Slashdot Mirror


Donald Trump: America Should Consider "Closing the Internet Up In Some Way" (dailydot.com)

Patrick O'Neill writes: Hours after Donald Trump suggested the U.S. ban Muslims from entering the United States, the leading Republican presidential candidate said America should also consider "closing the Internet up in some way" to fight Islamic State terrorists in cyberspace. Trump mocked anyone who would object that his plan might violate the freedom of speech, saying "these are foolish people, we have a lot of foolish people ... We have to go see Bill Gates," Trump said, to better understand the Internet and then possibly "close it up."

735 comments

  1. Oh the Irony..... by beheaderaswp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ironic isn't it that Trump wants to kill the very instrument that would be most effective in de-radicalizing people?

    Free speech and free flow of information does more good than harm. Seems counter intuitive to lock violent radicals out of the very information that could change their minds, educate the ignorant, and carry a non violent message.

    Sure terrorists use the Internet to recruit. But how many people did not join up because of information on the Internet?

    Are we really so scared that we will turn proto-fascist?

    --
    Another consultant who stuck it out.

    "We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
    1. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, no, no. See, it's not fascist if you only do it to bad people.

      I wonder who nutty old Uncle Don will go for next?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    2. Re:Oh the Irony..... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's also the fairly obvious (though unlikely to be heard on your local talking heads cable show) problem that adopting a variety of blatantly illiberal 'security' measures that trample all over the alleged virtues of 'the west' and 'the free world' is a really, really good way to help convince anyone who thinks that we are decadent, corrupt, hypocritical, and more hype than substance that they are absolutely right.

      Even if we were doing a 100% perfect job of upholding our noblest values, we can't expect to win them all; some people actively dislike the best aspects of our civilization; so they will be a tough crowd. For the people who agree that we've got a noble theory; but can only laugh bitterly at the 'liberty and justice for all' part because...price and participation may vary...the further we go into overtly illiberal tactics, the more reasonable their conviction that we are long on talk and short on substance.

      Even if we were willing to sacrifice our own freedoms for the alleged benefits, which we shouldn't be; it's not clear how 'liberal democracy' wins the war of ideas by turning to fascism as soon as it starts to get nervous.

    3. Re:Oh the Irony..... by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      Information is power. When you want to have monopoly on power, the first thing you do is take the information from others and keep them in ignorance

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    4. Re:Oh the Irony..... by jimtheowl · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Trump is a bit of a clown"

      That is quite an understatement.

      "so what does that tell you...that people are sick of President Obama "

      No. It tells me that "some" people are ignorant and racists. I restrain to add stupid as I believe that they are willfully misguiding their intellects for selfish primitive instincts they choose not to to keep in check.

    5. Re:Oh the Irony..... by prefec2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Guns are not the solution, they are your damn problem. Look no Western country allows to carry around guns and buy guns that easily. And you have a mass shooting almost every day. It is in fact not different if the person does that because he or she is a fascist, racist, islamist, or something else. The only thing that would help is gun control. Your ignorance (as a country) will be your undoing.

    6. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are we really so scared that we will turn proto-fascist?

      We're well past that signpost. Trump's just giving the people what they're asking for.

    7. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Type44Q · · Score: 5, Funny

      But how many people did not join up because of information on the Internet?

      Me, for one. When they showed up at the door, at first I thought they were Mormons (Jehovah's Witnesses tend to dress a little shabbier). The only way I could tell they were actually Isis was when I saw the little star-and-crescent pendants they were wearing. In any case, I invited them in and we discussed the ins and outs of their theology over a couple rounds of scotch I had tucked away for just such an occasion (I thought they might balk at the offer but they said that while it was okay for their suicide bombers to drink, recruiting is considered such a shitty assignment that drinking is pretty much encouraged). Anyway, after our conversation had run its length, we had a cheerful departure and I watched them slowly weave down the driveway in their bullet-ridden Hilux (barely managing to avoid snagging their bed-mounted 50-cal on a low-hanging limb). When I'd gone back inside, I sat down and spent some time researching on the Internet, giving careful consideration to the various merits of their belief system (there were more than a few, I assure you), However, in the end I decided that while having to wear a long beard would suck (too itchy) and I don't much care for the thought of eating goat (their eyes weird me out), being outnumbered by 72 virgins would be the real deal-breaker: Six dozen entitled, passive-aggressive little bitches that are guaranteed to be terrible in the sack (being virgins and all)... no thank you.

    8. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Terrorists are coming! The Terrorists are coming! Quick! Throw them another Freedom!

    9. Re: Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      These happened yesterday:
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/08/26/were-now-averaging-more-than-one-mass-shooting-per-day-in-2015/

      You don't hear about them every day for the same reason that you don't usually hear about car crashes on the national news;
      it's so common that it's not news-worthy unless a muslim is involved.

    10. Re:Oh the Irony..... by lbmouse · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "..he's saying what the people want to hear.."

      No... he's pandering to the lowest common denominator including people who watch reality TV and idiots like you.

    11. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yes, Trump can be a fool, but sadly he's probably the best we have currently running...

      Get off the racist soapbox. This has nothing to do with Obama... He's just an ignorant fool that is harming our country. Being black has absolutely NOTHING to do with his lack of backbone or character. I can think of so many great black men and women that would be far better than Obama.

      Jeez, so sick of people using the racist card just because he's black. If he were Asian would you use the racist card too? Ridiculous...

    12. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Nikkos · · Score: 1, Insightful

      " Look no Western country allows to carry around guns and buy guns that easily."

      And neither do most Eastern countries, or Southern countries, or Northern countries, etc. Yet many of them have murder rates far higher than the US.

      The fact that you rely on some assumption that 'Western' countries are more moral/advanced/civil/whatever is bigoted to begin with, but it also torpedoes your argument that guns are the problem. Social structures and living conditions shouldn't matter if guns are the root cause of violence. Russia is on-par with the US in regards to technology, has strict firearm ownership restrictions, and the murder rate is 4x higher. Gun problem or people problem?

      Additionally, randomly picking France or some other 'Western' country that is the size of Minnesota and has 1/8th the US population is simple cherry-picking. If you take all of Europe from Portugal to Moscow, which is far more equivalent to the size, population, and geographic disparities of the US, as well as income and education variations, the murder rates are far closer despite firearm ownership being so much less so as to be statistically none in comparison.

      "And you have a mass shooting almost every day"

      Only by a measure which includes 'shootings' in which nobody was killed, and the vast majority is gang violence in the inner city.

      "Your ignorance (as a country) will be your undoing."

      For most Americans (those born 1960 or later) it's never been safer. There are 10,000 less murders a year than 20 or 30 years ago. The murder rate is lower or equal to what it was in 1960. Rapes are down, assaults are down, etc.

      You can't say the same for Europe. The incidence of rapes, assaults, hate-crimes, etc are all higher than the US. Now you have a refugee problem, how's that working out for Europe these days?

    13. Re:Oh the Irony..... by MachineShedFred · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'd be happy if we could close up Trump in some way.

      How the hell is he still leading the field on the Republican side? Is this some vast right wing conspiracy to get Hillary elected so they can have 4 more years of 'shredding the Constitution' and 'destroying America' rhetoric?

      Signed,
      A registered Republican who votes for sane candidates... when there are any.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    14. Re:Oh the Irony..... by StayFrosty · · Score: 0

      France's gun control did a fantastic job of preventing the mass shootings in Paris... Oh, wait.

      Maybe we need to figure out the societal problems leading to these mass shootings. Whether it's western society or Iraq and Syria. People don't go around shooting other people for no reason.

      --
      "Frequently wrong, never in doubt."
    15. Re:Oh the Irony..... by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      So, a mass shooting that has now been labeled as terrorism happens in the state with the strictest gun control laws available in the US, and the answer is... more gun control laws?

      For the nth time, KILLERS DO NOT CARE ABOUT FELONY WEAPONS CHARGES. They are either too stupid and think they will not get caught, or they are smart enough to realize that the life sentence (if they are lucky) they will receive for killing someone makes the felony weapons charge completely moot. And, we all know that by definition, criminals always follow laws.

      More gun control in the State of California will only serve to restrict people who already follow the laws, who isn't really of concern here. How about instead of passing more laws that make you feel better but do absolutely nothing to solve the problem, we instead pass some laws to provide funding to diagnose and treat the mentally ill?

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    16. Re:Oh the Irony..... by bev_tech_rob · · Score: 2

      Sometimes the Don cracks me up with some of the stuff he says, but I swear 3/4 of the time he is just trolling everyone to get a rise out of them.

      --
      You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
    17. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no reason to leave wide open paths to every access point out there. My home network gets HTTP probed regularly, mostly from foreign countries. I have no problems with slashdot being open to the world, but my home should not be. I understand that some apps and games require direct connecting to work properly, but I'm sure some solution could be made to allow for these apps to work while still preventing people from randomly searching for vulnerabilities.

    18. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I gotta agree with you there. I'm thinking 6 virgins (for the novelty), 6 average (nice) girls, and 60 hard core filthy sluts.

    19. Re:Oh the Irony..... by malditaenvidia · · Score: 1, Insightful

      France's gun control did a fantastic job of preventing the mass shootings in Paris... Oh, wait.

      France's gun control had absolutely nothing to do with the mass shootings in Paris.

    20. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You are completely missing the point. The intention is *not* to punish people who have already committed crimes, or try to deter premeditated, pre-planned terrorist attacks by threat of what might happen after. As you pointed out, these people have already made their peace with the likely outcome and no law you can pass will change their minds.

      The point is to make it more difficult for spur of the moment crimes or crimes of passion to end in violent murder, and make it easier to trace connections backwards for the ones that are terrorist related. Gun control done properly shouldn't restrict people who already follow the laws. I know that's your fear but there's no reason to shitcan the whole idea because of people's fear that their precious might be taken from them. We can have it both ways.

    21. Re: Oh the Irony..... by jason.sweet · · Score: 0
      shootings have gone down dramatically each decade

      No
      http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/n...
      Maybe you were referring to mass shootings. Those only account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths each year, so we will ignore the distinction.
      I would wager that most Americans reading this post know someone who was killed by a firearm.

    22. Re:Oh the Irony..... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      And you have a mass shooting almost every day.

      Umm, no.

      We have a website that changed the definition of "mass shooting" so they could claim we had one almost every day. Using the standard FBI definition, we've had one every other month or so.

      Note that "mass shooting" on that website would count one person wounding himself with a firearm, then getting killed by police officers who accidently injured three more people in the process of "stopping this attack" as a "mass shooting".

      Oh, and gun control won't help. Unless you're got the kind of magic that can make 300+ million firearms just poof out of existence. Hell, you can't even do a buyback of those guns. Takings Clause of the Constitution would require that you pay fair market value (or a reasonable facsmile), which would require a budget in the $500B range, even if everyone cooperated (and they won't. Australia's buyback only got 1/4 to 1/3 of their firearms, based on their government's own estimates of the number of firearms in circulation - and we're less likely to go along than the Aussies were - gun culture, don'cha know?)....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    23. Re: Oh the Irony..... by nospam007 · · Score: 2

      "Every day, huh? What mass shooting happened yesterday?"

      The one from yesterday was put on an earlier date, it already happened on one of those 355 mass shootings during this year.
      Some days there have to be several mass shootings, otherwise they can't put them all into one year.

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

    24. Re: Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your comment merely tells me you get all your information from the media which you all feed from like a school of sharks.

      The media leans left or right, depending upon who owns them. They only report on things that push their own ideology AND that which gets them the most eyes.

      You hear about shootings everyday because they're pushing the gun control issue. You're not hearing about the thousands dying weekly from car wrecks, cancer, heart disease, medical mistakes, etc etc because they're " so commonplace " now.

      If they wanted to save lives, they would focus on the larger problems at hand. 99.9% of legal gun owners who have never committed a crime, is not one of those problems. In any other field, would you condone taking away, cars, computers, food and drink, etc due to the misuse of a few idiots ? Doubtful. So what is so different about a firearm in your mind ?

      Besides, we have a foolproof method of gun control, it's called a Constitutional Amendment. Pretty straight forward process but designed to be difficult to prevent knee jerk, emotional laws from being passed everytime something happens. ( See Patriot Act for example of an emotionally driven law )

      If you don't live in the US, you should probably refrain from armchair quarterbacking.

    25. Re: Oh the Irony..... by StayFrosty · · Score: 0

      Unless you count service members killed in action, I doubt it. Most gun-related violence in the US happens in large urban areas and tends to be gang related. I live in a small city of 300,000 people and I can count the number of firearm-related deaths this year on one hand. In all cases it was gang/drug related from out of town. Each time it made the local news for a week or so.

      --
      "Frequently wrong, never in doubt."
    26. Re:Oh the Irony..... by StayFrosty · · Score: 1

      That's exactly the point I was trying to make. The firearms used in the attacks weren't legal in France but that didn't stop anything.

      --
      "Frequently wrong, never in doubt."
    27. Re: Oh the Irony..... by ranton · · Score: 3, Informative

      Every day, huh? What mass shooting happened yesterday?
      It only feels like everyday, but shootings have gone down dramatically each decade.

      Apparently it really depends on your definition of mass shootings. By the most broad definition I could find (4 or more people shot in a single incident) there were 353 mass shootings in the US in 2015 by November 23rd. So about one per day on average.

      By the most narrow definition I could find (a single non-gang, robbery, or domestic violence incident where 4 or more people die), there were 4 mass shootings in the US in 2015 by November 23rd. With the same definition but replace death with just being shot, the number goes up to 61.

      The incidents people actually think about when they hear mass shootings probably lies closer to the 61 figure. Which means about 5-6 mass shootings per month.

      source

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    28. Re:Oh the Irony..... by ranton · · Score: 1

      "..he's saying what the people want to hear.."

      No... he's pandering to the lowest common denominator including people who watch reality TV and idiots like you.

      Step out of your liberal bubble and introduce yourself to the American public. I live in a high income liberal leaning suburb now so I rarely meet anyone who would be considered an average American. But I grew up around them in a small farm town. It's a whole different world.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    29. Re: Oh the Irony..... by kenaaker · · Score: 0
      It's a pretty interesting question to ask.

      Of course that brings up the hard part, thinking about the answer.

      My personal direct experience for firearms is 2 suicides by shotgun, one maiming, one emasculation. No "saves".

    30. Re: Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if you remove inner city violence attributed to gangs and only count "mass shootings" that the news cares about, you're right. But the FBI (I think it's the FBI) defines a mass shooting as 4 people shot in one incident. According to Mass Shooting Tracker the last one *was* San Bernardo or Savannah, but we *do* have 353 mass shooting this year (And 21 days left to go), which is enough to say "every day" and not be completely incorrect in common usage of the phrase.

    31. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ironic isn't it that Trump wants to kill the very instrument that would be most effective in de-radicalizing people

      I think it's funny that you think he wants to de-radicalize people. That's not what he wants. He wants them to be the same kind of radical he is.

      The most hilarious part is that a lot of the policies they have in Muslim run countries is very right wing. Like, incredibly far right. Donald Trump is too liberal to run some of those places.

    32. Re:Oh the Irony..... by ubrgeek · · Score: 1

      Ask Martin NiemÃller...

      --
      Bark less. Wag more.
    33. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      Free speech and free flow of information does more good than harm. Seems counter intuitive to lock violent radicals out of the very information that could change their minds, educate the ignorant, and carry a non violent message.

      Do you have any evidence to back up this assertion? This sounds like one of those assertions that people claim because they think it "makes sense" and is "obvious", but in reality there's actually no evidence to support it at all.

      Just look at how politics in America have gone since the WWW became so popular. 30 years ago, no one would have believe crazy claims about FEMA building concentration camps, yet these days those kinds of ideas are very commonplace among the right-wing. The whole Tea Party movement is a product of the free speech enabled by the Internet.

      Progressives have a naive idea that free speech will make people see "the truth", but instead what we're seeing is that it enables radicalism, whether it's ultra-far-right wing groups here in the US or whether it's ISIS in the middle east. ISIS is famous for making great use of social media to spread the word about their cause and to recruit people; why do you think tens of thousands of Muslims have left Europe to go to the middle east so they can commit murder and mayhem?

      Things were different in the "old days" (pre-internet), because speech was highly limited, to those who had enough money to build a TV station or own a printing press. Now, any moron can start a Facebook activism page about any crazy thing they want. It's a double-edged sword: it helps counter big-money interests, so for instance we have internet activists screaming about SOPA/PIPA and getting politicians to back down on that (temporarily), but on the other hand it enables all sorts of other radicals, and contributes to radicalization in general.

    34. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      The only thing that would help is gun control

      How did gun control help prevent the multiple attacks in Paris?

    35. Re:Oh the Irony..... by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 0

      Would you play the racist card if I could elect her as president? (NSFW, I guess?)

    36. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      So, a mass shooting that has now been labeled as terrorism happens in the state with the strictest gun control laws available in the US

      Absolutely wrong.

      California's gun laws aren't that strict. Illinois's and New Jersey's laws are stricter.

    37. Re:Oh the Irony..... by goose-incarnated · · Score: 0

      The only thing that would help is gun control.

      Funny - it didn't help San Bernardino. As far as I can tell, all those mass shootings happened in places with Gun Control, right?

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    38. Re:Oh the Irony..... by shellbeach · · Score: 1

      Additionally, randomly picking France or some other 'Western' country that is the size of Minnesota and has 1/8th the US population is simple cherry-picking. If you take all of Europe from Portugal to Moscow, which is far more equivalent to the size, population, and geographic disparities of the US, as well as income and education variations, the murder rates are far closer despite firearm ownership being so much less so as to be statistically none in comparison.

      I'm not sure you want to be using Russia as your benchmark of a civilized society. If you look at homicide rates in the OECD you'll see that the USA has a homicide rate three times or more higher than almost everyone else.

      Even if you believe this is solely a "people problem", do you not think there might be a danger in giving a naturally homicidal population free access to weapons that make homicide easy?

    39. Re:Oh the Irony..... by prefec2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And neither do most Eastern countries, or Southern countries, or Northern countries, etc. Yet many of them have murder rates far higher than the US.

      Oh great so the US does not suck compared to a large number of dictatorships and failing states? I compared the US to states which are democracies and have at least a comparable GDP per capita.

      And you have a mass shooting almost every day

      Only by a measure which includes 'shootings' in which nobody was killed, and the vast majority is gang violence in the inner city.

      Have a look at http://shootingtracker.com/wik...

      And no it makes no difference whether Jihad Joe, Racist Randolf or Narco Nick kills people. The people are terrified by that.

      31,537 people die from gun violence every year in the USA. Based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... you have 10.5 people shot per 100 000 people a year. In Germany that is 1.24, in Spain 0.62, in the Netherlands 0.46. And you think you do not have a problem? Really)

      BTW: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... that we have far less people in prison. So western Europe looks quite save to me.
      With rape it is 27.3 (2010) in the USA, in France 16.2 (2009) in Germany 9.4 (2010) in Spain 3.4 (2010). It is only higher in Sweden 63.5. However, they have very different laws what rape is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      And we do not have a refugee crisis. We have a problem in distributing refugees fairly in Europe. However, I am absolutely sure that Germany and Sweden are able to handle it. Not so sure about Greece, but maybe the EU will figure out a way to work together again (which is the real issue). Also we have a problem with fascist and nationalist movements in eastern Europe, e.g., Hungary and Poland. Still it does not make things better for you when we fail on our own problems. You will still have your gun problem.

    40. Re:Oh the Irony..... by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      No gun control is not about preventing terrorists go crazy. Even though it makes it harder for them to get guns in the first place. Sadly, Belgium is such a mess that you can easily get the guns there. Anyway, in the US you have daily shootings. Depending on statistics you have a serious mass shooting every second day and "normal" mass shootings every day. You have the highest rates in shot persons per capita compared to European countries. US 10.5, Germany 1.24, Spain 0.62. So it is 8 times more likely to get shot in the US than in Germany. Gun control has some benefits. And it contributes to my freedom. I can walk around at night and not get shot by police or other people.

    41. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ... so what does that tell you...that people are sick of President Obama ...

      No, that tells you that republicans are sick of the Republican Party and all the asshats they've been putting on the ballot.

      Fuck it. I'm voting for Trump. I'd vote for Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho at this point. I want Trump's victory to be a wake up call to the GOP.

    42. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... The gun control that we already have, and which proponents are proposing *more* of, even having acknowledged that these laws won't do anything to stop premeditated attacks is what we want to stop 'crimes of passion', even though they've *also* been shown to have no measurable impact on those?

      For example, the 3-7 day 'cooldown' periods required by some states? No measurable impact on crime rates, but several *hundred* known examples of people who needed a firearm for self defense being killed by stalkers, or abusive/angry (ex-)spouses *during* the 'cooldown' period.

      There is no such thing as 'gun control that "doesn't restrict people who already follow the laws", because *all* gun control is implemented in ways that *only* effects people who *already follow the laws*.

    43. Re:Oh the Irony..... by publiclurker · · Score: 1

      but the lower number of mass shootings compared to the ammo-sexually ridden USA shows that their laws do a pretty good job.

    44. Re:Oh the Irony..... by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      We have a website that changed the definition of "mass shooting" so they could claim we had one almost every day. Using the standard FBI definition, we've had one every other month or so.

      So when it is only every month or week that makes it acceptable? You have 8 times people killed by guns compared to Germany or France per capita. So really you think it is all fine in the US? Very strange.

    45. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, a mass shooting that has now been labeled as terrorism happens in the state with the strictest gun control laws available in the US,

      I stopped reading here, since California does not, in fact, have the strictest gun control laws in the US.

      In any case, (1): they used a loophole in the rule against high-capacity assault rifles. So, one conclusion would be "they should close the loophole" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
      and (2) they used neighbors to buy more of their guns. http://abcnews.go.com/US/neigh...

    46. Re: Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My personal direct experience is 0 suicides, 0 maimings, 0 emasculations, and 1 life saved. (Not counting lives saved during service in Afghanistan or Iraq.)

    47. Re:Oh the Irony..... by publiclurker · · Score: 1

      and why should we pretend that the bottom of the barrel trailer park trash that support him are anything to be listened to.

    48. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >No. It tells me that "some" people are ignorant and racists

      Do you like NSA spying that Obama supports? Does that make you racist. Some Ds are very quick to throw around the "racist" moniker. It's no better than the Rs throwing around their monikers.

    49. Re:Oh the Irony..... by prefec2 · · Score: 2

      Gun control helped to have 1.24 death by gun violence per 100 000 people in France and Germany compared to 10.5 in the US (figures 2010).

      gun control also helps to limit the ability to commit mass shootings. It does not completely circumvent such acts. In case of France, a better integration program, social workers, and education/training programs would have helped. This have been iterated here http://www.theguardian.com/pro...

    50. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, what?

      His point is absolutely legitimate. Either Gun Control worked, or it didn't. If it didn't work, the question is why. If it's because criminals/terrorists will always be able to arm themselves, then admit it.

    51. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ^^^ delusional

    52. Re:Oh the Irony..... by evilRhino · · Score: 1

      Note that "mass shooting" on that website would count one person wounding himself with a firearm, then getting killed by police officers who accidently [sic] injured three more people in the process of "stopping this attack" as a "mass shooting".

      I think this scenario should be counted.

      Oh, and gun control won't help. Unless you're got the kind of magic that can make 300+ million firearms just poof out of existence.

      And yet, deporting all Muslims from the US is seen as a brilliant idea.

    53. Re:Oh the Irony..... by ranton · · Score: 3, Insightful

      and why should we pretend that the bottom of the barrel trailer park trash that support him are anything to be listened to.

      Because their vote counts just as much as yours or mine does. Ignore them at your own peril.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    54. Re: Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ~150 of that number are 'shootings' where nobody was killed. Most of the rest are inner-city thugs shooting at each-other. Sometimes crowd-sourced numbers from reddit/internet are a bit misleading, or maybe you didn't know that.

      The FBI definition of an 'active shooter' situation has less than 40 occurring this year.

    55. Re: Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the year of 2015 so far, we are 342 days into the year.
      and thus far there have been more than 355 mass shooting in the US.
      That's more than 1 per day.

      it quite literally is, EVERY DAY.

    56. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other countries, like france, its a big deal to get 1 or 2 per year.
      in the Us we get 1 per day .

      achieving 0 is nearly impossible.
      but they have still done far better at reducing the number than the US has.

    57. Re: Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ShootingTracker.com has some issues with its data. What they *actually* count are shooting incidents where 4 or more people are *injured*, regardless of the cause of their injury. They also count disparate incidents which happen on the same day, even where the shooters are different people, and have no known (or even suspected) link.

      Scenario:
      Person A shoots Person B.
      Person C catches a bit of broken glass in the arm.
      Person D, & E are injured in the stampede as people flee the scene (D tripped and scraped up their hands on the concrete, E twisted their ankle going down some stairs).

      Not a mass shooting by any definition, but it would be counted as such in the ShootingTracker data.

    58. Re:Oh the Irony..... by parkinglot777 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, Trump can be a fool, but sadly he's probably the best we have currently running...

      No, Trump is a fool, not can be. And if you think he is probably the best you have currently running, then you are glued to him instead of looking around. Even in GOP, there are a few who are much better than Trump but they won't see the light.

      Trump talks but not walks. He always explains good thing VAGUELY (e.g. something good, something better, something blah blah), but nit picking all bad things in minute detail. He ALWAYS praise himself while putting everyone else (who is against him) down in a bully way. It is a psychological tactic. It works on those who have some thing in common with him. When one sees a person who agrees in something that the one dislikes, the one would automatically like the person. That's what he is using -- dislike President Obama. If one tries to be in the middle, the one will see tactics from both Republicants and Democrats. Period.

    59. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we have figured out the societal problem: the US has too many guns too feely available to people who shouldn't have them.

    60. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      How did gun control help prevent the multiple attacks in Paris?

      It prevented the other attacks -- the ones you didn't read about because the attackers were unable to acquire the guns needed to carry them out.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    61. Re:Oh the Irony..... by StayFrosty · · Score: 1

      The ignorance of Europeans who have never been to the US never ceases to amaze me (and it's pretty damn obvious you have never been here.) You clearly formed your opinions of safety in the US from Movies/TV without any actual research.

      And it contributes to my freedom. I can walk around at night and not get shot by police or other people.

      That's nice. Guns are legal and easy to get everywhere I have lived in the US and I have never had any fear of being shot. I live in a small city of 300,000 people and there isn't a neighborhood I would be uncomfortable walking through at midnight tonight. I have been in large cities and found bad neighborhoods (where most of the gun violence (mostly gang/drug related) happens) but this is no different from any European or African city I've visited. You are probably more likely to be stabbed or beaten in Europe rather than shot but the end result is the same.
       
      In the area I grew up, however, walking around at night unarmed is probably inadvisable due to wild animal attacks. Farmers animals are attacked and killed by mountain lions, timber wolves, and bears on a weekly basis. Gun ownership is a lot like privacy. I'm sick and tired of people who think that just because they don't need privacy or guns, nobody does.

      --
      "Frequently wrong, never in doubt."
    62. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Adriax · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He's trying to win a job where things like chewing gum and your body language down to the exact angle can affect foreign policy and ruin people's livelihood. Do you have any clue how bad Trump in the Whitehouse will be for the US?

      This isn't some political comedy movie where the bumbling doofus finds himself in power by hilarious circumstance, and his crude but comic efforts bring about the best possible outcome despite common sense dictating the opposite.
      This is how WW3 starts. And if I had to guess it trigger, it would be "I don't care if you're a prime minister or jewish. My staff put this luau style dinner so you'd better have some roast pig. You'd like it if you tried it."

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
    63. Re:Oh the Irony..... by StayFrosty · · Score: 1

      Apparently so does France.

      --
      "Frequently wrong, never in doubt."
    64. Re: Oh the Irony..... by N1AK · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The incidents people actually think about when they hear mass shootings probably lies closer to the 61 figure.

      The fact that you think nearly 300 incidents in which 4 or more people were shot wouldn't fit people's image of mass shootings just shows how warped your citizens perspective is on guns.

    65. Re: Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it quite literally is, EVERY DAY.

      Wrong

    66. Re:Oh the Irony..... by N1AK · · Score: 1

      That's exactly the point I was trying to make. The firearms used in the attacks weren't legal in France but that didn't stop anything.

      The scale of that logical fallacy is staggering... a law/ban/restriction not stopping all activity doesn't equate to not stopping anything (something which primary school children could comfortably understand). Even factoring in an abnormal event like the Paris attacks the people in France will still have 1/3rd or less chance of being killed with a gun than Americans.

    67. Re:Oh the Irony..... by DrXym · · Score: 1
      Yes but you assume here that Trump has thought this through, is prepared to listen to reasonable argument, or defer to those who are experts in these matters.

      Unfortunately Trump shows all the signs of having narcissistic personality disorder. The world revolves around him, he is right, you are wrong, you are stupid, you are a cardboard cutout who only exists to bask in his wisdom and light. It doesn't matter if what he says is demonstrably wrong. He's right. It doesn't matter if what he says is offensive or outrageous. He's right. It doesn't matter that nothing he says bears cursory examination or stands against the slightest critical thought. He's still right. No matter what harebrained, fuckwitted notion has embedded itself in his head, it's right. He's right. You're wrong.

      The Republican party must be freaking the hell out at this point in time. If he wins the nomination they lose, if he doesn't he'll probably run independent and they'll lose. At this point they're probably hoping he pops a vein and drops dead before it comes to either of those outcomes.

    68. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm confused, why would my wife's picture be NSFW?

    69. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Marginal+Coward · · Score: 1

      I believe that they are willfully misguiding their intellects for selfish primitive instincts they choose not to to keep in check.

      I have that same problem. But for me, it's not politicians - it's chocolate.

    70. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      France's gun control did a fantastic job of preventing the mass shootings in Paris... Oh, wait.

      France's gun control had absolutely nothing to do with the mass shootings in Paris.

      Yeah it doesn't fit the anti-white/men/gun narrative. Let ignore the Paris shooting.

      Toxic white masculinity is the cause of all evil. Everyone on twitter say it so it must be true.

    71. Re: Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's so ridiculous - I keep hearing these rebuttals. "Oh but they had strict gun control". You live in a massive country with no consistent gun laws and no borders between states. Of course they don't stop anything. You've never implemented a gun law worth a damn. Do it properly, and you might see results.

    72. Re:Oh the Irony..... by StayFrosty · · Score: 1

      he scale of that logical fallacy is staggering...

      No more staggering than the gun control debate coming up like this every time there is a mass shooting. It's an emotional reaction to a terrible event. The guns used in the terrorist attacks came across the Belgian border. Many of the guns used in violent attacks in the US are obtained illegally as well. Lots of weapons used in drug-related gun violence are smuggled in from Mexico.
       
      Like any freedom, just because you choose not to exercise your right to keep/bear arms doesn't mean it's okay to take that right away from others.

      --
      "Frequently wrong, never in doubt."
    73. Re:Oh the Irony..... by malditaenvidia · · Score: 1

      No, because the problem there was not gun control, and the massacre had nothing to do with gun control. The gun control laws were there before the incident, and the guns (and explosives) were smuggled from a different country. You're trying to push an issue that has nothing to do with the event at hand.

    74. Re:Oh the Irony..... by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 1

      You just won the Internet for today. Congratulations.

      --
      vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
    75. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you weren't so busy capslock-shouting the same tired argument ad infinitum you'd realize nobody else is engaged with you. Because the issue is that gun restrictions would reduce the overall number of guns and thus statistically reduce gun violence. It has nothing to do with principles beyond that. Killers obviously do not care about laws or they would not be killing in the first place. So what? Why not make nuclear weapons legal and then just make their detonation a crime? Because it's a stupid risk.

    76. Re:Oh the Irony..... by suutar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I dunno. I read it less as "those who oppose Obama must be racist" and more as "I'd rephrase that as 'Trump is saying what the people want to hear so what does that tell you... that people are ignorant and racist'", which doesn't involve Obama at all. I mean, it could be the way you're interpreting it, that's just not the way I did.

    77. Re:Oh the Irony..... by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 1

      Dude, you see the "Funny" by his mod? That means the moderators knew he wasn't being serious. It was a joke.

      --
      vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
    78. Re:Oh the Irony..... by kheldan · · Score: 1

      Someone with mod points please mod this person back up to at least zero? He's not a troll.

      Making guns more difficult to obtain isn't going to solve a single violence problem in the U.S. People who want to commit acts of violence will find a way to get the weapons they want to use to commit that violence, and if they can't get guns, they'll find some other way. Are you going to make posessing a pointed stick a federal crime? The Boston Marathon bombers used off-the-shelf items to make their IEDs, and look how many people they killed and maimed. Gasoline and a few other things can be used to make very messy bombs. Knives, swords, machetes from Harbor Freight Tools.. the list goes on. Making guns harder and harder to get or banning gun ownership won't do a damn thing, and I have nothing but contempt for people who are using recent tragedies as a springboard for their anti-gun agendas.

      So far as Trump being a clown: That's unfair to clowns everywhere in the world. Trump is a cancer, and needs to be excised from politics as quickly as possible. I've heard more than one person publicly denounce him as 'Hitler-like', and I think that's accurate. This is not someone who should ever be allowed to hold any public office of any kind, let alone POTUS. Oh and here's the trump card on Trump: Even Dick Cheney doesn't like or agree with Trump. What does that tell you?

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    79. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Jesrad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think Donald Trump is a clown or an idiot. I think he knows exactly what he's doing, which is pandering to idiocy. It's working well, and that says very sad things about Republicans.

      --
      Maybe we deserve this world ?
    80. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      A better integration program? How's that supposed to work? Make French culture more Islamic so the Muslims fit in better?

    81. Re:Oh the Irony..... by kruhft · · Score: 1

      > It tells me that "some" people are ignorant and racists

      Half of people are below average intelligence.

    82. Re: Oh the Irony..... by ranton · · Score: 0

      The incidents people actually think about when they hear mass shootings probably lies closer to the 61 figure.

      The fact that you think nearly 300 incidents in which 4 or more people were shot wouldn't fit people's image of mass shootings just shows how warped your citizens perspective is on guns.

      Overall people are fine with gang members killing gang members.
      Overall people who don't live in poor areas don't worry about armed robbery.
      Overall people think domestic abuse is something that wouldn't happen to them. It is also something associated with the poor in most people's minds (mostly accurately).

      People generally only get scared or want to do something about a problem when it affects them. Mass shootings are a good boogeyman because even the middle class can be targets.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    83. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The one. Wasn't that a character in STNG?

    84. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

      No. It tells me that "some" people are ignorant and racists. I restrain to add stupid as I believe that they are willfully misguiding their intellects for selfish primitive instincts they choose not to to keep in check.

      No, Trump is a master at persuasion. It is a language based technique to persuade other people. His ideas actually don't metter all that much. Read Scott Adam's blog for more details here: http://blog.dilbert.com/

      It goes way back, search for trump and read the oldest. He describes Trump's technique in great details.

    85. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > most effective in de-radicalizing people

      How fucking stupid are you? The internet is nerd paradise but how can you not have noticed what it's doing to normal people.
      Browse a few facebook walls sometime. Look at what people are sharing. It's like a 24 hour, 365 superchared Fox News out there.

      People here are technology idealists, if not evangelists, but when you turn around and find that Aunt Tillie has become a prepping, birther, SJW, serial paranormal chain mailer maybe then you'll finally put two and two together. But by then it'll be far too late. ISIS isn't an outlier. Neither is Trump. They're symptoms of what the internet, what mass exposure to memes and hyperchromatic nerd entertainment is doing to normal people.

      The Web is driving men mad.

    86. Re:Oh the Irony..... by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "So, a mass shooting that has now been labeled as terrorism happens in the state with the strictest gun control laws available in the US, and the answer is... more gun control laws?"

      I don't know if that's true but even without that knowledge is pretty obvious that more gun controls is indeed the solution. You could have a State *completely* banning guns (and I mean 100%, even those carried by police) and you still would need more control laws since there's no working State borders.

      There's no point in strongly controlling guns in one State if you can freely buy them in the State next to it and freely carry them into -it surely would just make things *worse*, not better, for the restricting State. You need global USA control, both in production and gun ownership to get any significant effect.

    87. Re:Oh the Irony..... by netwiz · · Score: 1

      And every Western nation that has banned firearms has seen a massive increase in every facet of crime that's not murder. Go ahead, look it up. UK Home Office of National Statistics. The UK has, by my last count, 800% higher violent crime per capita than the US, and nearly 2000% the property crime as the US. Either Americans are just way better behaved (unlikely) or guns act as a really great deterrent.

      Then there's the slow creep of government overreach, but I won't delve into tinfoil hat territory just yet. Just remember that the first thing totalitarian dictators do is disarm their people.

    88. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      - Preaches to the choir, beating up on the competition, rather than trying to convert anyone
      - Amplifies loudly ideas while ignoring flaws
      - If you hate the current guy...!

      Sounds like every politician.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    89. Re:Oh the Irony..... by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I wonder who nutty old Uncle Don will go for next?

      You know, I have a theory.

      I think Donald came into this thing, as a lark...running for president would get him a lot of attention and when he dropped out after a good showing, he's have more demand for him thereafter on news, etc.

      I think, this long term support as nominee has surprised even HIM...who likely didn't want to really be president, just to run and get some "credit"....

      I think with his marks in the polls, it is scaring even HIM that he could get the nomination, and therefore...is amping up the "crazy" to be able to get out of being nominated, yet still never have to voluntarily drop out, etc.

      I think theres a possibility he got into this never meaning to win...and is maybe scared shitless he might really do it...?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    90. Re:Oh the Irony..... by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      Especially on a geek outlet, I should not need to explain the word integration. However, as there might be some confusion. Integration does not mean assimilation and it does not mean that people have to become more Muslim what ever that means. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      First, it is necessary that people do not feel excluded. In the US, for example, black people often feel excluded and mistreated. This requires many different efforts, for example, people of the minority should be part of the police. And police officers must be trained in understanding cultural differences (this is necessary because someone forgot it integrate the people before, otherwise they would know how to react in a "French" way).
      It is also important to use gentrification to break up ghetto structures and achieve mixed population areas. Provide language courses to all people. Make them compulsory in school (if there are deficits). In case people commit crimes: Don't use prisons only to put people away. In any case it is better to not put them in. Instead let them do things for the public in the city district they live in.
      Second, support efforts by the minority to communicate their cultural differences in form of events. You do not become a Muslim just be talking to one. However, you might better understand him when you had a chat with one.
      And finally it must be clear that it is not Muslims vs. Christians, it is terrorists vs. us peace lovers.

    91. Re:Oh the Irony..... by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "Oh, and gun control won't help. Unless you're got the kind of magic that can make 300+ million firearms just poof out of existence."

      Just "poof"? Certainly not. It would take years, if not decades, for it to get full effect. So your answer is "since it can't be done overnight, don't do anything about it" instead of "the sooner we start, the sooner we'll finish".

      "would require a budget in the $500B range"

      Let's assume that's right. That's a lot of money, but how much exactly? About one Zumwalt-class destroyer? If that investment lowered gun-related deaths to, say, France level, it would mean about 20.000 USA people not killed *per year*. Will a single Zumwalt-class destroyer reach an equivalent record?

    92. Re:Oh the Irony..... by jimtheowl · · Score: 1

      This. Thanks.

    93. Re:Oh the Irony..... by craigminah · · Score: 1

      Mass shootings are most likely caused by either people who feel they have no other options or by people with some agenda. I tend to think the majority of shooting are due to the former. Banning guns only works if criminals follow laws which we know they don't simply due to them being criminals. So sick of all the "guns are bad" rhetoric...the problem are the people who use guns for evil. Ban cell phones and automobiles if you want to save lives but we all know Democrats don't care about lives (e.g. abortion).

    94. Re:Oh the Irony..... by dryeo · · Score: 1

      I don't know about the States, but here in Canada the rumours about the government building concentration camps started about 1970 and the FLQ crisis (Quebec separatist terrorism) and if anything, the lack of the internet made the rumours easier to belief as research was hard. Same with our tea party equivalent, the Reform Party which started before the internet. Shit, we didn't even officially have free speech at the time.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    95. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Marginal+Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I recently read a book called "The Narcissist Next Door" which details narcissistic personality disorder. Although the book was written years ago, it specifically mentions The Donald as a possible sufferer of the disorder. And based on the symptoms they described, it seems quite likely to me. If so, that would adequately explain all of his behavior that we've seen. In effect, all this isl about drawing attention to himself (which actually is the motivation of any troll.) And if he happens to get elected as President, that's just gravy (for him.) That said, as a narcissist, he would fully believe that he's the best person for the job. So he would believe that he should be elected.

      I recently saw program where a commentator observed that unlike other politicians, Trump "doubles down" on anything stupid that he says. For example, the more that people point out that there is no evidence of thousands celebrating in New Jersey when the twin towers came down, the more he pushes the idea.

      According to the book, a narcissist - in the clinical sense - is incapable of admitting he's wrong. So, whenever that gets pointed out by someone, it must be the fault of an external party. In this case, he can blame the media for misreporting the "facts" or whatever: he's never, ever, ever, simply "wrong."

    96. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But how many shootings happened in total in France this year? How do you know their gun laws didn't prevent 50 other shootings just because they didn't prevent this one? Many things are against the law, but happen anyway. Murder, robbery, rape, jaywalking, you name it. By your logic, we should overturn all those laws because sometimes a person ignores the law and commits a crime?

    97. Re: Oh the Irony..... by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Does that mean we Europeans can ignore gang related gun murders too when there's a debate on gun violence? You'll find that our stats go down to virtually zero if we do that.

    98. Re: Oh the Irony..... by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      You can still get a gun legally in Europe, it's just not ludicrously easy like it is in the U.S. If you have a legitimate need for a gun here you can get one.

    99. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Firearm homicide also isn't an every-day national pass-time in France as it is in the U.S. But then again, there have been more mass shootings than days of the year, which should tell you something.

    100. Re: Oh the Irony..... by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Since virtually no one owned a gun before the ban on hand guns you don't know what you're talking about. Crime has been falling steadily in the UK for the past 2 decades despite the fact that we can't massacre children anymore.

    101. Re:Oh the Irony..... by captjc · · Score: 2

      How the hell is he still leading the field on the Republican side?

      The last few decades have shown that the Republican Party is dominated by the craziest person with the loudest voice. Whereas elections were won by who could prostitute themselves to the richest sugardaddy. Now we have a loud, insane guy who is his own sugardaddy.

      Then again, I don't truly believe that Trump is as popular as he appears. It is just that the Media loves a side-show. Half just want the comedy, half are just filling time with his antics. Donald Trump is a brand and he really knows how to market himself. They are playing right into his strategy.

      --
      Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
    102. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Nyder · · Score: 0

      ...

      Signed,
      A registered Republican who votes for sane candidates... when there are any.

      So I guess you never vote and this election you are voting for Bernie.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    103. Re: Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check your facts. It is not easy to get a gun in the US(legally). You have to go thru several background checks. You can't walk into a store and walk out the same day with a gun.

    104. Re: Oh the Irony..... by bkr1_2k · · Score: 2

      Unless you count service members killed in action, I doubt it. Most gun-related violence in the US happens in large urban areas and tends to be gang related. I live in a small city of 300,000 people and I can count the number of firearm-related deaths this year on one hand. In all cases it was gang/drug related from out of town. Each time it made the local news for a week or so.

      You're both confusing gun related crimes and gun related deaths, which are most commonly accidents where people shoot themselves with a gun they thought was unloaded. The accidental deaths far outnumber the crime-related gun deaths but both sides want you to believe otherwise. Pro-gun folks want you to believe everyone should carry a gun because all the "bad guys" are invading homes and assaulting them (statistically incredibly rare---less than 0.1% --http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt ), or walking down every street. Anti-gun folks say no one should have guns because "think of the children".

      This is the problem with these gun death statistics... most anti-gun folks use the whole number of deaths and the pro-gun folks use the actual "crime related" numbers. The two sides of this argument will never see eye to eye and each side is using the same data to support its argument. They're both wrong.

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    105. Re: Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not if any single one is of average intelligence.

    106. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'd be happy if we could close up Trump in some way.

      Not to worry, Cruz is about to do so by out xenophobing Trump - more rabid than thou. On second thought, worry...

    107. Re:Oh the Irony..... by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Oh please its just a question of confirmation bias. Liberals say plenty of things they take on faith and expect us to take on faith too. Consider this quote from the President Sunday:

      It is our responsibility to reject religious tests on who we admit into this country. It's our responsibility to reject proposals that muslim-americans should somehow be treated differently. Because when we travel down that road, we lose.

      To broaden things out a little bit some of our nations biggest economic boom years coincide with periods of our strongest anti-immigrant public sentiment. When we have done horrible things like round up the Japanese Americans and put them in camps we won the biggest conflict the globe has ever seen.

      So the president can say what he wants. I (and this is rare) agree we should not apply religious tests to decide who we admin into this country. There is a lot better criteria we can use, that my 'gut' tells me would be more predictive. As far as I am aware though the President's lets not lock out all the Muslims isn't any better supported by the facts than Trump and Cruz wanting to shut them out.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    108. Re: Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Evert day... Really? Please, cite your references. Take your time. We'll wait...
      Nothing, eh? Your reckless hyperbole pretty much removes any credibility from your argument. Thanks for playing.

    109. Re:Oh the Irony..... by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

      You're comparing gun crimes violence related to other crimes versus "terrorist" activities where the gun violence is the only crime of note. Saying gun control wouldn't have stopped incidents like Sandy Hook, or VTech, or even the San Bernadino attacks because illegal guns used by drug cartels "are smuggled in from Mexico" is completely asinine.

      More sensible gun control laws that do more background investigation would have potentially stopped all three of the incidents I listed from happening. No one (with any sense at all) is saying gun related violence associated with other crimes is going to be stopped by changing gun laws but they are saying that legally purchased guns used in "mass shootings" would be reduced.

      That said, most people don't have a clue what actually happens when a gun is legally purchased and they should do some research. It's not just walk in and buy a gun without any information changing hands. (At least not from legal dealers.) Hell, to even buy a shotgun for hunting I had to prove I am over 18, provide 2 forms of legal identification with the same address, fill out questionnaires, attest to being a US citizen, swear (upon penalty of perjury) that I was giving accurate information and I wasn't buying the gun for someone else, and a bunch of other stuff. That's for a "short range" weapon.

      If we want to have a meaningful discussion about this that keeps our rights intact but also reduces unnecessary gun accidents and violence, both sides of the argument need to stop using hyperbole and start using some real logic.

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    110. Re: Oh the Irony..... by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      Why is it then that we have only a fraction of such shootings compared to the US? True gun control does not prohibit such violance, however it limits it. Also it communicates that we are a peaceful society. The thing is we (humans) came up with the idea of the monopoly of force which resides with the state. And it works well in the EU.

      BTW if these mass shootings are not related to gun control or the lack of, then it must be a societal issue. Do you think US citizens are more violent than their European counterparts?

    111. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had a shitty day so far, but that got a chuckle. Well played sir, well played.

    112. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, just like that Hitler guy. They even have the same kind of hair problem. Trump has not yet tried distracting from it with a moustache. But then he's copied so many other things that it's just a question of time.

    113. Re:Oh the Irony..... by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

      "All fine" and "acceptable risk to preserve 'inalienable rights' " are not the same thing. There is a middle ground somewhere but neither side is willing to concede this for some stupid reason. More political grand-standing to take away from the fact that our economy is only a hair's breadth away from being in a shambles on any given day and our government won't actually do anything to fix that. Or god forbid we actually address our health care epidemic.

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    114. Re:Oh the Irony..... by NonUniqueNickname · · Score: 1

      > It tells me that "some" people are ignorant and racists

      Half of people are below average intelligence.

      *shakes head*
      Median. Half of people are below median intelligence.

    115. Re:Oh the Irony..... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Interesting (conspiracy) theory; like 99% of theories it lacks facts BUT it is interesting to see the "same" Ross-Perot-splitting-the-votes situation all over again.

      --
      Those that fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it

    116. Re:Oh the Irony..... by publiclurker · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying ignore them just don't waste too much time on what they have to say. Kind of like when your four year old says that he should be allowed to drive the car. You don't really waste much time on his reasons, you tell him no and tell him to be quiet if he keeps on wasting your time and don't let him near your keys.

    117. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love how quick you are with allegations of racism.

      Racism is just one sort of ugly prejudice--judging people before knowing them.

      Guess what you're doing when you so quickly label people as racist?

    118. Re:Oh the Irony..... by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      The sad thing is, Hilary makes equally bizarre rants and nobody thinks them odd because they've heard this Bravo Sierra for so long. I really wish all these idiots would go to another planet far, far, away.

    119. Re:Oh the Irony..... by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      Really? Who might those people be? If you want to say the American left AND the American right, I might agree with you. If you want to say Trump supporters, I'd say some may be racists - but some may be tired of seeing the "new boss, same old boss" destroy their country, one bit at a time. Trump IS a clown. But given how desperate the people of the US are becoming for politicians who are not lying thieves they seem to welcome this clown.

    120. Re:Oh the Irony..... by aquabat · · Score: 4, Funny

      We really should be trying to get that down below 30%.

      --
      A republic cannot succeed till it contains a certain body of men imbued with the principles of justice and honour.
    121. Re: Oh the Irony..... by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      This is rubbish. In the last 70 years crime got down every year. And especially those in East Germany armed their population while West Germany did not. On a side node do you think that all the old EU states are totalitarian? I guess not.

    122. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me fix that for you.. 1.24 WHITE deaths per 100,000 INSIDE the RICH counties borders.

      I think you are forgetting the THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of BROWN people shot, blown up, crushed under walls, and starved to death by European countries in the last 10 years. Hell, France just blew the shit out of dozens and dozens of people in Syria .. They blew up a stadium, a museum, and a bunch of houses in the suburbs.
      So, the pilot and the people who ordered him are mass shooters, terrorists, and we need to pass some laws about it right?

      Oh wait, I forgot..
      If you call it a 'conflict' or 'action' and dress the murders up in a costume and give them the biggest killing toys money can buy it does not count as a 'mass shooting', or even murder. Hell, shoot up kids in hospital beds and have them burn alive and it is just collateral damage.

      Wait, you say 'but it was because of the bombing in France'.. Well, yea' it was, and the bombing in France was because of the bombings in the middle east done by FRANCE.. But yea' these were done because of something else in the past that was done by something else and on and on all the way back to when some caveman ate anthers antelope.
      Anyway, so, who's guns are killing all these brown people? Oh, look at that. France's guns:
      http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/revealed-how-isis-most-weapons-6973238

      Look, regardless about the absolute hypocrisy when it comes to small acts of murder vrs the military, and when and how military action and state action is necessary the facts are that it is actually the best, safest, least murderous time in all of human history.
      It is only recently that we have detached death from war, from all other forms of murder and death by accident.
      It is a fact that only a few generations ago war was common, it was brutal, and it touched every level of society. Women and children were regularly raped and murdered by solders on the march to war. Death was around the corner for nearly everyone. Child birth, mule kicks, infected scrapes, hell fucking plane old diarrhea killed untold millions.

      The reason people get so worked up is because it actually has become so rare that any of us have to deal with true random violence and needless death.
      Aside from car accidents most people don't have any association with someone who died from anything other than disease or other natural causes.
      Speaking of car accidents. 32,719 deaths in 2013 in the US. 3 times as many as by guns. The stats included deaths of perpetrators who were shot by victims or police in self defense as well as gang members engaged in turf wars. Want to pick the low hanging fruit?
      Make cars safer, make it harder to be a driver, and do regular tests of older people who's driving skills are in decline.

      Freedom is indeed not free. You have to pay for it with risk. You have no right to feel 'safe'. Instead you have various rights that allow you to be FREE. Free of thought, free of action. The only thing you don't have is the freedom to take these same rights from others who have harmed no one.

      http://www.buzzfeed.com/tomchivers/why-this-is-the-best-ever-time-to-be-a-human#.cgP6omW25
      http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2014/12/the_world_is_not_falling_apart_the_trend_lines_reveal_an_increasingly_peaceful.html
      http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100213772/we-may-not-feel-it-but-weve-never-been-safer/
      http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jul/21/stu-burguiere/fewer-wars-fewer-people-dying-wars-now-quite-some/

    123. Re:Oh the Irony..... by CaptainLard · · Score: 1

      I lost 25lbs in a week with no diet or exercise and you can too. All you need to do is attend a trump campaign rally!

      Come on guys, how come there is no #trumpcrazypromises meme yet?

    124. Re:Oh the Irony..... by grumpy_old_grandpa · · Score: 1

      > This isn't some political comedy movie where the bumbling doofus finds himself in power by hilarious circumstance

      Well, that movie played out quite well for Bush the 2nd.
      Also, think about all those who profit from the clowns in power. What would The Daily Show be without Bush and Trump?

    125. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no, no. See, it's not fascist if you only do it to bad people.

      That motto worked for the Democrats for the past eight years. Republicans are just starting to catch on.

    126. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How the hell is he still leading the field on the Republican side? Is this some vast right wing conspiracy to get Hillary elected so they can have 4 more years of 'shredding the Constitution' and 'destroying America' rhetoric?

      It's because the Republican establishment has been utterly clueless and in disarray. They thought they'd just prop up Jeb Bush and maybe throw in another ultraconservative Christian for show they'd have a good chance. They still don't get that the Republican party needs to change big time and kick out some of their dinosaurs and dinosaur constituencies.

    127. Re: Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US sheeple are very much ok with opting-in to danger they are aware of (even if that understanding is warped beyond reality). They get upset by danger exposed, which they were not aware of, usually warping it into some understanding that is beyond reality.

    128. Re:Oh the Irony..... by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      Free speech and free flow of information does more good than harm.

      I think that's true, but it's the wrong argument to make. We don't value free speech because it's useful or reduces harm, but because it is a basic human right that government has no business interfering with.

    129. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I don't know if that's true but even without that knowledge is pretty obvious that more gun controls is indeed the solution.

      I think it's blatantly obvious, gun controls or ignorance (like you demonstrate) are not going to help. This was a tiny, marginal incident. People shot down at the AZ mexican border, every day are more of a problem by simple volume. Go take a look at how new gun laws have helped there (ie not at all).

    130. Re:Oh the Irony..... by dpidcoe · · Score: 1

      30 years ago, no one would have believe crazy claims about FEMA building concentration camps, yet these days those kinds of ideas are very commonplace among the right-wing.

      People did, you just never heard of it because the places they exchanged such information and ideas weren't visible to you. Had you hung out in the right circles, you would have encountered it eventually. Also keep in mind that even though while nutty conspiracy theories now have more visibility, the truth also has a lot more visibility. The best counter to this kind of stuff is to make the counter-argument and let the most well reasoned viewpoint win out, not to censor the craziness.

    131. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

      So it's like C++ and Scientology - a joke that got out of hand and went too far for the perpetrators to admit it?

      That's such a stupid and ridiculous idea that there's absolutely no way ever it isn't true.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    132. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny mods does not make it funny or a joke. See what gets modded insightful here.

    133. Re:Oh the Irony..... by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 2

      > It tells me that "some" people are ignorant and racists

      Half of people are below average intelligence.

      *shakes head* Median. Half of people are below median intelligence.

      *shakes head a bit more* Average. Half of the people are below average intelligence. Due to the law of large numbers and the construction that intelligence has finite variance, intelligence is normally distributed. Therefore the statement holds for the three most used averages: Mode, Median and (arithmetic) Mean.

    134. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Speck'sBacon · · Score: 1

      Everything you said is what I don't like about Trump, and it's precisely what I don't like about President Obama.

    135. Re: Oh the Irony..... by Viewsonic · · Score: 1

      And if you think the FBI's definition is any bit more sane, you're still insane. 40 is 40 too many. Period.

    136. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Trump has not yet tried distracting from it with a moustache.

      Perhaps he should move that ... ummm ... thing down a few inches.

      It couldn't be less convincing, could it?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    137. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump is a dangerous fascist, and could quite easily cause America to descend into an extreme right-wing dictatorship. This kind of thing happens. You guys should watch out.

      I am being perfectly serious. Do not underestimate him. He is not afraid of your puny laws.

    138. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Trump is a fool, not can be.

      If you dismiss Trump as a fool, you risk everything. He is dangerous enough to destroy your country.

    139. Re:Oh the Irony..... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      He's simply telling the Republican electorate (well, not all of it, but a significant proportion) exactly what they want to hear. I don't really understand all the fuss about Trump specifically - the real problem is the millions of supporters that he has that share all those views. And that problem was created by the Republican party itself, by increased reliance on fear-driven politics ever since Nixon's "war on drugs" and "silent majority". Then there's Fox News etc. You reap what you sow. GOP has sown fear among its electorate for decades, and now it's reaping the accumulated fear-driven hate that this produced. It's not rational, and it's not possible to negotiate with.

      Luckily, Trump has zero chance of actually becoming the president if he wins the nomination. Also luckily, this expose will send GOP crumbling, and hopefully something better will emerge out of these ashes. The country could use a non-batshit-insane fiscal conservative / small government (for real) party as a counterbalance to the Democrats.

    140. Re:Oh the Irony..... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Progressives don't believe in free speech. Liberals do, and that's a continuing point of divergence between the two.

    141. Re:Oh the Irony..... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Trump uses very shady tactics, but I don't see how that necessarily makes him a fool (sounding like fool to get elected, because that's what the electorate wants, is not the same as being one).

    142. Re:Oh the Irony..... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      No gun control is not about preventing terrorists go crazy.

      Of course it isn't. Gun control is about preventing the citizenry from rising up against a tyrannical state.

      (That sort if issue is why the Second Amendment exists, you know. The whole damn Bill of Rights was written by a bunch of revolutionaries who had just finished violently overthrowing a government.)

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    143. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and (2) they used neighbors to buy more of their guns.

      Which in itself is a federal felony, so let's see if Enrique Marquez actually gets charged.

    144. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Marginal+Coward · · Score: 1

      Coincidentally, in the book I mentioned, they covered an academic study of which U.S. presidents were the most narcissistic based on whatever historical data was available. As one might expect, most of them scored fairly high on the scale. I forget which one scored highest, but IIRC it was Lyndon Johnson. For example, he had a habit of holding meetings while he sat on the toilet, with his (reportedly impressive) "johnson" in full view. Obviously, that's not something that a non-narcissist would do.

      Although the word "narcissist" sounds pejorative, it's not necessary a bad thing unless it's carried to extremes. In fact, why would any non-narcissist run for President in the first place? Most of us would feel unqualified to carry that much responsibility. But somebody's gotta do it, and someone who believes deep in his heart that he (or she...) is the best - if not only - person for the job would feel not only capable but even obligated to run for it, no matter what cost is in terms of privacy, personal attacks, time, energy, etc. So, by definition, anyone who runs for President is probably not a psychologically "normal" person.

      There's a reason lots of folks are scared of Trump: because his narcissism seems to go to extremes. And as he goes farther and farther across the line that other politicians won't cross, let's just hope he manages to keep his johnson in his pocket. Personally, I don't care to see it. And I doubt that his advisers do either.

    145. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      BUT it is interesting to see the "same" Ross-Perot-splitting-the-votes situation all over again.

      And some split it will be, when you even have Sith Lord Dick Cheny opposing him.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    146. Re: Oh the Irony..... by LateArthurDent · · Score: 1

      Apparently it really depends on your definition of mass shootings. By the most broad definition I could find (4 or more people shot in a single incident) there were 353 mass shootings in the US in 2015 by November 23rd. So about one per day on average.

      Fair enough, but whatever definition you use, the question is whether it's getting better or worse if you use consistent definitions year-to-year. And the person you're replying to is right: it's getting better, gun homicide is significantly down from past decades. source

    147. Re:Oh the Irony..... by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      Yes, play that race card for all it's worth, because it's the ONLY card you have to play. Obama is half white, too. He's a weak fool (or an evil genius if you wish to see it that way) no matter his color.

      I know many blacks who are sick of Obama. Does that make them ignorant or racist? Obama's incompetence has made even Jimmy Carter's Presidency look good.

    148. Re:Oh the Irony..... by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      Gun control helped to have 1.24 death by gun violence per 100 000 people in France and Germany compared to 10.5 in the US (figures 2010).

      Bearing in mind of course, that 2/3rds of those 10.5 are suicides. What about the fact that the state of Vermont, with the most liberal gun laws in the country, had the lowest murder rate (1.1 per 100K) and the lowest firearm murder rate (0.3 per 100K) for the same period of time? Obviously the availability of guns didn't factor in there, nor did the permissive gun laws (or lack thereof). Why then is gun violence so much more prevalent in states like New York, Illinois, and California where the laws are substantially more strict? Why are there so many suicides nationwide? I don't think it's about the guns themselves - there are some serious social issues at play there, and addressing those will do far more to fix things than gun control will.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    149. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this some vast right wing conspiracy to get Hillary elected so they can have 4 more years of 'shredding the Constitution' and 'destroying America' rhetoric?

      Close: it's a hilarious left wing conspiracy to get Hillary elected.

      Essentially: they found a Clinton supporter with name recognition and enough money to not give a shit to kamikaze the Republican primary with Poe's Law. By pitching to the lowest common denominator he's taken yellow journalism and built a campaign on it. This is Steven Colbert dressed up in a poker face masquerading as a serious campaign and the best part is: Trump isn't flinching.

    150. Re:Oh the Irony..... by NonUniqueNickname · · Score: 1

      > It tells me that "some" people are ignorant and racists

      Half of people are below average intelligence.

      *shakes head* Median. Half of people are below median intelligence.

      *shakes head a bit more* Average. Half of the people are below average intelligence. Due to the law of large numbers and the construction that intelligence has finite variance, intelligence is normally distributed. Therefore the statement holds for the three most used averages: Mode, Median and (arithmetic) Mean.

      Given how many people are at average intelligence, 'less than average' is less than half, and 'less than or equal to average' is more than half.

    151. Re:Oh the Irony..... by budgenator · · Score: 1

      On a per capita basis we're forth behind Norway! Gun Violence in the US is way down and trending down. Switzerland has required gun ownership and gun violence is almost unheard of there.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    152. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, and anyone who argues with him just annoys the audience or comes across as shrill. It's like mud wrestling with a pig. Smart people walk away shaking their head. In this case: the people in the bleachers cheer everytime someone who cares about their credibility refuses to engage because their champion is "undefeated".

      It's a case of collective willful blindness jeering at anyone who will abuse the MSM/establishment. Trump's refusal to play their game and his exploitation of the media's inability to ignore a controversy is what makes people adore him. He's untainted by a process that seemingly corrupted anything it touched with the stench of "more of the same".

    153. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about." --Oscar Wilde

      I think Trump is very smart and knowns exactly what he's doing: He's subverting the spectacle that is the US political process to promote himself and his brand. The fact that he's been able to crash the Republican's party and steam roll over everyone to the extent he has is very impressive. To his credit, Trump's a master of the media spectacle, and knows how to get people talking.

    154. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a PREFECT example of media bias. Hillary said the SAME THING yet her comment is ignored, while Trump is mocked. Typical Democrat hypocrites!

      WASHINGTON — Hillary Clinton said on Sunday that the Islamic State had become “the most effective recruiter in the world” and that the only solution was to engage American technology companies in blocking or taking down militant websites, videos and encrypted communications.

    155. Re: Oh the Irony..... by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Service Member deaths even with being in combat for 14 years are amazingly low 3,486 in Afganistan over 14 years, 4,809 in Iraq over 8 years, 58,148 in Vietnam over 13 years.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    156. Re: Oh the Irony..... by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Mass shooting Tracker counted 2 kids with BB guns as a mass shooting

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    157. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Replace "Donald Trump" with "Obama" and you're describing another narcissist to a 'T'.

    158. Re:Oh the Irony..... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      You think Ford, Dole, McCain, and Romney were "the craziest person with the loudest voice"? All 4 were middle-of-the-road, and lost because they stood strongly for nothing and weren't so thrillingly evil as their opponents.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    159. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      democrats are not the only party that 'shreds the constitution'. many, if not most, of the current and past (publicized, at least) "constitutional issues" such as warrentless searches, detention, torture, persecution, and the myriad of data gathering and wiretapping were started by your fat fucking elephant republicans, not the shady jackass democrats.

      since you only vote for 'sane' candidates, i guess that means you've never voted.

    160. Re:Oh the Irony..... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      If I start a religion based on "I'll murder anyone I don't like", there's a very good reason all people claiming adherence to this religion should be denied entry to the U.S. The only significant difference between my proposed religion and Islam is that Islam is more complicated.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    161. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me be clear, we will never not, and in no way fail to vote for him!

    162. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      You sure about that? I thought it was the other way around. Maybe we have some mix-ups with definitions here. I thought, first, that progressives were liberals, but a subset of them. Secondly, I thought the progressives were the ones who wanted real economic changes (like Bernie's hammering about wealth inequality), while more mainstream liberals were basically "limosine liberals" who support the status quo but will talk about throwing a bone to the lower classes now and then. Now, if you're talking about the social justice types, I'm not sure what to call them, other than SJWs or "wacky left". Considering how they trashed one of Bernie's rallies, I wouldn't consider them to be aligned with him.

    163. Re: Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should know that pellet guns are lethal weapons, and because they often aren't treated as such, most of the victims of the killing and injuring they inflict are children. Deaths are about 4 per year, and injuries were 13851 in 2010, where 9252 of the victims were 19 or younger. For those injuries that require hospitalization, average stays are about 3 days.

    164. Re:Oh the Irony..... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Progressives are the opposite of social conservatives - they want social progress. A pure progressive doesn't care by which means the progress is achieved, so long as it's achieved. So, for example, a law prohibiting "hate speech" would be acceptable if it results in less discrimination and hence more social justice.

      Liberals want individual liberty. In the modern interpretation, this includes a belief that such liberty is not possible without social justice, which makes them progressives to some extent, but in that perspective social progress is a mean to an ends, and if it in turn requires means that are contrary to individual freedom, a liberal has to balance the gain and the loss. Depending on how they value any particular freedom (since such assessment is necessarily subjective - what's more important, a right to life or freedom of speech, for example?), they may arrive at different conclusions here, but generally speaking, most liberals would shy away from restrictions on natural rights, such as hate speech laws - or at least wouldn't embrace them, at best seeing them as a lesser evil.

    165. Re:Oh the Irony..... by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

      Godwin Bingo. This AC is on the money. Trump is as dangerous as Hitler was, it only remains to be seen whether or not he'll manage to procure himself any actual power. He's already poisoned the national conversation with lies and baseless accusations - and since the mainstream media is basically dead in the US, there's no-one to really stand up to what he's saying.

      Remember: Hitler was voted in. Do not stay home during the elections, America. He will destroy your country if you let him.

    166. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      I lost 25lbs in a week with no diet or exercise and you can too. All you need to do is attend a trump campaign rally!

      Come on guys, how come there is no #trumpcrazypromises meme yet?

      They're having trouble keeping up.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    167. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Are we really so scared that we will turn proto-fascist?

      More like the percentage of Americans that are already that way are already that way.

      Don't for a second think that Trump somehow represents anything but the lunatic fringe.

      Not that the Republicans don't deserve the monster they've created. As they have purged the party of conservatives that like to think (moi), and gone so radical pseudo right that people who used to be considered conservative (moi) are thought of as libtards, or whatever pejorative they use at the moment, it is only natural that as the bottom of the barrel is scraped, that this sort of horrorbaby will come out of it.

      GodDAMMIT I miss Barry Goldwater!

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    168. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      No, no, no. See, it's not fascist if you only do it to bad people.

      I wonder who nutty old Uncle Don will go for next?

      Is anyone left?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    169. Re:Oh the Irony..... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Wait, what? If I'm sick of Obama then I'm a racist?

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    170. Re: Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You respond to the implied question and get moderated as off-topic. CTRL + F shows a few posters who did not post in this thread. This thread would normally attract them. I wonder who they could be and why there's some shitty moderation in this thread?

    171. Re:Oh the Irony..... by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Get off the racist soapbox. This has nothing to do with Obama... He's just an ignorant fool that is harming our country. Being black has absolutely NOTHING to do with his lack of backbone or character.

      Sometimes it take more courage to exercise restraint than it does to lash out. Any "harm" Obama may have done pales in comparison to the harm from George W. Bush's administration.

    172. Re:Oh the Irony..... by mosdave · · Score: 1

      thanks for the Adams blog link. most insightful piece I've read today.

    173. Re:Oh the Irony..... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      That's like .01% of the population. It's cold, I know, but yeah, I accept that number. It sucks but that's the way the cookie crumbles. We're not giving up firearms any time soon and, hopefully, never. Violence is trending down and has been for years. Go look at Detroit's statistics back in the 80s.

      As a law-abiding, firearm-owning, individual - I don't feel obligated to give up my rights because of something someone else might do. I know this is hard to comprehend but, for an example, look at how you respond to them talking about backdooring encryption. You don't want to give up your rights because of something someone else might do. What they might do is harmful, it sucks, but it's not justification to take the liberties away from those who are responsible actors.

      As for my firearms? Well, there's a record of my ownership with quite a few of them. They know I've got 'em. I'm okay with that so long as it's not misused. I'm okay with reasonable legislation. We have that now (except in a few areas like California and New York and DC). What we don't have is reasonable enforcement.

      Stop emoting and start thinking. Stop letting your fear dictate your beliefs. The world is not safe and never will be, no matter how many weapons you try to take away. Put on your man-panties, quit wandering about being scared of your shadow, and accept that life is short so each moment should be used to maximize your enjoyment of that living state. More importantly, stop letting your fear make you desire a result that negatively impacts my life.

      I have, in my life, needlessly slaughtered tens-of-thousands of innocent bits of paper. I've done so without mercy, with malice aforethought, and repeatedly. I'm even prejudiced as I prefer a very specific color pattern when I slaughter that paper. Not only that, I'm a supremacist, I *know* I am better than that innocent paper that was minding its own business before I bought it, enslaved it, tortured it, and then destroyed it in a violent fashion - sometimes with its relatives watching.

      Worse? And I'm not kidding, for every single one of those lousy bits of paper that decide you don't mercilessly slaughter, I'm going to murder the ever-living-hell out of two or I'm going to die trying. I might even stack a bunch of them up and try to terrorize them, I might use fear and intimidation to get them to do what I want. You know what? I actually have some equipment back at the house that I can detonate and blow the ever living hell out of whole innocent families of paper.

      Sometimes, I even feed myself by using the firearm as a tool. Yes, when home, almost everything I eat was known to me and processed by me. A good portion of that was even harvested by me. I can't even think of one thing that I've ever eaten where the object eaten was a willing participant. I'm a straight up fucking monster!

      You know what! You're right! We'd better take these firearms away so that you can finally turn that night off and get a sound night's sleep! Think of the paper!

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    174. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      I gotta agree with you there. I'm thinking 6 virgins (for the novelty), 6 average (nice) girls, and 60 hard core filthy sluts.

      Dude! Wrong religion. You're thinking of the Church of the Flying spaghetti monster. Beer volcanos as well!

      I've been touched by his noodly appendage, have you?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    175. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Remember: Hitler was voted in.

      Not really.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    176. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'm too stupid and/or lazy to run an effective firewall, so the gubmint should do it for me." FAIL.

    177. Re:Oh the Irony..... by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

      No, I suppose not. Should have paid more attention in history class - still, Trump is pretty scary, even from the perspective of someone like me on the other side of the world.

    178. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is Trump scared about the possibility of winning? Why is Trump only aiming for a nomination? Trump doesn't do things in half measures - he wants to be a presidential candidate because he wants a chance to be the head honcho for four years.

    179. Re: Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://thegoodlordabove.com/articles/details/158?ts_pid=898&utm_content=inf_11_2560_2&tse_id=INF_549fc24d7ea946e4a46014c8c0c6e3cf

      He is related to hitler...

    180. Re: Oh the Irony..... by dave420 · · Score: 1

      ... as is everyone else.

    181. Re:Oh the Irony..... by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Gun control is about stopping that up-until-now-a-"Good Guy with a gun" from flipping out about the bad news at work or his wife's infidelity and shooting a bunch of innocent people. It's also about making it far more inconvenient and expensive for a premeditated crime (robbery, assault, whatever) to rely on one. The fact you don't seem to understand why gun control exists and how it works doesn't reflect too well on you. You are arguing against something you clearly don't understand. Weird.

    182. Re:Oh the Irony..... by dave420 · · Score: 1

      You do realise that if you pick a time to discuss gun control it will be quite soon after a mass shooting, simply because of the frequency of mass shootings. By your logic there is no time to discuss gun control. Maybe that's the way you want it.

      And no, a very large percentage of the guns used in mass shootings are legally obtained. Many guns used in crime were legally owned by people such as yourselves, but were subsequently stolen and entered the black market.

    183. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Gazzonyx · · Score: 1

      I heard an interesting (conspiracy-like) theory; both sides are sure the economy is going to tank during the next cycle and neither wants to be in charge when it does, so they're all trying to get enough spotlight now to be welcome in 2020, but they're all trying to lose. The theory was based somewhat in fact; when you look at the recession that was stalled in 1849 by the gold rush and consider that ~$1T (adjusted for inflation) was pumped into the economy to only stall the crash for a handful of years and then compare that to quantitative easing, there is a striking resemblance. This, of course, is predicated on the assumption that everything at the macro level is cyclic, which I think isn't too far of a stretch. But, I don't know it holds that much weight either.

      --

      If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.

    184. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Woek · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it be great if he came out in the end saying "what the f*ck were you thinking, agreeing with all that nonsense I was spewing???"

    185. Re: Oh the Irony..... by Gazzonyx · · Score: 1

      Those numbers are easy when you factor in gang violence. Nearly by definition rival factions in close proximity that roam in packs. In a lot of the inner cities near daily violence between rivals is nearly common. That being said, the numbers seem to be somewhat dwindling. Could be a local minimum, or the 90s were a local maximum or the beginning of a trend. I guess history will have something to say on the issue.

      As an interesting aside, I've heard a theory that youth gang membership and violence might be slowly or dwindling due to the availability of cheap, high tech, entertainment. Just about anyone that can save any amount of money can buy an Xbox or Playstation (or, steal or go over to visit a friend that has one) which the theory states keeps bored kids off the streets. I'm not sure I buy it completely, but if bored youth are an appreciable cross section of gangs, I can't argue with the logic.

      --

      If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.

    186. Re: Oh the Irony..... by Gazzonyx · · Score: 1

      Suicides also skew the numbers to a not insignificant degree. It's hard enough that the numbers aren't apples-to-apples to begin with before narratives from both sides come in.

      --

      If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.

    187. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Gazzonyx · · Score: 1

      and why should we pretend that the bottom of the barrel trailer park trash that support him are anything to be listened to.

      Because their vote counts just as much as yours or mine does. Ignore them at your own peril.

      I think GPP probably does more for the opposing party if he goes around representing a group of people nearly as eloquently as he does here. I guess it's more people to hate though, so, the more the merrier.

      --

      If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.

    188. Re: Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true...many states don't have waiting periods...especially on long guns. You'll get a federal background check, but it takes minutes and not days.

      I'd also state this is as it should be. A quick check to verify felony or mental health flags and no further infringement on a right so critical that the constitution spells it out directly.

    189. Re:Oh the Irony..... by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      If intelligence is measured on a continuous scale, the chances are that nobody is of mean intelligence, since the mean is a point on a line.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    190. Re:Oh the Irony..... by ale2011 · · Score: 1

      Hm... locking radicals doesn't seem counter intuitive to me, just plain wrong.

      It is a bet, we are betting we're better than them, but we cannot back up that either. It is a belief, not an assertion. Can we stand the competition?

    191. Re:Oh the Irony..... by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Looking at their firearm homicide rate compared to the US, I'd say quite the opposite is true.

    192. Re:Oh the Irony..... by StayFrosty · · Score: 1

      Gun control is about stopping that up-until-now-a-"Good Guy with a gun" from flipping out about the bad news at work or his wife's infidelity and shooting a bunch of innocent people.

      If you look back at my original comment, you would notice that I said the real solution would be to find the societal issue that would make someone flip out and shoot a bunch of innocent people. In your example, there are clearly mental health issues at play. In countries with gun control, this stuff still happens. See the London tube stabbings from a few days ago as an example. Dealing with the mental health, income inequality, and racism issues in this country would be a far better use of time and money and would decrease instances of violence overall far more than any gun control legislation ever would. It would have the added benefit of not taking away other peoples freedoms/rights.
       

      It's also about making it far more inconvenient and expensive for a premeditated crime (robbery, assault, whatever) to rely on one.

      As far as the premeditated stuff goes, criminals are already breaking the law. They aren't going to be bothered by the fact that by using a firearm they are breaking another law. I also seriously doubt most criminals who intend to use a firearm in their premeditated crime are obtaining them legally. They are far too easy to track.
       

      The fact you don't seem to understand why gun control exists and how it works doesn't reflect too well on you. You are arguing against something you clearly don't understand. Weird.

      The fact that you are willing to resort to personal attacks instead of facts doesn't help your argument in any way. It is obvious that you have a very limited world view (guns=bad) and aren't willing to approach the overall issue of violence with an open mind.

      --
      "Frequently wrong, never in doubt."
    193. Re:Oh the Irony..... by StayFrosty · · Score: 1

      And no, a very large percentage of the guns used in mass shootings are legally obtained.

      Legally obtained by who? The person doing the shootings? In most instances that have made the news (real mass shootings as indicated by the FBI's definition, not shootingtracker.com's) the guns have been stolen (although sometimes from a family member.)

      Many guns used in crime were legally owned by people such as yourselves, but were subsequently stolen and entered the black market.

      That, by definition, makes them illegally obtained.

      --
      "Frequently wrong, never in doubt."
    194. Re:Oh the Irony..... by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      The only thing that would help is gun control.

      Funny - it didn't help San Bernardino. As far as I can tell, all those mass shootings happened in places with Gun Control, right?

      So, when was the last time you heard of a shooting stopped by an armed civilian rather than after a big shootout with police? I mean a proper (for want of a better word) shooting that would have happened regardless of laws not ones that wouldn't have happened had no one had a gun to begin with? Serious question, because if it happens we never hear of it outside the us.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    195. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one comments that Hitlery and Zer0 said much the same thing.

    196. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get ready, world, for next year's release of "Dubya II: The Don's revenge".

      Seriously, US, you guys need to get this dude in check. Pleeeeze don't let him be the next POTUS.

    197. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That he is scared or not is besides the point. I am surprised and even more scared that he has so many supporters. What is going on in your country?

    198. Re:Oh the Irony..... by richieb · · Score: 1

      If he thinks that, then he does not understand how government works. The President only leads one branch, and has to be able to work with other branches we have equal power. Not sure how well Trump would do having to share power.

      --
      ...richie - It is a good day to code.
    199. Re:Oh the Irony..... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Thirty years ago, lots of people believed crazy stuff like that. They were just harder to find in most cases. The rumors about extraterrestrials, Area 51, and flying saucers were a lot easier to find, and were as wacky as anything you're likely to see now.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    200. Re:Oh the Irony..... by malditaenvidia · · Score: 1

      Lots of weapons used in drug-related gun violence are smuggled in from Mexico.

      You're mentally challenged. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    201. Re:Oh the Irony..... by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      Every time I read another Trumpism I piss in my pants from laughter. My wife is annoyed, as I am running out of underwear and I only had a 10 day supply. This joker Trump's sphere of knowledge is in real-estate. Even with that narrow mindedness, I wonder if he has those skills. His daddy did.
      I am not saying that Trump is dumb, he has a good IQ, but he is unknowledgeable. You can't keep putting your foot in your mouth all the time. True the toes taste good at first, but then ecchhh.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    202. Re:Oh the Irony..... by StayFrosty · · Score: 1

      From the Wikipedia article on the Mexican Drug War:

      Research has asserted that most weapons and arms trafficked into Mexico are not from gun dealers in the United States, but as a matter of fact, come from either government personnel who defect to the cartels, or are sourced from Central American black markets.[180][181] Most grenades and rocket-launchers are smuggled through Guatemalan borders[182] or stolen from the Mexican police or military.[183] DHS officials have stated that that statistic is misleading: out of approximately 30,000 weapons seized in drug cases in Mexico in 2004–2008, 7,200 appeared to be of U.S. origin, approximately 4,000 were found in ATF manufacturer and importer records, and 87 percent of those—3,480—originated in the United States.[185][186]

      --
      "Frequently wrong, never in doubt."
    203. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can totally see this as being the case. Although this is his first actual race, this is not the first time he's thought of entering politics. Trump floated the idea of running for president in 1988, 2004, and 2012, and for governor of New York in 2006 and 2014, but did not enter those races.

      Now, frankly, I'm kinda surprised he wants the job at all. In the past, it was a powerful position, but today, it seems that the position can enact little if any meaningful change. Obama's legacy will be ObamaCare, and he needed two terms and got basically nothing else done.

      If Trump thinks he can run the US like a business with him at the head as dictator, he's delusional.

      I don't think Trump is the type of individual to back down from a fight, or get scared. But it's entirely possible that he has decided he no longer wants the position, but doesn't want to back out. If that's the case, it would be entirely logical for him to start shedding support, and what better way to do that then ramp up the rhetoric. Unfortunately, if that's what he's doing, he's miscalculated, and doesn't understand that the American public is now actually liking what he is saying.

      There's lot of positions he could take which would take him out of the running. He just has to find one that works.

    204. Re: Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "That easy"

      I had a 30 day wait and a state and federal background check, I'm in California. Your argument is invalid. You can "quite literally" walk in and buy a gun in some other states who you never hear about having this problem.

    205. Re: Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wikipedia is not a scholarly source.

    206. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look Trump, you can keep muslims outta the country, but if you fuck with my internetubez, we are gonna have a problem.

    207. Re:Oh the Irony..... by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      If you didn't recognize it because you were too busy being a partisan hack, the 'shredding the constitution' bit was me making fun of the idiot talking heads on Fox News and conservative talk radio, not me actually claiming that shredding the constitution is actually happening.

      Bending it to new lows? That's been happening for decades by BOTH parties, if you hadn't noticed.

      Now go away and let the adults talk.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    208. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Proudrooster · · Score: 1

      I disagree, the Internet does not DE-RADICALIZE anyone. The Internet is a giant echo chamber with predictive search results that tell you exactly what you want to hear.

      For example, in Google right now using "Why are black people" as the stem of my query, I get returned:

      "Why are black people black"
      "Why are black people so loud"
      "Why are black people so mean"
      "Why are black people so fast"

      So tell me again how the Internet is de-radicalizing or de-racistizing or de-anything-izing people.

      Google is the front door of the Internet and Reddit is the front page. YouTube is the video library and features great videos like "How to join ISIS" and Facebook let's everyone organize.

      Without the Internet the echo chamber would not exist and self-radicalizing would not occur.

      Take San Bernardino California, with a stay at home mom alone at home with a baby, computer, and cell phone. She didn't get de-radicalizing. Not even a baby could compete with the Internet echo chamber of ISIS.

      On a side note, with our massive NSA data warehouse and parallel construction, how did this even happen? Ammo, Guns, Pipes, Gunpowder paid for by credit card and shipped to an apartment with people who have visited countries with ties to terrorism. This should have been caught and through parallel construction a fake 911 call should have been used a pre-text to search the apartment. Either someone dropped the ball or this was allowed this to happen. I am not sure which is worse. Thoughts?

    209. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Proudrooster · · Score: 1

      If I had mod points today, you would get them. +100 INSIGHTFUL

    210. Re:Oh the Irony..... by jamthecat · · Score: 1

      I can see that, but there's one problem -- he underestimated the power of hate in this country and the long-term strategy of the GOP to blame everyone but rich people for everything that's gone wrong in the last 35 years. Now the Republican base thinks he's speaking Truth to Power, and they have made him their messiah. Look at the expressions on their faces at his rallies. I would not be a bit surprised if he gets the GOP nomination and then some maniac from his side decides to shoot Bernie or Hillary to help him get in. If the man had an ounce of decency, he'd quit right now before the insanity grows to the point of destruction. But he hasn't; his ego is too big.

    211. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a slightly different (conspiracy) theory.

      Donald Trump got into this race at the behest of, or with the collusion of, the Clintons:

      1 - His political positions, such as they were, before he announced his run tended to differ from those he has espoused since announcing his run, but he nevertheless runs as a Republican, changing most of his positions as needed, but not all of them so as not to arouse too much suspicion.

      2 - He had a phone conversation with Bill Clinton just prior to announcing his run, during which they devised plan to orchestrate a credible third-party run for the presidency which would guarantee Hillary Clinton a win in the general election while plausibly laying the blame on the Republican party, with additional splintering of that party as a desirable side-effect.

      3 - He initially wouldn't promise not to engage in a third-party/independent bid for the presidency, and made ridiculous "policy" statements which seemed calculated to guarantee a Republican Party response which would ostensibly justify such a run.

      4 - That didn't pan out, or wasn't seen as working fast enough, so he made the promise.

      5 - Once he did promise not to pursue a third-party/independent bid for the presidency, he began making even more ludicrous "policy" statements, seemingly calculated to induce "mistreatment" by Republican Party officials and/or leading Republicans.

      6 - He must be dumbfounded at this point as to how far he'll actually have to go to provoke the response necessary to "justify" a Perot-like run for the presidency. The Republican responses so far have been tepid, at best, and few (none of any real importance) have called for him to abort his primary candidacy.

      7 - Eventually, he'll say something credible (for him) yet absolutely abhorrent, walk it back just a little, and garner the necessary level of vitriol from other Republicans to "justify" an independent run.

      8 - In the general election, Trump splits the conservative votes with whatever Republican is on the ticket, as planned with Bill over the phone, and Hillary Clinton wins. Effectively, the Clintons will have rigged a presidential election with no way of anyone proving they did so.

      - T

    212. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's not clear how 'liberal democracy' wins the war of ideas by turning to fascism as soon as it starts to get nervous.

      IT never was a democracy it has always been a fascist state. Sorry but you were deceived. IT just shows more when they get nervous.

    213. Re:Oh the Irony..... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      I'm not a starry-eyed optimist of Civics 101; but unless you are positing a substantially earlier invention of fascism than is commonly accepted; there was more or less necessarily a period when the situation was something other than fascist. Quite possibly also not what we mythologize it as; but fascism is fairly modern.

    214. Re:Oh the Irony..... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      The idea does have a certain appeal to it. It might possibly even be true - while Trumpette's dealings with my area have shown him to be a thorough-going bastard who shouldn't be trusted as blackboard monitor, let alone president of the Brewery's Piss-Up Organising Committee, he hadn't really shown many signs of the derangement that is coming out of his face-hole these days. So it could be your "conspiracy" (of one person - is that really a conspiracy, or a World Domination (Fast) Plan?). Or it could be a rapidly developing brain tumour. Or it could be that he actually believes this shit.

      The ultimate hilarity of course would be if he actually wins the presidency, and reveals the conspiracy on the dog-emptying lawn (wherever they hold the oath-taking ceremony in January) ... to be promptly shot by an assault-rifle wielding member of a militia empowered by his coming policy speeches, who actually believed the bullshit.

      Ah, I'll just get some popcorn to throw away, and a nice bag of cashews to eat while watching this. Kenyan cashews, of course ; Hussein Obama brand.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    215. Re:Oh the Irony..... by camazotz · · Score: 1

      Also, it turns out it's 72 nerdy male virgins who spend most of their time pedantically arguing the finer points of Star Trek canon.

    216. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sill that doesn't change the fact that 50% of the people can be below said line.

    217. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      According to the book, a narcissist - in the clinical sense - is incapable of admitting he's wrong. So, whenever that gets pointed out by someone, it must be the fault of an external party. In this case, he can blame the media for misreporting the "facts" or whatever.

      He gave himself another out -- he's blaming a reporter for the report of thousands celebrating, saying that the reporter didn't retract his story for 14 years until Donald mentioned it. So he's quite willing to blame Kovaleski and Kunkle, even if their article didn't support what he said at all.

    218. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      and why should we pretend that the bottom of the barrel trailer park trash that support him are anything to be listened to.

      Because their vote counts just as much as yours or mine does. Ignore them at your own peril.

      Maybe, but there aren't that many of them.

      Maybe they're enough to swing a divided Republican vote towards Trump.
      In no way are they close to being enough to give Trump the presidency.

    219. Re: Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is it then that we have only a fraction of such shootings compared to the US? True gun control does not prohibit such violance, however it limits it. Also it communicates that we are a peaceful society. The thing is we (humans) came up with the idea of the monopoly of force which resides with the state. And it works well in the EU.

      The strong US economy (from WW2 until fairly recently) means it can support private ownership of many firearms, but that isn't the same thing as access to firearms. A disproportionate number of firearms are in the hands of relatively few collectors, and never get used even for training. There are plenty of places around the world that have equivalent access to firearms, once one takes this into account.

      Access to firearms in a number of EU states is comparable to access in the US, Norway and Switzerland being good examples. Norway in particular has a strong militia tradition resulting from the combination of the Nazi invasion in WW2, and Cold War proximity of Norway to the former Soviet Union.

      The word "militia" here means citizen soldiers - essentially every healthy male in Norway, if the system still works the way I was told - who take their training seriously, and are every bit as good as the US Marines or British Royal Marine Corps. Probably the same is true of the Swiss.

      Hence, access to guns is not a primary factor in determining gun violence, and strict gun control laws can not be expected to be effective. There's a lot of statistical evidence that supports this conclusion: claims to the contrary in my experience always end up being propaganda from the gun control movement, with all kinds of research errors and false or misleading numbers, even outright lies and fabricated 'evidence'.

      BTW if these mass shootings are not related to gun control or the lack of, then it must be a societal issue. Do you think US citizens are more violent than their European counterparts?

      The potential for violence is identical. Most US citizens, after all, have the same genes as their European counterparts.

      But there are big differences in social safety nets. Also, the US has a very unethical and abusive legal profession (a legacy of English Common Law that somehow the Brits today have managed to escape from: certainly no ethical legal profession would have continued British slavery laws in a new nation founded to protect the rights of man), and that has all kings of negative effects on society.

      In other words, the ethics issues in law with respect to US tax law, tort abuse, property law (many nations have the right to roam with traditions going back centuries, Britain finally got it in 2000, Scotland in 2003, the USA still doesn't have it), excessive bureaucracy, patent and copyright abuse, and so forth - all these create major problems for US society, limit people's freedom, make things cost a lot more money then they should, and significantly increase stress levels of ordinary people throughout many periods of their lives.

      In addition to the ethics problems in law, there are major problems with ethics in government. The USA also has major problems with respect to ethics in medicine, in insurance, in other business, and in education. All these, too, create major problems for US society.

      A lot of these problems are ultimately traceable back to the ethics problems in law, or are made a lot worse by those problems. The ethics problems in law effectively create a shield behind which a lot of wrong-doing shelters, much as they create a shield behind which NSA internal spying occurs.

      The higher rate of shootings in the USA is no doubt largely the result of these issues. The ethics problems - and the poor safety nets - make life a lot harder for a lot of people then it should be, interfere with the pursuit of happiness, and generally take a lot of time away from people's lives that could otherwise be used to fix, mitigate, or prevent a lot of problems (including those proble

    220. Re: Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a fucking idiot.
      Freedom of speech is dangerous?
      CONTROLLING SPEECH IS DANGEROUS. Freedom of speech only helps.

    221. Re:Oh the Irony..... by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      "Trump is a bit of a clown" That is quite an understatement. "so what does that tell you...that people are sick of President Obama " No. It tells me that "some" people are ignorant and racists. I restrain to add stupid as I believe that they are willfully misguiding their intellects for selfish primitive instincts they choose not to to keep in check.

      interesting graph in the paper today, gun sales over the past few years. been rising generally since 9/11. but two big, sharp peaks; when obama got elected, and when he took office.
      I assume it was folks preparing to defend the republic against a racist uprising who would never accept a legitimate election.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    222. Re:Oh the Irony..... by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      > It tells me that "some" people are ignorant and racists

      Half of people are below average intelligence.

      *shakes head* Median. Half of people are below median intelligence.

      *shakes head a bit more* Average. Half of the people are below average intelligence. Due to the law of large numbers and the construction that intelligence has finite variance, intelligence is normally distributed. Therefore the statement holds for the three most used averages: Mode, Median and (arithmetic) Mean.

      also, half of the people are mean.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    223. Re: Oh the Irony..... by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Unless you count service members killed in action, I doubt it. Most gun-related violence in the US happens in large urban areas and tends to be gang related. I live in a small city of 300,000 people and I can count the number of firearm-related deaths this year on one hand. In all cases it was gang/drug related from out of town. Each time it made the local news for a week or so.

      You're both confusing gun related crimes and gun related deaths, which are most commonly accidents where people shoot themselves with a gun they thought was unloaded. The accidental deaths far outnumber the crime-related gun deaths but both sides want you to believe otherwise. Pro-gun folks want you to believe everyone should carry a gun because all the "bad guys" are invading homes and assaulting them (statistically incredibly rare---less than 0.1% --http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt ), or walking down every street. Anti-gun folks say no one should have guns because "think of the children".

      This is the problem with these gun death statistics... most anti-gun folks use the whole number of deaths and the pro-gun folks use the actual "crime related" numbers. The two sides of this argument will never see eye to eye and each side is using the same data to support its argument. They're both wrong.

      biggest source of gun mortality is, of course, suicide. second amendment purists tend to dismiss that as nothing we can do about it, and nothing we should do about it. I assume they are prochoice rather than prolife.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    224. Re:Oh the Irony..... by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      " Look no Western country allows to carry around guns and buy guns that easily."

      And neither do most Eastern countries, or Southern countries, or Northern countries, etc. Yet many of them have murder rates far higher than the US.

      The fact that you rely on some assumption that 'Western' countries are more moral/advanced/civil/whatever is bigoted to begin with, but it also torpedoes your argument that guns are the problem. Social structures and living conditions shouldn't matter if guns are the root cause of violence. Russia is on-par with the US in regards to technology, has strict firearm ownership restrictions, and the murder rate is 4x higher. Gun problem or people problem?

      Additionally, randomly picking France or some other 'Western' country that is the size of Minnesota and has 1/8th the US population is simple cherry-picking. If you take all of Europe from Portugal to Moscow, which is far more equivalent to the size, population, and geographic disparities of the US, as well as income and education variations, the murder rates are far closer despite firearm ownership being so much less so as to be statistically none in comparison.

      "And you have a mass shooting almost every day"

      Only by a measure which includes 'shootings' in which nobody was killed, and the vast majority is gang violence in the inner city.

      "Your ignorance (as a country) will be your undoing."

      For most Americans (those born 1960 or later) it's never been safer. There are 10,000 less murders a year than 20 or 30 years ago. The murder rate is lower or equal to what it was in 1960. Rapes are down, assaults are down, etc.

      You can't say the same for Europe. The incidence of rapes, assaults, hate-crimes, etc are all higher than the US. Now you have a refugee problem, how's that working out for Europe these days?

      It's hardly a one-factor cause and effect of course. This graph https://img.washingtonpost.com... though shows an interesting split; for developed first world countries there is a pretty linear relationship between guns per capita and gun related deaths per capita, with the US not really off the curve, merely just out on one end of the spread. but for third world/developing countries, there is generally a median number of guns per capita, but the gun related death rate is variable, and can be very very very high.
      thinking about it, that's probably not too surprising (the linear, first world thing), given that the majority of gun deaths are suicides; expand that to a general "crimes of passion/impulse" category, where somebody isn't meticulously planning a crime or suicide but just has an impulse and grabs what is handy, and it's clear that having more guns handy would increase that incidence. and presumably having more guns would increase the frequency of accidental shootings, toddlers finding and triggering a gun, etc.
      so the actual number of planned firearm murders or even firearm crime numbers might not be that sensitive to the overall guns per capita, even though the overall gun fatality rate is.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    225. Re:Oh the Irony..... by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      and why should we pretend that the bottom of the barrel trailer park trash that support him are anything to be listened to.

      Because their vote counts just as much as yours or mine does. Ignore them at your own peril.

      Not true! Liberal lies! Their vote counts more than ours do, because they live in rural underpopulated states which benefit from the extra 2 electoral college votes per state above the population-based representation, so their vote counts more than yours or mine does.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    226. Re:Oh the Irony..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Again, didn't he do this last time around?
        http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/04/13/is-donald-trump-serious-about-a-2012-run-for-president
      So he was expecting to do the same thing, get his name a little more recognized, and BAM! He's being taken seriously.

  2. Trump is a troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    America should consider ignoring Donald Trump in every way. The guy is the political equivalent of a troll. He adds nothing but noise to the political debate. It merely deflects attention from things that actually matter.

    1. Re:Trump is a troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, but a large number of Murkans actually believe and agrees with the things he says.

    2. Re: Trump is a troll by silentcoder · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Careful thats what they said about Goldwater. Then he won the nomination. Sure he lost the general but 4 years later Nixon won with Goldwater's policies wrapped in subtler language. Trump could spell a fascist victory in subtler language for another gop candidate in 2020...

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    3. Re:Trump is a troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They like that he pisses off the condescending, manipulative shitbags in media, agreement would vary depending on which statement he made.

    4. Re:Trump is a troll by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      A troll he is. I wonder what the intended effect is supposed to be. Scare people into voting for democrats? Or draw out the cockroaches and actually win? The most successful part of this circus is that it completely kept all thought out of having any "third party" candidate. The monolith has attained its goal of absolute power.

      *sigh* Only the non-voter block has the majority to vote them all out, but they are also the ones being targeted by the above mentioned pressure.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    5. Re:Trump is a troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, he's tremendously entertaining. I've been watching many of his speeches on youtube with great amusement. Then again, I also like watching North Korean propaganda channels for the same purpose.

    6. Re:Trump is a troll by MBGMorden · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To some degree Trump is refreshing. A lot of people have become absolutely fed up with political correctness that has run amok in the country in the last few decades (and it seems particularly within the last 5 years or so). They feel so oppressed by this sense of having to tip-toe around everyone's feelings and sensitivities that anyone who throws that out with blatant disregard is exciting.

      They know he's an idiot, just like I know a bacon double cheeseburger is terrible for me, but when you've been on a gluten free diet of kale salad for long enough you really don't care about logic anymore and just want to cut free and eat that bacon.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    7. Re:Trump is a troll by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      It merely deflects attention from things that actually matter.

      Surely that's the presidents job!

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    8. Re: Trump is a troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trumps purpose is to desensitize people to this sort of fascism, so that later it seems less bad/more appealing.

      Just how Hillary's push for socialized medicine in the 90s primed people to support Obamacare.

      These people are playing the long game.

    9. Re:Trump is a troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right. Only the most self-destructive imbeciles support Trump. Unfortunately, they have the numbers.

    10. Re:Trump is a troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      anti-"political correctness" crowd is just miserable old white dudes who can't stop crying. "we never had to worry about marginalizing women and minorities before, why do we have to start now?? waahhhhhh." grow up and stop acting like not calling Asian Americans "Orientals" is some huge fucking burden to endure.

    11. Re: Trump is a troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The GOP won't be winning this election or the next. They're far too detached from reality at this point and most the incoming generation is completely against them. What we really need to worry about is electing a Dem that's just as bad solely because they aren't in the GOP.

    12. Re:Trump is a troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Poor metaphor. I'm on a gluten free diet. Have been for years. I don't eat kale. I eat bacon cheeseburgers whenever the hell I want, with gluten free buns that taste just as good as the real thing.

      Trump is isn't beef, he's the mono-diglycerides, modified food starch and a whole host of other nauseating food additives.

    13. Re:Trump is a troll by guruevi · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that's what people thought of Hitler after the Beer Hall Putsch. The problem is that Trump is a demagogue much like Hitler, you get the crowds with a message of action - remove the Jews (Muslims) and Zigeuners (Mexicans) and make Germany (America) great again, arbeit macht frei (I will be the greatest jobs president that God ever created).

      And Hitler didn't come to power in one election, the first election he won (1933 if I remember correctly only gave him ~40% of the votes) was only to cause fights within the government and make things worse. A terrorist attack (Reichstagbrand) gave him the legal power to arrest anyone he wanted (similar to France's presidents appeal to extend emergency power 2015-2016) culminating in his rise to dictatorship in 1934.

      Does the above sound familiar? Both parties have no intention of making any real changes or democratizing the world, they are only going to make things worse so the appeal for a dictatorship becomes ever better. Terrorist attacks only allow them to grab more power, eventually they'll overthrow the democratic parts of the government and arrest anyone that opposes them.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    14. Re:Trump is a troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's sabotaging the GOP campaign in hillary's favor.

    15. Re: Trump is a troll by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      That is what I was thinking. Maybe Trump is just moving the Overton window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window with the blessing and or coordination of the GOP.

    16. Re: Trump is a troll by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      There are no dems "just as bad"... well except maybe Dianne Feinstein but she's not running for president.
      I agree it's a pity that the second major party is so far round the bend you can open winebottles with them because it weakens democracy when the democrats could run Jeffrey Dahmer and win because voters would say "Okay sure he is a gay serial killer but at least *his* crazy is fairly predictable and his not touting an economic policy that has consistently and absolutely failed every time it's been tried for the last 35 years".

      But the reality is that, that is where we stand... at this stage even the worst democratic candidates would win because "horrible lying politician" beats "batshit-crazy ranting guy in the park".

      Personally - I think the best candidate running is Bernie. Sane policies that have been remarkably successful everywhere they've been implemented (all of Western Europe), a career that speaks of incredible honesty and integrity, responsive enough to listen when voters tell him what to consider instead of telling them what to think (look as his race-policy proposal drafted after he encountered blacklivesmatter protestors - he actually went back, thought about what these voters were telling him and amended his ideas to consider what they were right about) and a career that makes him the single most effective legislator in all of Washington (even if almost nobody knows this - but not being a glory-hound is just more reason to like the guy) and still standing by an absolutely firm commitment not to engage in negative campaigning or accept big donations from lobbyists.
      Sane and honest... America hasn't had a candidate like this since Lincoln - whether he can win is another matter though... and if he did, I fear he may well end up *like* Lincoln (shot at the very least, and probably only after the South starts a second civil war).

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    17. Re:Trump is a troll by gzuckier · · Score: 1
      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    18. Re:Trump is a troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To some degree Trump is refreshing. A lot of people have become absolutely fed up with political correctness that has run amok in the country in the last few decades (and it seems particularly within the last 5 years or so). They feel so oppressed by this sense of having to tip-toe around everyone's feelings and sensitivities that anyone who throws that out with blatant disregard is exciting.

      They know he's an idiot, just like I know a bacon double cheeseburger is terrible for me, but when you've been on a gluten free diet of kale salad for long enough you really don't care about logic anymore and just want to cut free and eat that bacon.

      "Have a nice holiday"
      "Fuck you!" That felt good!

    19. Re:Trump is a troll by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      "Make it about “political correctness run amok”: For instance, you might open the article with the transgender students’ protesting the Person of Stature’s University talk. But then you will pan back and show that this is but one instance among many in a much larger and disturbing trend sweeping the nation—aka, “political correctness running amok.” (I am not sure why political correctness is always “running amok” as opposed to other synonymous phrases, but just roll with it.) And at this point, you can simply provide readers with a laundry list of seemingly similar incidents of activists and minority groups taking things way too far with their “political correctness” and “censorship.” For examples of this laundry-list approach, see recent high profile pieces by Jonathan Chait, Michelle Goldberg, and Caitlin Flanagan (there are countless others—The Atlantic alone seems to be churning out one or two of these per month!). The benefit of this approach is that you don’t have to go too in depth about any specific issue (e.g., interviewing all the parties involved, accurately conveying their differing perspectives, etc.)—you can just hastily depict all of them as being outrageous. Additionally, this allows you to conflate some potentially legitimate issues (e.g., protests of the Person of Stature) with a bunch of random mean things that random people (who have no stature) have said on Twitter." https://medium.com/@juliaseran...
      "When people rail against political correctness, they're usually stating that it has run amok." http://www.dummies.com/how-to/...
      "Political Correctness Run Amuck!" http://reflectionsfromtheburg....
      "On the other hand, I do think political correctness has run amuck" http://greginhollywood.com/jer...
      "There are those who claim that political correctness has run amuck." http://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/ne...
      "Flag defenders: Political correctness has run amok." https://www.dailyadvance.com/n...
      “the clearest example of political correctness run amok that I have seen in quite some time.” http://knoxblogs.com/humphreyh...
      "Political correctness run amuck again." http://forum.woodenboat.com/sh...
      "Has political correctness really 'run amok' on college campuses?" http://talk.collegeconfidentia...
      "Political Correctness Run Amok" http://www.newsmax.com/Freind/...
      "Has political correctness really 'run amok' on college campuses?" https://www.washingtonpost.com...
      "Has Political Correctness Run Amok?" https://www.insidehighered.com...
      "In Fort Collins, political correctness run amok"

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  3. just clog the tubes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just clog the tubes

  4. We have a lot of foolish people... by s_p_oneil · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "We have a lot of foolish people" If that's not irony, I don't know what is.

    1. Re:We have a lot of foolish people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And many of them are running for president.

    2. Re:We have a lot of foolish people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not. Look up the definition you fuckwit.

    3. Re:We have a lot of foolish people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He completely deflected the question as well, which is typical Trump. Though if people continue to support him after comments like these, he'll be right that there are a lot of foolish people in the USA.

    4. Re:We have a lot of foolish people... by s_p_oneil · · Score: 2

      Looked up:
      "a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often amusing as a result"

      A public statement can be considered an event, the statement was contrary to what was intended/expected, and it was amusing as a result. I suppose you could argue about the word "deliberately", but often what is considered irony is unintentional, causing the person making the statement to become the butt of the joke instead of the person making a joke.

  5. Seriously.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... Does this man really exist?

  6. Godwin by Culture20 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He's like Hitler. Using my account because I actually believe this now. I rejected my friends' comments as silly Godwin-law rhetoric until now.

    1. Re:Godwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's like Hitler.

      More like Gaddafi.

    2. Re: Godwin by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      And when he proposed every single Nuremberg law you didnt see it ?

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    3. Re:Godwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you talking about? He don't have Hitler's balls or conviction, nor his courage and neither has his charisma. Trump is not the new Hitler we are waiting to free us from jew imposed multiculturalism and lead us to greatness. Trump is just a clown and support Israel like every other clowns.

      Trump is actually a Hillary plant to sink the republican party. #Hillary2016 Because vagina.

    4. Re:Godwin by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You're exaggerating. He might mess up his country and a bunch of other countries in bad ways if he is elected, but he's nowhere as dangerous or evil as Hitler. He's essentially a clown, a narcissist entertainer who was blessed with and psychologically corrupted by a lot of inherited wealth. The kind of guy who is proud to be an asshole and actually is one, as opposed to all these likable 'nice assholes' who in reality aren't.

      Yes, it will be Hillary vs Trump, Trump will become the next George W. Bush^3 of the USA, and after his reign,the US might be at the brink of a civil war, but at least its going to be entertaining. In the long run, a weak and reasonably fucked up US can be beneficial to Europe, so I don't worry too much.

    5. Re: Godwin by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      GP is right. Hitler was a failed painter before his circumstances changed. Give Trump some power and he'll vigorously exercise it without a second thought - all while considering himself virtuous for doing so.

      http://hawaii.edu/powerkills

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    6. Re:Godwin by Jason+Levine · · Score: 5, Interesting

      To be fair, while he hasn't proposed concentration camps yet, neither did Hitler when he was first rising to power. I have a feeling the German people would have rejected "let's kill all the Jews and everyone who disagrees with me" if he led with that idea. Instead, he began with smaller ideas. You are suffering (which Germany was and which Trump supporters seem to think America is) and it's all these people's fault (putting the blame on another group - be they Jews, Muslims, or Mexicans). Then, since it's all their fault, they should be identified (star on their clothes or a national Muslim database) and segregated from "normal society." Then, you need a task force to deal with these undesirables (Trump's Deportation Force might not be as bad as the SS on paper, but I doubt the SS on paper was exactly what they became).

      No, Trump isn't Hitler, but he's stoking the same xenophobic flames, is proposing clearly unconstitutional ideas without care as to their legality, and doing so while his supporters seem to say "We don't care if it's legal or not, those people need to be 'taken care of.'" History has shown us where this path leads and it's NOT a nice place. It's certainly not anywhere that I'd want America heading towards.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    7. Re:Godwin by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, if the only choice you have is a candidate who has a beaver and one that tacked on to his head...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:Godwin by ameline · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's fascinating to observe -- this must be what it was like in the early 30's in Germany, watching the fascists rise to power.

      I'm waiting for him to talk about "solutions" to the "Muslim problem" -- final ones, even.

      --
      Ian Ameline
    9. Re:Godwin by ti1ion · · Score: 3, Insightful

      First of all, it will not be Hilary vs Trump. Hilary, yes. Trump? I would be willing to place a friendly wager with you that it will not be Trump. Not by a long shot. Yes, he is getting all the media attention because he's a nutjob and what media outlet doesn't like to cover a story that writes itself? It's easy money.

      Second, all of you amaze me in your ignorance of the American political system. The President does have power, but Congress has a lot more. Appropriations, oversight, you name it and Congress has it. Has Congress ceded a lot of its power to the President? In some cases, yes. And it is done cynically, to deflect blame in most cases. However, should Congress choose to exercise its power there is little the President can do on her/his own. That would be even more true if the Supreme Court were to side with Congress. That is the whole damned point of the United States -- an abhorrence of kings. Why some Americans would willingly walk away from that is incomprehensible to me.

    10. Re:Godwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hitler was not xenophobic. Stop deforming reality to fit your narrative.

      You want a Nazi analogy? Fine, let sat WW2 was a draw. Nobody won and we live relatively in peace since. Now imagine a bunch of Nazi what immigrate into your country, they call you racist, naziophobe, etc. They want you to open the gate for more Nazi immigration. How would you feel about that?

      Now imagine everyone is stuck in so much political correctness they cannot denounce the Nazi ideologies that is growing in their country. Nazi extremist start blowing thing up and shooting Jews. Would you feel different to some politician proposing to deport the Nazi peoples back to Germany?

      Why do you love Islam and hate Nazism? It is because Islam originate from brown peoples and therefore you need to prove the world you are not racist? You know that both ideologies are racist, hateful and violent?

      INB4 The majority of Muslim are moderate. So where the majority of Nazis. Only a small minority of Nazi knew about concentration camp. Most Nazi didn't even took part in the war.

    11. Re:Godwin by dfm3 · · Score: 1

      Godwin's law aside, there are definitely some valid parallels to be made between Trump's "politics of fear" and the political movements of 1930's Germany. Replace the word 'jew' with 'democrat' in your post for example and you get something more akin to the current political rhetoric of the republican party. Have you actually seen a Trump rally? We had one in my town about a month ago and I was able to watch about half of it on TV before turning it off in disgust. That was before the Paris attacks; I don't even want to imagine what they're like now.

    12. Re:Godwin by bfpierce · · Score: 1

      Hitler was just a narcissist painter before he was 'given' power, just some nut case with lots of crazy 'rant' level ideas. I get the whole 'godwins' law argument, but seriously, Hitler was a nut case nobody until he was given the power to be somebody.

    13. Re:Godwin by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      He don't have Hitler's balls

      Neither, allegedly, did Hitler. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    14. Re:Godwin by Nidi62 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Why do you love Islam and hate Nazism? It is because Islam originate from brown peoples and therefore you need to prove the world you are not racist? You know that both ideologies are racist, hateful and violent?

      Uh, Islam is most explicitly NOT racist. The Ummah encompasses all Muslims throughout the world and does not care what race or ethnicity you are. You do realize the most populous Muslim nation isn't even "brown", right? It's Indonesia, and 62% of all Muslims live in South and Southeast Asia. Even better, and this will really blow your confused little mind, is that in ISIS(and in al-Qaeda,and the Taliban) some of the most feared fighters are actually of European descent!

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    15. Re:Godwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Really if you look at & listen to The Dumpster you see he is much more like Benito Mussolini. Where Mussolini was known as Il Duce our guy should be know as Il Douche.

    16. Re:Godwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's essentially a clown, a narcissist entertainer

      Almost word for word what some people in Germany were saying about Hitler back in his beer hall days.

    17. Re:Godwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brown mean non-white. Because this all we care when we 'need' more diversity.

      Also by racist I meant the classical definition of ordering peoples in a hierarchy base on their race. Not the social justice bullshit definition you are probably 'educated' about. That classical definition (e.g.: real racism), is very prevalent in Islam since the beginning and was present in Asia before the Islamic conquest.

      LOL. "confused little mind", how ironic. But sure you are so open minded, so progressive, that you would let evil ideologies take over. Now, do you know why Hitler got elected? Open minded peoples such as you supported him.

    18. Re:Godwin by wbean · · Score: 1

      That is precisely what scares me. With Trump as president and Congress run by radical nut jobs, who knows what might happen. Certainly nothing good. The man is truly scary.

    19. Re:Godwin by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      To be fair, while he hasn't proposed concentration camps yet, neither did Hitler when he was first rising to power.

      But he hasn't exactly opposed the Japanese internment camps. Instead he says that "would have had to be there at the time to tell you, to give you a proper answer". IMHO, a decent human being would have said there were a disgrace and we should never do that again.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    20. Re:Godwin by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Hitler is a lot more logical- if you take moral relativism to the extreme there is nothing wrong with what he did. He did get kind of crazy at the end when the amphetamine abuse caught up with him.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    21. Re:Godwin by ranton · · Score: 1

      Second, all of you amaze me in your ignorance of the American political system. The President does have power, but Congress has a lot more. Appropriations, oversight, you name it and Congress has it. Has Congress ceded a lot of its power to the President? In some cases, yes. And it is done cynically, to deflect blame in most cases. However, should Congress choose to exercise its power there is little the President can do on her/his own. That would be even more true if the Supreme Court were to side with Congress.

      Don't get too comfortable with laws and checks and balances you believe are bullet proof. Most Americans, myself included, live in a world where they can count on the rule of law. Americans forget that every single law is powerless when confronted with a man with a gun. And gun toting flag waving American is just as powerless when confronted with a mob with guns. On a small scale that means a man with a gun can take my car, invade my home, take my life, etc. and no law can prevent that. Laws can help remedy the aftermath, but not when the legal system itself is attacked.

      Even strong checks and balances can erode with a little force, whether political force or actual force. Politicians can be made too scared to resist. Judges can be killed.

      I don't believe Trump is the next Hitler. But I do believe the same mentality that allows common people to vote for Trump could eventually lead to fascism. Trump is scary because of what he represents, not because he is all that scary himself. He does play the role of the clown well though, so maybe we should be more scared.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    22. Re:Godwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if they're going to give them Israel after the war.

    23. Re:Godwin by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Brown mean non-white. Because this all we care when we 'need' more diversity.

      Also by racist I meant the classical definition of ordering peoples in a hierarchy base on their race. Not the social justice bullshit definition you are probably 'educated' about. That classical definition (e.g.: real racism), is very prevalent in Islam since the beginning and was present in Asia before the Islamic conquest.

      LOL. "confused little mind", how ironic. But sure you are so open minded, so progressive, that you would let evil ideologies take over. Now, do you know why Hitler got elected? Open minded peoples such as you supported him.

      Except Islam doesn't order people by race.The endgame espoused by the more radical forms of Islam has 2 categories: Muslim, and not Muslim. You could be European, African, Asian, Arab, doesn't matter; as long as you are Muslim you are equal. If you aren't, well, if you are lucky they will just force you to pay a tax and forbid you from openly practicing your religion. If you aren't lucky, they'll just kill you.

      As for why Hitler got elected, well, he didn't, really. He drummed up support for the Nazi party by using the strongarm tactics of the SA, playing off a deep cultural mistrust of Jews in Germany that extended back centuries, and the mistreatment suffered by Germany laid on by the retribution-minded France and Germany. He then got Hindenberg to name him Chancellor then used the Reichstag fire (I can't remember if they ever determined if the fire was intentionally set or if he just got lucky and played it to full advantage) to cement his hold on Germany.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    24. Re:Godwin by crunchygranola · · Score: 2

      Close, but who he is really like is Benito Mussolini - the man who prepared the way for Hitler.

      "The Donald", "Il Duce", it is an eerie parallel

      Mussolini predated Hitler's rise to power by a decade and was petulant when Hitler did show suitable obsequiousness acknowledging his seniority in fascism. Even that narcissistic self-regard sounds exactly like Trump.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    25. Re:Godwin by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about? He don't have Hitler's balls or conviction, nor his courage and neither has his charisma.

      You are correct, this makes his like Mussolini, not Hitler (see my other comment here).

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    26. Re: Godwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, do you know why Hitler got elected? Open minded peoples such as you supported him.

      No, it was because close-minded people like you, easily falling for demagogy, elected him.

      Let me quote one of the biggest demagogues, GÃhring, so you see how things work in that business:

      "Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or fascist dictorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peace makers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

      Denouncing the peace makers for lack of patriotism. Rings a bell.

    27. Re:Godwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, Trump is 1930s Hitler?

      The whole "Muslims should be registered" comment made me think of Hitler's jew-stars too.

    28. Re:Godwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a piece of shit, hth.

    29. Re: Godwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "republic" you claim to defend is not a republic were people get executed for their speech.
      You do not understand the ideals of this republic one iota.

    30. Re:Godwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's is what most of Europe said about Hitler before about 1939.

    31. Re:Godwin by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

      Also by racist I meant the classical definition of ordering peoples in a hierarchy base on their race. Not the social justice bullshit definition you are probably 'educated' about. That classical definition (e.g.: real racism), is very prevalent in Islam since the beginning and was present in Asia before the Islamic conquest.

      So you are just making up sh*t. Asia was racist before Islam, therefore Islam must also be racist? Guess that works equally well for Christianity then?

      As was correctly pointed out above "ordering peoples in a hierarchy base on their race" is directly opposed by Islam (ordering by religion yes, but not race). All practicing Muslims of every race are welcome on the Hajj.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    32. Re:Godwin by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

      Hitler was just a narcissist painter before he was 'given' power, just some nut case with lots of crazy 'rant' level ideas.

      If by "given" you mean "siezed" the yes. Otherwise no. (Or perhaps No-o-o-o-o-o-o!)

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    33. Re: Godwin by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 1

      Hitler used gangster like tactics against his political opponents.

      Wikipedia: "Hitler targeted Ernst Röhm and other SA leaders who, along with a number of Hitler's political adversaries (such as Gregor Strasser and former chancellor Kurt von Schleicher), were rounded up, arrested, and shot." (I can't bear to link to a Wikipedia article on Hitler)

      Until Trump's opponents start disappearing, I think it's safe to say he's not that evil.

    34. Re:Godwin by ti1ion · · Score: 2

      "Don't get too comfortable with laws and checks and balances you believe are bullet proof."

      Nothing is "bullet proof". It requires constant vigilance, action and, above all, a sense of duty and responsibility. Your example of violence as a subversive force in society is simplistic. You see, there is a vast chasm between what you have described -- an independent criminal, or even a gang of them -- and institutional oppression. There is a reason why western societies have been able to survive individual acts of violence and that reason is a faith in their democratic institutions and laws (and, by extension, in those who enforce the laws). Criminal violence is very different from situations where the authorities are the ones committing the violence and oppression. We can easily shrug aside deranged individual violence and we do our best to prevent/fix criminal violence. But a society cannot survive when the police and other institutions of government, themselves, are the instigators of violence against citizens.

      The legal system cannot be destroyed by individual violence because the perpetrators of that violence would be hunted and effectively removed. Judges in free societies do not fear for their lives for the very reason that there is confidence in the enforcers of law and order. The legal system and justice can only be eroded and destroyed from within. Sadly, with Americans ever more eager to embrace "strong man" tactics and an outlook of "might is right", the day these institutions are rendered ineffective may be closer than we would like. The polarization of American society threatens to tear it apart. I understand differences of opinion, but the outright hatred and the spread of it in the echo chambers of the internet, is disturbing. We don't have to think alike, but we should protect each other's rights to think and speak freely (in a manner that is legal and without hate). When we gloat at the violence inflicted on those we don't like, and worse yet, when we promote violence against others, we destroy the very thing that keeps us free. It is not done by some random criminal with a gun, though that is a favourite trope in scaremongering.

      To bring this back to Trump, a judicial application of considered checks and balances, supported by the populace, would keep him in check effectively. And there is still no chance in hell he will be accepted and elected even by the majority of the Republican voter base, much less the entire electorate. Once the primaries begin it is my prediction that, unless he finds a source of serious funding, he will be out of the running after the first 5-6 contests. At that point, only a stubborn application of money, or money combined with a renewed bid as an independent candidate, will keep Trump around.

    35. Re:Godwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congress may have power, but you have to get enough Congressmen to agree before that power can be exercised. That, combined with votes that are purchased by special interests, causes Congress to be powerless.

      The fiasco known as Obamacare is living proof that the President has more real power than Congress has.

    36. Re:Godwin by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 1

      "Islam doesn't..."

      It seems that any time anyone makes a generalization about Islam, there's somebody who comes up with a group who has a strict interpretation of this or that which refutes it.

      http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/i-am-racist-and-my-racism-based-on-islam-says-umnos-annuar-musa

      These days I'm more inclined to say that opinions on religion are best left to historians. The rest of it, I'll ignore, because it's mostly spouted by people who's concepts of what is "truth" is very different than mine.

      Apologies if you're merely citing historical references and not religious dogma through your faith structure or second-hand knowledge.

    37. Re:Godwin by ranton · · Score: 1

      there is a vast chasm between what you have described -- an independent criminal, or even a gang of them -- and institutional oppression.

      I agree there is a vast difference between the two. I only think that because people feel so safe from independent criminals or even gangs (because of our functioning legal system), they take this safety for granted. Oppressive regimes can and do come to power, even in western countries. Since we already Godwinned this discussion, remember Germany is a western country.

      To bring this back to Trump, a judicial application of considered checks and balances, supported by the populace, would keep him in check effectively.

      Considering Supreme Court justices are appointed by a President, and Congress votes the party line well over 90% of the time, it is reasonable to doubt the effectiveness of the US Constitution's checks and balances. While I do agree with you that Trump does not pose a threat to American democracy, I guess I'm not as willing to throw the idea out as ignorant.

      And there is still no chance in hell he will be accepted and elected even by the majority of the Republican voter base, much less the entire electorate.

      I also agree with you here. But I am a little worried we are wrong. And my primary worry is not Trump becoming president. My primary worry is any democratic country filled with citizens who would vote Trump into power. Such an electorate would be prime for the rise of fascism.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    38. Re: Godwin by jonhorvath · · Score: 1

      Sounds like the first French Republic.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    39. Re:Godwin by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      "Islam doesn't..."

      These days I'm more inclined to say that opinions on religion are best left to historians. The rest of it, I'll ignore, because it's mostly spouted by people who's concepts of what is "truth" is very different than mine.

      Apologies if you're merely citing historical references and not religious dogma through your faith structure or second-hand knowledge.

      My undergraduate degree actually is in history, with my graduate degree being International Relations. My undergraduate was done at a Baptist university but I did take a comparative religion class, and my grad work focused on conflict and national security and I took 3 years of Arabic. So I my exposure isn't as formal as some, but it definitely isn't driven by any religious dogma (not Muslim, raised Baptist but not practicing, wife is Catholic). And using your redshirt guy as an example of Islam is like using Westboro Baptist Church as an example of Christianity. Hell, there are even militant Buddhists.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    40. Re:Godwin by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      It seems that any time anyone makes a generalization about Islam, there's somebody who comes up with a group who has a strict interpretation of this or that which refutes it.

      Because there is no overarching authority of what Islam is or isn't, it makes it very easy to use a "no true Scotsman" argument when Islamic practices are discussed.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    41. Re:Godwin by bfpierce · · Score: 1

      Take a look at what actually went down, and given is the more apt term.

    42. Re:Godwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So when the Beer Hall Putsch is scheduled?

    43. Re:Godwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really don't see what's entertaining about Trump. He brings out the absolutely worst in a lot of people, suddenly being a racist idiot is somehow accepted.

    44. Re:Godwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's like Hitler.

      His merits still lack an US wide forest conservation and art standardization programs.

    45. Re:Godwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not Germany 30's. Rather Italy 20's. Next, Trump will say the trains will run on time, he'll wear black and march on Rome.

    46. Re:Godwin by istartedi · · Score: 1

      FDR wasn't Hitler either. Literally the anti-Hitler... and he put people in camps. It's not so simple.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    47. Re:Godwin by MagickalMyst · · Score: 1

      "he's stoking the same xenophobic flames..."

      ...and pandering to AIPIC by doing so.

      --
      Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
    48. Re: Godwin by gweihir · · Score: 1

      That was after Hitler came into power, not before. Trump has time.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    49. Re:Godwin by Bonker · · Score: 1

      Happily, we don't have nearly the financial problems Germany immediately before Hitler's rise to power that made him seem like such a good idea to many Germans. The Weimar Republic had suffered balloon inflation after WW1 and mass poverty covered a lot of what's now Germany. The Deutsch Mark was worthless and women and children were often forced to prostitute themselves in order to eat.

      In comparison, we've had a relatively minor recession, and are recovering nicely, and have had one of the strongest currencies in the world the entire time. We also had and still have the world's financial markets by the balls the entire time, since EVERYBODY on the planet treats U.S. debt as an investment of choice. (That's a pretty neat trick for a country going through even a minor recession.)

      We're not nearly desperate enough to elect a 'Hitler'.

      History will tell if we were stupid enough, but I suspect we won't.

      Shame Bernie's not getting nearly as much mindshare as Hillary.

      --
      The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
    50. Re:Godwin by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Given that Trump has said that Jews can't control him because he won't accept their money, I don't think he's got much Jewish vote locked in.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    51. Re:Godwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's fascinating to observe -- this must be what it was like in the early 30's in Germany, watching the fascists rise to power.

      I'm waiting for him to talk about "solutions" to the "Muslim problem" -- final ones, even.

      Ummm, errr, ...he's about 90% of the way there already.

      http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/donald-trump-muslim-ban-immigration/

      http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/nov/24/donald-trumps-comments-database-american-muslims/

      About the only thing he hasn't yet called for is to round them up into concentration camps and then...well...I'm sure you know the rest. It is truly frightening to see how high this man is in polling. What the hell happened to my country?

    52. Re:Godwin by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      Yes, but almost every liberal hates Mormons saying they are all white. But there are way more non white Mormons than their are white ones. And heck, I'm not even LDS and *I* know this.

    53. Re:Godwin by MagickalMyst · · Score: 1

      Interesting...

      --
      Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
    54. Re:Godwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The biggest difference between Hitler and Trump is that Hitler was actually a clever politician and a skilled political strategist. Trump says evil things, and is able to get the uneducated and uninformed to go along with him. Hitler said evil things and was able to Germans of all stripes to go along with him.

    55. Re:Godwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's an insult to beavers in both cases.

    56. Re:Godwin by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Trump has very little in common with GWB. Bush is a polite person who adhered to the Constitution within the limits of his understanding. Trump is rude and considers his opinion superior to the Constitution.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    57. Re:Godwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then what's the word for discrimination by religion?

    58. Re:Godwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, while he hasn't proposed concentration camps yet, neither did Hitler when he was first rising to power.

      Look, I apologize in advance for being abrasive.

      But are you really that stupid? Would it really be too much to ask for you to read up even the tiniest bit on things before shooting your mouth off on Slashdot?

      Hitler's political attitudes and opinions were well-known long before he rose to power. "Mein Kampf" was published in 1926. The VÃlkisch movement, Dietrich Eckart, the Thule Society, Lanz von Liebenfels, it all goes way back. And even the average German who wasn't involved with VÃlkisch circles could've known by the early 1930s what Hitler was up to. Certainly the political elite, people like von Hindenburg, must've known.

      There's no shame in not knowing any of this, but since you obviously don't know the tiniest bit about how Hitler rose to power, would it kill you to PLEASE not post such bull?

      (I do agree that Trump's a Bad Idea with a capital B, BTW. I disagree that he's really comparable to Hitler yet. Trump is pandering; Hitler had completetely internalized an utterly inhumane ideology. The only thing Trump has internalized is capitalism.)

    59. Re:Godwin by guruevi · · Score: 1

      You know that's what people thought about Hitler after the Beer Hall Putsch right? Charlie Chaplin sure made fun of Hitler/Nazi's much like SNL or any other comedy source does of Trump/Fox News.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    60. Re: Godwin by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      We do have a legal structure now to pretty much "disappear" people. It isn't Constitutional (habeas corpus may not be suspended except in times of insurrection or invasion), but it does seem to exist. It isn't like shooting people in public (although police do get away with that), but it's pretty effective.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    61. Re:Godwin by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      He was influential in getting Germany into a position where he pretty much had to be made Chancellor. His party had about 40% representation in the Reichstag, which is a very large number in a multiparty system. Sure, the turning point came when the President appointed him Chancellor, but he had done a great deal to get to that point.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    62. Re:Godwin by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Hitler wasn't promising to kill all the Jews. The final decision to do so was made in 1942.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    63. Re: Godwin by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      And when he proposed every single Nuremberg law you didnt see it ?

      don't be silly. he only has a dumb hairdo, not a bad mustache. his policies are the same, of course, but no mustache.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    64. Re:Godwin by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      You're exaggerating. He might mess up his country and a bunch of other countries in bad ways if he is elected, but he's nowhere as dangerous or evil as Hitler. He's essentially a clown, a narcissist entertainer who was blessed with and psychologically corrupted by a lot of inherited wealth. The kind of guy who is proud to be an asshole and actually is one, as opposed to all these likable 'nice assholes' who in reality aren't.

      Yes, it will be Hillary vs Trump, Trump will become the next George W. Bush^3 of the USA, and after his reign,the US might be at the brink of a civil war, but at least its going to be entertaining. In the long run, a weak and reasonably fucked up US can be beneficial to Europe, so I don't worry too much.

      “the fact that some dressed-up uniform fetishist, a vegetarian with bad teeth, bad breath and bad digestion, a morphine user to the last, an asocial man with phobias, that we in all seriousness believed that this is a good idea — that is completely incomprehensible.” - Jan Böhmermann, on Hitler

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    65. Re:Godwin by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      To be fair, while he hasn't proposed concentration camps yet, neither did Hitler when he was first rising to power. I have a feeling the German people would have rejected "let's kill all the Jews and everyone who disagrees with me" if he led with that idea. Instead, he began with smaller ideas. You are suffering (which Germany was and which Trump supporters seem to think America is) and it's all these people's fault (putting the blame on another group - be they Jews, Muslims, or Mexicans). Then, since it's all their fault, they should be identified (star on their clothes or a national Muslim database) and segregated from "normal society." Then, you need a task force to deal with these undesirables (Trump's Deportation Force might not be as bad as the SS on paper, but I doubt the SS on paper was exactly what they became).

      No, Trump isn't Hitler, but he's stoking the same xenophobic flames, is proposing clearly unconstitutional ideas without care as to their legality, and doing so while his supporters seem to say "We don't care if it's legal or not, those people need to be 'taken care of.'" History has shown us where this path leads and it's NOT a nice place. It's certainly not anywhere that I'd want America heading towards.

      I don't like the sound of these boncentration bamps.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  7. Disease by eumoria · · Score: 3

    What is the disease does this country have in listening to people like this? I realize there are other candidates that are clearly not all there upstairs but when is this Trump shit gonna go away. Fuck that idiot and fuck his hi-jacking of the discussion.

    1. Re:Disease by Desler · · Score: 1

      Trump is still around because there is a large base of people who buy into the stuff he says.

    2. Re:Disease by Kartu · · Score: 1

      I've checked current presidential race standings out of curiosity (living in Europe)
      Trump is hands down the most likely republican candidate, the next candidate has about half of his popularity.
      So is Clinton (actually she leads by even wider margin)

      In republican vs democrat, Trump is behind Clinton, but only slightly.

      And to your question, the more shit spills out of this mess over to prosperous countries, the more radicalized public opinion will become.
      Check France where National Front is the most popular party at the moment.
      What is surprising here?

      Heck, even though disagree with his proposals, I can not deny that despite all the claims, Islam is, actually, inherent part of the problem.

    3. Re:Disease by Jason+Levine · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What is the disease does this country have in listening to people like this?

      Because there is a change happening in America. No longer can "old, white Christian guys" (OWCG) be assured that they are the most powerful group. Now you have "upstarts" like women and Latinos and non-Christians gaining power. OWCGs see this as a threat but they feel powerless to stop them. Trump taps into OWCGs' frustration and fans their various hatreds (xenophobia, racism, etc). He says what they are all thinking because he himself is an OWCG. So they follow him and cheer him on without worrying about where his proposals will lead America. Because they see a Trump presidency as returning OWCGs to the seat of power and shoving everyone else back into their "proper place" of obeying the rules that OWCGs set.

      In the long run, OWCGs can't win. This change will happen whether they like it or not. When I have grandchildren, they will regard many of the OWCGs ideas the same way most of today's society regards "black people should be kept separate and second class from white people." Yes, there's an ever-diminishing fringe that believes that, but society at large has moved on. OWCGs will be that fringe in a few decades. The only question is whether we'll keep moving forward or if President Trump will hit the brakes for a couple of years (slowing us down but not stopping us).

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    4. Re:Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can say the same about Obama.

    5. Re:Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes the country is only for white male christians only fuck anyone else who lives here

    6. Re:Disease by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

      I've checked current presidential race standings out of curiosity (living in Europe) Trump is hands down the most likely republican candidate, the next candidate has about half of his popularity.

      The problem with those polls is that the Republican field is diluted. Most of the people who would support Trump are already polling as supporting Trump. As some of the 15+ other candidates start to drop out, most of their supports will go to support candidates other than Trump. The problem is that, in the meantime, Trump is the "frontrunner" (at usually somewhere in the 20-30% range) so the media focuses on this and inadvertently(or maybe intentionally?) lending credence to his positions. You should also remember that most of these polls are not national polls, but are limited to the states that have early primaries such as Iowa and New Hampshire.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    7. Re:Disease by Somebody+Is+Using+My · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Trump is still around because there is a large base of people who buy into the stuff he says.

      Even more, he is still around because he sells papers (well, TV advertising). Even people who don't support him can't help but turn on the TV to see what wacky idea he has come up with today. The media knows this, so they throw him in our faces every chance they get. If he wasn't such an entertaining spectacle, the media would have dropped him months ago and he would have been stumping in half-filled halls to a dwindling number of supporters while the news focused on the other candidates (probably trying to dig up dirt on marital infidelities or contrast a candidates current policies with a statement he made in high-school).

      Of course, Trump is well aware of this too, so he keeps saying ever more outrageous things just so he can keep making headlines. Not only does this feed his huge ego, it increases his visibility and makes him seem a viable candidate. Many people refuse to vote for somebody unless they think there's a chance that person can win, and with Trump in the news all the time, it makes him seem more popular than he really is (of course, eventually this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy).

      Trump is one of the greatest political trolls ever, and his success is largely because the news is so addicted to advertising dollars they can't help but feed the troll.

      What really terrifies me is that next election, other politicians are going to take note of Trump's success and are going to follow in his footsteps until eventually we'll end up with somebody like President Dwayne Elizondo 'Mountain Dew' Herbert Camacho.

    8. Re:Disease by doconnor · · Score: 1

      His cure might cause fascism.

      In Canada we have at least as much those things as the US, but the Conservatives just lost an election for proposing to bring in mealy 10 times (adjusted for population) as many Syrians as Obama is proposing because it wasn't enough.

    9. Re:Disease by tbannist · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What is the disease does this country have in listening to people like this?

      Greed.

      Seriously, you can trace this all back to Tobacco companies fighting to protect their profits. In the early 1970s they devised a strategy to manufacture anti-government propaganda and "grassroots" organizations to distribute them. These organizations provided both inspiration and support to the Koch brothers when they started their own anti-government advocacy and recruiting group in 1984, Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE). As an interesting note, Ron Paul was the first director of Citizens for a Sound Economy. In the 80s and 90s, CSE was funded by Philip Morris, General Electric, Exxon and Microsoft (among others). In 2004 it split into FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity.

      Both of CSE's successor groups were involved in creating the Tea Party political movement, the goal of that movement was to get people who have not normally been involved in political groups involved (specifically on the far right side of the Republican). They use populism and demagoguery to motivate these people, so it should be no surprise that the end result is support for populist demagogues. However, those same attributes have been driving reasonable people out of the party, as each election cycle the people motivated by the populist rhetorical impose more stringent populist requirements on the leadership, continually pushing them to the right. At first the Republican leadership embraced the new populism because it helped them win elections they had no right to win, now it may too late for them to salvage anything from the ruins of the party. Increasingly, it seem, the only Republicans who matter are the radical Tea Party ignoratti.

      So the genesis for Trump's success lies in advocacy groups created to lobby for the right to poison and kill your customers and neighbours. Caveat Emptor, America! Freedom is cheaper than responsibility!

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    10. Re:Disease by eumoria · · Score: 1

      Quit calming me with your rationalism, damnnit.

    11. Re:Disease by quenda · · Score: 2

      Suppose the caucus did nominate Trump (I don't know how they work.)
      Surely in a national election, Trump would have no chance?
      The Democrats could nominate Joffrey Baratheon, and win by a landslide.

    12. Re: Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ^^^ up moderate that thoughtful post

    13. Re:Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Capitalism. Commercialism. Corporatism.

      Captcha: crimes

    14. Re: Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Likewise nationalism was a inherent problem underlying the Nazi ideology, and Trump have long since ventured from patriotic to nationalistic rhetorics. I always refrain from invoking Godwin, but Trump make not doing so near impossible.

    15. Re:Disease by JudgeFurious · · Score: 2

      So you're suggesting that the Republicans and Democrats would both go with the same candidate?

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
    16. Re:Disease by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And here is your typical Trump supporter, fiscally cartoon-conservative and socially a closeted pseudo-nazi. They hate the shit out of every aspect of social progress and have a monstrous persecution complex, even though they're virtually all straight white Christian Americans, the most privileged and powerful group in the known universe.

      They hate that social progressiveness restrains and effectively muzzles their many potent prejudices, and they hate when science and evidence disagree with their stupid gut feelings on other issues.

      And Trump is a giant nuclear double-middle-finger to progressiveness and facts, who promises to finally give them what they want, to run their country based on their many potent prejudices and uninformed gut feelings.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    17. Re:Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The disease is called "right-wing talk radio."

    18. Re:Disease by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      The Conservatives didn't lose the election for that. They lost because of the decade of harm they have caused to the country.

    19. Re:Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The disease is paralyzing fear. Trump voters constantly listen to Rush, Fox and their ilk and they are scared shitless, running from their own shadows.

    20. Re:Disease by kenaaker · · Score: 1

      If I remember correctly, the Koch brothers have a bit more interesting history. Their father was one of the primary funders of the John Birch Society. (Yes, that John Birch Society, they of the "Ike is a communist" and "fluoridation is a commie plot to pollute our precious bodily fluids"...)

    21. Re:Disease by avandesande · · Score: 1

      "straight white Christian Americans, the most privileged and powerful group in the known universe" Really? This group is shrinking rapidly and mostly lower middle class.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    22. Re:Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Idiocracy was prophecy rather than fiction. Goddammit.

    23. Re:Disease by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Yes, shrinking rapidly, but they still wield the most political power in the most powerful country on the planet. The only group that rivals their power is the 0.01%.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    24. Re:Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I question the C in OWCG. Maybe in name, but doubtful in conduct. I think it would be very rare to see a real C dabbling in politics.

    25. Re:Disease by crunchygranola · · Score: 2

      The problem with those polls is that the Republican field is diluted. Most of the people who would support Trump are already polling as supporting Trump. As some of the 15+ other candidates start to drop out, most of their supports will go to support candidates other than Trump.

      I think Trump can pick up nearly all of the support of Carson and Cruz, the two others who are benefiting from the ignorance and crazy talk crowd.

      If you add up their numbers and Trump's what do you get? The latest national poll on this had Trump at 33%, Cruz at 13% and Carson at 15%, that adds up to 61%. And I am not cherry picking polls. The link I provided summarizes all of the polling, and you can pick any of them. Last Friday's CNN poll would put that total at 66%

      The rest of the candidates are irrelevant.

      You are whistling in the dark, and ignoring the numbers, because the truth is just too scary. Join the rest of us in being very afraid.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    26. Re:Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OWCG? Seriously?
      Politics isn't a popularity contest. It's about money and nothing else. Those "upstarts" will make people think that changes are coming, but the money, that huge capital that never sees the light of day hasn't changed ownership.
      Those "upstarts" will dance to the same tune as everyone did. Different suit by shape or color, with the same director behind the scenes.

    27. Re:Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've obviously never stepped foot outside of your mother's basement.

    28. Re:Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can say the same thing about Mother Theresa. It doesn't make it true.

    29. Re:Disease by ausekilis · · Score: 1

      Yes, but at least then our president could challenge other presidents to a cage match and finish them off with a suplex pin.

    30. Re:Disease by avandesande · · Score: 1

      You really think Halliburton or Exxon Board of directors is run by Born Again Christians? Seriously? They might be 'christian' but they aren't the demographic voting for Trump. Hillary is just as appealing if not more to them. Trump is a loose cannon.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    31. Re:Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is the disease does this country have in listening to people like this?

      Post-Watergate politics.

    32. Re:Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fight racism with more racism, social justice style. You are what is chasing moderates to Trump. If Trump wasnt a loud mouthed idiot he could just keep his mouth shut and easily win.

    33. Re:Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nailed it.

    34. Re:Disease by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      In the past, the Republican leadership could pull candidates back into line using party money. Now, the ultra-right wing Republicans can replace that money with money from the Koch brothers and their like.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    35. Re:Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A CNBC reporter started the Tea Party by accident in a news cast he made. If you didn't know that, you are an idiot and shouldn't be commenting on it. Everything else you mentioned about their starting is an outright lie.

      And I guess you agree with... Bail outs of banks, NSA spying, F-35 program, Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Drone strikes on weddings, and all the other horrible crap the US does.
      Yea, it was the Tobacco companies that made up all those stories to turn the people against the government. They made it all up and no one has the balls to call them out on their lies.

      Do you even realize how bat shit crazy you sound?

    36. Re:Disease by aralin · · Score: 1

      As socialism is a big no-no in this place for uneducated masses, fascism is the only option left.

      --
      If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
    37. Re:Disease by gweihir · · Score: 1

      It is called "stupid", and there really is not cure for it. Trump just shows how badly ignorant of reality and history the average American conservative really is.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    38. Re:Disease by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      So what do you think of the US constitution and its Bill of Rights? That it was done by old white guys and should be scrapped? (Hint: Old White guys aren't as much of the problem as people who say old white guys are the problem)

    39. Re:Disease by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      straight white Christian Americans, the most privileged and powerful group in the known universe.

      Sorry to spoil your rant with facts, but the most well-off demographic in the world for the past few decades or more has been white women. White males are (a very very far) second.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    40. Re:Disease by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      Shhh, you're putting reality into this political discussion :) Now if you want to see who will transfer even MORE power and money to the 1% - look at Mrs. Clinton.

    41. Re:Disease by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I didn't specify men or women...so straight white Christian American women are included. Although I would like to see a source for your info.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    42. Re:Disease by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

      It always cracks me up when my white male Christian employee complains about how mistreated and oppressed white male Christians are. Then when some other group complains about getting mistreated he decries the "victim culture in America." Talk about irony.

    43. Re:Disease by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

      Post some data supporting your assertion, since those poor white males are a very, very distant second in being well off, I am sure you can quickly pull up a ton of examples. Like how they get paid more than men, hold many more executive positions in business, dominate electoral office at all levels, etc. etc.

      We're waiting.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    44. Re:Disease by TimothyDavis · · Score: 1

      However, those same attributes have been driving reasonable people out of the party, as each election cycle the people motivated by the populist rhetorical impose more stringent populist requirements on the leadership, continually pushing them to the right.

      What I find strange here is that it is the moderates that pretty much determine the outcome of elections, especially right now when neither the Democrats or Republicans have a large enough base to take an election.

      The fact that Trump has any followers, let alone that he is leading the pack with Republicans, is very disconcerting. Mostly because of the animosity many Republicans have towards President Obama - if they really want to have a Republican in office in 2017, they really need to prop a candidate that moderates could support.

      But maybe the Republicans have a dark horse they aren't showing right now that will actually get the nomination. Trump has already baited the other current contenders to appeal to the fringe, and there is no way these current candidates can come back to a more centric position during the general election. There is already too much of a record of stupid and scary statements that have been made by the Republican candidates.

      And I can't imagine how frothing at the mouth the right will become if Hillary is elected because Republicans couldn't back a reasonable candidate.

    45. Re:Disease by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      Suppose the caucus did nominate Trump (I don't know how they work.) Surely in a national election, Trump would have no chance? The Democrats could nominate Joffrey Baratheon, and win by a landslide.

      I think you mean convention. The candidate is nominated at the party convention. The representatives to go to the convention are decided by each state rules that are usually by a primary vote or by caucus which is essentially lots of smaller local votes of those present propagating up the chain of command to decide who goes for the state. At the party convention, those representing each state will show up and vote towards who their state decided upon along with others such as party leaders who get to go because they are party leaders. Who actually ends up voting for whom will mean a lot of haggling and deal trading to see who ends up with the most votes and gets the nomination.

      If Trump wins, there will be plenty of people who will vote the party line no matter who is on the ticket. Politics are currently too polarized to really do otherwise as the main differences between the parties are wedge issues capturing single issue voters and the other party is certainly against their issue. Sure, a certain amount of swing voters exist and to a great extent help decide the winner as both parties are evenly split. If one party gets too far behind the other, they merely adopt some policies similar to the other party to syphon away voters. Another thing that really matters is who can get out the vote. Sure, each party might have 50% of the voters no matter what given the chance, but how many will actually get up, go out, and vote? Lackluster candidates and issues means that many swing voters never decide, vote for 3rd parties, or just decide they have more important things to do after work than voting.

      Is Trump that unelectable? We won't really know till it happens. Like I said, that there is a Democrat running against him gives a great deal of motivation to many Republicans to go out and vote. We'd like to think that he's unelectable, but it may turn out that the threat of Hillary's "lawlessness" or Bernnie's "socialism" might scare people to get out and vote or fail to inspire their own people to get out and vote. I find it strange that the Republicans seem to rag on anybody other than old white christian guys so much, but that they haven't taken a different stance seems to indicate that they do not think it is losing them votes yet.

    46. Re:Disease by quenda · · Score: 1

      So you're suggesting that the Republicans and Democrats would both go with the same candidate?

      Is the whole country polarised into two factions? Googling I see party membership in the US is very high - around 20% of the population.
      I guess people sign up so they can participate in the nomination process? (It's more like 1% in my country)

      That still leaves a much larger number of people who are not members of either party, but still vote in the elections.
      But yes, why wouldn't a large number of republicans to vote against Trump? Has the country really become so insanely partisan?

    47. Re:Disease by swillden · · Score: 1

      Yes, shrinking rapidly, but they still wield the most political power in the most powerful country on the planet. The only group that rivals their power is the 0.01%.

      Collectively, this is true. However, it doesn't mean that they don't feel individually disempowered and disenfranchised, and note that statements like yours aren't in the slightest bit reassuring to them. The typical lower middle class white male sees that his lot is significantly worse in pretty much every way from what his father had, and from what he expected to have growing up... and this isn't because his father's situation was particularly good. Of course, his father's situation was much better than, say, the position of a comparable black man of his father's era, but that's not the standard of comparison he grew up using.

      There's a very insightful essay entitled The Distress of the Privileged that explores the issue of what happens when you take privileges away from people who are basically decent but have, through no doing of their own, always had a privileged position in society. They are distressed, their distress is real, and understandable, and should be considered. However, their distress cannot in any way be equated with those on whose backs their privilege was built. The distress of the privileged is real, and to them it's a big, important thing, but it's strictly less than the distress of the non-privileged which is being fixed.

      What the essay doesn't address, though, is the situation of members of the privileged class who were already feeling pretty distressed by their own life challenges even before the social changes added to their stress by taking away their privileges... while all the time telling them that they are members of a privileged elite. They don't at privileged or elite. They feel like they're at the bottom. They aren't, of course, because again they're still better off than comparable people who aren't a member of their class.

      How to fix these problems of perception? Beats me.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    48. Re:Disease by quenda · · Score: 1

      Thanks, that explains a lot.
      I'd like to think a Trump nomination would scare the bejesus out of middle America and drive many more to the polls.

      the threat of Hillary's "lawlessness" or Bernnie's "socialism" might scare people

      Hillary ? A pillar of the establishment - how does that scare republicans? Because she is a woman?

      And after Reagan went senile in office, can't the Democrats find someone who would be under 75 by the time they finished a second term?

    49. Re:Disease by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      The manufacturing of consent been going on longer than that, but good research and info nonetheless. Thanks for the post.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    50. Re:Disease by Gazzonyx · · Score: 1

      What is the disease does this country have in listening to people like this?

      Because there is a change happening in America. No longer can "old, white Christian guys" (OWCG) be assured that they are the most powerful group. Now you have "upstarts" like women and Latinos and non-Christians gaining power. OWCGs see this as a threat but they feel powerless to stop them. Trump taps into OWCGs' frustration and fans their various hatreds (xenophobia, racism, etc). He says what they are all thinking because he himself is an OWCG. So they follow him and cheer him on without worrying about where his proposals will lead America. Because they see a Trump presidency as returning OWCGs to the seat of power and shoving everyone else back into their "proper place" of obeying the rules that OWCGs set.

      In the long run, OWCGs can't win.

      Old (well, young-ish) White Christian Guy here. I didn't know I was trying to win anything or oppress anyone by my race or religious affiliation. I'm just trying to make a living, meet a nice girl and settle down. Maybe work on some open source software in the mean time. Are you sure you aren't self-projecting at all?

      --

      If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.

    51. Re:Disease by Gazzonyx · · Score: 1

      You've almost fully got the picture; the people who put him on TV sell ad time to both sides of the aisle during the election season (at a premium). When he's on, numbers are up and ad space is worth more. You ever notice how even when someone wins by a landslide, the media polls always have the candidates neck-and-neck all the way while they're selling ad space to both parties? This is simply the manifestation of a conflict of interest, IMHO.

      --

      If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.

    52. Re:Disease by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      I didn't say everyone who was old, white, Christian, and male were in the "OWCG" group. However, the people fawning over Trump (and other GOP hopefuls who spew hatred) tend to be older (not liking the change that the younger generation is embracing and wishing for things to return to the "good old days"), white (seeing minorities as a threat to their dominance in society), Christian (seeing other religions as a threat to Christianity running the government), and male (seeing women as needing to "stay in their place" as subservient to men).

      As for myself, I'm middle-aged (though I feel old sometimes), white, Jewish and male. I'm open minded enough to recognize that a diverse society isn't a threat to me dominating society (not that I ever dominated society). I don't see upcoming groups as rivals to squash, but as equals to welcome to the table.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    53. Re:Disease by Gazzonyx · · Score: 1

      With the username Jason Levine I pictured you as you describe yourself. :) I think you do have a point that it seems to be somewhat generational as much as sociopolitical.

      --

      If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.

    54. Re:Disease by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Not every old, white, Christian male is a problem. However, there are many people who bemoan the good old days when minorities and women stayed in the background of society and Christianity ruled how the government acted. These "good old days" may never have actually happened as they remember it, but it doesn't matter because society is no longer behaving like they think it used to and they'll fight tooth and nail to revert it back. To them, any change is scary - especially if it means a more diverse group of people having power over how society operates.

      The founders of the Constitution were very knowledgeable and wise. They definitely weren't perfect - nobody is - but they set up a system of government that protects people against those who would want to abuse government power. It's people like Trump and his supporters who claim everything from "We should track all Muslim Americans" to "We should force everyone to say Merry Christmas" who don't respect the Constitution.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    55. Re:Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, there's an ever-diminishing fringe that believes that, but society at large has moved on.

      I disagree, and I would offer your post as evidence to the contrary. Moved, perhaps, but not on (forward).

    56. Re:Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm glad you're not prejudiced.

    57. Re:Disease by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The actual election is about eleven months away, and a LOT can happen in that time. A clear front-runner can be effectively forced from the race. I'm sure that Trump will not get the nomination, and not sure Clinton will. While I find Trump's popularity disturbing, I'm not going to worry too much until after the first few caucuses and primaries.

      Islam is not the problem. Radical fundamentalist Muslims are. While I'm not fond of Islam as a religion, other religions have had similar radical fundamentalists and similar violence. Currently, most Christians in the developed world are reasonable people who can listen to people they disagree with (not well, of course), and aren't going to start violence over a point of religion. (The US has at least the loudest exceptions.) That isn't the case for Islam. That wasn't the case for Christianity several centuries back. There's a certain amount of truth in saying Islam is part of the problem, but it's not inherent. Any other religion, under the same circumstances, would produce similar results.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    58. Re:Disease by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I agree. I've seen otherwise reasonable-appearing Christians arguing for state-sponsored religion so they can keep religious freedom. I've read that white Christians are no longer an absolute majority. (I've also been reading things about the decline in Christianity in the US, but then one of my best friends is an Episcopal priest, and is on Facebook. One popular theory is that Christianity has strayed too much from its beliefs, making the younger generation skeptical.)

      Groups are often very dangerous when they're losing power. One reason lots of Germans wanted WWI was that they wanted to fight a war while they still thought they had a good chance of winning it.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    59. Re:Disease by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      In the US, it's pretty much mandatory that the President be Christian, preferably Protestant. There was a lot of fuss over Kennedy being elected in 1960, being a Catholic, and VP candidate Geraldine Ferraro was asked what she'd do if the Pope told her to do something contrary to the US's interests (the answer was that she'd do what was right for the US, and resign if it meant excommunication).

      Congress is almost all Christian. They aren't all born-again, and lots of them don't take their religion seriously, but the fact is that white Christians make up most of the US government.I'd say that was the most powerful group in the world.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    60. Re:Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently you're not aware that almost all of the campaign contributions to the Democratic and Republican party have come from Jewish donors and Jewish run organizations. So is it really the OWCG's calling the shots? Or did MSNBC not mention this?

    61. Re:Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      finally, fuck! this whole post has idiocracy written all over it

    62. Re:Disease by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Recent comments from Cruz seem to indicate he might be hoping to be Trump's running mate. I can't see that lasting, I have to imagine Cruz would quickly come to despise Trump.

    63. Re:Disease by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      And here is your typical Trump supporter, fiscally cartoon-conservative and socially a closeted pseudo-nazi. They hate the shit out of every aspect of social progress and have a monstrous persecution complex, even though they're virtually all straight white Christian Americans, the most privileged and powerful group in the known universe.

      They hate that social progressiveness restrains and effectively muzzles their many potent prejudices, and they hate when science and evidence disagree with their stupid gut feelings on other issues.

      And Trump is a giant nuclear double-middle-finger to progressiveness and facts, who promises to finally give them what they want, to run their country based on their many potent prejudices and uninformed gut feelings.

      it's good, though. this way the people who are secretly somebody to back away from come out and identify themselves with bumper stickers and stuff so you know to avoid taking their advice on anything.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    64. Re:Disease by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      What is the disease does this country have in listening to people like this? I realize there are other candidates that are clearly not all there upstairs but when is this Trump shit gonna go away. Fuck that idiot and fuck his hi-jacking of the discussion.

      the thing is, he's not the cause. nobody's sitting around going "I thought Muslims weren't all bad, but you know, Trump convinced me otherwise". Trump just happened to kick over the stone they were under and they're all swarming out. if he went away, if he never existed, they would all still be there with the same opinions. imagine what their behavior is like when nobody is shining a camera on them.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  8. Bill Gates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We have to go see Bill Gates," Trump said, to better understand the Internet and then possibly "close it up."

    Doesn't Trump mean Al Gore?

    1. Re:Bill Gates? by nazsco · · Score: 1

      More important to the discussion, why the so called reporter didn't bother to try to call Bill Gates to see if he agrees with that or not?

    2. Re:Bill Gates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Journalist follow-up doesn't generate clicks.

    3. Re:Bill Gates? by locoluis · · Score: 1

      Trump has no idea who to call; that's the first name that came to his mind.

      At least he realizes that he's ignorant on this matter, unlike a lot of people. He might be a clown but he's not THAT foolish.

      Of course, he's in for a nasty surprise. "Closing up" the Internet will only turn the United States into another North Korea, as the... ... no, I'm not qualified to predict what will happen in a world unable/unwilling to do business with the US. A Pax Sinica, maybe?

    4. Re:Bill Gates? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      You joke, but his thinking is exactly as sophisticated as what you parody. He thinks that Bill Gates is "in charge of the computers" and would be able to "close up the Internet" to keep those nasty terrorists off.

      He's an angry little child in an old man's body. He's never had to learn anything beyond lemonade-stand-level business skills, which have been sufficient for making money by throwing his inherited wealth around.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    5. Re:Bill Gates? by truck_soccer · · Score: 1

      There was no journalism involved in this article.

  9. Talk to Bill Gates? by turbidostato · · Score: 5, Funny

    "We have to go see Bill Gates," Trump said, to better understand the Internet and then possibly "close it up.""

    Why Bill Gates? We all know he has nothing to do with the internets and it was Al Gore the one who invented it. But, of course, Trump wouldn't engage a dem even to save the country of those pesky... well, everybodies.

    1. Re:Talk to Bill Gates? by Flavianoep · · Score: 1

      Must be either because Bill Gates is a CEO or because he's a billionaire. Looks like those are the only people Trump wants to talk to.

      --
      Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
    2. Re:Talk to Bill Gates? by Zocalo · · Score: 2

      Possibly because the kind of "person" that might actually agree that Trump's policies make sense will have some vague notion of Bill Gates as having something to do with computers and, by inference, the Internet? Somehow I doubt the current captains of the industry, even those with a lot of mainstream media coverage, are going to achieve the same level of name recognition - let alone the people that head up the companies that you'd *really* need to be talking to try and make something like this actually happen. Pop quiz: how many of the following CEOs do you recognise: Lowell C. McAdam? Chuck Robbins? Brian L. Roberts? Randall L. Stephenson?

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    3. Re:Talk to Bill Gates? by mwvdlee · · Score: 2

      Bill Gates has many years of experience in trying to ignore, downplay, take over and, finally, destroy the internet.

      More likely though, Trump probably just likes the idea of renaming the Internet "Trump Gates".

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    4. Re:Talk to Bill Gates? by beheaderaswp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The biggest Irony of all:

      Microsoft is the worst example of TCP/IP expertise. Going to Gates, would be like questioning Steve Jobs about the NT kernel.

      --
      Another consultant who stuck it out.

      "We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
    5. Re: Talk to Bill Gates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because he can't call Jeff Bezos anymore ...

    6. Re:Talk to Bill Gates? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But Al Gore is a dirty, rotten Liberal and Bill Gates is a wholesome, job-creating Businessman. Trump would much rather deal with the latter.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    7. Re:Talk to Bill Gates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that's the whole point. Gates knows how to fuck the internet up real good. He was responsible for Internet Explorer.

    8. Re:Talk to Bill Gates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are so fucking hilarious. Gore invented it!! HAHAH!!

      (p.s. shut the fuck up)

    9. Re:Talk to Bill Gates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bill Gates hasn't been CEO of Microsoft for a very long time. Further proving just how out of touch Trump is.

    10. Re:Talk to Bill Gates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are making fun of it, but Bill Gates had no idea about the internet at all. In fact, "...the default network installation did not install TCP/IP, the network protocol used on the Internet."

    11. Re:Talk to Bill Gates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, Bill Gates released a book, "The Road Ahead," around that time as well. The initial version had no mention of the internet. It was quickly changed once it was obvious the internet was something to deal with.

    12. Re:Talk to Bill Gates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lowell C. McAdam - not because he's the CEO of Verizon, but because he's clearly the Cigarette-smoking man from X-Files. It explains so much.

    13. Re:Talk to Bill Gates? by bsolar · · Score: 1

      You mean praying on his tomb and asking for guidance?

    14. Re:Talk to Bill Gates? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      But Al Gore is a dirty, rotten Liberal

      So is Trump. He was a registered democrat, favors single-payer healthcare, he's pro-choice, favors a wealth tax, etc.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    15. Re:Talk to Bill Gates? by njnnja · · Score: 1

      Why not Mark Zuckerberg? No one has more experience in successfully closing up the internet except (maybe) the architects of the Great Firewall.

    16. Re:Talk to Bill Gates? by malditaenvidia · · Score: 1

      I don't know how willing he would be to indulge Trump's shenanigans, either.

    17. Re:Talk to Bill Gates? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Whatever Trump is really, he's trying to portray himself as an ultra-conservative candidate and palling around with Gore would hurt his image. If there's anything Trump values more than anything, it's his image.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    18. Re:Talk to Bill Gates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the ideas that Bill Gates stole from Sun didn't turn out to be good ideas?

    19. Re:Talk to Bill Gates? by truck_soccer · · Score: 1

      Yes, but trump is a racist.

    20. Re:Talk to Bill Gates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you even on about, dimwit? Al Gore single-handedly invented the internet and the WWW.

    21. Re:Talk to Bill Gates? by Howitzer86 · · Score: 1

      If I were Bill Gates, I'd do it for fun, make him think I'm about to do something, and then humiliate him in front of everybody.

    22. Re:Talk to Bill Gates? by LessThanObvious · · Score: 1

      âoeWe have to go see Bill Gates,â Trump said - I hear "We're off to see the Wizard".

    23. Re:Talk to Bill Gates? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      That's true........Gore is a loser, and Gates is a winner.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    24. Re:Talk to Bill Gates? by Gazzonyx · · Score: 1

      I thought they used the Spyder stack originally under the BSD license? To be fair, they knew enough to not try to roll a TCP/IP stack on their own. *Cough*NetBUI,NetBIOS*Cough*

      --

      If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.

    25. Re:Talk to Bill Gates? by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      Going to Gates, would be like questioning Bill Gates about the NT kernel.

      He knows nothing of this either it was origianally designed by Dave Cutler (Designer of VMS, NT (Kernel), Azure) ...

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    26. Re:Talk to Bill Gates? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Zuckerberg has not closed the Internet. He's made a system that attracts a lot of people, but compels no one.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    27. Re:Talk to Bill Gates? by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Possibly because the kind of "person" that might actually agree that Trump's policies make sense will have some vague notion of Bill Gates as having something to do with computers and, by inference, the Internet? Somehow I doubt the current captains of the industry, even those with a lot of mainstream media coverage, are going to achieve the same level of name recognition - let alone the people that head up the companies that you'd *really* need to be talking to try and make something like this actually happen. Pop quiz: how many of the following CEOs do you recognise: Lowell C. McAdam? Chuck Robbins? Brian L. Roberts? Randall L. Stephenson?

      rightwingers are all about authority and hierarchy. trump is famous; he must be great. bill gates is famous; he must be brilliant. etc

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  10. I'm with Jeb on this one by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Jeb Bush has summed up Trump very nicely, and in a single word: "Unhinged".

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    1. Re:I'm with Jeb on this one by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, I guess the GOP was fed up with being accused of just having a mouth piece as a candidate, so they traded up for a hair piece.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:I'm with Jeb on this one by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Zzzzzzing.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    3. Re:I'm with Jeb on this one by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Well, I guess the GOP was fed up with being accused of just having a mouth piece as a candidate, so they traded up for a hair piece.

      Typo. You mean, "a herpes".

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  11. Google is probably a bigger threat. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Meanwhile Eric Schmidt proposes a ContentID-like system to suppress "hate speech".

    Pick your poison, left or right, up or down, makes no difference.

    1. Re:Google is probably a bigger threat. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't wait to go back to AOL keywords.

  12. What now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Balkanize the Internet and you will quickly see it's usefulness undermined by the "dark web". See all the VPN services to see American content already.

    See what happens in China, Iran and Turkey already. Clamp down on anything, and thousands of VPN's and proxies show up.

    If you want to "clamp down on anything" start making it illegal for proxies, content distribution networks and internet service providers from side-stepping censorship by using the "we're only a conduit" defense. Literately tell them, if you are providing DNS, that is the same as providing a phone book, hence you can tear the pages out of the phone book that let others find the criminals.

    That may create a "dark web" for piracy, terrorists like 8chan and childporn dumps, but, it makes it a lot easier to go to ISP customers and go "Look, we made it hard to access the dark web on purpose, so if you're going swimming in the dark web sewer, we know you are up to no good."

    1. Re:What now? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Wait ... so ... what you say is that in Iran and China, those VPNs and proxies are good because there you get free speech out of them, but over here, those VPNs and proxies are bad because you get child porn and piracy out of them.

      Wow, it's amazing. How do the VPNs know where they are running so they transport the right content?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  13. Freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a direct attack on Freedom. Censorship does not protect Americans, it hinders us. If anybody needed any evidence that Trump is just a R.I.N.O. and not to be trusted, this is it.

    Look, the New World Order have selected two candidates that will work for THEM, and they seem to have selected Clinton for the Democrats, and Trump for the Republicans, with Alternates as Sanders and Bush or even Christie. None of them can be allowed to win because they work for the bankers.

    I think it's too late to avoid a world war or even a civil war in the United States, but our best chance is Rand Paul, and he will have my vote even if I have to fill in a write in ballot.

    1. Re:Freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's too late to avoid a world war or even a civil war in the United State

      People like you have been predicting civil war is imminent in the US just about for ever. We've stopped listening. Come back when 'they' actually 'come for your guns' or something of that significance (it ain't happening anytime soon), then we might listen.

  14. Bill Gates?! by Roadmaster · · Score: 2

    HAHAHAHA Because Bill Gates, of all people, understood the internet from the get-go.

    It's not a series of tubes, it's a Tidal Wave.

  15. We must outlaw thinking by davide+marney · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Cut to the chase, Trump supporters. Upstream of using the Internet is thinking. Thinking leads to bad thoughts, and bad thoughts lead to bad acts. Our only hope now is to outlaw thinking. Do it now! For the children ...

    --
    "We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
    1. Re:We must outlaw thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And clearly, Trump leads by example.

    2. Re:We must outlaw thinking by donkwich · · Score: 1

      Being Trump supporters, they've already cut to the chase.

    3. Re:We must outlaw thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cut to the chase, Trump supporters. Upstream of using the Internet is thinking. Thinking leads to bad thoughts, and bad thoughts lead to bad acts. Our only hope now is to outlaw thinking. Do it now! For the children ...

      Thinking leads to breathing you know.. So you are saying that stupid people shouldn't breathe? I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY!

    4. Re:We must outlaw thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Upstream of using the Internet is thinking.

      Except that Google thinks for you now.

    5. Re:We must outlaw thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No need to outlaw thinking. It rarely occurs as it is now. The few citizens who continue to exercise the process will likely self deport in any case and any remaining can be placed in zoos or museums to be exhibited as curiosities.

  16. Google is probably a bigger threat. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Meanwhile Erich Schmidt is proposing a ContentID-like system to suppress "hate speech"

    Pick your poison, left or right, up or down, makes no difference.

  17. America Responds: by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 1

    America: The Don Should Consider "Closing the Don's Pie-Hole Up In Some Way"

    --

    Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

    Vote for Bernie in 2016!

  18. Trump is a plant by wxxy___ · · Score: 2

    I dont care how crazy it comes off or about getting modded down. Trump is a ringer who's only purpose is to make sure no Republican candidate has a chance in the elections.

    1. Re:Trump is a plant by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      If he is, he deserves an Emmy.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    2. Re:Trump is a plant by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Trump is a plant? So all we have to do is stop watering him and he'll go away?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Trump is a plant by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If he's a ringer, then what does it say that he has the backing of enough Republicans to keep ahead in the polls - ahead of the "real" GOP candidates?

      If he's not a ringer, then the same question applies.

      Ringer or not, he's ahead in the polls. There's a worrisome number of people who are saying "Close down Mosques? Sounds good. Track all Muslims? Great idea. Ban all Muslim immigrants and form a deportation task force to get rid of 11 million Mexicans? Fantastic!"

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    4. Re:Trump is a plant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was recently interviewed on the Alex Jones show and Alex very directly asked that question. Trump answered without really answering the question.

    5. Re:Trump is a plant by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

      He was recently interviewed on the Alex Jones show and Alex very directly asked that question. Trump answered without really answering the question.

      That doesn't really signify very much, because Trump never answers any question. Because if he did, it would show he has no clue about anything he says and just spouts off whatever he thinks people want to hear. Remember, this is a guy who, when asked about foreign policy or what he would do in a certain situation, basically said:"I have no idea, that's what I have people for, to tell me what to do".

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    6. Re:Trump is a plant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last two primaries, the Republican candidates who were ahead like Trump is now, ultimately did not get the nomination following Iowa and were relegated to not-quite obscurity (Gingrich & Huckabee).

    7. Re:Trump is a plant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What it shows is that pandering to the parties extreme base and showing no regard for the general election is a fine strategy.

      If appealing to the general electorate is of no concern.

    8. Re:Trump is a plant by locoluis · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Unfortunately, the press makes a lot of money from keeping the darnel green.

    9. Re:Trump is a plant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My dental hygenist opened with that line yesterday: "I can't believe they let all those people in the country like that". That was kinda awkward.

    10. Re:Trump is a plant by aralin · · Score: 1

      What "real" GOP candidates? You mean Hillary?

      --
      If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
    11. Re:Trump is a plant by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      wxxy___ claimed Trump was a plant. If we accepted this as true, then the "real" GOP candidates would be Carson, Cruz, Rubio, Bush, etc. Candidates who are all behind Trump in the polls. Whether or not Trump is a plant, the GOP needs to ask some tough questions like: Just why does our base love the xenophobic, racist trash that Trump spews?

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    12. Re:Trump is a plant by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Track all Muslims? Great idea.

      There's an equally large number of people saying "Track all Americans? Great Idea". I see no practical difference between the two lines of reasoning; both are equally stupid, yet both are strongly supported by people on opposing sides!.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    13. Re:Trump is a plant by mjwx · · Score: 1

      form a deportation task force to get rid of 11 million Mexicans? Fantastic!"

      I bet these are the same people who will ask "why cant I get someone to clean my house or mow my lawns for less than $4 an hour" after all the eeeebil brown people are sent home.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    14. Re:Trump is a plant by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      I don't like the Track All Americans idea either. The thing that worries me about the Track All Muslims idea is that it blames a problem on an ethnic/religious group and directs people to regard those people with fear and suspicion. It also indicates that the targeted group is somehow less than an average citizen so you can violate their rights in the name of security. People will support this because "It's not targeting me so what do I care?"

      Speaking as someone who is Jewish, "blame all X" talk has played out before in history and it's never good. The groups targeted for "extra examination" will expand if this is allowed. By the time it expands to encompass the people saying "it's not me", there won't be anyone left to speak up for them.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    15. Re:Trump is a plant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he's a ringer, then what does it say that he has the backing of enough Republicans to keep ahead in the polls - ahead of the "real" GOP candidates?

      If he's not a ringer, then the same question applies.

      Ringer or not, he's ahead in the polls. There's a worrisome number of people who are saying "Close down Mosques? Sounds good. Track all Muslims? Great idea. Ban all Muslim immigrants and form a deportation task force to get rid of 11 million Mexicans? Fantastic!"

      there is a solid contingent of humanity, across all countries, ethnicities, religions, etc. who feel that anybody who is not them or their family should be dead or at least imprisoned. they will naturally be conservatives, since rejection of change is central. they look at trump as the liberator who has freed them from trying to hide this belief. it's like he's the first guy in the strip club who whips out his dick and starts jerking off publicly. once they see him getting away with it, everybody else will do it, and they'll buy him free drinks.

    16. Re:Trump is a plant by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      I dont care how crazy it comes off or about getting modded down. Trump is a ringer who's only purpose is to make sure no Republican candidate has a chance in the elections.

      Because the rest of the Republican candidates are so sane and rational.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  19. Wrong as usual by bestweasel · · Score: 1

    The Internet Should Consider "Closing Up Donald Trump In Some Way"

    1. Re:Wrong as usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where is the GNAA when you actually need them?

  20. Consider the progression by MikeRT · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sure terrorists use the Internet to recruit. But how many people did not join up because of information on the Internet?

    Probably not that many. All of the schools of "radical Islam" were in existence and active well before the Internet, but the Internet has given them an unprecedented ability to reach out to Muslims very far away from their core audiences such as Muslims in Malaysia and Indonesia which were prohibitively expensive and difficult to reach in pre-modern times.

    With the advent of broadcast communication, radicals were able to start reaching their diasporas and Muslims outside of the normal stomping grounds of the radical schools based in the Middle East. The Internet not only enables that broadcasting, but enables dialogue. It's now possible for radical imams and jurists in the Middle East to do more than a fire-side chat with young Muslims across the world, they can actually engage them as pupils and groom them personally.

    I absolutely do not support Trump's proposal, but guys like you are precisely the sort of idealists that he will steamroll over without any effort in the public spotlight. Everyone else out there can see that as a matter of fact, the Internet enables terrorist recruitment probably 10x better than broadcast media did in the 60s to late 80s/early 90s.

    The way I talk about the Internet is the way most gun rights activists talk about guns. I care more about freedom than security. "If it saves one life" is not an argument to me. I'd rather lose lives in the name of freedom than save lives in the name of security.

    1. Re:Consider the progression by beheaderaswp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And yet you have those rights, which you are apparently willing to die for, because of idealists.

      The irony club has beaten you like a baby seal.

      Because you cannot beat Trump and maintain our standing in the world (what's left of it) by folding on basic rights, in the face of maniacs.

      --
      Another consultant who stuck it out.

      "We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
    2. Re:Consider the progression by DarkOx · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I absolutely do not support Trump's proposal, but guys like you are precisely the sort of idealists that he will steamroll over without any effort in the public spotlight. Everyone else out there can see that as a matter of fact, the Internet enables terrorist recruitment probably 10x better than broadcast media did in the 60s to late 80s/early 90s.

      The way I talk about the Internet is the way most gun rights activists talk about guns. I care more about freedom than security. "If it saves one life" is not an argument to me. I'd rather lose lives in the name of freedom than save lives in the name of security.

      In this case Trump might be right. I know I am going to get flamed into oblivion for saying so but you have to consider the alternatives. The lone wolf threat is probably the most impossible one we face. The talking heads and G-men have been quick to argue there was little or no communication with ISIS. That is not really true though it ignores the fact the one-way communication is still communication. Its also the hardest to cope with because even if we can known who has heard or seen what, in America we don't punish people for listening to things.

      I see three options here:

      1) Do nothing, This would be best but politically will be impossible after another attack or two.

      2) EFF's nightmare, we start monitoring and logging just about everything that happens on the Internet, no more anonymity, broken encryption and systems with backdoors. Government thought police to knock on your physical door when you post the wrong kind of comment. All of this being ineffective to boot as criminals and terrorists will find ways to use side channels, steganography, and other methods to pass information around the Internet anyway. Innovation stifled as 'legitimate' applications can't be used until the government has facility to manage and monitor them.

      3) Cut the cord, Great Firewall of America. We stop routing traffic to and from unfriendly parts of the world. For this work we have be willing to cast a broad net. You can't say lets cut off Afghanistan and Syria but let Pakistan and Iraq stay connected. After all the boarders weak and ISIS/Taliban/What have you will use the coffee shot the next town over if that is what they have to do. We would need to consider cutting off 'allies' (I use the term loosely) like Turkey and Saudi Arabia in regions know to be terror hot beds as well unless they are prepared to police things somewhat like option (2) although that is more practical in their societies.

      I don't like option 3, but its a hell of a lot better than option 2. Politically speaking we are going to get (2) if we don't support something 'crazy' like (3). That is the current political reality. We build the Internet if proves to be to dangerous or we are to afraid to allow just anyone to use it however they like, than I say lets keep it for ourselves and for western society and culture rather than destroying it for ourselves, in the name of it being a small world or something.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    3. Re:Consider the progression by Oxygen99 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      4) Accept that living in a free society with free ideas means that some people are going to get the hump and shoot up the place from time to time. You can't legislate against nutjobs with guns. What you can do, perhaps, is to both win the ideological argument and make it harder for said nutjobs to get guns.

      --
      I had a dream, bright and carefree, but now there's doubt and gravity
    4. Re:Consider the progression by gox · · Score: 1

      Agreed, but I don't think it hurts to note that the Internet gives us the unprecedented ability to reach out to radicals, too. And just like we did in pre-modern times, we only do it to challenge and intimidate. We don't speak their language and we have no intention to listen to their reasoning or empathize with their situation.

      All of which actually proves one of the points of radical Islam (and to my experience most Muslims, and double-ironically people like Trump), that freedom of information is not that useful for freeing minds.

    5. Re:Consider the progression by DarkOx · · Score: 2

      I think my number (1) pretty well covers (4). Do nothing is the 'right thing to do' but politically its not going happen. If you stop people like Trump and Cruz from solving the problem in their lousy but not all together bad for you and I way, you will get Hilliary, Jeb, or Marco doing something that will be a whole lot more shitty.

      It will be like when Jesse Ventura got elected in MN. Trump will probably tackle ISIS and have some success even if you don't approve of his methods. The rest of his time will be spent working on narcissistic Trump-isms that won't mean much to the rest of us. I suspect if electeded Trump like Ventura will be embarrassing but mostly harmless. The other possible candidates scare me a lot more because they are much more likely to make lasting changes to our society that I mostly find repugnant.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    6. Re: Consider the progression by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Idk, I think "ban Muslims" is pretty repugnant in and of itself.

    7. Re:Consider the progression by Oxygen99 · · Score: 1

      I dunno. There are similarities but I think there's a difference between accepting the status quo and trying to move the debate to a more rational place. Sort of like what Trump is doing but in reverse.

      --
      I had a dream, bright and carefree, but now there's doubt and gravity
    8. Re:Consider the progression by stabiesoft · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The cut the cord could be analogous to customs, where "packets" have to pass thru customs. Shoot, we litigate IP, we shift tax burden thru IP, why not make IP go thru customs like real stuff.

    9. Re:Consider the progression by phishybongwaters · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Trump will probably tackle ISIS and have some success even if you don't approve of his methods" Well any intelligence I might have thought you held just evaporated. How exactly is mildly retarded Trump going to tackle ANYTHING? What experience does he have? oh, just go get a small loan of a million dollars from friends. Sure, that qualifies you to tackle a global alliance of terrorists being funded directly and indirectly by the 3 largest and most sophisticated armed forces on earth. He's a clown, he's an asshat, and he offers NOTHING of substance. Sure, he appeals to the base racism and bigotry found in sects of republicans, but where is the substance. "Build a wall and make Mexico pay for it" "Just stop muslims from coming here" How exactly? You can't just throw money at every problem. I'm not saying Obama is better, but actually, I am, he's a much better candidate than Trump even with his shitty record. Trump as president will not only be humiliating, it quite possibly could be the end of your damn country. He's unintelligent and belligerent and you want HIM to represent YOU when dealing with the Saudis, Chinese and Russians? You are insane.

    10. Re:Consider the progression by WheezyJoe · · Score: 2

      I think my number (1) pretty well covers (4). Do nothing is the 'right thing to do' but politically its not going happen. If you stop people like Trump and Cruz from solving the problem in their lousy but not all together bad for you and I way, you will get Hilliary, Jeb, or Marco doing something that will be a whole lot more shitty.

      "Politically" the "do nothing" may seem impossible, but "realistically" it probably will. Candidates say a lot of shit on the road to get their drones to yell and scream on TV so that they appear popular, and thereby get people to support them in polls because you don't want to look like you're backing a loser. Thus, the Trump-radical snowball effect.

      But exactly HOW is anyone going to "shut down", or even "monitor", the Internet, particularly without also affecting the MONEY that depends on the Internet every day?

      Trump's running as a Republican, and the only thing Republicans can agree on is they don't like government doing anything with money, be that spending it or regulating it. Doing anything significant to the Internet will require a LOT of BOTH. The NSA is already spending metric tons of cash on the latest gear to sniff out the Internet, and they didn't catch a whiff of this (then again, if you're a crazed loner like the Colorado Springs shooter, anyone remember him? shutting down the Internet wouldn't have done a damn thing).

      Thus, this is the kind of thing that will get a lot of lip service, but if actually elected, will get nowhere.

      --
      Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
    11. Re:Consider the progression by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Probably not that many. All of the schools of "radical Islam" were in existence and active well before the Internet, but the Internet has given them an unprecedented ability to reach out to Muslims very far away from their core audiences such as Muslims in Malaysia and Indonesia which were prohibitively expensive and difficult to reach in pre-modern times.

      By the same token, there are creationists and moon conspiracy nuts before the internet. And there always will be regardless of what new technology exists. Some people will never see reason.

      I absolutely do not support Trump's proposal, but guys like you are precisely the sort of idealists that he will steamroll over without any effort in the public spotlight. Everyone else out there can see that as a matter of fact, the Internet enables terrorist recruitment probably 10x better than broadcast media did in the 60s to late 80s/early 90s.

      I would argue that paper printing, the telephone, radio, and the television did 10X better than their predecessor in recruiting terrorists when it comes to media. Should we have restricted them because one group wants to use it for nefarious purposes? For any technology, someone will find a terrible use for it.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    12. Re: Consider the progression by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Right,

      but what you have to realize about that kind of stuff is that policy like that is unlikely to be lasting. In fact such policies probably would not survive more than a few weeks after Trump leaves office.

      Presidents are around for 8 years, a legislators career is often long. Trump would not be able to get that sort of idiocy codified. I would be quite surprised if a President Trump could get much of anything thru congress. He might be a good negotiator but Congress plays by very different rules.

      I suspect with Trump, while he might rubber stamp a GOP agenda item or two his own policy will be mostly accomplished through executive action and when he goes so will it.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    13. Re:Consider the progression by retroworks · · Score: 1

      How did this get modded to 5?

      "Probably not that many. All of the schools of "radical Islam" were in existence and active well before the Internet, but the Internet has given them an unprecedented ability to reach out to Muslims very far away from their core audiences such as Muslims in Malaysia and Indonesia which were prohibitively expensive and difficult to reach in pre-modern times."

      The OP isn't "probably" wrong based on anything in that sentence. The question is whether more Muslims in Malaysia and Indonesia would be moderate, or immoderate, if they hadn't had the internet. The more control nations have restricting internet, the less moderate their governments. Hard core Wahhabism was exported via billions of dollars of Saudi money spent to build mosques, which became the only place young underemployed males could exchange ideas in dictatorships. The extremism comes OUT of non-transparent societies, and the fact that it can now more easily enter moderate and transparent societies is a fairly cheap price in blowback.

      --
      Gently reply
    14. Re:Consider the progression by ausekilis · · Score: 1

      Interesting thoughts in this thread.

      There was a mention of gangs, which have been described as a sort of "family". There is an allure to that sort of kinship and power. Now we have groups like ISIS, that are essentially the same thing, only with a (radicalized) religious backing. Now not only is there the draw of family, power, supremacy... there's also a religious interpretation of salvation for fighting for beliefs.

      The sort of change being suggested through information flow won't make a dent unless that information is spread to the youth. Just look at the fights we still have regarding evolution in schools. Despite plenty of evidence supporting evolution, we still have leaders that don't believe it. And there are plenty of people that still follow them, otherwise they wouldn't have been in office for so long.

      Good luck getting those kids that grew up in war zones to see any solution other than violence.

    15. Re:Consider the progression by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great! So the government can legally monitor *all* communication, and search every packet sent by anybody, to anybody, simply by routing it out and back through a foreign switch.

      Bravo! You've just proposed ending free speech!

    16. Re:Consider the progression by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      how about we do something about nutjobs getting homicidal? You seem to have left that solution out, in favor of leaving the homicidal nutjob out there, looking for a gun you've made marginally harder to get.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    17. Re:Consider the progression by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't legislate against nutjobs with guns.

      Well, that's the reason to organize society in a manner where it's hard for nutjobs to get access to deadly weapons. Of course, the U.S. system does a rather bad job at keeping the nutjobs out of the White House, so it does not just fail spectacularly on the lower range of deadly weaponry but right up to the atomic weapon range.

    18. Re:Consider the progression by DarkOx · · Score: 2

      Its like Curz said the other day "I'll direct the pentagon to destroy ISIS"

      Guess what that would probably work and I would expect Trump would say something similar. It would probably work. Our Generals don't get where they are in our armed forces by not being effective. If a president told them "eliminate ISIS, I really don't care how and I'll back you" they could probably get it done.

      Most presidents don't have the will do the politically unpopular things they would likely want to do. That isn't necessarily bad but Trumps in ability to do much more than shout "just do it" probably means he would have much greater success than anyone who would be more involved.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    19. Re:Consider the progression by Grishnakh · · Score: 0

      We don't speak their language and we have no intention to listen to their reasoning or empathize with their situation.

      Well of course not; they're stupid and crazy, and you can't reason with that. So they self-organize into their own echo chambers and feed off each other. There's really no way to deal with it, except to pursue a policy of isolation of some sort.

    20. Re:Consider the progression by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't have rights given to you by anyone, idealists or not. That fact that you don't understand this is how Trump, or Clinton, or the next president will steamroll you into oblivion.

    21. Re:Consider the progression by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a president told them "eliminate ISIS, I really don't care how and I'll back you" they could probably get it done.

      This might be the dumbest thing I've read in the last 25 years. Congratulations? This sentence implies that no one has thought to "destroy isis". It also implies that sending more war to that area is effective. The last couple of centuries of history seem to fucking disagree with you on that one. Please do us a favor and DONT EVER VOTE EVER NOT ONCE.

    22. Re:Consider the progression by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 2

      Hear Hear!!!

      I'm pretty conservative, and lean republican, but I've frequently voted against republicans who rubs me the wrong way... with Trump I don't know where to begin. He is an embarrassment to Republicans, to politicians, and even to human beings. Every time he speaks he offends me, and I will vote for ANYBODY who runs against him. A president needs to have strength, poise, and compassion. Trump only aspires to one of those things and he is failing miserably at it.

      --
      Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
    23. Re:Consider the progression by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "But exactly HOW is anyone going to "shut down", or even "monitor", the Internet, particularly without also affecting the MONEY that depends on the Internet every day?"

      You don't know so well how the Internet works, do you?

      Sadly it is perfectly possible and even more sadly, he probably would gain a lot of support from the corps and media that depend and produce the MONEY: they'd salivate about a one-way broadcast-only "Internet" where only big corps have a saying.

    24. Re:Consider the progression by khallow · · Score: 1

      With the advent of broadcast communication, radicals were able to start reaching their diasporas and Muslims outside of the normal stomping grounds of the radical schools based in the Middle East. The Internet not only enables that broadcasting, but enables dialogue. It's now possible for radical imams and jurists in the Middle East to do more than a fire-side chat with young Muslims across the world, they can actually engage them as pupils and groom them personally.

      I absolutely do not support Trump's proposal, but guys like you are precisely the sort of idealists that he will steamroll over without any effort in the public spotlight. Everyone else out there can see that as a matter of fact, the Internet enables terrorist recruitment probably 10x better than broadcast media did in the 60s to late 80s/early 90s.

      And the obvious rebuttal is the question, where are they? If terrorist groups are recruiting 10x people, then why aren't there 10x attacks?

    25. Re:Consider the progression by Stephan+Schulz · · Score: 2

      3) Cut the cord, Great Firewall of America. We stop routing traffic to and from unfriendly parts of the world. For this work we have be willing to cast a broad net. You can't say lets cut off Afghanistan and Syria but let Pakistan and Iraq stay connected. After all the boarders weak and ISIS/Taliban/What have you will use the coffee shot the next town over if that is what they have to do. We would need to consider cutting off 'allies' (I use the term loosely) like Turkey and Saudi Arabia in regions know to be terror hot beds as well unless they are prepared to police things somewhat like option (2) although that is more practical in their societies.

      That's Trump-level stupid. It's not remotely going to work without completely abolishing freedom of speech (one of the things the US does get right). "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it". You cannot stop a one-way flow of information. You cannot even stop routing unless you forbid VPNs. In a pinch, I'm sure the EFF, the ACLU, or even Anonymous will provide anonymous routing. Good luck shutting them down without going all the way to Big Brother.

      --

      Stephan

    26. Re:Consider the progression by ultranova · · Score: 1

      With the advent of broadcast communication, radicals were able to start reaching their diasporas and Muslims outside of the normal stomping grounds of the radical schools based in the Middle East. The Internet not only enables that broadcasting, but enables dialogue. It's now possible for radical imams and jurists in the Middle East to do more than a fire-side chat with young Muslims across the world, they can actually engage them as pupils and groom them personally.

      And those same conduits also let those who had lived their whole lives under the shadow of those very same fundamentalists know that there's a better way, hear of freedom and democracy. And shutting the Internet down, closing down mass media, cutting the telephones and burning every letter still won't stop ideas from spreading. Should fundamentalism be a stronger idea than democracy, we can't stop it any more than kings of old could stop democracy. I don't think it is, but there's nothing we can do either way, so let's open all channels and get this over with.

      I absolutely do not support Trump's proposal, but guys like you are precisely the sort of idealists that he will steamroll over without any effort in the public spotlight.

      Steamroll why, exactly speaking? Because fear, hate and racism are stronger than any "higher" ideal? In that case we're dead, so it doesn't matter one way or another.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    27. Re:Consider the progression by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Washington and Jefferson were idealists too. It just took a couple hundred years for them to get "steamrolled".

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    28. Re:Consider the progression by netwiz · · Score: 1

      3) Cut the cord, Great Firewall of America. We stop routing traffic to and from unfriendly parts of the world. For this work we have be willing to cast a broad net. You can't say lets cut off Afghanistan and Syria but let Pakistan and Iraq stay connected. After all the boarders weak and ISIS/Taliban/What have you will use the coffee shot the next town over if that is what they have to do. We would need to consider cutting off 'allies' (I use the term loosely) like Turkey and Saudi Arabia in regions know to be terror hot beds as well unless they are prepared to police things somewhat like option (2) although that is more practical in their societies.

      Actually, it's pretty easy to do. The blocks are assigned out of a resource group, and you can simply black-hole (null-route) traffic sourced or destined to those /8 networks (for IPv4, v6 might be a little tougher). I used to block all of APNIC due to the high incidence of attacks that came from those networks.

    29. Re:Consider the progression by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      3) Cut the cord, Great Firewall of America. We stop routing traffic to and from unfriendly parts of the world. For this work we have be willing to cast a broad net.

      Indeed, a much broader net than you seem to think. For this to be at all effective you would need to cut off not only "unfriendly" parts of the world, but also anyone who doesn't go along with your plan and cut themselves off from places you consider "unfriendly". Otherwise it becomes trivial to route traffic through other still-connected countries. Are you willing to cut off all traffic to and from the UK? China? India? Mexico? Italy? At least some of these countries are not going to go along with your plan. And so long as any route remains from the U.S. to "unfriendly" countries, communication remains possible. It would hardly even count as an inconvenience.

      From a purely technical point of view, this plan is unworkable without cutting the U.S. itself off from pretty much every other country in the world. And that's not going to happen; we have far too much invested in maintaining that global communication infrastructure, not to mention the political alliances and dependence on foreign trade. You would be better off suggesting that we physically lay siege to the entire Middle East—you'd have a better chance of success. The fact that the plan is completely reprehensible in terms of principles and fundamental rights is almost beside the point.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    30. Re:Consider the progression by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very strange. You seem to contradict yourself.

      "The way I talk about the Internet is the way most gun rights activists talk about guns. I care more about freedom than security. "If it saves one life" is not an argument to me. I'd rather lose lives in the name of freedom than save lives in the name of security."

      You claim to care so much about freedom, yet you seem to support the idea that you need to give up control over your freedom to the President.

      FYI, us gun rights activist, care about the 2nd amendment so passionately because we use guns to protect our other freedoms, which you claim to cherish.

    31. Re:Consider the progression by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If terrorist groups are recruiting 10x people, then why aren't there 10x attacks?

      Why would there be 10x the attacks? People don't scale.

      It's like how despite the rising popularity of libertarian and conservative ideas which the Internet has helped propagate (including sites like slashdot), you don't see a correlating rise in attempts to dismantle the government which both conservatives and libertarians believe should be shrunk.

      For example, TFS is about the leading GOP candidate suggesting the government could collude with private business to further infringe on the people's freedoms in the name of security.

    32. Re:Consider the progression by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And at the same time it would make it harder for law abiding citizens to revolt against a tyranny.

      NOT An OPTION!

    33. Re:Consider the progression by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Its like Curz said the other day I'll direct the pentagon to destroy ISIS"

      That will be easy since ISIS is just another pentagon project.

    34. Re:Consider the progression by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Are you willing to cut off all traffic to and from the UK? China? India? Mexico? Italy?

      Yes.

      But I also expect Europe WILL go along with us, as would China most likely. If for not other reason than because

      not to mention the political alliances and dependence on foreign trade.

      Being cut off from the "US Internet" would be more or less like being cut off from competitive access to the US economy. If you're the EU having to chose between Russia and the Middle East and America, you'll pick America. If you are China the decision is harder, but you know a lot of the other economic powers of Asia are US friendly and if you don't pick the US, you might see your access to South Korea, and Japan dry up too.

      No I think if we start making the Internet an more exclusive club we will come out on top.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    35. Re:Consider the progression by khallow · · Score: 1

      Why would there be 10x the attacks? People don't scale.

      Actually, number of attacks is one of the things I expect to scale with number of attackers.

    36. Re:Consider the progression by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      Are you willing to cut off all traffic to and from the UK? China? India? Mexico? Italy?

      Yes.

      Well, then I'm very glad it isn't your decision. Or the President's, or Congress's, for that matter, short of a constitutional amendment revoking freedom of speech, which would never pass.

      If you're the EU having to chose between Russia and the Middle East and America, you'll pick America.

      It wouldn't just be "Russian and the Middle East", it would be any country that doesn't join the club. By which I mean any country which actually cares about principles like liberty and freedom of speech, or for that matter simply doesn't want to turn into a authoritarian dictatorship like the very countries we're theoretically fighting. Just look at the countries which have the kind of national firewall you're proposing; do you really want the U.S. to be like them? You'd just be saving ISIS the trouble.

      I think you overestimate how "necessary" the U.S. market is to the rest of the world. Sure, we're influential now, but we're only a small fraction of the population. While it would mean some major cuts in the short term, India and China could do well enough on their own, as could the E.U. They already resent the dependency and how the U.S. abuses it to serve its own interests; it wouldn't take much to drive them out of our sphere of influence entirely.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    37. Re:Consider the progression by aquabat · · Score: 1

      Every time he speaks he offends me, and I will vote for ANYBODY who runs against him.

      And this, I think is the actual endgame here. Any stigma attached to the Bush name is fading fast in the face of the alternatives.

      --
      A republic cannot succeed till it contains a certain body of men imbued with the principles of justice and honour.
    38. Re: Consider the progression by tanimislam · · Score: 0

      I think you are wrong. Look at what happened to the Chinese (Chinese exclusion act). Look at what happened to the Japanese-Americans and Italians (internment camps). The most dangerous thing to do is hope it will go away. Don't we have enough big data analysis tools to determine whether "this time is different?"

      Take Trump's statements to their logical conclusion, step by step: 1) let's ban all Muslims from entering the country; 2) let's ban Muslim permanent residents from reentering the country; 3) let's register Muslim permanent residents in a special registry (separate from their non-citizen status); 4) let's register naturalized Muslim citizens; 5) let's register natural-born Muslim citizens; 6) let's keep Muslim citizens from reentering the country; 7) let's now put the Muslims into separate locations "for the rest of our safety."

      The most correct statement I heard about this is that, "legislators should do nothing." That is the only correct statement; reactionary, discriminatory, illiberal policies have occurred throughout the history of the US and other places (in the US for instance, the problems with Italian anarchists in the late 19th and early 20th centuries; the Palmer raids; the Red Scare). These attitudes and laws and PEOPLE have done nothing to advance our security, and everything to damage, dimimish, and destroy the lives of the mostly innocent citizens they touched.

      People will get angry, people will harass and persecute Muslims (or whatever persecuted groups there are). I know this is currently unrealistic societally, but the law at least should completely recognize and defend the completely justified attitude of, "I will live my life freely, and will not apologize through word and deed for the actions of people for whom I am not responsible." With nothing, by design the law remains on the side of people who behave freely, and against people who behave illegally.

    39. Re:Consider the progression by gox · · Score: 1

      I have a different world view, in which people are pushed into becoming stupid and crazy extremists because of social and economical isolation. It doesn't require the assumption of naturally evil people, or ideas that are strong enough to magically convert weak souls into stupid/crazy. It also allows ways out other than outright elimination of said peoples.

      However, I do assume that people can accept just about anything when rendered ignorant of alternatives, which is what both the group and those who like the existence of such groups both want.

    40. Re:Consider the progression by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      I am a radical Idealist and libertarian. There are many people who claim to be Democratic that also don't like liberty and choice. These are Democratic Fascists.

      The problem is, we do need radicals, to remind us of what is really at stake. We need radical Muslims to shake us to the core, so we can know what our core is. Without having the seeds of tyranny in place, we become complacent in a place where tyranny can grow, silently, slowly, eating our core beliefs in the name of whatever it needs to take Liberty away.

      And while I don't relish the thought of Muslim Extremists, we do need them to remind us of what we REALLY should be fighting for. The dialog we are having is exactly what is needed, and we do need a few extremists to amplify the simple truths we need to rediscover.

      In the end, we need both Muslims Extremists and Trump Supporters, both being their version of idealist. We need them to form our own version of Idealism, from which we can fight both.

      Yes, I am a radical Extremist. I fight for Liberty.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    41. Re:Consider the progression by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      The irony club has beaten you like a baby seal.

      There is no irony. He is simply making the correct point that there is an inherent conflict between liberty and safety, and that he is choosing liberty. And it's the same with guns.

      And the reason for that choice is simple: in order to gain any kind of meaningful improvement in terms of safety from restricting freedom of speech or gun rights, you have to essentially turn the nation into a totalitarian state. The Trumps and Obamas of this world, who pretend that they can make you safer by just restricting liberties a little bit in a way you won't notice or mind, are either ignorant or liars.

    42. Re:Consider the progression by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      If you stop people like Trump and Cruz from solving the problem in their lousy but not all together bad for you and I way, you will get Hilliary, Jeb, or Marco doing something that will be a whole lot more shitty.

      There is nothing these people can do to stop terrorism. They are simply lying to you in order to get elected.

    43. Re:Consider the progression by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      If a president told them "eliminate ISIS, I really don't care how and I'll back you" they could probably get it done.

      But the result would be even more Islamic terrorism.

      The only way to reduce this problem as far as the US is concerned is for the US to disengage. The Middle East isn't, and shouldn't be, our problem.

    44. Re:Consider the progression by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      n America we don't punish people for listening to things.

      Yet.

      Unless they're on illegal radio frequencies (thank you Mr. Reagan!)

    45. Re: Consider the progression by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Presidents are around for 8 years,

      Nope. You are showing your age kiddo.

    46. Re:Consider the progression by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The internet doesn't kill people... Terrorists do

    47. Re:Consider the progression by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > he result would be even more Islamic terrorism.

      Against the US, there would be less. Maybe you want to talk about your imagined future some more?

    48. Re:Consider the progression by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      karl, get out! you're too cool to be on Slashdot.

    49. Re:Consider the progression by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much tyranny do you have to see before revolting?

    50. Re:Consider the progression by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Personally I agree. If you look at my posting history you can discover that. I don't think the middle east is our fight, I do think though that if we don't fight them 'over there' they will come 'over here' unless we take some real effective steps to prevent that. No a religious test isn't the answer;

      We absolutely do need to know who is visiting here, for how long, and we need to make sure they are checking in often and verifiably from the places they said they would be. We need to make sure you can't get across the boarder illegally. Yes that will be a hard problem the boarder is long, Mexico is ill equipped or unwilling to prevent egress, Canada may prove to be not much better. Someone needs to inspect all those shipping containers too unless they can be X-rayed etc. I don't for a second think it will be easy or cheap. I do think if you allocate the level resources we currently direct at the middle east it CAN be done.

      I also KNOW it will negatively effect tourism etc, when there is a 6month backlog in processing of visa's and we have to deny all kinds of applications because well it says here you were in Yemen for 6 months five years ago and we can't account for your time there, denied.

      If we want to enjoy the free and open society to which we are accustom I think that is possible, but its going to have to end at boarder. At least until we are not the 'Great Satan' anymore. Which I think will happen, if a generation or two of Middle Eastern Muslims grows up without seening the US military bombing their friends and family. Chinese and Russians will more than likely become the new enemy overtime because they will probably decided they have to intervene to prevent the chaos from spilling of their boarders in our absence.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    51. Re:Consider the progression by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      But exactly HOW is anyone going to "shut down", or even "monitor", the Internet

      Do you really need to ask that? I mean we have a government so stupidly over sized that the NSA could build a system to log every phone record, X-Key-Score or whatever it was called already monitored a large part of the internet etc and nobody knew until one contractor decided to go public with it.

      The got all that done clandestinely, and you think they would have any problem getting it accomplished overtly with an actual budget for it?

      Don't be silly. If the public can be sold on the idea its needed, and their memory is short Snowden is fading into the background as we speak, it absolutely the sort of thing that could happen and happen quickly.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    52. Re:Consider the progression by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly it is perfectly possible and even more sadly, he probably would gain a lot of support from the corps and media that depend and produce the MONEY: they'd salivate about a one-way broadcast-only "Internet" where only big corps have a saying.

      Except then there's zero reason to use the fucking thing. Once the utility of the internet is gone, why would I ever sign on again?

    53. Re: Consider the progression by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Your right, in fact if a Republican is elected, Obama's Executive Orders will be reversed in mass within months. In fact I'm surprised that Conservatives haven't realised that if all States must except any States Same Sex Marriage Licenses, then All States have to except any States CCW permit.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    54. Re:Consider the progression by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about this as a radical idea, build a fence, get the fuck out of their country, pay whatever they want for oil. OR when you go to war with a country, keep the spoils and dictate to them how they will behave. One or the other.

    55. Re:Consider the progression by budgenator · · Score: 1

      At best Trump is likely much better at getting himself surrounded by good people and pointing them at an ambiguous task and letting them off the chain; at worse he'll be our Zaphod Beeblebrox, who's purpose isn't to wield power, but to draw attention away from it.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    56. Re:Consider the progression by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Agreed, but I don't think it hurts to note that the Internet gives us the unprecedented ability to reach out to radicals, too. .

      You know it is a very very interesting thing. People have their identities stolen from businesses all the time, like Target this past year.

      Here's some fun ones - how about 40 million credit cards stolen?

      http://www.caconsumeradvocate....

      However, have you seen anyone yell about closing off the internet to keep people from spending money?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    57. Re: Consider the progression by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Right,

      but what you have to realize about that kind of stuff is that policy like that is unlikely to be lasting. In fact such policies probably would not survive more than a few weeks after Trump leaves office.

      Jeezuz Christ man, move to the middle east where your Fearless leader can do anything he wants type ideal flies pretty well.

      You don't like rule of law and would prefer that Trump, do any damn thing he wants to do, but we got this, we'll win, and we won't have to become indistinguishable form the enemy to do it.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    58. Re:Consider the progression by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      " Except then there's zero reason to use the fucking thing. Once the utility of the internet is gone, why would I ever sign on again?"

      It didn't stop TV rise, did it? And of course big corps would want the old happy days of TV coming back.

      Besides, in order for the masses to align, they'd still have Facebook.

    59. Re:Consider the progression by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Its like Curz said the other day "I'll direct the pentagon to destroy ISIS".

      Like no one thought of that before? So easy - who knew?

      I'm can only assume he's talking about another invasion - since we are already doing airstrikes against ISIL in Syria. There is a big problem with that though. The Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan sucked a lot of money out of th economy, especially since we went into them on the pay later plan of emergency appropriations, and that particular chicken came home to roost.

      Not to mention that Russia is an ally of the Syrian Government. Y'all want get in a row with the Russians? They've proven to be at least as formidible of an enemy as we have proven to others. Right now we are on the same side as they are, and the French and others. And ISIL, who used to be happy to obtain land, is actually losing the battle. That's why they are now resorting to old school terrorism.

      War is not an economy stimulus, It's more of a drug addiction that eventually has to be paid for by withdrawal. It seems like lots of fun and stuff when you can pass it on to the next administration. But we are not infinitely wealthy. Wht there is even some consensus that one of th ewars we've been in has been the wrong place to be, perhaps just settling an old family feud.

      Trump with his silly Bully bluster, And Ted Cruz, who is probably looking to ignite Armageddon and be the darling of the religious right, are pointing to a very dangerous path to follow.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    60. Re:Consider the progression by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Indeed, a much broader net than you seem to think. For this to be at all effective you would need to cut off not only "unfriendly" parts of the world, but also anyone who doesn't go along with your plan and cut themselves off from places you consider "unfriendly".

      I think Trump's plan, and am almost certain that Cruz's plan is to ignite World War 3. Because as you note, "cutting off" whatever nations we decide need to be cut off is not throwing a swich in the majick Internet input house at the entrance to each country, we would have to completely destroy each country's cummunication infrastructure.

      Oh, and satellites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Trump wouldn't care as long as his ass was safe http://www.thesmokinggun.com/d...

      But from what I know about far right evangelical conservatives, Cruz would be getting exactly what he wants. As a dominionist, End times are an essential part of their religion

      http://www.alternet.org/speake...

      And they consider Ted to be a "King" who will go to war to bring the money of those they consider wicked, and give it to.............

      themselves!!! Gawd, you just can't make this stuff up. Here's a fun video to watch.

      http://www.talk2action.org/sto...

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    61. Re:Consider the progression by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Are you willing to cut off all traffic to and from the UK? China? India? Mexico? Italy?

      Yes.

      Are you willing to start World War 3 as you demand nations who refuse to bow to your demands provide internet to those countries you deem evil?

      Care to test out some ASAT weapons on those pesky Geosats as well?

      All of this for something that will only make most of the world our enemy. And not work. It's not like wars and rebellions and terrorists didn't exist before the internet.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    62. Re:Consider the progression by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      1) Do nothing, This would be best but politically will be impossible after another attack or two.

      Thanks to the first ammendment and forth ammendment, not only is "do nothing" politically possible, it also renders the censor/great wall/wiretap-everything proposals practically impossible.

      Its not even a debate. Options 2 and 3 don't pass constitutional muster, and a politician can huff and puff all he likes, but it doesn't actually matter. Its not allowed.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    63. Re:Consider the progression by ale2011 · · Score: 1

      Er, because you cannot inspect (encrypted) packets like you do real stuff?
      (For example, customs can block a memory card, say, until a responsible person explains its content.)

    64. Re:Consider the progression by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Our Generals don't get where they are in our armed forces by not being effective. If a president told them "eliminate ISIS, I really don't care how and I'll back you" they could probably get it done.

      In a sense, of course you are right.

      The US on its own could obliterate Daesh if they didn't care about (a) US military casualties and (b) Syrian and Iraqi civilian casualties.

      In reality, it's not going to happen, the politics trumps the purely military factors.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    65. Re:Consider the progression by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      3) Cut the cord, Great Firewall of America.

      This would negatively impact on the world's supply of porn, 80-90% of which appears to originate in the US. Never mind Daesh, that would really get the rest of the world disliking you.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    66. Re:Consider the progression by ale2011 · · Score: 1

      I think you guys got it wrong. Trump didn't talk about black-listing APNIC or cutting off the US... He proposed closing that Internet up in some ways. I'm not saying he is going to actually do anything of what he trumpets, even if he gets elected. But, just so as to get his proposal straight, consider:

      • It addresses traditional one-way communication; the press has to be responsible,
      • mentions kids that are watching the Internet, and
      • is worried about inside recruiters, we have a lot of foolish people.

      The proposal consists of shutting the Internet down completely. In fact, when we had old, dial-up MSN, and the Internet was almost unused, there were no terrorists popping up out of nowhere, at least not Muslims. That makes sense, let's see Bill Gates. It doesn't matter if we have invested so much in maintaining that global communication infrastructure, security is vital, business is optional. Don't you think so? See this.

    67. Re:Consider the progression by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      If a president told them "eliminate ISIS, I really don't care how and I'll back you" they could probably get it done.

      They probably could, and probably create 10 more similar groups in the process.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    68. Re:Consider the progression by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'll direct the pentagon to destroy ISIS"

      Everything is so simple when you have bumper sticker solutions. How will that work, exactly? Will the US military turn the entire Middle East into a sea of glass? Do they kill everyone in the world with a Muslim-sounding name? Please, enlighten us with some details of how this awesome plan would be carried out.

    69. Re:Consider the progression by RH434 · · Score: 1

      But you can't stop the nutjobs from getting guns, mostly illegally. So you either have to eliminate the guns or the nutjobs. Eliminating guns won't help because there's an endless way to kill people even without guns, so you're left with getting rid or the nutjobs as the only option. If cutting the nutjobs off from watching radical videos and communicating with people in their home country is a way to start, I'd be game with #3 and let the other countries come crying to us to get put back in the "trusted zone".

    70. Re: Consider the progression by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      In fact such policies probably would not survive more than a few weeks after Trump leaves office.

      If Trump were in fact to become President and tried the implement such a policy the SCOTUS would probably strike it down as unconstitutional in short order.

    71. Re:Consider the progression by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the president doesn't have the authority to eliminate isis. he would be impeached overnight and anyone in the military chain of command found complicit iwould be prosecuted as well.

      whether you agree or not with the proposal, the amount of civilian causalities and the visceral display of carnage delivered to the american people and the world by such actions is not just politically untenable it would shut down commerce, global negotiations. it would terrorize the status quo.

    72. Re:Consider the progression by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that the last time a US president launched a war against "Terror", the consequences were many American lives lost, one of the worst instabilities in that country and neighboring regions, and eventually got us to where we are now, i.e. the birth ISIS ?

      Also, going to war against a Nation is very different from going to war against terrorist groups. There is no central command, and they will never surrender. The more you bomb them, the more it helps their cause, pushing desperate civilians into their arms. Ask Israel how their retribution policy has reduced Hamas attacks.

    73. Re:Consider the progression by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Its like Curz said the other day "I'll direct the pentagon to destroy ISIS"

      Guess what that would probably work and I would expect Trump would say something similar. It would probably work. Our Generals don't get where they are in our armed forces by not being effective. If a president told them "eliminate ISIS, I really don't care how and I'll back you" they could probably get it done.

      Most presidents don't have the will do the politically unpopular things they would likely want to do. That isn't necessarily bad but Trumps in ability to do much more than shout "just do it" probably means he would have much greater success than anyone who would be more involved.

      hey that's very similar to my plan for world peace. elect me, and I'll tell everybody to stop making war, and be peaceful. Mission accomplished!

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  21. Dear Americans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Please don't vote this idiot into power.

    Thank you.

    The rest of the world.

    1. Re:Dear Americans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      problem is, the president has little power, and there are a whole room full of mini trumps actually running things now, that's why the country is a fuckhole and the government is a laughing stock

    2. Re:Dear Americans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, please *DO* elect this idiot into power.

      Trump is a truly great political troll and I would love to see him in charge of the U.S.A.

      Yours, the rest of the world.

    3. Re:Dear Americans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you.
      Dear Americans, please vote this meme candidate into power and bring is into the age of meme magic.

    4. Re:Dear Americans... by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      Barack Obama, who all of you just LOVED, has been even more of a disaster than GW Bush. So I don't think your opinion is all that good. (The generic 'you' not you particularly.)

  22. Why is this /. news? by adosch · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Because Trump said 'internet', this somehow qualifies as tech news I wanted to know about on slashdot? Shame. Quit feeding the bear, ladies and gentlemen. Eventually, it will leave and not come back.

    1. Re:Why is this /. news? by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      I think crazy-douchebag-asshole comment who currently is the front runner (depending on poll) to become half of the realistic options to become the most powerful man on earth making a ridiculous statement about shutting down the internet with billg's help qualifies as "stuff that matters".

    2. Re:Why is this /. news? by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      You don't think a political candidate chanting "shutting down the internet" is not news for Slashdot?

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    3. Re:Why is this /. news? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Hate to break it to you, but Clinton is never going to become the most powerful man on Earth.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  23. My favorite Skit! by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Funny

    You know SNL has really hit it over the top this year with this Donald Trump for president running gag.....

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  24. Which country is calling? by SpaghettiPattern · · Score: 1

    Which country is calling? The country of UNIX? The country of the Chrysler 440 cubic inch engine? Throw the clown out and be American Americans!

    --

    I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
  25. Who would have thought? by guibaby · · Score: 2

    Nixon will be considered a good president compared to the last two ass clowns and if we elect trump,,,,,Oh my!

    --
    Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels.
    1. Re:Who would have thought? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Watergate, rampant paranoia, and antisemitism aside, Nixon wasn't bad. He opened relations with China - a huge diplomacy feat at the time.

      Somehow, I don't see Trump being an effective negotiator. Unless by "effective" you mean "triggers World War 3 by demanding all other countries unilaterally agree to his terms."

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    2. Re:Who would have thought? by joerdie · · Score: 4, Interesting

      He also founded the EPA. An organization loathed by most conservatives in America today.

    3. Re:Who would have thought? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Watergate, rampant paranoia, and antisemitism aside, Nixon wasn't bad.

      Far too liberal for today's pure-minded Conservatives, though. Probably wouldn't get by Grover Norquist, either.

    4. Re:Who would have thought? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Conservatives have forgotten why the EPA was founded.

      If you guys have never heard about things like burning rivers read up on this:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuyahoga_River

    5. Re:Who would have thought? by GLMDesigns · · Score: 0

      It's the overreach of a bureaucracy that is infuriating, not that there is an agency that monitors pollution.

      It's the self-righteous fools who think that Imperial Washington and an imperial presidency is the way to solve problems and to circumvent the constitutional separation of powers.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    6. Re:Who would have thought? by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Yes, pretty liberal actually not sure how he got tied in with Goldwater.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    7. Re:Who would have thought? by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Somehow, I don't see Trump being an effective negotiator.

      He wrote a book on it, and he's done a lot of negotiation, so that is the one area where I see that he would be effective.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    8. Re:Who would have thought? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Except Rule #1 of negotiation is "Don't make inflammatory statements to the press before, during, or after negotiations." You can take a hard line during negotiations, but the purpose-less inflammatory statements that Trump makes would torpedo any negotiations before they even started.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    9. Re:Who would have thought? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course the EPA is loathed by the conservatives. They don't give a shit about the environment going to hell in a bucket. Why fix it on their dime? They would rather push it off for their kids to worry about after they're gone.

    10. Re:Who would have thought? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Trump ever wrote any book, I'd eat my hat. Paying ghostwriters is not writing books.

    11. Re:Who would have thought? by evilRhino · · Score: 1

      I'll take big government over big business any day. Sure, the government can gum up the works with regulations at times, but it's at least trying to serve the public good. I don't see a bright future with a world dominated by profit-seeking companies without any sort of rules holding them back.

    12. Re:Who would have thought? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somehow, I don't see Trump being an effective negotiator.

      He wrote a book on it, and he's done a lot of negotiation, so that is the one area where I see that he would be effective.

      Trump would have been richer if he'd have invested in index funds with his silver spoon given to him by his rich father. Sure he has done a lot of negotiation but he hasn't even do better than the average.

    13. Re:Who would have thought? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Baloney. His experience skimming the crud off the top during real estate boom/bust cycles isn't going to work on the international stage. There's a big difference between bribing a few building inspectors or local officials and facing off versus world leaders who could buy or sell Trump's entire fortune with a single check.

    14. Re:Who would have thought? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Watergate, rampant paranoia, and antisemitism aside, Nixon wasn't bad.

      There is also the matter of his war treason, sabotaging the Vietnam peace talks by promising to deliver a better deal if the Vietnamese kept up the hostilities in order to cost Johnson the election.

      That's not exactly trivial even when viewed with the standards of today's lying, perjuring, torturing and systematically criminal administration.

    15. Re:Who would have thought? by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      That's because conservatives in America aren't conservative...and liberals are not liberals. And it's because the EPA has moved on from pollution to control to ... social engineering.

    16. Re:Who would have thought? by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      Effective negotiation is how Trump is trying to sell his campaign.

      Art of the deal, etc ...

    17. Re:Who would have thought? by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      The government is not trying to serve the public good. Furthermore there isn't, nor can there ever be consensus of what is the public good. Do you prevent people from taking illegal drugs for their own good (and thus throw them in jail); do you prevent people from taking unapproved medical drugs (such as AZT or homeopathic cures)?

      Re the EPA you have government favored industries getting subsidies; you have government picking winners and losers - and this entire process is NEVER done for the public good.

      It's more accurate to think of big government as big business with police, courts and an army than it is to think of them as public servants doing the public good.

      Read the Federalist Papers (among others) and you'll see that this government was founded by people who understood that governments can be a fearsome enemy to the people subject to its powers.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    18. Re:Who would have thought? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The worst thing Nixon did was end the gold standard. In the ~40 years since then, the value of the dollar has dropped by about 96%.

      The best thing Nixon did was end that form of slavery known as the military draft.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    19. Re:Who would have thought? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Except Rule #1 of negotiation is "Don't make inflammatory statements to the press before, during, or after negotiations."

      What are you talking about? What rule list did you get that from? The first rule of negotiation, if anything, is, "never accept the first offer."

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    20. Re:Who would have thought? by Gazzonyx · · Score: 1

      Except Rule #1 of negotiation is "Don't make inflammatory statements to the press before, during, or after negotiations."

      What are you talking about? What rule list did you get that from? The first rule of negotiation, if anything, is, "never accept the first offer."

      Pfft... You're going to have to do better than that. ;)

      --

      If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.

    21. Re:Who would have thought? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Fine, just for you, I'll double the cost!

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    22. Re:Who would have thought? by Gazzonyx · · Score: 1

      You drive a hard bargain! I'll take two!

      --

      If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.

    23. Re:Who would have thought? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      He's berated and belittled reporters who painted him in an unflattering light. He's insinuated that a black protester at one of his rallies deserved being roughed up because he dared to protest at the rally. This isn't a man who can take an opposing side, discuss differences, and reach an equitable arrangement. This is a man who sits down with you, tells you the terms, and expects you to capitulate on everything. That isn't negotiation and won't fly if he's sitting down with Russia or China.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    24. Re:Who would have thought? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Like any President, there were good things and bad things about Nixon. Nixon's big bad moments (e.g. Watergate) tend to overshadow the good that he did. In many respects, he earned his bad reputation, but it's important to remember that he wasn't an evil guy and actually did some good while in office.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    25. Re:Who would have thought? by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      The honest truth is Bernie and Hillary take this guy seriously because he can get votes.

      He may not be getting votes because he is a good candidate, but he isn't expecting the US electorate to just capitulate on everything.

      I have misgivings about the way Trump treated Megan Kelly, but, in general, berating and belittling reporters (who go onto their JournoLists to get their guy in office) is far better than they deserve.

    26. Re:Who would have thought? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're forgetting with whom he's negotiating. He's not negotiating with reporters or BLM. He's negotiating with the large majority of Americans who cannot engage in, and in fact get offended by or else intimidated by--they hate it one way or another--, critical thinking.

      The tea leaves are looking more and more like a Trump presidency. Where we go from there is anybody's guess.

      My guess is that the next edition of Fallout will be real life. Don't forget to register with your local Vault-Tec representative! Do you know what makes you S.P.E.C.I.A.L.? ...ugh, guess it's time to get serious about learning more about how to effectively stockpile for the end of the world, especially after reading the Scott Adams link up there.

    27. Re:Who would have thought? by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      That seems to be a Republican trait. Some of what cost Jimmy Carter reelection was the Reagan campaign telling the Iranians they'd get a better deal if he was President.

    28. Re:Who would have thought? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      > to circumvent the constitutional separation of powers

      You mean like when congress tries to involve itself in foreign affairs or when state governors try to ban refugees ? Both matters on which the constitution is abundantly clear that the executive branch (that is - the president and his cabinet) have exclusive power ?

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    29. Re:Who would have thought? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      You can smell the libertarian ridiculousness on this one a mile away. The most empirically disproven and internally contradictory philosophy extant today - yet for some bizarre reason prevalent on slashdot - supposedly a place where fans of the scientific method congregate...

      The federalist papers were abandoned with damn good reason - it was a terrible idea.

      And while it's true that a government can be a dangerous thing - the whole point of elections is to avoid that, campaign finance reform will do much more to secure the liberties you love than limiting the size of the only thing that can reign in big business would, it's the only way to let elections actually represent the will of at least the majority of people.
      And as it happens the classic liberals that libertarians claim to be like - were a hell of a lot *less* extreme than libertarians - they favoured regulations and high taxes and they loved welfare so much that having a welfare system was a requirement before a territory was even allowed to apply for statehood !

      Yes the EPA leads to government, to an extent, picking winners and losers - that's because it's an issue where the market cannot be trusted (no the market does not always get it right) - what the EPA protects has no value to those who would destroy it and those who value it has no power to defend it, the EPA is a system that provides that power.

      Sooner or later, valuable things end up in a tragedy of the commons scenario - then you have only *one* choice - regulation. Libertarians always claim privatization is the way to avoid that, but that's the dumbest idea in history because privatization *by definition* destroys the commons - it's not a commons anymore ! More-over it is the ultimate theft by the government (for people who hate taxes to support that is really insane). Taking that which *all* get to enjoy, and by force of law letting one person gain sole access to it (which he may or may not let others get if they can afford it) is to steal from the poor to give to the rich. And to steal from the many to give to the one.

      Go read rationalwiki's page on libertarianism - you probably won't find a less biassed source in the world (they whack the moonbats with cluebats very gleefuily) - their standard is very simple: the sceptical scientific method, ideas should be believed if and only if they can be empirically tested and the conclusions they draw from the evidence are logically sound. LIbertarianism fails both tests spectacularly - and it's economics are a disaster in waiting that has caused massive hardship whenever it's been attempted (mostly because it's all based on Austrian school - which is not an economic theory so much as an economic theology).

      I know I'm probably wasting my breath, if you could reason with libertarians there wouldn't be any libertarians... but maybe, just maybe, you're still recently joined to the cult enough that you may still be open to considering the possiblity that the unquestionable axioms ought to be questioned.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    30. Re:Who would have thought? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >Far too liberal for today's pure-minded Conservatives

      Then again, so was Reagan. They all love him and practically say his name in prayer, but his actual policies were slightly to the left of Obama's on almost everything.

      Of course, they also seem to have very short memories for scandals... like when they called the IRS scandal the worst scandal in American history. I think any sane person would reserve that title for "slavery". Even that aside there are much worse scandals in American history. McCarthyism was far worse, watergate of course - and the one every republican hapily pretends wasn't really real: the Iran/Contra scandal (after all - a republican cannot possibly admit that Reagan and North committed and got away with high treason).

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    31. Re:Who would have thought? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      His race policies. The Southern Strategy was word for word a rewrite of Goldwater's policies with only two changes:

      1) He took out the promise to repeal the civil rights act (which is not the same as supporting the idea)
      2) He replaced Goldwater's "nigger nigger nigger" with dogwhistles that meant the exact same thing - like I said, subtler language, exactly the same platform.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    32. Re:Who would have thought? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Well his abilities has been tested in his career as a businessman ? So... how good was he at that ?

      Well he got started by being born with a bloody huge silver spoon up his pimply ass. Over the years he has turned his inheritance to a worth of 2 billion odd dollars.
      If he had invested his inheritance in a fund that tracked the S&P index it would be worth 8 billion.

      Simply put, Trump the negotiator only made about a quarter as much money over 3 decades as the stock market did in the period that included the biggest recession since the depression.
      One quarter as good as terrible.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    33. Re:Who would have thought? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Now you're talking about investment skill, not negotiation skill. I have no idea how good his investment skill is.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    34. Re:Who would have thought? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >Where we go from there is anybody's guess.

      It's an easy guess: world war 3.

      Unless his actual presidency turns out to have literally *nothing* in common with his actual campaign that's the only possible outcome.

      The world hasn't been itching for a fight this bad since 1914... and Trumps is saying and doing all the wrong things, he is stoking fires that ought to be getting put out.

      Face it, he really is White ISIS.
      The fact that his policy proposals are literally word for word* the Nuremberg laws means we can expect no different outcome than what those led to.

      *Well except for one word. He replaced "Jew" with "Muslim".

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    35. Re:Who would have thought? by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      yes. What you want is to have each side trying to prevent encroachment of powers.

      Interesting example though re states and refugees. This is not clearly a prerogative of the Executive Branch. This particular issue will (deservedly ) go to the courts.

      And Congress does have a say in foreign affairs as far as regulation of commerce, treaties and the funding for wars are concerned (not to mention that the Declaration of War).

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    36. Re:Who would have thought? by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      The Federalist Papers were never abandoned. They were the arguments used in order to pass the constitution. You make a good distinction between classical liberals and libertarians. I am a classical liberal. But you are wrong re taxes and welfare. One welfare in the 18th and 19th C was not conceived as it is today - and you know this as there wasn't a bureaucracy to transfer wealth from one set of people to another. I, for one, am less concerned about income transfer to poor people than I am about the micromanagement of people's lives through the IRS, zoning, "seat -belt" type of nanny-state laws. Re libertarians being unreasonable - I suppose you think that people saying we have a right to our body as far as abortion is concerned ("WAThe Federalist Papers were never abandoned. They were the arguments used in order to pass the constitution. You make a good distinction between classical liberals and libertarians. I am a classical liberal. But you are wrong re taxes and welfare. One welfare in the 18th and 19th C was not conceived as it is today - and you know this as there wasn't a bureaucracy to transfer wealth from one set of people to another. I, for one, am less concerned about income transfer to poor people than I am about the micromanagement of people's lives through the IRS, zoning, "seat -belt" type of nanny-state laws. Re libertarians being unreasonable - I suppose you think that people saying we have a right to our body as far as abortion is concerned ("WAR ON WOMEN") and yet these same people saying that we don't have a right over our own body as far as drugs, or seatbelts is concerned. So a woman who can decide to terminate her fetus cannot decide whether or not to wear a seat-belt on the way to the clinic. Yup. Makes sense to me. And, if you're rational, you would know that many people claim the mantle of being a "true" libertarian, or marxist, or muslim (or what have you) and that the positions espoused by these many "true believers" are often in conflict; when you factor in that generations go by and points of concern change you will see even more divergence. But can there be anymore foolishness than the position that is "right to ones body" as far as abortion is concerned but no right to ones body as far as drugs or seat-belts are concerned?R ON WOMEN") and yet these same people saying that we don't have a right over our own body as far as drugs, or seatbelts is concerned. So a woman who can decide to terminate her fetus cannot decide whether or not to wear a seat-belt on the way to the clinic. Yup. Makes sense to me. And, if you're rational, you would know that many people claim the mantle of being a "true" libertarian, or marxist, or muslim (or what have you) and that the positions espoused by these many "true believers" are often in conflict; when you factor in that generations go by and points of concern change you will see even more divergence. But can there be anymore foolishness than the position that is "right to ones body" as far as abortion is concerned but no right to ones body as far as drugs or seat-belts are concerned?

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    37. Re:Who would have thought? by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      (had technical issues on the other post) :)

      The Federalist Papers were never abandoned. They were the arguments used in order to pass the constitution. I am a classical liberal and you make a good distinction between classical liberals and libertarians. But you are wrong re taxes and welfare.

      Welfare in the 18th and 19th C was not conceived as it is today - and you know this as there wasn't a bureaucracy to transfer wealth from one set of people to another. I, for one, in case it matters to this discussion, am less concerned about income transfer to poor people than I am about the micromanagement of people's lives through the IRS, zoning, "seat -belt" type of nanny-state laws.

      Re libertarians being unreasonable - I suppose you've heard people saying that we have a right to our body as far as abortion is concerned ("WAR ON WOMEN") and yet these same people saying that we don't have a right over our own body as far as drugs, or seatbelts is concerned. So a woman who can decide to terminate her fetus cannot decide whether or not to wear a seat-belt on the way to the clinic. Yup. Makes sense to me.

      And, if you're rational, you would know that many people claim the mantle of being a "true" libertarian, or marxist, or muslim (or what have you) and that the positions espoused by these many "true believers" are often in conflict; - especially when you factor in that generations go by and points of concern change you will see even more divergence.

      You mention contradictory views (I suppose you're referring to the philosophical positions / stances) but can there be anymore contradictory foolishness than holding the position that one has a "right to ones body" as far as abortion is concerned but at the same time have no right to ones body as far as drugs or seat-belts are concerned?

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    38. Re:Who would have thought? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Dude... did you write this entire rambling piece by just randomly clicking and dragging phrases from some website ? Because you reused about half of them over and over.
      Not wearing a seatbelt not only risks your life - it's provably a risk on the lives of others. Since they did not consent to taking that risk, you have no right to impose it on them. How big the risk is has nothing to do with that. Anytime you subject me to any risk I did not consent to you are intruding on *my* liberty.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    39. Re:Who would have thought? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >You mention contradictory views (I suppose you're referring to the philosophical positions / stances) but can there be anymore contradictory foolishness than holding the position that one has a "right to ones body" as far as abortion is concerned but at the same time have no right to ones body as far as drugs or seat-belts are concerned?

      You do know that modern liberals (the voters at least) overwhelmingly support legalizing all drugs ? And empirical rationalists like me support it even louder. I support it because of empirical proof that legalization is the secret to almost entirely ending addiction problems. Of course all the places that are data points for that experiment also have universal healthcare and the other half of the solution is to treat addiction as a public health problem rather than a legal one. Libertarians abolitionists don't impress me since they overwhelmingly reject universal healthcare despite the absolutely overwhelming empirical evidence that it works massively better (and cheaper) than any other system yet attempted (which is why most liberals are not very happy with obamacare. They'll defend it because it's better than what was before but that's a pragmatic refusal to let the perfect be the enemy of the good, which is rather sad when the perfect is well known and empirically proven).

      But mostly - libertarians lose the plot entirely with their beloved belief in low taxes and small government. Firstly because it never happens but when you vote for a politician who promissed it he will use your vote to take money from the needy and transfer it to the rich. Which is the only thing any small government republican has ever actually done. Not one has yet actually shrank the military - which at well over half the federal budget is so damn big that you could pay for full European style welfare by cutting just 10% from it.
      Even better - go for UBI, which modern libertarians have entirely forgotten about despite the fact that people like Hayek had championed it - which means you can get rid of that whole burocracy you claim to hate so much, no need to pay for the burocrats or to do any privacy-invading checks. It costs less and the benefits are so massive that in practise the cost is usually negative (which is to say the savings it produces in other areas are bigger than the cost) - and that's before you factor in the massive economic growth it spurs. Unlike "tax cuts for the rich" - UBI growth is empirically proven, while tax cuts for the rich have a 100-year history of being disproven.

      Don't trust Austrian economics - it's not scientific - in fact it roundly rejects empiricism. Hayek and Von Mises both said things that ammount to: "You should keep believing despite all the proof to the contrary because social sciences should not be disprovable by facts and experiences".
      Which is really just a roundabout way of saying "this is an economic theology" - and like all theologies it's one massive disaster and absolutely useless for understanding anything about the actual economy, predicting anything about it's behaviour (seeing as Von Mises actually declared that doing so is outside the scope of Austrian economics it's fundamentally useless since that's the sole reason to do economics - ever) or making wise policy choices (which should be informed by something that can predict it's reaction to signals with at least reasonable accuracy).
      And that's before you even get to the horror of having "unquestionable" axioms which are poorly defined and filled with ambigous phrases that are constantly used to justify whatever conclusions make sociopaths feel good about themselves and deny all others.

      In short, when I called libertarianism the most internally contradictory and absolutely irrational philosophy extant today - I was speaking as somebody trained in philosophy (and notably: logic and critical thinking).

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    40. Re:Who would have thought? by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      what! - no I had technical issues. My laptop went down while in a forced upgrade. Take a look at the next post.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    41. Re:Who would have thought? by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      The problem with universal health care is that people can rightly say that they don't want to fund for another person's foolish choices (being overweight, taking drugs, etc...) and the government can then force you to act in a certain way (force you to make the correct choice - drink less coffee, eat more vegetables, no alcohol - whatever is the position of the day).

      The more power you give to the government to do "good" the more power it has to do anything and the less power you have over yourself. In creating a nanny state you create a police state. Officers look into your car to see if you're wearing seat belts, unregulated lemonade stands run by 10 year olds in front of their house are ticketed and closed.

      The concept behind limited government (especially a limited Federal government) is that you have directed this government to do a few things only and everything outside of that is not within their scope of action. It is left to the individual or the state.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
  26. Donald Trump will say anything by NotDrWho · · Score: 1

    He's just saying whatever it takes to get the nomination in an increasingly radical party environment.

    All he's REALLY interested in in getting big tax breaks for himself and his business/rich buddies. If he can do that by winning the Presidency, fine. If (more likely), he's just putting himself into a nice bargaining position to demand support of those cuts from whoever wants his endorsement later, that's fine too.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    1. Re:Donald Trump will say anything by Zak3056 · · Score: 2

      All he's REALLY interested in in getting big tax breaks for himself and his business/rich buddies.

      Not buying it. Being able to throw millions around is already a great way to make that happen without the hassle of running for office. Trump's motivation is most likely fairly simple: he's an attention whore, and being in the limelight strokes his ego. Becoming "the most powerful man in the world" (f that's his end game) does so even more.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    2. Re:Donald Trump will say anything by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      All he's REALLY interested in in getting big tax breaks for himself and his business/rich buddies.

      Not buying it. Being able to throw millions around is already a great way to make that happen without the hassle of running for office. Trump's motivation is most likely fairly simple: he's an attention whore, and being in the limelight strokes his ego. Becoming "the most powerful man in the world" (f that's his end game) does so even more.

      The presidential thing is just another reality show, like the apprentice.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  27. Talk to Bill Gates? by sdaemon · · Score: 3, Funny

    Wouldn't Al Gore be the better person to talk to about changing internet Architecture?

  28. wow by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

    Who know Putin and Trump agreed on something....

    1. Re:wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are much more alike that you think

  29. Something unhealthy must be in that glue by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Funny

    that keeps that hairpiece on the skull. It sinks in and poisons what's left of his brains.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Something unhealthy must be in that glue by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      that keeps that hairpiece on the skull. It sinks in and poisons what's left of his brains.

      the hair is some sort of alien puppet master controlling him.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  30. No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    America should study if killing someone's family, even if "justified", leads to an emotionally unstable person who will do radical things to bring some emotional stability back into their lives.

    And then stop doing it.

    1. Re:No by truck_soccer · · Score: 1

      What, bombing hospitals, homes, and property isn't going to win the hearts and minds? Why can't they understand that we're liberating them?

  31. Free speech by sjbe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...and the democrats want to "kill the very instrument that would be most effective in de-radicalizing people" which are firearms.

    There is no lack of firearms in the Middle East and yet their availability (and routine use) is clearly not slowing radicalization. Your argument makes zero sense and is clearly contradicted by the facts. Your notion that radicalization is effectively fought with firearms is not supported by the US Military. You cannot win a war of ideas with guns. All you can do is provide time and space for your own ideas. We've dumped trillions of dollars into wars in the Middle East and groups like ISIS are stronger than ever as a result. The ONLY thing that will ultimately defeat groups like ISIS is with speech and ideas. Firearms can only suppress them for a time at best. You don't win hearts and minds at the point of a gun.

    I'm not for banning anything, but we should block hate speech or any speech associated with known or suspected terrorists.

    You claim to not be for banning anything and then contradict yourself in the same sentence. So clearly you aren't in favor of free speech. Here's a hint - free speech doesn't just consist of speech you approve of.

    Trump is a bit of a clown but he's saying what the people want to hear so what does that tell you...

    It tells me that the people who are taking him seriously are idiots. The words "President Trump" should be terrifying to anyone with a functioning brain. What people need to hear and what they want to hear are frequently different.

    1. Re:Free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fundamentalists are stronger than ever because you supplied them with guns, money and bombs, not because of anything they did on their own.

    2. Re:Free speech by shellbeach · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You cannot win a war of ideas with guns.

      Sure you can. You give both sides guns, set them against each other and see who the last person standing is. Their ideas are the ones that win.

      That's kinda what Trump is going for, right?

    3. Re:Free speech by crow_t_robot · · Score: 1

      Those are AK's they wield, not M-16's. Think about that for a second.

    4. Re:Free speech by nitehawk214 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "War does not decide who is right, war decides who is left."

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    5. Re: Free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So one side bought from the Russians or the Chinese. There are more than one set of nutballs to chose go market go, and sometimes we trade customers. Iraqi Bath Party was our customers until they were not and then we we overthrew them, the successor party is again.

      It's the same with terror groups and multinational conglomerates.

    6. Re: Free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. Aks that the US bought to properly rearm the Iraqi military, and which were promptly abandoned, and subsequently co-opted when ISIS rolled through.

    7. Re:Free speech by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      This whole discussion is interesting. I remember reading similar things about Reagan. Yet...his policies, and those of Mrs. Thatcher, destroyed the USSR.

    8. Re:Free speech by Solandri · · Score: 1

      The ONLY thing that will ultimately defeat groups like ISIS is with speech and ideas. Firearms can only suppress them for a time at best. You don't win hearts and minds at the point of a gun.

      No, free speech and free exchange of ideas by itself actually augmented the rise of ISIS. When Saddam Hussein had an iron grip on the country, something like ISIS could never have gathered momentum. The (relative) freedom generated when the U.S. deposed Hussein is what allowed ISIS to fester. If you think just giving the people free speech and free exchange of ideas will solve everything, then you're as naive as Bush was when he invaded.

      The only thing that will ultimately defeat groups like ISIS is economic development and widespread distribution of wealth (i.e. rise of a middle class) giving most of the people in the region a decent standard of living. Decent enough that they won't give a shit when some guys in funny turbans tell them their life would be better if it weren't for those Westerners meddling in their affairs. If your life is already pretty good, you won't want to risk losing it by rocking the boat. Stuff like ISIS happens when there's a marked and obvious disparity between the haves and have-nots, to the point that the have-nots feel they're in the latter category not through any fault of their own, but because someone else is keeping them there. And that they have no other choice than violent revolution to make their lives better.

      Iran is a pretty good example. The Shah, for all his faults, did a remarkable job modernizing the country. It's still one of the most modern countries in the Middle East. But he was busy amassing wealth by looting the country's coffers. The common people suffered while he flaunted his wealth, which is why the Islamic Revolution was able to gain traction and eventually depose him.

      That's where I think we really blew it in Iraq. We concentrated too much on securing the country and prepping a native government to take over so we could get out ASAP. We should have been building infrastructure like water and power distribution, fixing up the roads and bridges that were all bombed, setting up a primary education system so the kids growing up there could learn basic math and practical skills which would be useful in a multitude of future productive occupations, providing economic and logistic assistance to help get local businesses up and running. (Afghanistan is much tougher nut to crack in that respect because they lack natural resources and their main economic export is opium.)

    9. Re:Free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no right side.

    10. Re:Free speech by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Trump has been pretty much manufactured by the media, He's a narcissistic blow-hard, and trolling MSM the same way GNAA trolls /. I'm an old fart,and I've seen this shit before, just google Nixon v. McGovern, the whole thing is like a flashback, Black Panther's and all. I just hope we can get a responsible adult to run in the next election, I had my hopes pinned on Carson, damn sure can't vote for either Trump or Clinton. None of the above is the best vote so far this election.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    11. Re: Free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Afghanistan would be an easy solve. We simply put effort in to ending the global war on drugs as it relates to opiates and now they have a massive legal market for their wares.

    12. Re:Free speech by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    13. Re:Free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then the ones who are left write history and it turns out they were right.

  32. Re:What's sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Be that as it may, it's kind of depressing that these two are apparently the best with whom the largest and most powerful nation on earth can come up. :-/

  33. Trump knows who to target for votes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Trump is making an effort to reach out to the bigots and racists who felt disenfranchised when a black president was elected.

    1. Re:Trump knows who to target for votes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish you had logged in, this was a quite salient comment.

  34. The complete quote for posterity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since muck-rakers like the Dailly Dot and Slashdot want to take the Donald out of context so lefty looneys can circlejerk with glee, I'll post the complete quote. At least the Daily Dot has the integrity to update themselves.

    "We have kids that are watching the Internet, and they want to be masterminds. And then you wonder why we lose all these kids, they want to be masterminds; they're young, they're impressionable, they want to join ISIS.

    And we have our anchors—I think I've got 'em mostly stopped, have you noticed that, they don't say it as much—but they say, the 'young mastermind', oh he's brilliant. I don't think he's got a high IQ. In Paris, I called him the guy with the dirty, filthy hat. 'K? Not a smart guy, a dummy. A mastermind? Bing bing bing, starts shooting everybody.

    The press has to be responsible; they're not being responsible. We're losing a lot of people because of the Internet. We have to see Bill Gates and a lot of different people who really understand what's happening and maybe, in some ways, closing that Internet up in some ways.

    Somebody will say, 'Oh, freedom of speech, freedom of speech.' These are foolish people, we have a lot of foolish people. We've got to maybe do something with the Internet because they're recruiting by the thousands, they're leaving our country, and then when they come back, we take them back.

    'Where were you?' 'I was fighting for ISIS.' 'Oh, come on back. Go home, enjoy yourself.' When they leave our country and they go to fight or go to ISIS, they never can come back."

    1. Re:The complete quote for posterity by DavidHumus · · Score: 1

      Thank you. Now that we've seen the full quote, we know who's looney.

    2. Re:The complete quote for posterity by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      Ah thank you, from the complete quote it's clear that he doesn't want to just come in and take away our essential liberties for fun, he wants to take away our essential liberties for imagined security. Really cleared things up there.

      Somebody will say, 'Oh, freedom of speech, freedom of speech.' These are foolish people, we have a lot of foolish people.

      Just remember though, once you've decided some Amendments are optional, there's absolutely nothing standing in the way to make the rest of them optional. What are you going to say to the next Democratic president who says "Oh, right to bear arms, right to bear arms"?

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    3. Re:The complete quote for posterity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What are you going to say to the next Democratic president who says "Oh, right to bear arms, right to bear arms"?"

      Come and get them.

    4. Re: The complete quote for posterity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So in this fantasy America, when the police turn up on your doorstep to collect your guns, what will you do - start a shootout?

    5. Re: The complete quote for posterity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In this fantasy America he'd be taken by surprise. Any "treasonous" "terrorist" "insurgents" who dare to undermine the government's authority by spreading word that the government really is taking away their guns this time will be tagged'n'bagged, likely by drone. 3AM, a squad of men kicks in his door and seizes him and his guns. If he fights back, he and his family gets bullets to the head and a note below the fold in the government paper about a heavily armed radicalized terrorist fighting to the death against the Homeland Security Squad, with sufficient note of the explosives and guns found to ensure that anyone who bothers to read the rag at all will be certain a Good Thing was done that day.

  35. Lets Do The Time warp again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don’t know if it is good or bad that Trump and so many people in the US are so removed from reality. Trump wants to shut down the internet but the internet is this massive surveillance tool. There are intelligent people that think the US may become proto fascist. In the best of times the US is almost impossible to tell from real fascism. And now is not the best of times. Trump has this quality of nostalgia that some people find reassuring. It is very difficult to resurrect the dead. And the US democracy was very sick 40 years ago. Things have become much worse since then. I would be very happy if maybe future proto fascism was the problem. Where I'm at the dark future has already come.

  36. At the Pinnacle of the GOP by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Many people make fun of Donald Trump or don't take him seriously. What most don't realize is that he is represents the pinnacle of what the Republican Party has become. All that he says is little more than populist slurs and factually incorrect statements, barring any context. He is extremely anti social, anti socialist and very pro industry and military. He resents using government money for social programs but has no problems spending the same taxpayer money for military projects. His world view is an immature outlook where the US is at the center and the rest is a nuisance or a playground for the military. He willingly and knowingly misleads the public using fear, uncertainty and doubt tactics. When he's on television he revels in the attention and uses it to entertain people with outlandish rants and to polish his public image as an anti-establishment rebel, while saying absolutely nothing of consequence. He is the kind of person that can only appeal to, for lack of a better word: white trash and its scary that it has come so far that he reaches mass appeal in the US. Abraham Lincoln must be turning in his grave from what his party has become.

    1. Re:At the Pinnacle of the GOP by KatchooNJ · · Score: 1

      Many people make fun of Donald Trump or don't take him seriously. What most don't realize is that he is represents the pinnacle of what the Republican Party has become. All that he says is little more than populist slurs and factually incorrect statements, barring any context. He is extremely anti social, anti socialist and very pro industry and military. He resents using government money for social programs but has no problems spending the same taxpayer money for military projects. His world view is an immature outlook where the US is at the center and the rest is a nuisance or a playground for the military. He willingly and knowingly misleads the public using fear, uncertainty and doubt tactics. When he's on television he revels in the attention and uses it to entertain people with outlandish rants and to polish his public image as an anti-establishment rebel, while saying absolutely nothing of consequence. He is the kind of person that can only appeal to, for lack of a better word: white trash and its scary that it has come so far that he reaches mass appeal in the US. Abraham Lincoln must be turning in his grave from what his party has become.

      This hits it out of the park. Perfect explanation. I'd give you mod points if I had any today.

      --
      "Never give up, for that is just the time and place when the tide will change." -Harriet Beecher Stowe ^_^
    2. Re:At the Pinnacle of the GOP by backwardsposter · · Score: 1

      I actually am starting to believe he represents the pinnacle of what the Republican Party is in the eyes of the Democrats. There is something afoul here...

    3. Re:At the Pinnacle of the GOP by Notorious+G · · Score: 1

      Many people make fun of Donald Trump or don't take him seriously. What most don't realize is that he is represents the pinnacle of what the Republican Party has become. All that he says is little more than populist slurs and factually incorrect statements, barring any context. He is extremely anti social, anti socialist and very pro industry and military. He resents using government money for social programs but has no problems spending the same taxpayer money for military projects. His world view is an immature outlook where the US is at the center and the rest is a nuisance or a playground for the military. He willingly and knowingly misleads the public using fear, uncertainty and doubt tactics. When he's on television he revels in the attention and uses it to entertain people with outlandish rants and to polish his public image as an anti-establishment rebel, while saying absolutely nothing of consequence. He is the kind of person that can only appeal to, for lack of a better word: white trash and its scary that it has come so far that he reaches mass appeal in the US. Abraham Lincoln must be turning in his grave from what his party has become.

      Same can be said about Obama, let's try it: All that Obama says is little more than populist slurs and factually incorrect statements, barring any context. He is extremely socialist, anti capitalist and very anti industry and military. His world view is an immature outlook where the US is at the center of all evil and the rest is a nuisance or a playground for the bureaucrats. He willingly and knowingly misleads the public using fear, uncertainty and doubt tactics. Etc, etc.

      Easy, right?

      Here's why people like Trump: he's honest. You may not agree with the insane bullshit he promotes but you can be damn sure he believes it and will do everything in his power to implement it. It's not just pandering like every single other establishment politician. Also, he doesn't apologize for America. Not any aspect of it. After 8 years of being treated to the "America is evil" meme from our current regime, many find it refreshing. They don't want apologists, they want pro-America leadership and pro-American policies and they want them from someone that will not be dragged into the morass of DC by corporate interests in ideological bullshit games. Trump is crazy but he's America crazy and people are responding to that. Some of the other candidates better get the message and start emulating him or it's gonna be one strange 4 years.

    4. Re:At the Pinnacle of the GOP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is the kind of person that can only appeal to, for lack of a better word: white trash and its scary that it has come so far that he reaches mass appeal in the US.

      More like inevitable. The U.S. has organized its society to favor the already rich to a degree where it is near impossible for white trash to employ education for rising socially. So they don't want better educated and motivated people start below them and overtake them: it makes them look bad. Trump vows to keep less privileged people out. He is going to solidify the U.S.' white trash, give it pride instead of ambition that can go nowhere.

    5. Re:At the Pinnacle of the GOP by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but no. Obama recognized that US health care is the most expensive in the world, while inefficient and cutting off a large fraction of the population, then went ahead and tried to change it. This is no "Democratic bias": The problems with US healthcare that is dominated by the large pharma companies is documented by international organizations and looked down upon by the rest of the developed world.
      Meanwhile R's deny there is a problem and wage a PR war against it spreading all kinds of FUD about it. Supposedly because they don't want tax money to be spent on helping less fortunate.

      Same story with man-made climate change and global warming. Obama cares to listen to 90% of the scientists and the global consensus which says it is real, whereas R's still deny it, spreading their climate change conspiracies in the process. Supposedly because they don't want to hurt the easy money being made by their friends in big oil.

      Remember, Trump was the guy first insisting that Obama was not a US citizen ("show me your birth certificate!") - which was false - then claiming that Obama was not born in the US - which was false - then spreading rumors that Obama was a muslim - which was false.

      Your comparison is ridiculous. Obama is a president who takes his office seriously, whereas Trump is a clown who has found the circus which the Republican Party has become a fitting backdrop for his show.

    6. Re:At the Pinnacle of the GOP by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Here's why people like Trump: he's honest.

      Mr. "Thousands of Muslims dancing in the streets of New Jersey after 9/11" is HONEST?!

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    7. Re:At the Pinnacle of the GOP by Gavrielkay · · Score: 1

      >> Here's why people like Trump: he's honest.

      He's enough of a showman to convince some people that he's honest. Every time I see him all I get is the impression that he has carefully crafted his rhetoric to appeal to the baser nature of an apparently large minority of this country. Every time he mentions the bible I cringe because it sounds so calculated. Every time he insults or lies about some easy to target group it sounds so carefully planned to whip up a frenzy. I can't understand how anyone thinks he's being "real" or "honest" except when he's bragging about being a guy who started out rich and got richer. It would be funny if it weren't so scary that people are falling for it.

    8. Re:At the Pinnacle of the GOP by Magius_AR · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but no. Obama recognized that US health care is the most expensive in the world, while inefficient and cutting off a large fraction of the population, then went ahead and tried to change it.

      By making it more expensive? Strange plan.

    9. Re:At the Pinnacle of the GOP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's why people like Trump: he's honest. You may not agree with the insane bullshit he promotes but you can be damn sure he believes it and will do everything in his power to implement it.

      Indeed. That's what scares me the most. For once, we actually have someone who actually believes the rhetoric they spew and will do everything in their power to implement it. *Shudder*

      It's not just pandering like every single other establishment politician. Also, he doesn't apologize for America. Not any aspect of it. After 8 years of being treated to the "America is evil" meme from our current regime, many find it refreshing.

      Actually, I find Trump's rhetoric terrifying, not refreshing. About the only thing I find refreshing about his style is that I have no doubt he actually believes what he is saying. Unlike many current politicians, with him we know exactly where he really stands on the issues.

      They don't want apologists, they want pro-America leadership and pro-American policies and they want them from someone that will not be dragged into the morass of DC by corporate interests in ideological bullshit games.

      You need to grab a clue. The Donald is Corporate America.

      Trump is crazy but he's America crazy and people are responding to that. Some of the other candidates better get the message and start emulating him or it's gonna be one strange 4 years.

      I'm just hoping this is all a bad dream that will be over very soon. Otherwise I fear for America's future.

    10. Re:At the Pinnacle of the GOP by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Many people make fun of Donald Trump or don't take him seriously. What most don't realize is that he is represents the pinnacle of what the Republican Party has become. All that he says is little more than populist slurs and factually incorrect statements, barring any context. He is extremely anti social, anti socialist and very pro industry and military. He resents using government money for social programs but has no problems spending the same taxpayer money for military projects. His world view is an immature outlook where the US is at the center and the rest is a nuisance or a playground for the military. He willingly and knowingly misleads the public using fear, uncertainty and doubt tactics. When he's on television he revels in the attention and uses it to entertain people with outlandish rants and to polish his public image as an anti-establishment rebel, while saying absolutely nothing of consequence. He is the kind of person that can only appeal to, for lack of a better word: white trash and its scary that it has come so far that he reaches mass appeal in the US. Abraham Lincoln must be turning in his grave from what his party has become.

      the problem is not trump per se, but the fact that his off the wall hack gets taken seriously by a good chunk of the american voting public. as if andrew dice clay could be accepted as a leader by a mass of people. which happened, of course.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  37. America's image by Tomahawk · · Score: 2

    Outside of the USA, the USA doesn't have a great image. It never really had, to be honest.

    And, unfortunately for the USA, Donald Trump is doing absolutely nothing to make that image any better.

    If anyone were to look just at Donald and how he represents you guys, then they will see an idiot, a racist, a bigot, a religious intolerant... he posses, in their worst forms, all of the bad stereotypes applied to "Americans". And, in many ways, he is the most un-American person one could point to. Taking just the simplest of American values - Freedom: He wants to close down the internet, ban Muslims, and have everyone saying 'Merry Christmas', because that's obviously what Freedom means to him.

    I really feel sorry for you guys. He really does make the whole country look like a joke. I dare not imagine what your country will become if he were to be elected.

    To be honest, there's an awful lot of things that he says that reminds me of one Adolf Hitler.

    - observations from an outsider.

    1. Re:America's image by TheSync · · Score: 1

      Outside of the USA, the USA doesn't have a great image.

      Pew polls say that you are wrong.

      "America's overall image around the world remains largely positive. Across the nations surveyed (excluding the U.S.), a median of 69% hold a favorable opinion of the U.S., while just 24% express an unfavorable view."

    2. Re:America's image by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i'm not overly concerned with the opinion of someone who judges 320 million people by a clown that generates advertising revenue on television

      secondly, i'm a fairly worldly american, professionally and for pleasure, and I can safely say my anecdotal experience contradicts yours. Americans are generally viewed positively abroad. Of course my anecdotes have the handy feature that they are confirmed by decades of polling, surveys, and scientific research in the area. Also, you must represent the minority of peoples abroad who are unable to distinguish citizens from their governments. Your opinions do not prevail. I am unconcerned.

    3. Re:America's image by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Outside of the USA, the USA doesn't have a great image. It never really had, to be honest.

      And, unfortunately for the USA, Donald Trump is doing absolutely nothing to make that image any better.

      If anyone were to look just at Donald and how he represents you guys, then they will see an idiot, a racist, a bigot, a religious intolerant... he posses, in their worst forms, all of the bad stereotypes applied to "Americans". And, in many ways, he is the most un-American person one could point to. Taking just the simplest of American values - Freedom: He wants to close down the internet, ban Muslims, and have everyone saying 'Merry Christmas', because that's obviously what Freedom means to him.

      I really feel sorry for you guys. He really does make the whole country look like a joke. I dare not imagine what your country will become if he were to be elected.

      To be honest, there's an awful lot of things that he says that reminds me of one Adolf Hitler.

      - observations from an outsider.

      Yeah, but the US has also elected Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George Bush Jr, so our international reputation regarding elected leaders can't exactly get worse.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  38. For the love of God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please please let this man NOT be the president of United States. He speaks like a retard and acts like Balmer on steroids.

    1. Re:For the love of God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, too often the choice on election day comes down to the lesser of two evils. I would not feel comfortable voting for Trump, but if Hillary Clinton is the only other choice, it's not so cut and dried. Would this country do worse under Trump or go with another 4 years of disastrous far-left liberal policies? We can't trust Hillary to put the country's interests first any more than you could trust her husband Bill to be alone with your daughter.

  39. Trump likes the attention by Mishra100 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've always thought that Trump just does this because he likes the attention. His comments lately may be him trying to get out of the race.

    Trump likes his riches too much to actually be president. It's never felt like he actually wants the job.

    1. Re:Trump likes the attention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you underestimate how megalomaniac he is. He wants to "win the world".

  40. Islam needs to go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The reality that most people don't want to face is that Muslims are trying to kill people pretty much everywhere they come into contact with other cultures. Personally, I do not like religion, and this particular religion is not exactly benign. When will we stand up against it?
    If we do not, then we will lose to it and humanity will be set back hundreds, if not thousands of years.

    1. Re:Islam needs to go by tekrat · · Score: 1

      That's funny, because I feel the exact same way about Christianity.

      Name a time Christians *didn't* come into contact with a new culture and start killing people like crazy. Perhaps you've never heard of Native Americans?

      Oh, you probably haven't because, with few exceptions, those good christians wiped them off the planet.

      --
      If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    2. Re:Islam needs to go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Smallpox wiped out about 96% of them before Europeans even fired the first shot.

    3. Re:Islam needs to go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not just Christianity.

      Religion is merely a way to control the people.

  41. War? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doesn't seem all that unreasonable to me that when you're in a war, one of the main goals is to cut off your enemy's communications. The president may not admit it, but we are in a state of war. From my point of view, do what what needs to be done to wipe out the enemy as quickly as possible and let's get back to normal life rather than egging it on for decades.

  42. Isreal - deal with them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Radical Islamist beat the drum of Israelis aggression towards Palestinians. Force Isreal to settle for a two state solution

  43. Signed in to say .... by Miser · · Score: 1

    What a dumb ass.

    At first, I looked at Trump's rhetoric with a bit of curiosity, but now when he just spouts off about things he doesn't understand I just facepalm.

    Does he really believe this stuff he's saying or is it an act? I really don't know.

    1. Re:Signed in to say .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "curiosity" ? He has always been a lunatic, you are only realising that now ?

  44. He rocks by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    One could say that is he dumb as a rock, but that would be offensive for (orange) rocks.

  45. lol poetic justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    can someone in the states explain to this ape , that the internet has been designed and engineered to survive 90% destruction from catastrophic events like him actually getting a mic ?

  46. Nothing New by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump is a classic example of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogue

  47. Whats the difference by inhuman_4 · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure why people are hammering Trump on this, he isn't saying anything different than Clinton or Obama.

    Here is what Clinton had to say: “We’re going to hear all the usual complaints, you know, freedom of speech, et cetera. But if we truly are in a war against terrorism and we are truly looking for ways to shut off their funding, shut off the flow of foreign fighters, then we’ve got to shut off their means of communicating." And Obama has proposed outlawing encryption.

    At least Trump has has the balls to admit that the media are part of the problem.

    1. Re:Whats the difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ’

      You're doing it wrong. A right single quote is not an apostrophe. The entity you're looking for is '. And if you're going to start with an “, end with an ”! Ok, done being typography nazi for the day.

      That's interesting. Slashdot supports left and right quotes: “stuff” and ‘things’. Must be just because they're in Windows Western. Wonder if that will stamp in the way it's previewing.

      (Actually, the ’ did confuse me until I figured out you've become infested by MS Word.)

  48. Next Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    America: Donald Trump should consider "Shutting the Fuck Up in Some Way".

  49. Why attack Trump not Clinton? by MobyDisk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Both Trump and Clinton said the same thing. Why only attack one of them in the summary when the article criticizes both parties? This goes to show that both sides have no concern for the constitution, and are probably just pandering to fears.

    The article says:

    Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton urged tech companies to “deny online space” to terrorists. Clinton then anticipated and waved away presumed First Amendment criticisms. We’re going to hear all the usual complaints,” she said on Monday, “you know, freedom of speech, et cetera. But if we truly are in a war...

    Wow, she basically summarized the first amendment as "blah blah blah" and justified that it is okay to violate the constitution during wartime. This is the exact same kind of logic that was used 200 years ago that made us write those constitutional amendments. We have been fighting the same political battles for 200 years.

    1. Re:Why attack Trump not Clinton? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is so very true. There are those who call her Killary because of her warlike stance and indifference to the huge amount of misery that she's already caused.

    2. Re:Why attack Trump not Clinton? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for pointing that out. As someone above wrote, Trump is a plant, and they are right.

      Those who don't learn from history...

    3. Re:Why attack Trump not Clinton? by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

      Politicians always pander to the public, which is stupid.

      This isn't news, and it certainly isn't news for nerds.

    4. Re:Why attack Trump not Clinton? by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Both Trump and Clinton said the same thing. Why only attack one of them in the summary when the article criticizes both parties? This goes to show that both sides have no concern for the constitution, and are probably just pandering to fears.

      The article says:

      Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton urged tech companies to “deny online space” to terrorists. Clinton then anticipated and waved away presumed First Amendment criticisms. We’re going to hear all the usual complaints,” she said on Monday, “you know, freedom of speech, et cetera. But if we truly are in a war...

      Wow, she basically summarized the first amendment as "blah blah blah" and justified that it is okay to violate the constitution during wartime. This is the exact same kind of logic that was used 200 years ago that made us write those constitutional amendments. We have been fighting the same political battles for 200 years.

      first amendment freedom of speech doesn't refer to private entities having to allow speech to everybody. the naacp can deny the kkk from writing an article in their monthly bulletin if they wish.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  50. Makes Sense by pruedz · · Score: 1

    It should not too difficult to close this series of tubes... Right?

  51. Bipartisan support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is the Don quoting the Hillary and does he think that he came up with that? Anyway, I'm positive that such a proposal will find ample bipartisan support on this new side of Checkpoint Charlie.

  52. Re:What's sad by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    This may be the most insightful comment in the entire discussion.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  53. Freedom of speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Irony is strong, its only freedom of speech that allows trump to voice hes opinions..

  54. Damned straight - right on the money by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    Look how well the Soviets did this in Afghanistan. Find the problem and eliminate it. Done and done.

    Why can't we have even the slightest hint of he effectiveness of the Soviets? /s

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  55. Reverse Gear by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    No! We do not need to shut down the net in some way. We need to shut down Trump and I don't care how it is done.

  56. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Donald Trump wants to build a wall around the Internet to keep out the Mexicans.

    1. Re:So... by malditaenvidia · · Score: 1

      Why don't you put the world in a bottle, Donald?

  57. but if we treated the mentally ill by publiclurker · · Score: 1

    than the sad little gun nuts infecting this country would loose their one and only excuse for avoiding the real problems. Other countried have mentally ill, yet the do not have a mass shooting of the day issue.

    1. Re:but if we treated the mentally ill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Other countried have mentally ill, yet the do not have a mass shooting of the day issue.

      Those countries have decent public healthcare and these vulnerable peoples get the help they need. But why not exploit the suffering of the mentally ill to advance your agenda. What a waste it would be... GUN! IT'S THE FAULT OF GUN. FUCK THE NRA! CIVIL RIGHT GOTO HELL. DEMOCRACY GOTO HELL. ALLAHU AKBAR. ZEIG HEIL.

    2. Re:but if we treated the mentally ill by publiclurker · · Score: 1

      um, it is cowards like you that are using the mental illness of other to hide your own perversions.

  58. ah yes, the usual dishonesty. by publiclurker · · Score: 1

    they did not change the definition. The FBI deals with mass killings, hence the number of people killed. gun fetishists seem to think that being shot but not killed is peaches and cream that we should all learn to live with so they can continue their perversion.

  59. Definitions by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

    And you have a mass shooting almost every day.

    Umm, no.

    We have a website that changed the definition of "mass shooting" so they could claim we had one almost every day. Using the standard FBI definition, we've had one every other month or so..

    The "standard FBI definition" defines "mass murder", not "Mass shooting." Different things.
    https://www.fbi.gov/stats-serv...

    In any case, if you read the FBI documents, they state that there is no accepted definition.

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  60. Rhetorical singularity by Jeremi · · Score: 2

    Are we witnessing the final stages of some sort of Trump Rhetorical Singularity?

    It seems like every news cycle he has to top himself by saying something even more hyperbolic, and that in the last week the velocity of the hyperbole has been noticeably accelerating.

    At this rate, I assume that by Saturday he will be calling for the immediate launching of nuclear missiles against every country that might harbor terrorist, and where he goes after that nobody can even speculate.

    Good times!

    --


    I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    1. Re:Rhetorical singularity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's every bit as entertaining as Ron Paul was inspiring. Most of the Ron Paul supporters I know are supporting Trump as payback for the 2012 Primary(when the GOP told something like 10-15% of the party they were unwanted and irrelevant). -This cost Mitt Romney/Republican Party the election

      That same 10-15% knows that Ran Paul will just be a repeat of his father so they've formed an alliance with the xenophobic racists in the party to torpedo the 2016 nomination. Not even 4chan trolls this hard. Donald Trump should be Time Magazine's Troll of the Year. This is why Rand Paul is languishing in the polls: his base is too busy trolling the GOP for revenge to give sincere support to an earnest candidate.

      Because of Trump: the only election that matters is the Democratic Primary because the Republican party is so busy imploding on itself. I'm absolutely giddy for 2016 because no matter what the outcome: it will be hilarious watching the establishment get a wedgie while they try to appear dignified.

  61. This is the guy thast breaks Godwin. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First he came for the Mexicans, but I was not afraid because I was not a Mexican.
    Then he came for the refugees, but I was not afraid because I was not a refugee.
    Next he came for the Muslims, but I was not afraid because I was not a Muslim.
    Finally he came for the internet users, but all hell broke loose and everyone told him to fuck off.

    Seriously though USA, wake up and see this dangerous man for what he is. If this is what he's willing to say when he needs the peoples' vote, just imagine how far he'd go with executive orders.

  62. Re:What's sad by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

    What's frightening is that you'd choose a crazy bigoted egomaniac over a fairly unremarkable Democrat who has become the devil incarnate to right-wingers somehow. I never understood the incredible amount of hate that US conservatives have for Hillary. Since she's a huge war-hawk by Dem standards, you'd think they might even find her more tolerable.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  63. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  64. Close the Internet??? by DidgetMaster · · Score: 1

    Kind of like how we 'closed the mail system' or 'closed the telephone and telegraph networks' we we found out that evil people could use those forms of communication to coordinate bad activities?

  65. The chickens have come home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What do you expect, given folks on the right listening to Rush Limbaugh and similar for years and years? The chickens have come home. Whether they will lay eggs in the primaries is to be seen.

  66. Mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's right. Trump's got a viable, terrible, but viable plan. It sure beats the hopey changey bullshit nothingness we've had for the last 6 years in which ISIS has exploded.

  67. Teh Wisdom of Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I applaud Donald Trump for calling into question the ruinous immigration policy that has not been working since 1965. The US needs to halt the current policy and calmly ask who to we want to let in, and why.

  68. A joke right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, he's made billions some how he can't POSSIBLY believe this shit...he must be just pandering to the masses. The guy doesn't even sound sane any more...

    1. Re:A joke right? by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      He made billions, but that's because he started out with a lot of money. His business ventures total to about market averages.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    2. Re:A joke right? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      He managed not to lose his trust fund, unlike many of his trust-fund baby cohort, so I guess that's something to be proud of.

  69. "Shooting" is such an ugly term... by quonsar · · Score: 1

    Please instead use the politically correct term "interpersonal ballistic event", or IBE.

  70. Godwin's law is not an argument by spongman · · Score: 1

    This guy sounds more like Hitler every time he opens his mouth.

    1. Re:Godwin's law is not an argument by spongman · · Score: 1

      "Tyranny cannot defeat the power of ideas" - Hellen Keller, after her books, among others, were burnt in Germany, May 10, 1933

  71. Asking Bill Gates about the Internet??? by QuestorTapes · · Score: 2

    Doesn't that pinhead Trump realize Microsoft doesn't understand the Internet - That's why the Internet runs on Linux and BSD. Hell, even MS is recommending deploying their Azure environment on Linux...

    1. Re:Asking Bill Gates about the Internet??? by BitterOak · · Score: 1

      Doesn't that pinhead Trump realize Microsoft doesn't understand the Internet - That's why the Internet runs on Linux and BSD. Hell, even MS is recommending deploying their Azure environment on Linux...

      Yeah. I think Trump has forgotten his Internet history. Microsoft was very late to the game when it came to the Internet. People on Unix based systems had been on the Internet for years while people using Windows 3.1 had to install a 3rd party app like Trump Winsock just so they could run Netscape Navigator on their PCs to browse the web. It wasn't until 1995, when Windows 95 came out that Microsoft's operating systems even had Internet capabilities built in. Bill Gates is the wrong person to talk to. Someone like Vint Cerf would be a more sensible adviser, but he might not be very sympathetic to Trump's aims.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    2. Re:Asking Bill Gates about the Internet??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump Winsock

      I laughed. If that wasn't intentional that's a pretty hilarious freudian slip.

      (Trumpet Winsock, btw)

    3. Re:Asking Bill Gates about the Internet??? by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Doesn't that pinhead Trump realize Microsoft doesn't understand the Internet - That's why the Internet runs on Linux and BSD. Hell, even MS is recommending deploying their Azure environment on Linux...

      Yeah, the dumbest thing Trump has ever said is the idea that Bill Gates can shut down part of the internet,

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  72. Message to republicans: Choose ONE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. free speech
    2. religious freedom
    3. guns

    Republicans will need to face reality: Emperor Trump's only going to give you one of 3 but not all 3. So choose wisely when you select your nominee.

    Talk about a lesson in compromise, oh, the Irony.

  73. Re:Greed by Martin+S. · · Score: 1

    It reminds me a lot of Cargo Cultism.

    A lot of people think that associating themselves to selfish right wing politics they will also be successful, instead of recognising that is a consequence not the the cause.

  74. Trump and his 'ideas' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you folks elect this nutbar you will become Canada's toilet instead of us being your hat.

  75. start by blocking Chumpie by swschrad · · Score: 1

    his campaign website. his hotel sites. and golf course sites. all his affiliated business sites. just wash them out of the BGP and records, and redirect anybody smart enough to type the IP codes to The Last Page Of The Internet.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  76. Level 18 troll alert! by TiggertheMad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Sufficiently advanced trolling is indistinguishable from stupidity", apologies to Arthur C Clark...

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  77. Re:Greed by wyHunter · · Score: 1

    Okay, let's think about this for a moment. So Obamacare is good 'cause it is left wing, right? But Obamacare's goal is to move the onus for having healthcare from an outside organization - aka government or employer -- providing health cover to the individual, and penalize with taxes. So tell me, what's more greedy? Right or Left?

  78. Re:Cure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The cure to Trump is a class action lawsuit by all US muslims for emotional distress. Crunching some numbers: 1.8 million US muslim adults times a mere $2,250 = $4.05 billion.

    But Trump only has $4 billion. Welcome to the bottom 1%, Mr. Trump.

  79. America responds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    America: Donald Trump Should Consider "Closing His Mouth Up In Some Way"

  80. Would it be possible to close the Internert to DT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about if we close the internet to Donald Trump? Ie anything he says is filtered out. It might look the same to him?

  81. Some changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you replace "Muslim" with "Jew", and time warp it back to the 1930's, draw a funny little moustache on Donald, I ask if there is really any meaningful difference.

    Maybe the Obama birthers should ask Donald for a DNA sample, just to be sure.

  82. trump has trumped again ( whewww whats that smell) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump ya feckin maggot faggot what this ppint of mentioning billy goat gates all he has done for the intetnet is make it a totally insecure place .

  83. I really hope he ends up President by nedlohs · · Score: 1

    At first it was just going to the hilarity of his finger on the nuclear button.

    But it just gets better every time it brings up an idea.

    Look it all has to end sometime, it might as well at least by humorous.

  84. Donald summed up Jeb with two words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Low Energy. The damage is done. Jeb's candidacy is finished.

    1. Re:Donald summed up Jeb with two words... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      I'm starting to think that Jeb might be a lot smarter than his brother, and is simply waiting for Trump and Cruz to flame out.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  85. Hitler Would Be Proud by BrendaEM · · Score: 1

    Fascist, racist piece of crap isn't so funny anymore, is he.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
  86. I'm ok with it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It should slow down off shoring.

  87. The internet: where religion goes to die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The internet: where religion goes to die

    Literally, the internet is the best tool for defeating stupid people on both sides.

  88. Re:We must outlaw thinking - done! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Our only hope now is to outlaw thinking. For the children ...

    You do realize the last Texas State GOP Platform opposed the teaching of critical thinking in schools?
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/texas-gop-rejects-critical-thinking-skills-really/2012/07/08/gJQAHNpFXW_blog.html

  89. Does muslim community value going to the states? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does muslim community value going to the States?

    Surely if they don't value it, then Trump has no point.

    If however it is valued, then they ought to be doing more
    to control their own community.
    I mean that 1000% commitment that leaves no room for doubt.

  90. Not so fast! Don't forget Ted Cruz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Here is Ted Cruz' college roomate: "“I would rather have anybody else be the president of the United States. Anyone,” Mazin said. “I would rather pick somebody from the phone book."

    "And, you know, I want to be clear, because Ted Cruz is a nightmare of a human being. I have plenty of problems with his politics, but truthfully his personality is so awful that 99 percent of why I hate him is just his personality. If he agreed with me on every issue, I would hate him only one percent less.

  91. Re:Australia by tehcyder · · Score: 2

    You can't legislate against nutjobs with guns.

    Australia did (both conservatives and liberals) and it appears to be very effective.

    Most Americans seem to work from the basic principle that everyone will always have easy access to guns one way or another, and so it's pointless trying to legislate against them at all.

    Whatever your position on gun control, it is certainly a fact that the US has a far higher proportion of people owning firearms than other countries, and so it would require a much more extensive government intervention.

    When they basically banned handguns and most weapons except shotguns and hunting rifles in the UK, it only affected a tiny minority of people. There is no equivalent lobbying group to the NRA here, because it would basically just be comprised of farmers and grouse shooters, who know they will be allowed to keep their weapons anyway.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  92. Maybe we still break even? by Gazzonyx · · Score: 1

    Before you judge all of us, just remember, we actually freakin' did it; we busted down the doors of FIFA and brought people out in cuffs ( https://youtu.be/qr6ar3xJL_Q?t... ). So, call it a wash?

    --

    If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.

  93. Bernard Manning on Spitting Image by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    There's himself.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  94. Proof once again liberals can't read by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now that the circle-jerk has died down, even the media are starting to backtrack on their reaction to Trump's words because he put them into the context of war-time national security and we are at war with Isis, radical islam, and radical muslims no matter what that llimp-dicked Obama wants to deny.

    The left is terrified Trump gets that political correctness is killing both this nation and the world. Citizens with a clue are terrified of how much damage Democrats have inflicted on this country and the world in just the past 7 years.

  95. and there goes the election..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now all the Porn Boys have dropped their support for the Donald.

  96. Feel the Bern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Feel the Bern

  97. GOP help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My theory is that Trump is going to keep be so outrageous that all the other GOP candidates will look like saints. At the last moment he'll drop out and the GOP will put a president in the White House. It could work.

  98. How do you demonstrate that a candidate is "middle by mark_reh · · Score: 1

    of the road" and therefore electable without demonstrating what a real far right nut job is? The Republican party made a deal with Trump to make its real candidates look less nutty by having Trump act like a clown. Even Ted Cruz looks sane compared to Trump. THAT's exactly what they wanted. It hasn't cost them a dime in advertising because everywhere Trump goes and every time he opens his mouth the press is all over him. I wonder how much they are paying him for his circus side-show act?

  99. Don't forget Clinton has the same idea as Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quote from Hillary:
    "..Just as we have to destroy [ISIS’s] would-be caliphate, we have to deny them online space,” she said.
    “And this is complicated. You’re going to hear all of the usual complaints, you know, freedom of speech, et cetera.."

    source: https://theintercept.com/2015/12/07/obama-hints-at-renewed-pressure-on-encryption-clinton-waves-off-first-amendment/

  100. good idea! by gzuckier · · Score: 1

    wait until all the bad muslims are on the internet, then close it up, so they will be trapped. mission accomplished!

    --
    Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  101. Re:What's sad by gzuckier · · Score: 1

    What's frightening is that you'd choose a crazy bigoted egomaniac over a fairly unremarkable Democrat who has become the devil incarnate to right-wingers somehow. I never understood the incredible amount of hate that US conservatives have for Hillary. Since she's a huge war-hawk by Dem standards, you'd think they might even find her more tolerable.

    hillary was beloved by republicans back when. “I have a sense that she is one of the more competent members of the current administration and it would be interesting to speculate about how she might perform were she to be president,” -Dick Cheney http://dailycaller.com/2011/09... "Look, if we had a Clinton presidency, if we had Erskine Bowles as Chief of Staff of the White House or president of the United States, I think we would have fixed this fiscal mess by now. That's not the kind of presidency we're dealing with right now." - Paul Ryan http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bi... “Having started as a secretary and eventually become a chief-executive officer, I not only have great admiration and respect for Hillary Clinton and her candidacy and her leadership, but I also have great empathy, I must tell you, for what she went through,” -Carly Fiorina http://www.todayszaman.com/wor... “I happen to like Hillary Clinton; I think she’s done a good job for the ... secretary of state’s position, and I have high respect for her and think a great deal of her.” - Orrin Hatch http://www.politico.com/story/... “I think the international star is Secretary Clinton. She has done a really tremendous job.” John McCain http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2... "She's dedicated to her job, she loves her country, I think she is a good role model, one of the most effective Secretary of States, greatest ambassadors for the American people that I've known in my lifetime." -Lindsey Graham http://www.thestate.com/news/p... "I think she's done a fine job. The problem isn't Hilary Clinton, who's great," -Condoleeza Rice http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_...

    --
    Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  102. Time and time again by droneriot · · Score: 1
    This quote from Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri becomes relevant.

    As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
    -Commissioner Pravin Lal

    --
    PRODUCTION HALTED
  103. Playing devil's advocate... by martinfb · · Score: 1

    If I might play a bit of the Devil's Advocate here (I do oppose Mr Trump - in being a real threat to running any country), consider this: He is professing what he believes. And he is allowed to do that - by constitutional right (and, I believe, human right). Yet, I feel we all need to know much more details about his root reasonings. ESPECIALLY those that would vote for him! And, perhaps, find the flaw in his apparently twisted perceptions - for him or us - wherever it may be. Don't we owe it to ourselves and our fellow man to fully understand as much as possible. I think this all speaks to the right for all to know absolute truths, and what is a truth and what is not fact-based. C'mon, Don, please tell us all the full details of your plans. I will not even consider you as a candidate until I see some substance. Is it that you want to exceptionalize freedom of speech, or is it that you want the minds that hear stuff categorize things like your's does?!

    --


    Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.