Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Cui Bono? (Score 1) 147

At worst Clinton represents much the same course in international affairs as has been going on for eight years. It's hardly dangerous, and Clinton would hardly be the first president to have a policy of containing Russia. In fact, that's been general US policy, save for about fifteen years after the collapse of the USSR, since the end of the Second World War.

Comment Re:"Tacit approval"? My nose! (Score 0) 170

Cherry picked and quote mined parts of vast document dumps are not reliable. We've been down this road with Climategate. You can literally make any text say anything providing you 1. freely mine it for quotes and 2. rely on those who share your prejudices won't fact check your quote mines.

Comment Re:YEEE-HAW! (Score 2, Interesting) 170

There's a certain kind of conservative, and even some Libertarians, who seem to have an unhealthy admiration for autocrats, at least when they believe said autocrats would remake society in a way they approve of. I imagine there are people on the Left of similar temperament, but in general, I find this "strong man" fetishism to be a right wing/Libertarian phenomena. I once had a very hard right social conservative telling me how what the West needs is a few Francisco Francos to set things right, and in general seemed to have considerable disdain for democracy, or at least democracy with a universal franchise.

Comment Re:Cui Bono? (Score 1) 147

Jesus Christ, "voter intimidation" now? Does the hyperbole ever end?

Face it, your candidate played the buffoon. More than likely he was playing you, but if you want to keep blaming the victor for the loser's real or self-contrived inadequacies, that is your problem. Voters have more than once in the history of democracy been faced with the choice between a flawed candidate and a dangerous one, and in most cases they will pick the flawed one. On the few occasions that a dangerous one has been chosen, it hasn't gone so well.

As to Wikileaks, even you can only make it interesting by exaggeration, which should tell you why it isn't making much impact. But go on, blame the voters, blame the press, blame some evil secret cabal, but under no circumstances ever blame Republican voters for picking probably one of the worst big ticket candidates in US history.

Slashdot Top Deals

How come everyone's going so slow if it's called rush hour?