Guccifer 2.0 Releases More DNC Documents (politico.com) 333
For the past several months, the hacker who calls himself "Guccifer 2.0" has been releasing documents about the Democratic National Committee. Today, he has released a new hoard of documents. Politico reports: The hacker persona Guccifer 2.0 has released a new trove of documents that allegedly reveal more information about the Democratic National Committee's finances and personal information on Democratic donors, as well as details about the DNC's network infrastructure. The cache also includes purported memos on tech initiatives from Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine's time as governor of Virginia, and some years-old missives on redistricting efforts and DNC donor outreach strategy. Most notable among Tuesday's documents may be the detailed spreadsheets allegedly about DNC fundraising efforts, including lists of DNC donors with names, addresses, emails, phone numbers and other sensitive details. Tuesday's documents regarding the DNC's information technology setup include several reports from 2010 purporting to show that the committee's network passed multiple security scans. In total, the latest dump contains more than 600 megabytes of documents. It is the first Guccifer 2.0 release to not come from the hacker's WordPress account. Instead, it was given out via a link to the small group of security experts attending [a London cybersecurity conference].
Summary missing important piece... (Score:5, Informative)
What about the large number of donors who, immediately after their hefty donations, received cushy ambassadorships?
Re:Summary missing important piece... (Score:5, Funny)
What about the large number of donors who, immediately after their hefty donations, received pneumonia?
Re:Summary missing important piece... (Score:5, Funny)
Naah, that's overblown. She was just having a routine problem with her human suit. Happens all the time. Those things don't last forever, you know. Gotta be replaced every now and then. The real trick is getting the aging correct since you can't just show up looking like you're 20 again. Humans tend to get suspicious when that happens.
It's actually a rather complicated procedure because of how tightly integrated human suits are with lizard person physiology, so that's why she needed so much time off in August. "Skinning" [wikia.com] can actually be a form of torture and can be fatal without the proper medical attention.
It should be smooth sailing now!
Re:Summary missing important piece... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Summary missing important piece... (Score:5, Insightful)
You gotta remember, liberals love to justify bad behavior, by pointing to (often unrelated) ... bad behavior.
It is as if they are four year olds getting in trouble, and saying "but Billy's Mom lets him drink beer/smoke dope". The problem is, nobody calls it "childish" behavior (which it is), because that is insulting to children.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And ... I rest my case !
Re: (Score:2)
Its been my experience scofflaws tend to be scofflaws. Someone who obviously and blatantly disregards one law will do so with others.
There is plenty of evidence to support he idea that illegal aliens are disproportionately murders and sex offenders compared with the general population.
Just be cause they are not ALL murders and sex offenders does not make what Trump said untrue, nor does the fact that you dislike it. If we really care about reducing the number of murders and sex offenders on the lose in ou
Re:Summary missing important piece... (Score:4, Insightful)
Which party are you complaining about? Because from where I sit, both the D and R parties are ... guilty of that charge.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Except, unfortunately, that's pretty much the case these days. I would have never given Trump even the first look until I saw how horrified the
GOP was at his very appearance. Now the question is, is even that a scam?
I didn't vote for him, but I did get my hopes up a bit that Obama might be for real. Then I watched him laugh at the American people when a fair majority of them expressed their top priority on whitehouse.gov....
Re: (Score:2)
You gotta remember, liberals love to justify bad behavior, by pointing to (often unrelated) ... bad behavior.
Nope. That's not justifying bad behavior, that's pointing out hypocrisy.
Re:Summary missing important piece... (Score:5, Informative)
You mean, like when Bill Clinton said "Make America Great" is racist, even though he used that same exact phrase a number of times during his own presidential campaign?
That, is hypocrisy, because it is actually word for word comparison. Rather than when talking about email servers and health of a presidential candidate, try to change the subject by calling Trump a racist for saying "Make America Great". (actual example)
No, I am not supporting Trump either. Vote Gary Johnson.
Re:Summary missing important piece... (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember, when someone like David Duke endorses Donald Trump and Trump says, "Who is David Duke, and why should I care?" this proves Trump is a racist. When Hillary Clinton talks about how Robert Byrd was her "friend and mentor" this also proves that Trump is a racist. See how easy that is?
Re:Summary missing important piece... (Score:5, Interesting)
RIght, when a (D) says something like "Make America Great Again" (Bill Clinton, running for President) it isn't racist, because Bill isn't a racist. But when an (R) (Trump running in 2016) says something like "Make America Great Again" it is racist, because Bill says in the south, that phrase has a particular connotation. Trump being from New York State, would know that, and that is why he is a racist, but Bill 24 years ago (from Arkansas) wouldn't have known.
Context like that?
Or you just making excuses because ... well you like (D) and not (R) politics, and will use the "Racism" card even in situations where it wouldn't fit, and if it did fit, wouldn't go in the direction you'd like?
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Well, when you get Trump supporters interpreting "Make America Great Again" in clearly racist terms, then you start to understand the dog whistles that are clearly hitting their mark.
There was a CNN panel (yes, admittedly absurd sampling) where the biggest Trump supporter was saying stuff like "they give all this stuff to the illegals, that I as a regular white person can't get". First of all, the ignorance is pretty astounding. I don't know what 'stuff' she was talking about, but all government benefits
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, there are plenty of benefits that Illegals get, that Citizens don't get. The lack of proper "documentation' gets them a lot of linenacy in criminal situations that I do not get. That, and "sanctuary cities" go above and beyond to "protect" undocumented people (aka "illegal"). In addition to these overt "benefits" there are things like documentation needed to get driver's licenses and proposals to grant right to vote to undocumented people, where I, being a citizen have to prove I am a citizen and
Re: (Score:2)
"And non-citizens don't qualify for any of it."
You need to go spend a day in a southern health clinic or SS office my friend. I think you'll find it quite enlightening....
Re: (Score:2)
No.
It's that we Liberals see Conservatives giving pass after pass to their own party, and when you then speak up and point out woes on the other side of the aisle, our first reaction is "Really? Like WTF man? If this stuff is as bad as you say, then why in the world did it not bother you when your guys were doing it?"
Clean house on your own side of the street before you point out anyone elses messes.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not justification, it's pointing out the blatant hypocrisy of the right. Like complaining about Benghazi while ignoring similar attacks that happened during the GWB administration. Or spinning nutty stories about HRC's health while simultaneously idolizing Ronald Reagan, who wasn't suffering from Alzheimer's. Or Newt Giungrich attacking Bill Clinton over the Lewinsky affair while he himself was cheating on his wife at the time.
Nobody's justifying anything, just saying that glass house you're living
Re: (Score:2)
And then there's a few like me, watching both of you glass house dwellers chucking rocks at each other, and thinking, "me and mine are so fucked...."
Re: (Score:2)
No ones excusing them Dems, but it's the height of hypocrisy that R's (old and newfound) cast such a scrutinizing gaze at the Dems while ignoring the HUGE PILES of rubbish on their own front yards. It's like they climbed the Mount Everest of lies and corruption so that they could survey the smaller mountains below them.
So no, two wrongs don't make a right. But if you want anyone to believe the seriousness with which you perceive a problem, your first step ought to be cleaning house, not looking at anyone el
Re:Summary missing important piece... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If you start asking people, "which businessperson do you think would make a good president?" they will start listing celebrity CEOs (woohoo! Steve Jobs for president! Nevermind that his temperment is totally unsuited for it).
Re:Summary missing important piece... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you start asking people, "which businessperson do you think would make a good president?" they will start listing celebrity CEOs (woohoo! Steve Jobs for president! Nevermind that his temperment is totally unsuited for it).
Pretty sure he's calmed down a little since he died... and maybe a corpse would be an improvement over the current top two candidates?
Re: (Score:2)
Tony Stark for president! Everybody loves Tony. As a bonus he can be a nuclear shield.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Details on cushy ambassadorships via Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/The_D... [reddit.com]
Re:Summary missing important piece... (Score:4, Informative)
Ambassadorships to friendly countries, the UK in particular, have always been given as rewards to political friends. You could count the number of people who became UK ambassador on merit on one hand which had been run through a wood chipper.
The reason you didn't know about this before is because it never became an issue. Tuttle made a bit of a kerfuffle a decade ago, but it takes a lot to start a diplomatic incident with a close ally and being ambassador to the UK or France or Australia really requires no great skill as a peacemaker. If you were being particularly charitable, you could even say that fundraisers and diplomats have a lot in common.
Everyone has plenty of dirty laundry, including you and me. 'Innocent until proven guilty' is an excellent attitude in criminal court, but the attitude 'innocent until doxxed' skews our perceptions and gives power to doxxers. Honestly I'm a bit surprised these leaks haven't found more than 'omg, politics at political party!'
Remember, parties are not obligated to be democratic or unbiased. Legally and constitutionally there's only one vote, the general election in November. Anyone* can be nominated as a candidate for that election, and if both parties decided to nominate whomever they pleased they might be breaking their own rules but not the law. Everything up to and including the conventions is just meant to give supporters a feel of involvement and to remove unpopular candidates without invoking the wrath of their supporters. But the parties want to win, and if one candidate seems more 'electable' you can bet the party will give then a leg up on the rest.
* you know what I mean [wikipedia.org]
Re:Summary missing important piece... (Score:5, Insightful)
So it's okay to give money to a private political organization in order to get favors from the government?
Why don't we just auction off ambassadorships then?
Re:Summary missing important piece... (Score:4, Funny)
So it's okay to give money to a private political organization in order to get favors from the government?
Well, in the sense that it's not illegal, has been going on for 200+ years and the country has survived, it's 'okay'.
If Hillary was really a modern William Tweed there would be a lot more interesting stuff in those email dumps.
Re:Summary missing important piece... (Score:5, Interesting)
There's been plenty of interesting stuff in previous releases of Hillary's particular emails. I would say the most amazing was acknowledgment that the reason we backed the moderate beheaders in Syria against Assad was so the Israelis would feel better about a nuclear Iran without a stable Syria as a base of operations for Hezbollah. The 400,000 war dead, the creation of ISIS, the blowback attacks in Paris, San Bernardino, Brussels, Nice, Orlando, and the refugee crisis that threatens to destabilize all of western Europe...no problem for Hillary and her supporters. It's unreal. But here we are.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ambassadorships to friendly countries, the UK in particular, have always been given as rewards to political friends.
True enough but traditionally those have also been friends who were long time loyal public servants, with some qualifications other than being able to make a sizable campaign donation. I blame the Kennedys starting with Joe sr. for changing that.
Re: (Score:2)
Tuttle? Don't you mean Buttle?
Re:Summary missing important piece... (Score:5, Insightful)
What about the large number of donors who, immediately after their hefty donations, received cushy ambassadorships?
Where have you been? It's worked that way, with both parties, since forever.
Re: (Score:2)
We don't need Guccifer for that, because (for both Dems and Republicans) the answer is "nearly all of them".
Re: (Score:3)
The ambasadorships are not a problem. I have seen a few directorships and assistant directorships of government agencies in the list.
Compensation (Score:3)
Yes and no. The maximum salary for an ambassador is under $200k, so a wealthy donor certainly isn't in it for the money. In fact they usually end up spending far more than that out of their own pockets [bloomberg.com] to keep up appearances.
The last set showed laws broken by DNC (Score:5, Informative)
The last set of documents showed that the DNC broke campaign finance laws and yet absolutely nothing was done about it.
Since any damning evidence in documents from democrats will be ignored, why do they even try? It won't make any difference.
Now, if a similar trove of documents from the RNC was dumped, you can bet the DOJ would be all over it. Under Obama's administration political considerations trump the law every time.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, if a similar trove of documents from the RNC was dumped, you can bet the DOJ would be all over it.
...which leads one to ask why that isn't also happening?
Re:The last set showed laws broken by DNC (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump is an outsider. He's a Republican, but not part of the Republican establishment. The RNC wasn't on his side until the absolute last minute when they had to accept him as a candidate. So there isn't going to be any dirt about things the RNC did behind the scenes to help Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
So there isn't going to be any dirt about things the RNC did behind the scenes to help Trump.
That may be the case, but wouldn't that just shift the target from the RNC to Trump himself? Given everything that Trump has been accused of, there is sure to be some juicy tidbits floating around somewhere.
(and I wish that I had thought of your point before my own reply to the OP)
Re:The last set showed laws broken by DNC (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The last set showed laws broken by DNC (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, if a similar trove of documents from the RNC was dumped, you can bet the DOJ would be all over it.
...which leads one to ask why that isn't also happening?
That's a question I've asked before but never gotten a good answer. But I think there are 4 possibilities (some more likely than others, but I don't have the knowledge to pick which is the current situation)
1. The RNC can't be hacked
2. The RNC can be hacked, and is clean.
3. The people doing the hacking are anti-DNC/anti-Hillary and haven't even tried to hack the RNC
4. The people doing the hacking are actually pro-Hillary (or at least anti-Trump) and have the goods on the RNC, but are waiting to dump them just before the election so that they remain fresh in voters minds, while the anti-DNC stuff is long forgotten.
Re: (Score:2)
How about: 5. The RNC is too paranoid to use email for these kinds of arrangements/conversations
I prefer:
6. the RNC is so divided that all the dirt of any relevance they can find is already being flung, so by the time hackers find anything juicy, it is already plastered across CNN
A little like 2(The RNC can be hacked, and is clean.), but more realistic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The last set showed laws broken by DNC (Score:4, Insightful)
...which leads one to ask why that isn't also happening?
Same reason that the FBI refused to turn over all documents to an internal committee when Obama didn't declare executive privilege? The same reason why the IRS ran a campaign against tea party groups and people resigned over it, but no charges were laid? It's heavy with insiders, and there is likely dirt on them *not* to do anything against the DNC or Hillary.
But as to why there hasn't been any leaks from the RNC? Combination of 3 things just my guess: Better security, last story I saw on the CBC said there'd been a dozen attempts all unsuccessful. Someone really has a hate-on for Hillary after the last batch showed the DNC throwing in for her against their own rules. The third is she's such an establishment candidate that is working against her own party and liberal-leaning ideas, that no fucks are given at all.
keep fucking that chicken, morans (Score:3)
Because that's wingnut dumbfuckery:
1) There are only two political appointments at the IRS, and the chief was a Bush appointee
2) The only group to be denied tax-exempt status was a liberal one
Now, this is where the chicken-fuckers whine that more conservative groups were investigated than liberal ones - but no shit, Sherlock, that's because the explosion in groups after Citizen United wa
I'd say Glass Houses is the real reason (Score:2)
There is reluctance to take actions base on evidence uncovered by illegally hacked emails. Doing so would invite more entities with political motivations to just hack more. Republicans have just as many (if not more) skeletons in the closet as Democrats. I’d say these are very close to Fruit of the Poison Tree kind of findings. Add to this the suspicion that the Russians are trying to game our political system by hacking and leaking and it all becomes a morass.
Re: (Score:2)
The other principle is that the hacked
Re: (Score:2)
t's a problem - the groups think they are doing good by exposing harm, but what they're actually doing is spoiling the only evidence of the harm to the point where the justice system cannot act on it anymore. In which case the only choice is a conviction in the court of public opinion.
This isn't really true though. The fruit of poison tree argument only applied to government agents, that is anyone working for the government. Which casts a pretty wide net. Even if a cop walks up and ask you to say something if you see something that might make you a government agent if any specific target was identified.
Some random hacker in another country though doxing someone could be construed as probably cause, good enough cause if the documents appear legitimate and unaltered to go an cease the s
Re: (Score:2)
The way to minimize this problem would be to not be corrupt scumbags trying to manipulate an election.
Re: (Score:2)
Which set of laws would that be?
In this enviornment, you have to be specific. The media and partisans are too lazy to go into details, they deal in "appearance" which can be manufactured.
Re: (Score:2)
If the Republicans were actually held to account, Bush and Cheney would be in prison right now for war crimes leading to the death of nearly 5,000 American soldiers.
Wonder what the RNC is doing about now? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Or perhaps the RNC is simply not quite as corrupt as the DNC.
Re: (Score:2)
destroyed it completely.
But hey, when the GOP destroys campaign related servers, I am sure the Justice Dept will be all over that for tampering with potential evidence, in an ironic partisan flip flop.
It is really bad when you can see how obvious the responses would be if certain things were reversed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wonder what the RNC is doing about now? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wonder what the RNC is doing about now? (Score:5, Informative)
Shh. Don't tell the partisan hacks that. They'll get upset when you show that only 7% of the US media identifies as republican. [washingtonpost.com] And nearly 30% identify as democrats, which is less then 1992 when nearly 45% of the media self-identified as democrats. Or that democrats get more positive press. [journalism.org] Or that90% of reporters in the DC area AKA beltway reporters either are declared democrats or vote democrat. [washingtontimes.com]
Re:Wonder what the RNC is doing about now? (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps we need some sort of affirmative action program to ensure that conservative journalists aren't blackballed like that.
Re: (Score:2)
That's probably because education makes one less conservative in general, and most reporters are well-educated.
If you have a good education, you are less likely to believe climate change is a scientific conspiracy, or that the world is 6k years old, for example.
And due to your critical thinking skills, you learn to actually check the Bible to see if homosexuality is condemned more often than greed & gluttony rather tha
Re: (Score:2)
most reporters are well-educated.
[citation needed]
I'd wager that the most well-known reporters are well-educated, but most in general? I very much so doubt that. Just think of how many ditzes and idiots you've seen reporting the news over the years, if not live, then in blooper reels and the like. They're way more common than the smart ones.
Re: (Score:2)
If you have a good education, you are less likely to believe climate change is a scientific conspiracy
That's because you've been indoctrinated to trust the scientific establishment.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because you've been indoctrinated to trust the scientific establishment.
No, I just find them more reliable when I look into specific issues as a spot check.
Ah, you misunderstood me, I was referring to 'you' in the general, not 'you' in the specific. You in the specific have developed some heuristics for determining what is true beyond what you learned in school, and that separates you from the rabble.
Re: (Score:3)
That's probably because education makes one less conservative in general, and most reporters are well-educated.
If you have a good education, you are less likely to believe climate change is a scientific conspiracy, or that the world is 6k years old, for example.
It'd be really good if the partisan hacks grew up at one point and realize that's not actually true. Some of the most ignorant people I've ever met were very well educated and claimed they were worldly. I'm sure you're going but, but that's just your viewpoint! Really, ask yourself how many well educated people you know who are completely ignorant on the basic things that your average high-school or tradesman knows off the top of their head. You can also read this if you're bored. [psmag.com]
And due to your critical thinking skills, you learn to actually check the Bible to see if homosexuality is condemned more often than greed & gluttony rather than just accept a pastor's weighting.
Then again, the left(
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Conservatives often seem to value (what they see as) 'common sense' over scientific analysis"
Like "common sense" anti-gun legislation that leftists advocate ... even when "analysis" done by the FBI and CDC show that firearms-related homicides are down by 50% since the 1993 peak and non-fatal injuries associated with firearms-related crime are down by nearly 70% over the same time period?
From what I've seen, leftists believe in government just as fervently as monotheists believe in their old books and deiti
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
BS. The majority of the media is left leaning. They would love to pan the RNC.
The majority is left leaning because women don't like working in places where they're sexually harassed. :P
Re:is this all? (Score:4, Funny)
COUGH...
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
COUGH...
FTFY
Get some more rest Hillary that still sounds pretty bad.
Re: (Score:2)
So if only run of the mill malfeasance is found it's OK, nothing to see here, move along?
Nothing less than validating every paranoid conspiracy theory counts as a meaningful disclosure?
Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real (Score:5, Insightful)
Since when did Hillary supporters decide to bury their head in the sand over anything she does, while screaming the pepe the frog [archive.fo] is a racist meme(never mind that they were masterfully trolled over it) [archive.is], and went so far as to write up hit pieces on it.
From an outsiders perspective on Clinton, she's managed to pull both a "How do you do fellow kids" and "I'm batshit insane" all in one week.
Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real (Score:5, Insightful)
Because "alt-right" is racist, because ... democrats say so?
But Hillary's "Super Predators" and "Bring them to heel" comments aren't. Her (and her husband's) use of Confederate Flags wasn't racist. "Make America Great Again" is racist, except when Bill used it for his campaign.
Here is the problem, as I see it. The most racist thing out there, is the whole DNC platform that expects black people to continue to vote DNC candidates, without so much as even pandering, simply by tossing out the race card over every little thing.
It is obvious that crying Racism is the ONLY thing left the Democrats have with respect to Hillary's campaign. And that is, by itself racist. And the black community is starting to wake up to the pure racism of low expectations that the DNC has of them.
Can't have voter ID laws, because the DNC says Black people can't figure out how to get a free voter ID. But that isn't racist.
Can't have single day voting, because DNC says Black People can't figure out how to fill out an absentee ballot or get to the polls on time. But that isn't racist.
IF you simply look at the excuses being made on behalf of black people, they are all telling black people that they are incapable of doing normal activities, simply because ... they are black.And I find that extremely distasteful and as fucking racist as anything.
Black people aren't as stupid, lazy, incapable as the DNC is making them out to be. But I am a racist for pointing out how stupid the DNC position is for these people.
NO - I am not voting for Trump, this isn't about Trump, this is about racist DNC positions on how they actually treat black people as a "group" of incapable lazy idiots, who need special treatment and help to do normal things.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real (Score:4, Interesting)
Have you considered listening to what the big bad Democrats are saying, rather than inventing absurd caricatures? You'll look less ridiculous.
With Black Panthers, Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, Bill Ayers, Al Sharpton, etc. on the Democrat side it's trivial to find plenty of racist bullshit over there. They're as deplorable as David Duke, yet I don't see Hillary getting all upset about them supporting her.
Re: (Score:3)
It's surprising how this was modded up to 3 or 4, then down to flamebait. Particularly surprising for a post that is entirely factual.
It strikes me that there's a group of people who are finding posts like this that make Hillary look bad and gang up on them. Really weird behavior. It's slashdot, not the front page of the NYT or something.
Re: (Score:3)
I was actually saying the (racist) POLICIES supported by the Democrats are racist, because they basically are saying to the entire black community "You can't do it because of your skin color, and we will help you". Every time they pander to the Black community about how aweful the government is, police are, white people are, and that they are the ONLY ones who can help. And, they use the same "government" that they claim is racist on one hand (Police, Voter ID, ...) to provide them with special treatment be
Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real (Score:5, Interesting)
Have you considered listening to what the big bad Democrats are saying,
Yes, I have. They are liars and cheaters, and I don't believe anything they say, unless it is proven true. Same for Republicans.
1. Minority voters are disproportionately unlikely to have an existing photo ID (say, a driver's license.)
This is fucking racist. There is absolutely no evidence that this exists. And that is not the argument when "free government issued ID" is included in the Voter ID laws. There is NO ability loss just because skin color. The fact that you're making excuses as to why skin color actually matters in getting a photo ID (often Free, low cost), when so many other government services and purchasing things like alcohol, opening a bank account, getting welfare, having a job ... all requires a photo ID. You're basically saying that skin color matters in ABILITY (and without proof, I might add) .. which is patently racist at face value. You are so blinded you can't even see how your view of Race is remarkably ... sad.
2. Once enacted, states with Voter ID laws have a habit of erecting roadblocks to make it harder to get them if you live in areas with high minority populations. For example, closing offices that issue driver's licenses.
Strawman and slippery slope fallacy. And Racist. You're making the case that Government is racist (I wouldn't disagree), is an excuse to continue racism in other forms. And You have no facts to actually back up this claim, because there are no Voter ID laws that are actually valid, since "black people are not capable of getting IDs to vote" (See racist point #1)
3. If you've never had ID, it can be - depending on your situation - difficult to meet the criteria for obtaining ID, requiring the gathering of paperwork that most people don't actually keep, and in some cases is - in practice - impossible to obtain.
Bullshit. And fucking Racist. It is so easy to get Voter approved ID, that Illegal immigrants without any form of ID can get Driver's Licenses in many many states. You're saying that a Hispanic person ("undocumented worker") is more capable of getting ID than a black person, do you realize how fucking racist that is?
The fact is, you're making excuses for people based solely upon the color of their skin, and don't even realize how fucking racist that actually comes across when someone actually questions your motivations. Yes, I believe you're unintentionally racist because you think your big heart excuses your racism, because of intentions. Real racism isn't intentional, it is white guilt masquerade of low expectations.
You see, I see black people as FULLY capable of doing anything and everything a "white" person can and does do. Without exception or excuse as to why they don't. Yes, that puts me in a rare situation where I can see the Racism of white guilt throughout the DNC, that perpetuates the myth that black people need white people to help them, because they aren't white.
They don't need our help, they are fully capable.
Re: (Score:3)
If you don't want black people to be coddled as you say, then stop coddling them with "you can't do it without white people's help" attitude.
Don't take my word for it, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/li... [cbsnews.com]
My viewpoint isn't based on MY race, it is based on what actually is. I have no doubt there are racists, I have given plenty of examples of racism via "low expectations" logic presented by liberals in defense of their own racist policies.
Oddly enough, they are almost all more liberal states.
You're actually making my point. ;) Black people (and minorities) need he
Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Minority voters are disproportionately unlikely to have an existing photo ID (say, a driver's license.)
2. Once enacted, states with Voter ID laws have a habit of erecting roadblocks to make it harder to get them if you live in areas with high minority populations. For example, closing offices that issue driver's licenses.
3. If you've never had ID, it can be - depending on your situation - difficult to meet the criteria for obtaining ID, requiring the gathering of paperwork that most people don't actually keep, and in some cases is - in practice - impossible to obtain.
Really? Just going to say it, people who are against voter ID are insane, in the worst case I'd call you anti-democratic. Even us people in "liberal Canada" and those "ultra liberal" people in Norway, Germany and Denmark have mandatory requirements for voter ID. FYI, voter ID doesn't mean picture ID either. So stop pulling bullshit out of your ass. Seriously, get your fucking shit in order and stop blocking it. If you don't even have two items listed in the [elections.ca] accepted section that we use in Canada, you don't fucking exist, and know zero people. Since you can file for an affirmation under oath from a friend. Voter ID isn't racist, it's fundamental to a secure democracy. Hell you can't get really can't government benefits of in the US without some form of ID.
You're basically pro-voter fraud as long as you keep pushing this BS. There are multiple cases of it [dailysignal.com]happening.
Re: (Score:2)
Difference is, you can probably get an ID in those places easily. The government probably issues you one for free. That doesn't happen in the US.
Actually, this is false. There have been Vote ID laws passed, that included FREE OF CHARGE voter IDs to anyone, that have been over turned because "black people can't get to the government offices to get their free ID" and one disenfranchised black person is a tragedy, but voter fraud by one disenfranchises the whole vote of everyone.
Apparently it isn't racist to have such low expectations of an entire community that you come up with some ridiculous legal argument why Free ID is hard to get, just to over tu
Re:Apologies [Re:Some hacker, he's not found (Score:4, Insightful)
Hillary lies about what she said. Then she lies about telling lies. And then lies again.
Or perhaps she forgets what she said, after all the brain trauma she's experienced (and used as an excuse for not remembering critical briefings).
AND I guess you didn't see the part where I am not defending Trump. You're defending Hillary is amusing, when it is clear that she is every bit as bad as Trump is, and yet you think Trump is worse.
Re: (Score:3)
She apologized because she got caught, not because she didn't mean it. "basket of deplorables"wasn't an accident. She didn't apologize for calling 1/2 of Trumps supporters all those "phobic" names, which means she apologized for the word choice, not how she actually feels.
It is like liberals who claim to hate Misogyny, while laughing at Ann Coulter being called a CUNT 37 times during a roast for someone else. If I actually used that word, and called Hillary a "fucking cunt", every liberal would come unglued
Re: (Score:2)
But we are effectively stuck with only 2 choices,
Actually if everyone who didn't like Hillary AND Trump voted for Gary Johnson, he would win in a landslide. Their Unfavorables are in the 60% range across party lines. If every one of those voted for Johnson, he would have more votes that the other two combined.
So, effectively becomes effectively enslaved to two party system ...and the lessor of two gawd awful candidates.
the one who CAN apologize.
And, there is a clip of Trump actually apologizing for something, somewhere, so he can apologize. So now what?
"Sometimes, in the heat of debate, and speaking on a multitude of issues, you don’t choose the right words or you say the wrong thing. I have done that, and believe it or not I regret it," Trump said.
http://abcnews.go.com/Polit [go.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Politifact is biased, it's owned and operated by a newspaper(Tampa Bay Times), that is not only in the tank for Hillary, but openly endorsed her. That means it's a partisan organization, and not independent. They much like snopes will turn around and claim something is half-true, or not true at all when it's expedient to do so because it doesn't fit their agenda. Seriously, if you can't see this you're simply unwilling to question something because it fits your own agenda. Especially if someone like me
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'll take a stab at this. Since never. You've formed a false equivalence in your head. Anti-Trump protests != fervent Hillary Clinton supporters. At least not always. I realize that the choice SEEMS binary because of our flawed electoral system, but it's not. People can be extremely opposed to Donald Trump's message and yet still be extremely opposed to Hillary Clinton's practices. They may end up voting in a binary way, but please stop with this "us vs them" mentality. It does everyone, including you and the side you support, a disservice.
FYI: Not a US citizen, can't vote in the US, don't live in the US. Your basic idea on false equivalence falls flat on it's face in just that. Hillary just pulled a Romney with the "binders full of women" on her deplorables(and alt-right stuff) remark. And just pulled a Bush 1 on her "pepe the frog is racist" crap. The fact that hardcore democrats fall in line with this is no different then either case as to why they weren't elected, or elected for a second term. And considering the number of articles
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly what Hillary asked Obama in 2008, starting the entire "birther" movement.
[Citation needed]
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sure you can find such a citation on Breitbart ;-)
In 2008, Hillary did imply that white, working class voters wouldn't vote for Obama, making her the safer nominee. And that's pretty nasty, but at least it was basically true - they mostly didn't vote for him. She never raised the birther issue - in fact, I don't think that came up until after Obama was actually elected. Trump didn't raise it first either, but he rode it well beyond its lifetime even as a useful lie - to the point that even now he can
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Surprise! I've submitted this news [newsweek.com] and slashdot refuses to run it. Just one more example of blatant pro-Trump bias on slashdot.
Because your submission didn't involve, you know, hackers... because this happens to be a, you know, tech site.
Dunno who modded your post up, but they're apparently just as unable to grasp that concept as you are.
Re: Slashdot censoring anti-Trump news (Score:5, Interesting)
What are you talking about? Every media outlet except FOX is sucking at Hillary's big toes, and even at times FOX is sucking her toes and licking them. Whether it be in the US or Canada or the bloody UK. Hell NBC deleted a segment from a broadcast last night when Bill Clinton said Hillary "Frequently fainted" sorry I mean "occasionally fainted" that of course saved them all of 1.5 seconds from their 1hr broadcast time limit, which was their excuse. Nearly every site is sucking at her toes. Even on reddit from /r/politics to /r/news to /r/worldnews is deleting anti-Hillary stories, even when they use the exact title.
Re: Slashdot censoring anti-Trump news (Score:4, Interesting)
It is like when the talking heads on one news program (CNN I believe) described New York City on Sunday as "Sweltering", when it was 78 Degrees out, in an attempt to make Hillary's lie about dehydration seem more legitimate. Obviously they are "pro-Trump".
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't surprise me. Here's the thing on CBC editing the news [thehill.com] earlier too. Figured I'd post it since I fucked up and posted the wrong news org, my bad.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd suggest applying Hanlon's razor [rationalwiki.org].
TV news are all rush-job cheap-skate slop-heads.
Perhaps they wanted to make it sound like they had a ground crew when they really didn't because they are cheap or late. There's many possibilities besides kissing H's ass.
(By the way, if it's humid, 78 degrees *is* hot in my opinion.)
Re: (Score:2)
Every media outlet except FOX is sucking at Hillary's big toes
What color is the sky in the world where you're posting from? Is it pretty?
The media has basically giving giving Trump nearly a free pass on everything he does so they can run more stories about Hillary coughing.