Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by martyb on Thursday December 07, @01:28PM   Printer-friendly
from the you-got-your-kleptocracy-in-my-plutocracy...two-great-tastes-that-taste-great-together dept.

Politico reports on a data theft from the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) by former employees who now work for the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC):

Staffers for Senate Republicans’ campaign arm seized information on more than 200,000 donors from the House GOP campaign committee over several months this year by breaking into its computer system, three sources with knowledge of the breach told POLITICO.

[...] Multiple NRSC staffers, who previously worked for the NRCC, used old database login information to gain access to House Republicans’ donor lists this year.

The donor list that was breached is among the NRCC’s most valuable assets, containing not only basic contact information like email addresses and phone numbers but personal information that could be used to entice donors to fork over cash — information on top issues and key states of interest to different people, the names of family members, and summaries of past donation history. The list has helped the NRCC raise over $77 million this year to defend the House in 2018.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough

Mark All as Read

Mark All as Unread

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Thursday December 07, @02:45PM (10 children)

    by Phoenix666 (552) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 07, @02:45PM (#606799) Journal

    So that means the Republicans in the House are at war with the Republicans in the Senate, because Republican staffers from the former stole to benefit the latter?

    Everyone has to acknowledge that as evidence that the Republican Party is in as much disarray as the Democratic Party is now.

    Me, I'm glad. Fuck 'em all. Maybe let's try government of the People, by the People, and for the People next iteration instead of a circus run by lizard people.

    --
    Washington DC delenda est.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by Grishnakh on Thursday December 07, @03:42PM (9 children)

    by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday December 07, @03:42PM (#606827)

    Maybe let's try government of the People, by the People, and for the People next iteration instead of a circus run by lizard people.

    The People (well, about half of them, and in "red states", a clear majority of them usually) are getting exactly what they voted for with the Republican politicians. The People want abortion banned or restricted, no restrictions at all on guns, laws allowing religious employers to push their religion on employees, as little regulation on large corporations as possible, and tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy. The Republican politicians have worked steadfastly to accomplish these things for their constituents. Don't tell me that the People (including working-class/poor GOP voters) don't want this stuff, they really do. You can see it in comments all over the internet, you see it with right-wing pundits and talk show hosts, etc.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday December 07, @06:11PM (5 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 07, @06:11PM (#606908) Journal

      The People want abortion banned or restricted, no restrictions at all on guns, laws allowing religious employers to push their religion on employees, as little regulation on large corporations as possible, and tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy. The Republican politicians have worked steadfastly to accomplish these things for their constituents.

      Then why don't "the People" have those things? Abortion hasn't changed significantly since Roe v. Wade. Guns have restrictions. Laws don't exist that allow religious employers to push their religion on employees. Large corporations are heavily regulated for the most part (and like it that way, to be honest). About the only thing done was some tax cuts for the wealthy. But maybe "worked steadfastly" means something different in the Grishnakh dictionary?

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by Grishnakh on Thursday December 07, @06:26PM (4 children)

        by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday December 07, @06:26PM (#606920)

        Then why don't "the People" have those things?

        Because there's enough opposition from the other side to keep it from getting passed. Not all Americans are Republican voters after all; I'm just addressing what the Republican voters want.

        Abortion hasn't changed significantly since Roe v. Wade.

        There's new restrictions being passed on it in some states, such as laws forcing doctors to show ultrasound images of fetuses to women who want abortions, and defunding abortion clinics so while it's still legal, there's no place left in the state to actually get one.

        Guns have restrictions.

        Guns are FAR less restricted than they were in the 70s or 80s. Many states have gone to open-carry, something you just didn't see a few decades ago. The Heller case made it a lot easier for people in certain jurisdictions (like DC) to have guns. The GOP actually has had a lot of success on this issue.

        Laws don't exist that allow religious employers to push their religion on employees.

        Bullshit. The Hobby Lobby case is one such law. (In common law countries, court cases = law) There's other laws to allow religious employers to refuse to pay for contraception or abortion for their employers, even though it's part of ACA.

        Large corporations are heavily regulated for the most part

        The Trump administration and Ajit Pai are working hard to change this.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday December 07, @06:31PM (2 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 07, @06:31PM (#606925) Journal

          There's new restrictions being passed on it in some states, such as laws forcing doctors to show ultrasound images of fetuses to women who want abortions, and defunding abortion clinics so while it's still legal, there's no place left in the state to actually get one.

          There are several states [businessinsider.com] with one abortion clinic. There are no states with zero.

          • (Score: 2) by Whoever on Friday December 08, @06:35AM (1 child)

            by Whoever (4524) on Friday December 08, @06:35AM (#607113)

            There are several states [businessinsider.com] with one abortion clinic. There are no states with zero.

            What's your point? To be disingenuous again? Or just display ignorance?

            The number of abortion clinics has reduced in many states, making it much more difficult for women in those states to get an abortion, especially poor women.. Then, there are the ridiculous laws that some backward states have passed regarding abortions, all aimed at making it more difficult to get an abortion.

            So, yes, things have changed since Roe vs. Wade for many women.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 08, @07:02AM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 08, @07:02AM (#607116) Journal

              What's your point? To be disingenuous again? Or just display ignorance?

              To correct a minor misconception. That's good, right?

              But if one looks at the second graphic, a chart of abortions per 1000 women, aged 15-44, one sees a massive decline in the number of abortions from 30 to just under 15 in 2014. Looking at figures both for fertility and birth rate per 1000 people, I see a decline over the same period. So we have a halving of abortion rate among women in the critical age bracket combined with lower fertility and birth rate (see this page [google.com], for example, for finding such data). Voluntary population control has massively succeeded with a huge decline in the need for abortion clinics.

              Over the linked story's time span, from 2008 to 2014, the number of abortion clinics declined by 7% from 851 to 788. Over that same period, abortion rates per 1000 women in the above age bracket declined from somewhere around 20 abortions per to just under 15. That's a 25% decline in the number of abortions, combined I might add with significant declines in female fertility and birth rate over the same period, indicating that there isn't a surge of accidental pregnancies going on. Why shouldn't a large drop in the demand for abortions result in a decline in the number of abortion clinics?

              Needless to say, I think this story is overrated and not supportive of Grishnakh's earlier argument. My view is that while there continue to be forces hostile to abortion clinics which have had at best modest success in some areas in restricting access to abortion services, the real story is the huge drop in demand for abortion services, which I think drives the drop in the number of abortion clinics.

        • (Score: 5, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Thursday December 07, @07:48PM

          by NotSanguine (285) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 07, @07:48PM (#606965) Homepage Journal

          Abortion hasn't changed significantly since Roe v. Wade.

          There's new restrictions being passed on it in some states, such as laws forcing doctors to show ultrasound images of fetuses to women who want abortions, and defunding abortion clinics so while it's still legal, there's no place left in the state to actually get one.

          And don't forget that some states are charging women who miscarry with murder:
          https://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/arrested-having-miscarriage-7-appalling-instances-where-pregnant-women-were [alternet.org]
          http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/blogs-main/advocates-blog/1568-utah-defines-some-miscarriages-as-qcriminal-homicideq- [advocatesforyouth.org]

          --
          No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    • (Score: 2) by krishnoid on Thursday December 07, @07:13PM

      by krishnoid (1156) on Thursday December 07, @07:13PM (#606949)

      The People (well, about half of them, and in "red states", a clear majority of them usually) are getting exactly what they voted for with the Republican politicians.

      Good for them! And since inmates appreciate knowing they're not forgotten especially during the holidays, make sure to visit Hillary in jail sometime during the month.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @10:14PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @10:14PM (#607013)

      Are getting what they voted for. Otherwise we could have seen republican and democratic candidates getting something closer to 20 percent of the vote, and the other 40-60 would have voted for third party candidates with the understanding that this election would be lost, but candidates for 2020 and beyond would now have the federal funding and political pressure to be in on debates in future elections.

      Instead those 96-98 percent voted for the 'safe' candidates to fuck over their partisan ideological competition and instead we got stuck with either Trump or Clinton, both of whom would have fucked us in the ass over slightly different legislation/presidential leadership, but in the end would still have been infringing upon our liberties with their political directions.

      If instead people had been willing to vote for Stein or Lieberman, or had Sanders not been a pussy and either stayed on the independent ticket or not told his supporters to vote for Hillary, splitting them back into two partisan halves, we might have seen some REAL change in the political landscape. But instead we simply reinforced the status quo while also watching the parties destabilize as the corruption we have long know to be rife in them has come to a head, but not putting us in a position to enact the wide ranging changes necessary to *ACTUALLY* 'drain the swamp' and the first steps towards disbanding the electoral college and enacting vote tallying that will eliminate FPtP (First Past the Post) voting mentalities, so that candidates will need an actual majority to vote for them in order to win the presidency (or preferably any other position in government. If they cannot start out with a 51 percent approval rating, how can we expect them to suitably represent their constituents?)

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08, @02:29AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08, @02:29AM (#607070)

        Had a brain fart there.