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


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

Comment Re:Fuck Off McAfee! (Score 1) 80

Item 1 is likely never going to fly, and I question the legitimacy of it anyways. If voters in a district or state like their representative, why shouldn't they be able to run for an open ended number of terms? There are some decent reasons for limiting the President's terms, but none of those really apply to Representatives or Senators. It's like declaring "All engineers and doctors must retire after ten years!" Beyond that, I doubt there would ever be enough approval among the states to get it through.

Item 2 is silly. You can't say what needs may come in the future. Mindless freezes won't do anybody any good.

Item 3 is the same kind of idiotic item 2 is. Why should there be some upper limit of regulations? There's no real coherent philosophy here at all.

So while some policies might make some sense, others are just stupid, and item 1 at least is almost certainly never going to happen. And considering Trump's long history of pretty dubious deals, what makes you think he's the man to do any of it, when even his own tax plan would both increase the debt and largely only help people like Donald Trump, which means he'd simply be adding to the kinds of policies that screw over the average person.

But you've also left out some items:

Item 7 - Abuse his position of head of the executive branch to pursue his political opponent.
Item 8 - Sue the women claiming he sexually assaulted him. This one is particularly stupid because, of course, suing them means they in turn get to delve into his sexual history via discovery, which could lead to both civil and criminal charges against him. This is what I'd call the Oscar Wilde Blunder; mainly because it resembles what Wilde did when he was openly accused of homosexual acts by the father of his lover; the Marquess Queensbury. Wilde decided to sue the Marquess, and of course, the trial inevitably lead to Wilde being outed, and then charged and convicted of moral turpitude. So if I were Donald Trump, win or lose, i'd probably stay away from civil trials over his alleged sexual escapades.

Comment Re:Cui Bono? (Score 2) 80

Yes, I'm sure the Republicans will waste lots of time on conspiracy theories that produce nothing, egged on Breitbarts and Trump TV. And it won't amount to anything at all. This is just Birther Scandal Part 2.

It's a pity the Republicans didn't pick someone like Rubio, but they didn't, they picked Trump, a man so ridiculous that even many of those who can't stand Clinton cannot abide the thought of him winning.

Comment Re:Misplaced effort (Score 1) 55

We need to keep working toward a system where our Senators and Representatives actually know what We The People want and need.

What makes you think that they don't? I'm rather certain that most of them know that most people don't want children used as experimental subjects without their parents permission. But the legislators have other priorities.

Comment Re:Showmanship (Howard Stern, Lady Gaga) vs sociop (Score 1) 80

So what are your qualifications to diagnose psychiatric conditions, and how many times have you met with Clinton to confirm your observations? I mean, you wouldn't just be some asshole on the Internet googling up WebMD and then simply forcefitting your personal beliefs on Clinton into what really is a very general description from an online site, would you?

Comment Re:I don't agree that these are "conservative" vie (Score 1) 212

There *IS* no conservative candidate for Presidency. A conservative is one who wishes to conserve some currently existing state or feature. I often think of myself as a conservative, though only on some issues. The Green party is traditionally the most conservative of the existing parties, but it's never been all that conservative. People who want to "go back to the good old days" are not conservative, they are reactionary. Being conservative often works, but being reactionary never does. See "Dollo's Law" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... with particular attention to why it is valid.

Comment Re:I don't agree that these are "conservative" vie (Score 1) 212

This may depend on exactly how one interprets the phrase "wall". In a figurative sense one could interpret, e.g., the very existence of the border patrol as a wall. In that vein anything that one did to hinder immigration could be interpreted as fulfilling that pledge. Say letting contracts to build radar stations to companies that are subsidiaries of Trump, inc.

Comment Re:I don't agree that these are "conservative" vie (Score 1) 212

It's not new. The specific ideas that they are intolerant about have changed, but there's long been a large group of people on slashdot that are intolerant of ideas they don't like. In this it reflects society pretty accurately. The difference is that consequences of intolerant actions (downvoting) are separated from intolerant speech. Some of the separation is in time, but other are not. If you prefer to vote something up, you look for ideas or statements that appeal to you. If you prefer to vote something down, you look for ideas or statements that distress you.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you suspect a man, don't employ him.