Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



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

Comment Re:Not Surprising (Score 1) 190

Because if there's no direct control Trump seems to have some kind of weird hero-worship thing going on for Putin.

Trump will say nice things about anyone who says nice things about him, and will shit on anyone who shits on him. Putin says nice things about Trump, so Trump says nice things about Putin.

Also, Trump respects Putin because unlike most every other western world leader, Putin doesn't shit on his own people. Yes, Putin's first priority is Putin, but he at least tries to keep the Russian people from wanting to kill themselves. Russians want families and a future, so Putin promotes the Orthodox Church and Russians get married and make baby Russians. They don't want to get blown up by terrorists, so Putin slaughters any muslims who try to start shit in Russia, and doesn't take in "refugees." Compare to Merkel, who floods her country with violent savages who rape the German women and then persecutes anyone who says "maybe less violent savages?" for hate speech.

That is why Trump respects Putin, because under him Russia has a future, and western europe does not, and Trump believed under our old leadership America had no future, but under him it will. Oh, and I'm not trying to convince you America will have a better future under Trump, I'm telling you Trump believes America will have a future under him.

Comment Re:Down with Putin - Down with Trump (Score 1) 190

Yes, and the stupid analysis thing that "Trump would be twice as rich if he invested the inheritance in mutual funds" is not the article you posted, and the article you posted doesn't make any claim that Trump would be twice as rich if he invested the money. The "twice as rich" analysis assumes he took the $400 million he got in 1999 when Fred died, translated that into $400 million 1971 dollars and invested them with perfect market timing in 1971. Without a time machine, he would be unable to move the $400 million from 1999 to 1971.

Let me guess...Trump got a time machine from Putin, who can also hack time!

Comment Re: Trump is worse (Score 1) 190

So if China says to Trump "if you support our claims in the South China Sea and Taiwan, we will invest $10 billion to build and develop several new Trump hotels in China", then not only are you saying that is OK, but you're also saying that the people who wrote the Constitution didn't have that kind of thing in mind when they wrote the clause.

And nothing like that is happening. Trump has given control of the company to his kids, and Trump has pledged no new foreign investments during his 8 years in office. Trump has also pledged to donate all foreign profits to the US Treasury.

Also that's not even the "emoluments clause" meme that's been floating around the leftist circlejerks. They've been saying foreigners staying at a Trump hotel are giving him emoluments, when no, that is a fee for service. None of the presidents who owned plantations were required to give up their plantations and not sell their harvests during their term in office. The Founders believed the government should be run by regular citizens, and would never dream that business owners should have to sell off their businesses in order to serve as president.

Comment Re:Down with Putin - Down with Trump (Score 4, Informative) 190

If he had left his inheritance alone, he would be twice as wealthy as he claims to be now.

You're still repeating this crap? Fred Trump didn't die until 1999. The "analysis" you're talking about assumes Donald got Fred's 1999 fortune in the 1970s. Unless Trump also has a time machine, that doesn't work out.

Comment Re: Trump is worse (Score 1) 190

You are delusional. You're the same nutjobs who were saying "Trump's going to quit any day now he just wanted more advertising for his TV show!!" for a year. You think he's going to quit now? Hell no.

And the "emoluments clause" is yet another pipe dream like "faithless electors" from people who don't understand the Constitution or the political system. Fees for service are not emoluments.

Comment Re:Down with Putin - Down with Trump (Score 4, Insightful) 190

How could they "release it all in the beginning?" How are they supposed to release emails about how Hillary got the debate questions in advance from CNN in March 2016 when the primary season started in summer 2015? Did the Russians hack time, too? Why the fuck not apparently they've hacked everything else.

Comment Re:wake me up when elon musk announces this (Score 1) 138

Well from the article, "they" being Republicans, don't give a shit. The article is about one fabricated online journalist from someone with a grudge against Musk, who appears to be trying to shill to get Republicans to oppose Musk, but I've seen no evidence it's worked. I am a Republican and general right-wing nutjob and on all my right wing blogs/sites/forums etc I don't think I've ever seen any significant negative sentiment towards Musk. If I had to gauge the general opinion of Musk among conservatives/Republicans, it would be "neutral to positive." The only negative things I've ever seen are some sidelong glances from staunch libertarians because subsidies, but since Elon has been so successful at making so many things profitable in the long run that argument has little traction.

So I would say the idea that Musk is a "target of the Republican party" is pretty much false.

Comment Re:fake news from cnn (Score 1) 190

And there is no way in hell Russia will ever release Snowden. They have coerced him for example to "call" into the Putin's Propaganda hour show (either that or Snowden is really really naive). The Russians will not release Snowden so he can talk about his treatment or detail what he released to the Russians. They have absolutely nothing to gain.

Comment Re:Strange Logic (Score 1) 190

Snowden was very careful about how he released material not to get people hurt, the information he released was relevant and sincere whistle-blowing, not just random data dumps from sensitive sources.

Not all of it, though. I appreciated the stuff about the government illegally spying on US citizens. But Snowden also revealed stuff about spying on foreign citizens and governments that's perfectly within the purview of our intelligence agencies.

Also we have no idea what else he gave Greenwald. For all we know you pardon Snowden today and then tomorrow Glen says "oh by the way here's the US nuclear launch codes Ed gave me." (obvious hyperbole but you get the idea).

Manning is similar. You say "no greater purpose in mind." Not true. He (don't give me any shit about pronouns, I'm playing by the right snowflake rules, referring to Manning as "he" for actions done when he was Bradley, not Chelsea) was very upset by stuff he was seeing that he thought we were war crimes. If you read the chat logs between him and Assange his thought process was basically "I'm really bothered by a lot of this stuff and the public should know also look what I can do pay attention to meeeeeeeeee!"

Slashdot Top Deals

We all like praise, but a hike in our pay is the best kind of ways.

Working...