Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



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

Comment Re:Donald Trump: Clown Gladiator (Score 1) 400

And what exactly makes Nikki Haley qualified to be UN Ambassador?

It makes her not governor of South Carolina for a start. The current Lieutenant Governor is a big Trump supporter. Haley is not. He kicked her upstairs to a job no one gives a fuck about. Would be interesting to know if Trump plans on withdrawing us from the UN after he takes office.

Comment Re:HAHAHAH (Score 1) 667

You have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

8 USC 1182(f)

“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants”

Comment Re:HAHAHAH (Score 1) 667

Finally - this is all academic since Trump can't pass any of those laws and if he did the supreme court - no matter how stacked - WILL throw it out since it would be unconstitutional. The constitution clearly states that immigration laws cannot violate any other constitutional right.

Given that that's exactly the law we had prior to 1965's Hart-Celler act, it's certainly not unconstitutional! And foreigners not resident in the US don't have constitutional rights. For immigration, the law can discriminate any damn way we want it to.

Comment Re:HAHAHAH (Score 1) 667

No, I don't need to petition to send the statue back to France. The statue was built in 1886. The plaque was presented by friends of Emma Lazarus in 1903. They have nothing to do with each other.

And since when do we legislate policy by hanging inspirational plaques on statues, anyway? What part of the constitution does that fall under?

Comment Re:Five stages of grief (Score 3, Insightful) 286

What makes you assume that if we went by the popular vote we would have had the same vote totals? You change the method of elections, you also change the incentives of the voters and the candidates. With the electoral collage, what reason would a Republican voter in California even have to bother showing up at the polls? (Also true for Illinois, New England, New York, etc.) You switch to a popular vote, and suddenly Republicans in those states have a lot of incentive to vote! Not enough to flip the states, but if you're counting the national total, but quite possibly enough to overcome Hilldog's popular lead, which primarily came from California.

If you discount California, in the remaining states Trump won the popular vote by almost 2 million. Perhaps we should just let California decide who the president should be?

You've also changed the incentives for the candidates. Trump didn't spend a nickel or a minute in California. Do you think he would have ignored it if he knew that votes for him there would actually count for him?

Let's also keep in mind that "state" is not a synonym for "provence". Technically, the US is a federation, much as the EU is. The states are limited sovereigns. I'll buy that the US should decide national offices by popular vote when you can convince the EU to do the same. Good luck with that!

The whinging about "It's not fair! We was robbed!" Every time a Democrat looses an election is getting pretty tiresome.

Slashdot Top Deals

"There is nothing new under the sun, but there are lots of old things we don't know yet." -Ambrose Bierce

Working...