White House Releases Sensitive Personal Info From Voters Concerned About Privacy (vox.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

White House Releases Sensitive Personal Info From Voters Concerned About Privacy (vox.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on Saturday July 15, 2017 @01:46PM from the public-policy dept.

Huge_UID shares an article from Vox: The White House just responded to concerns it would release voters' sensitive personal information by releasing a bunch of voters' sensitive personal information. Last month, the White House's "election integrity" commission sent out requests to every state asking for all voters' names, party IDs, addresses, and even the last four digits of their Social Security numbers, among other information. The White House then said this information would be made available to the public. A lot of people did not like the idea, fearing that their personal information could be made public. So some sent emails to the White House, demanding that it rescind the request. This week, the White House decided to make those emails from concerned citizens public through the commission's new website... It didn't censor any of the personal information -- such as names, email addresses, actual addresses, and phone numbers -- included in those emails.
Some of the emails also included the commenter's place of employment -- though at least one commenter helpfully informed the White House that their voter info was available at Goatse. But the voting comission is now also facing new lawsuits from the ACLU, Public Citizen, and the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, McClatchy reported on Monday, noting that "Trump's voting commission has told states to hold off on sharing the data until after a judge's ruling in a lawsuit."

330 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Not the first administration.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 13:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

..to not give a fuck about your privacy.
1. Re:Not the first administration.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 13:58 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Actually, has there been one that has given a fuck?
2. Re:Not the first administration.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 14:02 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  deflect, deflect, deflect
  and don't get me started on her emails!!1!
3. Re: Not the first administration.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 14:21 · Score: 1
  
  The next one, hopefully
4. Re:Not the first administration.. by pushing-robot · 2017-07-15 14:32 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Perhaps, but this administration has raised not giving a fuck about America into an art form.
  
  --
  How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
5. Re:Not the first administration.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 14:44 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Arguably, that would have been Nixon, when the supreme court actually cared about human rights. For example: Roe vs. Wade.
  After the administration (and later apotheosis) of Saint Ronald, things went rapidly downwards.
6. Re:Not the first administration.. by hairyfeet · 2017-07-15 14:45 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  That isn't what pisses me off...if the left wants to claim that the election was rigged against Shillary? Then you HAVE to investigate, which means looking at the fucking voting records!
  But isn't it funny that the states having the most of a shitfit are the ones that have been accused in the past of having the "living impaired" voting democrat? I sincerely hope the courts demand that ALL states produce their data so we can see once and for all what is going on...I have a feeling there is gonna be some massive cheating alright, but it ain't gonna be the right, its gonna be the DNC ops that Project Veritas caught bragging about busing illegals to vote in multiple districts and entire cemeteries worth of corpses wearing "I'm with her" shirts shambling their rotten asses into polling booths in heavily democrat states.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
7. Re:Not the first administration.. by Richard_at_work · 2017-07-15 14:58 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  Isn't it past your bed time...? Do you need a diaper change already?
8. Re: Not the first administration.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 15:14 · Score: 0
  
  Who the hell is claiming the election was "rigged"?
9. Re:Not the first administration.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 15:46 · Score: 0
  
  Now now, it is time to take your meds. Who let you out of your cage? You are not allowed to do anything but suck Donald Trump's micro cock. It is all you have to look forward to without considering regular genital sizes.
10. Re:Not the first administration.. by Gadget_Guy · 2017-07-15 16:03 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  That is a lie. The left has never made a claim of voter fraud. That particular accusation came from Donald Trump himself prior to the election. He had no proof of this then, and still hasn't.
  The claims the left made were that Russia influenced the elections. The hacking that went on as part of this influence campaign happened prior to the election (the email server). There is some evidence for this influence, as witnessed by the emails actually being released on Wikileaks and Donald Trump Jr's disclosure of his emails which spoke of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump.
11. Re: Not the first administration.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 16:06 · Score: 0
  
  Literally ever Democrat and the majority of the mainstream media? They've been claiming that Russia "hacked" the election ever since it became clear that The Anointed One failed to win over the American people.
12. Re:Not the first administration.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 16:20 · Score: 1
  
  At this point, privacy concerns are a non-partisan issue. Things did not get better under Obama, and they would not have gotten better under Hillary. It's possible they are getting worse under Trump than they would be otherwise. However, getting distracted by partisan politics is part of why the citizens are losing the battle.
  
  I know it's fun to talk about the orange harbinger of doom, but can you really look back on 8 years of Obama without wishing he had done more to defend privacy and protect us against a surveillance state?
13. Re:Not the first administration.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 16:25 · Score: 1
  
  That isn't what pisses me off...if the left wants to claim that the election was rigged against Shillary? Then you HAVE to investigate, which means looking at the fucking voting records!
  But isn't it funny that the states having the most of a shitfit are the ones that have been accused in the past of having the "living impaired" voting democrat? I sincerely hope the courts demand that ALL states produce their data so we can see once and for all what is going on...I have a feeling there is gonna be some massive cheating alright, but it ain't gonna be the right, its gonna be the DNC ops that Project Veritas caught bragging about busing illegals to vote in multiple districts and entire cemeteries worth of corpses wearing "I'm with her" shirts shambling their rotten asses into polling booths in heavily democrat states.
  First off, her name is Hillary, not Shillary. Adding blatant sexism on top of your lying shit is a sad touch and it is noted.
  Second off, there have been studies on in person voting fraud and it is nearly non existent, but if your that worried about it, stamp everyone that votes with some purple die or something that takes time to wear off. You could even have a freely available ID card in all 50 states, as long as it is free, easy to get, and easy to replace with no BS.
  Third off your feelings mean jack shit. Get back to us when you have some hard numbers from reputable sources, not freaking feelings.
  Additionally project veritas is not a legitimate news source. He basically works to get video to say whatever he wants it to say. He does this through deception and targeting pretty much every person associated with a movement. He does this through entrapment and various other questionably legal means. In short he digs up the worst he can, often by setting up most of the situation himself, then edits it to make it look far worse than it ever was. It is not reporting. It is just one sick fuck. You can't accurately measure the value of the organisation by their ability to keep one sick fuck from somehow secretly editing together some crap that puts them in a bad light because of a small subset of their members.
  Fourth off republicans for the most part and some democrats are responsible for the vast overarching majority of voting fraud and I'll prove it, by first defining voting fraud as deliberate and with forethought manipulating the system to disproportionately reduce access to the polls by votes in the opposing party.
  First off, (for the last time) all these convenient voting roll purges, some of which are highly targeted. They are designed to throw up road blocks to people to vote. Requiring hard to get IDs is another road block that hits people who don't drive, which conveniently enough is the dirt poor more so. Republicans are doing this all over and I consider it one step away from treason, for it attacks the heart and soul of our country and that is a free and fair election. I put the recent attacks on truth itself in the same vein. Their is no honour in winning, if by doing so you destroy what you are supposed to be fighting for.
  Second off you have all the convoluted redistricting where you play with the districts to maximize your number of representatives while minimizing your opponents. Now democrats have been guilty of this too, though to a lesser extent. In my not so humble opinion anyone guilty of it is scum and needs tossed out. It is a key component of disenfranchisement.
  Thirdly republicans just love to comment how it is only fair that small states get a disproportionate say with respect to population. How is that fair? By definition have one vote mean more in one place than another is not equitable. It is the very definition of unfair. Its just another variation of the elites versus the rest of the world that is as old as time immemorial. In short it states that the value of a persons vote is directly, on average, influenced by how much land he or she owns.
  The electoral college als
14. Re: Not the first administration.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 16:32 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I'm pretty sure they're claiming the interfered through social engineering, not literally hacking voting booths, although some attention was given to that possibility given Russia's actual cyber espionage on that front.
  Keep defending your boy though. Go team!
15. Re:Not the first administration.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 16:57 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Republicans never stopped to ask themselves WHY the russians would support trump.
  You can't confront republicans with facts. Their brains completely shut down when you do. If they HAD asked themselves that question, they would have run as far and as fast as they could in the opposite direction from the candidate that putin prefers.
  trump was OBVIOUSLY the weaker candidate, but republicans fell for the trick. They fall for it every time.
16. Re: Not the first administration.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 17:43 · Score: -1
  
  Hypocrisy is hypocrisy.
  If you are outraged now, but were not last year, then your outrage is dishonest political spectacle.
  It is fair to call you on your bullshit. You should have been angry with Obama. You had a chance to fix it but opted for party over country. Sleep in the bed that you shat.
17. Re: Not the first administration.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 17:47 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  No, they are literally pushing the narrative that Trump colluded with Russia to actually modify the results. Pay attention, you fucking imbecile.
18. Re: Not the first administration.. by easyTree · 2017-07-15 17:49 · Score: 1
  
  Firstly lol but then...
  In a system of democracy (lol, haha etc) in which expression of the will of the people has been reduced to the ticking of a single box every few years (surely beyond insult to even the zombie voters?), it is truly inspiring that unexplored depths of corruption can be found by those willing to dig deep. A lesson in creativity and perseverance we can all benefit from following.
  What ephemeral barrier prevents further descent? Did God degree that the people have the right to the sham of involvement in the process but no less? Really, what prevents further protection from the will of the people?
  
  --
  Requiem for the American Dream
19. Re:Not the first administration.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 17:54 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, this really IS the first.
  In the past, while the gov DID access our data, it actually already had all of it. After all, the local/state gov handle home issues; State/feds handle loans, SSN, insurance regs, etc.
  Yes, past gov (not really the admin) have been spying on Americans for a LONG TIME, BUT, they did not give it to the world and esp not to Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, etc.
  Trump is the first fucker to do this. And the fact that he wants to release ALL OF OUR DATA TO THOSE NATIONS speaks volumes.
  BUT, it also speaks volumes that you are defending this fucker and think that he is similar in any way shape or form to past admins.
  Which admin has pushed to release 100% of our SSNs to Russia and CHina? I will bet that you can not come up with 1 other than trump.
  Sadly, you fascist fucks will continue to defend this WT Trump even when he has turned America into a totalitarian nation similar to CHina or Russia.
20. Re: Not the first administration.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 17:57 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Be angry at Obama for WHAT? The ONLY ones that were angry at Obama was the GOP who are racists and just want to hate for any and all reason.
  The fact that he kept us from depression, addressed a number of issues, has done nothing but piss off you GOP types that wanted him to fail.
  BUT you have to be a real fuck to defend trump and try to equate him to Obama.
21. Re: Not the first administration.. by AK+Marc · 2017-07-15 18:00 · Score: 1
  
  I was, but it doesn't matter. I'm still accused of being partisan, every time I attack a bad action by anyone. I have managed to vote in every election since '92, and never for the winner. What else can I do?
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
22. Re:Not the first administration.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 18:15 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Objectively, if you look back at the Nixon administration, he seemed well liked. He won two elections in a landslide, and his approval ratings were decent. What ultimately lead to his undoing was his own insecurity.
  The watergate investigators honestly believed Nixon had no involvement or knowledge of the burglary before it happened, which was based on the same recordings that ultimately got him into trouble. Where he got into trouble was when he found out that his own staff ordered it, and then he tried to cover it up.
23. Re:Not the first administration.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 18:18 · Score: 0
  
  That is a lie. The left has never made a claim of voter fraud.
  Then why did Jill Stein request a recount in three states?
24. Re:Not the first administration.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 18:50 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Yes, indeed. Nixon was mostly underrated. His objectification as the archetype "crook" doesn't help with understanding the history. As a career politician he was quite competent and he left many good deeds such as the EPA, severing the Bretton Woods exchange rate system (which had ran out of its historical usefulness), going to China, and nominating decent justices to the supreme court.
  Gosh, if we're now looking back at Richard fucking Nixon and missing him, what does that say about the current shitshow?
25. Re:Not the first administration.. by Billly+Gates · 2017-07-15 19:20 · Score: 1
  
  No it was not the left or the so called liberal media.
  It was the intelligence agencies. I tend to happen to side with them. Even if Hillary fucked up (she did with the email server as you and I would be thrown in jail if we did this) and Putin just shared information, it is still collusion with a foreign power and treason to a high degree.
  A nation should not be involved in another nation's election or internal affairs. I will say this hypocritically too as an American as we did evil in the name of good in South America to prevent evil communism with propping up Pinochet in Chile who murdered people!
  It was wrong and Russia not only interfered but had counter intelligence agents whose job was sabotage and espionage during the cold war give the information to Trump Jr. Gee what is wrong with that???!!!
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
26. Re: Not the first administration.. by sexconker · 2017-07-15 20:03 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  Hillary, the DNC, CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times, Trump, and many more. all claimed the election was rigged.
27. Re:Not the first administration.. by sexconker · 2017-07-15 20:12 · Score: 0
  
  No it was not the left or the so called liberal media.
  It was the intelligence agencies. I tend to happen to side with them.
  Why would you trust the intelligence agencies? Do you need a recap of their track record?
  
  Even if Hillary fucked up (she did with the email server as you and I would be thrown in jail if we did this) and Putin just shared information, it is still collusion with a foreign power and treason to a high degree.
  Are we at war with Russia? Or are they our ally? How is diplomacy with a foreign state we are not at war with treasonous?
  
  A nation should not be involved in another nation's election or internal affairs. I will say this hypocritically too as an American as we did evil in the name of good in South America to prevent evil communism with propping up Pinochet in Chile who murdered people!
  Why not? It's called diplomacy. The US does it all the time. And if you want to call out examples of when the US does bad things, why stop at one?
  
  It was wrong and Russia not only interfered but had counter intelligence agents whose job was sabotage and espionage during the cold war give the information to Trump Jr. Gee what is wrong with that???!!!
  Where's the evidence? It's been almost a year now since these allegations started.
  Further, was anything exposed false? If Putin himself "hacked" Hillary's emails (and remember - this was all due to a certain moran falling for a phishing email) and hand delivered it to Trump, so what? Putin should be given a damned medal for exposing Hillary's shit.
  You'll jump to believe some made up shit about prostitutes and water sports as long as Wolf Blitzer reads it out to you. But when faced with actual evidence of gross misbehavior and wrongdoing, you get into a tizzy about the way someone got caught.
28. Re:Not the first administration.. by Billly+Gates · 2017-07-15 20:22 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  No it was not the left or the so called liberal media.
  It was the intelligence agencies. I tend to happen to side with them.
  Why would you trust the intelligence agencies? Do you need a recap of their track record?
  
  Even if Hillary fucked up (she did with the email server as you and I would be thrown in jail if we did this) and Putin just shared information, it is still collusion with a foreign power and treason to a high degree.
  Are we at war with Russia? Or are they our ally? How is diplomacy with a foreign state we are not at war with treasonous?
  
  A nation should not be involved in another nation's election or internal affairs. I will say this hypocritically too as an American as we did evil in the name of good in South America to prevent evil communism with propping up Pinochet in Chile who murdered people!
  Why not? It's called diplomacy. The US does it all the time. And if you want to call out examples of when the US does bad things, why stop at one?
  
  It was wrong and Russia not only interfered but had counter intelligence agents whose job was sabotage and espionage during the cold war give the information to Trump Jr. Gee what is wrong with that???!!!
  Where's the evidence? It's been almost a year now since these allegations started.
  Further, was anything exposed false? If Putin himself "hacked" Hillary's emails (and remember - this was all due to a certain moran falling for a phishing email) and hand delivered it to Trump, so what? Putin should be given a damned medal for exposing Hillary's shit.
  You'll jump to believe some made up shit about prostitutes and water sports as long as Wolf Blitzer reads it out to you. But when faced with actual evidence of gross misbehavior and wrongdoing, you get into a tizzy about the way someone got caught.
  What's the evidence? Have you been watching the news? Let's say Isis and Iran met with an Hillary aide. THey share information to wikileaks just 4 days before the election. Hilary hires her daughter to speak with an Iranian national guard who did espionage work during the Reagan years against the US. Iran wants some sanctions lifted and Isis wants to be recognized.
  Boom! Hillary wins by a landslide and 4 more years of liberal rule after all the negative news about Trump suddenly appeared out of nowhere.
  Let me ask you this? Would you be somewhat bothered if this were true? I mean ask yourself if this is normal diplomacy and you wouldn't be upset one bit? Or would you be getting your torches and pitchforks and call for investigations and impeachment? We are not at war with Isis or Iran so that is ok right?
  I am a democrat so I will disclaim this. But if that were true I would be outraged! I would want her head on a block and have her tried for treason. I know you would too as I assume you are Republican of course. To me this is an American issue not political.
  If you support Putin and are not a troll and want to give a medal then you are un-American and a piece of shit as I would not if the reverse were true. I do not want a nation of supporting parties like football teams regardless of the consequences.
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
29. Re:Not the first administration.. by sexconker · 2017-07-15 20:23 · Score: 1
  
  Calling her "Shillary" isn't sexist. It means she's a shill. Perhaps you were thinking of "Shrillary"?
  Successful voter fraud isn't detected. "There have been studies" actually means "there have been surveys of people self reporting voter fraud" and "someone counted up the few dumbasses who got caught". And yes, most non-Democrats would absolutely support voter ID laws where the ID was free and easy to get.
  Feelings don't mean shit, I agree. Yet here we are - liberals FEEL that Trump is guilty of something, they FEEL he's violating a clause about emoluments, etc. None of it is based in fact, but they FEEL it.
  Did you skip a number? I don't know about project veritas, but if you're going to throw out illegitimate news sources for publishing nothing but bullshit, then you need to throw out the vast majority of news networks and newspapers.
  You're proving voter fraud by redefining voter fraud? Damn, you're hopeless. ID's aren't hard to get, it's not "one step away from treason", etc. States get the votes they do as per the constitution. It's deliberately designed so that populous states don't get to run the show. You may not like it, but it's a good design because it keeps people like you from hijacking the nation.
  But again, you're going on your feelings. Which by your own admission aren't worth shit.
30. Re:Not the first administration.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 20:55 · Score: 0
  
  sure sure...
  https://www.theguardian.com/us...
  http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11...
  From the other side we have things like
  https://thinkprogress.org/voti...
  http://www.detroitnews.com/sto...
  So there is proof that voter-fraud was happening in favor of the democrats.. But investigating that is somehow bad?
  I don't support Trump or Hillary, but i think Hillary would have caused bigger issues than Trump will do..
  How hard can it be to eliminate the majority of voter-fraud forever? Require voter-ID's (just make them free of charge to get for each election.) and have automatic upload of each vote, at the time of voting, to a central system. No manual counting and full tracking of who has voted. Using a chip on the ID for signing the vote would remove some of the required security from the voting-machine and a second machine could be provided where people could verify that their vote was counted and correct.
31. Re:Not the first administration.. by Gadget_Guy · 2017-07-15 21:07 · Score: 2
  
  Then why did Jill Stein request a recount in three states?
  Well they say the first stage is denial... or maybe it was just desperate hope that a manual recount would change the outcome. After all, why only do it in three states? If it was a real allegation of voter fraud, the she would not have said this:
  
  Stein has said she has no evidence of fraud going into a recount of ballots in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan, but wants to ensure the integrity of the election.
  
  But it certainly wasn't a widespread belief of the entire group called "the Left".
32. Re:Not the first administration.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 21:45 · Score: 0
  
  A nation should not be involved in another nation's election or internal affairs. I will say this hypocritically too as an American as we did evil in the name of good in South America to prevent evil communism with propping up Pinochet in Chile who murdered people!
  So that's one example out of a few hundred times they have meddled with other countries..
  This one is an interesting read..
  https://www.theguardian.com/co...
33. Re: Not the first administration.. by Jesus+H+Rolle · 2017-07-15 22:12 · Score: 0
  
  (and remember - this was all due to a certain moran falling for a phishing email)
  
  moron
34. Re:Not the first administration.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 22:23 · Score: 0
  
  Making a public statement in a public forum in a public area kinda means that you're not anonymous.
  And under what rule did you think the personal data you entered was protected?
  I guess if you ever open a phone book (or google for it online) your tiny head would explode.
35. Re: Not the first administration.. by TheMeuge · 2017-07-15 22:47 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  I cannot support the current administration. But the amount of doublespeak I hear regarding Russia's "influence" on the last elections from Democrat mouths and their mouthpieces like CNN, WashPo, and NYT is simply astounding. They are both claiming that they only talk about influence rather than an actual conspiracy; and trying very hard to make every article imply that there's a full blown Manchurian candidate conspiracy... sometimes in the same paragraph. As a result the public perception is that Russia was literally responsible for the results of the least election... effectively rendering irrelevant the American voices of those who voted. Undoubtedly that's the actual intent, conscious or not.
  Finally let's consider Russia's position here, as well as our indignant stand of faux moral superiority. It's ok for us to topple numerous governments militarily or with outright financial support of the opposition... it's ok for us to start a civil war between Russia and it's closest neighbor culturally and politically for the past 1000 years, by supporting violent racists who aim to persecute a large percent of their population. But if Russia expresses support for a presidential candidate who thought a different diplomatic approach would be more fruitful after the disastrous foreign policy of the last 8 years (or so they thought), we all shake our heads in disbelief "how dare they". Has this country regressed into childhood this much?
  What's good for the goose...
  If we are so weak, we should regrow some balls, or we'll shortly be gone.
36. Re: Not the first administration.. by cahuenga · 2017-07-15 22:56 · Score: 1
  
  Doxing individuals who are publicly disagreeing with your policies is something completely different.
37. Re:Not the first administration.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-16 00:06 · Score: -1
  
  Over 65 million Americans voted for Hillary without knowing all the facts. If the Russians have information that Hillary is trying to hide, the American people should be demanding to know what it is, and thanking the Russians for providing it.
38. Re:Not the first administration.. by hord · 2017-07-16 00:06 · Score: 0
  
  Nixon instituted our current drug schedule which has probably killed more people by now than booze. He also championed our current dietary fiasco that is turning everyone obese while lining the pockets of wheat, corn, and sugar farmers. Yes, very much underrated as a source of evil, waste, and human misery.
39. Re: Not the first administration.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-16 00:09 · Score: 0
  
  You are a Kremlin shill and I claim my 100 roubles. On second thoughts, make it dollars.
40. Re: Not the first administration.. by TheMeuge · 2017-07-16 00:15 · Score: 1
  
  Good one troll.
  If anyone voted for Trump, must be cause they're stupid racist and bought by Russia.
  If anyone speaks against your party line, it's because they're a Russian agent.
  So it's either a Democrat opinion or it's not real or malicious. One party system is great, eh comrade?
  By the way, tell me what's better for Russia as an enemy of the US - one favorable president or a society that eats itself to the point of destruction?
41. Re: Not the first administration.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-16 00:20 · Score: 0
  
  This is true: the states have for years been selling this same infomatin to interested parties. Well, my state, Florida, gives it away for free, but most sell it for cheap. The whole vote fraud inquiry could have been handled quietly by both sides or even hidden by shell corp requests for data (have an NGO request the data and donate it), but both sides wanted to turn thisinto a screaming match. That's all it is: a public distraction with two positions around which Ds and Rs can gather to whip up their respective echo chambers.
  There are already mechanisms in place for solving problems: politics isn't about solving problems but about generating new ones that touch the heart and inspire true believers to give their loyalty ti the parties. The advertising-driven press is complicit in this, since it seeks to amplify the parties' calls for supporters in order to increase its own ad revenue.
42. Re:Not the first administration.. by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-07-16 00:45 · Score: 1
  
  ..to not give a fuck about your privacy.
  Nice deflection Kellyanne!
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
43. Re: Not the first administration.. by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-07-16 00:49 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  If you are outraged now, but were not last year, then your outrage is dishonest political spectacle.
  Dammit Boris, Your post was too many levels of deflection. No rubles for you until you post better. Get back to work and do better work for the motherland.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
44. Re: Not the first administration.. by jeremyp · 2017-07-16 01:25 · Score: 2
  
  What past administrations did has no bearing on whether the current administration is doing good or bad. Calling "hypocrisy" is just a bullshit way of trying to shut down the conversation.
  Also, don't forget that the Obama were not a bunch of venal conmen, lying citrus fruits and traitors to their country.
  
  --
  All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
45. Re:Not the first administration.. by LynnwoodRooster · 2017-07-16 02:06 · Score: 1
  
  That is a lie. The left has never made a claim of voter fraud.
  California Progressives Allege Voter Fraud in Democratic Party Election, Demand Voter ID. Oops. When you get it wrong right out of the gate, kind of deflates the rest of your post, doesn't it?
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
46. Re: Not the first administration.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-16 02:13 · Score: 0
  
  You wrote all that and nobody read it.
47. Re:Not the first administration.. by Gadget_Guy · 2017-07-16 02:13 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  If the Russians have information that Hillary is trying to hide, the American people should be demanding to know what it is, and thanking the Russians for providing it.
  It's funny to hear this argument when every leak that is embarrassing to the Trump administration gets met with attempts by conservative pundits to redirect the discussion to finding and prosecuting the leakers. Apparently, demanding to know what Trump is trying to hide and thanking the leakers doesn't seem so important.
48. Re: Not the first administration.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-16 02:44 · Score: 0
  
  No, it was this bit.
  ok for us [sic] to start a civil war between Russia and it's closest neighbor culturally and politically for the past 1000 years, by supporting violent racists who aim to persecute a large percent of their population
49. Re:Not the first administration.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-16 03:21 · Score: 0
  
  The hilarious thing about those recounts is that they did find quite a few cases of fraud - all of them by Democrats, all of them increasing Trump's lead.
  I suspect if we were to do a nation wide audit of the 2016 election, we'd find that Trump's vote count was quite a bit higher than reported.
50. Re:Not the first administration.. by jedidiah · 2017-07-16 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  Except this is stuff that states already sell to anyone that cares to pay for it. The righteous indignation is nothing more than blatant hypocrisy.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
51. Re: Not the first administration.. by dgatwood · 2017-07-16 04:16 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Be angry at Obama for WHAT?
  For watering down Obamacare at the insistence of Republicans.
  The reason Obamacare is a train wreck is because the Republicans made it that way. For all their talk of the Democrats ramming it through, the reality is that the Democrats let the Republicans be involved in shaping that bill. The original plan was to have a single-payer system with a base-level public option that would have effectively cut the insurance companies off at the knees.
  All of the failings of Obamacare—the insurance companies leaving the exchanges over cost, the insurance companies cranking up prices to extortionate levels, etc.—would not have happened under the original, Democrat plan. Had the Democrats rammed that through, the Republicans would still be pissing themselves, unable to find anything wrong with the plan. Instead, the Democrats chose to work across the aisle and created a bill that had fundamental structural problems, introduced by the Republicans so that that they would have cause to tear it down later.
  So no, I wasn't mad at the Obama administration or the Democrats when they were in power (for two years), because they have never acted the way Republicans have. Democrats have never refused to let Republicans have a seat at the table, even when the result was something demonstrably worse as a result. And the only times that the Democrats have "rammed a bill through" have occurred as a direct result of Republicans locking arms and voting the way their party leadership told them to vote rather than voting based on what was best for their states, even after the Democrats made huge concessions to try to get Republican votes.
  This is not to say that the Democrats don't engage in those sorts of politics to a limited degree, but arguing that they are equally bad in that regard is like saying that slapping somebody across the face is the same as shooting someone. The Republicans are much, much, much worse at outright rejecting the opinions of Democrats, they are much, much, much worse at compromise, and they are much, much, much worse when it comes to voting as a block of mindless drones instead of as individuals. So I'm mildly annoyed with the Democrats for their bad behavior, because it is mildly bad, and I'm furious at the Republicans for their bad behavior, because it is atrocious.
  And lest you think this comes from a rabid Democrat, I've voted for both parties over the years, and I think both of our Democrat senators are terrible, and have voted against both of them consistently for the past decade.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
52. Re:Not the first administration.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-16 04:20 · Score: 0
  
  But, Trump focus on drooling slattern libcoms makes for a pleasant and invigorating change. Rawlsian globalists need their collective face smashed into the mud - - - and denying the nibberizing sluts privacy is as good a disciple as any. Suffer bitch ... suffer ...
53. Re:Not the first administration.. by HiThere · 2017-07-16 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  EVERY previous administration has a least pretended to care about the privacy of the citizenry. I'll admit that it was often clearly a pretense, and none cared very much.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
54. Re:Not the first administration.. by Gadget_Guy · 2017-07-16 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  Nice try, but that isn't talking about the same election!
55. Re: Not the first administration.. by TheMeuge · 2017-07-16 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  I wasn't born in the US and was trying to correct the typical American ignorance about the geopolitics of the regions we interfere in.
56. Re:Not the first administration.. by TechyImmigrant · 2017-07-16 05:05 · Score: 0
  
  Nixon instituted our current drug schedule which has probably killed more people by now than booze. He also championed our current dietary fiasco that is turning everyone obese while lining the pockets of wheat, corn, and sugar farmers. Yes, very much underrated as a source of evil, waste, and human misery.
  It's a lot easier and probably more correct to peg the core of the nutrition disaster on McGovern. He probably brought about more premature deaths around the world than anyone. Check out what Mary Enig had to say on that (a scientist in the room of during the McGovern committee).
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
57. Re: Not the first administration.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-16 05:30 · Score: 0
  
  Your points about single payer are spot on. That was what Obama wanted and was (and is) what the country should have. However the rest is a bit off. They didn't "let" the Republicans participate. They found that they would not be able to pass a god damned thing if they didn't get some Republican votes. Single payer was never going to pass. So the bill had to be wrecked so that it could pass. Unfortunately we have too many idiots who want to be lead around like sheep.
58. Re:Not the first administration.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-16 06:16 · Score: -1
  
  Perhaps, but this administration has raised not giving a fuck about America into an art form.
  If you think Hillary would have secured private information better, just look at her email server!
59. Re:Not the first administration.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-16 06:19 · Score: -1
  
  deflect, deflect, deflect
  and don't get me started on her emails!!1!
  Well, if Hillary wasn't serious about protecting her own information, how serious do you think she would have taken the protection of voting information? Hillary was/is no better than Trump
60. Re:Not the first administration.. by ZipK · 2017-07-16 06:40 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Objectively, if you look back at the Nixon administration, he seemed well liked.
  In part because evidence of Nixon ordering Haldeman to monkey-wrench LBJ's Vietnam peace talks didn't surface until recently. Whatever positive qualities Nixon may have had as a statesman were completely undercut by his paranoia and treachery. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/1...
61. Re: Not the first administration.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-16 07:54 · Score: 0
  
  But I thought Obamacare passed without a single Republican vote? If that were the case then why not single payer? The best I reckon is that Democrats in borderline states were afraid that single payer would adversely affect their re-election chances. That too was a stupid reason because they DID lose in numbers, enough to lose the majority.
62. Re: Not the first administration.. by ChatHuant · 2017-07-16 09:57 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Be angry at Obama for WHAT?
  For sweeping all the crimes of the Bush administration under the rug in the name of some Pollyannesque idea that Republicans will work with him for the good of America. That showed an amazing lack of awareness and judgement. The same Kumbaya approach was visible during the Obamacare negotiations and led to the Republicans' effective sabotage of the law.
  The first thing Obama should have done is start a hundred investigations - into the reasons why America was pushed into a catastrophic war by a lying administration, into the staggering incompetent way post-war Iraq and Afghanistan were handled (for example, investigate how the Republican governor of Iraq was named based on party loyalty, not on competence), on the incredible waste of money (billions of dollars, literally pallets of cash, were sent to Iraq and vanished). America needed and deserved this cleaning process, and it was Obama's duty, as president, to shine a light into all this morass. If the Republican party had been properly slapped at this time, if half of the Bush administration had been jailed as they so richly deserved, we would all have been better off.
63. Re: Not the first administration.. by acrimonious+howard · 2017-07-16 11:11 · Score: 2
  
  Wow, since when have vehement posts on slashdot been spot on?
64. Re:Not the first administration.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-16 11:42 · Score: 0
  
  And not the last either, but this is just an empty call to cynicism and apathy (which /. has brilliantly modded to "insightful"). I hate to break it to you but most of us aren't Billy Pilgrim—we exist in linear time. Funny thing about being stuck in now is that while you have little ability to affect past events, you can do something about the present. Don't like what the administration is doing? Let them know! Convince others of the fact! Get them to vote in the next election!
  Don't like how your representatives are representing you? Write them! They are there to vote for the interests of their constituents. If they fail to do so, convince your neighbors to help you elect new representation.
  Don't like something going on in your community, state, or nation? Pick a narrow enough target issue, learn about it and become expert in it, and then dedicate some time to it by volunteering, donating, raising money, marching, lobbying relevant government offices, etc.
  For chrissakes don't just sit there complaining about the world, do something about it.
65. Re:Not the first administration.. by drago177 · 2017-07-16 12:02 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  it is still collusion with a foreign power and treason to a high degree.
  
  Are we at war with Russia? Or are they our ally? How is diplomacy with a foreign state we are not at war with treasonous?
  This is beyond diplomacy, you do not have to be at war with a country.
  A federal law, Section 30121 of Title 52, makes it a crime for any foreigner to contribute or donate money or some “other thing of value” in connection with an American election, or for anyone to solicit a foreigner to do so. Previous court cases concerning similar related laws have held, that a “thing of value” can be something intangible, like information.
66. Re:Not the first administration.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-16 12:33 · Score: 0
  
  That is because, American voters don't give a fuck about.
67. Re: Not the first administration.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-16 14:09 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, in North Carolina, they found a dead woman whose daughter voter for Trump using an expired power of attorney.
  They refused to prosecute, despite her admitting to the crime.
68. Re: Not the first administration.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-16 15:03 · Score: 0
  
  Even if the democrats have had 60 votes in the senate, the blue dogs were not interested in single payer and would probably have filibustered as well!
69. Re: Not the first administration.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-16 16:06 · Score: 1
  
  Stop trying to fix their revisionist history with facts!
70. Re:Not the first administration.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-16 17:57 · Score: 0
  
  Dude, Hillary lost.
  Coulda, Shoulda just does not cut it. She had shit sys-admins and even shittier advice on what to do. This whole thing would have been over if someone had the balls to say "This is not a good idea, here is why....." Now under derGropenFurer if anyone says anything that challenges him, they are gone.
71. Re:Not the first administration.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 03:37 · Score: 0
  
  Even if Hillary fucked up (she did with the email server as you and I would be thrown in jail if we did this)
  
  And now Trump's people are using a private email server to do government business and no one on the right seems to think that's a problem any more.
72. Re: Not the first administration.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 06:14 · Score: 0
  
  Finally let's consider Russia's position here, as well as our indignant stand of faux moral superiority.
  Ok, their position is that they have a corrupt oligarchic tyrant.
  
  It's ok for us to topple numerous governments militarily or with outright financial support of the opposition...
  
  You claim, later in the thread, not to be American born, but here's an update for you: people in America have been opposing such activities from our government for decades. Not the least because they pick so many tyrants themselves.
  
  it's ok for us to start a civil war between Russia and it's closest neighbor culturally and politically for the past 1000 years, by supporting violent racists who aim to persecute a large percent of their population.
  Man, your feigned outrage over the Great Game is hilarious.
  Maybe Russia should give up on supporting Corrupt thugs.
  
  But if Russia expresses support for a presidential candidate who thought a different diplomatic approach would be more fruitful after the disastrous foreign policy of the last 8 years (or so they thought), we all shake our heads in disbelief "how dare they".
  
  Sure man, and Trump is a good candidate for that...wait, no, actually, they kinda ruined any attempt they could make by letting themselves become beholden to such a corrupt oligarchic Con-man anyway.
  If they wanted to change things, not letting themselves be put in the position where they look bad would have been smarter.
  Better to be clean, than to get in the pool with somebody tainted.
  Of course, they don't want that, so not so much a loss. Yet.
  
  Has this country regressed into childhood this much?
  No, we aren't stupid enough to buy your bullshit in bulk.
  Russia taking sides is bad, doing so with espionage is worse.
  
  What's good for the goose...
  Is totally inappropriate for a cow.
  
  If we are so weak, we should regrow some balls, or we'll shortly be gone.
  You should get past thinking sexual prowess is a valid standard.
73. Re:Not the first administration.. by david_thornley · 2017-07-17 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  (she did with the email server as you and I would be thrown in jail if we did this)
  
  Nope. You or I might lose our security clearances and/or our jobs, and it would definitely be a career-limiting move, but nobody was thrown in jail for inadvertent mishandling of classified information. Everyone who saw jail or prison time mishandled it deliberately.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
74. Re:Not the first administration.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 09:17 · Score: 0
  
  Wait, are you saying a violent military coup against a democratically elected leader which resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands (and disappearances of a similar number) that put Chile backwards in time economically, that required completely reversing everything the CIA installed dictator achieved to fix their economy, is diplomacy ???
  Was World War II just a friendly bout of pugilism as well?
75. Re:Not the first administration.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 09:23 · Score: 0
  
  I love to see conservatives blather on about feelings so emotionally, with no understanding that they too rely 100% on their feelings when the facts are stacked against them, as in this situation. It's laughable to appeal to "facts" when they are so easily provably against your position.
76. Re:Not the first administration.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 16:05 · Score: 0
  
  States get the votes they do as per the constitution. It's deliberately designed so that populous states don't get to run the show. You may not like it, but it's a good design because it keeps people like you from hijacking the nation.
  Just because something is written down in some country's constitution is not evidence of that it is good or bad, though admittedly changing what has been around for awhile is something done with care.
  The bit where it is deliberately designed so populous states don't get to run the show is curious, is it not? A state is just another way of dividing up people. Republicans often use that idea on a smaller level to carve out districts that give them more power by carefully choosing where the lines are on the map. The only real difference is that the carving up was done long ago.
  How do lines on a map have value over who gets their vote to matter? I could just as easily draw new lines for 50 states that gave the democratic party a huge advantage. Would that be right?
  I just don't buy this crap that my vote is worth less somehow, or in practice worth nothing, since my state is not likely to go blue in my lifetime. Also, how would the presidency going to the person who won the most votes be hijacking? I believe you may need some lessons in vocabulary. Most other places call that winning.
They didn't... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 13:56 · Score: -1

but kudos for the media for following their agenda.
1. Re:They didn't... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 14:03 · Score: 1
  
  This. I live in Seattle, and my vote hasn't counted a single time since we switched to voting by mail. I was hoping Trump would expose the massive fraud here.
2. Re: They didn't... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 14:05 · Score: 0
  
  Of you vote the wrong way, why should you expect your vote to count?
3. Re: They didn't... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 14:13 · Score: 0
  
  This. Votes for Republicans are thrown in the trash here, thankfully.
4. Re: They didn't... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 14:15 · Score: 0
  
  Agreed. That is important.
5. Re:They didn't... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 14:23 · Score: 0
  
  Since Woodward and Bernstein, the media has been more about making the news rather than reporting on it. That is a good thing.
6. Re: They didn't... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 14:26 · Score: 0
  
  I know in many areas votes for Trump were thrown in the trash. I'm glad that we here in WA did that.
7. Re: They didn't... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 14:31 · Score: 0
  
  And that is damn why I'm glad WA votes by mail. Those votes the wrong way just disappear.
8. Re: They didn't... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 14:32 · Score: 0
  
  Correcting votes is a good thing.
9. Re: They didn't... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 14:39 · Score: 0
  
  That makes us progressive.
10. Re:They didn't... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 14:39 · Score: 0
  
  In order to be tolerant, you must be intolerant of intolerance. Throwing votes in the trash for Trump is a good thing. That is helping the people. Their kind shouldn't be allowed to vote.
11. Re: They didn't... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 14:40 · Score: 0
  
  And progressivism requires us to throw votes on the trash that aren't.
12. Re: They didn't... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 14:45 · Score: 0
  
  Agreed. In my neighborhood here in Seattle it's about 60/40 support for Hillary, but only 14% of the votes against her were counted. Makes me proud.
13. Re: They didn't... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 14:51 · Score: 0
  
  That is awesome since it means that the vast majority of Trump supporters had their votes thrown in the trash.
14. Re:They didn't... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 14:52 · Score: 0
  
  They made the news, and they proved why we need to throw the votes from people like NIxon or Trump in the trash.
15. Re: They didn't... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 14:53 · Score: 0
  
  They proved why the media must be biased and try to be the news rather than just reporting on it.
16. Re: They didn't... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 14:57 · Score: 0
  
  This. Incorrect votes shouldn't count.
17. Re: They didn't... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 15:05 · Score: 0
  
  This. Votes for the wrong people shouldn't be counted.
18. Re: They didn't... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 15:12 · Score: 0
  
  It is white privilege that expects all votes to be counted. That is racist.
19. Re: They didn't... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 15:14 · Score: 0
  
  Correct, and that is why voting by mail is so awesome. There are just too many steps to "lose" votes.
20. Re:They didn't... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 15:29 · Score: 1
  
  but kudos for the media for following their agenda.
  This. Influencing the narrative is the entire reason the media exists.
21. Re: They didn't... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 16:23 · Score: 0
  
  You are right. People voting the wrong way shouldn't have their votes counted.
22. Re: They didn't... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-16 00:16 · Score: 0
  
  Let me guess, you and your yes men also used to work for Microsoft.
23. Re: They didn't... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-16 00:28 · Score: 0
  
  Trollicious !! Tell me more !!!
Evil? Or incompetence? by Lisandro · 2017-07-15 13:57 · Score: 1

And, does it really makes any difference?
1. Re:Evil? Or incompetence? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2017-07-15 23:43 · Score: 1
  
  Evil is worse, because prisons are more expensive than colleges (preyear).
  
  --
  Your ad here. Ask me how!
The summary is... by Bartles · 2017-07-15 13:57 · Score: -1, Troll

...bullshit. The vox article is bullshit. Everything about this whole story is bullshit.
1. Re:The summary is... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 14:00 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Well, it did happen. Calling things you don't like "bullshit" or "fake news" doesn't magically make them go away.
2. Re: The summary is... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 14:01 · Score: 1
  
  Oh Bartles, you still believe there were 30 million illegals voting, don't you?
  Tell you what, why don't you march into Bannon's office and tell him to stop crapping up the joint? Even COBRA did better job at world domination.
3. Re:The summary is... by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · 2017-07-15 14:14 · Score: 0
  
  Certainly your comment is.
  
  --
  "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
4. Re: The summary is... by HornWumpus · 2017-07-15 14:21 · Score: 0
  
  Extrapolating from MIT's 10,000 voter study, the number was about 5.5 million.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
5. Re: The summary is... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 14:25 · Score: 0
  
  And voting isn't even the danger.
  Census. House seats. Electoral college votes.
  Can't imagine why California is so uppity about verification.
6. Re: The summary is... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 14:38 · Score: 0
  
  Extrapolating from MIT's 10,000 voter study, the number was about 5.5 million.
  You mean making up numbers. And as usual, falsely claiming legitimacy from somebody else who actually repudiated your fabrication.
7. Re:The summary is... by JoshuaZ · 2017-07-15 14:43 · Score: 1
  
  Is there a specific factual issue with the summary you object to?
8. Re: The summary is... by Bartles · 2017-07-15 15:18 · Score: 0
  
  Yes. Go read the actual request the commission sent to the states. It should he readily obvious to those that aren't susceptible to brainwashing.
9. Re: The summary is... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 15:20 · Score: 0
  
  Oh, you're so cute when you try to do statistics.
  Stop torturing numbers son.
10. Re:The summary is... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 16:46 · Score: 0
  
  Most Trumpers prefer Putin to Pelosi / Shumer / Waters / Feingold / Harris etcetcetc the entire nibberizing slut-bitch swamp. Most would prefer to see them butchered out ... along with their fellow-traveler petite-libcomz. You aaren't one a' those Soros-financed slut-bitches are you palsy ?
11. Re:The summary is... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 17:02 · Score: 0
  
  It does if you are a republican.
12. Re: The summary is... by Vairon · 2017-07-15 17:52 · Score: 1
  
  Could you cite what study you are talking about?
13. Re: The summary is... by AHuxley · 2017-07-15 19:25 · Score: 1
  
  Study supports Trump: 5.7 million noncitizens may have cast illegal votes (June 19, 2017)
  http://www.washingtontimes.com...
  re noncitizens voting illegally in U.S. elections.
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
14. Re: The summary is... by JoshuaZ · 2017-07-16 00:17 · Score: 1
  
  Sigh. Telling me to go and read something is not very helpful. What specific detail are you objecting to?
15. Re: The summary is... by mrclevesque · 2017-07-16 00:38 · Score: 1
  
  From the link:
  "The research organization Just Facts, a widely cited, independent think tank led by self-described conservatives and libertarians, revealed its number-crunching in a report on national immigration."
16. Re: The summary is... by LynnwoodRooster · 2017-07-16 02:21 · Score: 1
  
  From the link:
  
  Its investigation found that Virginia removed more than 5,500 noncitizens from voter lists, including 1,852 people who had cast more than 7,000 ballots. The people volunteered their status, most likely when acquiring driver’s licenses. The Public Interest Legal Foundation said there are likely many more illegal voters on Virginia’s rolls who have never admitted to being noncitizens.
  Perhaps scrubbing the voter rolls would be a good thing...
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
17. Re: The summary is... by mrclevesque · 2017-07-16 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  "The Public Interest Legal Foundation said there are likely many more ..."
  Why should we consider the numbers from an 'investigation' of a group of conservative lawyers seriously, lawyers who make it their job, and are payed, to promote the idea of voter fraud.
  https://publicinterestlegal.or...
18. Re: The summary is... by LynnwoodRooster · 2017-07-16 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  Uh, the State removed 5500 NONCITIZEN registered voters, and at least 1,852 of those ILLEGAL VOTERS actually cast ballots. You keep trying to pitch this as a "right wing nut jobs" kind of thing, but this is hard, factual actions taken by States. Actual REAL illegal votes cast (7,000 in Virginia alone). Documented. Get off the "conservative nut job" talking points. Non-citizen voting is a real thing. Or do you want to disenfranchise your fellow citizens? Do you want it to be "it's not the votes that count, but who counts the vote"?
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
19. Re: The summary is... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-16 06:14 · Score: 0
  
  Uh, the State removed 5500 NONCITIZEN registered voters, and at least 1,852 of those ILLEGAL VOTERS actually cast ballots. You keep trying to pitch this as a "right wing nut jobs" kind of thing, but this is hard, factual actions taken by States. Actual REAL illegal votes cast (7,000 in Virginia alone). Documented. Get off the "conservative nut job" talking points. Non-citizen voting is a real thing.
  
  Nope. The Commonwealth of Virginia merely purged a few voters, based on an arbitrary process without actually checking their citizenship status in a robust and rigorous manner. They did nothing to show that the votes were illegal.
  Let me know when Virginia actually prosecutes these people, or invalidates any elections.
  Otherwise, you're just being a nutjob, pretending that you care.
  
  Or do you want to disenfranchise your fellow citizens? Do you want it to be "it's not the votes that count, but who counts the vote"?
  That's what Virginia is doing, by removing people without checking. Their process already had documented errors. Not to mention their gerrymandering which is impactful even if they don't play games with the voting process.
  But hey, show you care, write a sternly worded letter to Kris Kobach and complain that HE claimed people were dead when they weren't, denied people's legal citizenship, and otherwise compromised the integrity of the process.
  Not going to do it? Well, then, back to the peanut farm with you.
20. Re: The summary is... by Vairon · 2017-07-16 10:30 · Score: 2
  
  The page you linked is concerning the 2008 election not the 2016 election. What proof or scientifically defensibly study do you have about 2016?
  The underlying study by Jesse T. Richman, Gulshan A. Chattha and David C. Earnest found only five non-citizens self reported as voting in 2008 that they could verify out of a study sample size of 32,800 people.
  If you are interested in reading the actual 2014 study concerning the 2008 election based on polling 32,800 people in 2008 and 55,400 in 2010 here is a link:
  https://ww2.odu.edu/~jrichman/...
  Here is a link to the lead author, Jesse Richman, of that study saying that the washingtontimes.com article is deceptive if anyone believes it's concerning 2016.
  https://fs.wp.odu.edu/jrichman/2017/01/27/i-do-not-support-the-washington-times-piece/
21. Re:The summary is... by martinfb · 2017-07-24 12:08 · Score: 1
  
  What ACTUALLY apparently happened is that COMMENT emails were published, NOT the info from individual voters.
  Further, the replies to said requests for State's voters' info were that only info that is already public would be submitted.
  Any SSN or month and day of birth are NOT to be released.
  Yet, your full name, birth year, and voter party and status (not who you voted-for) are included.
  
  Still further, most, if not all, states are awaiting a decision by a judge before releasing anything.
  
  --
  
  Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
When you voted Trump by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 13:58 · Score: 0

You knew you were voting for this.
1. Re:When you voted Trump by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 15:42 · Score: 0
  
  ...and I'm not sorry I got it, either!
What a way to encourage public discourse! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 13:59 · Score: 0

NOT!
Da fuq by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 14:01 · Score: 0

Am I missing something? What the hell? Last four of social address?
1. Re:Da fuq by glitch! · 2017-07-15 14:19 · Score: 1
  
  When I got my latest voter registration card, the county agent seemed to be pretty careful about checking my residency info, but I don't think she got my SSN. Of course, the state has my SSN and other info, and they _could_ put it together and publish it if they wanted. I don't think they would, but... so what?! My SSN is just a number. And as I will answer below, my party "affiliation" is fodder for the genuinely stupid. I did NOT vote for "my" party candidate.
  
  --
  A dingo ate my sig...
2. Re:Da fuq by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 14:28 · Score: 0
  
  I guess you are new to the SSN thing. It is pretty much THE single thing that identifies you as you. Add to it your mothers maiden name and a person can pretty take over everything in your life.
3. Re: Da fuq by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 14:38 · Score: 0
  
  Nope you're wrong. Need more than SSN and mothers maiden name to do that. You're just a clueless fuck.
4. Re:Da fuq by glitch! · 2017-07-15 14:42 · Score: 1
  
  I am not "new" by an means. But to feed your story, the answers are "hunt" and 6443. Have fun with that.
  
  --
  A dingo ate my sig...
5. Re: Da fuq by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 15:06 · Score: 0
  
  The last four digits are the important ones.
  The first three are determined by the state you were born in, the next two are the year. Not 1:1, but essentially a non-crypto based hash.
  For a brother or sister about your age? Check you SSN vs there's. The first four or five will march unless ya'll moved.
  If you really posted your real info, you can count on your ID being stolen. It isn't just for CC fraud, you can give false info to a cop, saying you forgot your ID. Then get a ticket in another state, miss court, get a warrant for your arrest and then, if you ever really get pulled over, boom, warrant for your arrest comes up.
  Hunt 6643 was it? Better hope you have no social media or email lists with your name in it easily tied to that Slashdot id.
6. Re: Da fuq by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 18:00 · Score: 0
  
  Check yours vs theirs*
7. Re: Da fuq by AK+Marc · 2017-07-15 18:04 · Score: 1
  
  Nope. With SSN (and name to match) with mother's maiden name, you can bypass or reset lots of passwords for banks, get new credit cards, and other things.
  
  DOB and SSN would let you add/drop classes on the phone system at college. DOB + SSN (name not even needed), and you could waste thousands of dollars of someone's money. Or cause them to fail out of college, dropping the classes they are in, enroll them in ones they don't know about, for solid F's for the year.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
Malice of Incompetance? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 14:03 · Score: 0

I think the saying goes, "Never ascribe to malice what can be more readily be explained by incompetence."
This administration reminds us, as with many things, there is a choice (c).
(c) All of the above.
Reminder by PopeRatzo · 2017-07-15 14:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

One of the pieces of information that the Trump administration is demanding from the states is how voters voted. They want to know if you voted for Trump or one of his opponents.
Let that sink in for a second. Imaging the Slashdot comments section if a President Clinton or President Obama demanded this same information from the states. Remember, the Constitution gives the power over all US elections to the states.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
1. Re:Reminder by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 14:18 · Score: 0
  
  One of the pieces of information that the Trump administration is demanding from the states is how voters voted. They want to know if you voted for Trump or one of his opponents.
  Let that sink in for a second. Imaging the Slashdot comments section if a President Clinton or President Obama demanded this same information from the states. Remember, the Constitution gives the power over all US elections to the states.
  You think the Furor Cheeto cares about a piece of paper?
  He's the HMFIC!
2. Re:Reminder by HornWumpus · 2017-07-15 14:23 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  You're making that up. The states don't have that information and everybody (but you) knows it.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
3. Re:Reminder by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 14:27 · Score: 1
  
  This is false.
  What they asked for was all the publicly available information from the election commissions in the various states. They explicitly said they only wanted information that is publicly available anyway and were merely requesting it directly rather than trying to go through 50 different processes to get 50 different datasets.
  How you voted is not public information and likely isn't even recorded anywhere. It was never requested.
  This yet another instance of false outrage from the left over things that never happened.
4. Re:Reminder by glitch! · 2017-07-15 14:28 · Score: 1
  
  One of the pieces of information that the Trump administration is demanding from the states is how voters voted.
  This can be read two ways. We already know the official aggregate tallies. It seems (am I correct?) that they are thinking that the party affiliations are indicative of voting results. If so, that assumption is ridiculous and stupid. I am registered with the Republican party, but I voted for another as a protest vote. Actually, this describes every election since Bush 1. He broke his oath. I wish there was actually a hell for him to burn in.
  
  --
  A dingo ate my sig...
5. Re: Reminder by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 14:30 · Score: 0
  
  Remember, the Constitution gives the power over all US elections to the states.
  Technically, the states were expected to administer elections, but Congress had supervisory authority, except for Senators, until an amendment was passed about that.
6. Re:Reminder by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 14:31 · Score: 0
  
  They do have that information.
7. Re:Reminder by dmomo · 2017-07-15 14:55 · Score: 1
  
  Have you seen how voting works in Massachusetts? They don't have that information. They only have name, address, party affiliation and whether or not the person voted. Our name is simply crossed off a list by hand. Then, we take a ballot from a stack of ballots, fill it out and feed it into a machine.
8. Re: Reminder by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 14:56 · Score: 0
  
  Bullshit. Ballots contain zero personal information.
9. Re:Reminder by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 14:57 · Score: 0
  
  It's a sloppy and incorrect way to put it. Pretty sure they mean voter registration, which is of course no guarantee of how people actually voted, but usually is a pretty strong and revealing clue.
10. Re:Reminder by guruevi · 2017-07-15 15:01 · Score: 2
  
  Voting ballots are anonymous.
  But otherwise great story bro.
  
  --
  Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
11. Re:Reminder by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 15:08 · Score: 0
  
  One of the pieces of information that the Trump administration is demanding from the states is how voters voted. They want to know if you voted for Trump or one of his opponents.
  Let that sink in for a second. Imaging the Slashdot comments section if a President Clinton or President Obama demanded this same information from the states. Remember, the Constitution gives the power over all US elections to the states.
  Oh, they did far worse than that, and we kinda ignored it over here. Remember the 4th Amendment? Thanks to a rule change by the Obama admin, it's effectively gone for anyone using a computer.
  I'm sure we'll all go down singing the praises of Saint Obama the Clueless for the next 30 years, but lets be frank here. He was a pretty shitty president and had serious issues with privacy, rule of law, and transparency.
12. Re:Reminder by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 15:11 · Score: 0
  
  They sent out a blanket request to all states, regardless of what the states could actually provide. IOW, whether a particular state has voting history doesn't mean Trump's stooges didn't ask for it.
13. Re:Reminder by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 15:35 · Score: 0
  
  Assuming the commission is serious about its work, this information could help determine if voter registration is a factor in certain election patterns, for example voter suppression or districting.
14. Re:Reminder by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 15:35 · Score: 0
  
  Deflect! Deflect! OK!
15. Re: Reminder by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 15:41 · Score: 1
  
  Nobody ever said Trump's stooges were bound by reality. Kris Kobach has been known to totally make things up as he works himself into a frothing lather over his delusional concerns about voting.
  A smarter man would not let such a brazen ideologue anywhere near a legitimate commission. Then you might not have problems when you have them asking for voting history, and people might not distrust you.
16. Re: Reminder by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 15:51 · Score: 0
  
  Oy vey! It's anudda Shoah I tells ya! Anudda Shoah!
17. Re:Reminder by Kierthos · 2017-07-15 15:57 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  You're both right and wrong.
  How you voted in the general election is not, to the best of my knowledge, tracked. That you voted (or didn't) is.
  But, in many states, they track if you voted in a primary as well, and which one. Because in those states (the state I live in being one of them), you can either vote in the Republican primary or the Democratic primary. And notably, the primaries are not held on the same day.
  So, my state would have information that I voted in the Democratic primary in the last election cycle. From that, it can be assumed that if I voted (I did), I probably voted Democratic. (The percent of people who stink vote during primaries is remarkably small.)
  
  --
  Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
18. Re:Reminder by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 16:13 · Score: 0
  
  But they do know who voted, although it might not be in electronic form. For example, I sign a registration book when I vote. Whether that is scanned in any way (printed name + have something in the signature area) or entered by data entry people, I don't know.
  And if they know that you vote and that you are a registered for a party primary, they can guess who you voted for.
19. Re:Reminder by PopeRatzo · 2017-07-15 16:31 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Have you seen how voting works in Massachusetts?
  
  There are certain (blue) states that have done a good job of voter information security. There have already been proof of concept deanonymization attacks on voter machines in certain (red) states.
  Have you seen how voting works in Texas?
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
20. Re: Reminder by PopeRatzo · 2017-07-15 16:33 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Ballots contain zero personal information.
  Ever seen how an absentee ballot shows up? Vote by mail has been growing in every election over the past several decades. They absolutely have personal information.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
21. Re:Reminder by Bing+Tsher+E · 2017-07-15 16:34 · Score: 1
  
  Hillary's White House Would be No Different From Trumps
22. Re:Reminder by PopeRatzo · 2017-07-15 16:37 · Score: 0
  
  [nypost.com]
  Oh, come on.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
23. Re:Reminder by Gadget_Guy · 2017-07-15 16:49 · Score: 1
  
  Deflect! Deflect! OK!
  To be fair, it is not deflection if it is in direction response to someone else speculating what would happen if Obama did this.
24. Re: Reminder by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 18:39 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I have.
  What happens is that you sign your name to the envelope that you put the ballot into. The ballot itself has only your vote on it. The partisan election watchers match your signature on the envelope to the voter records. When your vote is actually counted, the election workers open and discard the envelope, counting your vote. None of the states keep official records of who you cast votes for, only of party registration and whether you returned a ballot at all. As this is what they are requesting, this is what's available. We have copies of the letters. Third-hand stories from journalists who spout opinions while being too lazy to link to the damned thing will only get you mocked around here.
  Your goalpost-moving conspiracy nonsense about states with an official record of what actual votes people cast is utter nonsense. Moreover, because this data is a public record in most states, which anyone who jumps through the right hoops can request, feel free to show us the public records of any US state that has this data. This is a very simple, testable claim. All you have to do is get the public data from any state that shows us both the voter name and the candidate they voted for. No, showing us the party they're registered with doesn't count. I personally have voted against my party registration on numerous occasions and there are good reasons to want to control which primary you vote in.
  You will not do that because you cannot do that and every further post without that, especially any which move the goalposts again, will be taken as an admission that you were wrong.
25. Re:Reminder by Billly+Gates · 2017-07-15 19:08 · Score: 1
  
  One of the pieces of information that the Trump administration is demanding from the states is how voters voted. They want to know if you voted for Trump or one of his opponents.
  Let that sink in for a second. Imaging the Slashdot comments section if a President Clinton or President Obama demanded this same information from the states. Remember, the Constitution gives the power over all US elections to the states.
  That is different. Trump has an R next to his name so it's ok. I agree if someone with a D next to his name did that then we would need to impeach and form an armed rebellion as that would be socialist!
  Yes sarcasm implied.
  Sadly, many on my facebook friends list actually agree with my above comment. Disclaimer I am a Democrat so I am biased, but what keeps me up at night is this super hyper partisanship where it is like cheering for a football team! The fact the right admires Putin and sees nothing wrong scares me. This too and you brought this up as I know if Obama did this every FaceBook meme and AM Radio, infowars, church pastors, and Rush Limbaugh would be freaking out.
  I would hope and I know if Trump had a D next to his name you bet I would vote Republican and do whatever in my power to stop him as a private citizen. Not because he is conservative, but because he is incompetent, not intelligent enough, and too psychologically unstable and collusion with a foreign power.
  Yes I know I am probably going to be modded -1 by Republican moderators here, but I stand by what I said if Trump were running as a democrat (infact he was a democrat for most of his life).
  This is scary stuff regardless and the problem is not a president trying to find digs on voters and potential enemies, but rather half the country doesn't care or is supportive based on someone just because he is a Republican and gosh jolly that is my football team so I must support it attitude.
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
26. Re:Reminder by Billly+Gates · 2017-07-15 19:11 · Score: 1
  
  I live in Texas. Voting is done in churches in some areas and so are meetings with politicians with it's citizens. An obvious way to imploy power from the religious right.
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
27. Re:Reminder by AHuxley · 2017-07-15 19:28 · Score: 1
  
  Re "They want to know if you voted for Trump or one of his opponents."
  The USA does not keep count of "how" each person voted. The voting is done in secret.
  
  The problem is the numbers of noncitizens voting illegally in U.S. elections.
  Study supports Trump: 5.7 million noncitizens may have cast illegal votes (June 19, 2017)
  http://www.washingtontimes.com...
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
28. Re:Reminder by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 23:48 · Score: 0
  
  Nobody cares anout your lies Huxley, fuck off back to 1984.
29. Re:Reminder by No+Longer+an+AC · 2017-07-16 01:19 · Score: 1
  
  I've lived in a few states and I never thought anything about voting in a school or a church or a strip mall. They're just places which are available and can accommodate voting.
  I live in Colorado now and for last fall's election I brought my ballot to the nearest voting location which was a church. It wasn't just for dropping off ballots either. In-person voting was going on too. Somehow Clinton still won Colorado.
30. Re:Reminder by MobyDisk · 2017-07-16 01:52 · Score: 1
  
  One of the pieces of information that the Trump administration is demanding from the states is how voters voted.
  
  By "how voters voted" you mean - like paper ballot -vs- electronic -vs- mail-in? I didn't see that in any of the linked articles, or really any articles linked from there. If you mean "who they voted for" that also wasn't in the articles, and in theory it isn't supposed to be kept. If they did, that would violate several treaties and some state constitutions (West Virginia, not sure what others?)
31. Re:Reminder by GrumpySteen · 2017-07-16 02:49 · Score: 1
  
  Here's the actual request from the letter sent to Maine:
  
  publicly available voter roll data for Maine, including, if publicly available under the laws of your state, the full first and last names of all registrants, middle names or initials if available, addresses, dates of birth, political party (if recorded in your state), last four digits of social security number if available, voter history (elections voted in) from 2006 onward, active/inactive status, cancelled status, information regarding any felony convictions, information regarding voter registration in another state, information regarding military status, and overseas citizen information.
  You can interpret the phrase "voter history (elections voted in) from 2006 onward" two ways... a history of which elections you voted in or a history of what your votes were in the elections you voted in.
  Yes, we know which one it SHOULD be interpreted as and states aren't supposed to keep a record of what your votes were, but the government wasn't supposed to gathering massive amounts of telephone records either and then we found out that they were. We have no proof that the data isn't being retained by someone.
  Aside from that, the problem is that this fishing expedition, which has been triggered by Trump's inability to accept that he lost the popular vote, will create a database with no rules for who can access it and use the information in it. At the very least, it would be the wet dream of every politician who wants to engage in gerrymandering.
32. Re:Reminder by PopeRatzo · 2017-07-16 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  If they did, that would violate several treaties and some state constitutions (West Virginia, not sure what others?)
  These are the grounds that so many governors are using to refuse to give the information to Trump and his goons.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
33. Re:Reminder by Trailer+Trash · 2017-07-16 11:39 · Score: 1
  
  Go here:
  http://www.elections.virginia....
  That's a list of stuff that Virginia will sell to you. You know - state of Virginia, Governor Terry McAullife who's standing up to that evil Trump and not giving him a damned thing!!!!!
  Yeah, but he'll sell it to you.
  One of the items in the list:
  "Vote History List (VHL) – a list of those persons who voted in a primary, special or general election in a specified jurisdiction, legislative, election district or statewide over a four year time period."
  That's what they're talking about.
  You know what's funny? Since people like me are pointing out their hypocrisy they changed the page. Here's what it said last week:
  "Vote History List (VHL) – full name, gender, date of birth, registration date, date last registration form received, registration status, locality, precinct, voting districts, voter identification number, election date, election type, and whether the voter voted in-person or absentee. Grouped by election, chronologically."
  They took away some of the specifics since it makes them (properly) look like hypocrites.
  
  --
  Do you have ESP?
34. Re: Reminder by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-16 13:09 · Score: 0
  
  After the ballots are received, the envelope with the personal information is destroyed and the ballot then becomes anonymous, just like if you went to the poles. There is room for someone to record the data, but the Registrar is very tightly controlled, so doing this on premises is nearly impossible to do without raising a bunch of red flags.
  Source: I work elections
35. Re:Reminder by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-16 13:13 · Score: 0
  
  If your state doesn't have open Primaries, you can only vote in your own Party Primary. There is no way to tell which candidate you voted for.
  In the General Election, there is absolutely no way to tell how the voter voted. The elections are designed this way to prevent this sort of fuckery by the current politicians in power.
36. Re:Reminder by david_thornley · 2017-07-17 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  In states where you register for a party primary, it's a good guess. Not all states do that.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
37. Re:Reminder by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 09:26 · Score: 0
  
  What's sad is that the private companies who own the majority of the voting machines obviously do keep the information. There is another avenue he can try if the states don't comply.
38. Re: Reminder by Anubis+IV · 2017-07-17 13:25 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, I've even filed one before. The ballot, which is handled separately from the return envelope, has no personally identifiable information on it. If your state, or any state you're aware of, does differently, go ahead name it. As it is, I think you're just making concerns up.
Research Team Slams Global Warming Data by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 14:07 · Score: 0, Troll

Research Team Slams Global Warming Data In New Report
In this research report, the most important surface data adjustment issues are identified and past changes in the previously reported historical data are quantified. It was found that each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history. And, it was nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern. This was true for all three entities providing GAST data measurement, NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU.
The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever â"despite current claims of record setting warming.
1. Re:Research Team Slams Global Warming Data by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-16 00:31 · Score: 0
  
  Trumps doesn't care about America
fix it by trading carbon credits through Goldman by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 14:09 · Score: -1

NoDebt Yukon Cornholius Jul 15, 2017 10:03 PM
We live in the greatest era of the triumph of bullshit over simple fact that has ever existed in the history of man. You young'uns don't have the perspective of somebody my age who was told all through primary school (1970s) that we were going into another ice age. Flash forward 15 years from there and we're all going to die from global warming. Flash forward another 15 years and we're STILL going to die from global warming and we can fix it by trading carbon credits through Goldman Sachs.
Good point by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 14:11 · Score: 0

n/t.
Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 14:11 · Score: -1

Stop your lies ratzo
Explain how that's possible at all...
Unless YOU know that that information is tracked...
Hmmm?
1. Re:Bullshit by Lisandro · 2017-07-15 14:13 · Score: 1
  
  One of the pieces of data requested for every voter is party affiliation: https://www.theguardian.com/us...
  I'll let you do the math.
2. Re:Bullshit by HornWumpus · 2017-07-15 14:26 · Score: 0
  
  Goalpost move noted.
  You didn't have a problem with people losing their jobs for signing petitions/donating money to causes. Party affiliation is optional at registration time, petition and money lists aren't optional.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
3. Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 14:27 · Score: 0
  
  Doesn't the Republican party have that information already? It should be simple to deduce, no paranoia required.
4. Re:Bullshit by Lisandro · 2017-07-15 14:28 · Score: 0
  
  What in the name of the good fuck are you talking about?
5. Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 14:31 · Score: 0
  
  It does... for Republicans.
6. Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 14:33 · Score: 0
  
  So what. Are you suggesting that the GOP should/would use party information for state affairs?
7. Re: Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 15:08 · Score: 0
  
  If those people worked for the government, it is wrong to lose a job over most political things that don't directly impact them doing their job. Private company, no such barrier exists. Free market blah blah. FOADIAF
8. Re: Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 15:10 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, and how dare anybody suggest that Confederate secessionists committed treason either!
  Sorry, HornWumpus, but Eich was making a choice to have the state use its authority to compel others, neither he nor you nor Roy Moore nor Kim Davis get to pretend otherwise.
  And the states that banned recognition of any similar union made it impossible for any compromise at all.
9. Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 15:34 · Score: 0
  
  During the PRIMARIES you stupid idiot because you're voting for the political party candidate!
  And that still isn't tied to your vote because you can (and I have) elect to NOT mark certain offices where a single candidate is running for the office in the party.
  NO information is recorded about you during a general election other than you VOTED. Your party registration is part of your voting registration but A - many people in the US don't register for a party and B - party registration isn't tied to how you'll vote in a GENERAL election, let alone your ballot.
  Newsflash you idiot - if the GOP wanted to hunt down all the DNC voters and throw them in jail that information is ALREADY public knowledge!
  My god man - how brainwashed are you?!
10. Re:Bullshit by Texmaize · 2017-07-15 16:20 · Score: 0
  
  You act like that is not a piece of information that would be necessary to clean up the voter rolls. You offer no solution to clean them up.
  
  You act like Obama did not persecute people with government agencies for being in the wrong party. Where was your rage then? The answer was, you had none. Nazis never do.
  
  --
  "Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
11. Re:Bullshit by PopeRatzo · 2017-07-15 16:29 · Score: 1
  
  Explain how that's possible at all...
  Two of the items on the demand list from the voter fraud "commission" are 1) party affiliation, and 2) voting record. The possibility of deanonymization of votes in several states has already been proven. In fact, there are data brokers selling personal information of conservative voters. For more information about this, I suggest checking EFF's site. This has been an issue of theirs for a while.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
12. Re: Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 17:15 · Score: 0
  
  You act like Obama did not persecute people with government agencies for being in the wrong party.
  
  Yeah, the military bombed a wedding. Oh my. That's rich, how the GOP regularly lurched from complaining that Obama was too weak in his war-mongering, and then jumped to whining about him doing it.
  Oh wait, I suppose you meant the IRS scandal that resulted in nothing more than a partisan Congressional screed that demonstrated exactly how it was nothing more than a partisan witch-hunt the same as Benghazi, or Whitewater. Meanwhile, you ignore or downplay real instances like Iran-Contra or the fake Iraqi WMDs reports.
  
  Where was your rage then? The answer was, you had none. Nazis never do.
  I'm not enraged, I'm not even disappointed in you, but I am disdainful of your resorting to such a comparison. No shame, nothing but false rage.
  It's just the sort of thing Nazis always do.
13. Re:Bullshit by Lisandro · 2017-07-15 22:37 · Score: 1
  
  Besides your batshit crazy conspiracy theories, what exactly is your point? Obama did it as well so Trump doing it is just peachy?
14. Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 22:49 · Score: 0
  
  A - many people in the US don't register for a party and B - party registration isn't tied to how you'll vote in a GENERAL election, let alone your ballot.
  Yeah, i'm pretty sure there's no correlation there.
15. Re: Bullshit by HornWumpus · 2017-07-18 11:40 · Score: 1
  
  Fair enough: you're fine with party affiliation being public data.
  Can't have it both ways.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Passive Aggressive by mfh · 2017-07-15 14:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

Sure let's hear what you have to say. What did you say? You don't want people to have access to your private personal information? Let's see here... okay so we'll go ahead and just release some of that publicly for you. Don't complain. We haven't released EVERYTHING on you, just yet...

--
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
1. Re:Passive Aggressive by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 14:42 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Don't worry. None of the Trump supporters are the sorts of vindictive people who would actually use this information to go harass people who didn't vote for Trump. A more stable group of concerned citizens you have never seen before and will never see again.
The phrase "ladies and gentlemen" is now banned by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 14:24 · Score: -1

London Transport Employees Instructed to Not Use Phrase âoeLadies and Gentlemenâ Anymore
The London Mayor, Sadiq Khan, in conjunction with the gay rights group, Stonewall, scored a major victory today by banning the phrase âoeladies and gentlemenâ from the vernacular used by London Transport employees. Itâ(TM)s simply not in touch with the times, as genders defined by the DNA helix are old hat, worn, and not the reality that is supported by the far left â" which is filled with hermaphrodites who can literally fuck themselves.
I'm just waiting... by Gravis+Zero · 2017-07-15 14:25 · Score: 1

...for people to start throwing molotov cocktails at Trump's properties. Seriously, I think stuff like that is just around the corner.

--
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
1. Re: I'm just waiting... by Zero__Kelvin · 2017-07-15 14:30 · Score: 1
  
  There is nothing we can do ... but then again maybe the 2nd amendment people ...
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
2. Re: I'm just waiting... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 14:39 · Score: 0
  
  Guess it may happen at some point given the "fuk everyone but our club buddies" mentality of late. When that happens, if it does, they may be surprised to find out it will be a bi-partisan effort. At some point the sheep will wake up. It may take loosing a leg or two to the wolves, but I imagine at some point they will notice they are limping along with the rest of us.
3. Re:I'm just waiting... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 14:53 · Score: 0
  
  I sincerely hope not, because he and his followers are really good at blaming anyone but themselves for any problem and playing the victim. Furthermore, it's exactly the kind of spark that an authoritarian needs to use the power of the state to clamp down on any dissent whether peaceful or not.
4. Re: I'm just waiting... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 16:22 · Score: 0
  
  The second amendment people are waiting for orders to shoot people. They have been cultivated for that job for years now.
5. Re:I'm just waiting... by Gadget_Guy · 2017-07-15 16:47 · Score: 1
  
  ...for people to start throwing molotov cocktails at Trump's properties
  Or they will shoot up his local pizza parlor!
6. Re:I'm just waiting... by Gravis+Zero · 2017-07-15 16:59 · Score: 1
  
  I completely agree. It would be bad news for everyone.
  
  --
  Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
"Goatse"? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 14:28 · Score: -1

"...that their voter info was available at Goatse."
Is this a joke? What the hell is "Goatse" supposed to mean if not that disgusting old site?
1. Re:"Goatse"? by bettodavis · 2017-07-15 14:47 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly that.
  
  "If you want my personal information, you can go look at Goatse"
2. Re:"Goatse"? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 15:09 · Score: 0
  
  Were you actually born stupid, or did you merely drop out of Mummy head-first onto the pavement?
3. Re:"Goatse"? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 15:15 · Score: 0
  
  Its been a while. I know there's plenty of knock-off sites, but damnit, the original goatse is the real goatse as far as I'm concerned.
There is No Privacy for Public Records. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 14:48 · Score: 0

They request the available public records - you should expect no privacy for a public record.
1. Re:There is No Privacy for Public Records. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 18:11 · Score: 0
  
  They are not entirely public records you can always obtain. Depending on the state:
  * You may only request some of the information. No signature, SSN, some states no birth date.
  * You usually have to pay for these records.
  * You have to agree not to use these records in specific ways.
  * You must request these records in a specific way.
2. Re:There is No Privacy for Public Records. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 18:47 · Score: 0
  
  The actual letters sent to the states requested the items that were publicly available in that state. So unless a state makes SSN public, it would not be released.
  Some of us read the actual letter sent to the states and not 3rd hand reports from people too lazy to link to the damned thing.
READ THE MESSAGES! by Sooner+Boomer · 2017-07-15 14:53 · Score: -1

The VAST majority of the messages are nothing more than boilerplate emails from sources such as Common Cause. Perhaps the fingers should be pointed at THESE fine folks for not redacting the names? But that wouldn't fit the narrative, would it? And, btw, the goat.se pictures *were* redacted...

--
Chaos maximizes locally around me.
1. Re:READ THE MESSAGES! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 16:29 · Score: 1
  
  Do you not know how email campaigns work? Oh course they need to have people's names on them so they can demonstrate they didn't just randomly generate a bunch of emails. I don't think you thought that through.
  Have you ever used one of those types of sites? Generally you subscribe to a mailing list about issues you're interested in, you get random emails about such issues with a link to send a letter to your representative (how many people bother to keep track of their government's contact info?), click on the link and you get a form with your contact info and a letter already written out. You can edit the content or send it as is. Most people are too lazy to edit so they send it as is.
No... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 14:56 · Score: -1

They released a bunch of whining complaints.
But i'd bet this is still related to the outgoing obama IT staff fucking up everything they could.
Because a bunch of whitehouse and related sites all started having major fuckup problems the day after trump took office.
And there's no way you can blame it all on trump. They didn't have TIME to fuckup anything that fast.
This shit is going to bring a new standard. Every election ALL of the people in the whitehouse etc will just be fired.
Because democrats will remember how they fucked over the republicans that way this year.
And they won't want the republicans to do it to them...
1. Re:No... by MightyMartian · 2017-07-15 15:05 · Score: 2
  
  Perhaps the Republicana should.look at the current t office holder for the source of most of their problems. Of late they could also look at the idiot eldest son of his
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
2. Re:No... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 15:39 · Score: 0
  
  Haven't your posts been childish long before Trump ran for office?
  So that can't be the reason.
  And p.s. I'm apolitical. Left wing and right wings are opposites sides of a used maxpiad, you all have brain rot.
3. Re:No... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 23:11 · Score: 0
  
  Boooo! Boooo! OBAMA! Booo!
4. Re:No... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-16 02:30 · Score: 0
  
  Well obviously.
  We can't blame the previous administration for anything. That's racist!
Direct link to messages by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 15:02 · Score: 1

Direct link to messages, yes they are almost all childish it seems.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/docs/comments-received-june-29-through-july-11-2017.pdf
Same data as the Russia hack by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 15:05 · Score: 0

I'm past thinking it's incompetence, it's definitely evil.
The Russians hacked the ELECTORAL ROLLS. Why? What use would the electoral rolls be to the Russians? It's obvious Trump's team would want that data, since it would let them micro-target voters, and now Trump wants that data to design election laws minimizing opposition votes.
It's pretty obvious that the data would have been ordered by team Trump's, that order would have gone to the Russians, who hacked that election data and passed it back to team Trump.
Russia provided the hackers, team Trump provided the need for that data.
Do Republicans think Trump will ensure only Republicans win elections? Because I'm not even sure Putin won't simply switch his hackers to whoever is the most Putin compliant next time.
It's evil.
I'm not seeing any email addresses exposed by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 15:06 · Score: 0

I'm not seeing any email addresses exposed.
And it looks like a lot of the names are fake, unless names like "Ann Onymous" and "No Fit Wit" are real names.
1. Re:I'm not seeing any email addresses exposed by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-16 12:47 · Score: 0
  
  The earlier documents appear to have documents with emails that aren't just the "Spam the whitehouse" style.
We’re technologically savvy by Picodon · 2017-07-15 15:13 · Score: 3

I remember when, not so long ago, people were making fun of presidents and other politicians for being technologically illiterate, and perhaps not even knowing what a “mouse” was. Well, I have to give it to the current administration. Not only are they masters of the technology (databases, social media, etc.), they’ve now officially embraced one of the latest social trends: doxing!
The times, they are a-changing...
1. Re:We’re technologically savvy by Huge_UID · 2017-07-16 01:12 · Score: 1
  
  Submitter here. Original headline was White House doxxes "election integrity" commission critics. Slashdot editors do edit - and they improved my submission.
Trump by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 15:23 · Score: 0

The Trump Administration is a constant unfolding disaster. Fuck the spineless Republican Party for nominating this assclown, fuck anybody who voted for him for pissing on the Presidency and fuck the spineless Democrat Party for nominating Hillary Clinton and making this shit show possible.
Sometimes I think the American public deserves better than this but, then again, you reap what you sow. This shit show wouldnâ(TM)t be possible without the fucking clueless masses not demanding more from politicians and political parties.
In Trump I think the average American who canâ(TM)t be bothered to read a book or pickup a fucking newspaper is getting exactly the kind of a President they deserve. A fucking incompetent clown.
1. Re:Trump by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 15:50 · Score: 0
  
  Thanks for your opinion Hellary Cliton. BTW... I changed sides from Democrat to Republican just to vote against you.
So false headline. by will_die · 2017-07-15 15:44 · Score: 0

They did not release voter info they released the email that people sent to a public email address. After seeing the headline was from Vox, a lower IQ version of Infowars, I guess we know why they made up the headline.
And the reality happened by Texmaize · 2017-07-15 16:13 · Score: 0

If you read the article, you would have seen that a mistake was made in the website. It was not a malicious act. Yet, you and other posters act like this is some vast conspiracy against privacy. I can see why you are worried about that, since when Obama and other liberals were in power, they did this constantly. For example, you seem to the whole NSA reading all the email thing. Funny that.

Or, the abuse of IRS to go after political enemies: https://aclj.org/free-speech/o...

The otter convient fact is that the voter roles are being looked into because there are wide scale voter fraud. To get a good handle on which party is doing this, ask yourself, if you are feeling patricianly honest, which party seems to always oppose stricter evidence for voting? If you believe that your party is clean, then why not make sure that people actually live where they say they, actually be a citizen of the country, or hell, even be alive. Only one party works to thwart ANY efforts to clean up the voter rolls, while offering no solutions of their own.

But, I suspect you will not be honest. Nazis never are.

--
"Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
1. Re: And the reality happened by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 16:35 · Score: 0
  
  You are correct: voter fraud is a problem, except not in the way you think.
  In-person voter fraud is extremely rare, but absentee ballot fraud isn't.
  Who is pushing to make in-person voting more difficult, even though the rates of fraud are ridiculously low? And who is always pushing for more absentee voting even though fraud is abundant? Republicans.
  So, herr Nazi, I'm glad you recognize what you are.
  http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/09/01/voter_fraud_exists_through_absentee_ballots_but_republicans_won_t_stop_it.html
2. Re:And the reality happened by PopeRatzo · 2017-07-15 16:42 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The otter convient fact is that the voter roles are being looked into because there are wide scale voter fraud.
  When Kobach was Kansas Secretary of State, he made ferreting out voter fraud a centerpiece of his administration and conducted a two-year investigation. He found nine cases, mostly older Republicans.
  http://www.politico.com/magazi...
  There is no wide scale voter fraud. It doesn't exist.
  https://www.brennancenter.org/...
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
3. Re: And the reality happened by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 17:56 · Score: 0
  
  I'm sure the incompetence of the Trump administration is legendary enough to excuse almost anything, but the very fact of that is also why they will have a problem convincing others it wasn't malicious.
  You can only be so inept before people stop believing you. The GOP has a documented history of failed voter purges, excessive burdens on voter registration(even closing DMVs and picking acceptable ID based on their preferred voters), and lost legal cases over gerrymandering, discrimination and incompetence. Not to mention made-up hysteria over fraud, and even filing lawsuits to prevent non-partisan redistricting. Sorry, but the partisan bias you have is blinding you. You won't even call for the prosecution of somebody who did vote for Trump as her dead mother.
  If you want to have some credibility, you have to change your course, but sadly, you will redouble your efforts.
4. Re:And the reality happened by Vairon · 2017-07-15 18:06 · Score: 1
  
  Can you cite any proof of wide scale voter fraud?
  I've only read about four documented cases of vote fraud in 2016.
  https://www.dailykos.com/stori...
5. Re: And the reality happened by LynnwoodRooster · 2017-07-16 02:30 · Score: 1
  
  Four states have mandatory absentee/vote-by-mail: California (starting in 2018), Colorado, Washington and Oregon. What do those States also have in common? They vote Democrat (the last 3, overwhelmingly so). It would seem, therefore, if Democrats were really interested in fair and honest elections they would cheer for regular voting registration reviews and voter roll purges, so their easier-to-commit-fraud elections would be fair and above reproach. Yet the opposite happens... Why is that?
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
6. Re: And the reality happened by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-16 05:45 · Score: 0
  
  Numerous states have lost in court over their abusive voter actions: Florida, Texas, Kansas, North Carolina. What do these states have in common? Is it also that they've been subjected to Republican misrule, often due to gerrymandering? It would seem, therefore, if Republicans were really interested in fair and honest elections, they would remedy the faults in their actions that lead to unlawful purges, and discriminatory ID claims, so their actions would be fair and above reproach. Yet the opposite happens...Why is that?
  Oh, and it turns out that Virginia had problems with its attempted purge. And that report you cherish is questionable.
  Sorry, LynnwoodRooster, but your command of statistics remains faulty, same as when you're being a racist bigot about homicides.
7. Re:And the reality happened by quantaman · 2017-07-16 11:06 · Score: 1
  
  If you read the article, you would have seen that a mistake was made in the website. It was not a malicious act. Yet, you and other posters act like this is some vast conspiracy against privacy.
  Not exactly a malicious act, instead it's a mix of incompetency and a complete lack of concern about things like privacy.
  When you take a incompetent people, and give them a checklist of rules they don't care about, they're going to violate those rules. That's why the Trump administration keeps having scandals.
  
  The otter convient fact is that the voter roles are being looked into because there are wide scale voter fraud.
  Just how many fraudulent voters do you think the left has? Hundreds? Thousands? Millions?
  Don't you find it interesting that the left can apparently organize a small army of illegal voters and no one comes forward to spill the beans? Seriously, can you find a single reputable person who claims to be part of this massive fraud effort?
  Meanwhile, Trump can't organize a meeting with a half-dozen people without it leaking to the press.
  
  --
  I stole this Sig
8. Re:And the reality happened by Texmaize · 2017-07-19 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  Here is an example of admitted voter fraud.
  
  https://www.realclearpolitics....!
  
  The question comes down to this. Do you think democrats are all purely good people who never do wrong or are they like most human things, flawed in several ways?
  
  You seem very rational and methodical in your thinking. If you stop to analyze it some, you will catch that you probably have been showing some internal bias where you do not seek out wrong for one party, while assuming the other party is always wrong. Start asking yourself about the sources that you read and how trustable are they. Do you think a source made up of 90% or more from one party will give you a balanced view? If so, you do not believe in the fundamental idea of diversity and why it is important. Groups are very bad at being self analytical.
  
  The republican party is not terribly good. However, neither is the democrat party. The only way they improve is when people inside them realize this and try to change it.
  
  Lately, zealousness has infected the democrat party. Members are willing to forgive all sorts of wrong doing on their side, just to get the other side. Ask yourself, why does the democrat party oppose any attempt to ensure the voter rolls are honest? Ask yourself that deeply, if you can.
  
  The publishing of the voter information was not good. However, were you so up in arms calling the Obama administration did similar things when setting up the data base for the people using the affordable care act? Did you call him incompetent? If not, your rage is false. You just want to hunt the other guy, not fix the system.
  
  --
  "Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
9. Re:And the reality happened by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-20 07:46 · Score: 0
  
  The conservative concern over 'voter fraud' has never been about fraud. It is code for 'suppress democratic votes wherever possible'.
  It has even been admitted by a Governor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuOT1bRYdK8
10. Re:And the reality happened by quantaman · 2017-07-20 13:20 · Score: 1
  
  Here is an example of admitted voter fraud.
  https://www.realclearpolitics....!
  Your source is a video by a group notorious for videos that are dishonestly edited and where they goaded people into making incriminating sounding statements?
  Are you going to follow that up with a recommendation to invest with Bernie Madoff?
  
  The question comes down to this. Do you think democrats are all purely good people who never do wrong or are they like most human things, flawed in several ways?
  
  Of course they are.
  
  You seem very rational and methodical in your thinking. If you stop to analyze it some, you will catch that you probably have been showing some internal bias where you do not seek out wrong for one party, while assuming the other party is always wrong. Start asking yourself about the sources that you read and how trustable are they. Do you think a source made up of 90% or more from one party will give you a balanced view? If so, you do not believe in the fundamental idea of diversity and why it is important. Groups are very bad at being self analytical.
  Let me throw that back at you.
  How many people voted in the last election?
  How many fraudulent voters would it take to affect the election?
  How many people do you think fraudulently voted?
  How much would a news organization pay to someone who could give convincing proof of this, such as an illegal immigrant with a hidden iPhone filming themselves while a DNC operative helps them commit voter fraud?
  Where are all these people?
  The mass voter fraud theory collapses when subjected to minimal scrutiny.
  
  Lately, zealousness has infected the democrat party. Members are willing to forgive all sorts of wrong doing on their side, just to get the other side. Ask yourself, why does the democrat party oppose any attempt to ensure the voter rolls are honest? Ask yourself that deeply, if you can.
  
  Because there is absolutely zero evidence that wide-scale voter fraud exists, and voters who are inhibited by an "attempt to ensure the voter rolls are honest" are disproportionately Democratic.
  If the GOP was really concerned about voter fraud they'd fight mail-in ballots where there is a real (but hard to measure) fraud problem. But that screws Republican so they don't care.
  
  --
  I stole this Sig
Phone Book? by Texmaize · 2017-07-15 16:14 · Score: 0

You are talking about the phone book, or just feeling hysterical today? Just sayin'

--
"Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
1. Re:Phone Book? by lilrobbie · 2017-07-15 18:14 · Score: 1
  
  Phonebook is voluntary... this was not.
  If you can't see the difference, then I fear there's no hope left for you.
2. Re:Phone Book? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 20:36 · Score: 0
  
  Phonebook is voluntary... this was not.
  If you can't see the difference, then I fear there's no hope left for you.
  Having your information in a phonebook is voluntary in that you can choose to not have a phone.
  Voting records are voluntary in the same way: you can choose not to vote.
  Hoping someone lacks critical thinking skills is quite an audacious thing to do.
3. Re: Phone Book? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-16 09:27 · Score: 0
  
  The Phone Company doesn't start a war with Bumfuckistan just because the CEO got hosed, raise my taxes, or otherwise overtly interfere with my life.
  Let me know when you can think your head out of your ass.
4. Re:Phone Book? by Texmaize · 2017-07-18 19:27 · Score: 1
  
  The broader comment is all that information is out there, has been out there, and was also abused heavily during the Obama era. Maybe you are different, but for many on these forums they uttered not a peep then, because their team was in power. Now that another team is in power, they are acting like the end of the world.
  
  Credibility comes from consistency in positions. There is not a lot of that in slashdot anymore. I wonder if you have been consistent...
  
  Also, government listing information on purpose is not something to be stood for. Government screwing up (as it actually said in the article if you bothered to read) and posting information, is not good, but it is not the end of things either.
  
  So, I have to ask, when a similar screw-up occurred with the medical data bases with the affordable care act, did you come out strongly about that too? Or are so lost as a human being you actually think one side is all good and the other is all evil? If so, there is no hope left for you....
  
  --
  "Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
5. Re:Phone Book? by lilrobbie · 2017-07-19 22:28 · Score: 1
  
  You seem to be conflating two issues together.
  The primary focus here is that missives expressing privacy concerns (i.e., NOT the voting records) were reproduced, in full, including contact information, on the White House website. It was voluntary to send the message, but there was no expectation that these would be released online in the fashion they were.
  The other one you are referring to (Trump's demands for voter information), is a different case altogether. But... you are tying together voting with the act of getting your voting preferences released and scruitinsed by others. The big question you need to ask yourself is: was this what the voters were expecting to have happen? If not, then the request by Trump is inappropriate, and this is nothing like a phonebook, as one party is surprised by who has access to their details.
  Please, apply your critical thinking skills to that and see what you come up with...
6. Re:Phone Book? by lilrobbie · 2017-07-19 22:40 · Score: 1
  
  I can address your first (and repeated) point upfront: I have no "team" as far as politics are concerned. Like you, I'm also concerned by the rather two-faced nature of Obama's presidency (hello Patriot Act!), and in no way believe the leaks and reductions in civil liberties under his reign are somehow excused due to his party affiliation.
  Now, the bit I'm unsure about (perhaps I've mis-read your original quip incorrectly) is exactly what position you're advocating. You seemed to be decrying the hysteria, when in reality, it sounds like we both agree that this action was not acceptable, and what you are decrying is hypocrisy.
  In this particular instance, in the best case, it was a government screw-up, in a fairly ironic fashion, that serves to demonstrate that the government is not fit to handle the voting data it's requesting. After all, they've just proven they're fundamentally incapable of properly protecting the privacy of said data.
  In the worst case, the government has taken punitive action against individuals who clearly value their privacy enough to write emails. Now, I don't believe this is the case, but... it's still a possibility.
  I agree we shouldn't let Obama get away with being treated like an angel, but are you actually advocating that has any impact on whether this should be ignored or not? I'd suggest that the most balanced view ought to treat these events with equal concern, as a symptom of the underlying rot at present within politics and the government. This is not the end of things... but it's certainly not a step in a direction the government ought to take. And it's certainly not behaviour we ought to be excusing.
7. Re:Phone Book? by Texmaize · 2017-07-20 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  If I mischaracterized your view, for this I am sorry.
  
  Essentially, we agree on most points. Both things can be true at the same time. It is not good of the government to leak the information, and it should not be excused. It is also true it was not a malicious hunt to destroy people.
  
  Your point on if this should be ignored is interesting. I guess the next question would be what would you suggest doing? Ignoring it and pretending it did not happen seems silly. I guess I would say note it happened, fix the link, and possibly fire the guy who screwed up. I would also say that drumbeat of hysteria to demonize Trump is not terribly productive or even honest. I am actually interested. What do you think should be done?
  
  The other problem is how would you fix the election fraud problems? These problems do exist. To me, anyone interested in a fair election would want to make sure the system was not rigged. I am very suspicious toward those who oppose every measure to ensure honesty, while offering no solutions of their own. This seems to smell of people gaming the system protecting what benefits them.
  
  For example, I live in Texas. There is a problem with illegal alien voting. Even if you feel that they live here and should have a vote, the current law says otherwise. There was also some evidence of people voting under other people's identity. To correct this, a law was passed requiring an ID to vote. Please keep in mind that you need an ID to by alcohol, open a bank account, get cable tv, whatever. To function at all in society, you have to have a driver's license/ID. Yet, this was opposed by the local democrat party-- even after a provision was made to pay for an ID for the very poor who could not afford one. This is not a perfect fix, but it would clean up the voter rolls some. There really is no reason to block this save.....you are benefiting from dirty voter rolls.
  
  I tell you that long boring story to say this. I suspect that we would both agree that giving the government too much information and power is not a brilliant idea. However, rejecting all solutions to this problem is not acceptable either.
  
  --
  "Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
People? by Texmaize · 2017-07-15 16:16 · Score: 1

I would not really call people who use violence to intimidate others people. They are something less.

--
"Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
1. Re: People? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 16:48 · Score: 0
  
  You're right! We call them Republicans.
2. Re:People? by Gravis+Zero · 2017-07-15 16:57 · Score: 1
  
  people who use violence to intimidate others
  I don't think the idea would be intimidation as much as it would be retribution. It would be taking money from a man that only likes himself and money.
  
  --
  Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
3. Re:People? by Texmaize · 2017-07-18 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  Retribution for what exactly? Are you saying all rich people took money from others and should be killed or have their property damaged? Do you truly believe that or are you so sick in the head that you do not know how evil you are being.
  
  Might I ask how much you make? Since you are on these forums, the average is pretty well to do. So, you think it is ok if someone from the inner city comes and hurts you and your family and torches your house, because you have more. Funny, people who say stupid things like this never regard themselves as the rich, even though they are.
  
  Lastly, you do not know Trumps motivations or anyone else's. You are so vile in your mind that you completely think it is justifiable to demonize someone because they disagree with you. It does not matter than many Trump workers have nice things to say about their boss. It does not matter how much he gave to charity....especially compared to some you probably idolize. All that matters is that someone told you that he is the enemy and deserves to be killed, and you are such an embarrassment to humanity that you believed it. You are devoid of rational thought, making you the true subhuman.
  
  --
  "Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
4. Re:People? by Gravis+Zero · 2017-07-18 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  Retribution for what exactly?
  Let's see, there's releasing people's personal details, gutting the EPA and enabling bad practices with coal, appointing a guy that is trashing FCC rules that kept the internet free, the total disregard for women, enabling neo-nazis, etc. Suffice it to say, there are lots of things.
  The rest of your post is garbage accusing me of things I never claimed. People lash out when they feel threatened or hurt which is why I'm expecting them to behave in such a manner.
  
  --
  Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
5. Re:People? by Texmaize · 2017-07-18 11:25 · Score: 1
  
  1. Releasing details was not actually a Trump policy, but a mistake made by the government. You did actually read the article didn't you? Ha ha, we both know you are a terrible person, and not that smart. Lets face it.
  
  2. By gutting the EPA, what exactly did her remove, in this so called gutting? Without having read any of the recent EPA documents and seeing how it overstepped its mission in the last several years, I suspect you do not know why it needs to be paired back some. Again, terrible people like yourself are not so smart, do not read beyond the blog level, and rational thought is beyond you.
  3. What bad practices did he enable? I am sure you mean he undid some Obama era rule by fiat restricting its mining. Now, terrible people like you do not understand it is minded in other places with dirtier forms of coal, and used without pollution removal in China. But, if its not made here, its green right? You believe this because you are a terrible person.
  
  4. Want to know the terrible truth? Let me see, there is only one person in this conversation who supports violence for those who disagree with them. This person also believes in statist control of industry, omni-powerful government, and the use of any means necessary to get policy in place. There was another group of people who believed all these things. We call them Nazis. I would say go read about it, but lets face it, you are not very smart and a terrible person. This is how Nazis come to be. They believe in something and do not question it. Then, they believe any who disagree are an evil to be removed. So you sir are Nazi in the truest sense of the word. The world would be better without you in it.
  
  5. "The rest of the garbage"--translation, my small, limited brain can't counter the arguments, so I will pretend I am above it. Yes, you are rich. No, you don't think that you are. No, you don't want your own ideology applied to you. Nazi.
  
  Suffice it to say, you have nothing. You demonstrated nothing. You are nothing.
  
  Nazi
  
  --
  "Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
6. Re:People? by Texmaize · 2017-07-18 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  Btw Nazi, This is a very old thread that no one else is reading. It is so pathetic that you are self modding yourself up. But then again, Nazi are pretty insecure.
  
  --
  "Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
7. Re:People? by Gravis+Zero · 2017-07-18 19:02 · Score: 1
  
  you have nothing. You demonstrated nothing. You are nothing.
  
  U MAD? ;)
  
  --
  Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
8. Re:People? by Texmaize · 2017-07-18 19:17 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I am always angry at Nazis. You are the scum of the earth.
  
  --
  "Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
9. Re:People? by Gravis+Zero · 2017-07-19 01:08 · Score: 1
  
  You shouldn't be so hard on yourself.
  
  --
  Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
10. Re:People? by Texmaize · 2017-07-19 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  Your comment makes no sense. It is at the level of grade school, but then again, what does one expect from a Nazi?
  
  --
  "Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
Seriously by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 16:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

WTF is wrong with your government? That sort of shit would bring down a government in any sane first-world democracy.
True freedom.
Why is this modded up? by Texmaize · 2017-07-15 16:25 · Score: 0, Troll

Per usual, knee jerk liberal pejoratives are modded up for no reason. There is no evidence given that the administration does not give a fuck about America....in fact a strong case could be made for the opposite with strong efforts to ensure that jobs staid in country, examination of treaties to make sure that they were in the interest of the US, not other nations etc.

We can not have an intelligent debate about things if you keep modding up the least intelligent comments.

--
"Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
1. Re: Why is this modded up? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 16:39 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  We can't have an intellectual discussion because you won't see what is painfully obvious to the rest of us: Trump is an unmitigated dumpster fire, who will do serious damage to this nation at best, and will set us back 100 years or more at worst.
2. Re: Why is this modded up? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 16:49 · Score: 0
  
  Per usual, knee jerk liberal pejoratives are modded up for no reason.
  There is a reason, people agree with the sentiment expressed in it.
  
  There is no evidence given that the administration does not give a fuck about America....in fact a strong case could be made for the opposite with strong efforts to ensure that jobs staid in country, examination of treaties to make sure that they were in the interest of the US, not other nations etc.
  
  And a strong, perhaps stronger case could be made, that all your assertions in defense of the Trump administration are just bullshit promulgated by a Con-man who tries to appear one way, but is actually another. What with the whole Carrier business, the railing over NAFTA, Paris, and more, the pandering to foreign dictators, all originating from a man with a history of blustering self-serving aggrandizement.
  
  We can not have an intelligent debate about things if you keep modding up the least intelligent comments.
  We won't have an intelligent debate if you persist in burying your head in the sand and believing delusions like that Ohio campaign chair who had no experience with the issues of segregation and the civil Rights movement of the sixties, then goes a step further to blame Obama for perpetuating a philosophy on America, well, I hate to have to tell you this, but you're reaping what you sowed, and it would really help if you got over your hand-wringing over being wrongly condemned and realize how it was earned.
3. Re:Why is this modded up? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 16:54 · Score: 0
  
  There is strong evidence to support that "the current administration" gives a fuck about all the gullible, "uneducated" people who could be easily duped into voting for it. There is also very strong evidence to support the view that "the current administration" does give a fuck about *certain* americans more than others, mainly those who would gladly sell us out if it means they can fill their own pockets with more cash.
  "uneducated" is trump's word for them. He loves them. Gee, I wonder why....?
4. Re:Why is this modded up? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 17:07 · Score: 1
  
  "with strong efforts to ensure that jobs staid in country" You're a fucking idiot.
5. Re:Why is this modded up? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 18:04 · Score: 0, Informative
  
  good point. However, I had to mod you down for being a total idiot. There is NOTHING about Trump that says that he is putting America first.
  He spoke about going after china for their dumping and subsidies, tariffs, etc. And what did he do? The same thing as you; suck on Xi cock . Of course, trump at least got some trademarks and will make millions for his family off those. All You got was a facial cream pie.
  Then he said that he would solve the illegal issue. All he has done is go after a small number of ppl. THey are being arrested, but no more illegals are being deported than what Obama did. If he was honest, he would phase-in e-verify. So, you get another facial.
  He is back to push the SLS, rather than commercial space, so, NASA will not be going to the moon or mars, though commercial space may, with other govs. God, it is just running off your face.
  
  Dumb shit.
  The GOP is no more Republican than is CHina or Russia. Sadly, you and the rest have more in common with Putin than Lincoln.
6. Re: Why is this modded up? by phantomfive · 2017-07-15 19:15 · Score: -1
  
  Nah. All he has to do is avoid starting a war and he'll already be better than our last two presidents.
  
  Let's be honest: it would be hard for Trump to be worse than Bush.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
7. Re: Why is this modded up? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 22:28 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Hard? He's been in office for half a year and already made Bush look like Churchill.
8. Re: Why is this modded up? by phantomfive · 2017-07-16 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  Bush looks like Churchill who 'invaded' the Dardanelles.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
9. Re: Why is this modded up? by Texmaize · 2017-07-18 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  What exactly did he do that you think was bad? Not your imagination. Facts please.
  
  You do understand that merely disagreeing with you is not fact. What was the policy he made that you disagree with and what was the outcome that was negative. For example, you would not accept an argument where I say you are completely wrong, just because I said so.
  
  Try to grow up some and look at the world analytically instead of the childish mindset everything donkey good everything elephant bad.
  
  --
  "Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
10. Re: Why is this modded up? by Texmaize · 2017-07-18 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  Phantom, glad to see that you are following me! I must be having a good impact on your life.
  
  Since you do not read a good deal, let me help put your post in the correct context. You are missing key insights into the situation that can only be gained by gathering information from a wide range of sources and taking the time to understand things.
  
  When Bush entered office, he had a policy of reducing U.S. disengagement. In his first year or so as president, he has begun to pull back from external nations and reduce what he deemed the excessive use of force used by the previous administration. He was very much opposed to nation building. Tragically, history altered his thinking to make him one of the greatest nation building presidents.
  
  On September 11th, a great tragedy occurred. Thousands of people lost their lives and even first responders were targeted while trying to save them. The nation was in shock, and it was pissed. They wanted blood. They wanted revenge. There were calls to nuke the Muslims back into the stone age. It would have been very easy to give it. It would have been the popular thing to do.
  
  Then, a remarkable thing happened. The dogs of war were chained by Bush. Instead of plunging us into a war of extermination, he did the unpopular thing and held off until all the forensic evidence was gathered. Instead of broadly targeting Muslims, he tried to find out the exact offshoots that were responsible and targeted them. This took 30 days. To you, it may seem meaningless, but the in the mood of the country at the time, this was nearly unforgivable.
  
  When operation enduring freedom started, it was swift, surgical and brutally effective. Bush has taken time to try to separate out those who wanted us dead and those of a different fate. He began a program to feed and educate poor Aghanies at the same time the attacks were taking place. He wanted to show that America was a place where we would meet our foes with justice, but show compassion to the downtrodden. It was one of the greatest moments of restraint in history. He turned a bloodbath into a surgical strike of hopeful liberation. I would argue for this, he should have gotten a Nobel Peace prize. Instead, the next president, who gave the world widespread assassination by robot drone, got one for being black. The world has no lack of irony. I digress.
  
  You may not believe all this, but it was well documented in a book. The book was not written by some right when demagogue as you fear, but by the left leaning Bob Woodward. Woodward was one of journalists who found the corruption in the Nixon whitehouse and bravely pursued it, ultimately bringing down a president. Before 9/11, he was doing a piece to try to understand this presidency better after a bitter campaign that was still contested in many people's mind. After the dark day, he was given near full access to the west wing, so that he could chronicle the decisions and thoughts that went into the response. Bush believed that it was important in a democracy for people to understand why their leaders did what they did, so he offered transparency. Again, it would have been easy to go the other way.
  
  https://www.amazon.com/Bush-at...
  
  If you can get the time and tear yourself away from youtube long enough, it is an excellent read. It is not always flattering to the Bush administration. It shows good points and bad.
  
  I understand you were also including the Iraq war in your "pithy" comment. But to understand the full tragedy of that war, you have to take the time to understand the events leading up to it, and the decision making processes of those involved. Until you do, you opinions on the matter are likely corrupted by childish blog posts and hit pieces designed to denigrate a president of the opposition party. Read the book, and I would love to discuss with you more. The question is, can you leave your bubble?
  
  --
  "Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
11. Re: Why is this modded up? by phantomfive · 2017-07-18 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  Two points:
  
  1) Whether the Afghanistan war was necessary or not (and there's an argument to be made for it), the execution of the war was poorly done. The day after 9/11, every country in the world was on the side of America. A month later, Bush had managed to turn them all against America. This is poor diplomacy at the least. Furthermore if he'd focused more on that war, it would have been done much more quickly. Instead he got distracted by Iraq.
  
  2) It was obvious he wanted to invade Iraq before he even got elected. If you watch the debates with Gore you will see this, and if you look at the writings of the people he brought in as his advisors you will this. He wanted to invade Iraq before going into office.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
12. Re: Why is this modded up? by Texmaize · 2017-07-18 11:10 · Score: 1
  
  Interesting comments, but modding yourself up is really trashy. No one else is reading an old thread.
  
  1. It is not obvious he wanted to invade Iraq before the war. I do not think there is much evidence before that, except for some very ignorant people saying he was a son trying to finish daddies work.
  
  2.Your recollection of what happened in the Afghanistan war is amazingly faulty. It was a stunning success by all accounts. The country had proven a quagmire of the Soviets, and had fallen with days. You really need to read more and widely. Try not to stay always on anti-bush/conservative web sites.
  
  3. What you call poor diplomacy did not happen until the Iraq ware. You are getting things confused again. It was positive for the first war.
  
  4. Again, you have so many things and timelines wrong in your head. You really need to take a deep breath, forget what you think you know, and go back and read. At least, look at the Woodward book. Until then, you are really not worth talking too. You have too great of ignorance of events mixed with such a narrow minded hatred. You are unable to see the nuances of the world. In order to truly understand things, you need to be able to appreciate the complexity of events. Something you will not get by examining only narrow sources and perspectives.
  
  --
  "Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
13. Re: Why is this modded up? by phantomfive · 2017-07-18 16:49 · Score: 1
  
  1. It is not obvious he wanted to invade Iraq before the war.
  It wasn't obvious to YOU. The people who he hired clearly wanted to invade Iraq.
  
  2.Your recollection of what happened in the Afghanistan war is amazingly faulty. It was a stunning success by all accounts.
  Seriously..........you wish it was a success and so you twist your vision until it matches your dream.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
14. Re: Why is this modded up? by Texmaize · 2017-07-19 03:22 · Score: 1
  
  Again, you are giving your opinion, colored by the bubble you live in after the fact. You still have not gone back and read more about the matter, which shows that you are both ignorant and lazy. This is a sad combination in a human being.
  
  I offered sources for you to read that are well researched to clarify the matter. You are offering only your opinion, not well researched or thought out. This makes me ask. Are you a millennial?
  
  --
  "Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
15. Re: Why is this modded up? by phantomfive · 2017-07-19 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  Are you going to deny that he brought in advisors who advocated invading Iraq before he ever became president? You sad sack of factlessness.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
16. Re: Why is this modded up? by Texmaize · 2017-07-19 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  So far, still your opinion, no facts or references. My what a small bubble you have.
  
  I am always interested in learning something new. The reason you lean far left is because you are not.
  
  --
  "Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
17. Re: Why is this modded up? by phantomfive · 2017-07-19 10:17 · Score: 1
  
  btw the reason I get 'modded up' is because I have good karma. No one is coming being after to say they agree with me, you shouldn't take that as a vote in favor or against. Rummie himself signed this.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
18. Re: Why is this modded up? by Texmaize · 2017-07-20 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  There it is. We follow this long path to find, as expected, it ends in a basement blog. Information Clearing house is not exactly what many call a credible source. IN fact, Harvard goes out of its way to list it as an unreliable new source.
  
  http://guides.library.harvard....
  
  So, understandably you have the opinions you do because of your sources. They are both limited and conspiratorial.
  
  The memo is interesting. Maybe it's real, maybe its not. Sourcing does matter, and with Bush era stuff, it is especially hard since there was so much character assassination going on. Bush was by no means a great president, but he was also not the cartoon villain that the popular media painted him to be. Much like Obama was not the anti-christ that some right wing sources claimed, but his administration was very far from the saintly image the leftish press portrayed. In both cases and i would argue today as well, blatant mischaracterizations diluted honest policy discussions. The losers of this whole thing are the average people.
  
  If the memo is real, this is what makes the study of the pathway to war interesting. As you look into it more, there were many viewpoints and forces advocating many things. By all accounts, Rumsfeld was a warhawk. So, this fits within the narrative. However, not everyone inside the administration was. Like most of life, it is pretty nuanced.
  
  When you look at many sources, the bulk of administration started toward peace and a more isolationist stance. After September 11th, the pro-war end of the administration won out. This is what makes the various conspiracy theories about 9/11 so intriguing. Without the twin towers falling, it was going to be a much more peaceful world.
  
  What is really interesting to ask is, as President, what would you have done? Keep in mind that the arguments (not necessarily the conclusions) of the Rumsfeld memo you linked are essentially true. The policies dealing with Iraq in the Clinton era were not working terribly well either, so the status quo was not a real solution.
  
  --
  "Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
19. Re: Why is this modded up? by phantomfive · 2017-07-20 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  The memo is real, it was listed on PNAC's website for a long time. You're dumb as a brick. Instead of trying to figure out if it's real or not (you know, by using Google) you merely attack it. You attack it because you disagree with it.
  
  It's not that you're dumb, you don't know how to collect information.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
All the info is already public, as required by law by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 16:39 · Score: 0

The only issue is going to the trouble of collecting it from all the states and putting it into one lump, which might be on-line. All the political parties and their subcontractors already have all this info and have augmented it with contributions from Google and Facebook.
As usual, the only group that is left out is the general public.
Releasing the emails may be another issue, but it would have to eventually be classed as public government records anyway too.
"voting record" means if you voted or not by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 16:54 · Score: 1, Insightful

"Voting record" simply means if you voted or not. It is a highly important data to determine if there is fraudulent voting going on. For instance the same person might be registered in two states. If the "voting record" for one state showed they voted in 8 of the last 10 elections, but not the last 2, and the "voting record" for the other state showed they only voted in the last 2 elections, that is a probable case of them moving and the registration for the first state not being purged. If they voted in the last 2 elections in BOTH states, then that is a sign they maintained their registration in one or the other states illegally.
uhm.. "editors"? by superwiz · 2017-07-15 17:14 · Score: 1, Informative

It is supposed to be "White House Releases Sensitive Personal Info ______Of______ Voters Concerned About Privacy". Just because you are linking to an article which has a grammatical error in the title, doesn't mean you should keep the error. That is, unless the post itself is about the error.

--
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
1. Re:uhm.. "editors"? by BeauHD+(4450103) · 2017-07-15 17:44 · Score: -1
  
  Seriosuly, shut up
  
  Ur gonna complain about THAT?
2. Re:uhm.. "editors"? by superwiz · 2017-07-15 17:54 · Score: 1
  
  Ur gonna complain about THAT?
  THAT is not the title on the front page of the publication. At the very least, the editors should be putting "sic" after a grammatical mistake when they are reposting it. The whole point of editors is to polish up what's published. Unlike comments, which afford to have mistakes because they are drafts and don't represent the publication, that which the editors put on the front page is the very face of the publication.
  
  --
  Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
3. Re:uhm.. "editors"? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 18:54 · Score: 0
  
  The released info was emails FROM the concerned voters.
4. Re:uhm.. "editors"? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 20:50 · Score: 0
  
  The sensitive personal information is from the voters concerned about privacy. They literally emailed the information and that information from them was released.
5. Re:uhm.. "editors"? by ShamblerBishop · 2017-07-15 21:38 · Score: 1
  
  Reply from Slashdot editor: "Why thank you for pointing out this error, Mr. superwiz from IP address 81.45.171.2; email wiz@super.edu; address 31 Bellend Avenue, WY; with 3 dogs and a weasel (he also has a stupid stubby looking nose by the way...hah!)"
6. Re:uhm.. "editors"? by superwiz · 2017-07-16 09:43 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, in *that* sentence "from" would appropriate. In the one used in the heading of the article, it would not.
  
  --
  Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
7. Re:uhm.. "editors"? by superwiz · 2017-07-16 09:48 · Score: 1
  
  If they wanted to dox me, they already have my real email address. I don't consider posts on slashdot to be anonymous (only pseudo-anonymous).
  
  --
  Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
8. Re:uhm.. "editors"? by superwiz · 2017-07-16 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  They literally emailed the information and that information from them was released.
  No, if the sentence was "...information received from ...." (or something like that) that would be appropriate. As it was written, "from" was not grammatically correct. And editors should, by all means, catch that.
  
  --
  Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Harass? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 19:17 · Score: 0

You really think that's the worse we'll see? I see darker times ahead I'm afraid.
But at least by thegarbz · 2017-07-15 19:45 · Score: 1

we're not "suffering" under Obama anymore.
All of that claim is a lie. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 20:30 · Score: 0

And, no, nothing more to add.
Public info in Sweden by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 21:08 · Score: 0

Go to www.hitta.se for all individuals and get basic information.
Go to www.allabolag.se and get all companies with owners.
Call Skatteverket and get the tax information about anybody, and they aren't allowed to ask who you are and why you want it.
Are they really sensitive personal info? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 21:09 · Score: 0

I am just asking. By the EU definition of sensitive personal data, those things arent considered sensitive. They are considered just plain personal data. Sensitive personal data are eg your sexual preferences or your criminal convictions.
Lovely by whodunit · 2017-07-15 22:20 · Score: -1, Flamebait

Vox.com isn't a news website, it's a left-wing opinion wank. Please fuck off.
1. Re:Lovely by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 23:51 · Score: 0
  
  Aww, RWNJ triggered by the truth about his hero, poot widdle facist, run away to your Faux news safe space, and let the adults talk.
liberal propaganda by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-15 23:44 · Score: 0

Dead voters don't care about their privacy. Maybe the Russian trolls sent by Putin registered them.
Liberals don't think we're buying this bullshiat, do they? They're starting to believe their own propaganda I guess.
Libs should be OK with this... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-16 00:41 · Score: 0

...after all, they were ok with CNNs witchhunt of the video dude from reddit and the threat of doxxing him.
Voter information are already public by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-16 00:42 · Score: 0

I live in Texas and can look up every voting district and look up every single registered voter name and their address.
20 years too late people by mentholsmooth · 2017-07-16 00:53 · Score: 1

Did any of you realize that Vox left out a little detail and actively deceived the readers? For those who live under rock, the data they received and reposted is public data and searchable by any goon with a computer and keyboard by nearly every state website. Some states allow the public release of the last four of your social. So it is okay for your state to vomit this information, yet when the federal government, who already spies on every fucking communication made by phone and computer, releases it, it becomes a privacy matter. We civil libertarians have been bitching about this for almost two decades. Where the hell have you all been? Oh that's right. This is a partisan issue drummed up by the media and now you all care. If anything, the Trump administration just made you all aware of something that has been going on for a long time. Welcome to the fight people. Now it is time to put your individual states back in check.
Fascinating by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-07-16 01:06 · Score: 1

Normally, Slashdot would be all up in arms about even "anonymized" metadata that might get put out by some outfit, screaming about the American three letter agencies or Google. I share some of that concern.
What occurs in a story about direct publishing of names and other actual personal info?
Deflection, and every attempt to change the subject you can imagine. This is an interesting trend we have here. The amount of deflection is ramped up with the provable veracity of the story. This is not consistent with the meme of the intrepid and privacy focused Slashdot user. It is consistent with some other online trends.

--
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Assholes!!! by Rick+Schumann · 2017-07-16 01:22 · Score: 1

There is no other way to put this: This is an ASSHOLE move by an ASSHOLE 'administration' being led by an ASSHOLE 'President' who continually demonstrates through actions that they don't give a flying FUCK about the average citizen, they only care about their agendas and their corporate and 1%-er cronies. Finding that they've been in bed with Russia the whole time and throwing the entire administration out on their ear can't come soon enough. 2020 elections can't come soon enough. How are you Trump-supporting idiots liking him and his minions now? You all like your privacy AT LEAST AS MUCH AS I DO, and they just took a BIG STEAMING DUMP all over the entire CONCEPT of your privacy, HOW DOES THAT MAKE YOU FEEL?
1. Re:Assholes!!! by coinreturn · 2017-07-17 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  There is no other way to put this: This is an ASSHOLE move by an ASSHOLE 'administration' being led by an ASSHOLE 'President' who continually demonstrates through actions that they don't give a flying FUCK about the average citizen, they only care about their agendas and their corporate and 1%-er cronies. Finding that they've been in bed with Russia the whole time and throwing the entire administration out on their ear can't come soon enough. 2020 elections can't come soon enough. How are you Trump-supporting idiots liking him and his minions now? You all like your privacy AT LEAST AS MUCH AS I DO, and they just took a BIG STEAMING DUMP all over the entire CONCEPT of your privacy, HOW DOES THAT MAKE YOU FEEL?
  
  I don't think you understand his supporters. Haven't you noticed by now that they think he can do no wrong. No matter how bad it is, they don't care. He, himself, had it right when he said he could shoot someone in broad daylight and lose no voters. His supporters are just plain idiots and there's pretty much nothing you or anyone else can do about it.
2. Re:Assholes!!! by Rick+Schumann · 2017-07-17 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  I guess I'm kinder than you are about it. Some of them 'think he can do no wrong'; some of them, as usual, thought he was the 'least worst' of two choices, and many of those are now regretting it, but keeping their heads down and their mouths shut, because they don't want to deal with it. Then there's some who thought he could be controlled, and they're finding out how wrong they were, too. HIs approval rating is currently 39% and dropping. As the reality sinks in it'll just get worse, and when all his promises and schemes are shown to be nonsense, the bottom will drop out. My greatest fear at this point is when they inevitably find the allegations of collusion are true and have to start removing the administration. I don't know what provisions we have in our system of government to handle something on that scale. Guess we'd have the Speaker of the House as POTUS?
3. Re:Assholes!!! by coinreturn · 2017-07-17 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  I guess I'm kinder than you are about it. Some of them 'think he can do no wrong'; some of them, as usual, thought he was the 'least worst' of two choices, and many of those are now regretting it, but keeping their heads down and their mouths shut, because they don't want to deal with it. Then there's some who thought he could be controlled, and they're finding out how wrong they were, too. HIs approval rating is currently 39% and dropping. As the reality sinks in it'll just get worse, and when all his promises and schemes are shown to be nonsense, the bottom will drop out. My greatest fear at this point is when they inevitably find the allegations of collusion are true and have to start removing the administration. I don't know what provisions we have in our system of government to handle something on that scale. Guess we'd have the Speaker of the House as POTUS?
  If Ryan thought he could pull it off, I'm sure he'd go for it. But I suspect that Ryan doesn't think he has a realistic chance of getting rid of Pence, even if he could get rid of Trump. They're just thinking they can get their tax cuts passed with Trump; nothing else matters as much to them, though a few more right-wingers on SCOTUS is surely on their wish list.
4. Re:Assholes!!! by Rick+Schumann · 2017-07-17 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  Did you notice that Pence lawyered up a while back? He, apparently, is not completely stupid: he sees how much of a liability being involved with the current administration is to his political career and saw fit to get ahead of the whole thing as soon as possible; he's a career politician, through-and-through. Five bucks says when the axe falls, he's going to be standing aside of the conflagration, yelling like Ashe in the Bruce Campbell version of Army of Darkness "..hey, I don't even KNOW these assholes!". He'll step aside, co-operate fully with any further Senate an FBI investigations, and try to walk away as cleanly as possible -- or at least I hope that's what happens. I don't think Mike Pence should be POTUS, especially by default.
5. Re:Assholes!!! by coinreturn · 2017-07-17 06:46 · Score: 1
  
  Did you notice that Pence lawyered up a while back? He, apparently, is not completely stupid: he sees how much of a liability being involved with the current administration is to his political career and saw fit to get ahead of the whole thing as soon as possible; he's a career politician, through-and-through. Five bucks says when the axe falls, he's going to be standing aside of the conflagration, yelling like Ashe in the Bruce Campbell version of Army of Darkness "..hey, I don't even KNOW these assholes!". He'll step aside, co-operate fully with any further Senate an FBI investigations, and try to walk away as cleanly as possible -- or at least I hope that's what happens. I don't think Mike Pence should be POTUS, especially by default.
  Of course Pence shouldn't be POTUS, much like Trump shouldn't be POTUS, but Pence is smart enough to be still standing when Trump gets the axe. I wonder if that's why he even agreed to be VPOTUS in the first place.
6. Re:Assholes!!! by Rick+Schumann · 2017-07-17 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  Why wouldn't a career politician want a shot at being VP? Granted, it's kind of the 1st Runner Up Consolation Prize in the political beauty pageant, but if that's as close as you think you'll ever get, then I guess you take it. There's also the possibility that the GOP knew a populist Trump was their only way in, knew he'd probably get ousted at some point, maybe even planned on throwing him under the bus when the time was right, so they'd get Dominionist ultra-conservative Pence in the Big Chair. It's a bit Machiavellian but it's plausible.
7. Re:Assholes!!! by coinreturn · 2017-07-18 00:22 · Score: 1
  
  Why wouldn't a career politician want a shot at being VP? Granted, it's kind of the 1st Runner Up Consolation Prize in the political beauty pageant, but if that's as close as you think you'll ever get, then I guess you take it. There's also the possibility that the GOP knew a populist Trump was their only way in, knew he'd probably get ousted at some point, maybe even planned on throwing him under the bus when the time was right, so they'd get Dominionist ultra-conservative Pence in the Big Chair. It's a bit Machiavellian but it's plausible.
  I don't think the GOP necessarily wanted Trump at all, I was just talking about Pence's reason for taking the VP. Most people thought Trump was a third rail and would kill your political future. If Trump had lost, would Pence ever be heard from again?
Voter Fraud by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-16 01:24 · Score: 0

Voter fraud occurs, and accusations have been made in the past. The type of voter fraud is the question.
-Donald Drumpf claims that millions of illegal immigrants voted. Previous studies have categorically disputed that claim. It is likely that his commission will find the same result.
-Absentee ballot voting, and change of address voting issues have been documented to be minimal. They would not likely withstand a recount.
-Hacking the voting machines is a real possibility. It has been clearly documented by HBO in a movie called Hacking Democracy.
-One could also claim that politicians invalidate voters for various reasons such as felonies. This disenfranchises minority populations who are more likely to be imprisoned.
-Finally Gerrymandering is a legal form of fraud, where the politicians pick the voters, not the other way around. John Oliver covered the topic in detail.
MOAR BULLSHIT by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-16 01:32 · Score: 0

And all ballots have no personal information and are returned in private UNMARKED envelopes which go into a general ballot box.
You know that too.
Yes there's an outer envelope with the return address and signed to validate that the voter mailing in the ballot is the registered voter.
So are you telling me that the state is recording the ballots and who voted for whom? Which states Ratzo?
Greg Palast by memnock · 2017-07-16 02:11 · Score: 1

has been covering voting shenanigans since 2000. He spoke to WMNF(.org) news on 6 July about his investigation into this farce of an integrity project. His website.

--
"To stop the terrorists."
....the current shitshow? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-16 02:19 · Score: 0

It says we're in deep fucking trouble.
Donald Duck as president is a symptom of an underlying problem of multi generational mis-education and brainwashing.
Critical thinking is critically needed, as is criticism of everything. Everything needs to be called into question.
Somebody likes the current system, as bad as it is, somebody makes billions from it, and have spent years developing it.
You Morons! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-16 02:19 · Score: 0

Have you ever heard of a phone book. It included things like Name, address, phone number(analogous to email address).
This is not the privacy breach you want it to be. This is all very public information.
Public information already readily available about most Americans includes:
Name
Age
Address
Phone Number
Email/social media accounts.
Home ownership and price, mortgage...
Arrest and court records.
Political party registration.
Voter activity.(Whether or not you cast a ballot in an election, when, and where.)
Automobile registrations, and in some places driver's license information.
the list goes on and these are all legal public records.
There are of course the stolen / leaked information that aren't supposed to be public but are now often widely known:
Medical records
Social security numbers
Credit card numbers
I'm not, in this post, arguing either way whether or not this information should be public. I am saying that what the White House released is all, already, legal public information.
So this entire article is and any outrage over the matter is entirely pointless.
Stop using the last 4 of SS# by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-16 03:02 · Score: 0

If you know where someone is from (specific area), it's pretty easy to figure out the first 6 numbers of that persons SS#. By releasing the last 4 numbers, you are giving out the only personally identifiable part of one of the most sought after forms of identification to identity thieves.
Keep up the good work, White House!
Misleading by sumdumfuk · 2017-07-16 04:27 · Score: 1

It wasnt that they were publishing voter information, they posted the emails that they received over the concerns about the collection of it. It even stated right on the website: "Any member of the public wishing to submit written comments for the Commission’s consideration may do so via email at ElectionIntegrityStaff@ovp.eop.gov. Please note that the Commission may post such written comments publicly on our website, including names and contact information that are submitted." So DUH....People never read and just react. This story is just more BS.
Lots of trolls on this story by HiThere · 2017-07-16 04:33 · Score: 1

To me is looks as if this story has dragged in a bunch of astroturfers.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
What I love by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-16 05:12 · Score: 0

Is how dems cry about election meddling and the sanctity of the process but suddenly won't help affirm the sanctity of the voting process. Certainly if someone hacked the election you'd only find the evidence by investigating it. But no there more concerned they'll get caught for there own meddling.
The overwhelming smell of success! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-16 06:29 · Score: 0

This smells like Trump's asshole or one of his asshole buddies' asshole.
And note the daughter's name of "I wank a Trump" so it's no surprise he's a taboo lover, incest, golden showers, and who knows what else.
The threat of impeachment doesn't phase him because nobody wants a Pope-ocracy as we'll have with Pence as president. The solution to our problems is far more complex than can be solved in the courts and Congress in 3.5 years or less.
We're fucked by the asshole you elected.
Public Submissions Are Public by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-16 08:56 · Score: 0

So you make a submission to a government inquiry and you expect it to be kept private?
That's now how open government works, dear. Submissions and testimonies and the people who make them are published so we know who said what to our elected representatives.
You can try to make an anonymous submission, but don't expect anyone to take it seriously. Credibility is attached to the person making comment.
I choose to comment anonymously here and my comments are usually treated with indifference because I haven't connected them to my personal reputation. That's my choice.
Vox has no problem with doxxing. by sethstorm · 2017-07-16 09:11 · Score: 1

The only time they care is if it's not going to a correct target.

--
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Good. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-16 11:26 · Score: 0

If you want to express an extrmist ideology, you should be prepared to be outted for it.
Voter Rolls are PUBLIC RECORD by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-16 13:10 · Score: 0

No "sensitive" information was released. Everything on your voter registration is public record. If you put it on the form, it becomes public.
"Public record" means the exact opposite of "sensitive."
THE voting comission. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 04:08 · Score: 0

Not "Trump's voting commission"
Voter Fraud by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-17 06:28 · Score: 0

The whole issue of Voter Fraud is itself a fraud upon the nation.
There is no voter fraud. No credible information, no evidence, there's not even a first principles reason to believe that it might exist. You know what does exist? Right wing talking heads, bloviating about the matter to fill air time. And Trump.
You know what else exists? Evidence by the truckload that eligible voters don't vote. In huge numbers! That's real but the right wing talking heads don't care. Their heads are empty except for their intense desire to matter. They cannot rile up the base by coming up with viable ways to increase voter participation. Oh no, solving real problems is for rubes!
Yet the Right will insist upon a huge, expensive, bureaucratic investigation into voter fraud. It's Big Government from the supposedly Little Government people. And it will all amount to nothing. It's a fraud and an abuse of the hard-won dollars of taxpayers. We might as well propose a Blue Ribbon Panel on the existence of leprechauns, unicorns or the yeti.
Get ready to buy a lot of Serious People steak dinners, fine hotel rooms and unlimited expense accounts.
Again: Why is this modded up? by Texmaize · 2017-07-18 03:17 · Score: 1

Funny, you took the time to call names, but not defend your argument. The facts say that is has been in office for about half a year and has had several policy successes. His failures have include:

Having an immigration policy stopped by a Hawaii judge who did not ground his ruling in the constitution. We know this to be the case because the supreme court overturned it unanimously.

Being embroiled in an investigation for collusion with Russia. Most of the charges have been disproven, and there are several stories indicating this. There are also tapes of various DNC operatives admitting in what they thought were undocumented comments, that they are doing this for ratings and to discredit. They admit, there is nothing there. The new story of Trumps son meeting with the Russians looking for dirt is true. However, there is no evidence of quid pro quo. However, as the issues are being looked into, it does turn out that the Clinton campaign also used foreign sources, at times WITH quid pro quo. I will go out on a limb that you either do not know this or are so addled in your thinking that you fail to see your personal bias leading to ignorance.

So, there really is not a dumpster fire say as you say. You could not rationally make the argument because in reality it is not true, outside your imagination and that of other people who have gone insane with hatred. Be better.

So Again, why is this modded up?

Hear that? That was the sound of your ass being kicked.

--
"Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
You have GOT to be fucking kidding! by martinfb · 2017-07-24 11:43 · Score: 1

This is NOT the USA where I agreed to be a citizen!!!

The ONLY purpose this serves is to corporations and covert billionaire/millionaire operations!
There is NO need for this info to be freely public.

And the fucking stupid politicians in office wonder why there are terrorist organizations, and revolutionary revolts!

What makes this an okay thing, yet Trump is getting away with hiding his private info?!

--

Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
Reality calling by Texmaize · 2017-07-25 17:26 · Score: 1

Reality is calling. It says it misses you. Please come back to it.

--
"Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.