The 2016 US Election (Part II)

[Flagg]

At this point I'm hoping that he forces her to choose someone like Elizabeth Warren as her VP, who then runs as POTUS in 2024 and then maybe we can make some progress on helping people.

(People I expect to benefit under a Hillary Clinton presidency: 1. Hillary Clinton, 2. Hillary Clinton's close friends and supporters; People I expect to benefit under a Sanders presidency: 1. More than that)

How would he go about forcing her to pick Elizabeth Warren (assuming she even wants the job)?

Just staying in the race keeps the "Bernie Or Bust" movement alive. In other words, I'm hoping that he makes a big enough "split" in the party that Hillary is forced to do something big to patch it.

So you want a Republican to win? Fuck you.

[Dominus Atheos]

"...And then the "Bernie or Bust" supporters will vote for Clinton-Warren 2016"

Sorry for you if you didn't get that.

[maraxus2]

I am certainly not arguing that super delegates are not allowed to vote at the convention. Terralthra already corrected you on this point.

And I don't think most Sanders supporters think that they shouldn't be counted. Although personally I'd rather scrap them before next election, or limit the situations where they can vote to resolving a tie.

If this were any year but 2016, I'd completely agree with you re: scrapping the super delegates. However, watching the dumpster fire on the GOP side has firmly convinced me that there needs to be some sort of outlet for party leaders and elected officials to correct back towards the Democratic center. It's not inconceivable for the Dems to have a similar situation in which the candidate likely to win the nomination actually loses something like 2/3rds of the overall vote. I say it's not inconceivable since Trump is basically doing that right now. We can argue about the virtues of the GOP nomination process all we want, but I bet that the GOP leaders wish they had a superdelegate equivalent right about now. And, for what it's worth, I do think they play a role in making the process more "democratic," since a candidate like Trump could squeak by with a plurality of pledged delegates despite getting thoroughly repudiated by most of the voters and all of the Party.

Sanders would just have to do really well going forward to win. Implausibly so, yes, but theoretically doable, particularly if the hypothetical Clinton indictment occurred (although that is looking increasingly unlikely).

I will note, in particular, that a landslide Sanders win in California (unlikely, yes, but California isn't until June) could theoretically erase Clinton's current pledged delegate lead by itself, because California is that damn big.

Also, while its a little state that isn't likely to affect the overall picture much, my understanding is that Connecticut is quite close, certainly too close for the outcome their to be likely to be fairly called a "drubbing."

You are understating just how well Bernie would need to do in my beloved home state in order to erase Clinton's lead. California is a proportional state, just like the rest, and actually weights the delegates towards congressional district that have higher Democratic turnout in 2008-12. These tend to be heavily minority-majority districts, places where Bernie hasn't done well thus far. Plus, at a minimum he'd need to win by around 75-80%. So he'd not only need to perform well among constituencies where he hasn't, he'd not only need to win Congressional districts that are demographically stacked against him, he'd need to win by about the same margin that he won in Vermont. His home state. A state that could not possibly look less like California. And he'd need to do it while Hillary (probably) expands her lead over him after the Acela primary tomorrow and Indiana after that. And he'd need to do it while fighting against a tide of 500,000 ill-informed "independents" who can't even vote for him.

Again, he could "theoretically" do a lot of things. Winning California by the same margin that he won Vermont is really really terribly unlikely. BUT THERES A CHANCE or whatever.

And regardless of odds, I don't like one candidate being declared the victor before they've won based on probability. Its frankly undemocratic, and leaves a bad taste. Let everyone vote, tally it up, and then declare a winner.

I find it odd that you think that calling a spade a spade is undemocratic, yet nary a peep about the caucuses, but whatever.

I'd like a source on Bernie's campaign saying that, though it wouldn't surprise me.

No Problem.

"We want to make a case to superdelegates that Bernie Sanders is the strongest candidate," said Mark Longabaugh, a senior campaign strategist. Superdelegates will have to balance voters' wishes with their political judgment, he said: "Both considerations are there. Every individual superdelegate will have to make their own decision."

Sanders' campaign staff has been harassing superdelegates in states where he won, or even didn't win, trying to get them to flip their support over to him.* Not sure why, since it obviously won't work.

As for the campaign being over since March 15th.... bullshit.

Hell, at that point, Sanders would have only had to win, what, 58% of the pledged delegates going forward to have a majority and make a strong case to super delegates? That's uphill, but hardly undoable. Hell, its not even technically undoable now, with California and a whole bunch of other states left to vote. Just unlikely.

As to what influence Sanders can wield if he loses... it depends on how big the gap is, I suppose, and on how worried the Democrats are about "Bernie or Bust" and similar such idiocy (though Sanders, of course, doesn't condone it).

Bottom line, though, I don't like treating a primary as over when their are still two candidates in the race, it is mathematically possible for either to win, and a whole bunch of states including the biggest by population in the country haven't had a chance to vote yet. It smacks of Clinton entitlement, like you're saying Bernie should just get out of the way and let the Chosen One take her crown without worrying any more about silly things like voting.

I don't claim Sanders is likely to win, but he has every right to keep going forward if he wants to.

Sure he does, but you're missing my point. It wasn't about actually winning delegates on that particular day; it was about demonstrating electoral viability going forward. Bernie needed to prove that Michigan wasn't a one-off, or that the polls were systemically incorrect, and it increasingly looks like they were. He needed to expand his political base beyond his relatively narrow slice of the electorate and he failed to do so; losing states that he was expected to win, and losing states that he was expected to lose by larger margins than predicted.

And you can fuck right off with that Clinton entitlement bullshit. Ya boy ran a great race, much better than he was expected to. He mobilized a lot of votes that nobody thought he could get. But Clinton isn't beating him because she had the nomination handed to her; she beat him because she ran a *much better* campaign because she is, and always has been, the *much stronger nominee.* Was it Clinton entitlement that allowed her to lead him by around three million more votes? I would argue not. It's tough for you to argue that she's avoided voting when she has pretty thoroughly kicked his ass at the hustings, and would likely have an even larger lead if we didn't have those stupid caucuses.

And by all means, Bernie can continue to contest the nomination should he wish. There is nothing stopping him. But if he actually cares about the progressive policies that get all of you BernieBros so hot and bothered, he'd better chill the fuck out re: calling all the Democrats corrupt, lest he damage the only feasible candidate between Trump and an extremely right-wing Congress. If he actually cares, he ought to go back to having a message/policy campaign that we saw early on, before Reddit seeped into his brain and made him think he can win.

/gets off soapbox.

*Anecdotally, a friend of a friend is actually a superdelegate here in California. Some nutcase Sanders supporter actually called their father, mother and little sister (who was in high school, btw) harassing all of them in an extremely misguided effort to get this friend to switch. I don't remember whether they've announced or not, but I can sure as shit tell you that they're not going to support Bernie.

[maraxus2]

Just staying in the race keeps the "Bernie Or Bust" movement alive. In other words, I'm hoping that he makes a big enough "split" in the party that Hillary is forced to do something big to patch it.

You name me one occasion in which damaging the more centrist Democratic candidate vs. the Right-Wing Republican turned out well for anyone. Might as well ask Maine how they like their Governor. Or how all those people that got stuffed into the Superdome liked Nader's principled stand for progressive policies. Or all those trees that got cut down during Dubya's administration. Or all those people in Iraq and Afghanistan that died.

Dumb leftists are the one group of people more aggravating than dumb right-wingers. How you could possibly look at Hillary Clintion, hands down the best chance the left (such as it is in the US) has at avoiding a descent into right-wing madness across the country, and think "Y'know, I bet we could fuck with her a lot more. That'll work out for us!" is utterly baffling.

Hillary is going to make her Veep decision based on what she and her people agree would be good for the ticket and the country. They are not going to make their decision based on the online mewlings of people who probably don't vote Democratic anyway.

[Flagg]

"...And then the "Bernie or Bust" supporters will vote for Clinton-Warren 2016"

Sorry for you if you didn't get that.

Yeah, you assume Warren wants the job.

[Gandalf]

I also assumes that the Bernie or Bust people aren't just blowhards in their pouting phase. The GOP running Cruz/Trump/Other should scare them into line.

[The Romulan Republic]

Maybe not.

https://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-fac ... s-trolled/

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. Some legitimate Bernie supporters even reported seeing images containing pedophilia, according to reporting from Heavy.com.


Erica Libenow, a Sanders supporter and member of one of the pro-Bernie groups, said, “We had what looked like a kiddie porn posted in one of our groups today. I reported that one. Seriously made me want to vomit.”

There is at least one culprit to be found in Facebook user Casey Champagne, who bragged about taking down the pages in the pro-Hillary Clinton group BROS 4 HILLARY – #GiveEmHill — though the pro-Clinton page has now also been taken down.

champagne

Other Hillary Clinton fans were cheering on Champagne’s trolling, encouraging him to try to take down Bernie Sanders’ official Facebook page. Another Facebook user openly admitted that her husband frequently reported pro-Sanders posts on Facebook in hopes that they would be taken down, saying his success rate was “about 50/50 on a good day.”

Facebook user Robert Olivarez told Champagne, “You know they all can see this post?” Champagne cavalierly responded, “You know I don’t care?”

hillaryfans1

hillaryfans2

hillaryfans3

Champagne, and possibly other Clinton supporters, essentially mass-reported content in these pro-Sanders Facebook groups claiming the content was graphically violent, pornographic, or abusive — including the reprehensible content posted by Clinton supporters themselves. Facebook’s automated systems take note of how many individuals report a particular post, and if the post is reported enough, it will be taken down. This same process applies to groups, pages, and individual user accounts.

Casey Champagne did not immediately respond to interview requests from US Uncut.

It’s still unclear if these gutter tactics are tied to Correct the Record, the pro-Hillary Clinton Super PAC that openly declared last week that it would launch a sophisticated social media campaign aimed at Bernie Sanders supporters. Correct the Record earmarked $1 million for the effort, named “Barrier Breakers 2016,” which aims to “correct” Sanders supporters who criticize Hillary Clinton on Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and Instagram. However, some of Casey Champagne’s recent likes are Correct the Record, Barrier Breakers, and an anti-Sanders page called “Pragmatic Progressives.”

I am just... their are no fucking words for this.

Let me summarize this:

If these allegations are correct, their was just an organized mass campaign to sabotage pro-Sanders Facebook pages and get them taken down by posting prohibited content including child pornography.

While we don't know that their is any link to the Clinton campaign yet, this is apparently an organized, large-scale attack, and it follows a recent revelation that a Clinton super pac is paying people to post pro-Clinton/anti-Sanders stuff online.

Innocent until proven guilty, but if Clinton was in any way involved, I think I'll be joining Bernie or Bust. I really, really hope it doesn't come to that, but I cannot vote for someone who enables child pornography as a political tactic, not even to stop Drumpf. In my opinion, this is a cyber terrorist attack, directed at the Sanders campaign.

I also suspect the Republicans will probably win if this story gets a lot of coverage. Because while I doubt Hillary was personally involved, a lot of Sanders supporters probably won't, and a lot of them probably won't care.

Of course, expect the narrative from rabid Clinton supporters to be that Sanders supporters are pedophiles.

[Flagg]

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

I never had an issue with Sanders. I respected him well enough until he put a "d" in front of his name in order to be able to run in the presidential primary of a party he didn't think enough of to join and help raise money for so he could get money and media exposure, making him a whore. But even then I liked him fine as a "protest candidate" to help vet Clinton who smashes him in terms of qualifications but could be legitimately called out for being far too close to Wall Street.

Then Sanders' campaign started basically being Vermont Guiliani with every single speech or debate answer being ".A noun,ma verb, and "Wall Street" which just made him a joke. Then it became apparent he went full Nader (you never go full Nader) and was trying to win despite him having barely any chance in the primary, and due to the animosity he's garnered by essentially siphoning funds away from the general (funds he didn't campaign for, because he wasn't a democrat until last week) election which he has no chance of winning were he to be running against a duck that shoots feces from its mouth when it talks (Which about sums up Donald Trump) because he's an empty fucking suit with barely any minority support and one issue.

But why do I absolutely loath him? Because the Sanders Suckers are now essentially using the same tactics and attacks against Hillary Clinton that Republicans have been for 25 motherfucking years! Any day now the indictments will hit! Next it's going to be some dumbass on YouTube shooting a melon with a handgun trying to prove Vince Foster didn't commit suicide.

So fuck you for making me defend Hillary Clinton! Because ever since she started railing on violence in media and voting for wars of choice I've despised her. Yet here I am, having to defend the cunt against deluded Brainless Bernie Blowhards using shit that was old hat before Monica BlewClintsky!

[Flagg]

Maybe not.

https://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-fac ... s-trolled/

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. Some legitimate Bernie supporters even reported seeing images containing pedophilia, according to reporting from Heavy.com.


Erica Libenow, a Sanders supporter and member of one of the pro-Bernie groups, said, “We had what looked like a kiddie porn posted in one of our groups today. I reported that one. Seriously made me want to vomit.”

There is at least one culprit to be found in Facebook user Casey Champagne, who bragged about taking down the pages in the pro-Hillary Clinton group BROS 4 HILLARY – #GiveEmHill — though the pro-Clinton page has now also been taken down.

champagne

Other Hillary Clinton fans were cheering on Champagne’s trolling, encouraging him to try to take down Bernie Sanders’ official Facebook page. Another Facebook user openly admitted that her husband frequently reported pro-Sanders posts on Facebook in hopes that they would be taken down, saying his success rate was “about 50/50 on a good day.”

Facebook user Robert Olivarez told Champagne, “You know they all can see this post?” Champagne cavalierly responded, “You know I don’t care?”

hillaryfans1

hillaryfans2

hillaryfans3

Champagne, and possibly other Clinton supporters, essentially mass-reported content in these pro-Sanders Facebook groups claiming the content was graphically violent, pornographic, or abusive — including the reprehensible content posted by Clinton supporters themselves. Facebook’s automated systems take note of how many individuals report a particular post, and if the post is reported enough, it will be taken down. This same process applies to groups, pages, and individual user accounts.

Casey Champagne did not immediately respond to interview requests from US Uncut.

It’s still unclear if these gutter tactics are tied to Correct the Record, the pro-Hillary Clinton Super PAC that openly declared last week that it would launch a sophisticated social media campaign aimed at Bernie Sanders supporters. Correct the Record earmarked $1 million for the effort, named “Barrier Breakers 2016,” which aims to “correct” Sanders supporters who criticize Hillary Clinton on Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and Instagram. However, some of Casey Champagne’s recent likes are Correct the Record, Barrier Breakers, and an anti-Sanders page called “Pragmatic Progressives.”

I am just... their are no fucking words for this.

Let me summarize this:

If these allegations are correct, their was just an organized mass campaign to sabotage pro-Sanders Facebook pages and get them taken down by posting prohibited content including child pornography.

While we don't know that their is any link to the Clinton campaign yet, this is apparently an organized, large-scale attack, and it follows a recent revelation that a Clinton super pac is paying people to post pro-Clinton/anti-Sanders stuff online.

Innocent until proven guilty, but if Clinton was in any way involved, I think I'll be joining Bernie or Bust. I really, really hope it doesn't come to that, but I cannot vote for someone who enables child pornography as a political tactic, not even to stop Drumpf. In my opinion, this is a cyber terrorist attack, directed at the Sanders campaign.

I also suspect the Republicans will probably win if this story gets a lot of coverage. Because while I doubt Hillary was personally involved, a lot of Sanders supporters probably won't, and a lot of them probably won't care.

Of course, expect the narrative from rabid Clinton supporters to be that Sanders supporters are pedophiles.

Given some of the shit I've seen on berniebro timelines these reports may have been valid.

[The Romulan Republic]

No, you misunderstand (or are lying, there's always that).

Its not that people were making malicious false reports. I doubt that would have worked anyway, because Facebook would have just said "doesn't violate the rules" and done nothing (as someone who has reported posts when I felt their really was a problem and seen no real action taken). Its that people were apparently posting illegal content including child porn so that the pages would get taken down.

But yes, try to spin "Clinton supporters post child porn to sabotage pro-Sanders pages" as "Bernie Bros might really be posting child porn on their Facebook pages."

You disgust me.

[maraxus2]

I am just... their are no fucking words for this.

Let me summarize this:

If these allegations are correct, their was just an organized mass campaign to sabotage pro-Sanders Facebook pages and get them taken down by posting prohibited content including child pornography.

While we don't know that their is any link to the Clinton campaign yet, this is apparently an organized, large-scale attack, and it follows a recent revelation that a Clinton super pac is paying people to post pro-Clinton/anti-Sanders stuff online.

Innocent until proven guilty, but if Clinton was in any way involved, I think I'll be joining Bernie or Bust. I really, really hope it doesn't come to that, but I cannot vote for someone who enables child pornography as a political tactic, not even to stop Drumpf. In my opinion, this is a cyber terrorist attack, directed at the Sanders campaign.

I also suspect the Republicans will probably win if this story gets a lot of coverage. Because while I doubt Hillary was personally involved, a lot of Sanders supporters probably won't, and a lot of them probably won't care.

Of course, expect the narrative from rabid Clinton supporters to be that Sanders supporters are pedophiles.

Sorry, just to clarify. You seriously think that Hillary Clinton, or her campaign high command, organized an attack by some random dude on FB to...do what exactly? Take down a couple of Bernie Sanders fanpages? That's how you think Clinton spends her time?

You've been trying awful hard to sound reasonable in the last three or four thread pages. Don't go blowing your load over an obvious nothingburger like this article.

[The Romulan Republic]

I said myself that I doubt Clinton was personally involved. So either you didn't read my post carefully, or you are lying.

However, this appears to have been a simultaneous coordinated attack on about half a dozen different pages, as said in the article. And it follows a recent revelation that Clinton has a super pac that is hiring people to post anti-Sanders/pro-Clinton material on line.

Just a bit suspicious, no?

Innocent until proven guilty, of course, but at the very least, it shows that their is now just as much, if not more, nastiness coming from Clinton supporters as from Sanders supporters. I don't recall any Bernie supporters engaging in child porn based cyberterrorism.

Edit: I'll reiterate that with something this inflammatory and outrageous, and with tensions running as high as they already are in this Primary, a lot of Sanders supporters will probably be far less likely to give the benefit of the doubt than me. So whoever did this just did the Republicans a massive favour, weather they realize it or not.

[Flagg]

No, you misunderstand (or are lying, there's always that).

Its not that people were making malicious false reports. I doubt that would have worked anyway, because Facebook would have just said "doesn't violate the rules" and done nothing (as someone who has reported posts when I felt their really was a problem and seen no real action taken). Its that people were apparently posting illegal content including child porn so that the pages would get taken down.

But yes, try to spin "Clinton supporters post child porn to sabotage pro-Sanders pages" as "Bernie Bros might really be posting child porn on their Facebook pages."

That's fucked up. But it could be anyone, not that I'd put it past Clinton supporters, or anyone, I just don't see what they'd have to gain seeing as they would be the obvious ones to get the finger pointed at them. TBH I doubt this was political, more likely just trolling shits. I wouldn't even blame Republicans at this point, though they'd have the most to gain.

And I don't lie.

You disgust me.

Knee-jerk morons disgust me.

[Soontir C'boath]

Well, well, well, if China thinks Trump is good for them, I think I have to seriously consider voting for him. It is time American imperialism and antagonistic diplomacy in the Pacific end.

[Flagg]

Edit: I'll reiterate that with something this inflammatory and outrageous, and with tensions running as high as they already are in this Primary, a lot of Sanders supporters will probably be far less likely to give the benefit of the doubt than me. So whoever did this just did the Republicans a massive favour, weather they realize it or not.

Duh. You really need to think before calling people liars, unless you have proof, too.

[maraxus2]

I said myself that I doubt Clinton was personally involved. So either you didn't read my post carefully, or you are lying.

However, this appears to have been a simultaneous coordinated attack on about half a dozen different pages, as said in the article. And it follows a recent revelation that Clinton has a super pac that is hiring people to post anti-Sanders/pro-Clinton material on line.

Just a bit suspicious, no?

Innocent until proven guilty, of course, but at the very least, it shows that their is now just as much, if not more, nastiness coming from Clinton supporters as from Sanders supporters. I don't recall any Bernie supporters engaging in child porn based cyberterrorism.

Edit: I'll reiterate that with something this inflammatory and outrageous, and with tensions running as high as they already are in this Primary, a lot of Sanders supporters will probably be far less likely to give the benefit of the doubt than me. So whoever did this just did the Republicans a massive favour, weather they realize it or not.

No, what you're doing is engaging in conspiracy-theorist thinking. You said:

While we don't know that their is any link to the Clinton campaign yet, this is apparently an organized, large-scale attack, and it follows a recent revelation that a Clinton super pac is paying people to post pro-Clinton/anti-Sanders stuff online.

and

Innocent until proven guilty, but if Clinton was in any way involved, I think I'll be joining Bernie or Bust. I really, really hope it doesn't come to that, but I cannot vote for someone who enables child pornography as a political tactic, not even to stop Drumpf. In my opinion, this is a cyber terrorist attack, directed at the Sanders campaign.

and

Because while I doubt Hillary was personally involved, a lot of Sanders supporters probably won't, and a lot of them probably won't care.

You throw around terms like "innocent until proven guilty" as though you are accusing the Clinton campaign of something untoward. You followed it up with a completely unrelated "revelation" about Clinton's campaign allegedly paying people to "correct" Bernie people on the internet (Could you find a non-bullshit source, btw? one that isn't liberal clickbait like USuncut or the NY Daily News?) You further state that if Clinton's campaign was involved (is there any reason to think that she is?), you'll join Bernie-or-Bust.

And no, it's not particularly suspicious at all. There are plenty of jerkoffs on the internet. Like people who think: A. that this story is anything other than a huge nothingburger, B. think that it will somehow move LOTS AND LOTS of votes towards Bernie, and C. are apparently constitutionally incapable of using their/there/they're correctly.

[Flagg]

Frankly TRR, the way you fail to clean up articles you post caused most of the confusion as it's pretty fucking easy to miss some claims (like the child porn allegation) while assuming you've read the entire article. So some mea culpa's for accusations of lying should be coming. That and your source is shit conspiracist drivel.

[The Romulan Republic]

No, you misunderstand (or are lying, there's always that).

Its not that people were making malicious false reports. I doubt that would have worked anyway, because Facebook would have just said "doesn't violate the rules" and done nothing (as someone who has reported posts when I felt their really was a problem and seen no real action taken). Its that people were apparently posting illegal content including child porn so that the pages would get taken down.

But yes, try to spin "Clinton supporters post child porn to sabotage pro-Sanders pages" as "Bernie Bros might really be posting child porn on their Facebook pages."

That's fucked up. But it could be anyone, not that I'd put it past Clinton supporters, or anyone, I just don't see what they'd have to gain seeing as they would be the obvious ones to get the finger pointed at them. TBH I doubt this was political, more likely just trolling shits. I wouldn't even blame Republicans at this point, though they'd have the most to gain.

And I don't lie.

Then, as I said, you misread my post and responded based on a misinterpretation. But I'll take your word that you weren't lying here.

Knee-jerk morons disgust me.

You mean like people who post a response to a post without knowing what it actually said?

maraxus2, I fully acknowledge, as I always have, that their is no proof Clinton was in any way involved, but I'd be lying if I said it didn't look a little fishy to me. I am simply considering various hypotheticals, not engaging in conspiracy theories. I do not have enough information yet to theorize much.

It would honestly shock me if Clinton was involved directly, both because this shit is a little below her pay grade, so to speak, and because it would be incompetent even for her.

Someone in her campaign or super pac, however? Someone who works with her and ostensibly on her behalf. That wouldn't terribly shock me, sad to say.

[The Romulan Republic]

Frankly TRR, the way you fail to clean up articles you post caused most of the confusion as it's pretty fucking easy to miss some claims (like the child porn allegation) while assuming you've read the entire article. So some mea culpa's for accusations of lying should be coming. That and your source is shit conspiracist drivel.

I tend to just quote pages, or sections of pages, as written. I'm reluctant to mess around with them, in part because I might be accused of selectively editing them. Sorry if its unclear, but really, how hard is it to read an article carefully enough that you know your reply is accurate?

I already responded to the question of honesty.

As to the quality of the source, I freely acknowledge that its biased (but good luck finding unbiased reporting on this election), but I will note that as far as I see, even they are at most suggesting a possible connection between this and a Clinton super pac, not asserting that Clinton is personally responsible. And unless they are simply fabricating this story outright (and I've seen it reported on elsewhere, albeit not much- probably because it only happened tonight and hasn't gotten much press yet), then I think you can agree that this is at least a serious issue, whoever was behind it.

[maraxus2]

maraxus2, I fully acknowledge, as I always have, that their is no proof Clinton was in any way involved, but I'd be lying if I said it didn't look a little fishy to me. I am simply considering various hypotheticals, not engaging in conspiracy theories. I do not have enough information yet to theorize much.

It would honestly shock me if Clinton was involved directly, both because this shit is a little below her pay grade, so to speak, and because it would be incompetent even for her.

Someone in her campaign or super pac, however? Someone who works with her and ostensibly on her behalf. That wouldn't terribly shock me, sad to say.

And it looks that way to you because you obviously have no idea how this stuff actually works. No campaign staffer worth their salt would sanction any of this business, not least because CP is illegal. On a less moral level, what, practically speaking does this accomplish? You shut down a few pro-Bernie pages? When he is already losing and losing by a huge margin? Why? What possible gain is there?

The fact that you insist on seeing malevolent intent where, frankly, none has any reason to exist tells me that you have your tinfoil wrapped a bit too tightly. "Considering various hypotheticals" indeed.

[The Romulan Republic]

And it looks that way to you because you obviously have no idea how this stuff actually works. No campaign staffer worth their salt would sanction any of this business, not least because CP is illegal.

Because nobody ever breaks the law during an election.

I mean, I'd like to think no one would be that flamingly stupid and corrupt, and normally they wouldn't be, but with some of the shit we've seen this election (granted, mostly from the Republican side)?

I'll give all the benefit of the doubt you like, but I won't say that it couldn't possibly be the case. American politics has gotten real ugly of late, even compared to its usual ugliness.

On a less moral level, what, practically speaking does this accomplish? You shut down a few pro-Bernie pages? When he is already losing and losing by a huge margin? Why? What possible gain is there?

You'd have to ask whatever dip shit thought this was a good idea what they were thinking. I fully agree that in purely pragmatic terms, it was idiotic (unless they're secretly a conservative).

The fact that you insist on seeing malevolent intent where, frankly, none has any reason to exist tells me that you have your tinfoil wrapped a bit too tightly. "Considering various hypotheticals" indeed.

I'm not, by and large, a conspiracy theorist.

But I think its pretty obvious that their was "malevolent intent". The only question is weather it was malevolent intent by one to a few nobodies, or malevolent intent by someone significant.

Either way, I think I am fully justified in treating this as a big fucking deal. Like I said, as far as I'm concerned, this is a cyberterrorist attack against the Sanders campaign.

[Flagg]

It's as big a fucking deal as a gnat winning a hair-pie eating competition in a half-full porta-potty at a Lynyrd Skynyrd tribute concert in Azfuk, Arkansas at 3pm on the hottest most humid day of the year.

[The Romulan Republic]

If the allegations are true, its a cyberterrorist attack on a major political candidate, featuring child porn. It is significant weather it changes the outcome of the race or features any big names or not, in the sense all such events are significant-because they represent an attack on the democratic process and the rights of other human beings.

[Flagg]

A cyberterrorist attack? Posting kiddieporn on the Facebook fan page of a failing primary candidate, then reporting it thus inconveniencing them for a day or 2 is cyberterrorism?

The last 4 pages of this thread, featuring mindless drivel, conspiracy theory nonsense, and arguments which assume that minorities in Alaska and Hawaii showed up the caucus have been more cyberterrorizing.

[The Romulan Republic]

Posting things you think are stupid/disagree with certainly isn't terrorism.

But committing a felony involving the exploitation of children (distributing child porn) to attack an opposing political campaign (by the way, it was a lot more than one page). I think you can make that case. Maybe not legally defined as terrorism, but you could certainly regard it as morally comparable.

Their is also a threat/intimidation element, because this sort of thing could make people afraid to visit pro-Sanders pages for fear of accidentally viewing child pornography.

So, a politically motivated felony with an element of fear/intimidation.

It may be a stretch to call it terrorism, but if so, its a slight one, in my opinion.