in government just as fervently as monotheists believe in their old books and deities.

      Science and gov't are not necessarily the same thing. A lot of published science comes from private (commercial) universities, for example.

      It's all about observation, evidence, and open debate. Science is a tool, not a club.

    21. Re:Wonder what the RNC is doing about now? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      That's because you've been indoctrinated to trust the scientific establishment.

      No, I just find them more reliable when I look into specific issues as a spot check. I don't have time or skills to check every claim, but I can randomly select parts to dig in fairly deep.

      For example, I looked at some of the anti-evolution claims of the creationists in more detail. The creationist arguments using the second law of thermodynamics are totally bogus. The Sun supplies energy into the system. I've found no justification for excluding sunshine.

      However, the relative rapidity of the Cambrian Explosion is still a legitimate puzzle in my opinion, and I give a creationism a point or two for it*. But overall, the fossil evidence shows gradual evolution and re-use of existing parts for new functions, such as fins becoming arms.

      I looked at roughly 10 issues in the debate, and creationists flunked 9.

      One can do the same with guns, climate, and email laws.

      * One has to be careful to assume it's a dichotomy: God OR evolution. It's possible there's a 3rd option we haven't discovered yet, and/or a combo.

    22. Re:Wonder what the RNC is doing about now? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      That's because you've been indoctrinated to trust the scientific establishment.

      No, I just find them more reliable when I look into specific issues as a spot check.

      Ah, you misunderstood me, I was referring to 'you' in the general, not 'you' in the specific. You in the specific have developed some heuristics for determining what is true beyond what you learned in school, and that separates you from the rabble.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    23. Re:Wonder what the RNC is doing about now? by GonzoPhysicist · · Score: 1

      Could it be they get more positive press because they are doing more positive things?

      --
      horror vacui
    24. Re:Wonder what the RNC is doing about now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also do spot checking like Tablizer.

      The only valid point the "global warming is a hoax!" crowd have is one of whether or not the consequences will be good or bad.

      I trust the scientific establishment because they tend to show their work.

    25. Re:Wonder what the RNC is doing about now? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Engineers tend to be conservative; scientists tend to be liberal. The latter are the dreamers, the theoreticals, the former are the ones who have to make it work in the real world, the implementers. Maybe that's the breakdown? In theory versus practice? Dreamer versus doer? Tends to fit the "liberal versus conservative" positions in the US rather well...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    26. Re:Wonder what the RNC is doing about now? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      There's a bit of a difference between a campaign server for a political party and a data/e-mail server for a sitting member of the Administration, don't you think? As far as I know, there's no requirement that a private organization keep all its notes and records (beyond Federally required financials for taxation purposes) related to its organizational goals. But we do know there are multiple laws and regulations related to preserving all Federal on-the-job communications...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    27. Re:Wonder what the RNC is doing about now? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Shallow trolls exist on both sides. That's not news.

    28. Re:Wonder what the RNC is doing about now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it okay to point out that the Dems aren't left leaning, but rather are just not as right leaning as the republicans. That the most left leaning dems such as Sanders are centrists in the rest of the industrialized countries?

    29. Re:Wonder what the RNC is doing about now? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      perhaps they need to get their shit together like conservatives did and get rid of the extremists

      Please elaborate.

      wanting to ban things on the internet that have viewpoints contrary to their opinions. Remember it was Hillary and Tipper Gore that wanted to ban "rap music" and "video games" not people on the right.

      They wanted to require ID's for age check, not outright ban. And many on the right were interested in that also.

      And Howard Stern has said it was mostly the evangelical right who harassed him for controversial talk radio statements through the FCC. It's largely why he left broadcast radio.

      I will agree, though, that there are censor-happy people on both sides, but they tend to target different kinds of content.

      However, this is mostly off-topic in terms of education and knowledge. Explicit censorship has nothing to do with climate change, evolution, interpretation of the Bible, etc.

    30. Re:Wonder what the RNC is doing about now? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Please elaborate.

      Kinda young? Going by your uid, you should remember it. Religious nuts were expunged from the party and conservative movement, they get lip service these days but that's about it.

      They wanted to require ID's for age check, not outright ban. And many on the right were interested in that also. ...

      Jack Thompson wanted ID checks, both Clinton and Gore wanted them outright banned. You can even find the part where the electorate turned against them, and they softened their stance. Then there were the multiple attempts by left-wing groups and left-wing politicians trying to get violent video games banned and one case that went to the SCC affirming them as an artistic medium, and thus protected under the 1st amendment. What amuses me to no end is that one of the most vocal political voices on the left to ban them was arrested a couple of years ago for weapons smuggling and weapons trafficking.

      Except where the claim that the "most educated people" were smart and don't fall in line with that. Especially stuff like GMO, modern farming practices, vaccines are all protested mainly by left-wing groups. Some of them also include big environmental groups that are trumpeted as being extremely knowledgeable on said subjects. But are more then happy to let millions of people starve to make themselves feel good.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    31. Re:Wonder what the RNC is doing about now? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Could it be they get more positive press because they are doing more positive things?

      Sure, trying to ban speech is positive. Trying to remove or restrict constitutional freedoms is positive too right? Trying to impose various forms of censorship against wrong-think, also very positive...

      I can think of a couple of dozen cases in just the last year with either democrats or left-aligned groups pushing all of that. There was a case just a few days ago with a democrat aligned group pushing for the censoring of Drudge claiming the site has "too much influence" never mind it's an aggregate news source that posts media from all political leanings.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    32. Re: Wonder what the RNC is doing about now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously have no idea what it means to be a conservative and have just drank the koolaid of what you see and what you have been told.

      What if I told you that there are less conservatives in the Republican Party than fingers on a typical hand. What you see and what the GOP have done hasn't been conservative for over a generation.

    33. Re:Wonder what the RNC is doing about now? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      both Clinton and Gore wanted them outright banned.

      I couldn't confirm that. Do you have a link?

      Religious nuts were expunged from the party and conservative movement

      Tea Party was full of them. If GOP tried to expunge them, they failed badly.

      vaccines are ... protested mainly by left-wing groups.

      Not: http://www.politico.com/story/...

      Anyhow, there's always going to be wacky positions on both ends of the spectrum. The extremes don't tell us very much.

    34. Re:Wonder what the RNC is doing about now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can think of a couple of dozen cases in just the last year with either democrats or left-aligned groups pushing all of that. There was a case just a few days ago with a democrat aligned group pushing for the censoring of Drudge claiming the site has "too much influence" never mind it's an aggregate news source that posts media from all political leanings.

      Now what can you remember about Republicans and their misconduct, or do their actions just fly through your brain?

      That's your real challenge.

    35. Re:Wonder what the RNC is doing about now? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Reporters are very heavily Democrats and left-wing. People who own media outlets are very heavily right-wing Republicans. The media is biased both directions in different ways.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  11. Too dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is why I don't donate to political candidates or causes anymore. Being involved in politics in this country is just too much of a risk to your livelihood and career these days. And I suspect it'll only get worse.

  12. Remember when lefties said he was a phony? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Enjoy your crow slowly boys.

  13. I'd say Glass Houses is the real reason by DumbSwede · · Score: 1

    There is reluctance to take actions base on evidence uncovered by illegally hacked emails. Doing so would invite more entities with political motivations to just hack more. Republicans have just as many (if not more) skeletons in the closet as Democrats. I’d say these are very close to Fruit of the Poison Tree kind of findings. Add to this the suspicion that the Russians are trying to game our political system by hacking and leaking and it all becomes a morass.

    1. Re:I'd say Glass Houses is the real reason by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Indeed. GOP probably realizes their documents are not so secure either, and they'll look like flaming hypocrites if they push for DNC trials, then everyone finds out they were doing the same.

      Then again, GOP has not been so longer-term thinking since the Tea Party movement; they usually jump at the chance to score here-and-now political points.

    2. Re:I'd say Glass Houses is the real reason by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      There is reluctance to take actions base on evidence uncovered by illegally hacked emails. Doing so would invite more entities with political motivations to just hack more. Republicans have just as many (if not more) skeletons in the closet as Democrats. Iâ(TM)d say these are very close to Fruit of the Poison Tree kind of findings. Add to this the suspicion that the Russians are trying to game our political system by hacking and leaking and it all becomes a morass.

      The other principle is that the hacked emails lack provenance and could very well be illegally obtained, and be thrown out because of it. There is an evidentiary standard to abide by, and it applies to all evidence, not just cops.

      Generally speaking, that doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed, but more evidence will be needed to lay charges. In a lot of cases this isn't hard to come by as there's often a lot of other evidence around that can be properly obtained.

      It's a problem - the groups think they are doing good by exposing harm, but what they're actually doing is spoiling the only evidence of the harm to the point where the justice system cannot act on it anymore. In which case the only choice is a conviction in the court of public opinion.

      The problem here is that with both Trump and Hillary, no one's voting FOR either. They're just voting AGAINST. And right now, Hillary is "winning" only because people hate Trump more. Notice how the tide turns when Trump tries to be less ... impulsive and reactive and tries to be a statesman? Of course, then Trump the next day opens his mouth again and says the opposite of what he said the day before and gets everyone turned against him.

    3. Re:I'd say Glass Houses is the real reason by BundesSheep · · Score: 2

      > Add to this the suspicion that the Russians are trying to game our political system by hacking and leaking and it all becomes a morass.

      The way to minimize this problem would be to not be corrupt scumbags trying to manipulate an election.

    4. Re:I'd say Glass Houses is the real reason by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      t's a problem - the groups think they are doing good by exposing harm, but what they're actually doing is spoiling the only evidence of the harm to the point where the justice system cannot act on it anymore. In which case the only choice is a conviction in the court of public opinion.

      This isn't really true though. The fruit of poison tree argument only applied to government agents, that is anyone working for the government. Which casts a pretty wide net. Even if a cop walks up and ask you to say something if you see something that might make you a government agent if any specific target was identified.

      Some random hacker in another country though doxing someone could be construed as probably cause, good enough cause if the documents appear legitimate and unaltered to go an cease the servers and place them under a solid eviduciary chain of custody. The challenge for law enforcement there becomes though that practice encourages doxing, which when hacking is involved is criminal in itself. It might make us all less safe.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  14. Purportedly, yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The hacker persona Guccifer 2.0 has released a new trove of documents that allegedly reveal more information about the Democratic National Committee's finances and personal information on Democratic donors, as well as details about the DNC's network infrastructure. The cache also includes purported memos on tech initiatives from Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine's time as governor of Virginia, and some years-old missives on redistricting efforts and DNC donor outreach strategy. Most notable among Tuesday's documents may be the detailed spreadsheets allegedly about DNC fundraising efforts, including lists of DNC donors with names, addresses, emails, phone numbers and other sensitive details. Tuesday's documents regarding the DNC's information technology setup include several reports from 2010 purporting to show that the committee's network passed multiple security scans. In total, the latest dump contains more than 600 megabytes of documents. It is the first Guccifer 2.0 release to not come from the hacker's WordPress account. Instead, it was given out via a link to the small group of security experts attending [a London cybersecurity conference].

    And you ask, "Is this all"?

    Yes, that's all . . . or so it is alleged.

  15. Ambasssdorships not the problem by tomhath · · Score: 0

    Ambassadors are largely ceremonial posts, there's no reason to fret about who gets them.

    The DNC's problem is that they got caught anointing Hillary as the candidate, completely taking the choice away from voters. That and milking donors to support her and her only.

    1. Re:Ambasssdorships not the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ambassadors are largely ceremonial posts, there's no reason to fret about who gets them.

      Is there any compensation involved in the 'largely ceremonial posts'?

      If so, then yes, there is reason to fret.

    2. Re:Ambasssdorships not the problem by Sri+Ramkrishna · · Score: 0

      Perhaps we should just not pay Ambassadors any money if that is your concern. It annoys me that it always comes down to money like somehow something is being taken away from you. *eye roll*

    3. Re:Ambasssdorships not the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like taxes?

  16. We Need Hillary To Protect Against Cartoon Frogs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  17. Please Help by jittles · · Score: 0

    I can't read. Can someone please tell me if there is anything in the latest release that I can staple-gun to a Clinton supporter's chest before I sexually assault them and spray pepper spray in their face?

    1. Re: Please Help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're going to sexually assault a Clinton supporter, be sure to wear a raincoat. God only knows what you'll catch.

    2. Re:Please Help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is exactly the kind of statement I expect from a Hillary supporter. When I've seen violence on TV it was being done by Hillary supporters. Not Bernie Sanders supports, not Jill Stein supporters, not Gary Johnson supporters, and not even Trump supporters.

  18. Apologies [Re:Some hacker, he's not found by Tablizer · · Score: 0

    The difference is that H usually apologizes when she says something offensive or questionable. T rarely apologizes. T is essentially implying he meant what he said.

    1. Re:Apologies [Re:Some hacker, he's not found by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hillary lies about what she said. Then she lies about telling lies. And then lies again.

      Or perhaps she forgets what she said, after all the brain trauma she's experienced (and used as an excuse for not remembering critical briefings).

      AND I guess you didn't see the part where I am not defending Trump. You're defending Hillary is amusing, when it is clear that she is every bit as bad as Trump is, and yet you think Trump is worse.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    2. Re:Apologies [Re:Some hacker, he's not found by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Sorry, that's not what I see. For example, she's apologized for her "super predator" and "half are deplorable" comments, or at least re-stated them to narrow the scope. Trump usually doubles down.

      As far as "lies", Trump's Polifact accuracy score is far worse than H's. If you claim Politifact is biased, show us what falsehoods it points out that are not really falsehoods.

    3. Re:Apologies [Re:Some hacker, he's not found by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      She apologized because she got caught, not because she didn't mean it. "basket of deplorables"wasn't an accident. She didn't apologize for calling 1/2 of Trumps supporters all those "phobic" names, which means she apologized for the word choice, not how she actually feels.

      It is like liberals who claim to hate Misogyny, while laughing at Ann Coulter being called a CUNT 37 times during a roast for someone else. If I actually used that word, and called Hillary a "fucking cunt", every liberal would come unglued and I would instantly be labeled misogynist.

      And again, you missed the point where I am not defending Trump at all. I'm not voting for him, so his lies aren't any better than Clinton's. You should go back and read through this thread, I actually made the case against pointing to bad behavior as justification / excuse for bad behavior being quite childish.

      I don't find Trumps lies any less or more than Clinton's. They are more or less the same in my book, which is why NEITHER of them should be president. But keep defending the indefensible all you want.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    4. Re:Apologies [Re:Some hacker, he's not found by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      Politifact is biased, it's owned and operated by a newspaper(Tampa Bay Times), that is not only in the tank for Hillary, but openly endorsed her. That means it's a partisan organization, and not independent. They much like snopes will turn around and claim something is half-true, or not true at all when it's expedient to do so because it doesn't fit their agenda. Seriously, if you can't see this you're simply unwilling to question something because it fits your own agenda. Especially if someone like me who is a political outsider and non-US citizen can find the facts that are contrary in many of their cases.

      Personally, I still like her "under sniper fire" BS...while she was receiving a bouquet of flowers.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    5. Re:Apologies [Re:Some hacker, he's not found by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      She apologized because she got caught, not because she didn't mean it

      Unlike you, I'm not going to pretend to be a mind-reader.

      Trump got caught also, but still didn't apologize. My point stands.

      why NEITHER of them should be president.

      But we are effectively stuck with only 2 choices, and I'll go with the least evil: the one who CAN apologize.

      If it's a choice between a D and an F grade, I'll vote the D.

      (The rest of your statements are off-topic.)

    6. Re:Apologies [Re:Some hacker, he's not found by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She apologized because she got caught, not because she didn't mean it. "basket of deplorables"wasn't an accident. She didn't apologize for calling 1/2 of Trumps supporters all those "phobic" names, which means she apologized for the word choice, not how she actually feels.

      Why would one apologize for disdain towards Trump's racist and bigoted supporters? Clinton's mistake was a commitment towards half. She should have checked her phrasing instead, something like "A segment of Trump's supporters" or "A portion" or even "Far too many" would have worked, but instead she got a little off with the messaging.

      Her speech-writer should go for a bit of polish, that's all.

      It is like liberals who claim to hate Misogyny, while laughing at Ann Coulter being called a CUNT 37 times during a roast for someone else. If I actually used that word, and called Hillary a "fucking cunt", every liberal would come unglued and I would instantly be labeled misogynist.

      Not if you did it at an actual roast, where language can often be quite salty. Don't like them? Fair enough, but that's a separate issue.

      And again, you missed the point where I am not defending Trump at all. I'm not voting for him, so his lies aren't any better than Clinton's. You should go back and read through this thread, I actually made the case against pointing to bad behavior as justification / excuse for bad behavior being quite childish.

      I don't find Trumps lies any less or more than Clinton's. They are more or less the same in my book, which is why NEITHER of them should be president. But keep defending the indefensible all you want.

      You've already pushed a narrative for the GOP's Voter ID, somehow coming to the inane conclusion that it's about Democrats being racist, rather than the Republicans trying to control the electorate, not by actual politics, but by manipulation of government to get their support.

      Yet you blithely defend it, you can't even muster up the courage to criticize it.

      But heck, you can't even come up with an honest statement about your real feelings for Trump.

    7. Re:Apologies [Re:Some hacker, he's not found by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      But we are effectively stuck with only 2 choices,

      Actually if everyone who didn't like Hillary AND Trump voted for Gary Johnson, he would win in a landslide. Their Unfavorables are in the 60% range across party lines. If every one of those voted for Johnson, he would have more votes that the other two combined.

      So, effectively becomes effectively enslaved to two party system ...and the lessor of two gawd awful candidates.

      the one who CAN apologize.

      And, there is a clip of Trump actually apologizing for something, somewhere, so he can apologize. So now what?

      "Sometimes, in the heat of debate, and speaking on a multitude of issues, you don’t choose the right words or you say the wrong thing. I have done that, and believe it or not I regret it," Trump said.

      http://abcnews.go.com/Politics...

      You'll vote for a proven liar, who lies about lying, and then lies about lying about lying. And yet you believe her when she apologizes (not really though, if you actually saw the apology for the "Deplorable" comment). Stop lying to yourself, you'll vote for Hillary because you like some of the policies she is lying about to get elected. ;)

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    8. Re:Apologies [Re:Some hacker, he's not found by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      But heck, you can't even come up with an honest statement about your real feelings for Trump.

      Trump is a fucktwad. Clear and honest enough?
      Hillary is also a fucktwad. You just can't stand the thought of someone who isn't part of the two party cabal . Vote for the lying liar Hillary if you want. But do not be surprised when the world goes to hell in a handbasket, because that is her actual record.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    9. Re:Apologies [Re:Some hacker, he's not found by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I think Trump is worse.

      At least Hillary says things. Then you can check them and form an opinion.

      Tried checking any of Trump's facts lately? Go on, give it a try. See if you can even figure out what he's claiming the facts are.

    10. Re:Apologies [Re:Some hacker, he's not found by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but by my observation Trump apologizes less often and lies more often.

      I've seen no evidence Politificact is significantly biased. Although not perfect, they WANT to be considered credible by everyone.

    11. Re:Apologies [Re:Some hacker, he's not found by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Sorry, that's not what I see. For example, she's apologized for her "super predator" and "half are deplorable" comments, or at least re-stated them to narrow the scope.

      Mendacity and ass-covering do not an apology make. HRC has never said she's sorry, only used the same doublespeak she uses to defend her Iraq War vote.

    12. Re:Apologies [Re:Some hacker, he's not found by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Politifact is biased, it's owned and operated by a newspaper(Tampa Bay Times), that is not only in the tank for Hillary, but openly endorsed her.

      Yes, they are a biased, right-wing rag. Which is why the endorsed the right-wing candidate most likely to support the status quo.

    13. Re: Apologies [Re:Some hacker, he's not found by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump is a fucktwad. Clear and honest enough? Hillary is also a fucktwad. You just can't stand the thought of someone who isn't part of the two party cabal . Vote for the lying liar Hillary if you want. But do not be surprised when the world goes to hell in a handbasket, because that is her actual record.

      Honest? No. Look how the vast majority of your post is actually just you bitching more about Hillary.

      Look, you want me to believe you are actually bipartisan in your hate, spend a week posting criticism of Trump, Republicans and the Right-wing. Not pushing their narrative on things like Voter Id, which you still can't admit is a GOP attempt to rig the electorate, instead going with a concocted story about it being racist towards blacks to oppose an unnecessary burden crafted by the GOP.

      Or continue to show that your purported antipathy is feigned as you make even a statement that was supposed to be about Trump more of a demonstration of your own animosity towards Hillary Clinton.

      Are you simply dishonest or just lacking in self-awareness?

    14. Re:Apologies [Re:Some hacker, he's not found by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Trusting huffington post is like trusting mediamatters to not take something out of context in order to try painting an agenda. It's only a step above gawker and a small one.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    15. Re: Apologies [Re:Some hacker, he's not found by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Because I bitch about Hillary more than Trump I am a Trump supporter? That is the one lame argument. The MSM have nailed Trump all over the place, does that mean they are in the tank for Hillary, or is that just unbiased reporting?

      spend a week posting criticism of Trump, Republicans and the Right-wing.

      I don't need to. There is PLENTY of places where you can go to get all the anti-Trump crap you want, including just about every MSM outlet. But when the MSM calls 78 Degree weather "Sweltering", to defend Clinton's medical collapse, and run her a couple hours later "feeling great" and hugging a little girl having been diagnosed with "pneumonia" (medially irresponsible), I will be "attacking" her.

      The fact is, Hillary is being protected by so fucking many people on so many different levels, that it is approaching comedy levels of obvious. Trump, everyone is attacking, from the dipshit fucktwads in the GOP, to every nutjob in the DNC and MSM

      So, I am not lacking in any area of "self-awareness", as I am actually paying attention. Perhaps you can tell me, besides "I hate Trump" three reasons why you are supporting Hillary. I want specific examples besides the typical vapid emotional arguments. My guess is, you can't.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    16. Re: Apologies [Re:Some hacker, he's not found by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because I bitch about Hillary more than Trump I am a Trump supporter? That is the one lame argument.

      You're the one being lame, what with your incessant whining about Hillary and the DNC. You couldn't even offer a simple, honest statement of your assessment of Trump without being overwhelmed by your urge to lambaste Hillary.

      The MSM have nailed Trump all over the place, does that mean they are in the tank for Hillary, or is that just unbiased reporting?

      Oh, the media? Lots of questions about them, ranging from "Why aren't they holding Trump accountable?" to "Why are they so mean to Trump" depending on who you ask. But that's a rather broad category, compared to say, dealing with you, and your own particular conduct. The media isn't one monolithic block.

      You, however, are an individual. Much different.

      spend a week posting criticism of Trump, Republicans and the Right-wing.

      I don't need to.

      You do if you want to make a convincing argument as to your bipartisanship, given your obvious obsession with Hillary.

      Really, I know you see that being a blind fanatic against Hillary hurts your case,, so you TRY to make us believe that somehow, in some way, you may not be an entirely partisan zealot, but you aren't convincing because you are not able to work up any kind of criticism about Donald Trump, let alone keep yourself from attacking Hillary Clinton at every chance.

      There is PLENTY of places where you can go to get all the anti-Trump crap you want, including just about every MSM outlet. But when the MSM calls 78 Degree weather "Sweltering", to defend Clinton's medical collapse, and run her a couple hours later "feeling great" and hugging a little girl having been diagnosed with "pneumonia" (medially irresponsible), I will be "attacking" her.

      The fact is, Hillary is being protected by so fucking many people on so many different levels, that it is approaching comedy levels of obvious. Trump, everyone is attacking, from the dipshit fucktwads in the GOP, to every nutjob in the DNC and MSM

      But I don't want to get anti-Trump messaging from others. Interesting that you call it crap though, is that an implication that you believe criticism of Trump is actually crap? Might be a Freudian slip. But again, what I want is a demonstration of YOUR conduct, right here. But what I get from you is a demonstration of how you are still focusing on the Hillaryhate, with a side of the standard "Blame the media" attitude.

      Let's see YOU find the will and nerve to commit to criticize Trump, Republicans and the Right Wing. Then your claims about YOURSELF can be validated.

      Don't want to do it?

      Fair enough, but don't pretend to claim that you are somehow making a convincing demonstration of your bipartisan level of hate. Just say that you hate Hillary Clinton without trying to make us believe you are somehow really against both when you can't even resist the urge to once again, blather on about Hillary instead.

      So, I am not lacking in any area of "self-awareness", as I am actually paying attention.

      To yourself? I doubt it, otherwise you wouldn't be fruitlessly insisting on somehow being bipartisan. But ok, let's see your own comprehensive self-review then.

      Tell us what all your posting says about you. The bad parts. The admissions against interest. It's a difficult challenge, but if you are truly self-aware, you can do it. Take all of today's posts and criticize yourself. Say where you got things wrong and how. Own up to your errors and mistakes.

      Perhaps you can tell me, besides "I hate Trump" three reasons why you are supporting Hillary. I want specific examples besides the typical vapid emotional arguments. My guess is, you can't.

      Can you show me where I made any statement to indicate support for Hillary Clinton? I don't r

    17. Re:Apologies [Re:Some hacker, he's not found by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      In the cases I've looked at, Politifact provides explanations of why they rule the way they do, and you can examine them and check on them if you like. This isn't the same as being unbiased, but the difference in truthfulness they record between Clinton and Trump can't be explained by any sort of subtle bias that would stand up to examination.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    18. Re:Apologies [Re:Some hacker, he's not found by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Trusting huffington post

      Did NPR pointedly refused to call torture, torture, or did they not? Yes, they did. So WYP? That you are even more unreliable than you're accuse HuffPo and Gawker of being?

  19. "Bush is a low bar to judge yourself against." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And yet, Hillary limbos under that bar like she's Hermes Conrad strolling underneath the Arc de Triumph.

    She's more corrupt, more dishonest, more contemptuous of the law, less skillful in foreign policy, less patriotic, and more contemptuous of those with opinions that differ from her own.

    Not to mention the fact Bush held more press conferences in any given month than Hillary has done this entire year.

    And Bush was obviously far healthier...

    1. Re: "Bush is a low bar to judge yourself against." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You ever notice how the shittiest movies and products get the most commercials? I rest my case.

  20. Hillary already HAS Steve Jobs' temperment... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...without his ability, insight or taste.

  21. Compensation by tomhath · · Score: 2

    Yes and no. The maximum salary for an ambassador is under $200k, so a wealthy donor certainly isn't in it for the money. In fact they usually end up spending far more than that out of their own pockets to keep up appearances.

    1. Re:Compensation by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      FYI, 3% of Americans make $200k or more. It is considered upper class level income. So when you act like it isn't much money you are insulting 97% of Americans.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  22. Reality does have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a will known liberal bias

  23. Poor Guciffer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    will be run over by a train.or shot in the head.or both.

  24. Reality check by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1.) I haven't read the trove to know if anything is substantially damning. If it turns out to be so, then so be it and let the bits fall where they may.
    2.) I'm dismayed at the state of the US being such an easy target for hackers and leakers. Rather than relishing in the embarrassment of partisan foes, how about taking into consideration that all American gov't agencies, NGO's/businesses, political and press agencies as well as private citizens are all at risk. This is not something to be celebrated. It seems nothing is safe anymore in the US. Not good at all.
    3.) If I were a true cynic, I would wonder what ugliness might be revealed if the same were done against major US Republican Party organizations. Politics is truly disgusting finding newer lows to reach every day. Does anyone seriously believe this is a one-sided problem?

  25. keep fucking that chicken, morans by Uberbah · · Score: 2

    The same reason why the IRS ran a campaign against tea party groups and people resigned over it, but no charges were laid?

    Because that's wingnut dumbfuckery:

    1) There are only two political appointments at the IRS, and the chief was a Bush appointee
    2) The only group to be denied tax-exempt status was a liberal one

    Now, this is where the chicken-fuckers whine that more conservative groups were investigated than liberal ones - but no shit, Sherlock, that's because the explosion in groups after Citizen United was entirely conservative. Unions didn't have billions to suddenly throw at front groups, that's the Koch's and the Sheldon Adelson's. And unions are of course invested in the other right wing party - the Democrats.

    It's not like there aren't legit issues for right-wingers to complain about - Obama signing the NDAA, letting the banks commit the greatest theft in the history of the human race, persecuting more whistleblowers than all previous presidents combined times two - but that would require you to be honest for five seconds.

    And we can't have that, can we?

    1. Re:keep fucking that chicken, morans by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      Brilliantly said.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  26. You want anti-Trump? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Try ABC, CBS, MSNBC, NBC, PBS, Comedy Central, HBO, Washington Post, New Your Times, LA Times, Daily Kos, Huff Po, Google, Facebook, Apple, Fox entertainment, half the folks at Fox News (Krauthammer, Gutfeld, Will, Kelly, Perino, Williams, etc) ....

    On Slashdot, you will see very few pro-Trump articles, very few pro-Hillary articles, and a batch of bad stories about Hillary and the DNC.

    Why those bad stories?

    [a] The Hillary/DNC/Powell hacking is tech-related (bleach bit, "wipe it with a cloth?", multiple servers, 13 missing/smashed Blackberries, IT guys pleading the fifth, etc)

    [b] the hacking exposed the DNC-Hillary cabal rigging the 2016 Democrat primary system to support Hillary, which offended many Bernie supporters on Slashdot, and in a round-about way this is sorta related to the Manning/Snowden/Wikileaks issues that are also of interest to Slashdotters and also exposed deceit at high levels of government (which also engages the libertarian streak in many Slashdotters)

    [c] the Hillary health stuff even gets interesting because it is involved in [a] and [b] while first appearing to be loony conspiracy stuff (which some find interesting or entertaining) then becomes quasi confirmation of the dishonesty and corruption exposed in [a] and [b] when the woman goes so limp she would have face-planted had the security guys not caught her and then her campaign and the mainstream media were ALL exposed to be covering for her and lying to the public when one average guy caught the incident on his cell phone cam while the ENTIRE press corps completely missed it becase they were all obeying team Hillary and allowing themselves to be coralled and mis-directed. (the corruption of "old media" is also of interest to Slashdotters)

  27. it amazes me.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it amazes me to see that so many people are shocked that politics is as dirty as it has been since pretty much the founding of this country.

  28. hacking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hi, am Doris, i had my friend help me hack my ex's email, facebook, whatsapp,and his phone cause i suspected he was cheating. all he asked for was a his phone number. he's email is (cyberlord7714@gmail.com)..IF u need help tell him Doris, referred you to him and he'll help. Am sure his going to help you do it, good luck