Sanders presidential campaign accuses Democrats of dirty data tricks A hacking row is splitting the Democratic Party's presidential campaign after an incident with the party's database provider. Presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders has been cut off from access to the vital voter targeting database after one of his campaign staffers improperly entered the servers of the database's host provider …
Turns out that Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a known Hillary (could have fooled me knocked me over with a feather) supporter. This is just an excuse to lock out "poor" Bernie Sanders.
Now if someone external got in, that would be "interesting". I suspect that the information on the DNC's servers are a bit more secure than Hillary's email servers.
On top of that, the makers of the software involved have ties to Hillary as well. This looks like, smells like and feels like a setup. Hillary is obviously very afraid of the support for Sanders.
Some additional information points out, that there was only read access to the database and that this was fixed in about 30 minutes.
An article from The Intercept suggests the very fact the debate is on a Saturday shows the DNC want to bury the debate from view. Media Ignores Sanders Though He’s More Popular Than Trump
The Demented Donald Show is casting a long an unhelpful shadow the serious business of electing the next leader of the biggest and most probably the most active military power on earth. Just from a moral stand point it's pretty low to be giving someone who appears to be suffering from dementia maximum coverage for laughs.
VOTE! But if you don't like the candidates on the ballot don't vote for them, I don't care if you write in Bernie Sanders or your pet hamster but VOTE.
The last USA presidential election had something like a third of the registered voters casting a ballot. That means that only slightly more than 1/6 the voting population of the USA voted for the current POTUSA who now claims the "Mandate of the majority".
Sure a Dem or Rep will still get enough of a majority to get elected but if they only got 15% of the total votes it would kind of get the point across that most US citizens don't like them.
Remember: Your vote is like a coupon for a free dinner at your favorite restaurant. You only waste it if you DON'T use it.
"VOTE!"
Yes, and actually pay attention to the off year campaigns, and vote for the Senators and Representatives that least offends you.
(Once you start looking at what their voting records, attendance records, etc, you can get rather offended.)
Exercise your vote where it can actually count a bit.
But vote for President?
Your vote has a lot less to do with who becomes President than you think.
Don't be afraid to vote for the least worst candidate.
Or if you are into tactical voting, the least worst that is capable of winning.
But imho voting is more effective most times than not voting. If you are a part of a small minority that "spoil" their papers (in the absence of a "none of the above") you'll get classified by most people as a group that gets described as cranks, anarchists, and too-stupid-to-even-mark-a-box-correctly.
Protest at the candidates by writing to the newspaper, posting on facebook, etc where your thoughts will be read - only polling officials and candidate representatives will see what you write on the ballot paper.
@Captain DaFt
Have an upvote.
I've always said the Electoral Colleagues can screw up a wet dream. It'$ a lovely $ystem where $omeone get$ to change everybody'$ vote$ for whatever rea$on. The Electoral College, pffft what a disaster.
A sad reality to be honest, you get to choose between the lessor of evils and then your choice can be changed.
And the real funny thing is watching and waiting to see how many campaign promises the elected president actually keeps....
Unfortunately "Remember: Your vote is like a coupon for a free dinner at your favorite restaurant. You only waste it if you DON'T use it." misrepresents the reality. It's more like “Doing a good job here is like peeing your pants in a dark suit — you get a warm feeling but no one else notices.”
Either the system is rigged, this is the way it is or both. Sad but true.
(Me) Wastes his time no more (or should I vote for hillbilly Trump for being frankly honest ans unscripted, what gets him in trouble).
Individual leaders of the DNC can support Hillary Clinton in any way they want, but they are not going to sabotage our campaign – one of the strongest grassroots campaigns in modern history.
Someone misspells "astroturf".
There's a "Stop Bernie at all costs" campaign, so the groomed heir is left unchallenged, and will "follow the script".
There's the "Stop Donald at all costs" campaign, because he hasn't been bought, and isn't following "the script".
Anyone think the system of lobbying and "lowest common denominator politicians" has evolved to the point where only 2 choices is insufficient to get a rational consensus?
The engineering term is, are the parameters sufficient?
P.
'There's the "Stop Donald at all costs" campaign, because he hasn't been bought, and isn't following "the script".'
The "hasn't been bought" theme seems to me to have one major objection: if his interests are 95% aligned with the interests of those who ordinarily do the purchasing, what is the gain to the public?
I suspect that the Stop Donald campaign has more to do with memories of 1964, and the stop Bernie campaign with memories of 1972.
Is that it?
{there are candidates}
Move along there, this is not news. Whoever gets into the White House will soon realise that the Military and Business will dictate policy in so many areas. Obama only got his healthcare through because once he got elected for a second term, he was not beholden to any faction for re-election.
IMHO, the US system of democracy is totally borked. The problem is that they still think that they are No1 in the world. Look out USA Red China will soon take over your super power mantle.
Remember when Ralph Nader was threatening John Kerry's (ultimately failed) campaign in 2004? Instead of fighting Nader with better ideas, the Kerry campaign -- supported by the Democratic Party Politburo -- sued the Nader campaign to get him off the ballots in key states. The time and money Nader's campaign had to waste fighting the suits diminished his ability to present his ideas to the voters. On the Republican Party side we had the "Swift Boaters," trying to undermine Kerry's Vietnam War record. In other words, neither party gives a damn about the country, they're only interested in seizing control of it.
What gripes me is the American media's obsession with Trump. In a Sanders-Trump contest, polls suggest a Sanders win; and Clinton is also predicted to beat Trump. So why bother with Trump, if he can't win? Simply because he's a blowhard? People got degrees in journalism to tout that loser? Arrrgh. Where's some good-old anarchy when you need it?
This stuff goes on all the time regardless of presidential elections or not. The candidates of course deny all accountability and staffers are dismissed to cleanse the parties responsible. Sanders doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of winning anything anyways so it's a moot point. The candidates do however enjoy spending other people's money and matching tax payer money to wine and dine without a prayer of being elected. As you can see from Sander's expression he has no clue about the internet and hacking, nor do most of the candidates based on their foolish ideas of how to stop terrorists from communicating via encrypted messages. To think these are the best people available to lead the U.S. is a pretty scary thought.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
