WikiLeaks Releases Hacked Voicemails From DNC Officials (thenextweb.com) 177
An anonymous reader writes: Late Wednesday afternoon as the Democratic National Convention was in full swing, Julian Assange and WikiLeaks decided to follow through with an earlier statement by publishing hacked voicemails of top democratic officials. There are 29 leaked recordings, which are identified by phone number and total about 14 minutes combined. Many of the voicemails are messages of callers leaving their numbers in hopes of being called back. Others are from voters upset that the DNC was giving too much support to Sanders. The Hill reports that "One caller with an Arizona area code called to blast the DNC for putting Sanders surrogate Cornel West on the platform drafting committee. 'I'm furious for what you are doing for Bernie Sanders,' another caller says in a message. 'He's getting way too much influence. What I see is the Democratic Party bending over backwards for Bernie,' adds the caller, who threatens to leave the party if the DNC doesn't stop 'coddling' the Vermont senator."
Re: (Score:1)
This wikileak brought to you by the Make-It-Look-Like-We-Tried-To-Bend-Over-Backwards-for-Bernie department of the Hillary Clinton borg cube.
That's exactly what I was thinking, too.
voicemail by anonymous or... (Score:5, Funny)
'He's getting way too much influence. What I see is the Democratic Party bending over backwards for Bernie,' adds the caller, who threatens to leave the party if the DNC doesn't stop 'coddling' the Vermont senator."
Oddly, the caller left her name as "an avid supporter of freedom from email prosecution"
The rest of the messages... (Score:3)
"This is a survey call. Mr. or Ms. DNC, which candidate are you more likely to vote for if the election was held today?"
Re: The rest of the messages... (Score:1)
Well think about this: If you see two people in a room who basically look the same, only one has a giant ass, which one will you remember more? This is precisely why Hillary won the nomination.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Two large thighs, two small breasts, and a left wing.
It's Russia's Fault! (Score:4, Funny)
This is all Russia's fault! I should know, I can see Russia from my back yard!
Pay no attention to the corruption, instead we all need to worry that Trump is going to sell the White House to Canada so they can burn it down... again.
Re: (Score:1)
This is all Russia's fault! I should know, I can see Russia from my back yard!
Pay no attention to the corruption, instead we all need to worry that Trump is going to sell the White House to Canada so they can burn it down... again.
Meh. Burning White House is so last millennium. It seams to be causing more damage to US intact anyways.
What do you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
One caller with an Arizona area code called to blast the DNC for putting Sanders surrogate Cornel West on the platform drafting committee.
The man won about half the votes in the primaries. In a fair system, his surrogates would be about half of the platform drafting committee, not a token member or two.
A funny story (Score:5, Informative)
This election is rife with hilarious situations, if you know where to look.
Technically, Sanders raised more money than Clinton did in the first 3 months of this year. As an example, at the end of January Sanders raised $67 million compared to Clinton's $27 million.
The maximum one can donate to Clinton (or any one candidate) is $5400, but you can donate to other Democratic campaigns in various amounts. So the "Hillary Victory Fund" held a number of campaign contribution events supposedly for local democratic campaigns. The fund transferred the money to local committees, but then moved the money from there directly to the Clinton campaign.
From the Rolling Stone report [rollingstone.com]:
As an example, take couples who paid or raised $353,400 to sit at a table with George Clooney, a sum that Clooney himself called an "obscene amount of money." The figure represented the maximum allowable donation given the structure of the Hillary Victory Fund, a joint venture between the Clinton campaign, the DNC and 32 state committees.
Donors can give a maximum of $5,400 per election cycle to Hillary's campaign, $33,400 per year to the DNC, and $10,000 per year to each of the 32 state committees in the fund.
If you assumed that the Clooney guests had already given their maximum $5,400 to the Clinton campaign, that left just over $353,000 for the DNC and the committees.
But Vogel and Arnsdorf found that less than 1 percent of the $61 million raised by the Hillary Victory Fund went to the state committees.
[...] The money sometimes came and went before state officials even knew it was there. Politico noted that the Victory Fund treasurer, Beth Jones, is also the COO of the Clinton campaign.
[...] Vogel-Arnsdorf also noted that of the $23.3 million spent directly by the fund, most "had gone toward expenses that appear to have directly benefited Clinton's campaign, including $2.8 million for 'salary and overhead' and $8.6 million for web advertising that mostly looks indistinguishable from Clinton campaign ads."
So the Democratic party took all the Bernie Sanders money and matched it with an equal amount of money drained from local democratic elections, and like matter and anti-matter both sums annihilated in a flash of political advertizing!
All that effort and money and work you Bernie Sanders advocates put in came to naught, because the Democrats simply didn't want Sanders to win.
(I don't care *who* you are, that's funny right thar :-)
And nothing will be done about it.
The Democrats probably violated FEC law, possibly violated money laundering law, and absolutely betrayed your trust in a fair and honest runoff between candidates...
All this was noticed in May [politico.com], and there's been no call for investigation, no call for prosecution, nothing.
Bernie got roughly 43 percent [realclearpolitics.com] of the popular vote.
Do you think that those extra campaign funds might have tipped the balance in favor of Hillary?
It gets better.
The polls at the time showed that Bernie had a better chance of beating Trump than Hillary.
And by siphoning money away from local elections, the Democrats have probably thrown many local elections to the Republican side!
That's hilarious! :)
Sanders and the rest of the party are calling for *everyone* to support Hillary. They're effectively asking all the Bernie voters to "forget that we just betrayed you in the worst possible way, we have to stick together or Trump will win!". Keep party unity! Don't let the Republicans win!
And they're absolutely right! If Bernie runs as a 3rd party, Trump will win. If Bernie supporters swi
Re: (Score:3)
Bernie got roughly 43 percent [realclearpolitics.com] of the popular vote.
That's only the primary count. If you include the caucus votes, he got about 49% of the popular vote.
Now, we know the DNC was in the bag for Hillary and pushing the media to cover her favorable. It's generally considered that good press is worth about 5% in the polls.
The Superdelegates were for Hillary, but we probably would have had a situation where Bernie got the popular majority but Hillary got the nomination, if the DNC had pla
The big issue (Score:3, Insightful)
The Superdelegates were for Hillary, but we probably would have had a situation where Bernie got the popular majority but Hillary got the nomination, if the DNC had played neutral.
Don't lose track of the big issue.
You make some good points, there's lots of insightful analysis that can be done, but the big issue is...
Despite any analysis, he *might* have won the nomination. That $61 million extra given to Hillary by the Democrats is a lot of money, and represents good-faith donations of hard-earned cash gone to waste.
Ultimately, Bernie never got his chance!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, we're talking about the popular vote. 55% Hillary vs 43% Bernie [thegreenpapers.com]. That's a 12 point gap, nothing the DNC did could possibly have shifted that many votes. It's time for Bernie supporters to get over their butt-hurt and act like grown ups.
The scheduling of the debates was designed to limit exposure to the public of all the Democratic candidates, thus denying them free publicity early on, leaving HRC with the then superior name recognition she already had.
Re: (Score:2)
You're dumb. Debates in 2008 were ratings hits for both parties, as were the 2016 GOP debates, since that race wasn't cleared for Jeb by the RNC. And look up Jesse Ventura - he was a joke celebrity candidate in Minnesota - until he he turned a great debate performance into a stint at the governors office.
That's why the Dems and the R's have colluded since the 80's to keep debates between themselves, to preven
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean by "caucus votes"? There are often straw votes in caucuses, but they don't mean anything, and hence are unreliable. Bernie got a lot of delegates, but not enough to win. The superdelegates are there to prevent things like George McGovern in 1972, still a painful memory for some of us. They are intended to make it more difficult for someone like Sanders to win, and there's good reasons for that. If someone coming from out of left field who's going to have serious vulnerabilities in the
Re: (Score:2)
The funniest part is the Democrat Party allowed themselves to be screwed over by Hillary Clinton's massive ego. They completely blew their chance to pick up more congress and senate seats and the whole idea of Hillary playing feminazi socialist to hide a right wing corporate policy stance with the aid of corporate controlled media, is now completely utterly blown (it took pretty much six years to blow away the PR=B$ surrounding the uncle tom and the fake feminazi wont even get one day of protection). Havin
The DNC sucks an asshole (Score:4, Interesting)
So you thought you could trust the Democrats to leave the power to the people? Right up until they bend you over and fuck you in the ass for corporate interests. That's what Hillary really is, she's the arm of the Democratic Party that will continue to serve the needs of her corporate friends.
Hillary to the left of me, Trump to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle getting screwed.
Re: (Score:2)
sorry there is no magic politics fairy out there for you to vote for. that's life.
This is America, if you want to vote for Magic Politics Fairy you can write his or her name on the line. ;)
Re:The DNC sucks an asshole (Score:5, Funny)
Why settle for the left nut or the right nut when you can have a Johnson?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, it is more like Hillary to the right of you and Trump to the right of her.
Calling the democrats left because they are left of the republicans is like calling Tennessee west coast because they are to the west of North Carolina.
There is still a lot of the right to go before the democrats hit the center, let alone cross the center and make it to the left.
Re: (Score:2)
though true, good luck getting someone to the left of Hillary elected.
Obama was pretty center-right. In a more sane era, he'd be a Rockefeller Republican. The Republicans would trot out this black guy, who had a racist grandma and a dad that left, show that he pulled himself up and became President. Classic Republican story!!! Nahh, instead he's somehow a radical Christian, a secret muslim, a communist AND a nazi, never do anything AND oversteps his bounds all the time.
Part of this left/right problem is
Re: (Score:1)
Some random AC here (emphasis on the "C" part of AC):
Left and right really don't make sense. There are more than just the one, perhaps two axes. For example:
Complete gun bans versus "own what you want, but you will be going to jail if it is improperly stored or takes out someone innocent".
Corporatist versus individual rights.
Country/nationalism versus "free trade" agreements that only benefit multinational entities.
Interest in national security by preserving wealth and education (i.e. don't eat the seed c
Re: (Score:2)
IT is dying, because the cloud is removing the need for system admins
Umm... well lets just say this doesn't square with my personal experience. Every cloud project I've seen needed more IT staff than in-house projects.
Re: (Score:2)
His campaign wasn't. Closing Gitmo, card check, public option, ENDA....a solidly progressive platform that won him the election. That he turned out to be a closet neoliberal neocon doesn't change the fact that he won on a platform far to the left of where she is now. You poll by issues rather than labels, and the "far left" position is generally the most popular one, even amongst Republican voters.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"I am not a member of any organized party — I am a Democrat."
-- Will Rogers
I've never felt that more true.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, this year we even have a Senator who remains registered in the Senate as an Independent, who is complaining that the Democratic Party doesn't consider him a real Democrat. Well, he did change his personal voting registration to Democrat within the past couple years; but to this day he's never changed his Senate registration. Bernie may be a Democrat personally, but as a professional politician who holds office he is actually not one even now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Senate has a list. Every Senator chooses who they are formally associated with. Bernie is not Senator (D) he's a Senator (I), regardless of him having run to be a D in another position.
Re: (Score:2)
Canard. If Bernie wasn't a Democrat in all but name, they wouldn't give him seniority in the Senate, nor would they let him sit on committees. And of course he ran for president a
Re: (Score:2)
My advice, instead of handwaving and making up your own theory, just fact-check what I said.
I'd take you more seriously if you even know how Senate seniority is counted. It isn't conferred separately on the whim of each Party, it is in the Senate rules and is based on the time serving in the committee.
You argue the point about if he's registered as a D or an I in the Senate, but you didn't look it up first. Tsk tsk. Go, look, read, learn... Bro.
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to have remedial knowledge of the subject before engaging in patronization, least you look like a pompous fool. [outsidethebeltway.com] You could have a hundred years of service in the Senate, and it doesn't mean dick if a party doesn't recognize your seniority.
Re: (Score:2)
You found a silly website I'm not going to click on, but even wikipedia can explain how Senate seniority works. You say the word "remedial," but you still haven't attempted a first pass. I'm not going to repeat what I said above that you get wrong. You didn't even understand your own link. Without reading, and because I actually follow politics on a continuous basis, I can already tell you that it is a poorly written piece that conflates the issue of committee assignments, which the parties can do however t
Re: (Score:2)
Hillary to the left of me, Trump to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle getting screwed.
Bridging the gap, I guess your only real choice is which way you want to be facing...
[ You're all welcome for that imagery. ]
Parties! (Score:1)
US clearly needs more parties in the government. The supporters of Bernie and Hillary, and likewise Trump and the former Republican candidates don't belong to the same parties.
Re: (Score:2)
But... but... but... a vote for a third party is a vote for Trump\Clinton!!!!!!!!!!
This year it's 1/2 a vote for Trump/Pence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
No, George Washington warned us against ANY (Score:4)
"However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion." - George Washington, first President of the US
If people would spend more time reading what our founders said and wrote, and just a tiny bit less time on pop culture, we might be a little bit less messed-up. They designed the American system and left us both the operating manual (the Constitution) and their design notes (extensive writings, both for and against the choices they made see: "Federalist Papers" and "Anti-Federalist Papers" and all thier other books and writings).
Re:Yeah so (Score:5, Interesting)
Up until the point that he got on the Hillary train, I had a LOT of respect for Sanders. You're right that most of his positions are close to "normal" for Democrats, but unlike most politicians, he was not trying to walk both sides of a line, and he was that rare (almost unique) straight shooter. He didn't hide behind weasel words, he didn't equivocate, he stated, simply, what his ideals were, and appeared to live by them.
When's the last time you heard ANYONE at his level of politics say something like "I have to get my tax returns from my wife, she does them" and then further find out that he's actually living on his Senate salary and not "speaking fees" or other similar near bribes?
I'm actually pretty upset over the whole thing--I would NEVER have voted for Sanders, because his politics are too far off from mine, but he was a politician I could admire... until he became just another party hack at convention time.
Re:Yeah so (Score:5, Insightful)
Up until the point that he got on the Hillary train, I had a LOT of respect for Sanders. You're right that most of his positions are close to "normal" for Democrats, but unlike most politicians, he was not trying to walk both sides of a line, and he was that rare (almost unique) straight shooter. He didn't hide behind weasel words, he didn't equivocate, he stated, simply, what his ideals were, and appeared to live by them.
When's the last time you heard ANYONE at his level of politics say something like "I have to get my tax returns from my wife, she does them" and then further find out that he's actually living on his Senate salary and not "speaking fees" or other similar near bribes?
I'm actually pretty upset over the whole thing--I would NEVER have voted for Sanders, because his politics are too far off from mine, but he was a politician I could admire... until he became just another party hack at convention time.
Politics is the art of compromise. The only ones who refuse to compromise are dictators or useless blowhards.
Sanders' could have insisted on all of his principles, refused to endorse Hillary, and possibly handed the election to Trump, undercutting virtually every policy objective he had.
Or he could endorse Hillary, hope she'd win, and watch her do 95% of the same things he would have done.
You can insist on a perfect candidate and pout if you don't get one. Or you can be smart like Sanders, find the least worst option you can, and do your best to improve it.
Re: (Score:1)
hahaha 95%. Please, Clinton will backtrack on almost every single left-leaning word she had to grit and lie about to sway people away from Sanders. She will support the TPP, she will deregulate banks, she will continue the gradual slide of the downfall of the USA. Thankfully I'm not a citizen so I'll have my mashmellows out waiting for the fire :) ... TBH my country isn't much better, but the reality is we are all screwed by human ego and laziness.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not unconscionable. It's sophistry.
Most of Hillary's greatest right wing hits were entirely out of her time in the Senate, except of course for her vote on Iraq. Calling black kids "super-predators", where was the vote on that? How about her supporting "regime change" in the democracies of Venezuela, Ukraine and Honduras? Turning Libya and Syria into another couple of Iraq's,
Re: (Score:2)
The only ones who refuse to compromise are dictators or useless blowhards.
I see you're already familiar with the US congress. ;)
Re: (Score:1)
You can insist on a perfect candidate and pout if you don't get one. Or you can be smart like Sanders, find the least worst option you can, and do your best to improve it.
My problem is this: If Democrats let the Democratic Party get away with this, it sets a standard for what sort of bullshit is acceptable.
Also, if the betrayed Bernie supporters "do their duty" and vote in Hillary, they face the possibility of her being in for two terms. I can barely stomach the idea of voting for her once, and by doing so I'm losing the ability to choose my candidate for two elections (if she is indeed voted in for 2016).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
As a Democrat I have to wonder, is the best solution just to have more super-delegates? Is it too easy for Greens to try to hijack a primary? If they weren't Democrats before Bernie ran, and they don't want to support Hillary after she won... in what way should I care about their representation in my party?
I like Bernie, he's a great Senator, but I think he started learning about foreign policy sometime after he announced his candidacy. The domestic issues he rails about have to be solved from Congress, whe
Re: (Score:2)
11/8 Clinton/Kaine
11/9 Bernie 2020
Re: (Score:1)
Or he could endorse Hillary, hope she'd win, and watch her do 95% of the same things he would have done.
Just how delusional do you have to be to think Hillary is going to keep her word? She has a well documented history of lying. Why do people give her a pass on that, and even completely ignore the nature of the beast?
Re: (Score:2)
Or he could endorse Hillary, hope she'd win, and watch her do 95% of the same things he would have done.
Just how delusional do you have to be to think Hillary is going to keep her word? She has a well documented history of lying. Why do people give her a pass on that, and even completely ignore the nature of the beast?
Re: (Score:2)
That's all the people have done since Reagan - make compromise after compromise after compromise. And for every singe "victory", like SCHIP, has come with a dozen far more serious defeats, like NAFTA/DMCA/NDAA etc etc.
The o
Re:Yeah so (Score:5, Insightful)
Politics isn't an absolute win or lose game, and at least from an idealistic perspective, the goal isn't about gaining power, or even necessarily about having a perfectly virtuous leader, so much as it is about getting the right policies put in place. At the end of the day, it's the policies and governance that matter. Sure, a virtuous leader is more likely to enact good policies than an immoral or unethical one, but don't lose sight of the ultimate goal. In the US alone, we've had virtuous leaders take us down a ruinous path, and questionable ones who nonetheless left the country in a better state than they found it.
Did you somehow think Bernie Sanders entered the race with the express intent and goal of taking out Hillary Clinton? If so, you weren't listening to what he said. He's had very specific goals and ideas that he, and many others, did not feel at the start of the primary that Clinton would enough to push, at least not without being pushed. Seeing no other similar candidate (such as Elizabeth Warren) running, he entered the race. He didn't win, but he did manage to get Clinton to adopt many of his ideas. That's not a complete victory, but at this point, he's being entirely rational by concluding that Clinton will move things in the direction he wants them to move, even if not as far as he'd like. This is progress, even if slow. In 4 or 8 years, Sanders, or whomever succeeds him as the standard bearer of the Progressive wing, will be in a better position to achieve those goals.
In other words, he's done exactly what a politician who puts his ideals, beliefs, and goals, ahead of his own personal self-aggrandizement/status/power, rationally would do in his position.
Re: (Score:2)
Bernie is a soshalist, and that's eeeevil. That's not much of a liability in the Democratic nomination process, since a lot of us are seriously left-wing from the start, but it could be a huge liability in the election campaign. He doesn't have much in the way of negatives right now, but that's because nobody has been seriously trying. I'm glad that he did so well, since I want it emphasized that lots of us agree with his ideas, but I'm a lot more confident that Clinton can get elected (she's already be
Re: (Score:2)
...he was a politician I could admire... until he became just another party hack at convention time.
I can't blame him. I've seen someone describe it as "stepping in shit to dodge a bullet." The "bullet", of course, being a Trump presidency.
Re: (Score:2)
If you expected Sanders to be non-compromising, you clearly haven't done your research on him. The man has a solid track record of a pragmatic idealist - he has clear ideals that he strives to fulfill, but at the same time, he is perfectly able and willing to work with people whom he disagrees with, so long as it gets him one step closer to his goals. Look at what he did in Congress - constant scheming to add riders to bills. Go even further back, and look at what he did as a mayor [nytimes.com].
And it's exactly what mad
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not "reality world", that's shroomed up Obamabot fantasy. That costs aren't increasing at double digit rates every year doesn't mean they aren't still rising faster than inflation.
You say that like it's a good thing. It's not. For-profit insurance isn't the solution, it's the problem. Y'alls need to go watch Sicko
Timing (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder if the specific timing is WikiLeak's idea or the source's idea.
If you're trying to damage Clinton and the DNC this is great timing, it aggravates Sander's supporters and pits them against the party when everyone is at the DNC, it also distracts the public from good press that the DNC is generating.
But if you're trying to publicize WikiLeaks and the leaks themselves it's terrible timing, almost no one outside of political junkies is going to hear about it because the news is swamped with the DNC itself.
I suspect the source has specific conditions about how this info gets published.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
or maybe the walkout by half the DNC hall after clinton was nominated???
maybe it was the breaking of federal law at the convention when they knowingly had illegal immigrants come out and speak (yes, that IS a federal crime)
but hey, they got 1 transgendered bathroom so i guess thats good right?
Re:Timing (Score:5, Informative)
or maybe the walkout by half the DNC hall after clinton was nominated???
I don't think the word "half" means what you think it means.
maybe it was the breaking of federal law at the convention when they knowingly had illegal immigrants come out and speak (yes, that IS a federal crime)
I believe your understanding of the law is incorrect [snopes.com].
Re: (Score:1)
...
but hey, they got 1 transgendered bathroom so i guess thats good right?
Yep, all they did was paper over ONE Women's bathroom sign.
DNC’s ‘All-Gender’ Bathroom A Mere Publicity Stunt. Here’s Proof. [dailywire.com]
"All of the other bathrooms in the arena appear to be more traditional, split by the sexes. Is it a coincidence that the all-gender restroom is right by the press booth?" asks Rantz.
The great transgender coverup at the DNC [hotair.com]
Re: (Score:1)
There seems to be an effort by the media to paint the DNC as being "a success" and the RNC as "a disaster" - despite all reports indicating that they were the exact opposite: the RNC was (with the exception of Cruz) a party coming together to support their candidate, while the DNC was two warring factions failing to come to any sort of agreement - primarily because it's come out that the "losing" side only lost because of massive fraud and cheating on the "winning" side. (But, hey, if the FBI gives a pass t
Re: (Score:3)
There seems to be an effort by the media to paint the DNC as being "a success" and the RNC as "a disaster" - despite all reports indicating that they were the exact opposite: the RNC was (with the exception of Cruz) a party coming together to support their candidate
Yeah, that was great how Bush, McCain, and Romney all came out to support.... oh wait, they all stayed away because a significant part of the Republican establishment refuses to endorse Trump.
In fact if they were to endorse anyone during the campaign it would likely be Hillary. I mean the Cruz-endorsing "Obamacare is unconstitutional" folks at Volokh Conspiracy have already done so.
while the DNC was two warring factions failing to come to any sort of agreement
The only reason the RNC was so quiet is their insurgent with outsider delegates won. Can you imagine how chaotic it would be if
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't matter. Hillary has the majority of the people, and come November, she will be winning not just the Oval Office, but both sides of Congress. Once the Bernie supporters realized they have to side with her (only fair play, as the Hillary supporters went with Obama), there is no way she cannot win the White House, as the RNC was not even covered by mainstream media for the most part, while the DNC is covered 24/7.
Hey, look! A Shillary in its natural habitat ... anonymous and cowardly.
Re: (Score:2)
You got some derp on your chin, Bro. Have a Hanky.
You would think reporters would not complain (Score:2)
I mean, phoning in to complain that Bernie actually was given access? What reporter would do that? They need to get in line after the Billionaires and Millionaires the DNC sold out to, after all!
Re: (Score:2)
Well they have to complain somewhat, otherwise they won't know how to write the stories on the DNC, Hillary or Bernie. Then send those stories to the DNC to get approval before they publish them.
Well there is one thing that is certain. (Score:2)
Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Seems like a leak for the sake of leaking something. Are they just trying to embarrass the DNC by showing they got voice mail access? There is nothing of value here. This does nothing more than violate the privacy of people. Can't claim any moral high ground about whistle blowing with this.
I'm shocked, leader push their agenda (Score:5, Insightful)
The system is far from perfect and Bernie Sanders did a great job of getting people thinking, but until the presidential election is tax payer funded (and Citizen United overturned ) and open (2-8 parties based on some equation) we will be stuck choosing between the lesser of two instead of the greatest of two or more.
Re: (Score:2)
Candidates have come out of seemingly nowhere and gotten nominated before. I hadn't heard of Carter before it was clear he was picking up a large number of delegates. Sanders had a darn good run. What the Democrats want to prevent is another nomination like McGovern in 1972.
That one lady... (Score:2)
Payback? (Score:2)
The timing seems like payback for the treatment Snowden/Asange/Manning has received under a Democratic President.
Pretty lame as far as scandal material goes. (Score:3)
If you want to see Democrats sniping at each others' candidates or complaining about what the party's up to, just go on any Democratic blog.
It's not a scandal. It's not a secret. It's not even a problem -- not even when people get hot under the collar and start acting like assholes. George Washington was elected unanimously by the Electoral College, but in every election since then politics has been turning Americans into assholes.
And that is a good thing. You can't make politics 100% civil without pushing out unpopular opinions.
Yawn... (Score:2)
Nutter Butters (Score:2)
So this is just a bunch of voicemail from random callers? Why? Why would we even hear about these or moreover care?
Re: (Score:2)
My best guess is that Wikileaks is acting like assholes right now. I can't see any legitimate reason for releasing recordings of random people calling the committee.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Oh look, slashdot poster who complains about fallacious attacks engages in fallacious attacks. More at 11.
Re:Scathing (Score:5, Insightful)
Were one to be strategically releasing things one would want to release something a little juicy at the beginning to wet the appetite and begin the story you are trying to tell. (i.e. leading to the sacking of corrupt DNC head)
Then fill the middle with the less interesting stuff so it will be reported, continue momentum as possible and create an ongoing story. In marketing it is important to at least double tap the consumer - one impression is too easily forgettable. Remember the media and general public are like a child with ADHD - keeping their attention is difficult and they are easily distracted by shiny, disingenuous, prepackaged speeches.
Once all that is out of the way one might end with a bang in a final awesome explosion of fireworks as the Demo convention closes. Maybe more than one if one had them.
Now I have no evidence that they have any evidence that might lead to this. But likewise you have no evidence that they do not.
So I guess what I am saying is that you are going off half cocked while acting like a cock crowing far too early and likely to end up under the farmer's axe when your irrational ranting is shown to be just that...
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Were one to be strategically releasing things one would want to release something a little juicy at the beginning to wet the appetite
Whet.
Re: (Score:1)
Were one to be strategically releasing things one would want to release something a little juicy at the beginning to wet the appetite
Whet.
^ Thank you. This grammar error made me laugh so hard I whet my pants.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Not that I want to interrupt the flow of your psychotic and irrational ranting...but...
What you are saying in the main part of your post is not actually stupid, but you make a bad impression, starting out calling people psychotic, both because opponents are not psychotic simply because they don't agree with you, and of course, your usage demonstrates that you have no idea what "psychotic" actually means, it seems; you just hope it sounds sufficiently strong to be impressive.
It is easy to get a high score, if that is all you care about - in the present times you just need to howl abuse against
Re: (Score:2)
Psychotic: relating to, denoting, or suffering from a psychosis
Psychosis: a severe mental disorder in which thought and emotions are so impaired that contact is lost with external reality.
Since this was a metaphor and not a diagnosis I stand by my words 100%. I was (correctly) implying that he was detracted from reality and acting irrationally.
It also just so happens I have a degree in psychology am
Re: (Score:2)
You don't take well to criticism, do you? No matter - I don't need to get the last word; my self-respect doesn't depend on putting others down. But I do remember when I was young, full of fire, and afraid of letting my mind be changed by good arguments. You know, you are not actually a better person, even if you make somebody else feel bad - that only makes you a bully. And it is perfectly possible to disagree in a mature, well-thought out manner, where you respect the other person's view without agreeing t
Re: (Score:2)
But taking criticism well does NOT mean accepting some random persons demonstrably incorrect and patronizing assumptions as fact (I even took the time to explain why) and allowing them sit in a cloud of smugness pretending they have all the answers when they clearly do not.
If it bothers you that I used a passionate rebuttal
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I apologize. Sometimes I construct comments which require an IQ above 80 to understand...
Perhaps you could whet [grammarist.com] our appetite with one.
Re: (Score:2)
Also I hate pedants.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You just have to put the pieces together.
Well, his statement a few days ago said exactly that, so no rocket science there. And, he specifically called out the administration for intervention in Libya, and for leaving a power vacuum leading to the rise of ISIL. He also specifically mentions Trump, saying that he was a wildcard and no one knew what he would really do if elected, while he thought it was clear through her history what Hillary would do. Agree with it or not, it was a concise and fairly straightforward statement, no need to speculate ab
Re: (Score:1)
"Are some peoples hate for the DNC/Democrats/Hilldog so strong that they blindly accept anything negative about them regardless of it's lack of vetting?"
Last year the Republicans had a minor rage-seizure because Hillary dared allow her photo to be taken holding her grandchild. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.
Re: voicemails (Score:1)
Hey, just wait for the next leak, which will probably be something like footage from a security camera they had installed over a dnc toilet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
49% rapist? That's difficult to believe. I never saw anything that suggests he's in any way a rapist.
So he's just staying in the Ecuadorian embassy because he likes it there.