Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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

Comment Re:No one will be ruled by Trump even if he wins (Score 1) 723

I still have not seen you back up your opinion with any sort of real world example. Instead of me proving you wrong with countless other examples, how about you show me one example where congress has stopped a military operation with funding cuts, or the supreme court with judicial rulings.

You seem confused on history, the record is one of Presidents going to Congress over large scale military operations not avoiding it. As for the Supreme Court there again we have the record of history saying the Court does have jurisdiction over the military to ensure adherence to the Constitution.

History has proven time and time again that these ideological checks & balances are not working as well as they should.

Actually history shows Presidents, Congresses and Courts agreeing to make the same mistake, as in the Japanese internment case. That is something quite different than checks and balances not existing.

Comment Re:No one will be ruled by Trump even if he wins (Score 1) 723

Trump has no real base of power within the Republican party. Those Republicans who accept appointments to his administration are not going to commit political suicide by joining him in something insane. The fbi, military, etc will not follow illegal unconstitutional orders. Trump will be left to rant and yell all alone. He won't be heading a corporation where he effectively has absolute control, he can not get his way as he is used to. Politics in the US doesn't work that way. The US government is designed to prevent such things. Yes the Republican Congress would probably love to impeach him and get one of their own, Pence, into the office. White House security will escort Trump to the door if need be. A coup, a civil war, by who? Most of his voters don't like him, they just hate Hillary more. Some Bernie voters at the Dem Convention are being interviewed and saying they'd rather have Trump and four years of gridlock. This election is truly about two disliked candidates and people voting for the one they dislike the least. Whoever wins there will be no mandate and likely gridlock.

Comment Re:No one will be ruled by Trump even if he wins (Score 1) 723

Congress controls the money for the war. No funding for the war and there is no war.

Nope. Congress can eliminate the budget for the military, but doesn't approve $10M on an attack on one city, and $10B for an invasion of another. Most of the military funding is unallocated. Congress is the only one that can vote for war. Before Vietnam, that meant that no action on foreign soil (act of war) could take place without permission of Congress. Going to war was Congress's power. Controlling the military in that war was the President's.

The President can do something like Grenada or Panama on his own. However he can't do something without Congress like either Gulf War that takes immense amounts of money and months of preparation.

Comment Sanders voters will be good little Democrats (Score 2) 154

It also explains why a Sanders voter would willingly switch to become a Trump voter

Bernie will cave in and endorse Hillary so he is not ostracized in Congress and given no committee appointments and otherwise made irrelevant.

Bernie voters will largely be good little Democrats loyal to the party and vote for Hillary. And they wonder why they are ignored. When a voter is loyal to a party they are irrelevant, the party already has their vote and need not appease them.

Bernie voters enjoy the few symbolic lines you get in a meaningless party platform that no one ever honors, symbolic lines just like every other forgotten group got in previous party platforms.

Comment Sometime a delay is helpful (Score 5, Insightful) 154

So your theory is that FB understands nothing about social networks and has never heard of the Streisand Effect.

Slow the story for a few days and it doesn't disrupt the news coverage of the Democratic Convention in Philadelphia. The goal is not necessarily to bury the info, sometime a delay is helpful.

Comment Re:Why would Putin fear Clinton? (Score 1) 723

You assume a modest lifestyle. Knowing he had such a bankroll and spending $1M more a year than his income would explain turning $150M into $100M over 50 years. You can not demonstrate business failure by accumulated wealth.

I don't care if his results are due to irresponsible business decisions or an extravagant, indulgent lifestyle. Neither of those are traits I want in a politician with the keys to my tax dollars. You keep making this argument that he might be the great businessman ...

No, I keep arguing that no one has shown evidence he is a bad businessman. I argue that wealth is not a metric to judge business success by. Are his bankruptcies more than a few failures out of dozens of projects? Are his ROI numbers terrible? Still patiently waiting ...

If you want to say his lifestyle is wasteful, fine, I have no problem with that. Just don't conflate that with being a business failure. Those are two very different thing.

Likewise if you want to argue he is a bully, a narcissist, fine, no problem. But again, those are also very different things from a business failure.

Comment Re:Why would Putin fear Clinton? (Score 1) 723

Like the relaxing of home loan standards that began under the Clinton administration, at their encouragement to help underdeveloped communities, that led in part to the banking crisis? Like the current economy that after how many years under Obama still needs massive stimulus and near zero interest rates to barely limp along?

Sooo.... its a good thing republican administrations saw the collapse coming and made such smart decisions and have great policy ideas to prevent and fix recessions? I'm not endorsing Hillary but lets not pretend the last couple republican administrations knew what they were doing.

Who said they did? I was merely countering the false meme of Clinton prosperity and good economic governance.

Comment Re:No one will be ruled by Trump even if he wins (Score 1) 723

No one will be ruled by Trump even if he wins. The US government is actually designed to handle situations like this. There are three separate but equal branches of government that can stalemate the others.

Oh, really? "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"

Thank you for proving my point. The losing side complied and the ruling established the law of the land.

"Worcester v. Georgia ... It is considered to have built the foundations of the doctrine of tribal sovereignty in the United States ... The court ruled that the individual states had no authority in American Indian affairs ... The ruling in Worcester ordered that Worcester be freed, and Georgia complied after several months."

Comment Bernie voters will be good little Democrats ... (Score 1) 723

DNC chairperson Wasserman-Shultz will be reward for her loyalty and service once Hillary gets into office.

Still think Hillary will get into office? Think again. It's getting less and less likely by the day now.

Yes, Bernie primary voters will be good little Democrats and now vote for Hillary. Sealing their fate as irrelevant, as all people loyal to a political party are since their party already has their vote and doesn't need to do anything to keep it.

Comment Re:Why would Putin fear Clinton? (Score 1) 723

Clinton era prosperity was real. It's in the history books. Trying to disclaim it at this point is petty. There isn't much else to add other than you're wrong. Want to argue? Go grab a time machine and have at it.

"The dot-com bubble was a historic speculative bubble covering roughly 1997–2000 ... The collapse of the bubble took place during 1999–2001."

Nasdaq showing the fake stock market prosperity collapsing at the end of the Clinton administration:

There is your history, there is the fake prosperity.

Comment Re:No one will be ruled by Trump even if he wins (Score 1) 723

You are missing the point. Congress funded those operations AFTER the fact, when the military was already committed.

Actually I understand the point very well, the military is not truly committed until Congress authorizes the funding. A large scale military operation like either Gulf War invasion needs special funding, take many months to organize. Without such funding the military can be recalled. Things beyond Grenada and Panama sized operations can not be done without Congress.

Here is the restriction I think you are trying to reference (since you can't bother to look up information to back up your opinion):

Actually I am quite familiar with it. You simply misunderstand what I am saying.

The supreme court has little to no effect on military operations.

*You* mentioned the Japanese internment, that is absolutely a military operation the Court could stop. You erroneously blamed that internment on Roosevelt. The truth is that Roosevelt and the Congresses of 1941-45 and the Supreme Courts of 1941-45 and Truman were all responsible for that. Congress or the Court could have stopped it.

Read up on history kid, your ideological beliefs (however much I wish they were true) do not mirror reality.

Please take your own advice and work on the reading comprehension while you are at it.

Comment Re:No one will be ruled by Trump even if he wins (Score 1) 723

This is not reflective of history when you consider executive orders. " as the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, many presidents have sent troops to battle without an official war declaration (ex. Vietnam, Korea). " ...

And Congress voted to fund each and every one of those. Again, Congress can stop a military action by not funding it. That is exactly the check and balance built into the Constitution.

"Executive Orders: In times of emergency, the president can override congress and issue executive orders with almost limitless power. Abraham Lincoln used an executive order in order to fight the Civil War, Woodrow Wilson issued one in order to arm the United States just before it entered World War I, and Franklin Roosevelt approved Japanese internment camps during World War II with an executive order."

And that is why we have a third branch of government, the Supreme Court, to say no. As it did with some of Obama's recently. Oh, and Congress had to fund each of your examples to keep them going. The President can start an action but only Congress can maintain it by funding it.

Comment Re:Why would Putin fear Clinton? (Score 1) 723

Statements about his wealth prove no such thing. What did he invest? What was the return? That fact that he only has $100M left at age 70 may simply indicate an excessive indulgent lifestyle where his spending exceeds income. With a friggin airliner with his name on it that is a possibility.

Earlier, you argued that his income was low because he had held onto assets and not sold them.

No I argued that income does not demonstrate wealth. That wealth includes assets not being sold. Please go re-read.

Now you say that he has spent his money.

No, I say that excessive spending can result in a decline in wealth, not necessarily failed business investments. Please go re-read.

Guess what, to spend the money on yourself, it has to be declared as income first.

Wasn't it, 50'ish years ago when he inherited it?

Please, be internally consistent in your arguments.

Good advice, try practicing it yourself.

Comment Re:Why would Putin fear Clinton? (Score 1) 723

Um, what would you consider to be a qualification?

Having been a chief executive, say a governor, would be a good meaningful bit of experience.

I mean, it seems like a good answer would be "Six years as secretary of state,

Four not six, but more importantly its not having the job title its actually performing well in the role. She did not.

plus eight more years of meeting world leaders as First Lady

Meeting in a social context, before being taken to go visit a school, hospital, etc with the other world leader's wife for fluff PR photos; while Bill and the other real leaders went off to make deals and solve problems without her.

and then another six years as a U.S. Senator."

Actually eight, but that was part time work. She spent a lot of that Senate time positioning and running for the Presidency. And again we have the issue of having the title but not excelling at the job

Your response is "Nah, that's not experience....." So what is?

More than holding a job title, making good decision and being successful in implementing one's goals. She failed on that metric, making things worse during her tenure.

Slashdot Top Deals

As in certain cults it is possible to kill a process if you know its true name. -- Ken Thompson and Dennis M. Ritchie