SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
CBS reports that hot on the heels of its campaign against ISIS, the shadowy hackers' collective known as Anonymous is going after a new target: Donald Trump. The latest Anonymous operation -- #OpTrump -- was announced in a YouTube video featuring a masked activist claiming to speak for the group. In a computer-generated voice, he takes aim at Trump's proposed ban on Muslims entering the United States, claiming "This is what ISIS wants." He goes on to say that "the more the United States appears to be targeting Muslims, not just radical Muslims," the more ISIS will be able to recruit sympathizers. The video concludes with Anonymous' now-familiar threat: "You have been warned, Mr. Donald Trump. We are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do not forgive. Expect us."
After a video message was posted, the website of Trump Tower in New York City went down for at least an hour. However the campaign didn't appear to have much success. Despite the group's apparent distributed-denial-of-service attack, which aimed to take down a web server by flooding it with fake traffic, the Trump Tower website was up and running by 11 a.m. and the alleged damage might not have been apparent, to visitors to the page, because a cached version of Trump's site was programmed to hold the fort in the event of an attack or maintenance issues. Gabriella Coleman, who studies hackers and online activism as the Wolfe Chair in Scientific and Technological Literacy at McGill University, in Montreal, told CBS News it's no surprise that Anonymous would find Trump a juicy target. "He's the biggest bully and the only other bully that's bigger is possibly trolls and Anonymous," says Coleman. "Anonymous isn't necessarily going to take down his campaign, per se, but they could embarrass him."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 13 2015, @02:38AM
Look at his campaign so far. You can't embarrass someone who has no shame.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 13 2015, @03:32AM
The whole wanting to go balls deep in his own daughter thing has potential. [cc.com]
Although, given that his base is about 50% hill-billy, maybe even that will just increase his appeal...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Hairyfeet on Sunday December 13 2015, @06:00AM
None of it is gonna matter because after that billionaire has stated he will spend a billion dollars to make sure that the vote of the people doesn't matter, they are getting Jeb Bush like it or not? Frankly Trump could stand on the white house lawn nekkid with a dead hooker, everybody is so pissed off at how blatant the rich members of the RNC are trying to rig shit they'll vote Trump out of spite.
I know that if the choice is Trump or Hillary? I'm taking Trump, Hillary is a long time shill for the banking industry and damned near every one of her "pledges" on the trail have been nothing but thinly veiled gifts to megacorps. Trump will probably suck but we have already seen what Bush/Clinton gives us, no thanks.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 13 2015, @06:20AM
You know how guys like you complain that black people are stupid for rioting in their own neighborhoods because destroying property where they live makes their lives worse in the long run?
Electing Trump when you know he will suck because you are angry with the status quo is exactly the same thing. just the stakes are much, much higher.
(Score: 4, Informative) by hemocyanin on Sunday December 13 2015, @06:45AM
He was talking about choosing Trump over Clinton. Unless you net a few million per year, voting for Clinton is like shooting yourself in the head, which is even dumber than rioting.
Personally, if it was a Trump v. Clinton campaign, I'd pop myself some corn and vote for Jill Stein. Clinton's problem is that the GOP hates her for reasons I don't comprehend, and liberals hate her because she is a warmongering neo-con wall street whore. That leaves the deluded and the non-GOP warmongering neo-con wall street whore voters for her. That might be enough to win, but I'm skeptical.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 13 2015, @02:58PM
He was talking about choosing Trump over Clinton. Unless you net a few million per year, voting for Clinton is like shooting yourself in the head, which is even dumber than rioting.
Really? Voting for clinton is like voting for all the previous presidents. If that's equivalent to shooting yourself in the head then this country was depopulated decades ago.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Sunday December 13 2015, @06:28PM
How about this, let's ask the soldiers who died in Iraq if voting for Clinton or Bush or any of those fuckwads is like shooting yourself in the head.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday December 13 2015, @07:55PM
The US survives largely in spite of its politicians, not because of them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 13 2015, @07:20PM
If it comes down to Clinton vs Trump. I am voting for Trump. Because FUCK it. You gave me two bad choices and I am going to pick the most retarded one and you can deal with him.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Sunday December 13 2015, @09:48PM
What the fuck are you babbling about? Who said anything about blacks rioting? What the fuck does blacks burning down their own neighborhoods have to do with choosing an unknown commodity over a known bad one? Seriously mods try thinking before you mod,mmkay? Hillary is ALREADY KNOWN, we know her M.O., we have seen plenty of what she stands for both herself and her husband and its rampant shilling for the megarich, I mean for fucks sake one of her pledges is damned near word for word a repeat of the 200 billion dollar swindle [pbs.org] that her husband gave the ISPs back in the 90s!
So if the choice is one that MIGHT suck versus one with a long history of blowing the 1%? I'm gonna roll the dice and take a chance, better than the Bush/Clinton "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" we've been dealing with for 2 decades!
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 14 2015, @12:34AM
Sure, Mrs. Clinton is a shill for the ultra-rich, fine, but Mr. Trump is himself ultra-rich. I wouldn't expect him to do things against the interest of his class.
As for him being an enigmatic, mysterious, unknown person, it's difficult not to know at least a few things about him, thanks to the heavy media coverage he's been receiving. Based on what he's said during his campaign, I've concluded that he's against Mexicans, women, Muslims, and the Internet [soylentnews.org]. Although I'm none of those, I'm not eager to play the "first they came..." game.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday December 13 2015, @11:03AM
I know that if the choice is Trump or Hillary?
Well, it won't be. If you're still voting for Republican or Democrat scumbags, you're just a fool. This race to the bottom is never going to end as long as people vote for the 'lesser' evil.
I certainly would never vote for someone who mocks people who want the government to respect the constitution, as Trump did with his proposed Internet censorship. And I wouldn't vote for any of his Republican or Democrat buddies for similar reasons.
(Score: 2) by quacking duck on Sunday December 13 2015, @06:02PM
The problem with voting 3rd party is when one of the leading candidates is *demonstrably* using demagoguery language, like not even bothering to hide their hatreds and what they plan to do once in power.
Canada's last few elections saw the Conservatives win because the left vote was split among the traditional Liberals and never-been-in-power-federally NDP. In the election we just had, the NDP and its supporters campaigned on other two parties being two sides of the same coin, which they were as far as corruption and wasting money. However, such thinking ignored that the Conservatives under Harper had been, objectively, far more damaging to Canada's science, environment, history, public service non-partisanship, international reputation, etc than any previous Lib or Con government, and the Cons were ratcheting up the anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant rhetoric in the closing weeks of the election, promising even worse things if they got elected again.
Thankfully, many left and centre supporters banded together and voted strategically to ensure the Conservatives were toppled. It unfortunately also removed some solid long-serving NDP members, and the Liberals ended up with a bigger majority than is democratically healthy, but at least it ensured traditional Canadian values were restored to government, and we stopped a dark chapter in Canadian politics from getting darker. Given the damage Trump's antics are causing in the US, I shudder to think what another Conservative mandate would've done to us. Ugly attitudes are always made bolder and openly expressed when a "leader" validates them, like Trump is doing now, but at least those are being checked somewhat up north.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday December 13 2015, @07:53PM
The problem with voting 3rd party is when one of the leading candidates is *demonstrably* using demagoguery language, like not even bothering to hide their hatreds and what they plan to do once in power.
That's not a problem with voting third party. That's the inevitable result of people *not* voting third party. By continuing to vote for evil, you provide no incentive for them to not put forth evil candidates. As long as one candidate is less evil than the other candidate, you will vote for them like a sucker. This is clearly a race to the bottom.
Third party candidates don't even have to win the actual election for it to make a difference. Enough votes for them can encourage more mainstream candidates to adopt some of their positions.
But even if all of that weren't true, I would still refuse to vote for evil. I do not endorse evil and neither should anyone else.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Sunday December 13 2015, @09:58PM
LOL you really don't know how national elections work, do ya? In the USA thanks to the electoral college [wikipedia.org] and "winner takes all" there will NEVER be a third party win the white house, hell how many third party candidates have you seen win the senate or the house? has there even been any? I know I can't remember any but if there was I bet you can count all of them elected the last century on one hand! And that isn't even bringing up how the MSM (which thanks to Ronnie Raygun and deregulation are owned by a handful of megacorps) can so easily manipulate the outcome of primaries by simply ignoring a candidate. By making sure they do not get on screen, or debate, the MSM can all but erase a candidate that doesn't have Trump levels of cash to buy their way in.
Until the entire election system is changed you can give it up, there will never be a viable third party in this country, the current system is designed to prevent it.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 14 2015, @12:01AM
It's happened before: the candidate of the Progressive Party (you might know it as the Bull Moose Party) was elected president in 1912. Of course, that was before electronic voting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Monday December 14 2015, @01:49AM
It's happened before: the candidate of the Progressive Party (you might know it as the Bull Moose Party) was elected president in 1912.
No.
Returning to the USA, he became frustrated with Taft's approach as his successor, trying but failing to win the presidential nomination again himself in 1912. He then founded his own party, the Progressive, so-called "Bull Moose" Party, and called for wide-ranging progressive reforms. The split allowed the Democrats to win both the White House and a majority in the Congress in 1912, and Republicans aligned with Taft would control the Republican Party for decades.
Geez, at least read what you link to before using it to support your argument. That's in the fourth paragraph of the lead.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Monday December 14 2015, @02:14AM
Isn't it just sad when they do that? When they are so damned desperate to find ANY citation to support their belief they don't even bother to read beyond the first line and see it is in reality against their position but they didn't read beyond the first line?
At the end of the day voting third party in the USA simply DOES NOT WORK, all it does it insure the shittiest candidate wins, as the other two split the vote between them. Just look at Bush in 00, does anybody here believe Gore could have possibly been worse than "fool me once, don't get fooled again", joking about the lack of WMDs after causing over a million dead, burying us in debt for at least a generation so he could give more to the 1%, Bush? But that is what voting third party got us, it has been shown if Nader's votes would have went to Gore? There wouldn't have been any contesting squat, Gore would have won the crucial swing states.
So I'm sorry but that dude is full of shit, voting third party in any election higher than state causes REAL harm as it always insures the shittiest candidate wins and it always will until/unless the laws are changed from a winner takes all to percentage count like most of the EU.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday December 14 2015, @10:10AM
At the end of the day voting third party in the USA simply DOES NOT WORK
Voting for evil does not work, and in fact makes the situation significantly worse. Your problem is that you seem to think that if the third party candidate did not win the election, then voting third party does not work. That is false; it's short-term thinking. Are you only capable of thinking about what will happen immediately after the current election?
But that is what voting third party got us
It's my vote and I'll do with it what I please. I choose to not be an authoritarian who votes for evil.
So I'm sorry but that dude is full of shit, voting third party in any election higher than state causes REAL harm
How can merely casting a vote for someone who isn't an evil scumbag "cause" real harm? Are you insinuating that casting a vote for a third party is akin to directly shooting someone, or some other such thing? However, no such thing occurs, so there is no "real harm". In reality, the authoritarian scumbags people like you vote for cause the real harm, whether they're a 'lesser' evil or not.
as it always insures the shittiest candidate wins
No, people voting for evil scumbags does that. I guess they think voting for evil is some sort of 'strategy', but it's anything but. Their short-sightedness is truly staggering.
and it always will until/unless the laws are changed from a winner takes all to percentage count like most of the EU.
I'm sure voting for evil will accomplish that.
(Score: 3, Touché) by JeanCroix on Monday December 14 2015, @04:39PM
This is the criticism against voting third party which pisses me off the most - that absolute CONCEIT that if I hadn't voted third party, I'd have voted for your candidate instead. It's right up there with **AA "logic" that every illegal download constitutes one lost sale.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday December 15 2015, @12:32AM
Also the claim that not voting at all is somehow better than voting for a third party.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday December 14 2015, @10:03AM
LOL you really don't know how national elections work, do ya?
You can vote for third parties while realizing that your chances of success are low. As I said [soylentnews.org], voting for the 'lesser' of two evils is no solution at all. I'm sure The One Party will gladly give up its power by changing how our election system works eventually, all thanks to people who vote for evil scumbags.
Until the entire election system is changed you can give it up
You're part of the problem. Giving up because something is difficult is cowardly.
But even if what you said were true, voting for evil would still not be valid. People who don't vote at all are better than people who vote for evil, but if they're not going to vote, they may as well start voting third party no matter what their actual views are on the futility of it.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Sunday December 13 2015, @06:58PM
If you hate both of them why the hell don't you just vote third party
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Sunday December 13 2015, @10:10PM
Because you might as well not vote? The US system is locked at 2 parties, no third party candidate has even gotten close to winning the white house, at least not in the last 100 years. The third party candidates are kept from the debates, are ignored by the media, you might as well write in "the ghostbusters" for your vote because that would have about as much of a chance of becoming the POTUS as any third party. Besides we have already seen what happens when you get a third party that can pull in a few votes, see Nader giving the 2000 election to Bush. Tell me, do you HONESTLY feel we were better off with 8 years of Bush over Gore? As much as I wasn't a fan of Gore looking at his past record I seriously doubt we'd have had the debt explosion and multiple wars on his watch, and we can thank Nader voters for that outcome.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday December 14 2015, @01:44AM
You're just digging yourself into a deeper hole here in my estimation.
If you really hate the main 2 parties, and you say no third party will ever get elected, why not at least vote third party to register your anger instead of refusing to vote at all?
Besides we have already seen what happens when you get a third party that can pull in a few votes, see Nader giving the 2000 election to Bush.
If you weren't going to vote in the first place, this doesn't mean anything.
Tell me, do you HONESTLY feel we were better off with 8 years of Bush over Gore?
This is completely beside the point.
Come on, Hairyfeet, put some of that rage to constructive use.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Monday December 14 2015, @02:02AM
No it isn't besides the point, its EXACTLY the fucking point! We got 8 years of debt, over 1 million dead Iraqis, 55,000 Americans, because of guys like YOU that completely pissed away your vote, thus draining crucial swing state votes which allowed Bush to win the white house.
That is VERY much on point because if the third party CAN NOT WIN then by your third party vote ALL YOU ARE DOING is insuring the right wing a victory, since its always the left that is independent. Until the laws are changed to where you actually have at least a 1 in 3 chance of actually doing something? Then you might as well put an elephant statue in your yard as you ARE giving them your support.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday December 14 2015, @02:14AM
So when *I* vote third party it's wrong, but when you refuse to vote it's fine? Somehow I'm the one responsible for one of the big two getting in office?
...which you said is inevitable anyway.
You're not making any sense.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"