Friday Open Thread

Argue about data theft here.

I've been doing it on twitter - @armandodkos .

Open Thread.

< Thursday Open Thread | Obama Grants 95 Sentence Commutations, 2 Pardons >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 03:36:29 PM EST
    after reading up on this it seems there was more than just a data breach. The campaign staffers deliberately were looking for names in NH and IA and then making lists from them.

    Here is a write up on what happened.

    Great link (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 03:53:14 PM EST
    But not the one I think you intended

    it's the third story down (none / 0) (#3)
    by CST on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 03:54:06 PM EST
    But yea.

    I think the donated mountain story (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 04:03:17 PM EST
    Is more interesting.

    If I have to read about another email scandal... (none / 0) (#10)
    by CST on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 04:09:40 PM EST
    I just hope it's Trump's.

    I see that now (none / 0) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 03:55:36 PM EST

    Yeah, (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 04:04:59 PM EST
    for some reason the story was on a link to Norwegians trying to give away a mountain.

    Now I know what this is about (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 04:02:29 PM EST
    Thank you

    Only one of my devices has Twitter installed and it's spotifying right now :) When choosing between BTD and music I went with music right now.


    Say what! (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 04:03:31 PM EST
    Off my Christmas List!

    Okay, I just read (none / 0) (#70)
    by Zorba on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 08:13:57 PM EST
    the last nine hours of your Tweets.  So, do I get Tracy's Christmas present?       ;-)
    Bernie needs to completely clean house and fire (more) people, and show that the accessed data have been destroyed, the DNC needs to restore his access PDQ, and yes, can the DNC do the Democrats a favor and get rid of Debbie Wasserman Schultz?  For a variety of reasons, she's just not working out.
    This could indeed, as you said, be a disaster for the Democratic Party.

    I think it's a kerfuffle, and nothing more. (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 09:09:24 PM EST
    If Bernie Sanders doesn't take the helm of his own campaign and fix it, he'll soon be a little more than a political afterthought. As for his diehard supporters, well, they'll likely fume and stay home.

    Speaking from a consultant's standpoint, such supporters are generally unreliable as Democrats, so I wouldn't plan on getting any help and support from them for other Democratic candidates. If they surprise me, hey, that's great. But otherwise, I'd plan accordingly with the assumption that they'll sit it out. I've learned from experience to not bother chasing such people down.



    That was always my fear. (none / 0) (#97)
    by NYShooter on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 11:16:51 PM EST
    From early on many Sanders supporters were reminiscent of Obama's worshipful, messianic, followers. There was no way to conduct lucid debates, they were completely, "captured."

    The comments after any article about the Hillary/Bernie contest was filled with, "no way will I vote for Hillary Clinton." The hatred stirred up against Hillary was worse than that of the Tea Party against Democrats/Liberals. I believe that, not only would many just stay home, some, just for spite, will vote Republican.

    Ever since then, regardless of what any polls show, I feel that Hillary's position was/is, inherently shaky.


    Don't be silly... (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 10:09:30 AM EST
    no Sanders supporter is gonna vote for a Republican out of spite..the Green Party nominee is the obvious second choice for people who always/usually vote.

    As for his significant support amongst those who don't normally see the point in voting, they'll probably sit it out.


    I vote green when they're available (none / 0) (#130)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 01:07:39 PM EST
    mostly because I'm soft-hearted and Greens seem kinda cute, like fuzzy little puppies.

    There it is, folks, an answer to a question that opinion constraining pollster/con-artists will never ask.


    So the candidate positioning (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by ruffian on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 04:34:29 PM EST
    himself as the more liberal, and less in favor of big security-state government spying, has staffers that steal personal data the first chance they get?

    Is anyone going to focus on the hypocrisy of that , rather than the twitter wars?


    Do you have any proof that (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by MO Blue on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 06:10:09 PM EST
    Sanders instructed his staffers to steal data? If he gave his staffers instructions to steal data that would be contrary to his position of objecting to state spying and he would he a hypocrite. If OTOH, he neither instructed his staffers or knew that they planned to take that action, it would prove that he hired the wrong staffers but in no way prove that he was a hypocrite.

    No I do not believe for a minute he told anyone (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by ruffian on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 07:55:28 PM EST
    to steal data. I do assume though that people that would go to work for him would at least profess to share his views on state spying and other issues. The hypocrisy is not on his part.

    Why would you assume that? (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by MO Blue on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 09:59:31 PM EST
    These were paid staffers were they not.

    I never was under the impression that people had to share all of their employers views in order to work for them. I doubt that paid staffers sign employee contracts stating that they are in complete agreement with all of a politicians positions.

    It is not unusual for politicians or government officials to fire staff members for actions contrary to their stated positions. IIRC both Obama and Clinton fired people who worked for them during the 2008 primary season.

    What the staffers did was wrong. The person directing the action was fired. But seriously making assumptions that employees share all of their employers positions is not exactly a logical assumption.


    I was under the impression this was a grassroots (none / 0) (#166)
    by ruffian on Sun Dec 20, 2015 at 06:00:36 AM EST
    campaign and not so much one run by non-believer staff. My mistake, moving on.

    Wow (5.00 / 3) (#168)
    by MO Blue on Sun Dec 20, 2015 at 07:56:38 AM EST
    You may have a distorted view of what a grassroots campaign really is. It is not a religious cult but a political campaign which tries to gain funding and participation from voters at a local level. Paid staffers are paid staffers even in a grassroot campaign. The fired staffer in question was paid to be the data director and not run the campaign.

     I seriously doubt that any of the paid staffers on the other campaigns took a belief test before employment or that they believe in each and every position taken by the candidate.


    Sanders campaign (none / 0) (#96)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 11:06:52 PM EST
    screw up by staffers.  BFD--not to be confused with BTD.

    Nothing to take from this except Sanders campaign looks a little like not ready for prime time.


    The Sanders campaign sent out an email, (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by caseyOR on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 04:01:28 PM EST
    signed by campaign manager Jeff Weaver, that comes across IMO as whiny. In light of what we now know happened, what we now know Sanders campaign staffers actually did with regard to the data breach, Weaver's email seems both dishonest and ill-advised.

    Bernie needs to get on top of this. And he needs to muzzle Jeff Weaver.

    Bernie needs to (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Zorba on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 04:58:54 PM EST
    clean house.
    And if he can't muzzle Weaver, he should fire him.

    Brian Fallon cashing in (none / 0) (#18)
    by MO Blue on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 05:02:31 PM EST
    Brian Fallon, Hillary for America's national press secretary, tweets:

    Brian Fallon-

    Four users linked to @SenSanders campaign steal data from a rival campaign. Only one is fired. Guess the others get a pat on the back

    According to the Sanders campaign (3.50 / 2) (#19)
    by CoralGables on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 05:25:57 PM EST
    Other than the last sentence, that tweet would be 100% accurate.

    I don't think that according (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by MO Blue on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 05:40:02 PM EST
    To the Sanders' campaign or any available proof that  any staff member received a pat on the back for accessing the information.

    The last sentence was an accusation that lacks any substantiation and is an intentional slur.


    I'll take that back (none / 0) (#24)
    by CoralGables on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 05:45:45 PM EST
    It appears there may have been just two: National Data Director Josh Uretsky and his deputy, Russell Drapkin.

    After accessing the Clinton data, those two then made two phony names in an attempt to access and download  more information while trying to keep it from being traced back to them.

    So it appears it was two people using four names attempting to download Clinton information lists.

    Although this, just as everything else written here today, should be taken with a grain of salt because information both real and fake changes by the minute.


    It's stealing proprietary infirmation (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by jbindc on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 05:50:09 PM EST
    Worth millions of dollars.  And if it's true that they made up fake names, then that is REALLY bad.

    They ran search terms - again, this is not part of "We were just looking to see what we had.". Running search terms means you are trying to dig into the data and look for very specific documents.


    Interesting information (none / 0) (#29)
    by MO Blue on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 05:52:21 PM EST
    but it no way substantiates that any staff member received a pat on the back for accessing the information.

    That was an unfounded accusation. The last Fallon's last sentence was a slur.


    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by jbindc on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 05:54:03 PM EST
    Because THAT'S the big problem here.  {Rolls eyes}.

    No (3.50 / 2) (#36)
    by sj on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 06:00:28 PM EST
    {Rolls eyes}
    But that IS what is being discussed here.

    There you go again. Always trying to drag others into the conversation you wish they were having. Instead of, you know, the actual one.


    You know (none / 0) (#46)
    by jbindc on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 06:30:28 PM EST
    You type words that are English, but make no sense.

    What was being discussed was the data breach and MO decided she didn't b like one line from a tweet from Brian Fallon because he was being meeeaaaannn.  The rest of the thread was again about the breach and that Fallon was the ght in what he was saying.  So it appears, as I said, that it was HER comment that was getting off topic.

    But the guess you missed it too.  Poor thing.


    Actually the discussion was on an (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by MO Blue on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 06:57:55 PM EST
    email sent out by Sanders' campaign manager.

    The Sanders campaign sent out an email, (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by caseyOR on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 04:01:28 PM CDT
    signed by campaign manager Jeff Weaver, that comes across IMO as whiny. In light of what we now know happened, what we now know Sanders campaign staffers actually did with regard to the data breach, Weaver's email seems both dishonest and ill-advised.

    My response was to post a comment by Brian Fallon, Hillary for America's national press secretary which I felt was equally dishonest and ill-advised. My comment might not have been on the topic you wanted discussed but it was completely on the topic of campaign spokespersons and whether or not their comments were dishonest and ill-advised.

    If you need help in following the thread, please click on Parent. It may help you from making erroneous statements in the future but then again maybe not.


    Thank you (1.00 / 1) (#64)
    by jbindc on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 07:30:09 PM EST
    I have Parent on.

    It might help in the future if you stay within the topic of the thread, in this case Weaver's comnents, and start a new thread if you want to talk about Brian Fallob.  You chose not to address the topic presented by Casey, but instead try and do a "But...but...he did it too!"

    If you need help starting a new thread, you just go to the bottom and type your comment instead of hitting reply.


    I replied to an existing (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by MO Blue on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 09:05:30 PM EST
    comment that was about whether or not a campaign spokesperson's remarks were ill-advised. Your demands that the topic be what you want just doesn't make it so.

    If you want to restrict commentsto only those areas you prefer or dictate the rules of where people can place their comments, I suggest you start your own blog.


    Poor jb (none / 0) (#175)
    by sj on Sun Dec 20, 2015 at 03:55:17 PM EST
    Unable to deconstruct complex sentences. I forget that you can only deal with simple noun/verb sentences -- and only occasionally at that.

    Not dumbing myself down for you, though. Unless I care enough. It could happen.


    @ Brian Fallon: That's really not helpful. (none / 0) (#33)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 05:57:48 PM EST
    It's not often during the course of a campaign that one gets an opportunity to rise above the fray and be magnanimous to one's opponent when they're clearly down.

    This is one of those times. Rather than blow that opportunity with some cheesy and quickly forgettable snarky remark from a press secretary, the Clinton campaign could've instead insisted that the DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz fix the obvious problem with the party's database software, and then restore access to the Sanders campaign ASAP. They do that, and:

    • The original point about the data breach would be reinforced in the public's consciousness;
    • Mrs. Clinton looks great in the public eye and can stand tall, for having insisted to DWS that the Sanders campaign be treated equitably and fairly by the party; and
    • Sen. Sanders is neatly boxed in, and can really do little else but apologize and say thank you -- that is, if he knows what's good for him.

    And at the very least, if you're in no mood for magnanimity, then you really ought to keep your big mouth shut, particularly when said opponent is busy digging himself into a hole. Per Napoleon Bonaparte, never interfere with your enemy when he is making a mistake.

    As the Clinton campaign's press secretary, Fallon should know that already, without being told or reminded. He wants to do snark, then he should book himself a gig at the Comedy Store and polish his routine.

    IMHO, Jeff Weaver's public defiance at that press conference, which was hastily called in response to the allegations, was an unforced error bordering on the disastrous. His surly posturing offered absolutely terrible optics with respect to public relations, since it's the Sanders campaign that's clearly in the wrong here, not the DNC or Mrs. Clinton.

    If Sen. Sanders doesn't stop the bleeding pronto -- and he now needs to do this personally -- then he will have rendered both himself and his campaign irrelevant in fairly short order, and will be replaced by Martin O'Malley as Mrs. Clinton's main challenger for the Democratic nomination.



    O'Malley doesn't come close (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by shoephone on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 12:23:20 AM EST
    to being any kind of challenge to Clinton. That's just dreaming.

    Brian Fallon (none / 0) (#51)
    by jondee on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 06:43:15 PM EST
    One hired attack dog bitching about the behavior of other team's hired attack dog..

    Watching Jeff Weaver now (none / 0) (#20)
    by jbindc on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 05:39:34 PM EST
    He looks nervous and agitated.

    He keeps talking about how they told the DNC months ago about the open firewall.  I don't doubt that, but I haven't seen any evidence of these multiple conversations.  Have any been released?


    The data company says no earlier breaches existed (none / 0) (#25)
    by CoralGables on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 05:46:38 PM EST
    and none reported.

    Then Wraver (none / 0) (#28)
    by jbindc on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 05:50:41 PM EST
    Is talking out of his butt.

    Or maybe (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by sj on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 06:01:53 PM EST
    it's the "data company" that's talking out of its butt. Too soon to tell which one it is, IMO.

    Great point (none / 0) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 06:04:45 PM EST
    I appears to me if anyone wants to be mad at anyone it should be the data company.  They are the ones that screwed up.

    Still waiting on (none / 0) (#48)
    by jbindc on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 06:32:43 PM EST
    All those emails / phone records from the Sanders campaign proving that they reoeayedky told the DNC about the  leakt firewall

    If there are emails or not (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 06:37:49 PM EST
    It was a known bug.  There's a link below describing it.  Bugs don't happen once.

    LA Times dated today (none / 0) (#38)
    by MO Blue on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 06:04:23 PM EST
    Quote the CEO Stu Trevelyan:

    In this case, the firewall that political data behemoth NGP VAN had built to keep rival campaigns from accessing one another's information had temporarily come down as the result of a bug, according to company CEO Stu Trevelyan.

    "We are confident at this point that no campaigns have access to or have retained any voter file data of any other clients, with one possible exception, which is the Sanders campaign," he said.

    While he tried to minimize the effect of the bug, saying that only for a brief window were some data for one campaign viewable by others but that they couldn't export, save or act on it within the system, he acknowledged the Sanders campaign might have been able to save the data on its own drives through such means as screen grabs.

    Watching an interview with the guy (none / 0) (#40)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 06:09:11 PM EST
    Who was fired.  He said (paraphrase) it was like walking past a house and seeing the door was open and going in to leave a note to let the owner know they they left the door open.
    Going around back to check the back door and leave a note there.
    Now, leaving aside the odd analogy of going inside a strangers house, that sounds weird to me.

    But, as I said.  He was fired.


    Yeh, he sorta left out (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by Towanda on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 06:19:41 PM EST
    the end of the analogy:

    Stealing the owner's stuff.


    The analogy (none / 0) (#147)
    by ruffian on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 04:12:35 PM EST
    seems to be that he had to steal the stuff to show that the door was open.

    I think the Clinton staffer can be forgiven a little bit of snark with the 'pat on the back' comment.


    Sanders suing DNC (none / 0) (#30)
    by ragebot on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 05:53:17 PM EST
    is this real

    Bernie is quickly proving himself to be ... (none / 0) (#35)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 06:00:12 PM EST
    ... not ready for prime time.

    Impact of being locked out of the (none / 0) (#41)
    by MO Blue on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 06:12:22 PM EST
    database containing his voter information. (See LA Times link above)

    "The campaign is hamstrung without access to the voter data," the campaign said in the lawsuit. It said the campaign is losing an estimated $600,000 in contributions each day it does not have access to the data, which is used to target donors. "However the damage to the campaign's political viability, as a result of being unable to communicate with constituents and voters, is far more severe, and incapable of measurement," the complaint said.

    This (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 06:15:07 PM EST
    Is why the candidates, if necessary, need to get together and end this.  It's stupid.  It helps no one.  IMO Hillary was going to win this will only taint any victory.

    It's stupid.  


    Yes, It may result in shutting down (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by MO Blue on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 06:27:48 PM EST
    Sanders' campaign but IMO he won't be the only loser.

    That would be a (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 06:31:49 PM EST
    Monumentally stupid thing to allow to happen.  We still have a chance to have a somewhat United party this time.

    And (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 06:33:55 PM EST
    I can't believe this isn't obvious to anyone with a brain.   It will be interesting to see how it's addressed tommorrow night.  

    I frankly (none / 0) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 06:45:23 PM EST
    can't imagine this shutting down his campaign.

    It causes serious damage to (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by caseyOR on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 06:55:39 PM EST
    the Sanders campaign because they need access to their database. That contains current and potential donors, info on voting patterns, lists of likely voters,etc. this is the basic work product of the campaign.

    So, while this may not shut down Bernie's campaign in the sense of him withdrawing, it does seriously hamper the ability of the campaign to function.

    This needs to end.


    Yep (none / 0) (#58)
    by MO Blue on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 06:59:47 PM EST
    I have to say (none / 0) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 07:00:52 PM EST
    what were those idiots thinking? Did they think that they were not going to be caught? It's morphing into conspiracy theories on twitter. Yeah, DWS and the Sanders campaign should work on coming to some sort of agreement and just end it.

    If Sanders loses the first two states it's over. (none / 0) (#53)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 06:50:19 PM EST
    Why on gods earth would it make sense to give his rabid followers (not talking about you Mo) a reason to blame Hillary fir that loss?

    It seems (none / 0) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 06:57:31 PM EST
    to me this can easily be cleared up in a few days. However Bernie needs to fire the other person if reports are correct and just move forward.

    How many days at $600,000 a day (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by MO Blue on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 07:13:10 PM EST
    do you think is acceptable?

    Do you really, really think this action by the DNC will not have any negative affect on HRC's campaign? Do you really think that those voters who are becoming engaged in the political process after writing it off for years are going to vote for Hillary if they believe that the DNC manipulated the process to shut down Sanders? HRC is not exactly leading the Republican candidates by wide margins. Do you really think it is a smart move to narrow the margins even farther.

    Hell, even Jim Webb is making statements that the sole purpose of the DNC is to elect Hillary.

    I think you and HRC's campaign better pay attention to what Capt and others are saying. He is right.


    Bernie's (2.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 07:39:49 PM EST
    campaign is the one that has done this. Again, do you think there should be no consequences to what happened? That seems to be what you are implying. It should be cleared up of course but why are you attacking Hillary for this? It's her data that got stolen yet somehow you seem to be directing all your arguments at her.

    And "you had better pay attention" sounds like a childish threat sorry to say. I don't understand the freak out.

    Jim Webb? The guy who was polling at 1%? He's directing anger at everybody because of his numbers I would say.


    Let me try (5.00 / 5) (#69)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 08:05:34 PM EST
    No one said there should not be consequences.  One person was already fired.  And no one attacked Hillary.  What she said was that DWS was part of the problem.  A subject that has been written about extensively if you agree with it or not.
    At this point it makes absolutely no sense to start the same stupid crap we all had to listen to for a year in 2007.   Bernie did not do this.  He fired the guy.  There is a bug in the firewall that allowed it to happen.
    Give them access to their damn data and let's move on.  

    On DWS
    I've read a lot about hiw the DNC is a cheering squad for Hillary.  It's not a secret.  Hell, in a way it's understandable.   At least to me.  They think she can and he can't.  I agree with that but it's not the point.  The fact is DWS is not seen as impartial.  By anyone.  Which is why I said Hillary, or at least her campaign, needs to get involved.   This needs to end.


    More on what makes sense politically (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by MO Blue on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 11:25:45 PM EST
    Well, this is one of those rare cases where when you step back you realize that while the facts of the breach are fascinating in journalistic and sleuthing terms, for the Democratic party, they are almost beside the point. I fear the DNC and possibly the Clinton campaign may be stumbling into a wildly shortsighted set of actions.

    Let's be clear on one point: It may not look like it. But the DNC/Clinton campaign actually needs the Sanders Camp much more than the Sanders Camp needs them
    The overwhelming likelihood is that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. That means that 3 or 4 or 6 months from now her campaign and the DNC will need to unify the party. Whatever the data folks at the Sanders campaign did, by suspending their access the DNC will quite likely give a lot of Sanders supporters the idea that if they'd only had access to their data, Sanders might have won. At a minimum, many will be convinced that the game was rigged all along: that the DNC was operating as an arm of the Clinton campaign.

    Now, Clinton is the candidate with overwhelming party establishment buy-in. We all know that the DNC and its apparatus is more friendly and inclined toward her campaign. But there is a world of difference before passive support or hopes for her victory and actively tipping the scales in her favor. If Sanders supporters get the idea the DNC and its chair are doing the latter, it introduces a toxic chemical into the bloodstream of the party. That could cause big, big problems down the line for Clinton and for the entire Democratic ticket.


    You are wasting your time (none / 0) (#71)
    by MO Blue on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 08:21:19 PM EST
    GA has her own little fiction going where she is bound and determined to level unfounded accusations against me rather than use any form of common sense.

    According to her, people can just stay home and not vote for Hillary - no big deal.. A strategy of encouraging a divided party is a sure fire winner for HRC  and the Democratic Party How absurd.. A sure fire way to hurt the party come election time. But sometimes you just can't cure dumb.


    2 words (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 08:24:33 PM EST
    President Trump

    Too late. The horses are (none / 0) (#75)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 08:42:18 PM EST
    already out.

    At this point it makes absolutely no sense to start the same stupid crap we all had to listen to for a year in 2007.

    Once again, you are making stuff up (none / 0) (#67)
    by MO Blue on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 07:52:28 PM EST
    At no time did I attack Hillary. I have criticized DWS, the DNC and Hillary's spokesperson. I have never said one word against Hillary. No matter how many times you make that accusation it is not true but merely something that you have made up.

    A childish treat - oh dear gawd. Another distortion, chalked up in your column. I know you have real trouble with reading comprehension but you need to do a better job writing fiction.


    Your whole (2.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 08:01:36 PM EST
    post is veiled threats at Hillary saying that people won't show up etc. People have a vote and they have a right to do with what they want. People can sit home. They can vote for Hillary or not. It's their decision.

    The whole things comes off as stomping feet.


    If I want to be polite and (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by MO Blue on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 08:32:16 PM EST
    obey site rules, the best I can say is that your comments indicate that you are poorly informed. It is especially true, when you admit that you have no idea what you are talking about.

    What a fantastic idea you are promoting. If voters don't like what is going on, they can just stay home. I don't even think DWS would think that is an especially good idea.


    You know (none / 0) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 08:38:34 PM EST
    I just don't see any benefits to the strong arming and name calling people like Axelrod did years ago trying to get people to vote for Obama. After that I decided that either the candidate is going to convince people to vote for him or her or not.

    Sweet Jesus (none / 0) (#76)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 08:43:27 PM EST
    Not Axelrod.  Anything but Axelrod.  I really don't want to leaves this blog for another year.

    Plouffe and Axelrod have made comments (none / 0) (#83)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 09:26:17 PM EST
    re this incident. Plouffe:  very serious. Axelrod:  not a big deal.

    NYT comments include a reference to the Watergate burglary and statements of fence sitters sending donations to Sanders' campaign after this news broke.


    In a strange way (none / 0) (#84)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 09:28:54 PM EST
    They are both right.  IMO

    What Axelrod tweeted (none / 0) (#89)
    by MO Blue on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 10:13:03 PM EST
    David AxelrodVerified account
    The disproportionate @dnc reaction actually got @BernieSanders crew off the hook for their own stupidity. Not helpful to @HillaryClinton.

    What Plouffe tweeted: (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 11:46:01 PM EST

    "Think if one company accessed and stole another's customer data. This is no small thing," wrote a supporter of Mrs. Clinton, the former Obama campaign manager David Plouffe, on Twitter. Mr. Sanders's camp "should be careful playing the victim

    Axelrod (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by jbindc on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 05:55:18 AM EST
    No fan of Hillary Clinton, and I suspect unofficially working with the Sanders campaign.  He tweeted earlier about the DNC "having their thumb on the scale" - something that was a Sanders' team talking point all afternoon.

    jbibdc: "Axelrod [--] No fan of Hillary Clinton, and I suspect unofficially working with the Sanders campaign."

    How's that been working out for the people of Chicago?

    Axelrod also got paid $500,000 to advise Ed Miliband and the Labour Party in this year's parliamentary elections in Britain? How'd that ultimately turn out?

    David Axelrod is an overrated a$$.


    Oh, (none / 0) (#88)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 10:10:21 PM EST
    yeah, he's in the thick of this recent thing. I think he likes this kind of thing. However, I don't think any campaign has hired him.

    Which is another reason (none / 0) (#61)
    by jbindc on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 07:14:59 PM EST
    It's stupid to think this was done by the DNC to help HRC.

    Not exactly a good defense (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by MO Blue on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 07:21:52 PM EST
    Quite a few people in the Democratic Party have written extensively on how stupid DWS is and how she is damaging the party with her mismanagement of the DNC.

    She didn't breach nor steal data (none / 0) (#63)
    by jbindc on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 07:24:00 PM EST
    I'd say that was stupid.

    Your statement does not change the fact that (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by MO Blue on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 07:40:19 PM EST
    Quite a few people in the Democratic Party have written extensively on how stupid DWS is and how she is damaging the party with her mismanagement of the DNC.

    It is not an either/or equation, both Sanders' staffers and DWS can do stupid things.


    At least it's a break (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 04:15:49 PM EST
    From 24/7 Donald.  

    You miss him, don't you? (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Anne on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 04:55:23 PM EST
    Bernie probably misses him more, though.

    ... not receiving much media attention. They really needed to be more careful for what they desired, because they got it.

    Plus the moaning about how noone (none / 0) (#77)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 08:43:36 PM EST
    will watch tomorrow night's Dem. debate.

    If they are smart (none / 0) (#78)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 08:49:01 PM EST
    This wil be resolved before the debate.

    Bernie's in the news (none / 0) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 05:43:07 PM EST
    So maybe not so much.

    Rhino Hunt (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by ragebot on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 05:40:13 PM EST
    Still looking for more information on this.

    What I know so far is White Rhino was one of four or five boats participating in a sailboat race to Cuba.  After the race White Rhino returned to Key West and USCG fined them $US100,000 for violating the ban on traveling to Cuba.  Lawyers are involved and both Todd Stuart, White Rhino's owner, and the USCG are being somewhat closed mouth.

    Speculation at sailing web sites is the race organizer may be to blame for failing to get all paperwork needed.  In any case if you are thinking about heading to Cuba be careful out there.

    The "heat" of the (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by KeysDan on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 12:51:05 PM EST
    campaign does not justify losing sight of..you know, the election.  The DNC disciplinary action should have taken that into account; after the facts of the access were clarified, a sternly worded letter should have sufficed.

     Among Senator Sander's perceived strengths, is being a strait-shooter. His campaign staff permitted that to be tarnished, and whomever green-lighted a law suit should join the unemployment ranks of others involved.

    Moreover, it would have been my advice for Mrs. Clinton to be magnanimous and to be seen as publicly urging the DNC to rescind its initial action, even if believed to be commensurate with the infraction. Hopefully, Mrs. Clinton and Senator Sanders will both offer words in response to any questions that will not only cool things down, but also, promote party unity.  There remains ample opportunity to present their take on policy and to point to the dangers inherent to any Republican in the running.

    It was somewhat surprising to me to read a sampling of Sander's supporters on other blogs---something that I would not have been surprised to find on a pro-Trump blog.

     While these particular reactions of Sander's supporters may not have been representative, it was disturbing none-the-less. Not only for the temperature of their displeasure, but also, for their loss of perspective.

     After the Republican display of ignorance and recklessness that would place the nation in jeopardy, it seems unreal and unfathomable that either a Sanders or Clinton supporter would claim that there is no choice between Democrat or Republican-or-at best, a choice between the lesser of two evils.  And, too, there does not seem to be a realization that this is a primary battle, and at a point soon to come, there will be a general election.  

    True (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 01:32:47 PM EST
    Also true that Sanders supporters do not have a monopoly on loony toons.

    Yes, the market (none / 0) (#135)
    by KeysDan on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 02:00:29 PM EST
    is wide open in that department.   However, my observation was  derived from the specific case and did not see a need to provide an "everyone does it" nod.

     Moreover, I wonder if Senator Sanders obtains the Democratic nomination, how many Clinton supporters would vote for a Green party candidate, not vote, or vote Republican. Maybe a share, and hopefully, no more or less of Sanders supporters doing the same if Mrs. Clinton secures the nomination.  But, the nature and intensities of some of the Sander's supporters register differently to me.


    I am very curious (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 03:03:02 PM EST
    What response Sanders himself will have to the inevitable question about it this evening.   His response could be pivotal in persuading his supporters if the need to support more than just hm.  Hillary's too for that matter.

    Agreed. (none / 0) (#140)
    by KeysDan on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 03:14:48 PM EST
    I will be disappointed if both of them do not take steps to bring this episode to a halt. Too much at stake.

    I think the very insurgent nature (none / 0) (#138)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 02:59:39 PM EST
    Of the Sanders campaign and its ability to get people interested who may not have been interested before makes that almost a certainty.  Sadly if he was elected many of the same who say the worst things about Hillary would say the same kinds of things about him when he did not fix all the worlds problems in the first 100 days.  We have definitely seen that before.  I would not be surprised if the number of Hillary supporters who were sore losers would be just as great.  

    The Force (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 01:35:21 PM EST
    Has most definitely awakened.   Risen from the 16 year induced coma into which it was placed by The Evil Chin.

    May it be with you.  And make tons of money.

    The (none / 0) (#154)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 05:55:13 PM EST
    For a few seconds... (none / 0) (#164)
    by desertswine on Sun Dec 20, 2015 at 12:18:31 AM EST
    I thought you meant this guy.

    Never (none / 0) (#169)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 20, 2015 at 09:26:04 AM EST
    That would be The Great Chin

    Records records and more records (none / 0) (#172)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 20, 2015 at 02:09:42 PM EST
    From BoxOfficeMojo

    Largest Thursday Previews: $57 million*
    Previous Record: $43.5 million (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2)
    Largest Friday, Opening Day, Single Day: $120.5 million (estimated)
    Previous Record: $91 million (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2)
    Domestic Opening Weekend: $238 million (estimate)
    Previous Record: $208.8 million (Jurassic World)
    Highest Per Theater Average (Wide Opening): $57,571 (estimate)
    Previous Record: $48,855 / 4,274 theaters (Jurassic World)
    Top Opening Weekend for PG-13 Rated Film: $238 million (estimate)
    Previous Record: $208.8 million (Jurassic World)
    Top Holiday Opening Weekend**: $238 million (estimate)
    Previous Record: $158 million (The Hunger Games: Catching Fire)
    Biggest Weekend Overall (Top 12 Gross): $294.5 million
    Previous Record: $266 million (June 12-14, 2015)
    Biggest December Weekend (Top 12 Gross): $294.5 million
    Previous Record: $259.9 million (Dec 25-27, 2009)
    December Single Day: $120.5 million (estimated)
    Previous Record: $37.13 million (The Hobbit An Unexpected Journey)
    Widest December Opening: 4,134 theaters
    Previous Record: 4,045 theaters (The Hobbit An Unexpected Journey)
    December Opening Weekend: $238 million (estimate)
    Previous Record: $84.62 million (The Hobbit An Unexpected Journey)
    Fastest to $100 Million: 1 Day
    Previous Record: 2 Days (Jurassic World)
    Global IMAX Opening Record: $48 million
    Previous Record: $44.1 million (Jurassic World)
    Domestic IMAX Opening Record: $30.1 million
    Previous Record: $20.9 million (Jurassic World)


    Intercept Outs Domestic Spy gear Catalog (5.00 / 3) (#176)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Dec 20, 2015 at 03:57:40 PM EST
    - in an article by Margot Williams and Jeremy Scahill.

    Here's the article.  Here's the catalog.

    The Intercept obtained the catalogue from a source within the intelligence community concerned about the militarization of domestic law enforcement. (The original is here.)

    The secret, internal U.S. government catalogue describes dozens of cellphone surveillance devices used by the military and by intelligence agencies. The document, thick with previously undisclosed information, also offers rare insight into the spying capabilities of federal law enforcement and local police inside the United States.

    This is the stuff that I get rankled about (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by shoephone on Sun Dec 20, 2015 at 04:09:54 PM EST
    Thanks for providing that link. Mr. Natural. I've contacted the Seattle mayor and city councilmembers about this kind of thing, more than once...the only one of them who responds and seems to care is Kshama Sawant--that dirty hippie/socialist! (The Seattle ACLU cares as well, but I expect that.)

    For all you excercise (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 21, 2015 at 11:19:35 AM EST

    I am seriously think of entering the Olympics.

    When they make wine drinking an event.

    Well, there you go (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by Zorba on Mon Dec 21, 2015 at 05:07:07 PM EST
    I'm sure that I'm not the only one who will be joining you.
    Geezers in the Olympics?  Why not?    :-D

    Power (none / 0) (#195)
    by FlJoe on Mon Dec 21, 2015 at 05:14:40 PM EST

    No, (none / 0) (#196)
    by Zorba on Mon Dec 21, 2015 at 05:21:18 PM EST
    wine drinking.   ;-)

    Ahh (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by FlJoe on Mon Dec 21, 2015 at 05:23:07 PM EST
    then the power napping.

    Well, one would (none / 0) (#199)
    by Zorba on Mon Dec 21, 2015 at 05:49:44 PM EST
    think that would follow, indeed.  :-)

    Well, one does naturally follow (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by shoephone on Mon Dec 21, 2015 at 05:24:43 PM EST
    the other.

    (I imagine the judging rules to be a-stringent)


    Ooooh! (none / 0) (#200)
    by Zorba on Mon Dec 21, 2015 at 05:50:53 PM EST
    Bad pun, shoephone, bad pun!
    Love it!

    If Bernie's staff was younger (2.80 / 5) (#92)
    by CoralGables on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 10:27:55 PM EST
    My, the hyperbole is thick in here (5.00 / 3) (#142)
    by shoephone on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 03:24:48 PM EST
    I sure (none / 0) (#94)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 10:35:53 PM EST
    as heck hope none of them end up in the hands of the GOP.

    Now this is a hack (none / 0) (#11)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 04:10:51 PM EST
    To be really worried about

    Washington (CNN)A major breach at computer network company Juniper Networks has U.S. officials worried that hackers working for a foreign government were able to spy on the encrypted communications of the U.S. government and private companies for the past three years.

    The FBI is investigating the breach, which involved hackers installing a back door on computer equipment, U.S. officials told CNN. Juniper disclosed the issue Thursday along with an emergency security patch that it urged customers to use to update their systems "with the highest priority."

    The concern, U.S. officials said, is that sophisticated hackers who compromised the equipment could use their access to get into any company or government agency that used it.

    One U.S. official described it as akin to "stealing a master key to get into any government building.

    What baffles me (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by FlJoe on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 04:34:06 PM EST
    Is that some "hackers working for a foreign government" are able to read our government's encrypted data, yet our government is unable to crack the jihadist's off the shelf software.

    Just saying.


    What makes you think we are (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 05:47:33 PM EST
    Completely failing at that? I think our Intel agencies like to promote that perception, but I don't think it's all that accurate.

    I think there is truth in that (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 05:58:35 PM EST
    I'm ust not that confident on "hackers" who would work for the government.  
    Also the idea that we are not "watching social media" is sort of funny.  Does anyone actually believe that?

    I don't (none / 0) (#85)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 09:44:31 PM EST
    I've assumed they've watched everything online for years, I do believe they spent an abundant amount of time watching the wrong people though :)

    Hackers (none / 0) (#111)
    by FlJoe on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 06:39:09 AM EST
    could be "hired" by straw entities set up by the government or enticed by the resources available to the government. I seem to remember a while back the (FBI ?) was considering loosening the drug screening for hiring computer "analysts".

    I am sure our government has squads of hackers working 24/7, they would be remiss if they didn't.
    WWIII is liable to be fought on the internet. Remember Stuxnet?  


    When past CIA directors were asked (none / 0) (#112)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 07:12:17 AM EST
    What kept them awake at night on Spymasters, one did say a very successful cyber attack. I think it was Tenet, but can't be certain. Just remember one of them saying that was their catastrophic fear.

    I hope you are right and think you are (none / 0) (#185)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 21, 2015 at 11:02:19 AM EST
    But know one knows and that's the good thing.

    I wonder if San Bernardino was a Coventry thing.


    Mr Robot (none / 0) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 04:13:01 PM EST
    Made fkesh

    Sanders suing DNC (none / 0) (#15)
    by ragebot on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 04:54:53 PM EST
    What about the Spymasters documentary BTD? (none / 0) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 05:57:29 PM EST
    George Tenet said enhanced interrogation did get them bin Laden. And Jose Rodriguez says that the waterboarding shown in Zero Dark Thirty was torture, and that that isn't how they did it. Rodriguez says Khalid Sheik Mohammed knew exactly how many seconds they could do it for, and he held his hands up during it counting off the seconds in front of the interrogators. Course we can't know for certain because Rodriguez destroyed the video tape, and admits to doing so.

    He's a lying snake! (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 06:56:47 PM EST
    My spouse was away at a training (none / 0) (#80)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 09:00:06 PM EST
    Watching it again together now. Jose is the least sincere person testifying in the documentary. He is very skilled though. He stares directly ahead no matter what he speaks of. He is well versed in practiced dishonesty.

    What shocks me (none / 0) (#79)
    by ragebot on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 08:58:17 PM EST
    is some Democrats seem to be dumber than a bag of hammers.

    Who in their right mind would have two candidates running against each other store their sensitive information about potential voters on the same computer in what seems like the same data base?

    What candidate in their right mind would allow their sensitive voter data to be stored on a computer they did not have control over, a computer some one else could deny them access to?

    I doubt anyone at this site has any input over the DNC computers and databases and quite frankly no one posting here strikes me as so out of it that they would allow something like this to happen.  I am hoping some one here can identify the person, or persons, responsible for setting up a system that looks like it was designed by a person that does not have an IQ above room temperature.

    Not DNC computers or databases (none / 0) (#86)
    by Towanda on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 09:53:35 PM EST

    More (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by jbindc on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 10:15:11 PM EST
    But audit logs suggest a more complicated story than that simple DNC vs. Sanders storyline.

    Records show that during a 40-minute span that began at 10:40 a.m. on Wednesday, four Sanders staffers sifted through the Clinton campaign's data and conducted 25 specialized searches, according to a person familiar with the breach. The most valuable information obtained, the source said, were lists of individuals the Clinton campaign has identified as its most hardcore supporters across 10 states, as well as lists of those individuals whose support for Clinton is wavering, and could therefore be convinced to support Sanders instead.

    The lists are obtained through the time-consuming process of phone banking and, based on those conversations, scoring voters based on how likely or unlikely they are to support Clinton. Sanders camp could benefit from the lists, for instance, by saving time on hitting up those voters who are clearly for Clinton and focusing on winning over those whose support is weaker.

    According to a review of the audit logs, Sanders operatives conducted searches for Clinton supporters over 70 -- a number that indicates those voters are hard core Clinton supporters unlikely to be swayed by any outreach by the Sanders campaign. And they searched for Clinton supporters under 30, a number that showed the support was not strong and those voters could be easily swayed. The audit logs also show Sanders' deputy national data director Russell Drapkin granting access to their colleagues to view the proprietary information.


    And then, there's this:

    The Sanders campaign employees who accessed the Clinton voter information without authorization appear to have run afoul of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, said Jason Weinstein, a former supervisor of the Justice Department's computer crimes section.

    Those employees "have reason to be concerned about legal exposure," he said, for what appears to fit the definition of illegal hacking.


    I've also heard rumblings that, should it be pursued, grand larceny could be a possible charge for those involved in downloadung this data.  I don't think it will come to that, but it's out there.


    Basically (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 10:26:54 PM EST
    they wanted a short cut instead of gathering the information themselves.

    And apparently there is a contract the campaign signed which they are in breach of hence the shut down to access.

    That article makes it sound like it was a much bigger operation going on to steal the data than was previously reported.


    And Sanders (none / 0) (#93)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 10:33:34 PM EST
    sure needs to get rid of Weaver. He's making the most ridiculous statements.

    i understand (none / 0) (#87)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 10:09:04 PM EST
    this is pretty typical and I also understand the Koch's control the single database to GOP voters and decide who has access.

    Spoken with all the authority of someone ... (none / 0) (#95)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 10:38:32 PM EST
    ... who's likely never seen the inner workings of a single campaign -- Republican or Democrat -- for federal office in his life.

    What makes you think that Republican National Committee doesn't have the same sort of system and software in place for its candidates? After all, Bush White House staffers were working off RNC servers as a means to avoid public scrutiny.

    I'm not defending the practices or saying that they're right. In fact, I detest them. But speaking as someone who's worked on and run campaigns, when your candidate is dependent upon the DNC for assistance -- financial, fundraising or otherwise -- that assistance comes with a price, which means that you buy and use their software and hire their people.

    I have a number of GOP counterparts whom I know, and they feel the same way about the RNC, which does the same thing. That's why so many campaigns for federal office are nothing more than thinly veiled racketeering.



    What I do know is (none / 0) (#100)
    by ragebot on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 12:08:00 AM EST
    Trump has his own organization with no access to any RNC resources.  Not sure about Cruz but clearly he has made enemies in the RNC and I have seen no indication he, or Carson, is getting help from the RNC.  Those three are currently not only the leaders but currently seem to be the favorites for the nomination.

    Maybe Rubio is, especially since Bush seems to have crashed and burned.  Problem is that only those at the back of the pack seem to be in a position to get any help from the RNC.

    I, and others, have posted links to how Trump is turning the conventional campaign process on its head by ignoring conventional wisdom of using political operatives to take polls and create a ground game.  Talking heads on both the left and the right have pointed out this may well be in big part the reason outsiders like Trump, Carson, and Cruz (who is a self described outsider on the outs with the RNC) are doing as well as they are doing.

    Until Sanders' minions breached the database (not sure to call it the DNC database or the outsourced database) I was sorta of the opinion he was to some extent an outsider.  Clearly early on he was getting big crowds and had a lot of mass popularity.  But with headlines that he has used the DNC database to at least shore up his popularity I would not be shocked to see him take a popularity hit.  Same goes for Clinton who, rightly or wrongly, has the reputation for having the DNC in the tank for her.

    With the DNC facing a possible law suit from Sanders and lots of griping from Sanders supporters about heavy handed action by the DNC&DWS, not to mention possible criminal charges for the Sanders' minions who breached the database it is hard to envision a happy ending to this.

    This was the reason I posted the first two questions to start this thread, who designed the database system and who would agree to be in the database system?


    That's because Trump is self-funded. (none / 0) (#106)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 03:18:48 AM EST
    Not every candidate is a multibillionaire.

    Both the DNC and the RNC chairs should stay resolutely impartial during party primaries. Neither appears inclined to do so.

    The basis for any voter database system is the actual pool of registered voters. Political parties are authorized to receive that data from the states. From there, both parties then identify those voters who've registered their party preference, as well as registered voters who are card-carrying party members.

    The parties maintain these databases because they're huge, and we're the ones tasked with the responsibility to get out the vote. Not all campaigns necessarily have that capacity on their own, especially at the district level. Having that data allows me to create phonebanking and walking (door-to-door) lists for Democratic candidates, identifying likely voters that the candidate will want to target.



    No, he isn't (none / 0) (#108)
    by jbindc on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 06:00:40 AM EST
    Per ABC: (none / 0) (#101)
    by oculus on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 12:09:36 AM EST

    Michael Briggs of the Sanders campaign told ABC News Friday: "It's resolved. DNC capitulated. We get to see voter files by Saturday morning."

    The resolution to the issue was later confirmed by the Democratic National Committee in a statement:

    "The Sanders campaign has now complied with the DNC's request to provide the information that we have requested of them. Based on this information, we are restoring the Sanders campaign's access to the voter file, but will continue to investigate to ensure that the data that was inappropriately accessed has been deleted and is no longer in possession of the Sanders campaign. The Sanders campaign has agreed to fully cooperate with the continuing DNC investigation of this breach."

    Of course the DNC capitulated (none / 0) (#102)
    by shoephone on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 12:19:33 AM EST
    Getting sued by the Sanders campaign was going to make Wasserman-Schultz look ten times as inept as everyone already knows she is.

    Kind of brash though. (none / 0) (#104)
    by oculus on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 12:36:08 AM EST

    There was never going to be a lawsuit (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by CoralGables on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 03:15:37 AM EST
    Can you imagine walking into court and saying, I'm the victim here. I took money from the bank when no one was looking and now they won't let me do business there anymore. The big bad bank said all I had to do was come clean and they'd let me back, but instead I filed this lawsuit.

    Vendor is culpable (none / 0) (#113)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 08:08:00 AM EST
    Most if not all the blame should go to the vendor.

    It is not that the Sanders campaign initiated any action to avoid firewalls. It seems that previously blocked off partitions were made available, due to the incompetence of the vendor.

    Sounds very similar to the FBI trolling for jihadists, after the arrest you find out everything was directed by the FBI.

    In this case , the vendor allowed access to previously partitioned material. Human nature being what it is, yes I think campaign workers would look around at sections of a database recently opened to them.


    Nice try (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by CoralGables on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 08:23:11 AM EST
    But if I leave my front door open and you steal my stuff you're still a thief.

    Lol (none / 0) (#117)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 09:57:18 AM EST
    They just copied it, took screen shots. You must have a willing suspension of disbelief , in a highly competitive primary environment, I would wager many campaign employees would take a peek behind a door that was opened to them, they still did not intentionally break in.
    Be real.

    The fault lies with the incompetent vendor, the DNC put their trust in incompetent IT people


    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by jbindc on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 10:05:19 AM EST
    You realize that the mere copying and "taking a peek" is a breach of contract and a crime, right?

    No (none / 0) (#120)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 10:50:13 AM EST
    I don't.

    There were unprotected files on a server that they had access to,

    They accessed the unprotected files.

    I need a helluva lot more information for me to determine that a crime was committed.

    If they took a direct action to circumvent any security measures, then yes , a crime was committed


    Unless there is a hush-hush conspiracy (none / 0) (#121)
    by ding7777 on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 10:52:20 AM EST
    you would lose your wager.

    According to the vendor: all users on the system across Democratic campaigns were inadvertently able to access some data belonging to other campaigns for a brief window,


    And (none / 0) (#122)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 10:58:13 AM EST
    I would also wager that not many realized it,

    Just some of the smarter ones realized that their access levels had changed.


    Here's the thing (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by jbindc on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 11:03:51 AM EST
    Let's say a bank inadvertently dropped it's firewall, meaning anyone could see it.  You go in and take screen shots and copy files, but no one else does. Guess what?  You still potentially committed a crime.  It doesn't matter if anyone else had access.

    It's the same principle.  Why you can't grasp that is beyond me.


    Either Trevor doesn't want to see (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by caseyOR on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 11:08:02 AM EST
    it, or he is someone who, if given the chance, will steal your stuff.

    Be serious (none / 0) (#134)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 01:41:42 PM EST
    You are a full bore Bernie supporter, yo u feel the Bern, so much so that you work for the campaign, a true believer.
    You are good with databases, and statistics.
    So you work on the demographics, voting rolls , weeding out non voters, potential voters, every day on the computer.
    One day, some new folders pop up on the drive, like any curious geek, you browse through them. And lo and behold, you hit the Mother Lode, the Clinton campaign statistics.
    Political campaigns are ruthless, hard driving, run by true believers. This poor computer and stat geek thought he was in heaven, the savior of the Bern campaign.
    Seriously, I cut the guy some slack, the real fault, as I have stated before, is the imbecile you allowed these folders to be accessed by people not authorized for access.
    I am a member of Consumers Research, and they have separate and distinct membership levels, I am a lower level member, can't afford the higher fee, and so have no access to the premuim website. Lo and behold, One day I have access to the premium members website, and access it , and copy information regarding all sorts of products.
    What law have I broken?

    Wow. You are thick (none / 0) (#141)
    by jbindc on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 03:22:22 PM EST
    OK, I'll play.  If Consumers Research opens their portal and you get can higher level than you pay for, they will privacy bill you or charge your credit card.

    A better example would be if you don't pay for cable, yet you still get it, including HBO.  That's called "stealing cable", and yes, it is a crime.


    No, No, and No (none / 0) (#143)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 04:00:13 PM EST
    If they allow me access, without me asking, they cannot charge me.

    HBO doesn't work either, if your cable company (DNC) grants me access to HBO, without me asking , I do not pay either.
    Theft of cable is where you purchase a illegal cable box to unscramble the cable providers channels so you may access their content.

    If the cable company provides me with extra channels, I assume it is a advertising special, that I have limited access to the channels to entice me to upgrade.
    So Sorry, play again.

    Again, I find little fault with the Sanders campaign workers, and place the blame on the DNC and their vendor.

    Democrats would be best to quietly forget this ever happened, and find a competent IT company.


    Wrong (none / 0) (#146)
    by jbindc on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 04:11:11 PM EST
    But now you're being deliberately obtuse.

    I posted this earlier (none / 0) (#148)
    by jbindc on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 04:13:53 PM EST
    Maybe this will help you to understand a concept so simple, a 5th grader could understand:

    The Sanders campaign employees who accessed the Clinton voter information without authorization appear to have run afoul of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, said Jason Weinstein, a former supervisor of the Justice Department's computer crimes section.
    Those employees "have reason to be concerned about legal exposure," he said, for what appears to fit the definition of illegal hacking.

    So, I guess the DOJ doesn't understand either.


    Analogy: plaintiff's counsel (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by oculus on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 02:43:34 PM EST
    inadvertently produces in discovery privileged documents. Defense counsel's ethical obligation is to return them to plaintiff's counsel. Not to read, copy, and then return.

    Little different (none / 0) (#144)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 04:03:59 PM EST
    Doesn't work as a analogy.

    Rules pertaining to criminal trial proceedings,

    As opposed to paying the DNC to supply access to their database.
    Oops, the DNC gave me access to someone elses database, ah, just took a peek around, no biggie.
    Again, the source of the problem is the DNC


    Nope. You're just wrong (none / 0) (#145)
    by jbindc on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 04:08:33 PM EST
    Just because you can steal something (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by caseyOR on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 11:06:17 AM EST
    doesn't mean you should. If I leave my door open you are not then justified in coming in and stealing my stuff. Still a crime to steal my stuff.

    Sanders campaign, at best, violated their contract with the DNC for the use of the database. At worst, the staffers who accessed and copied the Clinton files committed a crime.

    There is nothing smart or clever about their actions. And because of those actions, this whole unpleasantness was stirred up at a time when these two Democratic candidates least need it.

    Both campaigns should stop talking about it and go back to talking about the issues.


    Abuse of Metaphor, "counselor" (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Dec 20, 2015 at 03:59:45 PM EST
    They didn't steal anything.  They peeked.  What they peeked at remained in place.

    That's the Danders' camp spin (none / 0) (#109)
    by jbindc on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 06:04:13 AM EST
    The DNC says they're going to continue to investigate and if warranted, more disciplinary action could be taken.

    But Weaver certainly used his staff's own malfeasance to get some fundraising done!


    He (none / 0) (#110)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 06:36:02 AM EST
    needs to clean house in his campaign. This whole incident has shown how completely awful a lot of his staff his. The DNC "capitulated" is a completely stupid statement. You could say Bernie's campaign "capitulated" by agreeing to an audit.

    Jesus, there you go again; are you (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by Anne on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 08:50:39 AM EST
    completely incapable of not wildly exaggerating everything?

    This whole incident has shown how completely awful a lot of his staff his.

    "[A] lot of his staff?"  Two people who created a couple of fake user names is "a lot of his staff?"

    What do you think, Bernie has a staff of ten?

    I'm beginning to think that when you're not distorting, misinforming and engaging in hyperbole here, you write for the NYT.

    You know, it is possible to say that what occurred was wrong without blowing it up to involving the whole campaign.  It isn't going to endanger Clinton if you acknowledge that Debbie Wasserman Schultz has been and is a terrible head of the DNC, not least because some of her decisions have been, shall we say, antithetical to a fair and open election.  You can be opposed to DWS's "leadership," and not have to give up your support of Clinton.  But it's hard to complain about someone whose decisions have probably benefited your preferred candidate, isn't it?

    The DNC did back down, which is pretty much one of the definitions of "capitulation," but as we see fairly regularly, you have a tendency to close your eyes to things you don't want to acknowledge, and when you can't, to try to change how others perceive them.

    And the thing that bothers me most is that you throw this garbage out there as if it's perfectly okay, not a problem, no big deal, they all do it, Bernie can't win anyway.


    The DNC didn't back down at all (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by jbindc on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 09:22:08 AM EST
    They've been asking the Sanders' campaign for the information and files for two days and said the campaign could have their access back once that was done.  The Sanders'campaign finally did that (i.e. "capitualted") and gave the DNC what they asked for, so they got their access back.  Simple.

    The Sanders' campaign kept talking about the DNC being in "breach of contract", which is funny, because in keeping the data that did not belong to them, they themselves were in breach of contract.


    The word capitulation is, in this (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by caseyOR on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 11:12:01 AM EST
    instance, a fighting word. It does no good for the Sanders campaign to throw it around. The Sanders campaigned screwed up. DWS and the DNC over-reacted. They settled things fairly quickly thank goodness.

    The Sanders campaign was at fault here. They should just shut up about the whole thing. Crowing about this does not serve them well.


    Speaking of shutting up about the whole thing.. (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by jondee on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 10:16:03 PM EST
    judging by the debate, you folks sound a lot more emotionally invested in this tempest in a tea pot than either Hillary or Bernie are..

    Can't recall where but (none / 0) (#127)
    by ragebot on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 12:17:38 PM EST
    I read somewhere that the DNC and candidates had and agreement (maybe contract) that the DNC had to give candidates ten days notice before restricting access to the database.  This was the basis of the lawsuit and here is the blurb from Sanders' lawsuit:

    "Either  party  may  terminate  this  Agreement  in  the  event  that  the other party breaches  this  Agreement;  the  non-breaching  party  sends  written notice  to  the breaching party describing the breach; and the breaching party
    does not cure the breach to the satisfaction of the non-breaching party within ten (10) calendar days following its receipt of such notice."

    Seems like black letter breach of contract by the DNC.


    I read that too (none / 0) (#128)
    by shoephone on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 12:21:24 PM EST
    It may have been in last night's WAPO article.

    It was also a breach of contract (none / 0) (#133)
    by jbindc on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 01:36:20 PM EST
    For the Sanders' campaign to download and copy the files of another candidate, but I'm sure that didn't appear in their filings.

    Sanders suit (none / 0) (#150)
    by ragebot on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 05:04:15 PM EST
    was based on the contract/agreement with the DNC specifying a ten day waiting period before action against violators could be taken.

    When the breach of the database came to light the DNC instantly took action in violation of the ten day waiting period.

    Problem for the DNC is by the ten days were up the whole issue would have been smoothed over.  There is no way the DNC could completely ban Sanders from using the database and not lose the support of a significant portion of Democrats.

    In some ways this is a loss for Sanders because it puts a blot on his so far clean record, a loss for the DNC for acting too quickly in a reckless manner, and a loss for Clinton because her minions are seen as bullying Sanders.

    Hard to see how anyone gains any votes from the incident, and easy to see how both sides lose votes.


    My point was (none / 0) (#151)
    by jbindc on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 05:14:19 PM EST
    In theory, since the Sanders camp was also in breach of contract for accessing data that did not belong to them (nor return the files and data when requested), the DNC could have countersued.

    The Sanders campaign was never going to see the lawsuit through anyway.  They tried to make a point, but they never could have pursued it because it wouldn't have ended well.


    Actually (none / 0) (#152)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 05:37:31 PM EST
    This was much ado about nothing, although it did create some news.
    Might actually help get people to watch the debate tonight.

    Jets - Cowboys

    Clinton - Sanders...and Martin

    Although I must say I haven't watched 1 Republican debate, not really enamored with any candidate yet,
    they can't get any oxygen with Trump around, and the media keeps feeding that flame.


    Good take by Salon (none / 0) (#167)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Dec 20, 2015 at 06:51:01 AM EST

    On Thursday, the DNC told the press a contractor inadvertently breached a firewall in a software program exposing data files of presidential campaigns and that a Bernie Sanders staffer (Josh Uretsky, with the campaign three months) took the opportunity to sneak a peek at Hillary Clinton's files. Sanders' campaign instantly sacked the staffer but Schultz still cut off its access to data, a punishment she seems to have made up on the spot, thus bringing crucial outreach and fundraising efforts to a halt. Schultz didn't even nod to due process, pronouncing the death penalty without so much as reading Sanders his Miranda rights.

    On Friday, Sanders' campaign filed a federal lawsuit alleging breach of contract. It sought a restraining order and money damages that, assuming the facts set forth in the complaint, exceed a million dollars a day. It was a strong case. Uretsky may have behaved unethically but there was no malice aforethought- the forbidden fruit fell in his lap--and from the moment the campaign learned of his possible malfeasance, it acted honorably and swiftly. Schultz, conversely, appears to have acted without color of authority under law, contract or party rule.

    The contract required written notice of termination and a 10-day grace period to cure any alleged default. Clearly the DNC was in violation, not Sanders. Because the contract put the onus for securing data on the DNC, it was liable for the breach as well. But the issue was bigger than mere contract law or political dirty tricks. In suspending the vital operations of a presidential campaign, Schultz trespassed on the right of all citizens to free and fair elections. Democrats could ill afford to be seen condoning her actions. Nor could they afford to pay her bills. If she acted without authority she'd be liable for damages, but only if the party was as swift and honorable in dealing with her as Sanders was in dealing with Uretsky. The party also had to ponder the sworn depositions Sanders might now take regarding such delicate matters as who Schultz spoke to about her decision to impale him.

    The long dormant Democratic base should have stopped her Schultz when she squelched debates. Now party leaders had to, or else hop on board her runaway train. But Thursday and then Friday passed with the leaders silent save for the sound of Schultz spewing venom at Sanders. Then a miracle happened. For the first time since the dawn of the Obama era, and arguably since the end of the Viet Nam War, progressive rose in mass protest of party elites. Petitions poured in to the DNC by the tens of thousands demanding that Sanders access to his data be restored. Shortly after midnight Saturday morning, the DNC caved to the pressure, albeit so gracelessly as to ensure ongoing recriminations.


    Just saw the season finale (none / 0) (#153)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 05:53:18 PM EST
    Of The Knick.  So good.

    So....is Thack dead? Is it a cliff hanger, or (none / 0) (#157)
    by ruffian on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 07:57:45 PM EST
    a series finale?

    That had to be the most horrific thing I have ever seen on the tube. Fiction-wise anyway. What a nutter my man Thack is....or was.....


    MAX has ordered a script for (none / 0) (#158)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 08:12:56 PM EST
    Season 3.  


    I'm just happy for Harriet.  At least until she finds out what he confessed.


    Yes, that was interesting... (none / 0) (#159)
    by ruffian on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 08:29:00 PM EST
    And I hope Neelie likes Australia,...and that Junia takes all of that crook administrator's money.

    Lucy and Neelie's brother are a scary couple.


    I think Lucy might end up doing him in (none / 0) (#160)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 08:39:08 PM EST
    And the crook has "something".  Sores on his hands.  My guess is either syphilis from the hookers or cancer from his hundreds his X-rays.  My bet is the former.   If you google it the first image is a hand with spots.

    Yes, syphilis was my first thought (none / 0) (#161)
    by ruffian on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 09:53:23 PM EST
    He's a real charmer, isnt he?

    Indeed (none / 0) (#170)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 20, 2015 at 09:28:29 AM EST
    After his nose falls off perhaps he will carry it around in his pocket so he can turn it up at people.   Looking forward to that.
    Also pretty sure a nose might be a requirement for "the club"

    Also LOST (none / 0) (#171)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 20, 2015 at 09:43:20 AM EST
    Just wow.   It goes faster than you think because it's completely addictive.  With the huge cast and dozens of storylines there is ALWAYS something you will find out in the next episode.
    There is a mythology but not necessarily supernaturally.   You are led to believe technology could be behind it.  Will I ever know for sure probably not.  
    I am closing in on the end of season 2 already.   And that's only because I am limited by the speed of DVD deliveries.   Probably a good thing in this case.

    Lemme know if the follow up (none / 0) (#179)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Dec 20, 2015 at 05:14:54 PM EST
    equals the scene of Baron Harkonnen's pustule lancing in Dune.  What a perfect scene that was.  lol; I liked the navigators too.  Lynch got completely inside my head.  Speaking of which, do you remember the closing scene of Pi? (1998) What a crazy ride that was.

    Lynch can definitely do that (none / 0) (#180)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 20, 2015 at 05:32:40 PM EST
    I have a real love hate relationship with that movie.  

    I do.  Pi.  What a great movie.  A real black and white.

    Don't know if you watch The Knick but the scene was self surgery.  It was intense.  The brilliant Doctor blasted out of head on injected Cocain giving a running dialog to an audience as he apparently dies on the table.

    There is supposed to be another season so his actual fate is unknown.  Though the last thing we see is Bertie injecting him with his newest discovery, adrenalin.  So.....


    ISIS and the "refugee problem" (none / 0) (#165)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sun Dec 20, 2015 at 04:47:31 AM EST
    One of the great leaders in the vast right-wing
    media conspiracy is Time magazine . . . of course . . . as we all know so well.

    Well, there has been a lot of talk about the refugee crisis . . . and it turns out that Time magazine has a little piece on the relationship between isis and the refugee problem.  Of course, as most sane people here know, we and Europe should simply take them all or nearly all of them in . . . but that is a different question, of course.

    Anyway, it turns out that ISIS has at times been attacking refugee camps--not because they have military significance--but because ISIS makes a profit by "taxing" directly or indirectly the human smuggling created when refugees decide that their location is not safe and they must be out of Syria.

    It appears that many of the armed groups or militias as well as ISIS profit on the the human smuggling trade . . .  ISIS and some of the armed groups have a strong financial motive to attack or drive out refugees, together with collecting money on their smuggling . . .

    ISIS Makes a Fortune From Smuggling Migrants Says Report

    Texas Patent Troll kicked to the Curb (none / 0) (#173)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Dec 20, 2015 at 03:26:27 PM EST
    by a Texas Judge.

    "The '674 Patent claims were clearly directed toward unpatentable subject matter, and no reasonable litigant could have reasonably expected success on the merits when defending against the numerous § 101 motions filed in this case," wrote Gilstrap. "However, rather than acknowledging the inherent weaknesses of the '674 Patent, eDekka proffered completely untenable arguments to the Court."

    The "strikingly similar lawsuits" demonstrate "an aggressive strategy that avoids testing its case on the merits and instead aims for early settlements falling at or below the cost of defense," wrote Gilstrap. "A finding of exceptionality is something that this Court arrives at reluctantly, lest we unintentionally narrow the public's access to the courts by chilling future decisions to seek redress for a case in which success is not guaranteed."

    The motion for fees was a consolidated one filed on behalf of several defendants, including shoe company Aldo, Action Envelope & Printing (envelopes.com), Asics, and Cymax Stores USA. The defendants now have two weeks to submit their motions outlining how much they believe they should be paid.

    Yesterday HRC whopper? (none / 0) (#174)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sun Dec 20, 2015 at 03:52:43 PM EST
    Yesterday in the "debate" HRC said that ISIS was using Trump in one or more recruiting videos.

    Of course, someone might check on that . . . and it turns out that ISIS has a main promotional video, explaining its message in about 5 minutes . . . about 1 or 2 minutes into the 5 minute video, ISIS explains who are some of their enemies, and there is of course the USA and there are photos of Clinton, Bush and Obama, each one being described with some negative one-word derogatory descriptive word--legislators, liars, fornicators.  

    It seems that they could not think of something too terribly bad to call Obama; he seems to be a "legislator;" Bush is called a liar . . . though I tend to think of him as more of a self-deceived idiot about Iraq . . . and Katrina . . . and several other things . . . many insane things . . .

     I know what it's like to be in a hostage situation, I've been there myself. The fear, the adrenaline, you find yourself imagining things, impossible things, crazy things, insane things... takes years to get over it.

    This (none / 0) (#181)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 20, 2015 at 06:31:34 PM EST

    Macaulay Culkin deals with serious abandonment issues from being left "Home Alone"

    Here's the first episode of the new comedy web series :DRYVRS, created and written by musician, actor and producer Jack Dishel. The series stars Jack as an on-demand car service passenger and chronicles the strange drivers he encounters. The debut episode guest stars Macaulay Culkin as his driver.

    LINDSEY DROPS OUT (none / 0) (#182)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 21, 2015 at 09:54:34 AM EST
    We won't have Huckelberry Graham to kick around any more.

    I wonder where his support will go? (That was a joke)

    Also I'm avoiding the Homeland thread because I have not seen it yet.

    Bu-Bye (none / 0) (#183)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 21, 2015 at 10:03:25 AM EST
    I'm surprised (none / 0) (#184)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Dec 21, 2015 at 10:12:51 AM EST
    it took this long.

    Figures... (none / 0) (#187)
    by kdog on Mon Dec 21, 2015 at 12:34:29 PM EST
    The only TSA agent in America actually accomplishing something worthwhile is getting indicted.

    President Obama, pardon this woman!

    Phyllis Schafly (none / 0) (#188)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Dec 21, 2015 at 01:13:16 PM EST
    endorses Trump.

    Gawd (none / 0) (#189)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 21, 2015 at 01:16:50 PM EST
    I love the media meme that Lindsey dropping out really really really really matters because it "allows McCain to endorse someone else"

    Because the batsh!t republica an party that despises McCain is on the edge of its seat awaiting his endorsement.


    Yes (none / 0) (#192)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Dec 21, 2015 at 01:35:06 PM EST
    that whole 1% that Lindsay had must have people waiting with bated breath to see where it is going.

    The Schafly endorsement of Trump to me just shows that the religious right movement is a fraud. It was never about so called "morals". It was always about racism.


    The Partnership... (none / 0) (#190)
    by kdog on Mon Dec 21, 2015 at 01:17:00 PM EST
    for a Drug Free America propaganda ain't got nothing on New South Wales propaganda...they see your fried egg and raise you a Yeti.

    Have you seen (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 21, 2015 at 01:18:11 PM EST
    The stoner sloth commercials?

    Google if not.


    The Commecial is Dumb... (none / 0) (#193)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Dec 21, 2015 at 02:18:05 PM EST
    ...my favorites are from the 80's, especially the one where dude's mom is coming upstairs, and he says, "Refer man, crack a window".  That is what everyone said in high-school or "This is your brain on drugs", referring to the egg getting fried in the pan.

    But here is the best one ever, Canadian Anti-drug commercial.  

    Unless you count the Harold & Kumar one in which the kid blows off his head with a shotgun because he is high.