SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 15 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
The Democratic National Committee is hiring IT people for these positions:
- Chief Security Officer
- Data Science Lead
- Full-stack Engineer
- IT Help Desk Manager
- IT Systems Administrator
- Product Designer
- Product Director
- Product Manager
The Daily Wire, a conservative blog, posted an e-mail purportedly from Madeleine Leader, the DNC's Data Services Manager, showing her announcing the openings and writing
I personally would prefer that you not forward to cisgender straight while males, since they're already in the majority.
The Daily Wire blogger posted a different screenshot of the e-mail on Twitter.
Also at The Hill
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The DNC is Hiring IT Staff. Allegedly, Cisgendered Straight White Males Need Not Apply.
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 189 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Anyone can make an omelet with eggs. The trick is to make one with none.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Thursday November 02 2017, @02:48PM (28 children)
When the hell are some third parties going to get their act together? Seriously, neither Johnson or Stein were on the ball, or they could have stolen a march or two on the Two Big Parties.
This, and also the rest of the politics in this nation, are a great illustration of Lord Dark Helmet's quip, "Evil will always triumph because good is dumb." [wired.com]
Just look at how Trump won, despite being so disliked: the DNC lost because they were simply stupid, as an organization. They insisted on pushing a candidate even more disliked than Trump, a candidate with negative charisma, if that's even possible, instead of going with the guy that had young people turning out in droves for rallies the way Obama did in 2008. And you're right, the third parties were pretty awful too. Johnson in particular was an awful pick, because he was obviously a brain-dead pothead who knew nothing about global politics, as shown when he didn't even know what Aleppo was, even though it was all over the news at the time. I certainly knew what it was, and had some basic understanding of what was going on in Syria at the time and some very basic knowledge of the geography, and that's just from me reading the mainstream news, and this guy is supposedly a full-time politician and can't even be bothered to know that much and he wants to be President? Are you kidding?
The fundamental problem here is that our politicians and political parties are completely and utterly incompetent. We would do better grabbing some random people off the street to be our leaders. This latest leak from the DNC certainly doesn't help their cause, and again proves their incompetence; one big reason they lost last year is because they're seen as out-of-touch, and this just proves it even more to people who have that viewpoint.
Don't forget, another big reason the Dems lost is because of the massive email leak from DNC servers, showing all the dirty tricks they played in killing Bernie's campaign. So they're already proven they suck at IT and IT security; they think barring white guys (who are the vast, vast majority of IT workers and experts) is going to help them here?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 02 2017, @03:01PM (22 children)
"had young people turning out in droves for rallies"
There's something to that, if I can just articulate it. The DNC really really should have gone with Bernie, on that score alone. The future belongs to those kids, after all. Now, I'm not all crazy about putting kids in charge, or letting them express their contempt/disrespect toward the previous generation(s). There's some kind of balance that is appropriate here. The little fokkers who state plainly that they can't wait for the last of the Baby Boomers to die aren't fit to run anything at all. Still - they're all going to be in the future, and we aren't. Unless we shoot some of the mouthiest little bastards first.
Hmmmmm . . . a possible final service for humanity? Take out a couple of lowlifes as we exit ourselves? Alright, alright, I'm just kidding. Or mostly kidding. Or not . . .
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Thursday November 02 2017, @03:10PM (15 children)
There's something to that, if I can just articulate it. The DNC really really should have gone with Bernie, on that score alone.
Exactly, I agree 100%. Hillary should have stepped aside for him. I'm not even going to go into the rest of your comment about them, but recent history is clear: the Dems always lose when they nominate someone who has no charisma. Bernie had charisma, and Hillary did not. And Obama's election proved that when you have a popular, charismatic candidate who gets young people to actually show up at the polls, that's a recipe for success. The DNC didn't learn that obvious lesson, and instead decided to knife the campaign of that candidate and go with the highly unpopular, unlikeable, and uncharismatic candidate, and then were shocked, shocked!! when they lost.
(Score: 1) by Sourcery42 on Thursday November 02 2017, @04:20PM (1 child)
Maybe no charisma, but they thought she had Joementum.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday November 02 2017, @04:43PM
Oh yeah, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they decided to run "Creepy Uncle Joe" next, Breitbart and the independent media would have a field-day repeatedly showing clips of Creepy Uncle Joe committing public frotteurism against uneasy women and young girls alike.
Don't believe me? Look it up yourself.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @05:35PM (2 children)
But it was her turn!
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Sure if you think Bernie could stop the Trump Train, but even if he won he would be murdered once he started his "Socialist Utopia" BS.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @06:32PM
Can we put this guy into a REAL watchlist? Y'know, the kind where you can keep an eye on him and not worry about him moving farther than 10 feet in any direction?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Thursday November 02 2017, @07:28PM
A few points about that:
1. Bernie Sanders still has about a 55% approval rating. That's about 15-20% higher than either the Democrats, the Republicans, or Donald Trump. He even has about 1/3 of people who usually vote Republican saying they like him. In his home state, he has an 85% approval rating, which is almost unheard of.
2. Bernie never tried to hide his socialist streak. That doesn't seem to have changed his poll numbers that much. Possibly because when younger people hear the word "socialism" they think "Denmark", not "hide under your desks, the commies are going to nuke us!"
3. The actual policies Bernie is advocating for are not out of line from when the Democrats were actually popular. Compare Bernie's rhetoric to Franklin Roosevelt's rhetoric, and you'll see some common threads.
4. Trump trying to do the "anti-establishment" thing against Bernie Sanders would have backfired. Pictures like this [mintpressnews.com] with the Trumps and Clintons being part of George Carlin's "big club" would have made the rounds.
So unless you're saying someone would have assassinated him, I'm not at all convinced that his chances would have been bad.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @07:19PM (8 children)
but you are missing the point
the DNC didn't want bernie to win. he was an irritatant that grew attention away from their annoited one who had already made the deals they needed to enrich themselves after she won.
he'd completely ruin everything for them and that wasn't going to happen because trump wasnt going to win anyway and they weren't just going to *hand* it over to bernie!
greed and corruption is a problem in both parties. it wasn't strategic stupidity, that they didn't see he was a winner -- indeed, that was the DNC's primary problem as they saw it. He was a threat, not a solution.
now look at them
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Oakenshield on Thursday November 02 2017, @07:44PM (7 children)
It's all over the news that Donna Brazile just turned traitor on the DNC and outed them for rigging the primaries. Hell, I even read it on Slate. The corruption is so bad that they're now eating each other.
But it's still the Russians that cost Hillary the Presidency. Or was it Comey? Or the Electoral College? Or Breitbart I can't keep it straight.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday November 02 2017, @08:09PM (6 children)
Didn't hear about it, made a journal on it. Thanks.
I still don't think Comey reopening and reclosing an investigation days before the election did Clinton any favors. And there was no comparable hack+leak on the RNC side (leaking sends people into a frenzy regardless of the contents).
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday November 02 2017, @09:54PM (5 children)
Are you brain damaged or just shilling? October 7 ring any bells? Hint: pussy grab
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @12:43AM
That isn't even remotely comparable. The Russian collusion (The details of which did not come to light prior to election day) is comparable.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Friday November 03 2017, @12:43AM (3 children)
That video had nothing to do with the RNC, and it wasn't hacked as far as I know. Learn 2 read. ☪
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday November 03 2017, @01:33AM
Neither was the DNC's mail server. Both were leaks, one from inside NBC News / Access Hollywood and the other from within the DNC.
His name was Seth Rich. Hillary Clinton had him killed, we still do not know who leaked the Billy Bush & Donald Trump video but we can be pretty sure Trump wouldn't have killed whoever did leak it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 04 2017, @04:40PM (1 child)
Nope, that video was something the Democrats (and NBC) kept in their back pockets to release at a time when it would cause the most damage to Trump, or alternatively when they had some bad news they really wanted to bury. Which is of course why the video was released the same time as Wikileaks published a bunch of Podesta's emails showing what two-faced Clinton was telling her rich donors in private versus what she was telling everyone else in public, a month before election day.
That video was from 2005, and they could have released it anytime. If they released it a year prior it may have well buried Trump right then and one of the other dozen or so Republican candidates would likely be president today. But the whole plan was to rig things so that Clinton would run against a buffoon like Trump, so they could bury him and she'd be elected as the lessor evil. But it backfired, because Clinton was just that terrible. So the moral of the story is that DNC didn't just give us Clinton, they also gave us Trump.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday November 04 2017, @05:21PM
It's not uncommon to have a President from another party after 2 terms of Dem or Rep.
Although the loss of Supreme Court picks will be a huge disappointment for Democrats, they couldn't ask for a more dysfunctional and divided Republican party right now. Republicans in Congress can barely agree on anything and they are repeatedly undermined and disparaged by the President.
Democrats would have to pull off a miracle to win the Senate in 2018 since more Democratic seats are up for election than Republican (23 D, 8 R, 2 I). Maybe Trump will be that miracle.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @07:22PM
It's sad that people see the election as a race to win more power for your side rather than an opportunity to pick the best person to lead the executive branch. Charisma > Skill
(Score: 4, Insightful) by crafoo on Thursday November 02 2017, @03:26PM (4 children)
"Now, I'm not all crazy about putting kids in charge, or letting them express their contempt/disrespect toward the previous generation(s)"
Why not? I don't think the previous generations have earned respect. They sold out future generations for their own benefit and then saddled them with an absurd mandatory health insurance system. Widespread and systematic disrespect is exactly what they deserve.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 02 2017, @03:33PM (3 children)
Is Obama a Baby Boomer?
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Thursday November 02 2017, @03:58PM
The early baby boom was roughly 1944 through 1954, and the late baby boom (sometimes called Generation Jones) was 1955 through 1964. Barack Hussein Obama II was born in Hawaii in 1961.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday November 02 2017, @07:59PM (1 child)
Obama is late baby boom. The early baby boomer presidents were Bill Clinton and George W Bush, and as someone towards the elder end of what is called "millennial" I'm not impressed.
As for the earlier point, one of the things that's actually notable about the millennials is that they on average don't hate their elders much at all. They maybe should, for reasons mentioned up this thread, but they don't. I mean, how about the simple fact that their overwhelming support went to a guy in his 70's?
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday November 02 2017, @10:49PM
Hating your elders' generations doesn't mean you can't see that one particular person is an exception to that generation.
I'm all about hating on the Boomers and also the Xers (which is funny because I'm an Xer, though one of the younger ones). These generations have done a terrible job in how they've run this country. But that doesn't mean that everyone in those generations is a bad person; it just means that overall, those generations of people have sucked at politics and management. There were great people in every generation.
Similarly, it's not irrational to hate politicians in general, while granting an exception to one or two of them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @05:47PM
I thought that was what the draft was meant to prevent.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @03:47PM
They hired a non-white to run IT for the House of Representatives. He was from Pakistan.
He spends 2/3 of his time in Pakistan. He or somebody else logs in from Pakistan. He starts blackmailing members of congress.
Think about that. Almost half of our House of Representatives was compromised. A whole political party was being blackmailed by Pakistan.
So, for the DNC... maybe do that again? Maybe this time go with India or China? More diversity!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Thursday November 02 2017, @04:45PM
The fundamental problem here is that our politicians and political parties are completely and utterly incompetent.
After all the bullshit, these people still have to win your vote. Where is the incompetence really?
We would do better grabbing some random people off the street to be our leaders.
Yes, congress should be more like jury duty than a career. They are supposed to be public servants. We still have to power to remind them every two years.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @07:01PM
I'm not so sure. They seemto do just fine for the people that fund them and also fund the people that lobby them constantly. If you assume that they serve extreme wealth and not the general population, I think they've been relatively competent.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by sjames on Thursday November 02 2017, @09:41PM
The DNC lost a lot more than a single election. The way they coronated Clinton revealed a lot about the workings of the party and none of it was good. They seemed to feel she was due and so had to be the one and only choice, constituents be damned. In the aftermath, I'm not hearing a lot of realization that nobody is OWED the presidency. That failure is why with the GOP running a slate of practically unelectable candidates the DNC managed to lose anyway.
The leak was part of the chain of events, but had they understood that nobody is DUE or at least recognized that democracy is the greater good, there would have been no dirty tricks and the leaked email would have been as interesting as paint drying.,
Trump is the president because the DNC scored an own goal.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday November 03 2017, @10:35AM
If he'd been a D or R they wouldn't have tried it. Well maybe if his name was Trump.
His foreign policy positions were far more knowledgeable than the others (well, you could call Hillary knowledgeable, just faithfully representing her constituency of Existential Evil, but you get the point.)
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?