Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:Remember when journalists dug for the truth? (Score 1) 176

But do remember that saying "it breaks the intent of the law" isn't the same as saying "it breaks the law". And the problem with "intent" is that it's no explicitly demonstrable. It like handwaving during a mathematical proof. Perhaps the step is justified and perhaps it isn't. I wasn't there when they passed the law, so for me to claim to know their intent would be inaccurate, but I'm cynical enough to suspect that many who helped write the law were aware of precisely this loophole, and if that were true, would using it really be against the intent?

If you were claiming that doing this was unethical I'd have no problem. Laws, however, *should* be explicit. Of course they should also be readily understandable, and there shouldn't be so many of them that nobody could reasonably be expected to know them all. There are lots of valid criticisms of both the system and of Hillary, but this doesn't sound like one of them...not as a legal point.

Comment Re:I think it's pretty obvious (Score 1) 160

I was claiming precisely the opposite of "Europe has a FULLER political spectrum.", so no, your response doesn't satisfy me.

Now as for your claim that "pretty much all of them represented in power in one country or another", I've got to give you that. I'm not certain that it's true, but it looks a lot truer than a similar claim made about the US. Partially this is because the US really *is* one country, and the EU isn't. But I'm not really sure that's much of an advantage either way.

Comment Re:Remember when journalists dug for the truth? (Score 1) 176

You don't understand the degrees of right-wingness. I think of Hillary as right wing, but among US politicians she's rather centrist.

Your point about the, neutrality, of the media is, however, quite valid. What people don't seem to understand is that the reporters tend to be leftists, but the editors tend to be slightly right wing, and *their* policies are controlled by the owners to tend to be much more right wing. This produces a stream of news with a variety of different spins applied to the politics, and every single one of those spins is designed to make the stories more "news worthy".

This compounding of distortions of the news generally makes the news less reliable than a magic eight-ball...but a lot more spectacular and specific.

Comment Re:Remember when journalists dug for the truth? (Score 1) 176

I'm not sure that either counts as a traitor by the definition given in the constitution. Neither, however, seems particularly concerned with honesty, honor, or trustworthiness. Or adhering to their oaths of office.

They have probably both committed major felonies, but neither seems likely to be prosecuted for it. (Clearly inviting a major foreign power to intervene in our elections should be a major crime, but I'm not certain that it is, and, IIUC, it would only be treason if we had declared war against them or they had and invasive army on US ground.)

Comment Re:Remember when journalists dug for the truth? (Score 1) 176

From your explanation is sounds like she carefully didn't break the law, but rather exploited flaws in it. I may not be understanding this correctly, though, and yesterday a less explicit post *did* claim that documents in the Wikileaks release *did* show she broke the law. You have caused me to wonder whether that poster was just confused rather than either accurate or lying.

(I'll admit I didn't follow your link. This isn't something that's going to change either how I vote or how I feel about her, but perhaps you could rethink either your explanation or your opinion.)

Comment Re:Better idea (Score 1) 176

But only anonymously, which means you don't allow small numbers of votes to be reported. Only aggregates.

For that matter, I'd be in favor of paper ballots being the official vote, but electronic counts (possibly via a scanner system) being used to collect "exit polls". And interview based exit polls by an independent party being used to validate the official exit polls.

Comment Re:Better idea (Score 1) 176

No conspiracies are *needed*. I'll agree with that. But there are existing conspiracies that would quickly take advantage of the increased scope for their exercise. Two of the conspiracies exist within the Democratic and the Republican parties, but I have no reason to believe there aren't others.

Comment Re:Better idea (Score 1) 176

Sharpies are definitely better. Even better would be Bingo Markers (easier to put a big dot of ink in the right place.)

I *think* the GPs suggestion of No. 2 pencils was a joke. Those are definitely erasable, though there is usually a mark left even if you use an art-gum eraser followed by an India-rubber eraser.

Comment Re:I find it very hard to believe (Score 1) 160

You're confusing knowledge with ethics. He's following the rule "If I can do this without penalties exceeding the gain I hope to get...".

I hate feeling this way about the government I was raised to trust and honor....but it's been downhill ever since Kennedy. (Kennedy was no plaster saint, but he did seem to *try* to run an honorable, if not honest, government.) Well, OK, Carter tried to be honest and honorable too. He was just less successful.

Comment Re:I think it's pretty obvious (Score 1) 160

Hillary appears to be a statist-centralist, i.e. one who believe in increasing the power of the central government (i.e., state meaning nation).
Trump appears to be an ego maniacal dictator worshiper, who hopes to mold himself into his hero.

Neither one appears to be a reasonable choice, but were I to choose between them I would pick Hillary, as being less likely to start a mega-war. There is little fainter praise than saying that someone appears to be better than Trump.

As it is, I live in a blue state, so I'll probably vote for Jill Stein. Unless Hillary comes out *convincingly* against the TPP. A promise to "see a bill introduced" doesn't count as convincing. She doesn't even need to be lying for that to be worthless.

Comment Re:I think it's pretty obvious (Score 1) 160

NOBODY has the full political spectrum...in power. Among those out of power the US has everything from Anarchists to Totalitarians, and from Religio-Communists to monopolists. Come up with another axis and we probably have those, too.

Among those in power I believe that the EU has those further to the "left" (to use a term from the French Revolution) and the US has those further to the "right", with a nearly bell curve spread within the extremes.

Left and right are, of course, stupid linearizations of the actual political stances, but they are the idiocy on which most political thinking seems to be done. The stupidity is on a par with thinking that Trump represents the "little people", but it makes for quick sound bites and easy snap judgments.

Slashdot Top Deals

Backed up the system lately?

Working...