Slashdot Mirror

Interestingly, those six nations all make it into the top 21 of World Suicide Rates (by country).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

And all but one are within 10% or less of the US rate, so what exactly is the point you're trying to make?

...

Where capitalism fails is in providing minimum base level. If you want people to have healthcare capitalism will always fail at that. If you want everyone to get a minimum amount of food daily. Capitalism fails. Otherwise you get homeless hungry people dying on your streets.

And socialism is SO much better?

Venezuela is on the brink of a complete economic collapse

The only question now is whether Venezuela's government or economy will completely collapse first.

The key word there is "completely." Both are well into their death throes. Indeed, Venezuela's ruling party just lost congressional elections that gave the opposition a veto-proof majority, and it's hard to see that getting any better for them any time soon — or ever. Incumbents, after all, don't tend to do too well when, according to the International Monetary Fund, their economy shrinks 10 percent one year, an additional 6 percent the next, and inflation explodes to 720 percent. ...

...

That's not an easy thing to do when you have the largest oil reserves in the world, but Venezuela has managed it. ...

That's left Venezuela's supermarkets without enough food, its breweries without enough hops to make beer, and its factories without enough pulp to produce toilet paper. The only thing Venezuela is well-supplied with are lines.

Interestingly, those six nations all make it into the top 21 of World Suicide Rates (by country). http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Are you talking about porn or smoking? https://www.washingtonpost.com...

I consider all people humans.

I hope you aren't a college student, because you can get in trouble for saying that. Seriously... it's a "microaggression" enshrined in official policy at several colleges, more to come soon I'm sure.

Why is this a "microaggression? To quote the cited policy from above: "Statements that indicate that a White person does not want to or need to acknowledge race." (That doesn't really explain anything IMHO. I guess if you are a White person [capital letter in original] you are obliged to "acknowledge race"... whatever that means. TL;DR It just is a microaggression, shut up.) But if you are lucky enough to be a non-White person, I guess maybe you would be permitted to say that? Eh, probably better not to risk it.

Remember that Martin Luther King Jr. said he had a dream that people would be judged, not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character? This is considered "problematic" now.

Personally I agree with you. Even if statistically some things correlate with race, we should attempt to be color-blind in policy and in our interpersonal relations. However, I'm a white male, so my opinion is considered worse than wrong by the people who care about microaggressions.

I was raised on the slogan "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me." The current crop of college students is being taught that nothing is more important than words and labels, and that rather than trying to be a good person or set a good example that they should be invoking authority to smack down people over minor offenses.

Either that, or you have an irrational hatred of feminists, probably due to deep and perfectly valid feelings of inadequacy, and try to blame them for everything.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

To sociologist Gail Dines, a self-identifying radical feminist and “anti-porn advocate,” these findings added to a body of evidence that she deemed conclusive. Dines believes that non-coercive pornography cannot exist in a capitalist society, where sex-based media will always lead to an industry that becomes a violent manifestation of structural inequalities. In The Washington Post this weekend, Dines wrote a column that spread widely: “Is Porn Immoral? That Doesn’t Matter: It’s a Public-Health Crisis.”

The divisive proclamation was occasioned by a bill passed last month in Utah declaring pornography to be “a public-health crisis.” The bill, like the phrase, traces back to Dines, who has spoken and lectured on the evils of pornography around the world.

This isn't the first time feminists have teamed up with the far right to restrict freedom (see: horseshoe theory).

China has committed to reaching to peak CO2 emissions in 2030 ( http://climateactiontracker.or... ) and may have already achieved this a few years back ( https://www.washingtonpost.com... )

India has set the following targets: http://climateactiontracker.or...

Washington Post FTW!

The story came from them - the Seattle Times just reprinted it - and the Post's version of the story has an update, with a link to the NTIS press release, which says that "These results come from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Computer and Internet Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey (CPS), which includes data collected for NTIA in July 2015 from nearly 53,000 households."

Further digging found the aforementioned Computer and Internet Use Supplement, which is, I guess, the script used by the person who's calling the people being surveyed. It says, among other things:

If respondent indicates “Wi-Fi,” add: Do you know what kind of Internet service is connected to the Wi-Fi in your household?

to avoid "Wi-Fi" being given as the type of Internet access. The types they offer as the choice are:

1. "Mobile Internet service or a data plan for a cellular phone, smartphone, tablet, laptop, or other device" and they'll explain "This type of Internet service is provided by a wireless carrier, and may be part of a package that also includes voice calls from a cellular phone or smartphone." if necessary;
2. "High-speed Internet service installed at home, such as cable, DSL, or fiber- optic service" and they'll explain "This type of Internet service is often provided by a cable company or phone company." if necessary;
3. "Satellite Internet service";
4. "Dial-up service";
5. "Some other service", at which point they're supposed to ask "What other service?" and enter the response verbatim.

So it shouldn't result in people indicating that they have "wireless Internet" if they have wired Internet hooked up to a Wi-Fi route.

Figures it's from that seattle times electronic rag.

No - as the article says:

By Brian Fung
The Washington Post

so it's from the Washington Post.

Here's the Post's version of the story. It actually has a link to the NTIS press release, which the Seattle Times version doesn't, so, yeah, I'd say "rag" for a publisher republishing it without the damn link.

Works for drugs, except they don't even have to bother with accusations.

The government's been stealing money from people for decades now, the only question is who's going to stop it? Clearly not the Republican party (how many bills have they even proposed in order to curtail the IRS's power to harass conservative organizations? This is clearly a power that the Republican party wants the IRS to have). Not the Democrats either.

These days I vote straight ticket libertarian and fill in the blanks with republicans for the few local legislative spots left and democrats for the judicial spots. Best I can do as long as I've got mouths to feed. When I can walk away from my job then I'll think about running for an office.

Just claiming that someone might be a terrorist doesn't give you the right to steal their money.

Well, it works for tax-evasion accusations — why not for terrorism ones?

Yeah, he hasn't said anything misogynistic, except for all the times he has:

https://www.washingtonpost.com...
(best video example: https://youtu.be/d32577Hom08)
(other video examples: http://www.washingtonpost.com/...)

Oh, but I'm sure that's all truncated statements, and out of context? As for racism, a lot of his comments about hispanics are at best borderline. But I have a hard time as a white guy telling a hispanic who is legitimately offended by a borderline racist remark that the remark is not racist.

Any way you cut it, this guy is a gaping asshole, and has no business being sworn in as President. It's a job for a serious person.

Yeah, he hasn't said anything misogynistic, except for all the times he has:

https://www.washingtonpost.com...
(best video example: https://youtu.be/d32577Hom08)
(other video examples: http://www.washingtonpost.com/...)

Oh, but I'm sure that's all truncated statements, and out of context? As for racism, a lot of his comments about hispanics are at best borderline. But I have a hard time as a white guy telling a hispanic who is legitimately offended by a borderline racist remark that the remark is not racist.

Any way you cut it, this guy is a gaping asshole, and has no business being sworn in as President. It's a job for a serious person.

the school paid to have negative Internet search results scrubbed to help the reputations of the university and its chancellor, Linda P.B. Katehi. The university has since confirmed that it tried to improve its reputation following the pepper-spraying scandal.

Politicians everywhere agree: you must delete our misdeeds from your disks!

Clinton is opportunistic and talks like a snake oil salesman, but is unlikely to do any lasting damage. Trump is opportunistic and insane.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

So says the Clinton camp, anyway. Trump supporters will probably say the exact same thing but with the names reversed!

John Podesta, Podesta Group and the Clinton Fund. Google that for some king of sleaze stuff. Podesta Group was BPs chief lobby pre and during the oil spill.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/p...

https://www.opensecrets.org/lo...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Even Trump is pretty good at this - his claim about how much the wall will cost is hard to disprove without actually building the damn thing (argue against, yes - disprove, no). But he provably lies pretty often - his stories about seeing Muslims celebrating in the streets as the WTC collapsed are demonstrably false. Or his claims to have never settled a case out of court, or never declared bankruptcy.

As long as it would be done fairly (ie. all candidates are subject to the same scrutiny) and to a set standard, I think this would be a good thing.

Apropos of nothing, why do you cite several of Trump's lies and none of Clinton's?

Clinton is opportunistic and talks like a snake oil salesman, but is unlikely to do any lasting damage. Trump is opportunistic and insane.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Much as I share the judge's doubts about sincerity of the plaintiff, I suspect, the ruling will not stand.

"there must be a line beyond which a practice is not 'religious' simply because a plaintiff labels it as such. [...] The Court concludes that FSMism is on the far side of that line."

He is right — in this case. But it is difficult (if not impossible) to define a criteria — like in that earlier case, where judges where asked to distinguish between erotic art and pornography: "I know it when I see it. Religion is even more difficult to define.

But the whole idea of government — whether in prison or the military, wherever — recognizing a religion and making special accommodations for followers seems like a violation of the First Amendment. I mean the establishing part of it — you can still freely exercise whatever as long as it does not require special accommodations.

Forgot to add in the source: Five myths about college debt

One, it is pointless because it won't happen.

If you told me 20 years ago, that a self-identified "Democratic Socialist" (and a bona-fide Communist underneath) will soon have a fair shot at becoming President of the US, I would've dismissed it with the same derision... But today's youth does not care any more — the Socialism/Communism's 100 years of failure (and mass-murder) are not taught in schools.

Two, it is a pointless claim because there are no democrats currently in Washington who are willing to propose anything that even slightly resembles an initiative to "give control of healthcare to the government".

Currently is the caveat-emptor, is not it? Look on this very board — numerous people speak in favor of "single payer", and they all vote...

Even the most socialized of all medical systems still give the physicians at least as much autonomy as our system does.

TFA is not about "authority" — it is about incompetence. When doctors become government-employees — as they are in Cuba so beloved by the likes of Bernie Sanders and Michael Moore, and other worker paradises — the healthcare will suck just as it does there.

And we are on our way — by many indications, Obamacare was designed to fail, and is failing as "CO-OPs" go bankrupt, and major commercial insurers threaten to withdraw. It did not "bend the curve" of the costs either — the grows of healthcare costs is accelerating.

It will continue to suck. Which will allow the next "progressive" President to claim "the market approach has failed" — and turn to a government-owned (euphemistically called "single payer") system. Obama himself would've done it — with enthusiastic support from morons like certain anonymous cowards replying to you — but "the nation was not ready" so he simply laid down the ground work for the future:

"I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its gross national product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that's what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. That's what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we've got to take back the White House, we've got to take back the Senate, and we've got to take back the House."

In other words, you are just parroting standard slashdot conservative FUD.

You seem like the kind, who'd be trying t

They are escaping significant environmental cleanup obligations as this article in the Washington Post explains:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Also this:
Peabody’s Chapter 11 filing may also excuse it from its environmental cleanup obligations, which total nearly $1.4 billion, according to the company’s SEC filings. “Bankruptcy restructuring could provide coal companies with a way of escaping obligations to restore land,” according to Steven Mufson and Joby Warrick of the Washington Post. According to the Sierra Club, the company has $900 million unfunded cleanup liabilities in Wyoming alone, and public interest groups plan to monitor the Chapter 11 proceedings to pressure the company to keep its obligations.

Also, that Washington post article you posted along with your claim that Nixon wasnt a moderate has nothing to do with Nixon. It's an article about Obama. Just because it has Nixon's name in it a single time doesnt mean it's about him.

Perhaps before talking about what an article does and does not talk about, you should try reading it? Half way down the page we have a pretty liberal vs conservative graphic which shows that indeed, Nixon was conservative!

https://img.washingtonpost.com...

You missed the recent lies told about the abortion comments.

NBC's Chris Matthews asked Trump, if abortion was illegal, should women who get abortions be arrested? Then every report on this seems to conveniently omit the original question when trying to cast him as hating women.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03...
http://www.wsj.com/articles/tr...

All three of those articles fail to mention the bolded part above, all Trump was saying is "if it is illegal, of course your should get punished for it", they are all making it out to be that he thinks all women who get abortions should be punished, when he didn't even say that.

If they stopped spending on defense or terrorism, the funds would either be spent on other constitutional responsibilities or not spent at all.

The US government pisses away a lot of money on things and would likely do just that. Granted that report is from a right wing group but at the same time there are some pretty egregious things listed there.

You sound ridiculous, vacillating from one defense to another.

No, if you could read, it's the same defense. You presented some claims, and have repeatedly failed to back it up with anything substantial.

It's not a problem to do so, but you made it clear from the start that you wanted to dismiss anything that didn't fit your political leanings as "news",

No if you could read, i asked that you give us all something more substantial than "the news". All your references have been "the news", and I rightly dismiss this as "the news" is not a reliable reference.

I would expect somebody commenting on American politics to be familiar with them,

Oh I'm familiar with them, I just wanted to understand which specific detail concerns you. Yet rather than enter into the discussion you continue to argue that "the news" explains your entire policital opinion.

The short version is

Fuck at last! Was that really so hard?

that a black guy got shot by a cop, there was an outcry that it was racist police brutality, and it made national news.

Good so far.

Brown was called "a gentle giant".

By a media organisation which we've already established is unreliable.

Then the police released video footage of Brown robbing a convenience store shortly before the incident, physically shoving the clerk when he confronted him.

By the police which are an interested party in the case.

Idiots like John Oliver then say this video is "irrelevant", like it wouldn't pertain at all to his character or state of mind.

Maybe he is right, maybe he is wrong. What is correct is that trial by media is a foolish proposition. This is why we have courts.

The officer was eventually cleared, both by local authorities and a federal investigation, with witness testimony matching forensic evidence that backed up the officer's account.

So the system works. What was your problem again?

And yet this Brown thug is still a poster child for Black Lives Matter.

I'm not across this organisation, but there must be millions of similar activist groups all across America, all with varying degrees of extreme views. Do you let all of them affect your opinion?

Oh, and if you use the word "thug" you're racist.

According to one guy. According to another guy, we are all really being mind controlled by aliens, and according to yet another guy we should be allowed to fuck children.
Do you see how it works yet? Once you boil down your argument, you've gotten all angry based one or two people's opinions. The courts opinion (the one that actually counts) aligns with your own, so why are you angry? Are you really arguing for people not to be allowed their own opinion, regardless of how stupid it is?

Breaking that down:

The parts where you say "Translate" are, at least, positions. Some of your rebuttals evidence a fundamental misapprehension of economics, business, and geopolitics, but they are nonetheless positions on which we can differ.

The parts you call "Counter" are... not even? For example, Trump talking shit about $minorityGroup is not countered nor even distracted from by alluding to Guantanamo Bay, torture, or CIA meddling in foreign governments.

Even ignoring that what you're arguing there bears no resemblance to what I said, Trump is cool with torture, and wants to fill Gitmo back up.
Translate: Hell yeah, man! Let's peel the skin off those jihadi bastards!
(I kid!!)

Not only is that incorrect, in that it quite possibly could be misdemeanor, that is wholly inconsistent with historical precedent on these types of cases.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-prosecution-past-cases-221744

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-classified-information/2015/09/18/a164c1a4-5d72-11e5-b38e-06883aacba64_story.html

Obama is acknowledging what is common knowledge and the subject of numerous news articles -- the government grossly overclassifies documents and frequently does it with the sole purpose of saving some politician from embarrassment, which has nothing to do with National Security. Overclassification was named as an issue in the 9/11 Report.

The lesson of the Pentagon Papers. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-classified-information/2015/09/18/a164c1a4-5d72-11e5-b38e-06883aacba64_story.html

NY Times Op-Ed in 2001: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/07/opinion/national-security-and-americas-unnecessary-secrets.html

President signs law in 2010 to reduce overclassification: https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/10/07/president-signs-hr-553-reducing-over-classification-act

Not only is that incorrect, in that it quite possibly could be misdemeanor, that is wholly inconsistent with historical precedent on these types of cases.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-prosecution-past-cases-221744

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-classified-information/2015/09/18/a164c1a4-5d72-11e5-b38e-06883aacba64_story.html

Obama is acknowledging what is common knowledge and the subject of numerous news articles -- the government grossly overclassifies documents and frequently does it with the sole purpose of saving some politician from embarrassment, which has nothing to do with National Security. Overclassification was named as an issue in the 9/11 Report.

The lesson of the Pentagon Papers. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-classified-information/2015/09/18/a164c1a4-5d72-11e5-b38e-06883aacba64_story.html

NY Times Op-Ed in 2001: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/07/opinion/national-security-and-americas-unnecessary-secrets.html

President signs law in 2010 to reduce overclassification: https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/10/07/president-signs-hr-553-reducing-over-classification-act

Give up. you sound ridiculous now.

You sound ridiculous, vacillating from one defense to another.

Burden, proof, claimant.

It's not a problem to do so, but you made it clear from the start that you wanted to dismiss anything that didn't fit your political leanings as "news", which is quite a hypocritical position to take given that you're commenting on a sensational news story on Slashdot, "How San Francisco Hazed a Tech Bro".

I gave you concrete examples of stories that achieved widespread and prolonged news coverage. I would expect somebody commenting on American politics to be familiar with them, or if not, to do a little fucking research on your own before dismissing it out of hand.

You could start by reading the Wikipedia page, which is backed up by references. The short version is that a black guy got shot by a cop, there was an outcry that it was racist police brutality, and it made national news.

Brown was called "a gentle giant". Then the police released video footage of Brown robbing a convenience store shortly before the incident, physically shoving the clerk when he confronted him. Idiots like John Oliver then say this video is "irrelevant", like it wouldn't pertain at all to his character or state of mind. The officer was eventually cleared, both by local authorities and a federal investigation, with witness testimony matching forensic evidence that backed up the officer's account. And yet this Brown thug is still a poster child for Black Lives Matter. Oh, and if you use the word "thug" you're racist.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

he's self-funded and doesn't want $$$ to be part of his campaign

1) No, he's not self-funded.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

2) For some one who doesn't want $$$ to be part of his campaign, he sure talks about it a lot, specifically about how much money he has and how he's a better candidate than the others because of it.

Nixon would not be considered even close to moderate or liberal. Get your facts right.

WaPo is either engaging in a wonderful bit of Poe's law or needs to check the historical record. They diss Obama saying that Nixon was, in ways, more liberal, then in the next paragraph they use the ACA (Obamacare) as an example of how liberal Obama actually is.

The problem with saying the ACA is liberal is that an healthcare mandate is something Nixon backed.

Incidentally, a healthcare mandate was floated in the 1990s as a conservative plan as well. (So was cap & trade.)

I know that people call him racist, but he has been against "illegal" (which is not a race) and urges caution in terms of Islam (once again, not a race, but a religion that creates more than 90% of terrorists).

Has he said something else that I have missed?

Donald Trump: "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." So being a Mexican immigrant means you're either a drug dealer or a rapist according to Trump. That's racism.

Donald Trump: "But you have people coming in and I'm not just saying Mexicans, I'm talking about people that are killers and they're coming into this country." And that's xenophobic.

Donald Trump: "Likewise, tremendous infectious disease is pouring across the border." Linking a community with disease. Where did I hear this before?

Donald Trump: "I’ll take jobs back from China, I’ll take jobs back from Japan. The Hispanics are going to get those jobs, and they’re going to love Trump.” Treating hispanics like dogs he can throw a bone to, that's racist too.

Donald Trump: "No surprise that China was caught cheating in the Olympics. That's the Chinese M.O. - Lie, Cheat & Steal in all international dealings." Note how he said it's the "Chinese modus operandi", not the "Chinese *government* M.O.". Claiming 1+ billion people are liars, cheaters and thieves, just for their ethnicity or the country they live in is racism.

Has Trump ever actually issued a call for violence? If so, I must have missed it.

Well he certainly did against protestors at his rallies.

But more importantly, "Donald Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States." and "Donald Trump said that he would 'absolutely' institute mandatory registration." So he says he will use the force of law to discriminate on the basis of religion. In other words he is against freedom of religion and against the bill of rights.

While those are not direct threats of violence, it's already too much for someone who wants to be the chief of the world's most powerful army.

I know that people call him racist, but he has been against "illegal" (which is not a race) and urges caution in terms of Islam (once again, not a race, but a religion that creates more than 90% of terrorists).

Has he said something else that I have missed?

Donald Trump: "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." So being a Mexican immigrant means you're either a drug dealer or a rapist according to Trump. That's racism.

Donald Trump: "But you have people coming in and I'm not just saying Mexicans, I'm talking about people that are killers and they're coming into this country." And that's xenophobic.

Donald Trump: "Likewise, tremendous infectious disease is pouring across the border." Linking a community with disease. Where did I hear this before?

Donald Trump: "I’ll take jobs back from China, I’ll take jobs back from Japan. The Hispanics are going to get those jobs, and they’re going to love Trump.” Treating hispanics like dogs he can throw a bone to, that's racist too.

Donald Trump: "No surprise that China was caught cheating in the Olympics. That's the Chinese M.O. - Lie, Cheat & Steal in all international dealings." Note how he said it's the "Chinese modus operandi", not the "Chinese *government* M.O.". Claiming 1+ billion people are liars, cheaters and thieves, just for their ethnicity or the country they live in is racism.

Has Trump ever actually issued a call for violence? If so, I must have missed it.

Well he certainly did against protestors at his rallies.

But more importantly, "Donald Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States." and "Donald Trump said that he would 'absolutely' institute mandatory registration." So he says he will use the force of law to discriminate on the basis of religion. In other words he is against freedom of religion and against the bill of rights.

While those are not direct threats of violence, it's already too much for someone who wants to be the chief of the world's most powerful army.

It's been suggested that results from being poor in the first place. It's not a level playing field. Fantastic if you get a good start, not so good if you don't; and that is completely beyond your control.

According to The Washington Post talking hands-free is the same level of impairment as talking to a passenger and holding the phone is negligibly more distracting. Listening to an audiobook is almost as distracting as talking.

The article says the opposite of both of your sentences:

Is talking on the phone more distracting than listening to an audiobook?
A small 2008 study showed that when people listened to an audiobook (in this case, “Dracula”), their performance was the same as when they drove without distraction. But when they carried on a phone conversation with one of the researchers (about hobbies and weekend activities), their performance worsened.

Is talking on the phone more distracting than talking to a passenger?
The cognitive workload for the driver is the same, according to Strayer. In his test, conversing with a passenger rated a 2.3 on the 1-to-5 scale; talking on a hand-held phone, a 2.4; and a hands-free phone, a 2.3. However, having another person in the car generally results in safer driving, because there’s often an extra set of eyes on the road. Also, passengers tend to stop talking when the demands of driving increase, Strayer says. “So passenger and cell conversations have different crash risks because the passenger helps out.”

Nixon would not be considered even close to moderate or liberal. Get your facts right

Maybe you like this one better?
How Barack H. Obama and DOE Unsaved Solyndra from Financial Success.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

So Trump attempting to ban minorities by seeking the highest office of the free world and riling up mobs until they start beating up said minorities = "He has a right to speak!"

What the fuck? He hasn't done any of that!

Donald Trump on Muslims: 'They're not coming to this country if I'm president
Donald Trump on protester: 'I'd like to punch him in the face'
Trump supporter charged after sucker-punching protester at North Carolina rally

What the fuck? Ya' live in a cave!?

stereotypical liberal intolerance to contending ideas

Why must I be tolerant of intolerance? If Trump wants to ban Mexicans and Muslims, why am I not allowed to try to ban every trace of Trump?

Because it's morally "the ends justify the means".

It's going outside the process just because you don't like the results. That's not how we do things.

Effectively, the rule seems to be "it doesn't matter how we do it, we *have* to stop Trump. BY ANY MEANS!!!"

People shout at him during speeches. That didn't work, so they started being rowdy. That didn't work.

(Not letting him speak - how is this any different in principle to censorship?)

They dressed up in KKK robes and *that* didn't work either.

(I read about a 16yo protestor that falsely accused a rally goer of sexual assault. Willing to ruin a man's life for the cause - that's some dedication!)

I'm waiting for the assassination attempt, because "STOP TRUMP" is more important than how it gets done.

In the newspapers, they called him as clown. That didn't work, so they called him a sexist. That didn't work, so they called him a racist.

I remember reading analysis a couple of months ago, where pundits were astonished (!) that people were still supporting Trump, even after they called him a clown! (What are the Americans thinking?)

Then it was his supporters. We're all under-educated, unemployed, white, disempowered losers who are angry and want to take our country back. You don't want to be part of *that* group - do you?

That didn't work either.

Then they turned the crazy up to 11. Trump is Mussolini, Stalin, Satan, Hitler. The Washington Post said Cthulhu supports Trump.

That didn't work. Now it's backroom deals, delegate stealing, and rule changes.

Here on Slashdot, most of the political dialogue is name calling and unfounded drivel. We're the smart ones in the room, and even *we* have bought into the hatred. No one can put together a cogent political argument, simply because the other candidates don't have a clear position.

200 people control the election, and they do NOT want someone who will make the place better for the citizens.

It doesn't matter how many votes Trump gets, so long as he doesn't get 1237 on the first try. So long as we can prevent *that*, we can drop him from the race and pick someone we support.

It's as if voting doesn't matter.

The ends justify the means. Stop Trump using ANY MEANS POSSIBLE!

Would you or have worked on tech which could enable torture?

You may be expecting an unqualified "no", but the right answer is it depends. The unacceptable kinds of torture are those, which leave the subject dead or damaged. (And I mean real damage — not as in "needs counseling"). It may be useful to confine the definition of "torture" to such methods only — as was done by some people already.

Waterboarding is certainly not damaging — a rough arrest by a police may be far more harmful to the suspect — and still be justified. Likewise, a prolonged criminal investigation may be far more damaging psychologically. And don't even get me started on the exploding use of "Hellfire" missiles (pun intended) by the highest-placed opponent of waterboarding:

no president has ever relied so extensively on the secret killing [emphasis mine -mi] of individuals to advance the nation’s security goals.

Don't know about you, but I'd rather be waterboarded by mistake, than killed by the same mistake.

Dealing with the government is rarely pleasant, but waterboarding does not cross any real lines. If the duly-elected President charged with protecting us deems it necessary, his subordinates better get on with it. Or resign. As George Orwell pointed out decades ago:

"Men sleep peacefully in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

Where does that put you morally and ethically?

Whether it is useful is another question, but "morally and ethically" there is nothing wrong with it. Deal with that.

According to The Washington Post talking hands-free is the same level of impairment as talking to a passenger and holding the phone is negligibly more distracting. Listening to an audiobook is almost as distracting as talking.

German railway introduces women-only carriages.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Something is going the wrong way.

Blatent lies:

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Calling an opponent a sexist or a racist are sure fire ways to ostracize them and shut them up. Ironic the left is so opposed to bullying then bullies people it disagrees with and calls them names. We're not all the same but deserve the same opportunities, nothing more, nothing less. Stop with the name-calling.

As a clear example of the OP's point, one need only look to how the media covers the Trump campaign.

Trump notes that a portion (a subset) of illegal (intersect another subset) immigrants (intersect yet another subset) as rapists and murderers, and this is somehow interpreted to mean that he's a racist.

He fails to remember who David Duke is (temporarily, I might add), and suddenly he's a KKK member.

He insults a man and a woman in one breath, and since one of them was a woman, he's suddenly got a "war on women".

He insults individuals he doesn't like. The women insults are selected, distilled, and made into a campaign ad.

A quick google of "Donald Trump's war on *" shows he has a:
. war on women
. war on Megyn Kelley
. war on the media
. war on Chivalry (wtf?)
. war on people with disabilities
. war on comedy (wtf?)
. war on Muslims
. war on anchor babies

And these are only the first 2 pages! The list is endless!

Googling "Donald Trump is *" shows that he is:
. Satan
. Hitler
. crazier than April Fools' Day
. the most dangerous man in the world
. the next Barack Obama (wtf?)
. Stalin
. Mussolini

...the list goes on.

All this completely ridiculous rhetoric, people are falling over themselves to paint Trump in the most possible bad way.

(After writing that last line, I had a thought and... yep, Cthulhu supports Donald Trump. And this came from the Washington Post! WTF?)

And the worst part of all is this: I don't have the first idea how well Trumps position stacks up against those of Cruz, Clinton, or Sanders.

In fact, I don't know even *what* the other candidates even stand for.

Trump: We'll bomb the shit out of ISIS and torture their families

Clinton: "Today’s attacks will only strengthen our resolve to stand together as allies and defeat terrorism and radical jihadism around the world"

What will Clinton do if elected? I haven't the first idea. ...all I know is that she doesn't have a war on women.

You have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

This is what the Republican Party had to say about the 2012 election. Read it. Educate yourself.

http://goproject.gop.com/rnc_growth_opportunity_book_2013.pdf

And you demonstrate your ignorance every time you post, yet like the idiot you are, you just keep at it.

I love trolling the trolls on Slashdot.

it's not as if other republicans haven't noticed something odd...
"Republicans have to stop buying into things that demonize the president. I mean, why aren't Republican leaders shouting out about all this birther nonsense and all these other things? They should speak out. This is the kind of intolerance that I've been talking about where these idiot presentations continue to be made and you don't see the senior leadership of the party say, 'No, that's wrong.' In fact, sometimes by not speaking out, they're encouraging it. And the base keeps buying the stuff. "And it's killing the base of the party. I mean, 26 percent favorability rating for the party right now. It ought to be telling them something. So, instead of attacking me or whoever speaks like I do, look in the mirror and realize, 'How are we going to win the next election?" -Colin Powell, 2013 http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/po...
"The GOP “still looks down on minorities,” Powell said. He slammed Sarah Palin‘s “shuck and jive” comments from last year about President Obama and criticized Republican’s use of the word “lazy” to describe the president. “Why do senior Republican leaders tolerate this kind of discussion within the party?” he asked." -Colin Powell, 2015 http://www.mediaite.com/tv/col...
"Let me just be candid: My party is full of racists," Col. Lawrence Wilkerson said Friday on MSNBC's "The Ed Show." "And the real reason a considerable portion of my party wants President Obama out of the White House has nothing to do with the content of his character, nothing to do with his competence as commander in chief and president, and everything to do with the color of his skin. And that’s despicable." https://www.washingtonpost.com...
"The Republican Party and the conservatives have shown very little interest in black Americans and have actually done things to leave the impression among blacks that they are antagonistic to their interests. Even as someone who's labeled a conservative --I'm a Republican I'm black, I'm heading up this organization in the Reagan administration--I can say that conservatives don't exactly break their necks to tell blacks that they're welcome." -Clarence Thomas 1987 http://reason.com/archives/198...
"The party must follow Governor Bush's lead and reach out to minority communities and particularly the African-American community -- and not just during an election-year campaign," General Powell said pointedly. "It must be a sustained effort. It must be every day. It must be for real." He did not spare the party for its record on affirmative action. There was "cynicism in the black community," he said, because "some in our party miss no opportunity to roundly and loudly condemn affirmative action that helped a few thousands black kids get an education." But, he added, "hardly a whimper is heard from them over affirmative action for lobbyists who load our federal tax codes with preferences for special interests." -Colin Powell 2000

"Wacky" that's one way to put it.

Running on a platform that promises to round up all illegal immigrants while having profited from them certainly seems wacky.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us...

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Or what has become increasingly popular: charge the person's possessions with a crime and take them to increase yearly revenue. In some years, the police have taken more from people than burglars.

How about any of the lies she's told about Bernie Sanders?

Remember how she claimed that Bernie Sanders did nothing to help push health care reform in the 90s, and then people later pointed to pictures and televised speeches of both her and Bernie Sanders talking on that issue?

Possibly a lie, could also have been subjective opinion (ie she thought he didn't do enough) or she simply forgot.

Or the more recent thing where she tried to white-wash Bill's involvement in mass incarceration of black people?

White-washing does not equate lying.

I mean for crying out loud, you've seen what she'll do in her lust for power to members of her own party!

You mean run a primary campaign?

Even if you ignore Benghazi and the email scandals

I'm not ignoring them, I'm not aware of any lies there, certainly poor judgment and a potential crime with the email but I don't recall any deception involved.

you've still seen the lies she'll throw out against her opponents in her own party. How blind can you possibly be?!

Your post contained one specific example of something that might be a lie.

Here, I'll help you out, there's a few in there, of course Sanders is more-or-less the same.

Heck, just a couple days ago Sanders said “She [Hillary Clinton] has been saying lately that she thinks that I am, quote unquote, not qualified to be president." except Clinton didn't say that.

So wouldn't that qualify as a lie?

And yet the US has lead the way in shutting down probably the most infamous haven; the Swiss banks.

Yeah, I'm not so sure they are actually trying to fight this stuff. If they were then the three states that allow anonymous shell corporations would not be so popular. The US is rated third in the world for "Offshore" shell games.

The Tax Justice Network ranks the U.S. third in terms of the secrecy and scale of its offshore industry, behind Switzerland and Hong Kong but ahead of the Cayman Islands and Luxembourg.