Anonymous Goes After Donald Trump 365
HughPickens.com writes: CBS reports that hot on the heels of its campaign against ISIS, the shadowy hackers' collective known as Anonymous is going after a new target: Donald Trump. The latest Anonymous operation — #OpTrump — was announced in a YouTube video featuring a masked activist claiming to speak for the group. In a computer-generated voice, he takes aim at Trump's proposed ban on Muslims entering the United States, claiming "This is what ISIS wants." He goes on to say that "the more the United States appears to be targeting Muslims, not just radical Muslims," the more ISIS will be able to recruit sympathizers. The video concludes with Anonymous' now-familiar threat: "You have been warned, Mr. Donald Trump. We are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do not forgive. Expect us."
After a video message was posted, the website of Trump Tower in New York City went down for at least an hour. However the campaign has yet to have much success. Despite the group's apparent distributed-denial-of-service attack, which aimed to take down a web server by flooding it with fake traffic, the Trump Tower website was up and running by 11 a.m. and the alleged damage might not have been apparent, to visitors to the page, because a cached version of Trump's site was programmed to hold the fort in the event of an attack or maintenance issues.
After a video message was posted, the website of Trump Tower in New York City went down for at least an hour. However the campaign has yet to have much success. Despite the group's apparent distributed-denial-of-service attack, which aimed to take down a web server by flooding it with fake traffic, the Trump Tower website was up and running by 11 a.m. and the alleged damage might not have been apparent, to visitors to the page, because a cached version of Trump's site was programmed to hold the fort in the event of an attack or maintenance issues.
That's it? (Score:4, Informative)
By bringing his building's website down? What a joke. If they wanted to do some real harm they would release private documents showing something damning. These are teenagers using a ddos not hacktivists.
Re:That's it? (Score:5, Insightful)
"On the heels of..."
So, they are done with ISIS?
Sounds like ADD to me.
Re:That's it? (Score:5, Insightful)
If Anonymous (with Capital-A) is anything, it's a mindset to do something that's not entirely socially acceptable or whose means are not necessarily acceptable for reasons that are not necessarily personally beneficial. As such, people can ascribe their behaviors to Anonymous. That's why there's no stopping Anonymous, because there isn't even a head to cut-off.
In some ways Anonymous is the anti-Borg. There is no structure, there are only ideas and people voluntarily choosing to pursue the ideas that others come up with, or not choosing to pursue those ideas. If it wasn't for the Guy Fawkes masks and black hoodies I don't think that the mystique surrounding the word would exist at all.
Re: (Score:3)
If it wasn't for the Guy Fawkes masks and black hoodies I don't think that the mystique surrounding the word would exist at all.
And the fact that they've actually managed to pull of real hacks (as script kiddies or not, doesn't matter......if they hadn't done it, we would all be laughing at them).
Re:That's it? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm a huge supporter of free speech, and structured or not, they shouldn't go around being the thought police. Don't like what somebody says? Let's chill their speech by doxing them and sending threats their way. Still don't like what they say? Let's silence them entirely by DDoSing their website.
I could get behind actions against ISIS because ISIS is a violent organization. The KKK isn't (except in very rare cases) and Donald Trump certainly isn't. The best way to let them fall is to let them continue speaking, while making sure anybody else can continue poking holes in their argument. We're already doing that quite well, and we don't need Anonymous silencing them.
Re: (Score:2)
I could get behind actions against ISIS because ISIS is a violent organization. The KKK isn't (except in very rare cases) and Donald Trump certainly isn't.
Right, because Trump's vision of how to handle Muslims wouldn't require any force or violence.
And your comment about the KKK needs no reply.
Re: (Score:2)
No, because Trump's vision would never come to reality. The more he expounds on it the more repulsive it is revealed to be and you absolutely need other parts of the government in order to implement it - which would be impossible given general discourse and free and open speech.
It is the secret stuff, the goals you only hear about as a justification when the secret shit is exposed that cannot be stopped with speech. All this is going to do is make crap secret - not because of some unwillingness to prove h
Re: (Score:2)
All this is going to do is make crap secret - not because of some unwillingness to prove how stupid it is but because of direct action by those claiming to oppose it.
Could you elaborate? I think this sounds like something I'd agree with, and think important, but I don't understand what you're trying to say. What is the "this" you're referring to? Trump, or the "Anonymous" action against him? And how will it increase secrecy?
Re: (Score:3)
"This " is the targeting of speech to drive it out of the public eyes so it is only discussed and implemented in secret instead of opposed and defeated . It is what this claim of action by anonymous is.
Re: (Score:2)
much less force than the gang rapes going on all over Europe by muslim immigrants, which is part of what trump is trying to stop.
Because restricting Muslims in the US is going to do something about that. I can't figure out how people like you think.
#muslims4trump
Cool story, bro.
Re: (Score:2)
We're already doing that quite well,
You can claim that when support for him in the polls starts to drop.
Re:That's it? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's why there's no stopping Anonymous, because there isn't even a head to cut-off.
That's also one of the reasons why ultimately there is no fearing Anonymous.
Re: (Score:2)
If Anonymous (with Capital-A) is anything, it's a mindset to do something that's not entirely socially acceptable or whose means are not necessarily acceptable for reasons that are not necessarily personally beneficial.
Reading their list of operations, it really looks more like a mob that just attacks whatever villain the liberal media drew up that week to try and sell more page views.
Re: (Score:3)
"There is no hierarchy, there is no leadership, there is no organizational goal"
Why is that good for Anonymous but bad for Occupy?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Ah. So we are all stupid. Nice. How about explaining what Anonymous is? As @TWX said they are an unstructured group with no leadership hierarchy. If they are not that then they are a structured group with a leadership hierarchy. However, I assume that you will deny this too. So please enlighten us and explain what Anonymous is. Thanks in advance.
Re: (Score:3)
Ah. So we are all stupid. Nice. How about explaining what Anonymous is? As @TWX said they are an unstructured group with no leadership hierarchy. If they are not that then they are a structured group with a leadership hierarchy. However, I assume that you will deny this too. So please enlighten us and explain what Anonymous is. Thanks in advance.
I think the grandparent actually agrees with TWX. AC calls Anonymous the "anti-Illuminati", a secretive but elitist group. While its members figuratively and sometimes literally wear masks, Anonymous isn't an exclusive club. Everybody is free to join and free to leave, which is one of the reasons, but not the only reason, why Anonymous is an "unstructured" leaderless group. For how can you have structure, when the parts keep coming and going?
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely.
Re:That's it? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with you putting them into pigeon holes, is that you are trying to fit round pegs into square holes.
Some cows must be at the front of the herd, but the fact that they are a leader at that moment doesn't imbue them with any mystical or special qualities of permanence. Generally they don't even moo unless they see that there is sufficient other cows around them that they are a herd in and of themselves. Government only works when people agree. And Anonymous is anarchy, which obeys the same rules. So long as enough want the same thing, it is the will of Anonymous. When you have to start spending money to convince people that they like you when they don't, you have modern democracy, not anarchy, and Anonymous has enough cows in the herd that they don't need to pay people to march with them to look stronger than they actually are.
But yes, in a world that ignores anarchy, defining it is hard. In practice (African government) anarchy=dictatorship by warlords, as a power vacuum is filled by evil. Power of controlling the people, there's a zero sum game. You control the people in a village, or someone else does. On the Internet, there is no zero sum game. Billions could follow you tomorrow, or none. And you can follow a billion people, or none. So the absence of power doesn't leave a vacuum. In that context anarchy can exist. And is becomes democracy (the mob rule kind). Anarchy is where everyone does what they want. So lots of people who want the same thing will find they naturally congregate. 5 people who go drinking together because they got in the habit of going to the same bar at the same time doesn't mean that they have to have a leader, or any structure. If one had to change his drinking day, he'd tell the others, and then do it. If the others did or didn't change their day to match would be from their free choice, not from force or coercion. So would that be democracy or anarchy?
Most people can't conceive of such an arangement. The meet-up sites all have to have a "leader" for an organization. Structure is assumed in everything so that people close their minds. Yes, that makes someone "stupid" if they can't conceive of Anonymous.
Anonymous is billions of cows. Some are off grazing by themselves. Others are moving in an identifiable direction. That they aren't all moving together doesn't make them not a "herd" in the eyes of the ranch owner. That they don't have a head cow doesn't make them disorganized. They are Legion. They are Everywhere, and Nowhere. They are Cow.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If "we" are anti-Illuminati, why are we then anti-Trump? Makes no fucking sense.
You see, Trump is after all the most anti-Illuminati presidential candidate in last decade... the only candidate without shadowy figures behind him (he personally is that figure!). One of few candidates (other probably being Rand Paul) that wants to tackle the fed and fix the totally broken Tax system.
Re: (Score:3)
Has he said that about the Fed? I notice that there is a lot of reading-into the things he says by both supporters and detractors.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they wanted to do some real harm they would release private documents showing something damning.
They're Anonymous, not Wikileaks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they wanted to do some real harm they would release private documents showing something damning.
Like what? Documents showing the anti-immigration Trump marries 2/3 immigrants? That the "successful businessman" has filed bankruptcy 4 times?
What could they possibly find on that man? His mouth doesn't hold back. He has no secrets. Even if he were found to have committed multiple crimes, it would all be spun into a "they are out to get him" story that wouldn't hurt him in the polls. And I've seen more than one browser plug-in that will replace Trump with Voldemort, for more entertaining news. Thou
Re: (Score:2)
By bringing his building's website down? What a joke. If they wanted to do some real harm they would release private documents showing something damning.
I dunno. I think Trump's doing a great job ruining his own chances of being elected the more radical he becomes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No you need to show the documents which show that he is working for Hilary Clinton, the Marsians, the IS, Putin, some other aliens, like the Lizard people, the pope, or Jon Stewart. Most likely I forgot the most important conspiracy theory. Maybe he works for the evil scientists who want to hide the truth about flat earth or global warming.
Re: (Score:2)
Damning documents that do what? Make him look like a moron? A jackass?
Better yet, if they could find something that made him look like a liberal, that would be the surest way to drive away his supporters.
Re: Documents that made him look like an stupid je (Score:5, Insightful)
uneducated is a fact (Score:5, Informative)
It is a fact that Trump does poll very low among Republicans with college degrees, somwhat better with Republicans who have a high school diploma, and very well among those who do not have a diploma. This is not an opinion. His supporters are in fact the uneducated, by and large.
Re: (Score:2)
Uneducated, and thus in desperate straits. So what do they got to lose? Their chains? Voting for the candidate that's most likely to cause serious disruption is a perfectly logical choice for more and more Americans. And, frankly, to people elsewhere too.
The party you tend to support has driven
Re:Documents that made him look like an stupid jer (Score:4, Insightful)
The republicans should have long ago left the right out in the cold and come center (fiscally conservative, small government, socially progressive), they would've enjoyed a great deal more support than the religious right can provide
Those are the positions of the Libertarian Party, which typically gets less than 1% of the vote. You are vastly overestimating the level of support for small government and personal freedom. The Republican Party currently has their largest congressional majority since before the Great Depression. 2/3rds of governors are Republican, and most state legislatures are also dominated by Republicans. Pandering to social conservatives and authoritarians has been enormously successful.
Re:Documents that made him look like an stupid jer (Score:5, Insightful)
The republican position says that small government is the American ideal - except with regard to abortion, prostitution, pornography, government-sponsored events to tell citizens who, how and when they should be worshiping, gambling, and a ton of others. They used to push hard for action at the federal level to prevent states from recognising gay marriage - until the supreme court ruling on the issue, at which point they declared that marriage was a state matter and the federal government was overstepping its bounds by regulating that.
The real republican position is almost identical to the democrat position: Politics is expensive. Appeal to voters where possible, but exercise caution not to upset the wealthy and corporate donors that provide the money for political campaigning.
Re:Documents that made him look like an stupid jer (Score:5, Insightful)
The republican position says that small government is the American ideal - except with regard to ...
Also ethanol subsidies, fossil fuel subsidies, farm subsidies, massive funding for the military industrial complex, massive funding for the War on Drugs, etc. In other words, they don't actually support small government at all. That makes sense, since small government rhetoric wins votes, but small government policies do not.
Re: (Score:3)
Pandering to social conservatives and authoritarians has been enormously successful.
Being correct (and practical) doesn't work. The Democrats need to grow up and start lying. The ideal Democrat is Jimmy Carter. Great man, bad president. The ideal Republican is Reagan. Alzheimer's, and senile, but a good orater, and told us who to hate and why.
The Libertarians are not a party. The official LP documentation indicates the LP is pro-choice, as the government shouldn't be dictatorial in choices like that. But every LP candidate I've seen with an official abortion stance was anti-choice.
Re:Documents that made him look like an stupid jer (Score:4, Interesting)
But Trump says he will ban all Muslims from entering the US, even returning US citizens, then re-states to say only non-citizens. And claims he never said he'd ban "all" or citizens, even when faced with recordings of him saying it.
The Democrats need to outline eloaborate lies. Like Fair Tax, a pile of lies, fabricated by insane people as to a wish of what they hope would happen, without any basis in reality for the revenue and expenses. Single payer health care, like England's, is much cheaper than private health care, and with better results. Why aren't the Democrats pushing for single-payer as the next step after ACA? A federal insurance company, started now, and listed on the insurance exchanges of all 50 states, operating at 50% of the cost of all the private insurers, and showing a profit would cut taxes and improve care. Any missing details? Make them up, and make them good.
But no, we get reality. Gun control statistics nobody cares about. You can't argue someone out of religion with facts, and gun-nut is a religion. The cure for religion, is another religion, not facts. But the Democratic Party doesn't see that and attack dogma with dogma, so they always lose.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Personally I hate the word progressive. It's a label that somebody applies to themselves when they think they've figured out the right answers to everything, and that only their opinion is the way forward. It's a very smug, asshole way of thinking. Examples of groups that have applied the "progressive" label to themselves include prohibitionists and fascists.
(BTW, I self identify as libertarian.)
Re: (Score:3)
Even those-formerly-known-as-progressive are abandoning the term now, seeing it has become associated with super-feminists and social justice activists who have no respect for free speech and a tendency towards extremism.
Re: (Score:2)
Progressive means striving for improvement. I don't think "we can do better" is smug or arrogant.
Please define improvement. Does improvement mean that the whole society becomes more Christian? Does improvement mean that we have less beer? Does improvement mean that we all become feminists? Does improvement mean that we all become atheists?
Because everywhere you look, you can find somebody that defines any one of these things as improvement. And if so, you'd be describing somebody like Warren Jeff's as progressive because he thinks his little Davidian like compound is an improvement over other places.
Re: (Score:2)
I think most of us here agree that mr. Trump is an idiot and thoroughly despicable from an ethical point of view. However I think we can also agree that it's at the very core core of our values that he should be able to speak loudly (well . he needs no help with that, does he?) and clearly. And without being DDOS'ed.
Although I can (usually) be classified as firmly "liberal", I think mr. Trump (and the tea party wingnuts) are doing the Republican party a big disservice.
Conservatives can (and oft
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wish I had mod points. This is really Republican chickens coming home to roost. They brought these lunatics in, and now the lunatics are demanding what they've been promised, via dog-whistle, for all these years. Trump is actually saying it out loud, which is why they love him. Meanwhile, the Freedom Caucus can hold the party hostage with, what, forty guys? To my mind, they're getting exactly what they deserve.
they are not exactly brain surgeons (Score:2)
> perhaps the most fundamental aspect of the human condition is that we are all trapped in overwhelming ignorance. I don't disagree that Trump is clueless. But I don't see that any of the mainstream politicians and commentators are significantly better
None of them are exactly brain surgeons, are they. Except for the one who IS a brain surgeon, of course. Carson is intelligent, though not well versed in foreign relations and some other political issues. Cruz DOES understand the issues, more so than eithe
Re: (Score:2)
None of them are exactly brain surgeons, are they. Except for the one who IS a brain surgeon, of course.
Hopefully this presidential season will show more people how successful you can be with a lot of hard work, regardless of how dim witted you may be. Also more people can stop assuming every successful business man, doctor, lawyer, etc. is automatically capable of rational thought just because of their success.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps the most fundamental aspect of the human condition is that we are all trapped in overwhelming ignorance. I don't disagree that Trump is clueless. But I don't see that any of the mainstream politicians and commentators are significantly better.
If only there was a group who takes the time to measure how full of shit each politician is. Oh wait, there is [politifact.com]. Others have even taken time to aggregate the claims of each major 2016 presidential nominee [nytimes.com] (and some past ones).
On one end you have Ben Carson and Donald Trump whose claims are 85% / 76% mostly false or worse respectively, and on the other you have Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton who come it at 28% mostly false or worse. Not to say all GOP are that bad, with Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio coming in
Democracy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The youtube channel posting it only has this anon action. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCU1LVWte9KJC1EldmFv2qRw So it seems very likely it is a different group of people trying to 'personal army' anon for this.
Pretty stupid imho, just makes him talked about more, and it now is backfiring showing his tech team as competent. (In contrast with his earlier remarks, where he showed by naming Bill Gates as in internet expert, that he is pretty out of touch with the net).
Conspiracy theorists call these kind of
Re: (Score:3)
Umm no.
Most of their operations are against targets that are currently drawing loads of legal opposition, like terrorists. They just find ways to apply illegal opposition to whatever the current most hated people are. Voting is legal, therefore outside of the purview of anonymous, they must find an illegal way to accomplish the same objective.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We have a process to stop Trump, it's called "Voting".
That's cute [huffingtonpost.com], but the real scary thing is not that you have a process as simple as voting to stop trump, it is that there may actually be a small chance that this process could fail. I mean the only thing scarier than some of the things Trump is saying is the current polling results showing that a percentage of Americans agree with him.
At least when one of Australia's bat-shit-crazy-business-men decided to enter politics we only gave him one seat, and I think that happened as the result of excess consumptio
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I mean the only thing scarier than some of the things Trump is saying is the current polling results showing that a percentage of Americans agree with him.
What's actually scariest to me, is how many Americans accepts whatever the mainstream politicians and commentators say without question.
I suppose it's rare for Slashdot, but I actually have some Muslim friends that I've accompanied to US consulates for their in-person interview to try to get a tourist visa. And what I've seen was a Kafkaesque nightmare of incompetence and indifference - not just a lack of any basic human decency in the treatment of the applicants - but also a total lack any motivation to id
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
>>"Where can we emigrate to when that happens to be safe from their stupidity."
Don't worry, If Trump is elected I'm sure Anonymous will let you move in with them. As long as their Mom is O.K. with it.
Re: (Score:2)
If this is the alternative, I chose death. Oh now you make me envision a teenage room inhabited by a college student. Dirty socks, pizza, underwear, a little box with his personal stash. I rather move to South Africa. They are friendly people for the most part and they are perfectly far away from the US, Europe and Australia.
Re: (Score:2)
And no, so long as the US military is stronger than all the militaries of all non-allies combined, there's nowhere on the world that's "safe", so best to ignore "safe" and just get away to someplace better.
Re: (Score:2)
It's quite possible for the system to be gamed. I could cite a prominent example from fairly recent history, but my doctor's put me on a reduced-Godwin diet.
Re: (Score:2)
If I think the Earth goes round the Sun, and others disagree, it's not up to me to agree with them to fit in, but to leave that destructive environment if I don't want to be subjected to it. Voting can't determine fact. And so much of what's being debated is "fact". The "best way" to fix a problem isn't a matt
Re: (Score:2)
And yet you Americans have a system of government where your president in the year 2000 didn't actually have the majority vote in the country.
And we in Australia gave one of a few senate seats to the Motoring Enthusiast party despite less than 60000 votes for them.
Most of the votes are driven by the media and sound-bites, in your part of the world elections are driven by those dedicated enough to show up which leads to huge partisanship regardless of the issues at hand, and in my part of the world voting is
Re: (Score:2)
You're posting anon because you're a racist dingbat. Modern Europeans are the result of millenia of immigration. ("White" Americans are an even bigger dog's breakfast.) Future Europeans are likely to be the result of even more immigration.
Absolutely nothing is new or different here--it's been going on as long as humans have been around, so you might as well get used to the idea.
Also, take a look at what it says a bit further down the page you cited:
The United Nations counts that over 750 000 Syrian refugees have sought asylum in Europe between April 2011 and November 2015. Standing very tightly together, they would fit on 11 soccer fields.
Only a small fraction of refugees fleeing their homes make it to Europe. The UN has registered over four million Syrian refugees in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Egypt and North Africa. Most of them live in refugee camps close to the border. They would fit on 61 soccer fields.
Re: (Score:2)
This explains perfectly how Muhammed Ali was able to call out Trump on his nonsensical race-baiting.
Re: (Score:2)
If the US would be a true democracy then this would work. However, lately all western countries including the US decided to become more and more anti democratic states where the masses get well indoctrinated by the media. Don't get me wrong. This is not a conspiracy theory with Lizard people controlling the public. It is about fat elites which are unable to address the problems on earth and which decided that their personal short term interests are more important than the big picture. Of course there is med
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Why is he running? He didn't do anything."
"Because we have to chase him. Because he's not our hero."
Yellow journalism at its best (Score:5, Insightful)
Anonymous vs. Zetas: Hackers Taking On The Drug Cartel [huffingtonpost.com] (02/Nov/2011)
Anonymous wages war on Westboro Baptist Church [nydailynews.com] (17/Dez/2012)
Anonymous Declares War on Singapore [slashdot.org] (06/Nov/2013)
Given the fallback on the last weeks hoax declaration of war on ISIS by Mexican cartel leader 'El Chapo' [independent.co.uk] the media is showing that the powers of "the fourth state" given to them is not being used to inform the public but to entertain them, distracting from more important issues (and of course, to sell advertisement).
Anonymous = retarded kids (Score:2, Interesting)
Seriously, this bunch of retarded brain dead script kiddies believe they have a right to attack anyone else's website because they do not agree with him? They should all be catched and jailed as far as I am concerned. They are totally anti-democratic and equivalent to any evil dictatorship in this world. They do not deserve the media attention they get. Even their attacks are lame.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that the mentally retarded can still hold gainful employment.
Re: (Score:2)
Myself, and the rest of world, are shaking in fear.
Re: (Score:2)
Fanboi much?
An interesting concept (Score:5, Interesting)
If all the polls are saying that the side of justice is going to lose, then should you resort to force? After reason has failed, what else can you do against such reckless hate? Do you agree or disagree with the sentiment quoted above?
By the way, this is a real quote, posted by an ACLU Board Member. He was forced to resign but will face no legal issues from his incitement to shoot people who disagree with his political opinions.
Re:An interesting concept (Score:4, Insightful)
Welcome to the modern face of "social justice" where if they don't get what they want, they'll make shit up or attack people. With that, social justice is no different then a mob of people who would rather ignore the rule of law and take it into their own hands.
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to the modern face of "social justice" where if they don't get what they want, they'll make shit up or attack people.
The "modern face"? When in history has there not been an organization that made shit up or attacked people in order to get what they want?
Of course, you're not just using this as a pretext to attack your favorite boogeyman of the moment, the mythical "social justice warrior", are you? Because that would be stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Or those feminists wanting the vote and such.
Re: (Score:2)
I find it interesting that when I see people on the right talking about these sort of 'solutions' - which I'm not implying I support - I see language like "Use in this order: Voting Box, Soap Box, Ammo Box", yet I see this type of post in reaction when the left suggests using the same 'solution'.
Min
Re: (Score:2)
I find it interesting that when I see people on the right talking about these sort of 'solutions' - which I'm not implying I support - I see language like "Use in this order: Voting Box, Soap Box, Ammo Box", yet I see this type of post in reaction when the left suggests using the same 'solution'.
Min
"There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury and ammo. Please use in that order." It's intended to make clear that violence the last resort, and the assumption is that the previous boxes have failed not because the majority disagrees but because democracy has broken down and the government is no longer listening to the people at all. It's pretty obvious that if the majority decides against liberty the ammo box isn't going to be any more successful than the other three.
Re: (Score:2)
If all the polls are saying that the side of justice is going to lose, then should you resort to force? After reason has failed, what else can you do against such reckless hate? Do you agree or disagree with the sentiment quoted above?
This is exactly the question Julius Cesar considered himself to be facing when he crossed the Rubicon.
It is also the question Brutus faced when he stabbed Cesar. It's an old question.
Consider though, if someone has enough votes to win an election, they have more people on their side than opposing them, so if you start a war against them, you're probably already in a losing position.
Re: (Score:3)
Consider though, if someone has enough votes to win an election, they have more people on their side than opposing them, so if you start a war against them, you're probably already in a losing position.
Votes only determine number and not power. I'd rather fight 5 angry hippies than 1 armed to the teeth trigger happy Texan.
Heck with the American system voting doesn't even really determine the number of people on a side. Otherwise you wouldn't have ended up with Bush the first time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, the constitution applies to citizens, not immigrants. His block on Muslims wouldn't apply to Muslims who were already citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
You pretend that there's no such thing as mob psychology? I really thought you were smarter than that, Fusty.
Re: (Score:2)
Muslims are not a country, and Iran is not a religion.
Re: (Score:2)
Disconnect with 'Anonuymous' (Score:3)
There seems to be a bit of a disconnect with regards to 'Anonymous', the idea that "activist claiming to speak for the group", is false. Anyone can and does speak anonymously for 'Anonymous" if they so choose, there is no 'claim' about it, it is fact. The only time people make claims about 'Anonymous' is when they do it publicly and not anonymously 'Anonymous'. Do it anonymously and they are just as 'Anonymous', as any one else ;). Donald Trump certainly is becoming a famous lesson for what not to become, hmm, chemical cocktails to an excess?
That won't work (Score:2)
Are you not amused? Is this not what you wanted? (Score:3, Insightful)
Trump's playing by the rules Obama set, plus a few of his own.
Trump's rules include a fairly standard negotiating tactic- demand 3x what you want, so when the dust settles, you've got about what you wanted. He's also 'assuming the sale.' I don't wish to see him as president, but he's giving a (admittedly bombastic) voice to legitimate concerns many Americans have. The American left is used to being able to shout down politically inconvenient discussions by shouting "RACIST!", Trump simply says 'F you' and moves on. People love that.
As for following Obama's rules, I'll just quote a recent article: [wsj.com] (Paywalled; my apologies)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree with this. The best part of Trump is he is causing honest discussions about issues important to US citizens (funny to hear someone say that?)
Before Trump talking about closing the border to Mexico was not allowed. If you even suggested deporting a single illegal you were branded a racist. Now we are talking about if it is possible to close the border, if it is possible to deport the illegals, how much it would cost, what are the repercussions, etc. Before Trump you couldn't see a debate like tha
More illegals being removed than ever (Score:2, Troll)
I don't like rule by diktat, however, at least on immigration, Obama is doing a better job of removing illegals than Bush ever did.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/02... [dailycaller.com]
There's plenty to criticize about Obama's administration and policies without making up lies. Please don't do it. it discredits and drowns those who are have legitimate beefs.
--PM
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Obama is doing a better job of removing illegals than Bush ever did.
This is actually normal. Republicans complain about illegals but don't actually want to keep them out. Democrats speak supportively of illegals, but deport them. From a political perspective, illegals are good for Republicans to use to rally their base, while Democrats get more mileage from speaking supportively to rally the minority voters who identify with the illegals... but Democrats don't actually benefit from having illegals in the country because they can't vote, and deporting them helps to take the
Re: (Score:2)
That's not an article, it's an opinion piece. The WSJ exercises no editorial oversight over opinion pieces and does no fact checking. You can claim anything you want in a WSJ opinion piece.
You can frequently find the facts to refute the claims of opinion pieces in the actual news sections of the very same edition of the WSJ.
Anonymous take down anonymous (Score:2)
Of course, I always figured they went after ISIS because they didn't like the competition.
We all know what is next (Score:2)
We all that it is only a matter of time before the Trump mask comes off and we find out that it has really been Andy Kaufman all this time. Wake up people!
With friends like these... (Score:2)
Anonymous are occasionally useful idiots, but most of the time they are not that useful.
Re: (Score:2)
Anonymous is becoming willing tool of modern western so called 'liberal' establishment, in its fights against anyone and anything that oppose the said establishment.
Uh, no. Trump does not oppose the establishment in the slightest. He can't exist without it.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh right, only "liberals" are against IS. And when you switched to Trump, it's the "Western establishment", because you know that conservatives are also against Trump.
If you're going to spout nonsense in your political tangents, at least try to be consistent.
Re: (Score:2)
You've already been identified as a libtard/fundie whose response to rational argument is "LOL" [slashdot.org]. Learn to think, or go home.
Re:"what terrorists want" (Score:5, Interesting)
"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
by: Hermann Goering
Re: (Score:2)
As if there's no other way they can send operatives to Europe or America?
Re: (Score:2)
Is Jimmy Carter really the bar we want to set?
Country != religion (Score:2, Insightful)
This is an absolutely false equivalence.
Not to say that Jimmy Carter made the right call there - I personally am liberal enough to think he probably did not, and likely would have been pretty upset with the decision, as I am with many decisions President Obama has made - but it is absolutely not the same thing. We are NOT in a state of military conflict with the entire religion of Islam, as we were with Iran at the time. If you believe that we are, then THAT is the problem.
You could use this move as an argu
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What I tell you three times is true:
Islam is not a country. Iran is not a religion.
Learn the difference, and stop polluting your brain with nonsense from Infowars.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How do you even screen for Muslims? If their name is something like Abu Bassir Al-Mohamadi does that automatically make them Muslim? What about Muslims that have lived in Canada or Europe for 20+ years and maybe practice once or twice a month, would they be barred from entry to the US? Can they recant their faith and be atheist? Would they have to write a letter to some institute of Islam, commit apostasy and face possible death penalties in their respective country?
Iranians are at least citizens o