Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×
Privacy Republicans Government Network Security The Internet The Media Youtube News Politics Technology Your Rights Online

Anonymous Declare 'Total War' On Donald Trump, Threaten To 'Dismantle His Campaign' (businessinsider.com) 741

An anonymous reader writes from Business Insider's article: Hackers affiliated with the Anonymous hacktivist collective have vowed to relaunch cyber-operations against US presidential candidate Donald Trump [on April Fools' Day]. They threaten to "dismantle his campaign" by taking his election websites offline in a large-scale and orchestrated distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack. In December 2015, Anonymous officially "declared war" on Trump after a radical speech in which he said Muslims should be banned from entering the United States. The operation at the time resulted in a number of websites being targeted by hackers, but failed to have lasting impact. A new video statement has been posted to YouTube which claims the "loyalists and veterans" of Anonymous have decided to ramp up cyber-operations against Trump -- dubbed #OpTrump -- on a far larger scale than ever before. "Dear Donald Trump, we have been watching you for a long time and what we see is deeply disturbing. Your inconsistent and hateful campaign has not only shocked the United States of America [but] you have shocked the entire planet with your appalling actions and ideas. You say what your audience wants to hear but in reality you don't stand for anything except for your personal greed and power."
The websites targeted in the attack (so far) include trump.com, donaldjtrump.com, and trumphotelcollection.com. In addition, the hacktivists are also planning to release some of Donald Trump's personal information including a SSN, phone number, and contact information of his agent and legal representative.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Anonymous Declare 'Total War' On Donald Trump, Threaten To 'Dismantle His Campaign'

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 14, 2016 @04:54PM (#51695687)

    EVERYTIME some group has "declared war", insulted, demeaned, became "outraged", etc. about Trump or supporters, his popularity and support grew.

    The actions of this immature group of mother's basement dwelling mouth breathers will only cement their reputations as such and make more Trump supporters.

    Just from a rational point of view, shutting down political speech is never a good thing, no matter what that speech is. Because if they can do it to one candidate, it can be done to others.

    • by The-Ixian ( 168184 ) on Monday March 14, 2016 @05:14PM (#51695815)

      This is how I feel as well.

      It is eerie how similar the Trump rise to the head of the ticket is to the Obama rise. From Iowa in 2008 nobody expected Obama to win anything, then, every state after that where Obama won it was an "upset" to the establishment.

      I see the same exact thing happening again.

      People want change and they love an underdog.

      The more people tell them they are wrong, the more it cements their position.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Ive noticed this as well, its become more and more clear over the past 3 weeks that is the case. I blame Political correctness and SJWs for the rise in trump. its the rubber band effect. the side of political correctness has pushed too far, now its bouncing back in the opposite direction where people are starting to relate to trump due to what some see as non political correct and what others call hate speech. It was bound to happen

        ~ganjadude
        • by Mashiki ( 184564 ) <mashiki@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Monday March 14, 2016 @11:04PM (#51697811) Homepage

          Ive noticed this as well, its become more and more clear over the past 3 weeks that is the case. I blame Political correctness and SJWs for the rise in trump. its the rubber band effect. the side of political correctness has pushed too far, now its bouncing back in the opposite direction where people are starting to relate to trump due to what some see as non political correct and what others call hate speech. It was bound to happen

          And you'd be right. And it's the same reason why Rubio and Cruz lost somewhere around 1m twitter followers between them after they started going off on the "Trump is really the one responsible for what happened in Chicago bit." People are tired of the regressive left doing something, and everyone going "but they're really not to blame...IT'S THE OTHER GUYS...HONEST..." And the second that Kasich decided that the "Illegals are the bestest things evar, and I'm going pro-amnesty" he started dropping in in the polls and losing followers faster then a rock dropping from orbit. People have simply had enough of the establishment pulling this.

          Couple of other examples to back up your point, would be the University of Missouri, and the 20% loss of first year students, the $32m budget shortfall, problems retaining students on campus. Their solution? We're gonna do everything we can to get students in! Tell your friends! The email from the temporary dean even went as far as saying that "anyone who'd applied would be accepted as a student." If that doesn't people what happens when absolute craziness from the regressive left and SJW happen, it should by that point.

        • by ultranova ( 717540 ) on Tuesday March 15, 2016 @12:06AM (#51698029)

          I blame Political correctness and SJWs for the rise in trump.

          How about blaming the Republican voters who are voting for him?

          its the rubber band effect. the side of political correctness has pushed too far, now its bouncing back in the opposite direction where people are starting to relate to trump due to what some see as non political correct and what others call hate speech.

          If Republican voters find Trump to be the candidate who best embodies their political ideas, that's the fault of said voters and their party, not their opponents.

          But it's always good to get a reminder of what conservatives actually mean by "personal responsibility": never their fault.

        • by DrJimbo ( 594231 ) on Tuesday March 15, 2016 @01:01AM (#51698207)

          I blame Political correctness and SJWs for the rise in trump.

          The Republicans have also been blamed for resorting to the politics of hate. The best explanation I've seen has two components:

          1) The inclination of some people to turn to authoritarianism [vox.com] when times get rough.

          2) The concentration of wealth into fewer and fewer hands is making things rough for the working class. Things aren't really bad yet (like in the great depression) but people's prospects are bleak. They are worse off now than they were 10 years ago without much hope in sight.

          If this simple analysis is correct then the problem is not Trump. There are always Trumps around. The problem is that economic times (more accurately, prospects) are bad enough that a sizable fraction of the population is turning to a strongman/bully who promises to protect them even if those promises don't make any rational sense.

          This has several implications. First, if there is a successful large-scale terrorist attack in the US then this could easily raise the overall level of fear enough to sweep Trump into the White House. Second, if the powers-that-be stay in power and continue their policies of transferring wealth away from the working class then the levels of economic distress and fear will grow, creating even more support for Trump or the next authoritarian strongman/bully who comes along.

          The only real solution is to stop waging economic warfare on the working class. Unfortunately, even if Bernie Sanders gets elected, it is going to be nigh on impossible to quickly change the course of the best government that money could buy.

          • by shilly ( 142940 )

            This is properly insightful and fact-based analysis. I would add a third component to Trump's rise: the development of an echo chamber on the right that prefers compelling stories to truthful stories. From Swift Boats onwards. While this phenomenon has always been around, the volume (in both senses) has increased dramatically, especially in the past eight years. By the time Trump came onstage, the audience was well and truly warmed up.

            It's all grotesque.

      • It is eerie how similar the Trump rise to the head of the ticket is to the Obama rise.

        Apart from that one detail you noted, it really isn't. Unless you still think those are the "Whitey Tapes".
      • by bahrdo ( 4474519 ) on Monday March 14, 2016 @06:01PM (#51696109)
        Indeed. Obama ran on "Hope and Change". Trump is running on "Make 'em Change". Hell, even Bernie's running an anti-establishment campaign in most respects. Unfortunately; Washington is so incredibly polarized that one person has no chance of effecting change, even if that person is the President. Any time they try, their efforts are poisoned by the opposition and then blamed for the outcome. Obama's been learning this for the past 8 years, and you can bet it would be no different if Trump were to win. People need to concentrate on Congressional races if we want to see any real change. We need to vote out the "do nothing's" and the "hardliners" and vote in some players who understand the importance of compromise. Then as we vote in these anti-establishment candidates to the Presidency, they might actually have a slim chance of delivering.
        • by gtall ( 79522 )

          You might be able to count on the Congressional races, if by that you mean the House. But I doubt it. The Republicans have been very effective in gerrymandering districts. This makes me think they based their party on two lies: 1. they were popular because they looked at the House and the state governments and saw many Republicans, and 2. that the rank and file actually believed their philosophy after they chased most of the Bill Buckley types, who could think without blowing a gasket, out of the party leav

      • by Darinbob ( 1142669 ) on Monday March 14, 2016 @06:36PM (#51696403)

        Except that in the Democratic primary race 8 years ago, Obama actually sounded like a sane candidate. Most candidates dropped out after Iowa. And from then on Obama was the front runner and never the underdog. But people didn't think of him as a frontrunner from some reason. Despite any possible Democratic candidate providing change over Dubya's administration, Obama was the only one pushing that message. Clinton was running on a campaign of "I'm the inevitable winner so you may as well vote for me now".

        Most of the candidates other than Obama were longer term insiders than Obama, so that probably helped him out a lot. Probably a lot of people tired of both Bill Clinton and G.W. Bush years. Edwards in third place was the only other candidate to get any delegates, there was not a long drawn out multi-way race like we have this year with Republicans (and I swear, I can't remember a damn thing about Edwards campaign). Obama really was very similar to Rubio; first time senator yet treated like an outsider, young with appeal among younger voters, occasional breaches of established party doctrine, etc (I'd have expected Rubio to do much better if the Republican demographics skewed a bit younger).

        As for Trump, he didn't even start as an underdog, everyone assumed he was just there because he was bored and needed something to do with his money. His incessant claims that Obama wasn't a citizen meant most politicians of all stripes thought he was a kook so he was ignored. But he never acted like an underdog, from the very start he campaigned as if he were the best and most popular candidate, he just will never shut up about his poll numbers. He actually acts more like a rabid dog than an under dog, always on the attack. And this is really confusing political pundits because he's doing everything wrong and it seems to be working.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by rahvin112 ( 446269 )

          It's working because he's tapped into two demographics Angry at Obama. Old white people who watch Fox News and think Obama is the second coming of Satan, and white supremacists. He's been endorsed by nearly every white supremacist political party. His rallies are FULL of white supremacist supporters. People yelling the N word and other racial slanders.

          They like him because when an Asian American born and raised in the US with no accent asks him a question his first response is either "are you American" or "

          • by Magius_AR ( 198796 ) on Monday March 14, 2016 @08:17PM (#51697057)

            It's working because he's tapped into two demographics Angry at Obama. Old white people who watch Fox News and think Obama is the second coming of Satan, and white supremacists. He's been endorsed by nearly every white supremacist political party. His rallies are FULL of white supremacist supporters. People yelling the N word and other racial slanders.

            You are vastly understating his popularity. He's polling near 50% with Republicans, across almost _all_ demographics and _all_ states. ~25% of this country is not "old white people and white supremacists".

            He gets the nomination and he's going to get absolutely stomped in the general election. What's funny is he's about as RINO as they come, he's always advocated NE liberal policies

            These statements stand in stark contradiction. Once he doesn't have to pander to the base anymore, I see him as a strong general election candidate w/ across-the-aisle support. I also don't know why the Dems are so against him. Between Cruz and Trump, Trump has _far_ more liberal policies/tendencies. He'd actually raise taxes if they pushed for it.

            • by shilly ( 142940 ) on Tuesday March 15, 2016 @05:09AM (#51698681)

              I also don't know why the Dems are so against him. Between Cruz and Trump, Trump has _far_ more liberal policies/tendencies. He'd actually raise taxes if they pushed for it.

              Perhaps because they are morally outraged by the idea of a politician rising to power on the back of policies last enacted by Nazis: bans on a religious group entering the country, a national register for a religious group, etc? I do know that my grandma, if she were still alive, would slap me in the face for forgetting our family's history and her murdered aunts, uncles and cousins, if I so much as contemplated voicing even mild support for Trump. And she'd be right to do so.

              Whether he believes in these policies or sentiments is besides the point. He is creating a safe space for these ideas to creep back into political life, and that is a pernicious legacy that will cause great harm irrespective of whether he is elected or not.

          • by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Tuesday March 15, 2016 @02:53AM (#51698427)
            I suspect that's his strategy. Despite the media portraying him as a looney out in right field, Trump is [huffingtonpost.com] actually the most moderate candidate [washingtonpost.com] still left in the race [ballotpedia.org]. Even you point out he advocates liberal NE policies. His stance on core issues aligns pretty closely with the American mainstream.

            How does a moderate candidate get past the primaries to run for President in our polarized two-party system? By highlighting his few extremist views to appeal to extremists in one party during the primaries to win the nomination, then coming back to center in the general election to win over the mainstream.
      • by quantaman ( 517394 ) on Monday March 14, 2016 @06:49PM (#51696495)

        This is how I feel as well.

        It is eerie how similar the Trump rise to the head of the ticket is to the Obama rise. From Iowa in 2008 nobody expected Obama to win anything, then, every state after that where Obama won it was an "upset" to the establishment.

        I see the same exact thing happening again.

        People want change and they love an underdog.

        The more people tell them they are wrong, the more it cements their position.

        I honestly see almost nothing in common.

        Obama came from relative obscurity starting small and expected to stay small, Trump was already a huge celebrity starting huge who people expected to implode.

        Obama was seen as a current and future star of the party (just not the nominee that year), Trump was first seen as a joke and then an existential threat.

        Obama sold hope, Trump sells fear.

        Obama is a minority, came from a relatively middle class family, and stayed middle class for much of his adult life, Trump is white, from extreme wealth, and more or less stayed that way.

        Obama's fundamental appeal was leading forward progress for a better tomorrow, Trump's is forcefully repealing progress to return to a better past.

        Aside from the fact they were both underdogs they're almost polar opposites.

    • Spot on. This is just going to turn into another case of Trump getting free publicity on all the news networks.
      • Besides, how many people are going to say, "Well, I wanted to support Trump, but his web site wasn't working, so I guess I'll vote for Cruz instead."
    • by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Monday March 14, 2016 @05:18PM (#51695845)

      Just from a rational point of view, shutting down political speech is never a good thing, no matter what that speech is. Because if they can do it to one candidate, it can be done to others.

      Indeed. A fascist approach does not become any better because some "good" guys use it or because the goal is "noble".

      • by nucrash ( 549705 )

        I agree. I think now is the time to go underground, train, and enhance our skills. This megalomaniac seems to feed on attention. Attacking him will only vindicate his authority. Once he steps out of line, we must infiltrate and dismantle his operation from inside.

        Until then, we use every legal method to keep him out of power. Vote! Encourage others to vote. Don't let anyone stay home on the day of the election. We must have lots of power to subvert these angry masses and bring an end to the few who

    • by hey! ( 33014 )

      And the thing is the real hotheads among his supporters crave the catharsis of a confrontation. Being declared "war" against suits them right down to the ground.

    • by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      Exactly.

      Perhaps they shouldn't take down his sites, but distribute the movie that Trump himself suppressed [trumpthemovie.com]. He threatened to sue any broadcaster who aired the movie [trumpthemovie.com], which was really created to show celebrity businessmen.

      And that was 25 years ago. Either it's a bunch of lies and Trump is right, or there's some real content in there that perhaps shouldn't be released?

  • by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Monday March 14, 2016 @04:54PM (#51695691)

    I think Anonymous is largely irrelevant and powerless these days and its members know it.

    • I think that was the case back when they tried to raise a banner against the Mexican drug cartels a few years back... the nanosecond that shit got real (that is, when one of their Mexican brethren got a few subtle threats in real life, as opposed to online), they backed off and shut down that idea almost instantly.

      It's one thing to wield some semblance of power if the thing you're trying to change is solely online, but once you go after changes off-the-wire, it's a whole different ballgame.

  • by neilo_1701D ( 2765337 ) on Monday March 14, 2016 @04:56PM (#51695703)

    Vote.

    Taking down servers, defacing websites... all petty vandalism. Vote on election day; the one day when your voice is heard and counts.

  • by xxxJonBoyxxx ( 565205 ) on Monday March 14, 2016 @05:00PM (#51695733)
    >> taking his election websites offline

    Were they wearing brown shirts when they "declared war" on a candidate exercising his right to free speech? Have they forgotten why free speech is a good thing in the first place or are we just going straight to "thought police" mode?

    >> contact information of his agent and legal representative

    Um...isn't this information public anyway? What's an "agent" or a "representative" worth if they can't be contacted?
    • >> taking his election websites offline

      Were they wearing brown shirts when they "declared war" on a candidate exercising his right to free speech? Have they forgotten why free speech is a good thing in the first place or are we just going straight to "thought police" mode?

      No, they wear masks. Guy Fawkes masks, to be precise. I wonder if they appreciate the irony of that position?

    • by PolygamousRanchKid ( 1290638 ) on Monday March 14, 2016 @05:38PM (#51695933)

      Were they wearing brown shirts when they "declared war" on a candidate exercising his right to free speech?

      The irony here, is that the Nazis used disruption to come to power. The Nazis only had a few folks in parliament, but through disruption, they managed to derail the democratic process and grind the operation of government to a halt.

      I bet these "protesters" would be surprised to learn that they are using tried and trusted methods of the Nazis.

      And the most famous "Total War" speech I can think of was the one made by Joseph Goebbels.

      Even Bernie said on the weekend, "You have a right to protest. You do not have a right to disrupt."

      Now if only the people who think they are supporting him would only listen to him.

      • by Jahoda ( 2715225 )
        Are you *really* comparing the petty threats of Anonymous to deface a webpage, requiring a difficult and time-consuming restore from backup, to the methods used by the Nazi party in the 1920s and 1930s?
  • the vote itself (Score:5, Insightful)

    by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Monday March 14, 2016 @05:01PM (#51695737) Journal

    As much as I despise DT himself, do they not understand the impact of their self-righteous vigilantism?

    If they'd just *quietly* attacked him, slowly DDOS'ing his sites and businesses, it could have been months before the news got out, all the while doing damage to the campaign.

    But the "look how awesome we are fighting evil" grandstanding is going to resonate in PRECISELY the opposite way with the bulk of US voters who will - I guarantee you - sympathize with him against a 'shadowy internet mafia'.

    The only way they're going to HURT him now is if you're able to hack the voting machines; thankfully Diebold almost certainly installed backdoors for (the Republicans/the Democrats/the Russians/the Illuminati/whatever cabal you prefer to fear) so maybe that's still possible.

    • by bug1 ( 96678 )

      I dont agree with some of the results of their work. But "quietly" doing something isnt an option for their style of organisation, which is basically an angry mob.

      They need to get the word out and fire people up to have an effect.

      There is talk by "experts" that hating Donald Drumpf only makes him more popular, but thats a pretty lame excuse, it wont scale. All the angry outsiders who are going to support him probably already do.

      Rallying the opposition is a good strategy now.

  • I vs I (Score:5, Insightful)

    by HalAtWork ( 926717 ) on Monday March 14, 2016 @05:01PM (#51695741)

    Time to fight idiocy with idiocy?

  • by XxtraLarGe ( 551297 ) on Monday March 14, 2016 @05:04PM (#51695751) Journal
    Obama orders ten times the number of air strikes as Bush, and nothing, killing thousands of Muslims (many of whom were non-combatants) and nothing . But Trump bloviates about banning Muslims and Anonymous loses their heads...

    No, I'm not a Trump supporter. Yes, I support offering refuge to Syrian refugees.
    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Obama at least keeps up the pretense of being a modern human being. Trump does not. While the former is pretty bad, the latter is worse as it encourages a lot of cowards to act in the same spirit.

    • I think having more drone strikes potentially reduces collateral damage. Killing people in small groups requires more strikes than striking weddings and funerals. Obama supposedly put a moratorium on strikes with a high potential for collateral damage (i.e. strikes on large groups of people). It will be interesting to see the statistics on numbers of people/civilians killed through both the Bush and Obama administrations.
    • by rahvin112 ( 446269 ) on Monday March 14, 2016 @08:23PM (#51697081)

      Say what you will but Obama put in place some strict restrictions on strikes and he took the fight to the leadership, not the foot soldiers. His campaign effectively neutered Al Queda because the leadership had to stay in such strict hiding. Most of the Bush strikes targeted low/mid ranking fighters often in their homes with kids and relatives present.

      Under Bush one of the first drone strikes targeted a man for being tall. Seriously, they shot a hellfire at a guy for being tall. They also routinely hit houses full of women and kids to get one guy. Under Obama the rules of engagement changed dramatically, the rules now require that there be no known civilian casualties. Most of the time now they watch people for days and wait for them to get isolated in a car with other fighters on some lonely highway before they hit them. The number of civilians killed in strikes has dramatically decreased. The Islamist routinely kill far more Muslims than the US now. In fact this was one of Bin Ladin's greatest fears and why he tried to stop Al Qaeda in Iraq was because they were routinely killing hundreds of Muslims including lots of women and children while the US was occasionally killing 4 or 5 fighters and no women and kids. ISIS has done more damage to the Jihadies sympathies with Muslims than the US could ever undue.Obama deserves credit for halting the indiscriminate killings with bombs and missiles and focusing his fight on the leadership. Something that Clinton had focused on and Bush had thrown to the wayside.

      • by Mitreya ( 579078 ) <mitreya&gmail,com> on Monday March 14, 2016 @10:46PM (#51697765)

        Under Obama the rules of engagement changed dramatically, the rules now require that there be no known civilian casualties.

        You do know that this is achieved by decreeing that all males of military age are automatically considered militants? So the rules achieved "no known civilian casualties" by assuming that if you are killed then you were a militant. (Citation [washingtonsblog.com])

        The number of civilians killed in strikes has dramatically decreased.

        Citation needed -- including who counts as "civilian" in this decrease.

        Obama deserves credit for halting the indiscriminate killings with bombs and missiles

        Obama has appointed himself as a Judge/Jury/Executioner, and redefined words (such as "imminent threat" or "indiscriminate killings") rather than halted anything. Citation [nytimes.com]

  • by westlake ( 615356 ) on Monday March 14, 2016 @05:09PM (#51695791)

    Hackers affiliated with Anonymous threaten to "dismantle [Trump's] campaign" by taking his election websites offline in a large-scale and orchestrated distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack.

    Trump isn't running a web-based campaign.

    But he is damn good at demonizing his enemies and making then look like fools when they try to take him down.

  • How SJW of them! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 14, 2016 @05:10PM (#51695797)

    Trump says something they don't like and they whine and try to bully him into silence any way they can.

    Just like crybully SJWs

  • by Anonymous Coward
    So I'm not planning on voting for Trump, does that mean I have the right to dismantle his campaign, shout him down where ever he speaks and threaten to kill him like some have on social media? Nope. For all those ignorant asshats out there attempting to compare Trump to Adolph Hitler, or even a neofascist of any sort, go read a history book. While Trump may not make for the best president, we have a system in this nation for selecting our leaders and it has worked pretty damn well over the past 240 years.
    • We've even survived bad presidents because there is a system of checks and balances.

      As has been pointed out in several places, like NPR just this morning, the President can do a lot of things within his/her area of power/responsibility - that won't involve checks and balances - like deporting people and bombing places overseas, regardless of whether those things would be good for the US.

    • This country went to Hell when they stopped giving all day off for elections and got rid of the free beer [constitutioncenter.org].

      If it was good enough for George Washington, it's good enough for me. Excuse me, I have to go to the outhouse...
  • by Freshly Exhumed ( 105597 ) on Monday March 14, 2016 @05:16PM (#51695831) Homepage

    The group that is thought to have killed ORCA (Karl Rove's magic Republican Party database ploy to ficitiously win Ohio) was Anonymous. Their calibre of work is far, far beyond what this announcement promises. I suspect this is a False Flag operation aimed at boosting Trump "victimization" rhetoric while lumping in Anymous with supposed Mexican rapists and Trump's other favourite targets.

  • Standard disclaimer: I am not a Trump supporter. I think his statements are way too off the wall to be taken seriously, although I do like that he was the first to come out critical of H1Bs, but offhand it's the only thing I would say I've liked and can take seriously (or as serious as you can take anything he might say).

    That being said, the groupthink paranoia about him is reaching amazing heights. I *still* put the odds of him winning the Republican primary at less than 50-50 and think his negative num

    • ...and think his negative numbers are way too high to defeat Clinton or possibly even Sanders.

      Actually, you should say "and think his negative numbers are way too high to defeat Sanders or possibly even Clinton." I say that because in hypothetical Clinton-Trump and Sanders-Trump matchups, Sanders appears to consistently fair better according to the polling data:

      Clinton-Trump [realclearpolitics.com]
      Sanders-Trump [realclearpolitics.com]

      Averaging five or more polls in a Clinton-Trump matchup currently, Clinton wins by 6.3% on average.
      Averaging five or more polls in a Sanders-Trump matchup currently, Sanders wins by 10% on average.

  • The only person who stands to benefit from this is Ted Cruz. Marco Rubio is already pretty much out of the race, Kasich is irrelevant. Taking down the Trump campaign at this stage won't benefit the democrats, either as they can easily defeat him in the general election. If the Trump campaign is somehow completely destroyed between now and the GOP convention the only person who would stand to win is Cruz, who also has consistently posted far better general polling numbers than Rubio or Trump against either Sanders or Clinton.

    Furthermore, what is the benefit of destroying Trump right now when the GOP nomination contest is still officially undecided? It would make more sense to try to derail him later when it is down to the general election. If there is anything Drumpf hates above all else it is losing.
  • How many Social Security Numbers does he have?

  • When will you knuckle heads stop playing with your dicks and wake up to how Trump operates? Conflict makes him stronger, and giving him yet another bogeyman to talk about just empowers him and expands his audience.

    I bet he paints anonymous as a threat to democracy and all the patriots will go "Booyah!" in support.
    • by Livius ( 318358 )

      Anonymous has just painted *itself* as a threat to democracy. Trump will consider it an endorsement.

  • by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Monday March 14, 2016 @05:31PM (#51695899) Journal

    Politics and humanity's future aside, this election is turning out to be THE most exciting one of my life-time.

    In terms of entertainment value, I never thought they'd top Palin. I was flat wrong. She was just the warm-up act.

    And it's not just Trump. Sanders adds a different spin, kind of like the grumpy Lorax who only comes out of the wood-work when things get too screwy, shaking his finger: "BEWARE!"

    Dr. Seuss couldn't script a zanier election. (He'd run out of ink for Trump's hair anyhow.)

    Outsourcing, offshoring, automation, inequality, leaky borders, and a confused mid-east together seem to be making a lot of people very nervous, giving non-traditional candidates attention they otherwise wouldn't get. The world is changing and the old ways of viewing things politically don't seem to apply anymore. The electorate is ready to experiment.

  • because no matter who gets elected the power behind the throne will still be in place, the global banking cartel & military industrial complex will still be telling the government what to do, and if they dont play ball guess what happens, yup, it happened to Abe Lincoln, & JFK, and RFK, they find some patsy to take the fall for an organized hit, the big money has been ruling this planet for hundreds of years and no election by a bunch of filthy peasants is going to change that
  • Again? That doesn't even qualify as dupe (as it can be seen at Anonymous Goes After Donald Trump [slashdot.org].(2015-12-12)

    To repeat a comment of mine in that submission [slashdot.org]:

    Anonymous declares war on city of Orlando [dailymail.co.uk] (28/Jun/2011)
    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)

  • Prioritize (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Livius ( 318358 ) on Monday March 14, 2016 @05:44PM (#51695969)

    There's vigilanteism, and then there's disrupting an election. People attempting to silence political opinions that they disagree with are a far greater threat to civilization than Trump is.

    I really don't want to take Trump's side on anything but in this case there is no contest.

    Of course, the Trump phenomenon goes away on its own as soon as the Republican Party puts up a candidate worth voting for. The problem is they've never done that before and they don't know where to start.

  • Apparently, Anonymous has never heard of the Streisand effect.

  • by cyber-vandal ( 148830 ) on Monday March 14, 2016 @05:54PM (#51696057) Homepage

    Trump's being attacked by the 72 virgins.

  • I'm voting for Barbara Streisand.

  • by Irate Engineer ( 2814313 ) on Monday March 14, 2016 @06:13PM (#51696197)

    To a certain extent I was a fan of some of Anonymous' shenanigans, but this isn't right. I am by no means a fan of Donald Trump, and the electoral system is far from perfect, but to have a third party with foreign membership fucking with our elections is a direct attack on our democratic ideals (flawed though they may be).

    Anonymous - please fuck off. You aren't the Robin Hoods of the Internet any more.

  • Idiots (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Monday March 14, 2016 @07:32PM (#51696785)
    Trump is not the enemy. He's just a reflection of the hate and desperation white working class Voters feel in the face of an eroding standing of living. Rubio, Cruz, Kasich. Their your enemies. They're the ones who openly attack the working class and drive down wages while raising taxes on the poor and working class. Take care of them, protect the Workers and bring back the middle class and the fear and hate Trump is reflecting back will dissipate in the wind.
  • No one gets it. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gabrieltss ( 64078 ) on Monday March 14, 2016 @08:02PM (#51696967)

    The media, the republicans, the democrats and now Anonymous - they all don't get it. If you QUIT talking about Trump, quit showing him on the news he would become irrelevant and people would forget about him. The more people talk about him, berate him, attack him, show him all over the T.V. the more popular he gets.

    If they REALLY want to get rid of Trump they need to IGNORE him! Just stop talking about him, stop putting his face all over T.V., he will just go away and people will forget about him. I mean really, it's not rocket science folks. But then again.... Maybe they all WANT hm to WIN. It could be you know....

    We should be spending more of our time hammering the candidates about the problem with the H1B Visa program - like SHUTTING IT DOWN! This is what's really affecting people! Think Disney, Hertz, and all the others that are destroying American jobs for CHEAP foreign labor.

  • ISIS (Score:4, Informative)

    by tsotha ( 720379 ) on Monday March 14, 2016 @09:58PM (#51697581)

    I'm glad to see Anonymous's war on ISIS has been completed successfully.

    Or maybe the people involved are starting high school soon.

We cannot command nature except by obeying her. -- Sir Francis Bacon

Working...