DNC Email Leak

[Alicja]

 

Wikileaks is at it again, this time hacking the emails of the DNC.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/22/wikileaks-releases-nearly-20000-hacked-dnc-emails/

https://www.rt.com/usa/352752-dnc-leaks-clinton-collusion/

What do y'all think? I'm not really surprised, given that this election cycle is certainly one of the most... interesting I have ever experienced.

Also, Wikileaks apparently did NOT censor the SSNs and credit card information leaked, so if you've donated to the DNC, please make sure to monitor your credit cards and anything else that would be affected!

 

[Maggie Mae]

I'm sure this will be huge, like the Panama Papers, the original Wikileaks, Edward Snowden's whistle blowing, and whatever it was that Chelsea (?) Manning did. 

Oh. Wait. 

No one will care. We have a new season of (something stupid) to watch! 

Sorry for the cynicism. I've seen a couple of very editorialized headlines about this and I care but I know not a lot of other people will. 

I don't know if the SSN and CC info will be that of donors. It looks like it's just high level emails. 

[Alicja]

I'm sure this will be huge, like the Panama Papers, the original Wikileaks, Edward Snowden's whistle blowing, and whatever it was that Chelsea (?) Manning did. 

Oh. Wait. 

No one will care. We have a new season of (something stupid) to watch! 

Sorry for the cynicism. I've seen a couple of very editorialized headlines about this and I care but I know not a lot of other people will. 

I don't know if the SSN and CC info will be that of donors. It looks like it's just high level emails. 

No need to apologize, I agree with you. Apparently, more is coming out the day before the Democratic National Convention, so maybe it'll get more attention then?

[Florita]

Sanders supporters are paying attention:

http://usuncut.com/resistance/bernie-sanders-supporters-are-suing-dnc/

[RoseWilder]

Sanders' supporters have been saying for months that they thought the DNC was conspiring against him. So why did they donate money to the DNC if they thought they were so corrupt? Makes no sense. But then I can't make sense of Bernie supporters anyway, with their claims that they're going to vote for Trump (who agrees with none of their positions) over Clinton (who agrees with a lot, but not all) just because they didn't get their way. 

And while I think what the DNC did was wrong, I think it was majorly hypocritical of Sanders to expect financial help from the DNC to begin with. He's not a Democrat and never should have tried to run as one.

Also, the DNC needs to get rid of Debbie Wasserman-Shultz. There have been too many mistakes made while she's been in charge. WAY too many.

 

[PennySycamore]

Any Bernie supporters who vote for Drumpf or Jill Stein are frankly idiots.  No need to tell you about Drumpf but Jill Stein recently said that she'd govern by Executive Action to get her agenda through.  It doesn't work like that unless you have a dictatorship. She is also anti-vax and pro-homeopathy and she's an MD.

[RoseWilder]

@PennySycamore: I agree. I understand why some people don't like Clinton. I understand why they might have differences of opinion with her. But this is not a normal election year. If the Republicans had nominated a sane, decent human being, then I could at least sort of understand why they would vote third party or vote Republican. But good grief, we have a man running on the Republican ticket who has broadcast to the world that he plans to trample all over the Constitution, discriminate against everyone who isn't a white man, and end freedom of the press. I just cannot make sense of how anyone who claims to be a Democrat or a Liberal could even contemplate voting for Trump or voting 3rd party. 

And wow, I didn't know any of that stuff about Jill Stein. Thanks for the info. That's frightening stuff. 

[PennySycamore]

I may have come across a bit too harshly in my earlier post.  If you are in a state that will reliably gone way or the other, then you might throw your vote away in protest.  You might want to remember that in 2000, Gore would have won outright if Nader hadn't taken some votes from him.  He would have been so much better than Dubya who lied us into a war.  

[RoseWilder]

I think there are going to be a lot of electoral surprises this year, so I wouldn't count on any state being totally reliable. 

Plus, I really want Trump to not just lose, but to lose really badly so it will send a message to the Republicans that we aren't going to accept candidates that are sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. I get why people want to send a message to the Democrats as well, because goodness knows that there are problems happening over on that side too. But the hatred coming out of the Republican party goes so far beyond the problems happening on the Democratic side and it really needs to stop. The other day, my Mother (who is in her early 60s) said, "I remember when the Republican nominee was someone I just disagreed with, not someone who seemed insane and filled with hate." 

[RosyDaisy]

Being from Alabama, I can guarantee my state will vote for Trump. I, however, won't. No way in hell.

[notfundy]

I agree it's awful that the DNC didn't treat the candidates fairly.   It's very unfortunate  especially since we need every vote possible to defeat the dangerous Donald Trump  (yes, very dangerous).  Terrible timing, too - since V.P. candidate TIm Kaine had a great roll-out today. He seems like a genuinely good and decent man  (what a relief with all the corruption on BOTH sides of the aisle this year.)  

Here's the thing.... (and I have to say I agree with LOTS of what Bernie was running on).  But - Bernie is not a Democrat .   The DNC's leadership wasn't aligned with him like they were with Hillary, who's worked with and for Democratic candidates for decades.

Bernie Sanders has been a proud, registered "Independent"  for his entire time in Congress.   He only chose to run as a Dem since (a) he agrees with many/most Democratic policy positions, (b) he is part of the Democratic caucus in the Senate and (c)  - most importantly - he KNEW a third party bid would not go anywhere.  We are still a two-party system in the U.S.A. like it or not.

So why would the DNC not give Bernie a fair shake?  Why did they favor Clinton?  Well - think about it.   BIG MONEY is a "thing" in politics (especially since the conservative wing of the Supreme Court ruled on Citizens United:  Corporations are people, and money = speech.  So UNLIMITED money pours into campaigns.    No money?  Difficult to compete.   Bernie showed that to be an exception with all his grass roots support, which is great.   

But the DNC is all about fund-raising; it's one of their primary functions.  So why didn't the DNC support Bernie equally?    Think about it. He's never raised a dime for any (other) Senate or Congressional candidate.   Of course, why would he - he's an INDEPENDENT not a registered DEMOCRAT.    

If this makes Bernie's supporters mad enough to vote third party or to vote for Trump or to stay home -  consider what will happen to just three areas:   (1)  the environment (NO Republicans think climate change is real, and it is the biggest threat to our world, far bigger than ISIS) (2)   LGBTQ rights   (3)  and a woman's right to make reproductive choices.    

And if Trump wins The Supreme Court will be conservative for a generation or more - who knows who Trump will appoint?  

Finally - if you cannot bring yourself to vote for Hillary, consider it a vote for the environment, or for women's reproductive health - or for ANY of the things the Republican Party could care less about.    And please - everyone - read what Trump's ghostwriter for "Art of the Deal" has to say about Trump.  He strongly believes he (Trump) is mentally ill.  Going to bed, but will add a link somewhere tomorrow if there isn't already one up here somewhere. 

 

[Maggie Mae]

Eh, it's fine if people don't want to vote for the big money.  Even if there's a chance that Trump might be a one term (or less) president. He's racist and obnoxious,  he's terrible.  But he's not that different from what ever shitty candidate the "democratic party" pushed. Vote for who you want and don't fall for scare tactics. 

 

 

[RoseWilder]

6 hours ago, Maggie Mae said:

Eh, it's fine if people don't want to vote for the big money.  Even if there's a chance that Trump might be a one term (or less) president. He's racist and obnoxious,  he's terrible.  But he's not that different from what ever shitty candidate the "democratic party" pushed. Vote for who you want and don't fall for scare tactics. 

 

 

Actually, he's quite different from the candidates on the Democratic side. I'm not hearing (or seeing any indication) that the Democratic candidate is trying to; take away LGBTQ rights, take away abortion rights, end the free press, back out of our Nato agreement, discriminate against everyone who isn't a white man. If the Supreme Court wasn't at stake here, then I might even buy the argument some are trying to make that Trump can't do that much damage in 4 years, but the reality is that he could set LGBTQ rights and women's rights back for decades to come. I don't think it's a scare tactic to say that. I think it's just the reality of the situation. I try very hard not to buy into the crazy conspiracies being floating "civilization is going to end if Trump gets elected," or "He's acting just like Hitler." But the very real thing that will change is that a lot of people (LGBTQ, women, the press) will lose their rights under a Trump presidency and it will be decades before the Supreme Court will shift back. That's not a scare tactic. More is at stake here than some people want to acknowledge.

[lascuba]

I'm no fan of the Democratic party and I'm still pissed that Clinton chose to run at all, but these emails sound like a whole lot of nothing. Wow, a political organization got caught...being political. The RNC gave us a televised white supremacy rally--complete with Nazi salute--but the DNC emails are the scandal. Some fool on twitter was all, "Look, Latinos! The Democrats are trying to get you to vote for them!!!" The reaching abilities of Republicans rival those of that Elastigirl.

[RoseWilder]

Debbie Wasserman-Shultz has resigned:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/debbie-wasserman-schultz-resigns_us_5795044ae4b0d3568f8397f7?section=

 

[Ali]

My dream, and I know it is a dream, is for Trump to come in third behind Hillary Clinton and Gary Johnson.

[Maggie Mae]

17 hours ago, PennySycamore said:

 You might want to remember that in 2000, Gore would have won outright if Nader hadn't taken some votes from him. 

That's not entirely true. People say this all the time, but there were other circumstances involved, including 12-13% of registered Florida democrats who voted for Bush. 

• The aforementioned 12-13% of Florida Democrats who voted for Bush
• The Supreme Court is the party who handed the election to Bush. 
• 560 votes separated George Bush from Al Gore. That's within the margin of error. 
• Florida's method of voting, and the lack of standardization regarding how ballots are handled across the state. 
• There were other 3rd-party candidates. In Florida, they all received more than 600 votes. Any one of them could have dropped out and their votes could have, in theory, gone to one of the candidates.  

[Maggie Mae]

8 hours ago, lascuba said:

The RNC gave us a televised white supremacy rally--complete with Nazi salute--but the DNC emails are the scandal. 

 

Like this? 

Spoiler

There are so many other things weird/wrong about the RNC. A "nazi salute" wasn't one of them. 

[lascuba]

57 minutes ago, Maggie Mae said:

Like this? 

  Hide contents

There are so many other things weird/wrong about the RNC. A "nazi salute" wasn't one of them. 

You know damn good and well what Laura Ingraham was doing so spare me your bullshit false equivalences. Christ, the lengths people would go to to explain away racism and fascism. 

[Maggie Mae]

17 minutes ago, lascuba said:

You know damn good and well what Laura Ingraham was doing so spare me your bullshit false equivalences. Christ, the lengths people would go to to explain away racism and fascism. 

I just think it's more important to talk about the content of the speech than some shitty wave. 

[lascuba]

1 minute ago, Maggie Mae said:

I just think it's more important to talk about the content of the speech than some shitty wave. 

It wasn't some shitty wave. Come on. The content of every spoken word at that convection is absolutely the most important thing but you can't seriously be arguing that that gesture was a huge problem.

Seriously, why are you so invested in dismissing it as no big deal?

[Mecca]

I am not going to sit here and say the DNC are super awesome and perfect, but the e-mails being this huge scandal is just reaching at this point. Wow. They backed Hillary and not the guy that decided to be a democrat a hot second ago. Not shocked.

I am not sure exactly what people are expecting. Parties are in the business of backing people they think will win. Welcome to politics. It is ugly, rough and can be really shitty a lot of the time. I am upset that Hillary may pay for some of this crap. There will be people that will blow this up to try and deflect their own crap. 

Do I think some of the e-mails were crappy? Yes I do, but I, too, questioned Sanders. You can't just come in at the last minute, barging in and start telling people how to run the show. That is why I shifted my support away from Sanders to Clinton. I voted for him in the primaries but grew very tired of his antics. The whining about rules he agreed to, trying to over-step and debate Trump when he did not win the nomination, and telling Trump he needed to calm his supporters while ignoring the actions of his own supporters. Why would anyone be shocked the DNC did not support him? He was kinda a pain in the ass and came off as a sore loser. And I hate saying that because I loved Bernie way before he came on this Presidental screen. 

Frankly, I am more concerned about the racist, bigoted, sexist asshat on the top of the Republican ticket that could possibly win the presidency to care about these e-mails. 

 

[Imagine20]

On 7/24/2016 at 2:24 AM, Maggie Mae said:

Eh, it's fine if people don't want to vote for the big money.  Even if there's a chance that Trump might be a one term (or less) president. He's racist and obnoxious,  he's terrible.  But he's not that different from what ever shitty candidate the "democratic party" pushed. Vote for who you want and don't fall for scare tactics. 

 

 

You may not be part of one of the groups Trump explicitly targets. Being part of one, he scares the shit out of me.  

[RosyDaisy]

I would say anyone who isn't white, male, rich, straight, and Christian is a target for Trump. Trump. He will ruin this country, and it won't take 4 years to do it.

[nausicaa]

27 minutes ago, RosyDaisy said:

I would say anyone who isn't white, male, rich, straight, and Christian is a target for Trump. Trump. He will ruin this country, and it won't take 4 years to do it.

And considering Trump is out for the blood of Cruz, Kasich, and the Bush family, I'd say even being white, male, rich, straight, and Christian doesn't ensure you're not a target.