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


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

Comment Re: Trump is worse (Score 1) 230

Why do I care if Trump gets a deal for his scottish golf course? How is that wrong for me?

Depends what he offers them in exchange, doesn't it? Do you want higher taxes so that part of your tax money goes to Scotland to pay them so that Trump can have a bigger golf course? That's a pretty innocuous example, but it's pretty trivial to think up a litany of ways where Trump could use our money to advance his own personal interests. Or maybe he'll offer something instead of our money, maybe he'll draw back our military or any number of things. The point is that the president's loyalty should be to the country first, not his own interests. Trump has shown throughout his life that his image and his wealth are his first priority. I have no doubt that he would write himself a check for several billion dollars from the US treasury if he thought he could get away with it. He still hasn't released his tax returns, and he's still going to own his companies. That's not exactly starting out on the right foot.

Didn't the Clintons get about $100M richer through "public service?"

The majority of politicians do. Look at Mitch McConnell for a fantastic example. I personally think that anyone elected to a public office should be prohibited from investing in the stock market while they are in office, among other restrictions. Public service should be just that, it should not be a path to private enrichment. Like you mentioned, the founders envisioned a country where people would emerge from the private sector for public service, and after their service ends they return to the private sector. We have gotten away with that with the number of career politicians we have who go into politics and then look for ways to get rich through that system. Donald Trump is an extreme edge case of that problem. He's the unique (to us) person who has been chasing wealth, not political power, his entire life, and then decides to grab as much power as he can. We can argue about his motivations for doing that, but I don't think it's ridiculous to assume that one of his primary motivations is to use his political power to make himself even more wealthy, even if he does so at the expense of the country. I think that's a problem. He's chased wealth and the image of success his entire life, not political power. I don't think he's going to limit himself to expanding a golf course in Scotland when he has the entire US military at his command. Someone with the necessary motivation could make tens of billions of dollars for themselves personally through the power of the presidency, and I think that Trump has that motivation. I'm worried about what he's willing to sell in order to get that wealth. I'm worried that will include things that we will have a very difficult time trying to get back. All of this is specifically what that clause in the Constitution is supposed to prohibit. Him handing his companies to his kids does not satisfy that clause. Him promising to donate profits to the treasury is not worth the air he uses to profess it, this is a man who has not released tax returns or any level of transparency into his business relationships yet he wants to promise everyone that internal ethics reviews only and his own definition of what constitutes a profit, in addition to his assurance that he really did donate all of them to the treasury (pinky swear), absolves him of his duty to the Constitution. I'm not exactly willing to give him a huge benefit of the doubt about this. If you are, then you are a much more trusting person than I am, if "trusting" is the right word to describe that quality.

Trump is the only one even trying to avoid conflicts of interest with regards to personal profit in office.

No he's not. He's trying to avoid the appearance of conflicts of interest. If he actually wanted to avoid conflicts he would divest to a blind trust like many presidents before him have done.

you give zero credit to the one guy who even so much as pays lip service to not profiting off his office.

I give zero credit to the guy who only pays lip service and doesn't take even the most basic opportunities to be transparent about where his money comes from. I enthusiastically supported Bernie Sanders for the exact same reason why I oppose Clinton and now Trump too. From day 1 of his campaign Bernie was talking about the problem of money in politics. I am not a single-issue voter, but if I was that would be my issue, and Bernie was on it from day 1. So excuse me if I'm not going to turn around and offer to suck Trump's dick because he said that he's going to let his kids run his business that he still owns while he's president and has his daughter's husband as his official advisor. I don't see any solutions to the things which I think are major problems, all I see are new problems that we've never had to deal with before from a president.

Which tells me you don't actually give a shit about any of that, you just hate Trump and are looking for a way to undermine him.

Wow, yeah, look at how shrewd you are. You're so great at reading people. Can you tell how sarcastic I'm being right now or do you want me to spell that out for you?

If Hillary had got in you wouldn't give two shits about the Saudis and Qatar giving her Foundation millions of dollars to overthrow Assad so they can have their pipeline.

Oh, I wouldn't? Well, then why didn't I vote for her you fucking genius? You know so much about me, so tell me why I would rather get kicked in the balls than cast a vote for Hillary. Really, I want to hear what you fucking think about me, because I respect your opinion so goddamn much. There's not enough partisan bullshit going on in this country, let's hear some more from you. Make sure you read my signature, because it's about you.

Comment Re: Trump is worse (Score 1) 230

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.

That's what he and his lawyers said anyway, during the press conference they held and subsequent memos. That press conference was in response to people suggesting he is in breach, so they at least felt strongly enough to counter those claims with a press conference and some vague promises to do the right thing when the time comes. He's not just outright saying it's not an issue, which is telling. And there is still discussion about whether his lawyers' arguments are even correct. Moreover, it does not matter who controls the company, what matters is that Trump still benefits from the company and can influence things like whether or not governments invest in it, he can lobby Scotland to allow his golf courses to expand, etc. He can use his office for his direct personal benefit. Things get even more cloudy when his son-in-law is his advisor as president even while his daughter is negotiating on behalf of the company. There is a whole web of ways this can go wrong for us (not for him, for us). If he wants to avoid this kind of thing then he turns his company over to a blind trust, not his kids. It's laughable to even consider that turning his businesses over to his kids absolves him of this. That's what a blind trust is for.

They've been saying foreigners staying at a Trump hotel are giving him emoluments, when no, that is a fee for service.

That's not the issue, or at least not the biggest issue. The biggest issue is the fact that various foreign state-owned corporations have invested in his various businesses. Imagine if those earlier plantation-owning presidents had an agreement where Britain owned part of the plantation, or even a controlling interest, and they had leverage to directly benefit or harm the president. That's the kind of relationship that should be avoided.

would never dream that business owners should have to sell off their businesses in order to serve as president.

A blind trust is not selling. It is someone else who is making investment decisions without any input from you, and without telling you what they are doing. You are trusting them to manage the assets in an intelligent way where they will increase in value, and once the term of office ends you get it back.

during his 8 years in office.

That's a little optimistic.

Comment Re: Trump is worse (Score 1) 230

You're telling me that a payment or investment from a state-owned corporation is not considered to be a payment from the government? Tell me, oh constitutional scholar, where did you get your information?

from people who don't understand the Constitution or the political system

Oh, I don't understand the Constitution. 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. That's what you're trying to argue? And that, since I think that they did plan for things like that and that they did try to outlaw that so that a president's loyalty to the United States could not be bought, then I don't understand the Constitution.

Comment Re: Trump is worse (Score 1) 230

Where in that clause says anything about owning businesses and removing control over them?

"Owning businesses" is not the problem, and hopefully you know that and aren't just being a hyperbolic turd. The problem is that several state-owned corporations, the money from which is considered to be a payment from a foreign government according to the emoluments clause, have ownership or other interests in various Trump businesses or properties (including the hotel in Washington DC, just a few blocks from the White House - that's a Chinese corporation in that case). Even if his kids have a controlling interest that is not enough to free him from the clause, because he and his family are still benefiting from payments from foreign governments. So he can either remove all of their interests in his business, turn all of his businesses over to a truly blind trust (not his kids), or resign. Any of those will satisfy the emoluments clause. But there's a problem when he has his daughter sit in on his meeting with Prime Minister Abe from Japan while she's also in the middle of negotiating a deal with a Japanese corporation with ties to the government, where Trump himself will directly benefit from that deal. There's a major problem with situations like that, and you can either educate yourself or just be a hyperbolic partisan idiot and instead shout about things that Clinton is or may have done, as if any of their shit has anything at all to do with whether or not Trump is in violation of the Constitution as soon as he takes the oath.

Comment Re: Trump is worse (Score 1) 230

"The Trump Administration" is going to last a few months. Trump will decide that, instead of comply with the emoluments clause, he would rather keep all of his business interests and then he'll resign to avoid impeachment while claiming some sort of victory over haters, losers, etc. Then we'll have The Pence Administration.

Comment Re:Down with Putin - Down with Trump (Score 1) 230

Who do you think hacked the DNC? Who had a motive to do so and then not claim credit for it?

Everyone who dislikes Hillary. I'm one of them, for example. I'm a programmer who dislikes Hillary, and I bet there are a lot more of us on this site, so apparently all of us are possibly suspects. You don't even need to like Trump to have a motive, you only have to dislike Hillary.

Not that programming has much to do with breaking into email accounts or servers, but whatever.

Comment Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score 1) 768

Scruttocks? No, man. Regardless of gender, it's a taint. I'll also accept "chode" and "gooch". If you're trying to get all linguistic on me and want a term that isn't "crude" then go with perineum. Scruttocks is right out. If you want to invent a new word then "scranus" sounds about right, but there's no reason to be gender-specific.

Comment Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score 4, Informative) 768

and the vagina "pops out" becoming the penis

Listen, I'm not a meteorologist or anything, but I'm pretty sure that a penis is not an inside-out vagina. I'm pretty sure it's more analogous to the clitoris, and that the little seam that runs down the nutsack and taint (excuse the medical terminology) is the result of the labia closing and sealing.

Comment Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score 1) 768

Are you aware that what you stated is false?

After reading all the replies, yep, I sure am.

Go (back?) to law school and re-read (or perhaps read for the first time?) the material on what can and cannot be subject to a presidential pardon.

No thanks. Not only am I not an attorney, but I don't have any desire to be one. I was responding to this quote:

"I can't pardon somebody who hasn't gone before a court and presented themselves, so that's not something that I would comment on at this point," Obama told the German newspaper Der Spiegel.

I interpreted that as meaning that he was not able to do that, rather than just being unwilling.

Some more quotes:

"At the point at which Mr. Snowden wants to present himself before the legal authorities and make his arguments or have his lawyers make his arguments, then I think those issues come into play," Obama said.

More than a million supporters of Edward Snowden have petitioned President Barack Obama to pardon him, but the former National Security Agency contractor hasn't submitted the required documents for clemency, according to the White House.

"Mr. Snowden has not filed paperwork to seek clemency from this administration," White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said on Tuesday.

Comment Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score 1, Informative) 768

Snowden cannot be pardoned, because he has not been convicted of any crime. There is no conviction to pardon or commute. He has to surrender and be charged in order for that to happen. Obama already commented on that, he said that regardless of how he feels about Snowden, you can't pardon someone who hasn't been convicted of anything.

Comment Re:Only a problem when they block better (G fiber) (Score 1) 200

It sounds like you should get kicked in the taint for rolling out a new network in the age of fiber but deciding to run with Cat-5 because you got a great deal on spools. Just because the network is publicly-funded doesn't also mean that all of the expertise needs to come from the community. Part of that public funding is hiring a designer who knows what they're doing.

Slashdot Top Deals

The other line moves faster.