HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » 99th_Monkey » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Male
Current location: Potlandia
Member since: Fri Sep 28, 2007, 04:39 PM
Number of posts: 19,326

Journal Archives

DWS's Undying Loyalty & Unwavering Allegiance to HRC is no mystery

If Sanders gets the nomination, DWS will be UNEMPLOYED in short order;
as opposed to a good shot at being immediately elevated to a position of
prominence & wealth.

This is not rocket science.

WTF? Why is Geo. Stephenopolis introducing the DEMOCRATIC DEBATE, with GOP blather????

This is beyond absurd. M$M is not happy enough with only 6 Dem debates, they have
to INTRODUCE THIS DEMOCRATIC DEBATE with blah blah blah about Republican candidates???

WHO is responsible for keeping DNC's firewall up? DNC & NGP VAN (the vendor) OR Sanders Campaign?

NGP VAN is getting paid big bucks to secure the data, it is their responsibility, not
the Sanders campaign's. NGP VAN is under contract to keep the data & firewall secure.

From all appearances, the Sanders staffers, by their own admission, discovered this
firewall failure -- like they had several months ago, and reported it to the DNC, who
apparently did nothing to fix the problem. Sanders' staff was alarmed by it, knowing that
the Sanders data was also every bit as exposed as Hillary's, so went through the
necessary procedures to document the breach, so they could report it again but with
more substantial evidence of the breach.

Then BAM!! Waa-Laa .. the vendor (who's very cozy with the Clinton camp, having
worked in the Clinton WH) springs into action to do what? To fix the firewall? No.
They play incompetent victim, and along with DWS, dutifully spring into action to accuse
the Sanders Campaign of "stealing data".

As the msnbc commentator Bill Press said today, "I smell a rat".

Fired Sanders Staffer: "I Wasn’t Peeking at Clinton’s Files, Our Data Was Exposed Too"

Fired Sanders Staffer: I Wasn’t Peeking at Clinton’s Files, Our Data Was Exposed Too
“This wasn’t the first time we identified a bad breach.”
by James Woods * December 18, 2015 * U.S.Uncut

Hours after being fired for accessing DNC voter data left unprotected by a software error, former Sanders campaign staffer Josh Uretsky spoke to CNN by phone to explain the situation that led to his termination.

The data in question was unique to the Hillary Clinton campaign’s vote file, and Uretsky told CNN on Friday that he accessed the data to “understand how badly the Sanders campaign’s data was exposed” and did not attempt to take data from the Clinton campaign.

“We knew there was a security breach in the data, and we were just trying to understand it and what was happening,” said Uretsky. He added, “To the best of my knowledge, nobody took anything that would have given the (Sanders) campaign any benefit.”

The DNC, at the behest of chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the former Clinton campaign co-chair, suspended Sanders and members of his staff from accessing the voter database…essentially crippling his campaign by removing their ability to target prospective supporters.

The Sanders campaign was forced to fire Uretsky over the breach, which was caused by the third-party technology company NGP-VAN, who provides campaigns access to the voter files.


How the DNC Just Sabotaged Bernie Sanders’ Campaign in One Devastating Move

How the DNC Just Sabotaged Bernie Sanders’ Campaign in One Devastating Move
by Amanda Girard * December 18, 2015 * U.S. Uncut

As chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), Debbie Wasserman Schultz has spent the last 8 months using her position to put a lid on Bernie Sanders’ momentum. And after what was arguably the biggest week of the Sanders campaign, she may have finally succeeded.

Late Thursday night, the DNC took the drastic step of cutting off the Sanders campaign’s access to its comprehensive 50-state voter file that lists voter patterns and preferences, effectively shutting down the campaign’s voter outreach operations just over a month before the critical Iowa caucus and a little over 50 days before the New Hampshire primary.

The punishment came about as the result of a 30-minute glitch in NGP VAN — the vendor that handles the DNC’s voter data — in which internal models for each Democratic presidential campaign were briefly available to other competing campaigns while NGP VAN was applying a patch to the software. Michael Briggs, a communications aide for the Sanders campaign, said this isn’t the first time they’ve reported security bugs in the DNC’s voter file. ~snip~

The DNC has vowed to not grant the Sanders campaign access to the voter file until it has proved that it destroyed all of the Clinton campaign data it inadvertently accessed as a result of the glitch. However, as Reddit user bastion_of_press pointed out, the Sanders campaign cannot prove it destroyed something it doesn’t have, meaning the ban on accessing critical voter information could be indefinite.

“The DNC hires a group to manage their database and firewall between the campaigns. They screw up and some low level Sanders staffer sees and reports it. Nothing is saved or printed out and now the DNC is withholding crucial access to voter data until the Sanders campaign can prove it doesn’t have the data from the Clinton campaign and won’t release access to voter data unless somehow the Sanders campaign can prove a negative – that they have destroyed data they don’t have. Which is impossible.”


The Discourse Suffers When Trump Gets 23 Times As Much Coverage as Sanders

The Discourse Suffers When Trump Gets 23 Times As Much Coverage as Sanders
All Trump all the time media coverage lets Trump define the discussion. It denies voters a broader, better discourse.
December 14, 2015 * By John Nichols * The Nation

If we imagine American media as a hungry beast that thinks only about its next meal, then it is easy to see why Donald Trump’s presidential campaign has gone from strength to strength. Trump feeds the beast. With calculated and constant outrageousness, he dominates news coverage not just of the race for the Republican nomination but of the entire 2016 presidential competition. As veteran political observer Larry Sabato says, “It’s Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump and Trump.”

Network news coverage of Trump has been so overwhelming for so long that there are folks who argue that media outlets should simply press pause and dial down their coverage of Trump. That never works, and it shouldn’t. When a candidate is playing to the worst fears of Americans, what’s needed is more serious and intensive coverage that puts things in perspective.

In an atomized media environment, with old and new and social media providing constant flows of information, Trump will always figure out how to get the attention that he craves—and that powers his campaign. For instance, even as Republican leaders offer up mild complaints about Trump’s religious-test bigotries, they will welcome him to another debate stage December 15.

The key is not to neglect Trump, but rather to provide more and better coverage of the whole of the 2016 campaign.

All Trump all the time lets Trump define the discussion. People can agree with him or they can disagree with him. But they do not hear alternatives. As Credo Action’s Josh Nelson argues, “The media’s obsession with Donald Trump has real consequences for our Democracy. Desperate for ratings, the cable news networks have decided to broadcast nearly-continuous coverage of Donald Trump’s campaign at the expense of giving real issues the coverage they deserve.”


25 minutes into Chris Hayes. ALL about Trump, Trump, Trump

This is just disgusting.

What the hell else is going on, that I am NOT hearing about?

Poll: Hillary's 'electability' is highly over-rated among Democratic voters.

Last week the highly trusted Quinnipiac University National Poll (“Q-Poll”) delivered good news and bad news for Bernie Sanders.

The unpromising lead is: Sanders polls 30% behind Clinton.

This bad news might be best explained by the Democrats’ even more lopsided answer to the big “electability” question. Unfortunately for Sanders, 38% more Democrats think Clinton “would have a good chance of defeating the Republican nominee” than would Sanders (87% to 49%).

Whose Electability?

The good news for Sanders is what the pollsters actually demonstrate to be true about electability by direct match-ups of the two Democrats against the four Republican contenders who have more than single digit support. Their findings: “Sanders does just as well [as Clinton against Rubio], or even better, against [the other] top Republicans [Trump, Carson,and Cruz].” Against each of the latter three, Sanders’ winning margin exceeds Clinton’s by 2%, 3% and 5% respectively.

It appears that democratic voters are not just misinformed, but grossly misinformed, about whether Clinton or Sanders would do better against Republicans. Comparing the margin of support among Democrats for Clinton over Sanders (30%) with the even larger 38% margin of polled Democrats who erroneously rank Clinton as a more electable candidate than Sanders suggests the possibility that their grossly erroneous belief may well account for much of their expressed preference for Clinton.

Even if not all Clinton supporters are using electability as their main criterion for preferring her in opinion polls, it would be useful for these grossly misled Democrats when casting their primary vote over the next several months to consider the reason why Sanders’ outperforms Clinton against Republicans. They should remember that it is independent voters, not party loyalists, who generally determine the outcome of typically close general elections. If Democrats really want to lose the 2016 election to a Republican they should by all means choose a candidate that Independents reject. Clinton is just the candidate for that job.


Third Eyewitness To San Bernardino Shooting Says It Wasn’t ‘Terror Couple’ Who Carried Out Attack

Third Eyewitness To San Bernardino Shooting Says It Wasn’t ‘Terror Couple’ Who Carried Out Attack
December 9, 2015 12:05 pm * Countercurrent News

“It’s not him,” a third San Bernardino shooting witness proclaimed about Sayd Farook and his wife.

The so-called “terror couple” have been accused of masterminding an ISIS terror attack on a Christmas office party where Sayd worked.

Earlier this month, the attorneys for the Farook family maintained that they do not believe the suspects are the ones who carried out the attacks in question.

Several eyewitnesses and family of witnesses and victims initially said that three athletic Caucasian men had been responsible for carrying out the attacks. Police immediately banned them from speaking with the media.

Just days ago, another eye-witness in the office came forward and said that in spite of what the law enforcement and mainstream media narrative is saying, the people who carried out the attack where very athletic, large, Caucasian men, who were three – not two – in number. Farook’s wife, it should be remembered weighed approximately 90lbs.

Now, a third prominent eye-witness, Chirs Nwadike, has stepped up to challenge the mainstream narrative. He recently told reporters he received a phone call from an unknown person around 7 p.m., on the evening of the shooting, who told him that he must say that Sayd Farook was the shooter.

You read that right, he says that he was called and told to change his story and say that Farook carried out the attacks with his wife, even though that is very different than what he witnessed.

Nwadike told reporters:

“No it’s not him [Sayd]. I told them about it. He’s quiet. He doesn’t make any trouble.”

“He was just spraying bullets everywhere,” Nwadike said. But the gunman was not Sayd, or his wife.


Why we need Bernie in WH: "Income inequality is by design. We can't fix it by tweaking capitalism"

Bernie is the ONLY candidate in 2016 who is focused like a laser beam on this issue, and who
has the chops to actually begin aggressively addressing income inequality on day-one in the WH.

Hell, I doubt that income inequality would even be an issue at all in 2016 elections, were it not for
Bernie courageously throwing his hat into the ring, to force the issue into the national spot-light.

~~~~ * ~~~~ * ~~~~ * ~~~~ * ~~~~ * ~~~~ * ~~~~ * ~~~~ *

Income inequality happens by design. We can't fix it by tweaking capitalism
by Steven W Thrasher * December 6, 2015 * The Guardian

The economic hoarding by those at the top has been termed “income inequality”, but that’s neither a strong nor accurate enough phrasing. I have never heard poor people complain about “income inequality”; poor people complain about being screwed out of housing , or about working more hours for less pay or about having to choose between medicine and food.

“Inequality” sounds like something that happens by accident and can be remedied by fiddling around the edges. It is not as if the rich are a little more equal and the poor a little less equal, and if we shift a bit we’ll all come out in the middle. What we’ve been calling “income inequality” might be better understood as a war waged by US political and economic policy on the poor.

A new report from the Institute for Policy Studies issued this week analyzed the Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans and found that “the wealthiest 100 households now own about as much wealth as the entire African American population in the United States”. That means that 100 families – most of whom are white – have as much wealth as the 41,000,000 black folks walking around the country (and the million or so locked up) combined.

Similarly, the report also stated that “the wealthiest 186 members of the Forbes 400 own as much wealth as the entire Latino population” of the nation. Here again, the breakdown in actual humans is broke down: 186 overwhelmingly white folks have more money than that an astounding 55,000,000 Latino people.

The disparities in wealth that we term “income inequality” are no accident, and they can’t be fixed by fiddling at the edges of our current economic system. These disparities happened by design, and the system structurally disadvantages those at the bottom. The poorest Americans have no realistic hope of achieving anything that approaches income equality; even their very chances for access to the most basic tools of life are almost nil.

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 Next »