Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



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

Comment Re:Russia, DNC, and NATO (Score 1) 341

He gave another speech that day where the doors were open to admit hundreds of mouth breathers into a crowded ballroom. Trump got hot and sweaty, decided the HVAC wasn't working, and threatened not to pay the hotel.

Why would any country accede to this guy's demands when he always finds a way to renege on his promises?

Comment Russia, DNC, and NATO (Score 3, Interesting) 341

I rifled through the emails eagerly looking for stuff, but I was disappointed- I couldn't find anything except suspicious use of pronouns (we/us vs they/them). It was all fluffing up of bland talking points. These clowns couldn't rig an election if their life depended on it.

And I also said that they shouldn't be claiming their emails are hacked by Russians, after all we've been hearing about hacked emails for the past year. They may be telling the truth, but making the argument at all is bad optics.

But then I hear this from Trump yesterday, clarifying his previous statements on NATO, which makes the Russian involvement seem more suspicious:

NATO. They ask me about NATO. Right? You saw that the other day, Meet the Press.

"Well, I hear you want to give up NATO..." I don't want to give up NATO. I like... NATO's fine. But they gotta pay. They gotta pay.

So we have all of these countries, and they're not paying. They're not paying. And we're protecting them.

And the question is: "If such-and-such a country were attacked, are you willing to start World War 3?" Because that's essentially what's happening. They don't pay.

They say, "Well, we have a treaty!" So they have these articles: "Donald Trump wants to give up NATO." No no no. I don't want to give up anything. I want them to pay.

We're a country. It's not 40 years ago, 50 years ago. And now, most people in this audience don't even know, that we're protecting Japan, China, we're protecting Germany! Nothing but money.

We're protecting Saudi Arabia. If we weren't around, Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia wouldn't be around for two weeks. We protect Saudi Arabia. They don't pay us what that should be paying. We're losing everything. Folks, we lose on everything.

We protect South Korea. We have 28,000 soldiers on the line, against the maniac on the right. We have 28,000 soldiers against North Korea, separated. Pretty dangerous stuff, considering he's got a million-person army. Pretty dangerous stuff.

So we're doing all this, and yet they're paying us a fraction of what it is.

I saw it with Japan. And by the way, I think it's fine- but they've got to pay us. We don't have the money. They gotta pay us. And they will pay us if the right person asks. If the right person asks. They will. They will.

Do you have any idea the difference that makes for our country if we get countries to take care of us the way they should.

We had a general recently, because we've been doing this, and he said, "Mr. Trump doesn't understand that Japan is paying almost 50 percent of the cost of what we do for them." And I said, why not 100 percent? Why? Tell me why. Tell me why.

Folks, we're run by incompetent people and it's going to end. And it's going to end soon. Because people aren't taking it anymore.

Now, when I talk about we're going to protect Japan, which is great, now, you always have to be prepared to walk. And I said, in one of the articles, they said, "Now what would happen if they didn't pay." I said, âoeWe have to walk."

Hillary Clinton said, "He wants to walk from Japan!" Now, see, what she did, she makes it impossible to negotiate. She's not a negotiator. She's a fool. She's a fool. No, she's a fool.

Because when you tell Japan- very smart people, great people, I have many friends there- but when you say you're not prepared to walk, you'll never walk? So she said, "How dare he say that! We will never walk!"

Then they're never going to pay us. We may have to walk! Folks, we may have to walk.

But- the same thing with Germany. We're spending a fortune in Germany. Same thing with Saudi Arabia. Let me tell you. Saudi Arabia? So we'll say this: "Folks, you gotta pay us. You gotta pay us. Sorry."

They're gonna say no. Bye-bye! Within two days, they're calling back, "Get back over here, we'll pay you whatever the hell you want."

OK? One hundred percent.

But when we have a fool- when we have a fool- an absolute fool like Hillary Clinton, saying, "we will never abandon, we will never leave"- they're not going to pay. And we don't have the money to take care of every nation in the world.

We don't have the money. And the same thing with the NATO nations, and they'll pay and they'll all pay probably- and if they don't pay, you walk! And that's OK, too. That's the way it works, folks. That's the way it works.

WTF is going on here? Is this a prid quo pro?

Comment Re:Cheesy 80's movie excuse (Score 1) 759

You seem to miss that HRC is not the DNC. Why would the DNC having poor network security have anything to do with Clinton, or reflect on her at all? Because they're both from the same political party? What?

I agree that HRC != DNC (...sort of...) but that level of nuance is useless for damage control since the average voter will equate the two.

Comment Re:Cheesy 80's movie excuse (Score 4, Insightful) 759

The problem here is that anyone from Russia was able to read those emails at all.

I'm sure the Trump campaign is sloppy with email security as well. But nothing he writes (e.g. love letters to neo-Nazis) would surprise anyone at this point. The fact that HRC is already known for exercising poor network security has already compromised her campaign, and reminding people that "Russians love Trump and that's why they released my messages that they were able to access" is not a smart defense. (Neither is immediately hiring DWS upon her firing from the DNC and announcing that she "will continue to serve as a surrogate for my campaign nationally". The tone deafness here is astounding.)

Yes, the DNC email server contained no classified information. But don't keep reminding people that anyone in the world can read your email.

Comment Re: Really, this happens in America? How?? (Score 1) 180

Proposition 13 froze the property tax rates of all homeowners in the 70s, and leaves them uncorrected for inflation. It basically creates a landed gentry, where you move in and pay the property taxes of your neighbors. I was angry about it and refused to buy a house in California, which turned out to be a good decision. I used to have a "repeal Prop 13" bumper sticker for a while, but when I would leave the car parked, people kept keying the car all round the front and back and ripping or tearing off the sticker.

Comment Re:Exactly why is this newsworthy? (Score 1) 268

Wow. A human being, in a free country with free speech, is going to speak at a public event. *Why* is this news?

It's news because so few human beings want to speak at this event. They're having trouble finding people willing to show up.

Sarah Palin is staying home. Ted Nugent has turned down invitations to appear. Lynyrd Skynyrd and Kid Rock are going to be in Cleveland but are "too busy". They almost snagged Mike Ditka but he chickened out. A spokesman for Ben Sasse from Nebraska announced "Sen. Sasse will not be attending the convention and will instead take his kids to watch some dumpster fires across the state."

The glory days of Clint Eastwood yelling at an empty chair are long gone- he isn't going either.

Comment Re:This is largely a myth (Score 1) 268

Hillary is a lot like JavaScript- you hate her, you love to complain about her, but you have to go with her because there really is no other option, at least not in the near future.

Bernie Sanders drew in two separate contingents of people who dislike HRC: Liberals who consider Hillary to be too conservative, vs. conservatives who couldn't stomach any of the clownish GOP candidates and who saw Sanders as a lifeboat. The liberal faction will hold their noses and vote for Hillary, while the conservative faction will hold theirs and vote for Trump. Sanders was a much more viable candidate, and did better than Hillary in every general election matchup poll, simply because he was able to siphon away a lot of voters from Trump.

Hillary strikes people as dishonest and disingenuous partly because everything she says sounds like it went through a committee. (Meanwhile Trump is tweeting in his underwear.) She likes insipid platitudes: "We're problem solvers, not deniers." "We don't hide from change, we harness it." "We can reform our government and revitalize our democracy so that it works for everyday Americans." etc. etc. etc. It sounds out-of-touch- she hasn't realized that people are sick of politicians always saying shit like that.

But the scandals associated with her are as boring as she is. They only gain traction because she doesn't know how to handle scandals. It's infuriating to watch her keep trying to sweep stupid little stuff under the rug even as it's being pulled away from her. Instead of handling things during one news cycle, she cops to things bit by bit by bit by bit... giving her detractors a prolonged orgasm.

Four Americans died in the Benghazi embassy attack- but let's get some perspective here. During the GWB administration, 60 people were killed in 13 embassy attacks. (All those attacks were one-day stories- since back then, nobody wanted to "politicize a tragedy".) The Benghazi investigations did uncover Hillary's email scandal- but seriously, why are we surprised that a 65 year old woman who still uses a Blackberry doesn't understand how to use email?

In 2007 the investigation of the U.S. Attorney firing scandal ground to a halt once it turned out that the GWB administration had conveniently "lost" five million emails relating to it, in violation of federal law. That's five million, with an "M", about a thousand times as many that were lost by Hillary. But that was also a one-day story- the Bush administration defused its scandals deftly.

People characterize Hillary's email ineptitude as reflecting poorly on her lack of judgment, and there's something to that. But she's running against a guy who just released a campaign logo showing the letters "T" and "P" having anal sex. At least the "T" was the one doing the pitching, not the catching, but it still shows a lack of judgement on his part as well.

Both of these two are narcissists. But they're different flavors of narcissism. She's opportunistic and careerist. But Trump has narcissistic personality disorder which is much more serious. All he talks about is Donald Trump, all his stories involve Donald Trump, and his press conferences are 100% about who is and isn't saying nice things about Donald Trump. He refers to himself in the third person. That's a big red flag right there.

Comment Does this sound like anyone we know? (Score 2) 268

This is from DSM-V:

The essential features of a personality disorder are impairments in personality (self and interpersonal) functioning and the presence of pathological personality traits. To diagnose narcissistic personality disorder, the following criteria must be met:

  • A. Significant impairments in personality functioning manifest by:
    • 1. Impairments in self functioning (a or b):
      • a. Identity: Excessive reference to others for self-definition and self-esteem regulation; exaggerated self-appraisal may be inflated or deflated, or vacillate between extremes; emotional regulation mirrors fluctuations in self-esteem.
      • b. Self-direction: Goal-setting is based on gaining approval from others; personal standards are unreasonably high in order to see oneself as exceptional, or too low based on a sense of entitlement; often unaware of own motivations.

    AND

    • 2. Impairments in interpersonal functioning (a or b):
      • a. Empathy: Impaired ability to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others; excessively attuned to reactions of others, but only if perceived as relevant to self; over- or underestimate of own effect on others.
      • b. Intimacy: Relationships largely superficial and exist to serve self-esteem regulation; mutuality constrained by little genuine interest in others' experiences and predominance of a need for personal gain.
  • B. Pathological personality traits in the following domain:
    • 1. Antagonism, characterized by:
      • a. Grandiosity: Feelings of entitlement, either overt or covert; self-centeredness; firmly holding to the belief that one is better than others; condescending toward others.
      • b. Attention seeking: Excessive attempts to attract and be the focus of the attention of others; admiration seeking.
  • C. The impairments in personality functioning and the individual's personality trait expression are relatively stable across time and consistent across situations.
  • D. The impairments in personality functioning and the individual's personality trait expression are not better understood as normative for the individual's developmental stage or socio-cultural environment.
  • E. The impairments in personality functioning and the individual's personality trait expression are not solely due to the direct physiological effects of a substance (e.g., a drug of abuse, medication) or a general medical condition (e.g., severe head trauma).

Tell me that doesn't send shivers down your spine.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Love may fail, but courtesy will previal." -- A Kurt Vonnegut fan

Working...