Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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

Comment Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent (Score 1) 381

So in other words you are too uninformed about the issues to name your preferred prospective Supreme Court nominees. This all starts to make more sense, now. You won't address any of these issues directly because you actually have no idea what's going on. See? Asked to name even one prospective jurist, you have to resort to more childish deflection in an attempt to avoid confirming your ignorance. So, now you've had a while to at least look up some names. Let's try again: who do you think should sit on the Supreme Court? How about just one name.

Comment Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent (Score 1) 381

No, you're too much of a coward to even address the issue, as usual.

Here, let's break it down into the baby-sized bites you can't pretend you're unable to address:

Who would you like to see seated on the Supreme Court? Be specific. If you pretend you can't, we'll see you're just a craven BSer as usual. If you REALLY can't, then we'll see you shouldn't be voting regardless. So: name names.

Comment Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent (Score 1) 381

One or the other, but it won't be because of my vote.

So your vote has no effect on the election, then? You're choosing to use your vote in a way that deliberately reduces its impact on SCOTUS nominees?

So which do you prefer: liberal or conservative SCOTUS judges? There are real, substantive differences between them. If you DO have a preference, why are you choosing to use your vote in a way that you claim will not express that preference? Or, do you live in a state where you know that by withholding your vote from a candidate that actually can win, you know that you're already supporting the viable candidate that will sit the judges you want? Address this issue in less of a cop-out, non-answer way than you already have.

Comment Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent (Score 1) 381

See? Completely unable to acknowledge reality, or completely unwilling to admit it.

So: how will your choice in candidates influence the next Supreme Court nominees that are named? Be specific, if you have any sort of ability to talk about reality. If you can't answer the question, it's just another sign that your entire ongoing deflection on this topic is just you being an intellectual coward. So: which nominees will have a more likely chance of being seated, because of your vote?

Comment Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent (Score 1) 381

Diversion? As usual, I address simple reality, and you go off on a hand-waving bender having zero relevance. See, you'll do it again right now.

One of the two main candidates will win the election. This is a fact. You don't like that fact, so you talk about guilt and prison yards.

Vacant Supreme Court seats will be filled by one of those two people. You are too timid to take the responsibility of influencing whether or not those seats are filled by liberal activist types or conservative/constructionist types. This is simple cowardice, but you will say that that you're somehow doing something noble by being sure that your vote goes to someone that cannot possibly influence this important process. But in doing so, depending on the state in which you live, you ARE choosing to lean your state's electoral votes to one of the two viable candidates. This is a simple fact. You don't like that fact, so you prefer to call reality a "diversion."

You will be unable to say anything on-topic in your response, because that would require you to either confront those realities, or lie. You don't want to do either in writing, so you'll of course say some sort of blathering nonsense about prison yards, guilt, and being hung with statistics or other childish attempts to evade the substance of the matter. Like you're about to do, right now.

Comment Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent (Score 1) 381

It's funny how you're the only one who ever uses the word "guilt" when it comes to this subject. All I'm doing is pointing out that the third party candidates cannot win, and that using your vote to support one of those cannot-win candidates will not, for example, do things like change which supreme court nominees one of the actual viable candidate will, in real life, end up naming.

We're all going to live with the actions and policies and appointees of one of those two viable candidates. You're choosing to stamp your feet and throw your vote away rather than impacting the actual outcome in a meaningful way. That you feel the urge to use the word "guilt" when someone simply points out the facts is your thing, not anyone else's.

Comment Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent (Score 1) 381

You can't hold us responsible for people we didn't vote for.

One of two candidates is going to win. When you choose to vote for a third party or not vote at all, you are making a choice that will impact one of only two outcomes. Wishing that away because you don't like it is just childish.

Comment Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent (Score 1) 381

Stop acting like the only choice is to vote for someone you find slightly less abhorrent than someone else you find to be completely abhorrent. That only continues the problem.

As for continuing the problem: No. The only thing that makes third party candidates unviable is the third party candidates and politics themselves. The Greens are trotting out an anti-science doctor, and the Libertarians are presenting an isolationist guy who's banking on the recreational drug user vote. THAT is what "continues the problem."

Comment Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent (Score 0) 381

our black and white thinking has made you incapable of even phrasing a question accurately, IMO.

But it's a black and white matter. Something you're wishing it weren't.

If you vote for Clinton or Trump, you're making a simple choice - support one or the other. If you have the ability to vote, and choose to either vote for someone that cannot win or choose not to vote at all, then depending on your local demographics, you are still - through that choice - supporting either Trump or Clinton. That you're pretending otherwise means you really need to re-evaluate your own understanding of what's at stake.

Comment Re:Give some protection to Combetta (Score 1, Interesting) 381

I know, how about we let the FBI director explain to you that she lied repeatedly about her efforts to avoid public scrutiny of her public records and her casual mis-handling of extremely sensitive classified material? She's on the record lying about it from the day the coverage of that mess started, and she's still doing it today - though she's learned to spend eight months at a time without a single press conference in order to avoid digging that hole any deeper.

Comment Re:Give some protection to Combetta (Score 3, Informative) 381

This is getting as bad as the birthers. Which Trump says Clinton started

Right, he should have been more specific. It was a Clinton campaign worker that started that, and was then thrown under the bus because it was done so publicly. Enter the usual Clinton stealth operative, Sidney Blumenthal, who talked it up behind the scenes where he normally performs his mercenarial tasks.

Comment Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent (Score 1) 381

The Republicans have pissed me off so much with their brinkmanship over the last 8 years

Then why aren't you pissed at the Democrats, who ALSO refuse to get behind things they don't like? Why aren't you pissed at Obama for his own refusal to sign legislation that isn't changed until he likes it, or his own refusal to sign off and budgets and appropriations that don't check the boxes he wants checked? It's impossible for only one branch of the government to play "brinksmanship" - Obama is a 100% eager player that is just as unwilling to budge as the people you're saying you dislike. You're disingenuously cherry-picking so you can display some phony or low-information outrage.

I'm not religious, and derive my code of ethics from reason. But let's look at the list you're saying the people you don't like have forgotten:

Thou shalt not kill.

Which in the original language was "thou shalt no murder" (see the difference?)

Love thy neighbor.

Which you don't seem to be doing.

Turn the other cheek.

Meaning, man up. That's not the same as "let someone kill you."

Blessed are the meek.

How do YOU interpret that? That sounds like a religion throwing a metaphysical fantasy bone to those who've had bad luck or haven't made anything of themselves.

Blessed are the peace makers.

So, people who take the step necessary to shut down the violence-makers - those are peace makers, right? There's a reason that one of Samuel Colt's masterpieces was called The Peacemaker.

Slashdot Top Deals

"No, no, I don't mind being called the smartest man in the world. I just wish it wasn't this one." -- Adrian Veidt/Ozymandias, WATCHMEN