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


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

Comment Re:Since neither is getting elected (Score 1) 247

End the First Amendment? WTF are you smoking?

The "two party system" that the GP wants to destroy (that's his word) only exists because the First Amendment protects our rights to assemble - you know, into groups like political parties - and then do things like collectively express their political opinions, put forth candidates, etc. How do you intend to destroy those groups without destroying the fundamental thing that protects their right to exist, keeping assembly and speech destroyers from doing just that?

Comment Re:Since neither is getting elected (Score 1) 247

the first-past-the-post Presidency

Another thing that is NOT established by the constitution. We are a republic, with great deference given to the individual states. The constitution leaves it up to each state to decide how they will choose their electors in the presidential election. If you don't like how your state does it, work on your state legislators. If you don't like how another state does it, move to that state and work on the legislature there.

Comment Re:Timing (Score 1) 164

Doesn't matter. Hillary has the majority of the people, and come November, she will be winning not just the Oval Office, but both sides of Congress. Once the Bernie supporters realized they have to side with her (only fair play, as the Hillary supporters went with Obama), there is no way she cannot win the White House, as the RNC was not even covered by mainstream media for the most part, while the DNC is covered 24/7.

Hey, look! A Shillary in its natural habitat ... anonymous and cowardly.

Comment Re:Scathing (Score 2, Insightful) 164

That is some fantastic fantasy trolling there, with some great riffing on the sort of irrational stuff that comes right out of those people we see sobbing tears of cultish joy in the audience at the DNC. Well done! A fantastic simulation of everything that's wrong on the low-information, non-critical-thinking left. Bravo!

Comment Re:If I was President... (Or King!) (Score 1) 247

The idea that we put people into prison for being addicted to drugs is messed up...

Nobody is put into prison for being an addict. Nor is anybody put in prison for being an asshole. But we sure do put some of each into prison for the things they do. If you steal somebody else's stuff, it really doesn't matter if you did it because you're a drug addict or just a lazy asshole. If you are caught peddling heroin to kids, it doesn't matter if you did it because you're an addict or just an asshole.

Comment Re:Since neither is getting elected (Score -1, Troll) 247

So? I consider destruction of the two party system more important than voting for someone I dislike a little less.

And what was your plan, exactly? Are you calling for an end to the First Amendment? People shouldn't be allowed to assemble and express political preferences unless it's done the way you prefer? How would you enforce that, exactly? We don't have a "two party system," we have completely unlikable third parties who can't manage to understand why most people would never vote for them. "That they won't win" is certainly one issue, as people don't like to throw their votes away. But "these people are generally loons" is the more typical rationale. Parties that are absolutely obsessed about weed, or communism, or destroying intellectual property, or disarming the military, etc., don't fail because we have a "two party system," they fail because very few rational people would ever want to give such parties control of the government.

When the third parties stop being so fetishistic about their tiny number of pet issues, and start acting like they understand how many people they have to actually appeal to before they're given legislative and/or executive power, then you'll see a viable third party. But since the people who form and represent those parties DON'T WANT to appeal to most people, by definition, they're never going to get mainstream support. This really isn't very mysterious. You don't need to destroy something, you need to actually create something. How is that not obvious to you?

Comment Re:Since neither is getting elected (Score 1) 247

that's what Bernie Sanders did and he had a huge impact on the Democratic platform, including turning Clinton against the TPP

And what it is about that completely non-binding, strictly aspirational bit of fluff (The Platform) is it that you suppose will somehow alter a candidate's actual value system and the world view, principles, ethics, and policies that they hold dear? Why would you want to vote for someone whose value system is so fragile and so malleable that a party's choice to placate the noisy losing minority in their ranks would actually change the winning candidate's principles? Or are you saying that the Democrat winner doesn't really have any sort of solid value system, and is thus so easily manipulated? Yeah, THAT'S a ringing endorsement.

There are systems that support healthy and effective 3rd parties, the US is not one of them.

The US system is completely silent on the matter. The constitution has nothing whatsoever to say about how many political parties there are or should be. The only thing the constitution has to say on the matter is that your right to form a group and express your opinion shall not be infringed. The Democrat party is quite a bit newer than the Republican party, for example. For quite some time during the history of the country, neither party existed. And for quite some time, several other parties have existed and continue to. They're just doing everything they can to be annoying or offensive to a large majority of the voters, and thus never attract enough people to make them form up into a larger gathering, like the two bigger parties have. That's not because we have a "two party system," it's because we have completely unattractive third (and fourth, etc) parties.

Comment Re:Since neither is getting elected (Score 1) 247

They routinely pass law that violates the constitution

And in which suits have you participated, bringing those laws before a judge (or better, the Supreme Court as your way through things) in order to demonstrate this unconstitutionality?

There are plenty of people who go beyond armchair whining about it, on cases both local and federal. Recently: Heller, in DC, over unconstitutional infringement on the second amendment. Citizens United, on unconstitutional infringements on the first amendment. Judges listen, and throw out stuff that's plainly unconstitutional. In those two cases, you've got one party that's glad to see the results, and another party that wants to see more infringement. Now you know who to vote for.

Comment Re:Joke ? (Score 1) 1004


I like the way you specifically address the reports of her lying and corruption, and show how they're not true. A lot of media outlets need to go over your detailed material so they can retract all of those reports. The FBI, also, will appreciate your straightening out the 100+ investigators who clearly don't have your chops when it comes to all of the things they found her to be lying about. Really, give them a call! I'm sure they'd love to hear how they got it all wrong. They didn't find 3,000 more work-related emails that she deleted, no way. They didn't find dozens of threads/exchanges involving classified information - no sir! They were wrong, lawyers DID go over every single email, they were just dumb and couldn't understand them, right? And the FBI can't count. When Hillary says "one device," and the FBI says "multiple," that's just a misunderstand about the difference between "one" and "more than one." Have you considered a career in journalism?

Oh, right. I was thinking of another post. Yours is just smug, lazy ad hominem with no substance. Go team Hillary! If it works, don't change tactics, right? Right!

Comment Re:Joke ? (Score 1) 1004

Taking your guns away once again, I assume?

I certainly don't like her or her party's posture on dismantling the second amendment, no, or her disregard for several of the others. But I was referring specifically for her contempt for the first amendment. That should bother you, too. It's especially funny, though, given how she collects her family's millions in cash.

couple thousand Syrian women and children fleeing

There's lots to talk about that's actually real - why would you just plain lie about something so transparently false? A "couple thousand?" Really? That's how you describe the millions of people who are displaced by the conflict in Syria? Did you actually think that nobody else is the slightest bit informed, and that trotting out such nonsense would somehow score you some rhetorical points with especially low-information idiots? What were you thinking, exactly? Fascinating.

your stupid war

You meant the war between Assad and his own citizens who tried to get rid of him? Or the war between groups like ISIS and those in Syria who don't want to live under orthodox Islam or die because they don't? Is that the war you're thinking of? Yes, it would be much less of a conflict if Obama and Clinton hadn't made it worse, but it's not "our" war that people are fleeing by the hundreds of thousands. It's ISIS's war, and Assad's muddled mess that now includes Russian involvement.

And if you're so obtuse that you can't wrap your head around the fact that the US's immigration problems include an essentially unprotected border across which thousands of illegals regularly flow, a train wreck of an H1-B system, and huge numbers of people abusing our visa system, then please don't bother talking about it, because you're being willfully ignorant and are thus unable to say anything constructive until you gather some information into your head.

As for "dictating where iPhones can be manufactured" - please. Are you really going to pretend you're so uninformed that you can't understand that his point is to illustrate how poorly we (as a country, under the current administration) are handling trade relationships that we're getting screwed by countries like China that abuse that relationship? You don't "dictate where iPhones can be manufactured," you put in trade, tax, and banking policies that make China's corrupt, poisonous, currency-manipulating, repressive, territory-grabbing circumstances less appealing to companies like Apple.

And your attempt to paint a nice, sweet picture of Clinton by trotting out an example of how state, local, and even federal government thirst for tax revenue makes for perverse incentives when it comes to eminent domain (which is asked for thousands of times a year by everyone from parking lot contractors to farmers to classic real estate developers) ... remarkable. Your deliberate, willful, faux ignorance about the corruption and lies that are part of your preferred candidate's entire career would be funny if the stakes weren't so high.

Comment Re:Joke ? (Score 2) 1004

Should espionage and violation of national security for political gain ever be something joked about by a major party Presidential candidate?

So instead of the candidate who made an already-made-several-times-by-other-people joke, you prefer the candidate who looks you in the eye and knowingly, deliberately, repeatedly lies to you about her handling of matters related to espionage and national security? Why?

Comment Re:Joke ? (Score 3, Insightful) 1004

As opposed to waiting six months at a time for Clinton to even hold a press conference (it's been that long - that's how scared she is of her own supporting media) and then knowing, based on years of examples, that quite a bit of what she says are bald-faced lies? And, you're not scared of HER scary proposals? She's gleefully in favor of infringing on constitutionally protected rights, supports nationally self-destructive immigration policies, and wants to see the government involved in wildly more private sector activities, at both the business and personal level. She also "says a ton of things," but because it's done in that focus-group-tuned, calculating Clinton way, it's actually a lot more sinister.

Slashdot Top Deals

It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of work to do. -- Jerome Klapka Jerome