Journal damn_registrars's Journal: DrudgeDot Rides Again 26
We had some solid reality-stomping conservative nuttery on the front page here just yesterday, yet it only pulled in 590 comments (as of my writing this JE). I'm surprised there wasn't more circle-jerk action going on over that. While Trump doesn't exactly have hte slashdot base whipped up in a frenzy the way that had core fascists like Ron Paul routinely would, there is no doubt that the majority of slashdot commenters will happily parade to the polls to vote for Trump.
Reading through the comments, one commenter pointed out a pretty significant reason to doubt the survey entirely:
Reading through the comments, one commenter pointed out a pretty significant reason to doubt the survey entirely:
"The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is a politically conservative non-profit association founded in 1943 to "fight socialized medicine and to fight the government takeover of medicine"
Which matches The wikipedia entry on the same group that orchestrated this "survey"
*sigh* You should be happy with him (Score:1)
He has corralled more money [slashdot.org] into the democratic party than their own candidates ever could without him. Jeeze! Can he help it if he wins votes also? It's not just him. Right wing nationalism is nostalgically spreading all over Europe too. The phenomenon is global. Coattails, baby...
This is what the democrat voters get for putting up such weak, even false "opposition". Bunch of sheepish stomach churning weak kneed pansies they are. The facade of liberalism is so very transparent. That became more than obviou
Re: (Score:2)
This is what the democrat voters get for putting up such weak, even false "opposition".
You're half right, there. Both the GOP and the democrats put up awful candidates, almost as if neither party actually wanted to win the white house in 2016. Either one of them could be defeated by any random person of the other party, or a ficus tree, or an inanimate carbon rod. What happens then when they run against each other? It's almost worse than the lesser of two evils in some ways; it is an election where the voter can only lose. Unfortunately when you have to chose how badly to lose, you have
Re: (Score:1)
Fear sells. This shouldn't surprise us at all. This has been a huge part of the GOP platform for a long time.
Oh please! You're still playing their partisan charade. What do you think is driving all that money into democrat coffers? Fear of that man has completely obliterated both party platforms, in fact it is the platform, of the democrats, not the GOP. And this "lesser evil" gag, when will you all give it a rest? That is exactly what gave us these two candidates to begin with. I apologize in advance for b
Re: (Score:2)
Fear of that man has completely obliterated both party platforms,
You may have almost - presumably only by accident - made a point, there. Granted, if that point pans out and history taught us anything then Drumpf will end up winning and we will catapault hopelessly into WWIII. The only question will be who will the enemy be, as Drumpf is known to be a big fan of Putin. Will he call in a strike on Italy in the name of controlling their immigrant problem (after all, Italy can't really build a wall)? Or perhaps invade Norway in the interest of claiming their fjords? O
Re: (Score:1)
Don't blame anybody or anything else.
The third parties themselves are partially culpable. I watched the CNN townhalls of both Gary Johnson (and his frumpy Massachusetts Liberal running mate) and Jill Stein (and her angry Black man running mate). He's a fruitcake and she's a commie. The laughable choices we have this election are not just between the candidates of the two major parties; it includes the alternatives. (Now whatever happened to the Constitution Party...)
Re: (Score:1)
He's a fruitcake and she's a commie.
Damn! And you still wonder why I apply inverse Poe's Law to your comments? No, the candidates are not culpable. Like the two majors, they are all still the "peoples" choice, and it doesn't help the cause for majority rule. I am becoming more convinced than ever that we have to make all three branches a short term of conscripted public service, decided by a lottery. People that want the job should be summarily disqualified. It is the only way to weed out the sociopaths and
Re: (Score:1)
Settle down Beavis, I'm in agreement with you, on taking the idea of jury duty and extending it to governance. As the late John McLaughlin would say, you've lurched uncontrollably into the truth, on this one.
And Liberal/Conservative/Left/Right is just convention. They're just convenient ways of referring to packages of political positions. They're not precise (as evidenced by your deviation from the Left-wing party line on this one), but they suffice. It's no more "bullshit" than using Christian/atheist
Re: (Score:1)
Left-wing party line
"Lefties" are all about removing authority, not taking it. That's why you will never find one in a position of power except to dismantle it. Read the manifesto. Spoiler alert: the state withers away and dies in the end. That is the "lefty" ideal, and it's also why they don't exist in real life, because of the corrosive nature of power once it is obtained, all part of our animal heritage. Only the right
Re: (Score:1)
So your hangup is two-fold, I see:
1) You define Left/Right narrowly and hyper-simply as just ends on an authoritarian scale*.
2) You've got your butt scrunched way down on desperately clinging to this meaning, that no one else on the planet uses.
Let it go, man. Let it go.
*BTW, as you might remember, I (and everyone else in the U.S. at least) define Left/Right oppositely of you on the authoritarian scale. Right-wingers are anti-government to varying extents, Left-wingers the opposite. Deal with it. That fe
Re: (Score:2)
Right-wingers are anti-government to varying extents,
The right-wingers who have made it to 1600 Pennsylvania in the past few decades have most certainly not been anti-government. In fact both Bushes have been recipients of pretty huge government paychecks and handouts throughout their lives, Reagan as well. The Republicans who have failed to win the white house have arguably pulled in even bigger gifts from Washington - and Drumpf is practically a poster child of corporate welfare. And if you want to talk about the "small government" candidates that are s
Re: (Score:1)
The right-wingers who have made it to 1600 Pennsylvania
See fusta's comment about a lottery. The Bushes are moderate Republicans. Jr. was socially Conservative, but fiscally moderate. Govt. spending on the military is known to be Right-wing, despite it being more govt. spending.
I don't know if you are the same person who used to be "Bill Dog" here - I suspect not
I doubt that. I'm the same BD, just the opposite of a kinder, gentler BD. And I understand the argument that more govt. involvement in our lives can create more freedoms for some/most. It's just that it's trade-off, like everything, sacrificing some freedom for others. Right-winger
Re: (Score:2)
It's just that it's trade-off, like everything, sacrificing some freedom for others
Except that the biggest ones do not cause anyone to sacrifice any freedoms.
Universal health care does not cost any freedoms. The overwhelming majority of people will find they finish the year with more take-home pay, not less. Those who feel they need to be able to buy fancier coverage for some reason would still be able to buy additional insurance in this country (only because the politicians wouldn't allow it any other way). But the people who are most abused by the industry would be able to go to
Re: (Score:1)
Except that the biggest ones do not cause anyone to sacrifice any freedoms.
Your paragraphs don't support this thesis statement of your comment. You only said how great more socialism would be. In fact, you admitted a sacrifice in your third sentence that you said there wouldn't be any of in your first and second sentences. The more money the government takes from me and gives to you, the more freedom you have to do things with now having more money, and the less freedom I have to do things with my now lesser amount of money. Ergo, it's a trade-off.
Re: (Score:2)
The more money the government takes from me and gives to you
That is where you have it wrong. The government is not taking more money from you in this situation, in fact they are taking less money from you. When people have adequate education to hold decent jobs, crime goes down and tax revenues come up. If you don't like welfare, you should be in favor of funding for public education. If you think we spend too much on incarceration, you should be in favor of increasing funding and availability of public education. Similarly, if single payer healthcare existed
Re: (Score:1)
When people have adequate education to hold decent jobs
Except I don't believe that's where the bottleneck is. I think Americans are over-skilled for the kinds and numbers of jobs a Free Trade global economy allows for there to be in this country.
If you think we spend too much on incarceration
I think we spend too little. Send drug users who aren't dealers to rehab, for the rest reinstate the Three Strikes law. If some people are just going to make trouble, then just keep them there.
a colossal rip-off (indeed, Ponzi scheme) the for-profit insurance industry is
Isn't then *every* for-profit industry a "rip-off"?
Righties would call every government service a rip-off then, in the sense
Re: (Score:2)
When people have adequate education to hold decent jobs
Except I don't believe that's where the bottleneck is. I think Americans are over-skilled for the kinds and numbers of jobs a Free Trade global economy allows for there to be in this country.
Really? Maybe you live in a part of the country with a vastly different economy than where I live. Here where I live I can name easily half a dozen machine shops that can't hire competent full time machinists quickly enough to keep up with demand. They've all tried training machinist on-the-job and they all find the same thing, the base knowledge just doesn't sink in well that way - the machinists almost without exception need some formal education beyond high school.
And that is just one example. A
Re: (Score:1)
Words change meaning on occasion.
Yes, you are proof of that. You sound like Bill O'Reilly pretending he's Glenn Beck pretending he's Bill Buckley (very poorly, I might add). You're just following the latest TV fads. That's your "here and now". To me it will always be nothing but shtick.
Right-wingers are anti-government...
Some of us find it very easy to recognize the conservatism of the democratic party with Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, and yes, even Obam
Re: (Score:1)
You need to admit, your sig kinda gives you away
Obviously my sig is for the purpose of mocking you and your general political kind, for the utter absurdity you people engage in.
Anyway, you [and everyone else] have so backwards
FTFY.
I shall indeed "let it go"...
For now, maybe. But ultimately, I don't think you can. It's a mission for you. It's got to be so frustrating. Why can't the rest of the world just use your definitions of things.
Re: (Score:1)
Like I said, you are most obtuse, with that big red nose of yours. And you are probably right, I will continue to comment on the shtick. Until you let go, you will never understand. I'm fine being in the tiny minority in the meantime. The only people that can see outside the herd are those on the fringes, but I understand the feeling of security staying safely in the middle. Don't want to risk that, do we? After all, that is the purpose of a tight formation. Just don't act all surprised when it leads you ov
Re: (Score:1)
I can't fight society. I try. I resisted giving up my VCR for a DVR, my flip-phone for a smartphone, no cellular bill for a cell phone. I was the last person I know to make these transitions, including getting an answering machine before that. But at some point, as civilization moves on, you end up looking too odd. So far I'm still holding up against joining Facebook and Twitter and Linkedin et al. But as "normalcy" moves farther away from me, I feel pressured to cave in a little, just to not be too o
Re: (Score:2)
In what way?
Re: (Score:1)
By using his name as a deflector shield should any criticism pop up. Ms. Hillary and most of the other democrats cannot not be challenged on anything without them mentioning *beetlejuice*.
You have a point, ... (Score:1)
... that this was a partisan, probably biased survey, and /. editors are too happy for clickbait on the front page to lift a finger to look into whether something might be suspect.
On the other hand, what are you implying should be done with this information, if the editors did check things out. Look at the submitter's past comments to see if they are Conservative or libertarian? A litmus test to keep Slashdot ideologically pure Left? Or where should they draw the line on "how suspect" something is? If i
Re: (Score:2)
And yet a day later Clinton has pneumonia (Score:2)
Sometimes the crazies accidentally get it right. Her health is a concern. A concussion with admitted memory loss is only one issue. If it gets worse they're going to have to ask voters to write in Bernie.
Re: (Score:2)