US Uncut reports:
Some of the biggest pro-Bernie Sanders groups on Facebook were briefly taken down Monday evening in a targeted attack by Hillary Clinton supporters.
The groups Bernie Sanders Activists, Bernie Believers, BERNIE OR BUST, Bernie Sanders Revolutionaries, Bay Area for Bernie, Bernie Sanders 2016 — Ideas Welcome, Bernie Sanders is my HERO, and Bernie Sanders for President 2016 were all taken down in the attack. The pages in question were reported to be down for about three hours, from 9 p.m. to midnight Monday night.
Collectively, these groups are home to more than a quarter million Bernie Sanders supporters, and some have been in existence for nearly a year, having been launched shortly after the Vermont senator declared his intent to run for president in 2015.
The groups were targeted by online trolls, who posted pornographic images and reported the groups to Facebook admins.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @12:29PM
Is shutting them down the night before an election really going to have any appreciable effect? Most people who are going to vote have already made their choice well before then.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Wednesday April 27 2016, @12:36PM
And as a followup from AC's comment
who posted pornographic images
So are we talking about hot images that would make me want to click there like noodz of Trump's women, or goatse type stuff? Assuming goatse wouldn't sell to Bernie supporters. He can fit a whole electronic voting machine back there. Or maybe the old internet classic "two girls one vote". Or is it Utah grade pr0n where they're showing scandalous bare ankle?
I'm calling false flag on it. It sounds juicy enough to get him some attention and pity, but as a strategy its so idiotic its gotta be a false flag. On the other hand we're talking rabid Hillary supporters, logical rational behavior might not apply...
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @01:08PM
It was child porn, and the Hillary supporters bragged about it in pro-Hillary groups.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:14PM
Well, to post it on the site, they need to have possessed it first. I somehow feel they will soon regret it.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:30PM
Oh, to be young and naive again...
(Score: 4, Funny) by ticho on Wednesday April 27 2016, @03:35PM
Eh, you'd only end up with your illegal nude pics all over these groups.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @03:57PM
> Well, to post it on the site, they need to have possessed it first. I somehow feel they will soon regret it.
Probably made it themselves. Lots of teenagers excited about politics with cell phones. Sexting is so common that I'm kinda surprised none of them have repurposed a few of their own photos for political purposes. After all, unbridled enthusiasm and poorly thought out stunts are practically the hallmark of a being a teenager.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by edIII on Wednesday April 27 2016, @08:34PM
Uhh, pictures of 16-18 year old girls willingly showing their newly developed and biologically adult bodies is nowhere near the same thing as prepubescent children being abused and photographed. If it's teenage guys doing it, well, I think they're far more interested in teenage girls seeing them then adult political supporters. I don't consider such things to be actual child porn, but young adults who don't yet legally qualify as a "full" adult in the legal sense. Therefore we treat a naked picture of a 17.999 year old girl to be exactly the same as a 6 year old girl, even though in another 24 hours that same girl is now making copyrighted and protected works that she can elect to sell. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
It may have been generated by teenage female supporters of Hillary as you may say (I don't see the male pictures actually happening), or it could have been some of her supporters in possession of child porn posting them. Quite frankly, I sincerely doubt that most teenage girls interested in politics are also interested in such debased tactics. From what I remember, girls were far more mature than boys. This is far more likely to have been conducted by adults (older and more bitter) that wished to, in no coincidence, to attack a group of political supporters on the eve of several important caucuses. To say that this was politically motivated teenagers is more than likely incorrect. Sounds like some adults wanted to play unfair in an election, and did exactly that.
What's good for goose is good for the gander though. I'm betting the Bernie supporters have more than enough IT going on to take out Hillary in a hot minute. That being said, I think we're above such debased tactics, and in fact, that's why were attempting to bring some sanity and integrity back into politics.
With appropriate campaign finance reforms, we could all put such nonsense to bed permanently for all sides of the political spectrum. Primarily because allowing the profits of these campaigns to enrich the media and Facebook is anathema to me. It should be a government run series of websites and media portals, that at worst, are leasing some technologies from Google/Facebook/Netflix/Amazon. Even that doesn't eliminate the possibility for corruption, but our current methodologies in fact engender it instead so anything is an improvement.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @11:06PM
Uhh, pictures of 16-18 year old girls willingly showing their newly developed and biologically adult bodies is nowhere near the same thing as prepubescent children being abused and photographed.
It is in the eyes of the law is all that matters in this context. Since you got that so wrong I TL;DR there rest of your rant.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday April 27 2016, @11:13PM
No, I don't think it is all that matters. The law can be wrong.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @04:16PM
> It was child porn, and the Hillary supporters bragged about it in pro-Hillary groups.
[citation needed]
Seriously. The only citation I can find is a claim that the groups were reported for containing threats of violence. [snopes.com]
Your claim does not pass the laugh test because it is the kind "bragging" that would be all over the net. Somebody would have snapped a screenshot and it would have been forwarded by every anti-hillary group on the planet, republican and bernie.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @04:37PM
This tactic has also been used against a few anarchist websites, most notably anokchan, and may actually be the work of JTRIG intelligence agents...
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday April 27 2016, @06:07PM
False Flag or Clinton supporters, it seems to me that this tactic just hardens the resolve of the attacked group.
In the end Sanders did about as well as was predicted in the last round of primaries, so the whole thing was a pointless exercise.
The other possibility is the FB groups were taken down by FB itself as part of a criminal investigation if it was true about child porn being posted.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @12:41PM
Timing isn't the point, its the hypocrisy of the 'other' team that is. But then again, their leader ( which i bet directed this ) is a poster child for this.
( and no i dont support Bernie, but he has just as much right to have his fan base as anyone else and not be shut down by actions that are anti-freedom/American at their core )
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @01:50PM
But then again, their leader ( which i bet directed this ) is a poster child for this
How much would you bet on this?
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Wednesday April 27 2016, @12:43PM
Is shutting them down the night before an election really going to have any appreciable effect? Most people who are going to vote have already made their choice well before then.
Whether it is done on the eve of an election or not, are people really going to choose who to vote for on the basis of someone's success at hacking? Like :-
"Wow!!! Those Clinton supporters are clever!!! They can take down websites! Just goes to show what a great President Hillary Clinton will be!!"
Are people really that stupid?
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Wednesday April 27 2016, @12:47PM
Sorry, I didn't RTFA properly : they did not take down a website but took over some Facebook groups. Same point though.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @03:58PM
To some people, a facebook page is a "website" - at least that's what my local pubs and restaurants think.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jdavidb on Wednesday April 27 2016, @01:02PM
Are people really that stupid?
After the November election, look at who won, and then come back and ask that question with a straight face.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 5, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Wednesday April 27 2016, @01:39PM
Don't ask questions you don't want to hear the answer to :P
"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 Grishnakh on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:20PM
Are people really that stupid?
Yes, yes, they are.
They'll say "that's just politics" and accept this as normal behavior, and happily vote for this underhanded, criminal woman.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday April 27 2016, @12:30PM
At what point does this kind of activity become criminal? If "online trolls" targeted business websites and effectively shut them down during the Super Bowl (rendering their very expensive advertising less effective), I suspect they would be calculating damages and suing in civil court.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 27 2016, @12:43PM
and suing in civil court
There probably would also be FBI involvement. If the punishment for committing a crime is getting sued in civil court, then IMHO it's not really a crime no matter what the laws on the book say it is.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday April 27 2016, @01:03PM
I don't know the details, but I seriously doubt that the coordinated attack was done cleanly, with everybody involved covering their digital tracks or operating out of a non-extradition country.
Fun related movie just came to Netflix: "1971" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bOy3RNyWME [youtube.com] (ok ok, a better parallel for this event would be Watergate, but it's amazing how many things "flash back" on a 30-50 year cycle)
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:28PM
a better parallel for this event would be Watergate,
SJWs silencing other opinions online? Sounds more like #Gamergate to me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @11:09PM
a better parallel for this event would be Watergate,
SJWs silencing other opinions online? Sounds more like #Gamergate to me.
Shut up, Donnie! You're out of your league!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by snick on Wednesday April 27 2016, @01:56PM
If, as it was reported, this involved the posting of child pornography, then this is unquestionably criminal.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:58PM
I think it was actually the mass false reporting of child pornography, in other words 3000 people telling Facebook that the pro-Sanders groups were passing around kiddie porn until either: (A) an automated system tripped and assumed that the accusations were true, or (B) a human moderator who wasn't paying close attention (or just hates Bernie Sanders) just blocked the group. In other words, no actual kiddie porn involved, more like the thoroughly dangerous prank of "SWATing" innocent people.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @04:12PM
Similar crap happened happened to a Facebook group a friend started for a certain fandom in anime. She had made me an admin in case something happened to her status as admin, so I got to see it go down.
We know who was behind it, too. Let's call him Mr. Pink. I get to be Mr. Black (!). The friend is Ms. Green. So Mr. Pink sends Mr. Orange and Ms. Blond into the group. Mr. Orange starts posting pornography (in this case, hentai). Mr. Tan, who's been in the group since Ms. Green started it a few weeks back, begins flagging these images. Ok, that's all well and good. We had every intention of following MyFace's terms of service to the letter. (When the incident started, I reviewed them to make sure I understood what was acceptable even in a closed group that was clearly for a mature audience and what wasn't.)
So, we throw Mr. Orange out, but now our group is on Failbook's radar. Ms. Blond begins posting a series of increasingly risky pictures. I give Ms. Blond a stern warning about f4c3:b00c's terms of service. Mr. Tan flags one of her more risque posts, and it gets deleted. So, we throw Ms. Blond out (amid cries of "Get her out of here! Get her out of here! Build a wall!").
Problem solved, right? Well, this is the clever part. Now, Mr. Tan begins reporting posts that in no way, shape, or form possibly violate the terms of service. Facebook promptly takes them all down. Many members, including Ms. Green, need to click through some kind of terms-of-service education to continue using their accounts. Some accounts get suspended for multiple days over this. Finally, we figure out that it was Mr. Tan and throw him out.
There was more drama when Mr. Pink finally went on the offensive, but that's not really relevant here. The group is still there, but what happened was devastating to its membership.
I guess the only other thing I wanted to add is that we moved to Discord [discordapp.com], which Ms. Green was able to get set up on our own cloud and running. So, the group effectively moved to our cloud and the Failface group really only exists as a pointer to our private Discord server in the clouds. Ms. Green said it was essentially an IRC and XMPP replacement, even with XMPP's capability to have a distributed identity. (I quizzed her a little on items I like XMPP for, and it seems to be what XMPP could have/should have been. I just haven't looked at personally it in detail yet.)
I suppose the only problem that does not solve is that MyFace is where people are at. If one wants to reach out to people, one has to be where they are. Perhaps these politically active groups should consider seriously using Failbook only as an outreach tool, and use something like IRC or Discord that one can host in one's own cloud as the tool for members to organize actions/protests/etc.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @04:35PM
Mr. Black here. Addendum: I did some poking around, and it looks like Discord itself is closed source. I'll check with Ms. Green when I get home, but it looks like there's an active community out there creating open source implementations of a Discord server. Assuming I didn't misunderstand her, that must be what she installed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @05:51PM
five tons of flax
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @12:51PM
link please. Lots of people don't like Sanders.
(Score: 5, Informative) by n1 on Wednesday April 27 2016, @01:09PM
I think the headline is pushing it, but the escalation is inevitable after the $1m super-pac social media campaign got an airing... but TFA does include some screen shots of facebook comment threads, including one showing that the Bernie Sanders group had been reported by the user and subsequently taken down, the user in question appears to be a rather a rather vocal Clinton supporter.
Snopes has also taken up the case http://www.snopes.com/2016/04/26/bernie-sanders-facebook-groups-controversy/ [snopes.com]
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:35PM
Looking at other articles on this "US Uncut" website makes it sound very conspiracy theory-y.
As soon as I saw the "BROS 4 HILLARY – #GiveEmHill", it is obvious they got trolled.
I am (or was, I suppose) a Bernie supporter and voted for him yesterday, but the Clinton people have done enough shady stuff in media and social media that there is no point in making up stuff without proper evidence.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2, Interesting) by nitehawk214 on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:45PM
Well maybe not quite so obvious... Is BROS 4 HILLARY actually a real thing? Not trolling, not false flag, but actual insane cult followers of Hillary?
Its like they combined two of the things I hate the most, Bro culture and Social Justice.
At this point I think the only way the country can be saved is if the Clinton and Trump supporters actually start killing each other.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 3, Interesting) by n1 on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:57PM
I don't use Facebook so i'm not really sure how to verify the credibility or authenticity of a group on the website.
That said, the story appears to have originally broke via Heavy.com, which contacted 'BROS 4 HILLARY' which is where the quote came from, distancing themselves from the actions of 'one former member' and the group apparently has several thousand members.
http://heavy.com/news/2016/04/bernie-sanders-facebook-groups-removed-banned-deleted-why-hillary-clinton-attack-censorship-which/ [heavy.com]
also: http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/04/clintons-internet-supporters-allegedly-using-porno.html [pastemagazine.com]
The evidence is reasonably convincing to me at least, that a handful of Clinton supporters took it upon themselves to go above and beyond. That does not mean this was sanctioned by Clinton or any PAC associated with her. But to quote her "What difference does it make?" it's just a drop in the ocean of the psyops going on around this particular election.
Sorry, i didn't mean psyops, i meant engaging with the electorate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @03:07PM
> Looking at other articles on this "US Uncut" website makes it sound very conspiracy theory-y.
Yeah, we need to stop accepting stories based on reports from that site.
Zero credibility.
They are like breitbart for bernie (and I like bernie over all the other candidates).
(Score: 3, Informative) by purple_cobra on Wednesday April 27 2016, @05:30PM
Reading all this reminded me of something I was forced to read in school, 'Antony and Cleopatra':
MENAS
These three world-sharers, these competitors,
Are in thy vessel: let me cut the cable;
And, when we are put off, fall to their throats:
All there is thine.
POMPEY
Ah, this thou shouldst have done,
And not have spoke on't! In me 'tis villany;
In thee't had been good service. Thou must know,
'Tis not my profit that does lead mine honour;
Mine honour, it. Repent that e'er thy tongue
Hath so betray'd thine act: being done unknown,
I should have found it afterwards well done;
But must condemn it now. Desist, and drink.
There's nothing new under the sun.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Ellis D. Tripp on Wednesday April 27 2016, @05:46PM
Completely anecdotal, of course, but IMO there seems to be a DEFINITE uptick in obnoxiously pro-Hillary commenters attacking Sanders supporters online since the Clinton campaign earmarked more than $1M to do exactly this kind of social media "ratfucking" a couple days ago...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-twitter-fight_us_571a413ee4b0d912d5fe5638 [huffingtonpost.com]
"Society is like stew. If you don't keep it stirred up, you end up with a lot of scum on the top!"--Edward Abbey
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Francis on Thursday April 28 2016, @12:20AM
Yes, but if it was just about being unliked, then he'd be the last candidate to be attacked like that, his likability rating is far higher than Clinton, Trump and Cruz. I'm not sure about Kasich, is he really still running or has he forgotten to stop?
Considering the things we know that Clinton has done, campaigning in polling places and laundering money through the DNC in order to get more money that she wasn't legally allowed to raise after hitting the donor limits for the primary, this isn't any unrealistic to pin on her than her other generally sleazy campaign strategies.
When we swear Donald Trump in, and BTW he's only about 3% behind her in the polls at the moment, it's going to be the fault of her and the establishment democrats for insisting upon engaging in this dirty campaigning.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @12:58PM
An overtly partisan speculation? Come on, let's have some standard here.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Wednesday April 27 2016, @01:00PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:06PM
"is there that much intra-party animosity within the Democratic Party?"
Yes, there really is that much animosity within the party. The old crop of feminists, all of whom are withered old hags today, simply HATE anyone who isn't ardently in love with Shrillary. That goes for all the women under sixty who resent the expectation that they vote for a vagina. Today's 30-something women are pretty vocal about their resentment of Hillary and company, and the younger women even more so.
https://news.vice.com/article/feminists-hit-back-at-steinem-and-clinton-as-young-women-flock-to-sanders [vice.com]
According to Steinem and company, Hillary is "entitled".
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:24PM
Exactly right. This shit with Hillary has gotten so bad that, as a Bernie supporter, not only have I resolved to vote for Trump over her, I'm seriously thinking about even voting for religious nutbag Cruz over her. There is just no way I can vote for this horrible woman.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:44PM
I know how you feel, but can I make a better (IMO better) suggestion? Vote Gary Johnson (Libertarian). If he's not on your ballot, write him in. Doesn't matter if you like, or even respect Libertarians, and/or the Libertarian party. What's important is to bet Johnson a large enough segment of the vote to rattle cages in Washington. That, and to get the Libertarian party federal funds for their campaigns.
Hell, if Communists had a shot at upsetting the current status quo, I'd vote for them!
https://www.lp.org/candidates/presidential-candidates-2016 [lp.org]
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @04:52PM
Yes, to the Runaway you listen. I'm a Sanders supporter. I will vote for Trump if he's on my ballot in November. Hell, if some independent Trump/Sanders ticket gets started up, I could support that, and it will definitely get my vote.
However, my fallback is to do as usual and vote Libertarian for president. Voting for the Libertarian candidate may not sit well with everyone. Don't forget about Jill Stein [wikipedia.org] of the Green party. Bonus points if one votes Stein, because one gets to say, "Hey, I voted to unlock the female head of state achievement!" without needing to vote for a lizard person like Clinton.
Both she and Johnson started a combined initiative last year to get "third" parties into the presidential debates. Johnson reached out to Libertarians like me, and Stein reached out to Greens. It's criminal the way that the Libertarian and Green parties get systematically shut out of the democratic process. Every election year, they need to gather enough signatures in each state to get Johnson and Stein on the ballot. (Well, not just Johnson, but Harry Brown and Bob Barr as well for the Libertarians but the Greens are pretty consistent about Jill Stein.) Sometimes the lizard people party (R+D) successfully prevents one or the other from being on the November ballot in this state or that state, so that means that even voting a straight Green or Libertarian ticket will not give Johnson or Stein a vote. Even if they get on the ballot, the lizard person media always pretends they don't exist.
I think the only exception I've ever seen from the lizard person media was in 2012 when both Colbert and O'Reilly gave a nod to Johnson. But then again, I was really only watching comedy news then, and Colbert is the only person I can still watch (even then just in small doses) now that the Daily Show and John Oliver have gone full SJW retard.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @09:55PM
If she's not near the 5 percent I am voting Barr '16 because I voted Stein in '12.
I don't care as much who gets the 5 percent, but the current Libertarians strike me as too Republican rather than Libertarian, and without multiple 5 percenter parties it will just continue being an oligopoly thanks to the wealth at the top.
(Score: 2) by Ellis D. Tripp on Thursday April 28 2016, @12:53AM
I never understood how he ever ended up on a Libertarian Party ticket in the first place. This is the same guy who trued to outlaw the practice of neo-pagan religions (Wicca in particular) on US military bases. And he was a rabid "reefer madness" type as far as the War on Drugs, only coming around to some semblance of sanity on medical marijuana when he decided to run for president...
"Society is like stew. If you don't keep it stirred up, you end up with a lot of scum on the top!"--Edward Abbey
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @10:55PM
What's important is to bet Johnson a large enough segment
So, a larger Johnson? With Runaway, it's always about . . . . . etc., etc..
(Score: 1) by Francis on Thursday April 28 2016, @12:23AM
Gary Johnson is a huge step up from the GOP candidates. But, I think that Jill Stein is more in keeping with Bernie's platform.
That being said, I'd probably vote for Johnson over Stein if the Trump backers defect to Johnson if Trump isn't nominated. For the most part Johnson is likely to be far better for the country than anybody that the GOP is going to put forward.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by sjwt on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:45PM
I said that about a month ago, Clinton is going to drive Supporters to Trump over her.
If Trump is elected it will be because of her actions.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Thursday April 28 2016, @12:28AM
That's impossible, you know all of us Bernie supporters are required to vote Democratic in the GE, it's not like we have free will and an enough intelligence to see that we're going to be screwed by her.
It's almost as if they can't comprehend the idea that they're not actually entitled to our votes and that they'll have to actually earn them. I appreciate that Bernie isn't promising to deliver the vote unconditionally. He's sharp enough to realize that whether or not he endorses Hillary that we won't go along with that unless there's something in it for us. Hillary was able to do that in 2008 in large part because Obama was pushing a lot of the same ideas and wound up outdoing her on many things.
It also wound up biting them on the ass in the midterms and then again in 2012 when the enthusiastic voters that swept them into office realized that they'd been screwed and didn't bother to show up and support their own being screwing. That's the modern Democratic party for you, if you're lucky they'll promise to do the right thing, but more and more often they can't even be bothered to promise.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Ellis D. Tripp on Wednesday April 27 2016, @03:16PM
Her positions are pretty compatible with Bernie's across the board, and there is even talk of Bernie joining her on the Green Party ticket for the general election assuming Shillary takes the Democratic nomination....
http://www.jill2016.com [jill2016.com]
"Society is like stew. If you don't keep it stirred up, you end up with a lot of scum on the top!"--Edward Abbey
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday April 27 2016, @04:17PM
Ellis, I have nothing against Stein. But, it is often claimed that if you vote for anyone outside the two parties, you have "wasted your vote". Well - there is some merit to that claim.
However, in the case of the Libertarian party, they have been inching closer and closer to that magic percentage point, at which they will recieve federal funds for their campaigns. So, if we could convince 5% of voters to vote for Johnson (or any other Libertarian candidates), then that part would become a contender on the national scene.
The Green party has a lot of good things to be said about it, but they aren't anywhere near the threshold for federal campaign funds.
My intent is to put just about ANY third party alternative into the public view, and at this point in time, Libertarian has the best shot at it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matching_funds#In_politics [wikipedia.org]
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday April 27 2016, @04:57PM
The Green party in Canada has been seeing its numbers go up the last few elections:
Then the 'We have to get rid of Harper' election came and its numbers went down because of people voting Liberal to make sure Harper left.
here's hoping that those numbers will go up again in the next election here.
We have, basically, a 3 party system here, but it would be nice to see a fourth... and proper representation of our votes! (VOTE REFORM AND NO TPP MR. TRUDEAU!!!)
And if i was American, i think i'd vote for Mr. Hankey the Christmas Poo (or Trump) before i'd vote for Hillary... i trust her as far as i could throw Trump!
Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo: i'd vote for him before i'd vote for you....Hillary.....
(was that off-key?)
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Ellis D. Tripp on Wednesday April 27 2016, @05:02PM
I get where you are coming from, with the LP currently being the largest 3rd party in the US. But the GP came awfully close to the 5% FEC threshold when Ralph Nader ran in 2000, in what was one of the most successful 3rd party runs in recent history. Given the size and strength of the Sanders campaign, if he were to hop over to the Greens, they should EASILY exceed the 5% threshold in the general election, qualifying for federal funding in future elections.
I suggested the GP to the original poster, because they stated that they were a Sanders supporter, and Sanders-style democratic socialism is a much better fit with the Greens than with the Libertarians. While the 2 are pretty compatible as far as most social and foreign policy issues, there remains a fundamental difference in outlook between the 2 in terms of economic inequality, environmental regulation, and the role of government in providing a safety net for the economically disadvantaged.
"Society is like stew. If you don't keep it stirred up, you end up with a lot of scum on the top!"--Edward Abbey
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday April 27 2016, @06:41PM
The God Emperor has been pushing that the primaries are unfair and being stolen by the establishment in his speeches... That would resonate with Bernie and if he got a "very high position" in the God Emperor's cabinet (maybe veep, crazy as that might sound?) then he would win by a landslide.
The extremists freak about that proposal "they're class enemies" and all that rot. Well real politics is the art of the possible deal, and Trump needs to make a statement that he can make deals. Also lets be realistic about the religion thing, Trump isn't so hot with Bernie's demographic and that would help with press coverage. So imagine Bernie demands he set US/Israeli policy not Trump and maybe some other minor issue in addition, I donno education funding. Now does that get "the cause" further along than quitting and pouting? heck yeah, and he's a pro politician, he'd take that deal. Meanwhile Trump promotes himself as the deal maker. So he turns a blind eye to Isreal and throws more money down the rathole of higher education tuition, but in exchange he gets the college and jewish vote... he's a deal maker businessman, of course there is some deal he can work with. I can totally see it.
Hillary would get the BLM protestor vote and the feminist gray-purple haired cat lady vote and that's about it. Maybe the biggest defeat the D party has ever had? 60/40 popular vote for Trump? Dare I say 65/35?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by nitehawk214 on Wednesday April 27 2016, @07:12PM
Just saying "Trump should hire Sanders" isn't going to make it happen or make it even remotely possible.
I have a lot more respect for Sanders than to think that is even a possibility.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @06:28PM
It looks like they are the ones who have handed her the nomination. Bernie seems the least objectionable of the entire slate of choices to me.
(Score: 2) by Ellis D. Tripp on Wednesday April 27 2016, @07:13PM
Being a white guy, I can only speculate here, but a large factor would seem to be the fact that, particularly in the deep south where Clinton built her lead in early primaries, the black democrats tend to be a lot less liberal on social issues and more religious than white democrats. Sanders did better with the black community (especially younger blacks) in other parts of the country. An apparent lack of early outreach to the black community by the Sanders campaign didn't help, either...
Still, the overwhelming support for a woman who referred to young urban blacks as "superpredators" who need to be "brought to heel" while stumping for her husband's crime bill boggles the mind...
"Society is like stew. If you don't keep it stirred up, you end up with a lot of scum on the top!"--Edward Abbey
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday April 27 2016, @09:50PM
This all sounds right on the money. Seriously, southern black voters would do better voting for Cruz, because he really represents their interests better, because they're so ultra-religious; the only reason they don't is because the Republican party has traditionally been the party of racists for quite a while now (esp. after all the racist Southern Democrats switched to the GOP). But the (esp. over-30) southern blacks are just as religious as the most wacky of religious white people, and they're definitely not interested in any kind of social liberalism like gay marriage.
This is going to be a very interesting election, if the DOJ doesn't indict Hillary and we wind up with Hillary vs. Trump, or even Hillary vs. Cruz. Unlike Obama in 2008 where he energized the youth vote and won largely because of that, Hillary is not going to get the youth vote at all, so we'll probably see a Republican president. When the Dems can't get the young people to show up at the polls, they lose. (And with Hillary as their candidate, they deserve to lose.)
(Score: 2) by Ellis D. Tripp on Wednesday April 27 2016, @10:52PM
An indictment coming down (or somebody in the FBI leaking damaging info from the investigation), is about the only way Bernie makes it into the general as a Democrat as far as I can see. Hoping to see Bernie and his supporters stir up a good shitstorm at the convention, anyway.
Now if the RNC somehow denies Trump their nomination, and Trump ends up running as an independent, It would be great to see Sanders and Stein team up and make it a 4 way race. With the craziness of this whole election, something like that seems downright possible.
"Society is like stew. If you don't keep it stirred up, you end up with a lot of scum on the top!"--Edward Abbey
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday April 28 2016, @05:12PM
I'd love to see a 4-way race, but I think the problem there is that it's very unlikely that any one candidate would then win enough electoral votes to win the election, and then the House of Representatives would choose a President. At least, that's my understanding of our horribly broken process.
Trump recently remarked that Bernie should run as an independent because the DNC has treated him "horribly". Trump is right on the money on that, as usual. Despite my disagreement with his positions on many things and some of his outright wacky ideas (which are probably just bluster to gain favor with the conservative voters) plus his flip-flopping, he makes a lot of comments like that which are complete bulls-eyes. The other one recently was his commentary about the NC bathroom law.
What we really need before this place blows up is some kind of mini-"revolution" where the people force the States to hold a very fast Constitutional Convention to enact a new Amendment, one which eliminates the idiotic Electoral College and which instead implements a new, national election system for the Presidency which uses something like Approval voting or IRV or the Borla voting system, and which implements it NOW, so that we use it for the November election. What we have obviously is not working at all.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by nitehawk214 on Wednesday April 27 2016, @03:04PM
I am not sure if this is the case. If it was just old-wave feminists pushing Clinton along, she wouldn't be having such surging results even after all the dirt from the campaign has come out.
I think a lot of the new wave Social Justice feminists are jumping on board with this. Either because they have been bullied into it by Albright's "special place in hell" (which has pretty much guaranteed I will not vote for Clinton in any event); or they just can't bring themselves to vote for a white male, even one that has been on the forefont of civil rights since the 60's.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @03:24PM
> Either because they have been bullied into it by Albright's "special place in hell" (which has pretty much guaranteed I will not vote for Clinton in any event);
Do some research. She's been using [goodreads.com] that [networkworld.com] phrase [time.com] for [feministing.com] well over a decade. [radio.cz] She didn't realize that saying the same thing she's been saying all that time would be interpreted differently because of the context this time.
On the other hand, if all you are doing is searching for a justification for your bias rather than searching for truth, then keep on the path you are on.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday April 27 2016, @03:45PM
Actually, no, feminism doesn't play all that big of a role.
Sanders' biggest problems were, in no particular order:
- Starting too late. He recently reached the point where he has majority support within the party. 4 months ago, that would mean he would have won easily. Instead, it means he'll still probably lose.
- A well-documented mainstream media blackout, to the point where pollsters were still getting essentially a response of "Sanders? Who's that?" from about 1 in 5 voters when the primary voting actually started. In the most recent polls, 10% still give that response.
- A completely fabricated perception that he was some kind of racist against black people. It was kind of impressive, actually: A guy who was marching in the streets in the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960's and stumped for Jesse Jackson in the 1980's and has consistently supported pro-black efforts in his political career was successfully turned into the white man's candidate in the minds of black voters, particularly older black voters. That's a real testament to the power of illusion-weaving. I'm of the opinion that certain elements of the very decentralized BlackLivesMatter movement were paid by the Clinton campaign to stage protests against Sanders and O'Malley to reinforce those perceptions, which is why when other elements of the same movement started protesting Clinton she assumed they were doing so on behalf of the Sanders campaign.
- The word "socialism", which in the minds of people over about 70 years old still conjures up images of the Cuban Missile Crisis and hiding under school desks. Sanders' proposed policies have a lot more in common with Franklin Roosevelt than Nikita Khruschev.
- There's substantial evidence of fraud going on in multiple state primaries. From 125,000 voters who intended to vote for Sanders mysteriously switched from "Democrat" to "No Party" in New York City, to large numbers of "proxy" or "surrogate" votes in a number of caucuses that all just happened to go to Clinton, to the 7-8 hour lines in Arizona in areas that were heavily pro-Sanders. This is enough of a pattern that I have to conclude that there's some Nixon-style "ratfucking" tactics in play here.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @06:07PM
there's some Nixon-style "ratfucking" tactics in play here. Remember Nixon did not invent it. He learned it the hard way from his previous opponents. He was just better at it (or you could argue worse).
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @06:39PM
> "is there that much intra-party animosity within the Democratic Party?"
>
> Yes, there really is that much animosity within the party.
Listening to you describing the democratic party is about as "informative" as listening to Franklin Graham describe islam.
In other words you are so disconnected from and biased against it that it is impossible for you to have something even resembling an informed opinion.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by srobert on Wednesday April 27 2016, @03:42PM
"...but is there that much intra-party animosity within the Democratic Party?"
Yes.
I was a delegate to the county democratic convention. The Hillary people kept trying to emphasize that "we're all democrats and the most important thing is that we defeat the Republicans in November" ... blah, blah, party loyalty, you owe it to us to support the lesser evil, type stuff. Many of the Sander delegates, myself included, would have no part of it. e.g. If you are, or were, a union member, or a tradesman, a factory worker whose job has been outsourced, it's pretty disheartening to see union leadership endorsing the Dems responsible for disastrous trade agreements. The attitude of the party toward us was epitomized by Rahm Emanuel, "F* 'em, what are they going to do, vote Republican?". Incidentally, the Clinton delegates were so lacking in enthusiasm for their choice that huge numbers of them didn't show up. Hence, the results of the caucus that was held in February were overturned in Nevada's largest two counties.
Our view is that party loyalty is a two-way street, and that the "third way", which has become the establishment within the party leadership, has been throwing many of us under the bus in one election after another for three decades, in order to defeat "the greater evil". We are done with it. I cannot "write in" Bernie Sanders in Nevada. But if he isn't on the ballot, Jill Stein probably will be and I don't feel I owe Mrs Clinton a vote.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Wednesday April 27 2016, @04:01PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 3, Insightful) by wisnoskij on Wednesday April 27 2016, @03:23PM
They are not Trolls if they were paid to do it.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by ticho on Wednesday April 27 2016, @03:41PM
I find it cute how seriously you USians take your faux-elections. As if it mattered who gets to exploit you and the most of the world for next few years. It will be just as bad, no matter who wins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @04:02PM
Regardless, the one sure way to make sure nothing changes is to hide behind nihilism as an excuse for doing nothing.
Despite all its flaws, Obamacare was a tangible improvement over the status quo. Same thing with gay marriage.
Change is always incremental.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @10:32PM
It wasn't an improvement. It was a doubling down on all the worst aspects of our prior system, which itself was a combination of the worst aspects of a free market with the worst aspects of a socialized system. The new one is better, I grant you, for the insurance companies, but the majority of people in the country are not insurance companies.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 28 2016, @05:02AM
I have several friends who are in desperate need of medical care in some form and they can't get it under Obamacare. Other friends who aren't paid a lot had an increase in how much they paid for insurance. Not an improvement.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 28 2016, @05:29AM
I am currently 'looking for insurance' as I am between jobs.
The *best* I have found is ~13,000 dollars a year with a 10k deductible. That is for 2 adults with no children. In what universe is that affordable? Maybe for someone who makes 250k a year. It sure does not match the title of the bill. I will keep looking but it is not hopeful. I do not even need insurance right now (probably will not for 15-20 years). But I have to pay boatloads for it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @05:10PM
It sure does matter. When one group openly exploits and the other at least pays lip service to equality, the former can get away with worlds worse behaviour once in office.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by PinkyGigglebrain on Wednesday April 27 2016, @05:12PM
If the supporters of a politician, or any influential figure really, feel they have to use dirty tricks to give their "chosen one" some kind of advantage over a competitor it says a great deal about both them and the person they support.
While Hillary didn't directly order this it is a clear indication that those who want her in power will do whatever they feel necessary to get, and keep, her there. Just like those who support people like Kim-jun, Putin, and the like. How is this any different than the astroturfers China has defending their actions, bullying and intimidating critics and generally trying to suppress opposing views to the rest of the world?
What else are they willing to do to get her into office? How far are the willing to go?
What will her supporters do when some of them actually get appointed to positions of power within her cabinet?
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Wednesday April 27 2016, @09:46PM
Meanwhile, in a desperate bid for a momentum shift, Ted Cruz has selected Carly Fiorina [ontheissues.org] as his VP. How this makes any sense, beyond her being a woman in a race against Hillary, is beyond me. Carly never got any real traction in this election, nor did she when she ran for senate.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday April 27 2016, @09:58PM
That's exactly it: she's a woman. It partially nullifies Hillary's vagina advantage.
Heck, I'd rather they swap positions and have Carly run as President with Cruz as the VP. I'd happily vote for Carly over Hillary. I don't care that Carly's positions all suck (though they really aren't much different from Hillary's), that she's run two companies into the ground, and that she's completely incompetent as a leader. At least she's not as dirty and corrupt as Hillary. I'll take incompetence over corruption any day.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @11:11PM
The one defining issue of her campaign was her embrace of the lie that planned parenthood was selling dead babies and her doubling down on the lie when the truth came out.
That's more than enough to qualify as running mate for Ted "no abortions, no exceptions" Cruz.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 28 2016, @12:03AM
"Ted Cruz" + "Carly Fiorina" = "Fairly Current Zodiac"
For those not in the know. [theguardian.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Bobs on Wednesday April 27 2016, @11:26PM
I don't know who did what, but it seems like it might be money well spent for the Rep's to do this to Bernie and point it at the Hillary team.
Not saying Dem's didn't but this is tailor made to piss of Bernie supporters and push down the overall Dem vote.
The Republicans win all the way around.