Search the DNC email database

I was talking in particular about the use of profanity in a working environment, of course.

I do not know what you are reading into those emails but speaking purely objectively, there is remarkably little content in them to go off of. It could potentially have to do with Bernie Sanders in the Kentucky and West Virginia primaries (which were in early May), but that seems somewhat unlikely given the timestamps -- the West Virginia primary was only 5 days after the email was sent, which is almost no time for one to ask the question, get whatever answer, and launch a smear campaign. It could also be not about Sanders at all--WVA is an odd way to refer to West Virginia when WV will work as well, and the name "Sanders" doesn't appear anywhere in the emails themselves.

Even if it's about Sanders, the email doesn't even say whether the guy is rooting for or against Sanders: it could just as easily be "Hey, I heard this rumor that Sanders is an atheist, can we get someone to ask him so that he can squash that rumor like a bug?"

It doesn't strike me as a "civil rights violation" to ask about someone's religious views. I mean, maybe the US people not voting for politicians based on their religious affiliation is a larger civil rights violation that you fear will be triggered if this question is asked, but that seems like several steps away from a sure thing, since it's quite possible that Bernie will play a different political card.

It says "for Surface", so maybe that's bring your own device (not necessarily better, mind you).

You cannot possibly be serious.

1) The emails refer to two upcoming primaries, which occurred in close temporal and spatial proximity to each other. Literally no other campaign in the nation is in two states. It is hard to imagine any other figure in the nation that that refers to other than Bernie Sanders. I didn't mention Bernie Sanders in my reply, so why did you think it was about Bernie and then attempt to deny it? I think you protest too much.

2) The email is clearly suggesting to use the question against Sanders. Your hypothetical suggestion is plainly unsupported by the facts. Let me just quote the objectionable e-mail:

> It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.

That is clearly saying that knowledge that Sanders is an atheist would hurt him in KY and WVA (by the way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WVA). It is also implying that someone should directly ask him so he can't "skate by".

3) civil service jobs are not supposed to involve discrimination based on religious preferences and attempts to exploit bigotry by national political organizations is deeply unethical.

Actually, I was referring more to the recipient side, not the LinkedIn user side.

I don't really see a big difference between someone selling their personal address book to LinkedIn and someone supplying it automatically. In both instances, both parties benefit (the user with connections or money, and LinkedIn with new user leads), and the recipients end up with unsolicited email.

Using an address book to locate existing users and present them an option to connect is one thing. Using that address book to market to unknown people through their email addresses is clearly spam.

I would really prefer to avoid a 4-year object lesson of that sort. Not saying Hillary will be a good president, but she won't be as bad as him. At least it buys us 4 more years of (roughly) status quo and maybe the disintegration of the Republican party. Which, IMO, would be an objective good thing (same with the Democratic party). Restructured, in 4-8 years with 2-3 viable future parties forming we may have some that exhibit saner political stances.