So when are Wikileaks, Anonymous, and others going to expose the Republicans?

[Onlooker]

Last edited Sat Jul 23, 2016, 01:23 PM - Edit history (3)

C'mon, whatever they might think of the Democrats or of Hillary or of women, surely some of the hacker community must realize that the Republicans are worse. If the Republicans win, we really will run the risk of a world war, it will be easier for corrupt police to target people of color and the poor, the hard earned rights won by the LGBTQ community will be threatened, women will probably lose the right to choice, Muslims will be treated like terrorists, and Latino families will be forcibly removed from the US. A Trump victory is a victory for the businesses that destroy the atmosphere, for the military industrial complex, for dictators like Putin who Trump admires, for more secrecy in government, and for increased control of the internet (by ending net neutrality and increasing "intelligence" gathering). A Trump victory all but ensures that college students won't have a chance to get their debt burden reduced or an affordable education and a Trump victory will ensure that the working poor won't earn enough to support their families, let alone pay their rent.

Whatever one thinks of the Democrats, at least they have a diverse and younger base they have to answer to (and have at least done good enough to continue to have that base's support) and they believe in climate change. One would hope that the various hacker groups are at least somewhat progressive, but so far the evidence is lacking. If they are going to break the law or commit acts of civil disobedience, why didn't they do it to such a large extent during the Bush administration? Why aren't they targeting the private emails of the right-wing? Why aren't they releasing emails from the Republicans? Of course one can argue they shouldn't do that to anyone, but that's a separate issue. The reality is they are doing it.

Or maybe this is all a Republican conspiracy and Wikileaks and others are just being used as foils? But, to me, it doesn't make much sense.

[Her Sister]

1. This!

[MADem]

2. Never.

Anyone who can't see the Putin connection to all that isn't looking very hard.

[elehhhhna]

151. Putin, hell, given it's only Dems being hacked I think it's cia

And lets not forget that Russia is small(er) than ever and pretty much broke...so whats their point, anyway?

[treestar]

3. They make themselves obvious by exposing only the D

when they have the R ones too.

[George Eliot]

98. One could say Rs are more corrupt. Hacking part of doing business.

Do we want corrupt dems and do we want to use those tactics? Questions not answers. Shall we get down in the dirt with them? Maybe we'll have to. I guess the only way to survive in America now is to be as corrupt as the other guy.

We need shorter campaign season and laws that demand media be factual. "Free speech" that allows lying to the pubic by the Fourth Estate is bunk. The fourth estate has pretty much become an arm of the Republican Party. So, do we finally clean up the country by passing some good laws and enforcing them? Or do we all become corrupt?

[tallahasseedem]

4. Um, NEVER.

This makes them look like tools.

[Cha]

6. Well done, Tallahasseedem!

[revbones]

5. Was the RNC hacked as well?

Oh yeah - they weren't.

[JTFrog]

8. Kind of the point isn't it?

Why aren't they hacking and exposing the repigs?

[NWCorona]

10. The recent report was that they did try. Whether it was successful is unknown

It appears that the Russians got in through a phishing email that was opened by a staffer.

[revbones]

13. It's a little funny

to hear a lot of people that laughed at claims of election fraud as a conspiracy theory, yet claim conspiracies here.

[geek tragedy]

25. Only crazy people think Clinton won the nomination because of election fraud.

Wikileaks is getting its stuff from
Russian hackers. Simple fact.

[AllyCat]

62. Got a link for that simple fact?

[geek tragedy]

82. google Russian hackers dnc nt

[JTFrog]

71. Even funnier to defend their not going after Republicans.

[revbones]

120. They only would if it was a concerted effort

otherwise it was a hack of opportunity. But again, some choose to see conspiracies...

[JTFrog]

132. Lol.

Obviously hacking the Republicans isn't their goal. The only folks I see buying into your argument are those that believed all the hype around Guccifur and the Russian propaganda conspiracies aimed at the Clintons that were spread here like gospel for months.

Isn't that ironic?

[revbones]

137. You should try using your powers for good.

I mean, since you can read the minds of the hackers and know their rationales and everything.

[JTFrog]

138. You should try using yours to help elect Democrats

instead of constantly tearing them down. Just a thought. I mean that is the purpose of this website after all.

[revbones]

139. What statement did I make in this conversation tearing down any democrat?

Just because someone doesn't like hypocrisy, doesn't mean you can attribute such things to them.

I'm sorry if you are so enamored with team politics that you will excuse any misdeed on your own team, rather than at least be incensed enough to want to clean up your own team and live up to the higher ideals it espouses. I'd like the party to be better, so I don't excuse misdeeds quite as easily as some.

[JTFrog]

141. Pretty much the majority of your statements since you joined a couple months ago.

But, I like your qualifier of "in this conversation". I can see why you would put it that way.

So many strawmen in your rant there by the way.

I put ZERO faith in Russian propaganda and right wing attacks as opposed to some around here who blindly jump in and use it to bash the party. It's been blatantly obvious for months what is driving this bullshit.

[revbones]

142. So 6=2? I'll have to revisit my math skills then.

But if you just want to deflect by insulting me or misconstrue/misrepresent previous statements I've made rather than dispute the statements I made here in this conversation, well I think that reflect more poorly on your and doesn't help to lend any credit to any points you might try to make - but then that's not your goal here is it?

Do you have any proof those emails are "Russian propaganda" as you put it? I mean, I know the Clinton campaign said they were, but there has been no dispute of the veracity of those emails, and even one apology by DNC staff - which would seem to point to their truth. Dismissing them by calling them propaganda does nothing to better the Democratic party, and if you continue to ignore misdeeds, then you just allow it to continue to do more of them.

[JTFrog]

143. Sorry that song has been played over and over for the last

year or so with the same pattern. Insist it isn't Russian propaganda until a few weeks later when all the attacks and rumors and other bullshit are proven to be just that. Pretty much why Skinner said he would prefer folks stop using sources like RT here. Putin's propaganda machines have been pumping this shit out non stop.

[revbones]

146. Sounds too much like a conspiracy theory deflection to me...

I'm sure the next misdeed to be exposed will have been exposed by the North Koreans. Maybe the lizard people can get in on the action and expose a few too.

Still doesn't excuse the misdeed, but then you don't seem too concerned with that and seem more concerned with shotting the messenger.

[JTFrog]

147. Yep... Heard that one ad nauseum as well.

When folks were using Judicial Watch and other bullshit sources.

DU has been shooting the messenger, and rightly so, since it's inception. This site was created to get away from the constant propaganda and bashing of Democrats.

Go figure.

[revbones]

150. So the DNC's own emails are "bullshit sources" then? Good to know. nt

[JTFrog]

156. Yes, the spin on it is pure bullshit. nt

[revbones]

158. Sigh...

Is anything ok as long as it's done by your own team? At what point do you stand up and want to clean house?

I initially replied before I saw anything about Mook's spin (http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512285972) - is that the spin you were talking about?

[JTFrog]

161. At what point will you stop believing every ridiculous attack against

Democrats and the Democratic Party?

I'll take Mook's word and point of view over Russian propagandists any day.

[revbones]

162. Probably around the time you start admitting things need to be cleaned up

but then I don't think discussing malfeasance is wrong, since sunlight is the best disinfectant. How the malfeasance was exposed does not diminish it and cleaning it up should be the primary concern. I'm sorry you feel that cleaning it up is no concern at all, since that attitude only leads to more and more of it.

Mook has no evidence to support his claim. To date, no evidence has been shown that would tie the leak to the Russians. It could just as easily be little green men striking back for Podesta's plan to expose them.

No, it's just sad when some will overlook the flaming bag of poop on their doorstep and who created it, all while trying to figure out who might have invented the doorbell, thus allowing it to disturb your slumber.

[JTFrog]

163. It's certainly your right to buy into Russian propaganda.

Just don't expect anyone here except disgruntled Bernie supporters and trolls to buy into it with you.

All your little personal jabs are pretty weak and won't deter my passion for pointing out that this is probably the wrong site to use to try to sell that steaming pile of Putin Poop.

[revbones]

164. How is a biased DNC Russian propaganda?

Wow. You have your head really deep in the sand. If it was made up, DWS wouldn't have resigned. There wouldn't have been an apology from Donna Brazile either.

It's sad that you can't see that or if you do then you can't bring yourself to admit it. Blaming it on the Russians is a bit comical though.

[JTFrog]

165. Try harder. nt

[revbones]

166. Sure.

Do you come up for air at all or just keep your head in the sand 24-7?

[JTFrog]

168. Too busy working on GOTV to come up for air, but thanks for asking. nt

[revbones]

169. Good for you.

Gotta do something to keep your mind off fixing problems I guess. Don't let the Russians, aliens, lizard people or other conspiracy theory type villains get you down.

[JTFrog]

170. Trust me you haven't come close to getting me down. nt

[revbones]

171. Good. Wasn't trying.

Was just responding and participating in conversation. Enjoy the rest of your night.

[JTFrog]

172. You were engaging in personal attacks.

Easily brushed off though so no harm no foul.

[revbones]

173. Personal attacks?

Such as when you were mispresenting what I said in previous threads? Or saying I'm "constantly" tearing down Democrats? The worst I said to you was that you had your head in the sand in regards to exposing malfeasance. If that counts as a personal attack in your book, you might want to reexamine things a bit.

[JTFrog]

174. Jesus.

Talk about head in the sand. What a pathetic waste of time.

Enjoy your stay.

[revbones]

175. Whatever it takes

for you to feel good about things and ignore reality. Have fun.

[Tortmaster]

181. First sentence: "hypocrisy."

Second sentence: "team politics."

Awesome. That's anti-Democratic Party hypocrisy in two sentences. You good!

[revbones]

182. Wow. If that's what you take from that then so be it.

Stunning.

[tonybgood]

89. Has anyone at the DNC refuted these e-mails?

Has the DNC said that these are bogus? Offered any explanation?

[one_voice]

140. Why aren't they hacking and exposing the repigs?

Because they're upstanding decent folks. They don't need to be hacked or exposed.

Who did they want to benefit from this hack & dump? Wasn't Bernie, or it would have been dumped when it did him some good.

The people lapping it up--like pavlov's dog. Their dog helping to spread their shit.

[JTFrog]

167. Exactly. nt

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

180. Seems fishy to me.

[fleabiscuit]

7. So what have they exposed? Has the democratic world imploded somehow? eom

[avaistheone1]

15. They exposed that the DNC who was supposed to be a neutral party

instead acted to screw Sanders out of the nomination. That's all.

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/07/22/leaked-docs-reveal-dnc-determined-undermine-sanders-campaign

[uponit7771]

24. Bull fuckin shit, that's standard position of both parties when one candidate has a statistical

... insurmountable lead.

Fuckin hate winger meme's trumpeted on DU

[AlbertCat]

77. Bull fuckin shit,

Then why is everyone bringing up things that have nothing to do with what's in the article....just things like "why didn't they do this to Repugs?" or "they're from Russia"?

[uponit7771]

130. red herring, She had the primary locked by may 5th SOP to plan to support the winning candidate

[AlbertCat]

187. She had the primary locked by may 5th

Uh.... if you say so.... i guess.

Still doesn't explain away anything.... or why everyone is just shooting the messenger.

[geek tragedy]

26. Sanders didn't lose because of the DNC.

Get over it.

[Qutzupalotl]

30. Nevertheless, the DNC should be neutral

but wasn't.

[geek tragedy]

31. The DNC should be a lot of things it isn't. nt

[Qutzupalotl]

32. We had suspicions but not proof before Wikileaks.

[geek tragedy]

35. I don't think it was any secret that Clinton was more favored by party apparatchiks. nt

[Qutzupalotl]

37. The overtly biased ones shouldn't work for the DNC.

They shoud work for their favored candidate.

[geek tragedy]

39. if they conducted their jobs in a way that clearly slanted the primary race in favor of

one candidate over the other, that would be grounds for termination.

But, the DNC doesn't run primaries or caucuses-the state parties and state governments do.

Thus far, all we have is the fact that they didn't like Bernie Sanders, and he didn't like them, so they were squabbling.

[avaistheone1]

42. It went beyond that. The DNC had deliberately setup Sanders for failure.

They were creating and disseminating false narratives about Sanders.

[ismnotwasm]

56. What false narritives?

I read that DWS thought Weaver was a "a......" And a liar.

[avaistheone1]

59. Here~

WikiLeaks highlighted on Twitter a few of the emails, such as one dated May 21, 2016 from DNC Deputy Communications Director Mark Paustenbach to DNC Communications Director Luis Miranda regarding how to construct an anti-"Bernie narrative" focusing on the fact that he "never ever had his act together."

Another email dated May 5, 2016 (Subject Line: No Shit) from DNC Chief Financial Office Brad Marshall appears to show that the DNC sought to focus on Sanders' supposed atheism as a negative point.

It does not call the Vermont senator by name, but states: "It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist."

...snip
As RT also reports: "Another email shows officials of the DNC—the governing body of the party that is supposedly neutral when it comes to Democratic candidates—using 'us and them' language when referring to Sanders supporters."

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/07/22/leaked-docs-reveal-dnc-determined-undermine-sanders-campaign

[ismnotwasm]

66. This is your evidence?

What else?

[geek tragedy]

86. Sanders lost because Clinton won. Clinton won because Democrats preferred

her.

If the DNC could actually drive narratives that swung millions of votes, they'd win off-year elections.

[tonybgood]

91. The DNC violated their own charter!

Still don't hear any denials by the DNC. Just a bunch of people trying to defend the indefensible. Why bother with a primary at all?

[Silver_Witch]

118. This ^^

[Qutzupalotl]

46. They can slant the race overall without running the individual primaries,

and did, thus the furor. The DNC was functioning as an arm of the Clinton campaign when they tried to attack Bernie over things like religion. That's wrong.

[geek tragedy]

85. where did the DNC attack him over his religion?

actual attacks, not just idle chatter in internal emails.

[George Eliot]

99. Idle chatter finds its way into mainstream-is influential and divisive.

You won. I'm with her now. So why not finally admit the damage DNC tried to do Bernie and it's bias for Hillary? I'm not clinging to some emotional feelings. I'm gaining objectivity now.

[OKNancy]

45. probably because CLinton was the Democrat in the race

[Qutzupalotl]

47. One of three

unless DWS was lying about letting Bernie run as a Democrat.

[George Eliot]

100. Quite right. Which gets us back to loyalty.

Those who refused to acknowledge Sanders or O'Malley never really looked at issues but just the person. O'Malley was a good democrat and deserved attention.

[tinrobot]

78. Guess what? That is politics 101.

The smart politician makes friends and alliances in the places that matter. The DNC matters, so Hillary made sure she had allies there. You may not like it, but that is how the game has been played for the past two centuries.

I think it is wonderful that Hillary has lots of powerful friends in high places. It helps our chances considerably over the rogue outsider.

[annavictorious]

105. The DNC are the stewards of the party.

Part of their mandate is to protect the party from attacks. Had one of the campaigns not irresponsibly slandered the party and its rules, none of these emails would exist.

I have a feeling that "Democratic corporate whores" was the tipping point. I have no problem with my party leaders fighting back against people trying to take the party down.

[Fla Dem]

131. Tough being neutral when from day one of his announcement Bernie's campaign staff was raining sh&t

Last edited Sun Jul 24, 2016, 11:15 AM - Edit history (1)

down on DWS and the DNC, then hacked into their files and threaten, and did in fact file lawsuits, which went absolutely no where. BS supporters had their long knives out for DWS from the get go. I applaud her for being non-confrontational and trying to work with that overbearing group of brats who felt they were so entitled.

[Lord Magus]

153. Are you kidding me?

You're seriously trying to argue that they only stole Hillary's voter data to prove that the firewall wasn't working?

[Qutzupalotl]

155. You will find this post illuminating:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=915847

[Lord Magus]

160. No, I find that post to be CT nonsense.

No factual basis for it at all.

[treestar]

183. [phone]

[avaistheone1]

33. You don't know that and you can't prove that.

[geek tragedy]

36. Okay, there is absolutely zero evidence of any kind that Sanders would have done appreciably better

had the DNC remained steadfastly neutral even in its internal communications.

The primary is over. Get over it.

[avaistheone1]

48. When the race is setup to favor one candidate over the other,

and the favored candidate does "appreciably better" ... that is called a fixed race.
Or call we can call it cheating.

[geek tragedy]

84. the race was not set up to favor one candidate.

there's zero evidence that anything that the DNC did meaningfully affected the race.

She won because more Democratic voters preferred her.

It was not rigged, it was not cheating. One candidate just got more votes.

GET OVER IT. THE PRIMARY IS OVER.

[Silver_Witch]

117. Neutral....

had they been we would not be having this discussion.

[riversedge]

38. I have not read commondreams for over year. Used to enjoy them but no more.

[Wounded Bear]

52. The DNC is not, nor it will it ever be, a "neutral party"

Get real. It's purpose is to get Dems elected, and to shift spending around and send out press releases in ways that help democrats win seats around the country.

I love Bernie, and he fought a good fight against tough odds. It was always going to be an uphill battle.

To think that the party establishment has ever done anything but work to get the person who has the best chance to be elected, in their estimation, is kind of silly. Yeah, the system is rigged. Always has been. And Bernie almost beat it.

That ship has sailed.

[musicblind]

106. A small handful of emails out of 20,000.

That is hardly representative of the entire DNC.

And were some of those staffer's opinions acted on? I don't recall anyone attacking Sanders for being an atheist?

[SaschaHM]

110. Sanders lost the race well before May 5th and when those emails were sent.

[Lebam in LA]

126. They should be neutral when 2 democrats are running but

Sanders isn't a democrat.

[misterhighwasted]

129. Commondreams is a pro bernie site. When is the last time they praised HRC & the Dems for anything?

This is Primary redux all over again.
Still fighting against the Dem Party, HRC & the DNC.

Primary season is over.

[randome]

9. Snowden recently said he lived a pretty free life. In Russia.

That should tell you something about how willfully blind some are.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[reign88]

16. You mean the same Russia...

that essentially encourages bashing gays? That banned "propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations to minors,"?

Yeah, very free. I'm sure gay teens over there feel wonderful about where they live.

Now Russia is REALLY a place where being a straight white man, which Snowden is, is privileged.

[randome]

27. It's always the privileged 'creative destructors' who seem to find Russia so 'easy on the eyes'.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[Dawson Leery]

92. Snowden is no hero, only a coward.

[musicblind]

107. Let's not go too far.

Snowden did America a great service. I wish Obama would pardon him.

[JaneyVee]

11. They are anarchists.

[Hekate]

79. Unless they go after the GOP too they are just tools of the far Right & not anarchists.

At this point I am so disgusted at their destructive actions toward ONLY Democrats that I'm pretty sure they are saboteurs and tools. And assholes.

[davidn3600]

12. Democrats support curtailing internet freedoms

They don't necessarily like Republicans. But Democrats are in power, so they are considered part of the problem. Right now...Democrats seem to favor curtailing internet freedoms and bumping up surveillance. So many activists see Democrats as an enemy.

WikiLeaks is angry because Chelsea Manning was prosecuted and the government is chasing Snowden. Julian Assange also believes the United States is after him and that the progressive government in Sweden fabricated rape allegations against him in order to arrest him.

As for Anonymous, they have no central leadership. So no one is really in control of their core ideology. That group is very sporadic and has supporters from different political ideologies. But many have been very angry at the Obama admin since the popular internet activist Aaron Swartz committed suicide in 2013 when federal prosecutors threatened him with several decades in prison. Do a YouTube search on him and you'll see all sorts of videos Anonymous posted about him. Anonymous blames the Justice Department for his death.

[Iliyah]

21. Ummmm, The USA have a three (3) branches government

And the GOPers control two of them, so therefore, that is not a valid excuse. GOPers are more inclined in "surveillance" and "big brother". Therefore, its more of a darker side to this and it has to deal with the USA presidential election.

[Onlooker]

22. Democrats are in power?

No they're not. Republicans control Congress and dominate most of the states, and are the biggest opponents of net neutrality. Republicans support giving the police more power, and constantly talk expanding our intelligence efforts, which is obviously a code word for have greater control over the internet. Democrats aren't perfect, but clearly they are more for a free internet than the Repugs.

We see the same phenomenon with drugs, where for some reason a lot of people assume the tiny libertarian movement within the Republican Party will overcome the overwhelmingly old, white, religious, small-town base to promote drug reform. If progressive drug reform is to happen, obviously it will happen in the party that is younger and more diverse.

It seems to me that that some seemingly progressive elements have a very skewed view of the Democrats relative to the Republicans.

[davidn3600]

29. Democrats control the White House, FBI, NSA, and the Justice Department

And that's who these people are most angry at.

Go ask the NSA leakers and they will all say Obama has made things worse as far as surveillance and internet freedom. Obama broke his 2008 promise about bringing a transparent government to Washington.

It was also Obama who was heavily pushing for legislation for an "internet kill switch."

Sorry, I am not trying to defend Republicans. But Democrats have NOT been any better than them. The elites of this party support expanding the police and surveillance state. That's just reality.

[SheriffBob]

176. What do you mean that "the democrats are in power"?

What about the unsupreme court?

[Surya Gayatri]

14. Indeed...WHEN? Why the obsession with Dems? Hum? Perfect mic drop moment...

[avaistheone1]

18. Perhaps because the Democratic narrative is we are supposed to take the higher road.

[Surya Gayatri]

23. Riiiiiiiight. Therefore, the revolting Repubs deserve and get a pass. Makes perfect sense...NOT!

[avaistheone1]

40. Republican ignorance and savagery is transparent and on full display. There is not much left to the

imagination or to expose.

However that does not excuse the dirty tricks reminiscent of the Nixon era played out by the DC which were targeted to undermine the Sanders campaign.

[Surya Gayatri]

50. Oh, reeeely? "reminiscent of the Nixon era", heh?

Deliver us from hysterical hyperbole.

Discussing the problems of electing an atheist in the present US climate is "Nixonian"?

Excuse me while I

I lived through the Nixon era. This is NOT Nixon redux.

[avaistheone1]

57. Yes it is.

Leaking false and manufactured items press was part of the Nixon dirty tricks machine and that is what the DNC did to sabotage the Sanders campaign.

[Surya Gayatri]

58. "I SEE BULLSHIT..." ~ Jon Stewart

False equivalency...Jon knows how to call it.

[avaistheone1]

61. You're right on that one.

If Jon Stewart was aware of the DNC revelations before he filmed the broadcast,
I am sure he would have said "I SEE BULLSHIT"...in specific reference to the DNC!!!!!!

I am afraid the only false equivalency is your mind.

[Surya Gayatri]

67. You're the one drawing the erroneous Nixon parallels, not me.

Jon had much bigger dragons to slay than to waste his precious air time on some DNC staffers' silly e-mails.

[DemonGoddess]

17. Never

they're puppets to Putin, so why would they? Putin wants Trumpenstein

[SheriffBob]

179. that's the truth

you speak and I agree. It should be obvious even to moron republicans.

[mcar]

19. Excellent question

[Lebam in LA]

20. Never

Putin wants Trump

[geek tragedy]

28. The Wikileaks/Glenn Greenwald crowd take their cues from Putin.

Notice the lack of criticism of Trump by Greenwald lately. Self-styled left wing libertarians who can't find the motivation to criticize Trump.

Hmmm.

[Agnosticsherbet]

34. They appear to like Trump.

[brooklynite]

41. Isn't it interesting that Wikileaks has no documents to absolve Julian Assange?

Nothing to show this great conspiracy to haul him to Sweden on trump-ed up charge so he can be grabbed by the US Government?

[Warren Stupidity]

73. "Documents to absolve" one from a crime.

That isn't how it works. Generally these leaks reveal malfeasance not innocence. It seems your point here was to work in an ad hominem argument against Assange. Here's a clue: the mechanism for publishing the documents is pretty much irrelevant with respect to the contents of the documents. If you can make the case that the docs are bogus, that would be relevant. The status of allegations of sexual assault against Assange have no relevancy at all.

Nor do theories that wikileaks and anonymous are secretly republican operatives. So what? Are the docs legitimate? Do they reveal malfeasance by the DNC? Do you think the dnc ought to be neutral during the primaries or should it favor a candidate?

[treestar]

184. +1

Why don't they hack into that?

[MohRokTah]

43. They won't because they ARE Republicans. eom

[NorthCarolina]

145. Nonsense, Wikileaks started when "W" was pResident.

Much was exposed about Guantanamo in direct relation to Bush policies. That seems to be the standard knee jerk reaction around here...they exposed my candidates dirty laundry so therefore they must be "Republicans". Have we really sunk that low in our intellect and tolerance for corruption as to simply pass it off as nothing more than partisan activity?

[Scuba]

44. Isn't exposing the war machine exposing the Republicans?

Aren't they the war party?

[avaistheone1]

51. ^^^^^This!!

[Mike Nelson]

49. Hmmmm....

[Iliyah]

53. I would love to read how the GOP are tampering with the GE election

and how they are keeping progressives at each other throats. Hmmmmmmmm. Come on Wikileaks! Do it!

[Warren Stupidity]

54. Wiki leaks worked with Chelsea Manning.

The massive document archives published by wiki leaks from Manning covered decades, and multiple administrations both republican and democratic.

[Surya Gayatri]

64. Who says they haven't done things a thousand times more odious?

How could we possibly know? Wikileaks apparently finds their legendary dirty tricks to be unworthy of attention or revelation...

By the by, a hearty welcome to DU. Enjoy your stay...

[BlancheSplanchnik]

60. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[L. Coyote]

63. Anon could be anyone, many anyones for that matter.

We've already seen anon being impersonated by lefties with donate buttons! Why not Republican trolls creating havoc and disruption and spreading misinformation?

[Press Virginia]

65. every time I read posts like this it's usually followed by a post about Trump running on fear

leave the fear mongering, doom and gloom predictions to the loons on the right.

People will see Trump for what he is. All HRC needs to do is run a campaign that gives people a reason to reject fear, bigotry and hatred. And we don't need e-mails or secret tapes to counter what the GOP is going to do. We know the playbook

[DemonGoddess]

68. ^^^This!!!

[eqfan592]

69. Wow, this response is telling

So long as you're more concerned with the "fairness" of leaks and not with what the content of those leaks tell us, you will continue to be a massive part of the problem.

Every Democrat, be they Sanders or Clinton supporter, should be outraged at what these emails point to and the unethical natures of the DNC leadership that they imply. Yet here I see nothing but "gee, why do the mean hackers always gotta pick on us??"

Frankly, I'm disgusted.

[yardwork]

72. I'm disgusted with the efforts to put Trump in the White House.

It looks like a combination of right wing trolling and childish, entitled, self-centered behavior from self-proclaimed "progressives" running around with their diapers in a wad.

If Trump gets in power, they will be the first to be locked up. And they'll cry all the way, whining about how they had no idea what they were doing.

THAT'S disgusting.

[JTFrog]

74. Exactly. nt

[Surya Gayatri]

76. A-friggin'-men! So spot on!

[Iliyah]

80. Of course they will blame Pres O and HRC.

[Surya Gayatri]

75. Please, feel free to delve into your visceral revulsion for Dems.

It has been duly noted, as has your concomitant repugnance for Repub dirty tricks.

[stupidicus]

94. indeed, but your unassailable point will be dodged and dismissed

by those who'll tacitly give their stamp of approval to the DNC shenanigans in the process

[Lord Magus]

154. There was nothing unethical about it.

DNC employees were not obligated to pretend that the outcome of the primary was still in doubt when it was obvious who would win.

[yurbud]

81. Republicans put their sins and crimes in their platform and every piece of legislation

making leaks almost redundant.

They are not saying one thing and doing another, apart from claiming to worry about small businesses while working exclusively for the biggest.

Leaking their stuff would be roughly like leaking Charles Manson's emails.

You might learn something new, but it wouldn't change your overall impression of him.

[Silver_Witch]

119. Standing Ovation

[beachbum bob]

83. be awesome to see last 20 years of trump tax returns....

[SunSeeker]

90. ^^^THIS^^^

[Blue_Tires]

87. Assange/Greenwald only care about destroying Dems...

Which is why I struggle to understand why they're such heroes to the left...

[Dawson Leery]

88. Assange (who has a similar rape charge as Trump)

and Greenwald are bent on destroying the Democrats and liberals, are as all Putinites.

It is time to bring Snowden back for trial.

[cyberpunk]

188. Ever so grateful, aren't ya.

Pulls back the curtain on colossal government spying on it's own people via PRISM and other odious means, and all you have to say is "It's time to bring Snowden back for trial". I understand that the sheep have been holding their noses and snickering at people who used to say we're being spied on, but now I have to wonder why you'd say something like that. Maybe for once, a CT is right, and you can't stand the "I told you sos"?

[stupidicus]

93. where have you been, they've been doing it for years

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/01/obama-bush-torture-probe_n_790804.html

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/jan/03/republicans-wikileaks-investigation

and what exactly could they "expose" that isn't in your face already?

Funny how their work and integrity is being called into question now that they've pulled back the curtain on the dems too, no?

[Iliyah]

104. Dems are far from perfect and we acknowledge that

There is no purity test either. Have a nice day!

[Loki]

95. To think that we have people who would rather believe

Russian propaganda and continue to complain about the DNC based upon those lies, try to sabotage the campaign and weaken our candidate and allow the possibility of a Trump presidency. This is disgusting and I refuse to allow their blackmail to continue.

[insta8er]

96. Others are more evil and corrupt, we don't want the negative attention to be brought to us.

You know, because they are actually evil. Officer, why did you pull me over? you see that other guy there is speeding even more than I do please go after him.

[mopinko]

97. still waiting for all those rethug kkk'ers to be outed.

yeah, smells a bit funny to me, too.

[Silver_Witch]

121. you mean like this????

http://countercurrentnews.com/2015/11/anonymous-just-revealed-member-cops-and-politicians/

[Iliyah]

102. See ya, and remember to vote (probably not HRC) but vote.

[vintx]

103. I'm not an idiot...

I doubt it'll be close in TX but if it looks like she has a chance, I'll vote for her. Otherwise I'm so far past done. I'll never lift a finger to help this party ever again.

on edit: Yes, by saying "I'm not an idiot" I am indeed saying that anyone in a competitive state who DOESN'T vote against trump IS INARGUABLY AND MOST DEFINITELY A BONA FIDE FUCKING IDIOT.

[musicblind]

108. It's you vote. I don't agree with your vote, but it is yours.

Just please consider at least splitting the ticket and voting for democrats down ballot? Please?

[vintx]

111. I live in a deep red area of TX.

Instead of voting straight ticket D, as I have proudly done for almost 20 years, I will vote whatever way I deem most effective.

It kills me that I will never again be able to refer to myself as a yellow dog dem. I hate what this primary season has shown me about this party.

[Silver_Witch]

123. S0 sorry Vintx...it has been a rough year.

I am not far behind

[Onlooker]

109. Give Hillary supporters a little more credit

At least try to respect the fact that Hillary had a far broader coalition of people of color, gays, women, Muslims, whites, and others. You may believe that Bernie was the better candidate, but try to give some consideration to those who have different life experiences and needs than you have. The fact is that Hillary had many supporters who have followed her through the years, and admired how she stood up against the nonstop attacks of the right and how she was never afraid to enter the fray. She was always center stage to a large degree and always had to deal with a variety of competing forces, unlike Bernie who was from the safe largely homogeneous state of Vermont. There's no compromise in supporting Hillary, just she's important and valued for different reasons than Bernie is.

[vintx]

113. My reaction is not about her supporters, it's about the powerful people in this party, and the DNC.

It's about the way they railroaded him from day 1.

We all know why. I'm done.

Wellstone called this shit years ago. May he RIP and I'm glad he can't see the shit that's happening now.

[Onlooker]

124. Yeah, but the DNC isn't that bad.

I backed Bernie and voted for him, though switched to Hillary by the end. The fact is that establishment Democrats are not that bad. They were far ahead of Republicans in civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, social services, wages, environment, education, and so on. There is a huge list of progressive legislation that the establishment Democrats have pushed through over the years. Yeah, they have a lot of shortcomings, but a lot of that is because they rarely have the majorities to accomplish what they want. Bill Clinton was compelled to work with Republicans as was Obama. I think that if millennials and others had turned out in force during the midterm elections and Democrats (even establishment ones) maintained control of Congress we would be much further along. As is, as a gay man, I'm overall pretty pleased with the Democrats. As a Party, they are way ahead of the Republicans.

And as far as the primary goes, let's face it, it's amazing that an older New York Jewish socialist with a heavy accent did so well. Bernie played politics as tough as Hillary did. He targeted rural and caucus states, and built his platform around youth issues. It was brilliant, and came close to working, but Hillary is no lightweight in this game either, and the fact that she had minorities on her side really warrants a good amount of consideration. People of color have been the most reliable liberals and Democrats for years. They vote and they vote for good people. The fact that they supported Hillary and the fact that the young supported Bernie in my view means that both candidates were pretty good, even if Bernie on the issues was better.

[misterhighwasted]

128. Sen WELLSTONE was the great democratic progressive that Sanders fought AGAINST on Sierra Blanca.

Yes Wellstone was the Greatest Dem Progressive that always stood for those with no power.
I will never count Sanders as the progressive he is claimed to be. For this act alone.
He is very far from the greats like Wellstone.
Sorry. Their names don't belong next to each other.
Sierra Blanca is his to acknowledge & reconcile.

He makes me sick.

Bernie was never railroaded.
Umm..$16million for his online message swarms?
We don't need to rehash the ills of BOTH sides of the Primary.
Because its not about the Primary anymore.
It is about the salvation of our country against a very damaging candidate. Donald Trump.

[MADem]

134. People confuse "progressive" with "liberal" and they aren't the same.

Paul Wellstone was a sincere LIBERAL. Helluva guy, too.

[misterhighwasted]

136. He was well known as the Greatest Democratic Progressive.

Liberal, Democrat, Progressive.
I believe the term "progressive" is no longer used to identify how Wellstone defined it.
He was true. Today the term seems more loosely used.
Regardless, he was the best fighter for economic injustice.

[Democat]

112. Then you are on Trump's side

It's very simple. Clinton or Trump will win.

[vintx]

114. Oh learn to read FFS. nt.

[citood]

115. Reverse situation

RNC leaks would show attempts to defeat Trump...would support his rigged narrative.

[Silver_Witch]

116. I guess they don't have to expose the republicans

because it is clear who and what they are....no secrets or deceit..the republicans are just bad period. It seems to me they are trying expose what they believe is going wrong in the party behind the scenes.

Same reason BLM and others don't protest republicans....no sense to it as they know they can't change republicans. I guess they as democrats have hope they can save the party by exposing the bad things and having things made right by party leaders who care about its members.

You asked so I explained...this post is not bashing just explaining what is confusing you in the original post.

[LowerManhattanite]

125. Do remember...most of these “impartial purist” leakers and leaker-backers are Libertarians...

...aka, the party shield Republican losers hide behind when they fatigue of being called on their bigotry, sexism and laissez-faire bullsh*t. Why attack their masters?

[LuvLoogie]

127. It makes sense because the hard, daily work

of nuts and bolts Democrats makes the Radical Benevolence of The Cloud moot.

The Voyeurs and Snoops need love, too. So their intercepted data must trump man-hours and footpounds.

We must recognize their righteousness and free them from exile.

[Johnny2X2X]

135. It's the Russians

Not wikileaks.

[runaway hero]

144. You should hack the RNC

I wish someone would, to stop the complaints.

[coco77]

148. K&R..

[FrenchieCat]

149. Waiting.....

But not holding my breath!

[beachbumbob]

152. Won't happen...

[MadBadger]

157. I don't think we want to see what the RNC emails look like

They probably will be about undermining Trump.

That would only play to his advantage.

[SheriffBob]

177. I doubt it

They would destroy trump.

[L. Coyote]

159. If it were the "hacker community" behind this, that would have already happened.

[SheriffBob]

178. horror

the walking dead

[treestar]

185. good meme, the tech is advanced

but in essence the result is the same.

[L. Coyote]

186. The public naivete is worse, the M$M is wingnut propaganda, and here on DU

you have to wonder where the IP addresses of some posters originate. Of course, we have our own ways of determining that without violating the law and hacking servers.

And, if Hillary's computers were ever hacked, you and I know who suspect #1 would be, the Republicans investigating if her computers were hacked! Why people don't see these connections is a mystery to me.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=edit&forum=1251&thread=2288618&pid=2288939