Slashdot Mirror


Canadian Startup Uses Trump to Lure Tech Workers (siliconbeat.com)

An anonymous reader writes: A Canadian startup "is using Republican front-runner Donald Trump in its latest campaign to recruit tech talent," reports Silicon Beat. The company's site claims that 31% of Americans they'd surveyed would consider moving to Canada if Trump were elected President. "Now, while we don't think Americans will actually move en masse to Canada if the election doesn't go their way, we do want to extend an offer. Because it's the polite, Canadian thing to do." The Washington Post reported a surge in Google searches in March for "how can I move to Canada," actually slowing down the Canadian government's immigration web site. Meanwhile, a coalition of Canadian mayors is visiting California this week to promote Canada's booming technology sector. Toronto's mayor told Bloomberg, "The embracing of diversity as opposed to it being some sort of political issue is a huge advantage we have."

503 comments

  1. Consider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously, they don't understand what "Consider" means. If Trump is elected, some people will think about moving to Canada. If he isn't, they wouldn't even think about it.

    1. Re:Consider by arbiter1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He can't do any worse then idiot we have in office atm.

    2. Re: Consider by sonicmerlin · · Score: 1

      Really?

    3. Re:Consider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think the idiot in office right now thinks it'd be a nice idea for South Korea and Japan to have the bomb, or any of dozens of other insane thoughts.

    4. Re:Consider by WarJolt · · Score: 2

      I wish the survey was more specifically polling tech workers, since most tech workers that I've talked to could care less which moron gets elected president. Sure we debate it, but it's insignificant compared to tech news. The beauty of working in tech is that we do more to affect positive change more than any politician could ever hope to, so it's harder to get disillusioned.

    5. Re:Consider by Kohath · · Score: 0

      Percentage of those people who will actually move: 0.0001%. Every 4 years these people threaten to leave. Stop being drama queens and just go already!

    6. Re:Consider by AchilleTalon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I believe Trump is just setting a negociation position toward South Korea and Japan about the military support from USA which cost all American citizen a significant amount of their revenues each year. Nothing has been done yet. What he says often is military support offered by USA everywhere in the world is costly and not rewarded by beneficiaries to its real value. That's why he also suggests to stop supporting NATO and many other operations around the world.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    7. Re:Consider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      To be fair the talk of moving is usually based on what the politician claims he/she is going to do once he/she gets elected.
      Since it turns out politicians pretty much never does what they promised there is no actual need to move.

    8. Re: Consider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The US has military forces in the Middle East, partly for the purposes of ensuring that the supply of oil isn't interrupted. This support includes a carrier, which is quite expensive. Implicitly, we've decided that the oil is worth the cost of our patrols. If the oil is worth it, why not the tech products from Japan and South Korea?

    9. Re:Consider by JoshuaZ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you think this then you need to spend ten minutes thinking about various things Trump has said and imagining what happens if he tries to implement any of them or follow through on what they imply. If you really think that Trump can't do much damage, that says more about you than it says about the situation or Trump.

    10. Re:Consider by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 2

      Canada won't cut it, if Trump is elected I'll consider starting a new life in the off-world colonies Do you think Mars will be far enough away, or should I start looking for places off the shoulder of Orion, or maybe the Tannhauser gate?

    11. Re: Consider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suggest alter planes of existance. I hear the plane of hate is quite lovely this time of year

    12. Re:Consider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I guess, if you're a spineless twat who thinks anyone to the right of lenin is some kind of fascist.

    13. Re: Consider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      for him, I'd recommend the plane of the triggered libbers.

    14. Re:Consider by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes! Let's turn the US military into a global protection racket! Who cares about global security and preserving the Long Peace when we could be wetting our beaks!

      I can hear it now, in a particularly obnoxious Brooklyn accent: "You gotta real nice country here, South Korea, it'd be a shame if something happened to it."

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    15. Re:Consider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i hear mars is good for potato farming.

    16. Re:Consider by 110010001000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The job of the US military is NOT global security.

    17. Re:Consider by Immerman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Good thing too - because we're REALLY bad at it. Since out disastrous response to 9/11 the US is often rated as the greatest destabilizing force on the planet.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    18. Re:Consider by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      He can't do any worse then idiot we have in office atm.

      What office would he then go idiot in? Would he make the Mexicans build him one?

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    19. Re:Consider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You say "turn into" like it isn't one yet.

    20. Re:Consider by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      I don't think the idiot in office right now thinks it'd be a nice idea for South Korea and Japan to have the bomb, or any of dozens of other insane thoughts.

      An arms race in NE Asia will have negative repercussions for Canadians as much as Americans. Canada would like suffer more from American protectionism than America itself. I don't think you can run away from Trump's problems by moving to Canada.

    21. Re: Consider by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I'm part black, I can say this, right?

      Dude, just because they're eating bagged lunches don't mean it's really a picnic. They only reason they were in the park was to pick up the trash. I'm really positive that shackles are no picnic.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    22. Re:Consider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Remove every single US military asset from around the world and terminate all of the mutual defense treaties. Vow to never deploy US military forces unless US interests are directly at risk and sit back and watch the fun. If things get too bad China or Russia can dispatch their second rate military power to set things right. Of course Russia and China are incapable of moving large forces outside of their borders so they will have to remedy that before they get to work. China can send their refurbished air craft carrier group to the ME since they need the oil from there a hell of a lot more than the US does.

    23. Re:Consider by SirSlud · · Score: 1

      *stiffles a guffaw*

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    24. Re:Consider by KGIII · · Score: 1

      How very Grecian an idea... Are we going to use the money they give us to make statues of gods or are we going to build a navy with the money?

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    25. Re:Consider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but why can't they move anyway? I woke with two people at separate companies who promised they'd move if Bush was president. They didn't.

    26. Re:Consider by KGIII · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is true and also a concern - it's one of the reasons I opened the thread - I'm off to bed soon. But, yes...

      Or, rather, no... No, I don't think that this poll is accurate. Trump actually has a number of proponents in the IT industry. They're in that camp for varied reasons but they exist and I'm pretty sure that the numbers are higher than this poll would have you believe. I'm also a bit squirrelly about the number that they have come up with.

      In this thread, we'll find more than 14 people who SUPPORT Trump, never mind being willing to move to Canada. I'm too lazy to look but I bet this survey was written to get one type of response, to be manipulated, or to get partial results.

      "How likely are you to be willing to emigrate to Canada if Trump is elected president:

      0 --- 1 --- 2 --- 3 --- 4 --- 5
      With zero meaning that there's no possible way they're going to move to Canada to 5 being very likely to seek a visa.

      Now, anybody who answered a number greater than zero is counted in this poll and that's where they got the 84% from - I suspect. It's standard practice. It's also a trick question - few people want to answer in a negative fashion. People are gullible and swallow it all the time. They may also take results from one question and add them in with the first - again being careful about verbiage.

      If you give me a few days and a bunch of resources, I could poll the average American and come back with "Stalin was a great man - according to 87% of people in the garments industry."

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    27. Re:Consider by KGIII · · Score: 1

      It's almost aways nothing but pure talk. Talk is cheap.

      Otis Redding said it best, "Actions speak louder than words..."

      It's the same thing we see every time Microsoft releases a new OS, a bunch of people storm around saying they're going to run Linux. The traffic stats revet to normal in about a month. Nah, people will tolerate a whole lot to be where they're acclimated. Many that live in things like war zones could have escaped and sought refuge. However, they stick it out because it is their home.

      Either way, I kind of disagree with the sentiment. If your country is having issues, it's your job to help fix it.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    28. Re:Consider by KGIII · · Score: 3, Informative

      I really don't think Trump will be as bad as people seem to think. That's not a terribly high barrier to cross, however. I don't think he's quite the monster that everyone wants to claim he is.

      No, I'm not voting for Trump. I just don't think he's Hitler.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    29. Re: Consider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, are you serious?

    30. Re:Consider by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Suits me and I suspect a lot of other Americans as well. I suspect that people would find that there are many things worse than a US military base nearby. Not unlike how Vieques in Puerto Rico complained *a lot* but then was sad when the US Navy closed the base.

    31. Re:Consider by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

      No one said that global security is the job of the US military, but it absolutely has a profound effect. This isn't limited to aggressive military action either, it includes things like aid and disaster relief.

      When something happens that has a potentially global impact, we are expected to respond, we are expected to be involved. Every fight is our fight. I'm not saying it's the way it should be, but I am saying it's the way it is.

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    32. Re:Consider by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      He can't do any worse then idiot we have in office atm.

      Irony?

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    33. Re:Consider by quenda · · Score: 1, Troll

      I guess, if you're a spineless twat who thinks anyone to the right of lenin is some kind of fascist.

      Its not about left vs right. Trump is one of the more ideologically moderate Republican candidates, despite his sudden conversion to anti-abortion and anti-gun-control views.
      Its just that he says any crazy thing that comes into his head, and we are really worried about the damage he might do.

    34. Re:Consider by quenda · · Score: 1

      If Trump actually gets elected (unikely),
      Canada is going to need a Wall.

    35. Re:Consider by KeensMustard · · Score: 1
      Note that the plan also includes giving nuclear weapons to Saudi Arabia to protect them from ISIS. Of course Saudi Arabia IS ISIS, in that, ideologically, Saudi Arabia is the centre of Wahhabism which is the cancerous sect responsible for ISIS and Al Qaeda, and politically, the Sauds have been funding them to curb the increasing influence of Iran in the region. Since the Sauds won't be able to build their own nukes Trump will need to give them some of his (not clear on whether it was his intent to also give US nukes to South Korea and Japan, reports vary).

      Of course, placing US made nuclear weapons into the hands of Saddam's old mates, the sworn enemies of the US and Israel, and also potentially ISIS might be considered a stupid thing in some circles, given the tensions in that region, but hey! what do I know?

    36. Re:Consider by Psiren · · Score: 1

      Courtesy of The Last Leg:

      http://brickingitforcanada.com...

      Still quite a few bricks needed!

    37. Re:Consider by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Confirmation bias, self selection, wishful thinking... We see this all the time. Go take a look at some of the EU Exit campaign forums, or the comments on BBC News stories. They are all convinced that an exit is imminent and the vast majority of people think as they do, but the polls say they are going to lose.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    38. Re:Consider by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      This is a perfect example of a Trump policy that sounds superficially good but clearly wouldn't work when you think about it for a moment.

      Firstly the military industrial complex would go nuts at the thought of having part of their budget set by how much Japan and Korea are willing to pay. So either they would turn on Trump or he would have to guarantee spending anyway to keep them happy.

      Many in Japan and Korea would actually like to see the US pull out of the region, or at least substantially reduce its forces there. There is also the difficulty of finding money in their relatively small (compared to the US) defence budgets. There would also be demands to spend the money locally, rather than sending it overseas. So there would be a lot of pressure on those governments to not fund US forces to anything like the amount that the US currently does.

      It would also strengthen China politically as the US is seen to weaken its position in the region. It might actually help diffuse the situation somewhat, especially around North Korea, but it could easily go the other way. Japan would likely push ahead with developing its military and revising its pacifist constitution.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    39. Re:Consider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell that to all those raped Japanese women. I'm sure they're really happy.

    40. Re:Consider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What he says often is military support offered by USA everywhere in the world is costly and not rewarded by beneficiaries to its real value. That's why he also suggests to stop supporting NATO and many other operations around the world.

      Peace in (large parts of) the rest of the world means more American influence and more places who can afford American products. The U.S. military leaving won't necessarily mean war everywhere, but more Russian influence in Europe and Chinese in Asia. And if he worry about trade agreements - if the U.S. abandons some region, why would they favor Americans in their next trade agreement? Nope, they favor whoever it is that now bothers to holds the stick – or themselves if they can.

    41. Re:Consider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice backpedaling.

    42. Re:Consider by dwillden · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No, South Korea does not want the US to pull out or reduce our presence. They rely heavily on us and our big sticks to keep the North in check. Remove our extremely capable forces and the barrier to NK seeking a military resolution to the stalemate is greatly reduced. NK deciding to attack means Seoul is obliterated in minutes.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    43. Re:Consider by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Unlike Hitler Trump has several well adjusted children he seems to care quite a bit about. I kind of doubt he wants to destroy the world they live in.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    44. Re:Consider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the president is not a king.

      it feels like many of the people on here who are frightened of trump are also some of the people who advocated for the candidacies of rand and ron paul.

      the head of the executive is not a king. He'll get reined in by the judiciary and legislative branches.

      or do they really think the politicians in the house, those washington fat cats, bought and paid for by corporations will let a president do anything to damage their companies economic interests?

    45. Re:Consider by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      The biggest threat of a Trump presidency is having agreement the same party in both the Congress and White House. In this regard, Trump isn't any scarier than any other Republican. Kaisich would be just as dangerous despite the fact that he's good at making himself look harmless. Even the impact of Bernie Breshnev would be blunted by a Congress that is hostile to him.

      A good chunk of the Slashdot peanut gallery knows better that to be led around by the nose by the mass market news media.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    46. Re:Consider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well. maybe you should sleep with people with more conviction then.

    47. Re:Consider by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      *correction* poohtato farming

    48. Re: Consider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The whole point of having so many checks and balances to begin with was to keep the government small. An obstructionist congress is a congress that is doing their job as originally intended.

    49. Re:Consider by Howitzer86 · · Score: 1

      What he says often is military support offered by USA everywhere in the world is costly and not rewarded by beneficiaries to its real value

      That's just the kind of corporate shortsightedness we need in government.

    50. Re:Consider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you give me a few days and a bunch of resources, I could poll the average American and come back with "Stalin was a great man - according to 87% of people in the garments industry."

      I will send you a check for $0.71 and one forever stamp. Take all the time you need then send the results back to me in the mail.

    51. Re: Consider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you insane? NK fight with branches.

    52. Re:Consider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, Clinton Sanders and Cruz are itching for a rematch of Stalingrad.

    53. Re:Consider by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      I really don't think Trump will be as bad as people seem to think.

      That's only because he'll turn in to a politician and abandon all of his campaign promises.

    54. Re: Consider by Bartles · · Score: 1

      There is nothing moderate about being for gun control.

    55. Re: Consider by Sique · · Score: 2

      No, the whole point of having so many checks and balances is to stop bad decisions of one branch of government makes before they create havoc. Small government has nothing to do with it.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    56. Re:Consider by Xiph1980 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, go from one extreme to another, surely there's absolutely no way to find some nice middle point?

      --
      Manuals are your last resort only
    57. Re:Consider by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I didn't say "South Korea wants to the US to pull out", that would be stupid because countries don't have opinions. I said some people in South Korea want it to happen, as to many in Japan.

      South Korea is hardly matched militarily by the North, and could build themselves up even more if they wanted to. The partnership with the US is mostly because the US likes to be active in the area, near China, and because SK benefits essentially for free because of that. It does however raise tensions in the area, particularly the yearly war games off the NK coast. Many in SK think it would be better to adopt a less aggressive stance, because the best way to resolve the situation is peacefully.

      I expect someone will claim that NK is insane and can't be reasoned with, but that's simply not true. For example, Japan has made great progress over recent years trying to resolve the kidnappings of its citizens by NK. Meanwhile the military dick waving and posturing of the US and certain parts of the SK government have contributed to NK developing atomic weapons and long range missiles.

      Anyway, whatever you think, it doesn't matter to my original argument, which was merely that a significant number of people would make it very difficult for SK to pay the US any significant money for continued support.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    58. Re:Consider by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      With roughly 28,500 troops (many non-combat...doctors, lawyers, cooks, etc.) in Korea, our force there is not much more than a tripwire, helping to ensure we'd be involved in the even that the north decides to do something really stupid. Japan has about 50,000, and the gripe is usually about the real estate (like Kadena AB in Okinawa) which would have a lot of value to those on the island. While "many in Japan and Korea would actually like to see the US pull out", many would not for both financial and security reasons.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    59. Re: Consider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I worked in a tech company when bush got in the first time. Had a small migration of people move to our company to escape. They were fucking smart programmers too.

    60. Re:Consider by sudon't · · Score: 1

      Someone should tell the US military.

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

    61. Re:Consider by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      I really don't think Trump will be as bad as people seem to think. That's not a terribly high barrier to cross, however. I don't think he's quite the monster that everyone wants to claim he is.

      No, I'm not voting for Trump. I just don't think he's Hitler.

      I agree. Also, he'll only succeed in a fraction of the stuff he wants to do. He will, however, be a uniter. Both the Ds and Rs will oppose him.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    62. Re:Consider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd say the same if it was Hitler, and if nothing else, /. is little more than a bunch of nerds in denial these days. It used to be greater, but now everyone is in an in-group, and I don't even know why I still visit.

      Look, you must consider that we all don't want to believe that another Hitler could come to power anywhere. We especially don't want to believe it could happen in the bastion of freedom the United States is supposed to be, or in a military power as great as the United States.

      The idea redefines terrifying.

      I myself want, so desperately to agree with you, but I believe - and I'm not saying he is quite yet - but I believe it's possible Trump is. And I will never hold it against anyone for preparing to flee if...

      How can anyone?

    63. Re:Consider by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      This is true and also a concern - it's one of the reasons I opened the thread - I'm off to bed soon. But, yes...

      Or, rather, no... No, I don't think that this poll is accurate. Trump actually has a number of proponents in the IT industry. They're in that camp for varied reasons but they exist and I'm pretty sure that the numbers are higher than this poll would have you believe. I'm also a bit squirrelly about the number that they have come up with.

      In this thread, we'll find more than 14 people who SUPPORT Trump, never mind being willing to move to Canada. I'm too lazy to look but I bet this survey was written to get one type of response, to be manipulated, or to get partial results.

      "How likely are you to be willing to emigrate to Canada if Trump is elected president:

      0 --- 1 --- 2 --- 3 --- 4 --- 5
      With zero meaning that there's no possible way they're going to move to Canada to 5 being very likely to seek a visa.

      Now, anybody who answered a number greater than zero is counted in this poll and that's where they got the 84% from - I suspect. It's standard practice. It's also a trick question - few people want to answer in a negative fashion. People are gullible and swallow it all the time. They may also take results from one question and add them in with the first - again being careful about verbiage.

      If you give me a few days and a bunch of resources, I could poll the average American and come back with "Stalin was a great man - according to 87% of people in the garments industry."

      No, Canada is the prototype that Sanders wants to see implemented. Single payer Healthcare system (Healthcare is a right, not a privilege or option).
      Ditto for prescription drugs. Access to your choice of doctor, specialist, and specialist's hospital affiliation.

      Re Education, its between $200-400/semester per course. ($2k / 12mo) Your fees do not finance NFL style football stadiums, building mortgages or outrageous compensations for chairpersons. First year University is is done in community college at most minimal cost, as continuation to high school. A bachelor degree is typically 3 years of further study. You can afford university and healthcare and prescription medication. We are a "no gun" country, multi-cultural, and proud of what we have.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    64. Re:Consider by wyattstorch516 · · Score: 1

      He thinks it would be better for Iran to have the bomb.

    65. Re: Consider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I call them "black and whiters". Most people not capable of rational thought and jump extremes like that.

    66. Re:Consider by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      This is exactly why we tech people need to work on new physics and technology to exploit it, namely with wormholes to alternate dimensions. Since every place else on this planet seems to be going to hell, the answer is simple: we need to "slide" into an alternate universe where things are better. The was a TV show about this a while ago. I kinda liked the one where there were very few men left....

    67. Re:Consider by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Yep, it's exactly like the old adage about slowly boiling a frog.

      Except that in reality, frogs aren't actually that stupid. They'll jump out when the water gets too hot. Humans aren't as smart.

    68. Re:Consider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His rallies wouldn't have looked out of place at Nuremberg

    69. Re:Consider by KGIII · · Score: 1

      How... How are you unfamiliar with my posts?

      Did you really just call me part of an in-group? Oh my... I continually express my own views, which are not mirrored by people here. In fact, I work to change other's views by showing them alternatives.

      I usually ignore ACs as of late but I figure this one needs a response. Hell, I'm the guy who, "learned a few new commands" and "doesn't mind" systemd. Yup. I voice that opinion because I hold that opinion. If, by coincidence, my views mirror someone else's then I am surprised, more often than not. An in-group? Hmm... I don't argue that such exists - but I suspect it's not as large as you're expecting. I'm just not sure why you'd think I'm in that group - especially with that for a reply.

      At any rate, we've got checks and balances that kind of still work. We'll be okay. Trump's not Hitler, really.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    70. Re:Consider by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Nor would Obama's. Or Hillary's.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    71. Re:Consider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just to point out - most people in Germany didn't think Hitler would be Hitler, either.

      That is to say, nobody imagined what he could - and would - really do. Even those who'd read Mein Kampf assumed he didn't mean it literally. Sound familiar?

    72. Re:Consider by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

      If it is then it's an incredibly unprofitable one.

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    73. Re: Consider by brunes69 · · Score: 1

      This very narrow POC on foreign policy is exactly why Trump does not belong in the white house.

      The foreign military presence of the United states is a major part of what has ensured a peaceful world for the past 50 years. Under this umbrella of protection, the world economy has flourished and grown exponentially - and being the largest free market economy in the world, the US has been by far the biggest beneficiary. For every dollar spent on foreign lrotection, many more are earned by US companies that would likely not have been earned without that peace. And, we have not even gotten into the very tangible benefits of exporting your culture to the rest of the world via the military.

    74. Re: Consider by silentcoder · · Score: 0

      And the amount of Americans like you - is why I will never live in that country. Seriously - I've had more job offers from there than I can remember and I turned them all down because your country is filled with gun nuts with tiny penisses (the tiny penis can be with absolute accuracy determined from the love of guns).

      Man I wish I could get a job offer from Denmark ... I would LOVE to live in Denmark.

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

      Yes, the people of America should be a slave state which must build, finance, and man the world's police force with no foreign support.

    76. Re:Consider by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      No, Hillary is like Hitler.

    77. Re: Consider by Bartles · · Score: 1

      I've lived in the US and I've never seen someone pull a gun in my 38 years. People like you are cowards, who let others influence and define their fears. Move to Denmark. It's a great place for authoritarians.

    78. Re: Consider by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Where in the US ?
      Since apparently in Texas it's now considered appropriate to walk into an Arby's with an AR15 slung across your shoulder. Of course if a white person does it, it's his second amendment right. If anybody else did that... he would be shot for being a clear and present danger. The fact is that the US has one of the highest gun-death rates in the world and every country that has a higher one is either a third-world hell-hole or in the middle of a war.

      And I would say I am the opposite of a coward. Cowards own guns. Brave men feel no need nor desire for them. It takes a special kind of cowardice to only feel safe in the presence of the means to kill.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    79. Re: Consider by Bartles · · Score: 1

      In gun loving Wisconsin. I even work in the firearms industry and I've never seen someone pull a gun in anger.

    80. Re: Consider by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Wisconsin ? Aren't the gun-lovers there mostly actual deer hunters ?

      Sorry, but that's just not a representative sample. Those towns in Texas where people insist they have a right to walk into a grocery store with an AR-15 in their hands and NOT be presumed armed robbers (at least if you're white) - now that's a representative sample of gun nuttery. I'm not a fan of hunting, I tolerate the idea but I don't support or participate in it. But hunters are by and large responsible gun owners. They simply are not valid samples for "gun lovers" however.

      "The federal government is invalid" sovereign-citizen militian crazy people however - they probably shouldn't have guns. Almost no country that has gun control have eradicated legal guns (a few did, true, but this is neither the average nor the majority case). Canada despite very strict gun control actually has higher per-capita gun ownership than the U.S.

      Gun control would have almost no impact in Wisconson. The kind of people it would affect, well the world is genuinely better off if they have to arm themselves with knives - or better yet - can't get a gun without comitting a crime and giving us a reason to put them in jail.

      Guns for self-defense is a notoriously bad idea, it's literally the worst possible way to try and achieve that goal. Guns for good guys against bad guys - doesn't work. There are virtually NO examples where it has ever actually worked - it fundamentally relies on fatally failing to understand what happens to people in those circumstances. Nothing you can imagine comes close to it. In the real world - unless you are already highly trained(i.e. a cop or a veteran) even if you have a gun you will not be able to use it and the majority of times when somebody in such a situation actually managed to at least get a shot off - they ended up missing the shooter and hitting a bystander.

      None of the reasons given not to control guns make any sense. There really is no sane reason to want to own a pistol or a revolver. Hell there is, for the most part, no sane reason to let a cop have one. Many countries do not - their cops aren't killed as often as American cops are and don't kill citizens as often either. They also have less crime.

      In the end, statistically, the single most likely result of owning a handgun is you commit suicide with it - and the second most likely result is somebody you love gets shot by accident and the third most likely result is shooting somebody you love in a fit of rage. Self defence happens so rarely it's not even in the top 10 most likely things to happen. Nowhere that gun control was instituted did it get followed by increases in crime. It has never happened. It has always been followed by significant drops in the murder rate in fact. Which is supported by the fact that guns are useless for self defence in the first place. Oh, and quite a lot of people who did actually shoot intruders with their guns are now serving time for murder - because you can't do that, you only gain the right to use lethal force (anywhere in the free world in fact) in self defence when you have a genuine threat to your life or the lives of others. Courts have never held that you "there is somebody in my house" is reasonably translated into a genuine threat to your life without proof the person was at least armed and their weapon drawn. A threat to your television is not a threat that justifies killing somebody - and you will end up convicted of murder if you act like it does. Frankly the best way to mitigate that threat is to have home-insurance.

      Guns don't make you safer. And only a coward needs something tangible that doesn't work to gain a feeling of safety. Much the same way I see a great deal of cowardice in religion (it's not wonder the two are so correlated). Fear of death coupled with the desperate desire to control the uncontrollable lets people keep deadly and useless things in their homes (actually endangering themselves for a false sense of security) and invent elaborate stories about how you get another life

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    81. Re: Consider by Bartles · · Score: 1

      What do you know about"those small towns in Texas"? What do you know about Wisconsin? Statistically, by an enormous margin, the most likely result of owning a handgun is absolutely nothing, I didn't read the rest of your crap, because listening to a foreigner tell me what I should believe and how I should live is pretty much at the bottom of the list of things I want to do before I die.

    82. Re: Consider by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      And there it is in a nutshell. American exceptionalism. Its been bullshit in every nation that ever thought they were exceptional and it is bullshot now. I may be a foreigner but I have lived on 4 different continents in 12 different countries. If anything I know more than the Average American because my vision and experience is not so myopic. And if there is one thing I learned from living among all those cultures (including yours by the way) its that while they are all beautifull and unique none are exceptional. Every culture has wonderful things the world should emulate and horifying things they should change. Gun culture is one of the latter in your case.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  2. I hope they all move to Canada by ZippyTheChicken · · Score: 1, Funny

    its snowing in June in Canada who would move there ..

    1. Re:I hope they all move to Canada by Darinbob · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, coming down to California to try and recruit for cold weather is tricky. They may get more luck in Minnesota.

    2. Re:I hope they all move to Canada by ClickOnThis · · Score: 0

      its snowing in June in Canada who would move there ..

      Spoken like someone who has never visited Canada in the summer.

      Sometimes Canada has higher temperatures than the USA. Just sayin'.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    3. Re:I hope they all move to Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Canada is quite a large country, and although somewhere in the north it may well be snowing, today in Vancouver it was 21 degC, blue skies, and, I'm in short-sleeves, and admiring the blossom on my apple trees.

    4. Re:I hope they all move to Canada by Minupla · · Score: 1

      Just to point it out, Waterloo, Ontario is farther south then Seattle (43deg N vs 47 degN).

      The boarder does a weird jag down in Ontario, typically it sits on 49N.

      --
      On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
    5. Re:I hope they all move to Canada by HaZardman27 · · Score: 1

      I live in California, but I'd definitely give Vancouver a shot if I got an interesting enough job offer. Great city and very comfortable weather.

      --
      Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
    6. Re:I hope they all move to Canada by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I have it on good authority that it'll be warming up.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    7. Re:I hope they all move to Canada by davester666 · · Score: 2

      Instead, advertise that water just falls out of the sky in Canada, year round. Which physical state that water is in may vary.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    8. Re:I hope they all move to Canada by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      its snowing in June in Canada who would move there ..

      Someone who owns a snowboard.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    9. Re:I hope they all move to Canada by dskoll · · Score: 1

      Waterloo may be further south than Seattle, but it's a hell of a lot colder in winter. Seattle's on the coast and Waterloo is about 60km from Lake Ontario and about 800km from the ocean.

    10. Re:I hope they all move to Canada by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > Sometimes Canada has higher temperatures than the USA. Just sayin'.

      Higher temperatures than Buffalo don't count.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    11. Re:I hope they all move to Canada by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      It'd have to be a really big offer since a nasty crack shack house costs $1M CAD there. Vancouver's housing costs are absolutely insane.

      I've been there a couple times, and it's a beautiful city, but I really don't know how anyone affords it (other than by having lived there a long time, before the prices skyrocketed, and buying a home before that).

    12. Re:I hope they all move to Canada by HaZardman27 · · Score: 1

      A cursory glance through Zillow suggests that rent is about half of what you would expect for a comparable apartment in the Bay Area.

      --
      Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
  3. Still too close to the US by plopez · · Score: 3, Interesting

    New Zealand might be a better idea... or some other place in a different hemisphere

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    1. Re:Still too close to the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah sorry, we are changing the rules to keep you all out.

    2. Re: Still too close to the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You saw all of England, did you?

      Ignorant wanker.

    3. Re:Still too close to the US by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      Yeah sorry, we are changing the rules to keep you all out.

      Damn. And here I was hoping I could H1B into Canada.

    4. Re: Still too close to the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except if you are fat. NZ doesn't want any fat immigrants because they impose higher costs on their health system. They will both deny resident applications and deport those already in the country if they don't have an acceptable BMI.

    5. Re:Still too close to the US by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 2
      269 million bricks pledged and counting.

      At this rate, they should have sufficient material by inauguration day to commence constructing the Great Wall of Canada.

    6. Re: Still too close to the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      British weather is very similar to New Zealand's. I've lived in both countries.

    7. Re:Still too close to the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      globalisation of economies means you aren't safe from the effects of trump if elected. His isolationist polices will drag the US down but you can be certain the US doesn't go down alone and that will effect NZ trade too.

    8. Re: Still too close to the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check the labour mobility provisions in NAFTA. I understand it's pretty easy to get a work visa

    9. Re: Still too close to the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Then how did that Kim dot-com fat fuck get to live there?

    10. Re: Still too close to the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Love it or leave cocksucker. Don't like the US, then get the fuck out!

    11. Re:Still too close to the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NZ is even more racist than Trump

    12. Re: Still too close to the US by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately I can't think of anywhere in the world I'd like to live in other than the US- Israel and England come close though.

      Why are you Jewish? Or have you just not travelled much?

    13. Re:Still too close to the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Please click as many times as you like.(lots)

    14. Re: Still too close to the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Bad luck for any Samoans wanting to move over.

    15. Re: Still too close to the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      England is a dump (terrible weather and some of the least civilized people I've ever met) ...

      Don't forget rapidly becoming into a Islamic Paradise. Then again, the kinds of cucks that'd consider moving to Canada would probably be OK with living under the incipient threat of Sharia law.

    16. Re: Still too close to the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And take all the god damned Muslims when you go. Let them rape and murder YOUR women and children!

    17. Re: Still too close to the US by HaZardman27 · · Score: 1

      Having lived in the US (and still visiting there 2 to 3 times a year)

      Good god, you're dumb. Are you unable to recognize tenses? GP clearly stated that he used to live in the US, which means he no longer lives there.

      --
      Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
    18. Re: Still too close to the US by cyber-vandal · · Score: 2

      Of course it is. Radical Islamists love our drinking culture and same sex marriage law.

    19. Re: Still too close to the US by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      NZ? It's fine as long as you don't get sick. Then it's pants.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    20. Re: Still too close to the US by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      I have traveled plenty and I would agree with him. Although I have done a little more than just see the tourist traps. I have also stayed with people. I've seen how they actually live and hear various things that don't get into the media. They don't fit the media narrative.

      I can't see most Americans taking to the European lifestyle (or Canadian). Germany in particular takes regulation to an entirely new level. Most American pet owners would last all of 5 minutes in Germany.

      You've simply bought into a carefully crafted narrative.

      Israel is a nation full of ambitious geeks. It's quite unlike any other nation it's size. Places like New Zealand, Canada, or Norway just don't have the resources or drive to contribute like Israel does.

      I would also add Japan to the short list. Despite their highly compliant nature they also have a creative culture that puts them way ahead of a conservative country like Germany. Orthopedics are in the dark ages in Germany.

      Southern Europe is out. They're all basket cases.

      Americans that think they would be happier in Canada should leave. There's no need to destroy the world's greatest R&D engine just because you want a free handout.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    21. Re:Still too close to the US by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Another meaningless "protest".

      Notice, nobody is protesting Bernies 18 Trillion in proposed new taxes. Because people are more afraid of imaginary issues with Trump than real issues with Bernie.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    22. Re:Still too close to the US by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >Notice, nobody is protesting Bernies 18 Trillion in proposed new taxes

      Because, by and large, the world over - people generally don't mind paying for quality investments, products and services, including through taxes. Improving government efficiency, providing valuable services people want and making investments we will all benefit from (like free college which really does benefit EVERYBODY - even if you went to college 80 years ago) are worth paying for.
      Paying to have the military 13 times as big as the next biggest... only crazy people want. Paying subsidies to oil and coal ? That pisses people off.

      The only people who dislike paying for a valuable service purely on the basis of it being paid for with taxes are libertarians and that's exactly why they are not, have never been and will never be sufficiently dominant force to alter the outcome of any elections anywhere - ever. This is also why more and more libertarians are turning into neo-reactionaries abandoning any pretense of democratic support, abandoning any pretense to supporting the right of people to rule themselves or at least choose who rules them - because other people don't share their twisted self-harming priorities and keep not voting to shoot each other in the foot.

      The truth is, Bernie won't cost you anything - in fact you (and everybody else) will have a LOT more money under a Bernie style set of laws than you do now. You may see a tax hike but the returns on that investment will be far higher than what it costs you to make it - and much higher than any private investment firm can offer you.
      Lets take that free college. What value does that offer you to send some kids to college for free ? The closest current parallel is the G.I. Bill. By a very conservative measurement the G.I. Bill has made every dollar ever spent on it back 7 times over (by growing the economy, reducing unemployment and thus welfare costs etc. etc).. What bank will offer you a 700% return on investment in 4 years ? And the G.I. Bill is not ideal, it's far from optimally configured to maximize return. Full free college for every qualifying applicant would give far greater returns.

      College educations are like roads. Sure you can have them privatized but that puts a burden on every business and every citizen. It makes much more sense to just pony up taxes and build the roads because in a country with roads everybody makes more money than in one without roads (even the people who do not drive).

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    23. Re: Still too close to the US by Gussington · · Score: 1

      I can't see most Americans taking to the European lifestyle (or Canadian). Germany in particular takes regulation to an entirely new level.

      The fact that you've generalised entire continents and countries in one sentence makes this sound a little silly. Life can be completely different in different suburbs, let alone different cities, states or countries.
      The US has some nice spots, but then so do most countries.

      Most American pet owners would last all of 5 minutes in Germany.

      Most Americans wouldn't last 5 minutes outside of a fast food restuarant. I'm only half joking here, but Americans are notoriously useless at adapting to other cultures.

      You've simply bought into a carefully crafted narrative.

      Eh? What?

      Israel is a nation full of ambitious geeks.

      You're not selling it....

      Places like New Zealand, Canada, or Norway just don't have the resources or drive to contribute like Israel does.

      Fucking hell, we clearly have different requirements for 'nice places to live'. 'Drive to contribute' features nowhere on my list of must haves. But being relatively free of religious nutbags is.

      There's no need to destroy the world's greatest R&D engine just because you want a free handout.

      An 'R&D engine' mostly founded by European expats :)

    24. Re:Still too close to the US by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Nobody's protesting Bernie's plan to stampede unicorns across the US either, and for the exact same reason.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    25. Re: Still too close to the US by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Good riddance?

      S/he is judging the entire US by whatever city they visited or lived in, we don't need people that are that blind to how large a country the US is.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    26. Re:Still too close to the US by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Notice, nobody is protesting Bernies 18 Trillion in proposed new taxes.

      Because that's a lie. Why protest a lie? Protest the liars. Oh yeah, Trump is being protested, not Bernie.

    27. Re: Still too close to the US by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The universal health care may suck in NZ, but it's a lot better than the system in the US (both before and after Obama).

      NZ is one of the better places to get sick in. The horror stories from NZ are people who "get sick" by getting a rare disease that doesn't present acutely. That's different.

  4. Nothing of value would be lost. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Good riddance, I think most Americans would say to this. The people that would actually up and move to Canada are exactly the cause of the problem that Trump is offering to fix for America - namely, the loss of our backbone and willingness to do the right thing even if it is temporarily painful or adversely affects a small number of people for the greater good - are the people we'd be better off without. These are the people who believe everyone should get a participation trophy in everything they do, and we should never rank or grade people for fear of offending somebody. They think that wealth is evil and anyone that is successful is that way because they lied or cheated to get there. We need to encourage these people to get the fuck out, and build a wall behind them after they leave because you know within a couple of years they'll be trying to clamber back.

    1. Re: Nothing of value would be lost. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easy. Just exile California to Canada. That would take care of about 90% of them. Or nuke the San Andreas Fault- Lex Luthor had a good idea going.

    2. Re: Nothing of value would be lost. by sonicmerlin · · Score: 1

      Says the anonymous *coward*.

    3. Re:Nothing of value would be lost. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The loss of backbone was a purely American thing. You bailed out the banks because you got scared, and now Wall Street is crazier than ever. Iceland didn't blink.

      Ditto with your reps voting to invade Iraq. No backbone - they were scared and would do anything rather than think.

      These policies didn't inflict pain on a small number of people for the greater good - quite the opposite.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    4. Re: Nothing of value would be lost. by ArylAkamov · · Score: 4, Funny

      I have a hard time believing sonicmerlin is, in fact, your real name.

    5. Re:Nothing of value would be lost. by ArylAkamov · · Score: 0

      Agreed. All of the candidates this election are complete shit, but if you are going to abandon ship just because things didn't go your way this election, then feel free.

      Reminds me of children stomping their feet when they don't get what they want.

      Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

    6. Re: Nothing of value would be lost. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But this makes him merely a pseudonymous coward.

    7. Re:Nothing of value would be lost. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump is a con man who offers absolutely nothing except your "right" to listen to his endless rants and tweets about how brilliant and successful he is, especially compared to his detractors, who are losers and liars and (if female) fat pigs. Even some of his supporters (Gingrich, Carson) acknowledge he has those issues. Now imagine if he's elected President of the United States. That would not help curb his narcissism one bit, but might help solve all of our problems permanently if he decides to make use of the USA's nuclear weapons arsenal.

    8. Re: Nothing of value would be lost. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AC comments have their IP logged*. We are all pseudonymous at best.

      *You didn't really think comment timers were client side did you?

    9. Re: Nothing of value would be lost. by c-A-d · · Score: 1

      What makes you think we want California? The people running that crap-show are more looney than an NDP government, and that's saying something!

      --
      some karma... and kinda lukewarm about it.
    10. Re:Nothing of value would be lost. by c-A-d · · Score: 1

      The other half of this is, why do those people think we - Canada - want them? They sound like they'll throw a fit every time things don't go their way and then what? Are they going to move somewhere else?

      --
      some karma... and kinda lukewarm about it.
    11. Re: Nothing of value would be lost. by sudon't · · Score: 1

      But this makes him merely a pseudonymous coward.

      I agree, it hardly makes a difference. See my sig.

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

    12. Re:Nothing of value would be lost. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they wont want to go back, up here it may be cold, but the beer, bacon, hockey and maple syrup are all better (im talking about the regional hockey)

      Oh yeah, and if you get hurt just go to a hospital and while your recovering you dont have to worry about being broke when you get out because we believe that basic health care is a universal HUMAN right....

      Maybe you dont understand, but being willing to uproot your life for something better based on personal morals is the sign of a backbone and those people are the people you should want to keep in your country.

      but please build that wall.. keep isolating your country from the world and see how that works for your economy.... I find it funny that Americans have become even more isolationist while still saying they are the sole super power of the world.. Pro Tip: if you isolate your self you will be come irrelevant, once you are irrelevant then you have no power, so keep comiting political suicide. I think the world has had enough of your "we are exceptional" attitude because the only exceptional thing about america is how scared your population acts and how big your waist lines are getting.

    13. Re:Nothing of value would be lost. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Let me guess - if Trump is elected you'll get him to build you a wall along your southern border. Seems fair.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    14. Re: Nothing of value would be lost. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but when I respond to a logged in user, I know they see my response, and might actually respond, and I know that response is from the same person. With an AC, you never know what you will get. Also, every comment a logged in user makes is available to peruse, while ACs can say anything and it never effects them in any way.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    15. Re:Nothing of value would be lost. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Personally, I wonder what the response would be if it were asked about Hillary instead...she should be being prosecuted for the shit she pulled, but she is still the golden child of the Democratic Party.

      I however will say, I hate all the candidates from both of the parties. I am waiting to see who runs from the other parties to see if anyone looks good from there. I am not however threatening to throw a temper tantrum because the nominations/elections don't go the way I want, but that may have more to do with neither party representing me in any way.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  5. No marijuana in Canuckistan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No marijuana, no deal.

    Unless Monsieur Trudeau's gonna changer that.

    1. Re:No marijuana in Canuckistan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Trudeau's platform included legalizing it. He's made a start but is facing some complications in the form of US treaties.

    2. Re:No marijuana in Canuckistan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No concealed carry, no deal.

      Ex-Canuck, naturalized US citizen now with my belly gun here.

    3. Re:No marijuana in Canuckistan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      yeah, same dilemma here. i'm hoping to head out colorado way to take advantage of legal cannabis and try to find a strain that will help me cope with pseudo-ptsd and whatever else is wrong with me. the old spice did the trick. not the spice got attention from the lamestream media, but spice before hu-210 and jwh-18 were banned. i tried the new spice and it was absolute crap. the old spice really changed me for the better until the dea cracked down on it.

      i can't live without it. sure, some people may say that makes me an addict. whatever, i guess. i'm currently addicted to alcohol because it's the only legal escape for me. i could see myself using cannabis at most 3-4 times per week. with alcohol i have to use it 7 days per week and be careful about not taking too much at once, which can cause my blood sodium level to crater. cannabis doesn't have nearly that kind of addiction or those withdrawal symptoms.

      i can easily go back to working minimum wage with something that can really defeat my demons like cannabis. with cannabis, it comes easily to me to exercise on a daily basis. the health benefits vs. alcohol are astounding. i guess that's tech's loss. the gaslighting asshole managers driving women programmers out of the field led to the social justice war which is driving me out of the field. well, speaking about fields, i've been looking into cannabis jobs. i understand there is strict regulation, but it would still be cool to get by working in a grow operation.

  6. Feel free to move to Quebec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Demographic pressure killing their language laws via exported democracy would be the best and most satisfying outcome of liberals fleeing the US.

    1. Re:Feel free to move to Quebec by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you think that's going to happen, you're dreaming. There are very few english quebecers who don't also speak french - and the ones who don't are mostly racist assholes.

      And most of the french also speak english.

      So c'est quoi ton calice de probleme, tabernac?

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    2. Re:Feel free to move to Quebec by ClickOnThis · · Score: 2

      So c'est quoi ton calice de probleme, tabernac?

      Il s'appele Jean Saisrein. :-P

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    3. Re:Feel free to move to Quebec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Suis belge neerlandophone.J'envisage en fait de prendre un emploi au Quebec, mais mon français (belge) est deja un peu limité. Tu pourrais me traduire "calice" et "tabernac"? Je le trouve pas en ligne...

      merci

    4. Re:Feel free to move to Quebec by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      Jean Saisrein? Tu veux pas dire Jean Sérien plutôt?

    5. Re:Feel free to move to Quebec by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      I'd say "fuck" and "godamnit" could be replacements. C'est dur de traduire les jurons Québécois car ils sont pour la plupart basés sur la religion catholique.

    6. Re:Feel free to move to Quebec by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      And most of the french also speak english.

      Only in Montréal, maybe Québec city. In other places, sure there's going to be a lot, but not "most". And in those that do speak english, you won't be able to understand half of them because of the accent. Imagine someone from Texas trying to talk with someone from Australia.

    7. Re:Feel free to move to Quebec by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      The Montreal region has more than 3.8 million people, and the Quebec city region has over half a million. The total population is 8.25 million, and there are other enclaves, such as the eastern townships, where English is traditionally used.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    8. Re:Feel free to move to Quebec by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      That's true, "most people" does mean numbers and those two combined do account for "most".

      If you go outside of these two cities, though, prepare to meet quite a lot of people who either don't speak english, or just berry-lee.

  7. Bit of a gamble by kentrel · · Score: 4, Funny

    92% of startups fail in the first 3 years. Can a startup afford to install a safe space around every desk before the next election cycle.

    Honestly, the hysteria from these anti-Trump people is hilarious. They're one chalk scribbled MAGA away from having a nervous breakdown.

    1. Re:Bit of a gamble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whats a MAGA?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maga?

    2. Re:Bit of a gamble by ArylAkamov · · Score: 1

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

      Just in case people thought the last bit was purely exaggeration.

      Triggered...by chalk.

    3. Re:Bit of a gamble by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      If I painted "Kill all nerdy white guys" on my outside wall... would you feel secure walking inside ?

      Now what if I painted it on the outside of your office, or a mall, or some other place you have the right to be - and essential needs to go to ?

      Would you not be affronted ? Would you demand management take it down ? Would you be concerned that I may follow through on the threat, or somebody else may decide to ?
      Are these not valid concerns ? Is your commitment to free speech so strong that if you found out it was me - you would not lay charges against me for inciting violence ? Is it strong enough that, if somebody shot you and you survive - you would not sue me for inciting their act ?

      Because THAT is what you're asking Islamic and Hispanic students in Washington to do - and if you think supporting Trump does NOT mean "I want to kill brown people" then you're an idiot but even if that's genuinely not what you mean (in which case you haven't been listening to his speeches or watching his rallies) the fact is that, that is what most people understand it to mean - and in particular what brown people understand it to mean.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    4. Re:Bit of a gamble by ArylAkamov · · Score: 1

      Advocating for a valid political candidate is not a death threat and/or hate speech, no matter how many jimmies are rustled.

      Perhaps the people that think that should listen to what he has actually said, rather than what other people claim he has said.

      Personally I hate all of them, but the constant smear ads of "TRUMP HATES ALL WOMAN!" "HE WANTS TO DEPORT ALL MEXICANS!" is getting a little old and a little too dishonest. It is pretty good entertainment though.

    5. Re:Bit of a gamble by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >Advocating for a valid political candidate is not a death threat and/or hate speech, no matter how many jimmies are rustled.

      When the candidate's entire platform is racism, exclusion and neo-nazi hatred - yes, yes it is.

      >Perhaps the people that think that should listen to what he has actually said, rather than what other people claim he has said.

      What he actually said is more than bad enough. I've heard those speeches a few times before. They are the same speeches Hitler was making in the 1920s (before he had the absolute power to dare to say everything), the same speeches the appartheid leaders made (and since I lived through that I speak from experience - those speeches were on my TV every night for most of my youth). They are hate speech only vaguely disguised, calls for extermination wrapped up in a thin veneer of acceptability.
      I've heard him before. There are always men like him, and it always behooves all good people to stand up to them.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    6. Re:Bit of a gamble by ArylAkamov · · Score: 1

      How is his entire platform racism, exclusion and "NEO-NAZI HATRED"?

      Where has he specifically stated that one race is superior to the other?

      Where has he proposed Nazi ideals?

      Citations, please. Actual evidence.

      Calls for extermination? Really? Where? Again, [citation needed].

      All he has called for is enforcement of the law and to ensure that we are not allowing people that intend to harm us in this country.

      Buzzwords and screaming "HITLER" is why is he popular, it shows how crazy the people that violently oppose him are.

      He is nothing like Hitler and it is hilarious that people would compare the two of them.

    7. Re:Bit of a gamble by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >How is his entire platform racism, exclusion and "NEO-NAZI HATRED"?

      He has made numerous denigrating remarks over entire groups of people. That is racism, exclusion and neo-nazi hatred - it's how it *always* sounds *before* they get into power. They always tone down to *exactly* his level while trying to gain power. Consider where some pretty racist republicans are in what they say... and they already HAVE power. Now consider what Trump is saying BEFORE he has it. This is what he is saying when he still hasn't won an election - when he still needs to tone it down.
      And read the speeches that Verwoerd, Hitler or even Milosovich gave when they were NOT yet in power - it's exactly the same.

      >Where has he specifically stated that one race is superior to the other?
      Nobody ever SAYS that. Hell the appartheid government ruled for 50 years oppressing all but one race without *ever* actually, specifically stating that ! Instead they said "different races cannot live in peace unless they are kept separate. They are just too different". Hell the entire lifetime of apparthied we were told we were supporting seperate-but-equal and defending the right of black people to self-governance ! You can't look for explicitely said - you have to look for what people who used those same guarded terms actually DID.
      The ones who explicitely say the stuff are not a problem - they hardly ever get into power. It's the ones who say stuff that sounds nice, but nevertheless exagerates differences - they are the ones who actually DO horrible things because they get the MEANS to do them.

      >Where has he proposed Nazi ideals?
      He proposed a ban on Muslim immigration. Religious tests for imigration was one of the very first policies the NAZIs promoted as well. Right there is your first one. He has subtly blamed an entire ethno-religous group for the actions of a few assholes who *claim* to be members of it (and are disavowed by everybody else) - that's NAZI 101 right there. For Hitler it was "Jews control the banks" - and though many banks were owned by Jewish families, they were a tiny minority of Jews - and all of them were Sephardic while German Jews were Ashkanazi, they had nothing in common. But the fear achieved it's goals anyway. Replace "Jew" with "Muslim" and "Bankers" with "Terrorists" and you got Trump. He has even ALREADY proposed putting Muslims in holding camps. That's exactly what Hitler called them.

      >Calls for extermination? Really? Where? Again,
      Hitler never did that either. Not once. He called for EMIGRATION. The final solution was kept secret from pretty much the entire civilian population even while it was happening. What he actually said was "prevent imigration", "forced emigration" and other "acceptable" ways to achieve cultural and racial purity. Just like Trump.

      >All he has called for is enforcement of the law and to ensure that we are not allowing people that intend to harm us in this country.
      Aawww you are so naive. Besides which - he is trying to be a politician. His job is NOT enforcement of the law, it's to propose BETTER laws.

      > it shows how crazy the people that violently oppose him are.
      Excuse me ? Where have the opposition been violent ? If anything there's been way too much appeasement. Hell even protesters at his rallys have by and large been victims of violence, not perpetrators.

      >He is nothing like Hitler and it is hilarious that people would compare the two of them.
      Actually - the entire basis on which that claim is made has shown that you KNOW nothing about Hitler. You don't see that they are identical - simply because you are looking for the post-war Hitler caricature that you heard about in school - and know nothing of the actual man, how he actually got elected, what his speeches actually SAID and how he went about achieving his nefarious ends.
      The single most enlightening source you can find on who Hitler was is actually Hermann Goring, specifically his defense at Nuremberg. Even there - when the death camps had been found, the bodies dug up - he maintained the lie that Hitler told the people all along: "I had no knowledge of this, ours was a policy of emigration not extermination".
      What is Trump's key issue again ?

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    8. Re:Bit of a gamble by ArylAkamov · · Score: 1

      He has made numerous denigrating remarks over entire groups of people. That is racism, exclusion and neo-nazi hatred -

      A group of people is not a race. He has made denigrating remarks about illegal aliens (Trespassers who are breaking the law), and violent people who practice Islam. Islam/Muslim is not a race. Illegal aliens from Mexico are not a race, as Mexican isn't a race.

      He proposed a ban on Muslim immigration. Religious tests for imigration was one of the very first policies the NAZIs promoted as well. Right there is your first one.

      He proposed a /temporary/ ban on Muslim immigration.

      So Obama is a Nazi then? After all, he banned Muslim immigration in 2011 for six months.

      http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/...

      Hitler never did that either. Not once. He called for EMIGRATION. The final solution was kept secret from pretty much the entire civilian population even while it was happening. What he actually said was "prevent imigration", "forced emigration" and other "acceptable" ways to achieve cultural and racial purity. Just like Trump.

      He isn't proposing kicking out current citizens, he is proposing kicking out people who are not citizens and are breaking the law by trespassing here illegally, like many other countries do. This isn't unique to trump at all.

      Tell me, how many vague similarities does it require before you are considered literally Hitler? We both breath air. I'm sure I've worn the same color clothing once before. I am also against animal cruelty and am anti-smoking, just like Hitler.

      Aawww you are so naive. Besides which - he is trying to be a politician. His job is NOT enforcement of the law, it's to propose BETTER laws.

      Actually, that is wrong. He is trying to be president.

      The president has the authority to send troops into combat, and is the only one who can decide whether to use nuclear weapons.

      He also enforces laws, treaties, and court rulings; develops federal policies; prepares the national budget; and appoints federal officials. He also approves or vetoes acts of Congress and grants pardons.

      His job is not to "propose better laws".

      Excuse me ? Where have the opposition been violent ? If anything there's been way too much appeasement. Hell even protesters at his rallys have by and large been victims of violence, not perpetrators.

      Well, off the top of my head there were the protests in Arizona that blocked a highway, where protesters kicked and jumped on a car trying to get by them:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      There is the woman who punched a man in the face (But all you hear is that she got maced by evil trump supporters):

      https://youtu.be/TA1S0KQD2W8?t...

      And, as long as we are considering speech violent, scary, triggering actions, there are the several protestors who dressed up as the KKK, hoods and all:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      Though I guess I can't really count that one, as a black trump supporter attacked them. But since they were parading around as symbols of hate, it was okay, right? Just like the students getting triggered by chalk, right?

      Actually - the entire basis on which that claim is made has shown that you KNOW nothing about Hitler. You don't see that they are identical - simply because you are looking for the post-war Hitler caricature that you heard about in school - and know nothing of the actual man, how he actually got elected, what his speeches actually SAID and how he went about achieving his nefarious ends.

      If they are identical, wake me up when Trump loses

    9. Re: Bit of a gamble by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Group based discrimination is not less evil depending on whether the group is a race or not.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    10. Re: Bit of a gamble by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      He proposed putting American Muslims: law abiding citizens in detention camps.

      How did you miss that ?

      Ethno nationalism is evil. Opposition to immigration is ethno nationalism. It is all the same evil. The only difference between the the places where it leads to atrocity and the ones where it does not is the presence of strong opposition politicians who moderate the effects. Right now America has that. But throughout the 1920s so did Germany. Hitler gained the presidency with a fully obstructionist governmentbecause he was way too overt in his ethno nationalism. Exactly the scenario Trump would face. Hitler responded by killing all the opposition politicians. One fell swoop known as Kristallnacht in which he murdered every politician in Germany wh opposed his ethnonationalism. In a day Germany went from a liberal democracy like America into a brutal dictatorship. Trump already hinted that he could do that. He told us he could personally murder somebody on 5th avenue and not lose votes. Hitler had less devotion than that in 1930 ! He did not dare pull the trigger himself. He still had others kill his enemies.
      But even if Trump was not Hitler... he would still be Rhodes and Verwoerd. Take it from somebody who has personally lived through the effects of an ethno nationalist government without strong opposition. Great atrocities are guaranteed and they will happen in secret. It cannot happen otherwise because its physically impissible to pursue ethnonationakist outcomes without committing atrocities. It cannot be done (which is why the idea is evil - because its physically imposible to pursue any semblence of it without atrocity).

      The reason the law is not "enforced" is because it cannot be. There is no way to do so without genocidal acts. I know you dont believe that but I have seen it with my own eyes. It cannot be done. Any politician who actually tries to will find that out. But it will happen bit by bit. Little evils tolerated in the name of what is considered a noble end. And then it escalates. Little evils rapidly become big evils.

      Only those entirely ignorant of history could fail to see that never has any other outcome occurred and only those who ignorant of math can fail to sed that it is because that putcome is inevitible.
      As recently as 2007 people saying that same thing "enforce immigration law" took one small step and began enforcing it themselves here. Survivors of appartheid slaughtered hundreds of immigrants in a week. Most of whom were not illegal. The oppressed became the oppressor.

      Ethno-nationalism can only ever lead to that and nobody, not even and perhaps not especially, its former victims are immune.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  8. Fools! Trump almost certainly won't be elected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Trump is unlikely to reach 1,237 delegates. He was on track until losing Ohio to Kasich. Wisconsin is another state Trump very much needs to win, but Cruz is likely to win there. Trump is unlikely to pull an upset in any states going forward because he's consistently underperformed his polling numbers. Trump will likely face a contested convention, winning only about 1,200 pledged delegates. After no candidate wins on the first ballot, delegates will be free to switch their vote. Trump is unpopular and will probably lose delegates on subsequent votes rather than gain them. Trump is unlikely to be the Republican nominee.

    Let's say he gets the nomination, somehow. In polls about general election scenarios, Trump trails Clinton by double digits and Sanders by even bigger margins. Although Sanders is quite a long shot to win the Democratic nomination, Clinton would probably defeat Trump in a landslide.

    It's actually very unlikely that Trump will become President. It's not even likely that Trump is the Republican nominee. Those who are wanting to leave the US because of a potential Trump presidency are fools.

    1. Re:Fools! Trump almost certainly won't be elected by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1

      I don't know, but seriously, what are the options for the Republicans? Cruz? Kasich? These two guys are much worst than Trump for the Presidential election.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    2. Re: Fools! Trump almost certainly won't be elected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, Cruz and Kasich poll better in general election scenarios than Trump, with Kasich doing better than Cruz. From the Democratic side, Sanders outperforms Clinton in those polls. Cruz might have a shot at defeating Clinton. Kasich would have a much better shot. A lot can change in the polls between now and November, but I don't think Trump as and nominee would work out very well for the Republicans in November. Cruz and especially Kasich would be much better choices if the goal is to win the general election.

    3. Re: Fools! Trump almost certainly won't be elected by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      Kasich would have 0 shot. All the democrats that right now find him a moderate and acceptable will turn on him. And the conservatives will stay home in protest.

      The voters are not falling for that trick of picking someone who the democrats tell us can win and save our party (like we really believe that is something they want.) We already tried that with Romney and McCain.

      Unfortunately, the RNC leaders do seem to fall for this or just not care about winning.

    4. Re:Fools! Trump almost certainly won't be elected by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      The RNC will probably bring back Romney! There is no upper limit to stupidity.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    5. Re:Fools! Trump almost certainly won't be elected by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Trump voters aren't going to vote for Cruz at all, and probably not Kasich. What I think is quite possible is that Trump will run as an independent, and then it's very unlikely the GOP will win (or Trump).

      It'd be even more interesting if Bernie ran as an independent after the DNC shafts him on the Dem nomination: a 4-way race. It'll probably end up being decided by Congress at that point, which means likely a GOP establishment nominee.

  9. I'll move to Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hell I was ready to leave the US a decade ago. Though, if Trump wins I'm more likely to stay.

  10. They're an ad company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a bit much to call them a tech company. They're an ad company. Pulling publicity stunts like this isn't surprising for an advertiser.

    I saw it in my Facebook feed the other day and thought it was amusing, but considering no one left when either Bush or Obama was elected, I don't think they're going to get many new applicants. Also, they're an ad company, so they can fuck themselves.

  11. Tech in Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When 50% of the TSXV companies have valuations less than a well optioned Mercedes S-class and 75% have valuations less than the average American home, you can hardly say "booming".

  12. Easy to take the tech workers by srichard25 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sure, it's easy to say they would take the tech workers. But would Canada gladly take the 10 million illegal immigrants who may not be as skilled? Those are the ones who really want to flee Trump.

    1. Re: Easy to take the tech workers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone, no matter how useless, deserves a living wage.

    2. Re: Easy to take the tech workers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We could afford to pay basic income of the people that pay the most in taxes would pay their fair share.

    3. Re: Easy to take the tech workers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This, but those republicans won't allow it.

    4. Re: Easy to take the tech workers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we took only $5k for each person lucky enough to have a job, then we could afford it.

    5. Re: Easy to take the tech workers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we took only $5k for each person lucky enough to have a job, then we could afford it.

      Only half of adults work now and only about half of those actually pay taxes so the amount would have to be much higher, but it is still the right thing to do.

    6. Re:Easy to take the tech workers by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Sure, it's easy to say they would take the tech workers. But would Canada gladly take the 10 million illegal immigrants who may not be as skilled? Those are the ones who really want to flee Trump.

      I'm not sure how we'd react to the illegal immigrants, but we are inviting 25,000 Syrian refugees. Considering that Canada has a population of 35 million and you have ~320 million it's equivalent to you taking in about 225,000.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    7. Re:Easy to take the tech workers by c-A-d · · Score: 1

      The thing is, we were having this problem in the past. We required certain countries who's nationals represent a significant portion of those 10 million illegal immigrants to get a visa before they can enter the country.

      --
      some karma... and kinda lukewarm about it.
    8. Re:Easy to take the tech workers by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      We don't tend to punish people for being hard working members of our communities up here ... and you shouldn't either: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    9. Re:Easy to take the tech workers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, it's easy to say they would take the tech workers. But would Canada gladly take the 10 million illegal immigrants who may not be as skilled? Those are the ones who really want to flee Trump.

      That is besides the point. If they take the tech workers and refuse the immigrants then you will get rid of the tech workers and keep the immigrants. What you and the immigrants want doesn't matter because this is a thing between Canada and tech workers.
      OTOH it I suspect Trumps response would be to build another wall. Nobody enters, nobody leaves. Freedom for all.

    10. Re:Easy to take the tech workers by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 5, Informative

      Funny how Canadians always leave out the part out about refusing single males entry when trumpeting this noble act.

    11. Re:Easy to take the tech workers by RuffMasterD · · Score: 1

      Don't worry. If Trump is elected, most illegal immigrants will escape back across the border to Mexico to be with their families before Trump builds a wall so high even the Americans can't escape. Poor gringos won't realize the new Trump wall is actually to prevent THEM from leaving the US, until after midterm elections, by which time it will be too late. East Germans thought the wall was there to protect them didn't they? Yes the did. Until they wanted to leave. Mexico will have started to build a second wall, with dog patrols, in a bid to curb the growing waves of desperate illegal white immigrants trying to cross the border into Mexico. Some people will try official channels, claiming to have distant relatives in Mexico. It won't work. Those caught will end up in 'temporary' detention camps until their deportation can be arranged. Trump will almost certainly try to invade Canada by 2020, spilling the blood of at least 10,000 soldiers, eventually resulting in a fragile truce and a razor wire strewn, land mine infested, Korea style no-mans land between the US and Canada, so you won't be able to go there either. GET OUT WHILE YOU STILL CAN! Good luck.

      --
      Human Rights, Article 12: Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence
    12. Re:Easy to take the tech workers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's not because they might be terrorists though, it's because they're competition for the other single men.

    13. Re:Easy to take the tech workers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      East Germans thought the wall was there to protect them didn't they?

      Nope, as the wall came up because too many people were constantly escaping through the barbed wire & the troops. They population knew very well the true purpose of the wall. Of course, the regime said the wall was there for 'protection'. Regimes say that sort of thing; Not to fool the gullible (there are too few of those in such simple cases) but in order to lie to themselves. If they said officially 'the wall is to keep our population from fleeing us!' then they'd be telling the truth, but they'd also be admitting defeat. Right wing or left wing, tyrants just don't admit defeat. Hence a lot of stupid childish lies that everybody sees right through. But they have to keep up the appearance - it is more important than victory. Especially for people who lost the true battles a long time ago and cling to some vestiges of limited power.

    14. Re: Easy to take the tech workers by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      Everyone, no matter how useless, deserves a living wage.

      That sound real nice and kind. Who do you propose pay's this living wage?

    15. Re:Easy to take the tech workers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps, instead of a wall at the U.S.-Mexico border, Trump should build a high-speed rail from Mexico to Canada. I'm more than happy to allow Canada to show the U.S. how "... embracing of diversity as opposed to it being some sort of political issue is a huge advantage we have."

      The illegal aliens have shown they can barely learn English. Let's see how they fare having to learn English and French.

    16. Re:Easy to take the tech workers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice try. I don't give a damn if an illegal alien pays $1 in taxes but sucks $10 out in costs.

      Between the additional costs for Spanish-language *public* services, additional prisons for the ones that commit blue-collar crimes, identity fraud via (where do you think those Social Security numbers come from for those who bother to pay taxes?), free medical care (I have friends who are doctors in the U.S. and I doubt you do), and affirmative action that gives preference to these people over native-born Americans, taking in these people is a sure-fire losing bet.

      Despite being in the U.S. for a fairly long time, they are the one immigrant group that stands out as not being able cut the mustard, economically or academically (which relates to economic performance.) And they are not even the most recent batch of immigrants! The Vietnamese immigrants arrives in the U.S. in the 1970s and in one generation, they are better off.

      And, of course, the Vietnamese are not Caucasians so any explanations of racism are garbage.

      If Canada likes the illegal immigrants that many Americans want deported, they're welcome to take them. I hear grumblings in Canada about Chinese immigrants who are wealthy and driving up real estate prices. How is Canada going to react to millions of immigrants who are poor, uneducated, cannot/will not learn the local language, and will commit felonies at a higher than usual rate and end up incarcerated?

    17. Re:Easy to take the tech workers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, we have been pretty transparent about that. The statistics indicate that a majority of Isis solders are single males. Refusing that demographic is part of the vetting process.

    18. Re:Easy to take the tech workers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny how Canadians always leave out the part out about refusing single males entry when trumpeting this noble act.

      So they are being smart about it.

    19. Re:Easy to take the tech workers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would think the 10 million illegal immigrants already in the country would welcome Trump. If his delusional plan to wall off the border were to actually be successful they would likely be the ones working for the company building it, and would essentially limit the new supply of workers competing for their illegal jobs.

    20. Re:Easy to take the tech workers by grumpyman · · Score: 1

      Unless a country is taking on ALL refugees, there will be somebody that get screened out. 25000 in Canada vs 10000 in US (10x country size). Go figure.

    21. Re:Easy to take the tech workers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I saw an interview with one of the families on local TV and the first thing I noticed was there were no women. An able bodied father and two able bodied adult aged sons.

      They had already settled in Turkey - a democratic NATO Nation where they are a better cultural fit - but Canada offers a better deal.

      One of the young men mentioned his sister and mother who are still in a refugee camp in Syria.

      My original point is that the definition of family is fast and loose in liberal Canada. It is not for me, a white man, to judge their culture, after all. If only males count as part of your family and that's your culture then okay.

      We aren't bringing in women or children, that article is Canadian government doublethink. The reality is the opposite of what you just read. Canada is so far down the rabbit hole now that our Supreme court has declared that telling the truth can be prosecuted as hate speech - literally, in those words.

    22. Re:Easy to take the tech workers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and that's wrong because?

      In other news, keep in mind that any privately funded party that wants to import refugees has to wait until the government fills its quota

    23. Re:Easy to take the tech workers by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      There's a joke in the Netherlands: "The reason the Netherlands is such a nice country is because we shipped all our assholes to Africa where they invented appartheid" (I'm a descendent of those they shipped and I thought it was hillarious).

      I think that somehow Canada managed to do the same and ship all their assholes to America. You know, like Ted Cruz.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    24. Re:Easy to take the tech workers by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Of course, that Dutch joke is a lot less true now that Geert Wilders actually got significant votes...

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    25. Re: Easy to take the tech workers by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      You actually. Now I understand you may not want to, so I propose we use the tax system to do it and take it by force because your sociopathic tendencies may lead you to deny that obligation, but it doesn't make the obligation any less real.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    26. Re:Easy to take the tech workers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you mean the ones that have already been leaving your country? the ones returning south? (there are more people leaving than entering at the moment)

      the only people heading to the states are the families traveling from south america after the CIA royally screwed things up down there... you complain about the immigrants, but you dont see how your fellow country men destroyed their world. Stop complaining about the consequences to your actions, you caused it, you now have to deal with it.

    27. Re:Easy to take the tech workers by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The illegal immigrants aren't trying to flee Drumpf. Many are refugees that can't get in the US's illegally strict refugee policies. They are better off being persecuted in the US (or Canada or Mexico) than being in their home country, pursued by death squads.

      And 10M out of 400M? So how would you identify the 2-3% and separate them out? Brown triangles? Do you really think the country would stand by as he puts them into concentration camps?

      Nearly every "promise" by Drumpf is unconstitutional, so the ones that want to flee aren't fleeing Drumpf, but the anti-Constitution Conservatives that will shit on the Constitution to harm "undesireables".

  13. Where Is Bob & Doug McKenzie by zenlessyank · · Score: 2

    when we need them??

    1. Re:Where Is Bob & Doug McKenzie by louden+obscure · · Score: 1

      What about Ricky, Bubbles and Julian?
      What about Wayne and Darryl from Letterkenny?

      --
      Serenity now, insanity later.
    2. Re:Where Is Bob & Doug McKenzie by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      We can hope they're reworking a new 12 Days of Christmas.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

  14. Not far enough by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 2

    New Zealand might be a better idea... or some other place in a different hemisphere

    That won't help, because like... the atmospheres of the two hemispheres are connected.

    You need to go someplace where that Trump can't affect you.

    I don't think that's possible. I mean, the sea will be poisoned, the air will burn, famine and pestilence will be everywhere... it'll just be a mess.

    You might try that apocalypse condo in Kansas, and see if you can wait things out.

    This assumes, of course, that Earth systems can recover and there will be a future time when you can walk outdoors alone and unaided. Then again, there will probably be a lot of others who had to turn to feral cannibalism to survive.

    It doesn't look good for you, even the Earth's microorganisms are starting to wonder whether they will survive.

    You can avoid a lot of needless pain and suffering if you think things through.

    You might ask yourself the question: do you *really* want to live in a world post-Trump?

    1. Re:Not far enough by cshark · · Score: 1

      Well, if you feel that strongly about it, I would say that there should be plenty of options available to you.

      First and foremost, space is cheaper than it's ever been. You should be able to build a space ship and get yourself at least into LEO for cheaper than ever. Just get enough supplies to last you six months, and you'll make it to Mars. Mars may be a desolated wasteland, but... at least Donald Trump isn't there. And that's really what you care about, right?

      You may want to think about Mars anyway, because even if he doesn't get the nomination, or win the election, you're still sharing a planet with the man.

      --

      This signature has Super Cow Powers

    2. Re:Not far enough by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I'm not entirely sure that you can take off with just 6 months of food, get to Mars, and live there in perpetuity. We might, of course, just want to go and spend a short time there. We've visited a moon. That's it. We've only been on one planet.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    3. Re:Not far enough by Talderas · · Score: 1

      You need to go someplace where that Trump can't affect you.

      We haven't yet discovered a way to traverse universes and that may not be sufficient.

      Newton's law of universal gravitation.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    4. Re:Not far enough by Talderas · · Score: 1

      If you include "we" to include anything made by mankind then we've been on three of the planets in the solar system. You could expand that to four if you want to count MESSENGER crashing into Mercury. You could also make an argument that we've been "on" Jupiter with the Galileo probe crashing into it's atmosphere.... invariably parts of probe have hit a solid surface although those parts are likely so badly deformed. So we've been on anywhere from 12.5-62.5% of the planets depending of your definition of "on".

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    5. Re:Not far enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're insane.

    6. Re:Not far enough by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Yeah but I don't include we in that. We, the human species, have only been to Luna and around Earth, at varied heights, a bunch of times. I've sent an email to lots of places - it doesn't mean I've been there. Even if I send a robot, it's not me going there. Right now, we've only been on this one - so far as I know.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    7. Re:Not far enough by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Not to mention our friend didn't factor in fuel for a transfer burn. Nor the wait-time for a transfer window. You can't just start going to Mars at any moment... well you *could* but it would take a LOT longer to get there and you would need a helluva lot more fuel to do it. So you're talking more like 2 to 3 years food. Normally we would wait until a transfer window and only launch near one - but since you want to be in space before Trump is elected you probably want to avoid that. Of course then once you get there you will need even more fuel to get into an orbit around Mars (you can't aerobrake, the atmosphere is too thin) and you will almost certainly need to do a powered descent to land - even the rovers used partly powered descents (skycranes). In theory you could do it with a solid heatshield (weighty though) and a lot of big parachutes (more weight)... but for a craft as heavy as what we've planned so far that simply won't do. The atmosphere is thin, so drag is low, and to land safely you have to have drag at least equalize the force of gravity (which is only a little less than on earth).

      By every measure - no, a manned mission to mars would not be cheap. The moon would be a LOT cheaper actually and you don't have to care so much about transfer windows since even it's furthest orbits aren't that far away.

      Of course, in all this no thought was given to how to survive post-landing on either body but this is left as an exercise for the reader.

      From this we can conclude two things:
      1) If you have the means to build an LEO capable rocket, it would be far more efficient to use that tech to build an ICBM and aim it at a Trump rally than to try and get yourself off-world.
      2) I play way too much KSP.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    8. Re:Not far enough by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, Newton's law was wrong. It's a close enough approximation for basic stuff but it isn't how it actually works. That's where relativity comes in. The math doesn't change at this scale, but that's not the part that matters. The part that matters is space-time distortion, which does not reach every other body in the universe (unlike the fictional "force" of gravity). If you're far enough away, you're well outside the distortion Trump creates (and in the distortion of lots of other things that are either close by or sufficiently massive or both (that last example would be Trump's mom).

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    9. Re:Not far enough by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      That won't help, because like... the atmospheres of the two hemispheres are connected.

      Not strongly. I've seen projections that a large-scale nuclear war with detonations only in US and Russia would not increase the radiation levels appreciably in Antarctica, as in the years it takes the wind to get there from the northern hemisphere, the particles would have been deposited elsewhere, and the most radioactive materials will have decayed.

      You are better off in South Africa than a bunker in the US.

    10. Re:Not far enough by AK+Marc · · Score: 1
      You could leave any time and get there without huge additional use of fuel. You just may not get there alive. You slinghsot around the sun. Just put yourself in a parabolic trajectory to intersect Mars. Oh, and stopping may be more an issue. But throwing a rock from Earth to hit Mars could be done, and would need no fuel expenditure in flight.

      1) If you have the means to build an LEO capable rocket, it would be far more efficient to use that tech to build an ICBM and aim it at a Trump rally than to try and get yourself off-world.

      The issue isn't Trump. It's the 100M+ people in the US that like him more than any other candidate. You can't clear them out by taking our one rally. You'd be better off putting the largest nuke you could find as high above the middle of the US as possible. The EMP would be felt from NYC to LA, and do serious damage from Atlanta to Denver (including Texas, and Chicago). That's the most effective way of dealing with the Trump phenomenon. Let the US go back to 1800s technology for a few years.

    11. Re:Not far enough by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Newtons's laws were right. Your assumption that you are correcting the equations to match the universe, rather than correcting the universe to match the equations indicates a poor grasp of relativity. For almost all relativistic problems (the practical ones, where one uses those equations), there exists some frame of reference where Newton's equations were right. So Newton was right in *all* cases, just not from all perspectives from all cases.

    12. Re:Not far enough by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Historically, Trump's ideas were actually far more common in the 1800s than now. Right now, he has about a third of the republican vote and he doesn't seem likely to get much more than that (which is good news in the general) in the 1800s people like him rule at least the Southern half of the USA pretty consistently.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  15. EUREKA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After Trump builds the Great American Wall, we will build a Great Mexican Catapult and launch the people who are running from justice in Mexico straight into Canada rather than just across the border into the US.

    1. Re:EUREKA! by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      No, Mexico is going to build the Trump Wall. Remember?

      I know Fox said "fuck no," but Trump still is saying "yes." That's still his answer to where the money will come from.

      I assume it means he intends to invade Mexico first, and set up some sort of strong-arm dictator who doesn't let anybody leave.

      As for the catapult, first one lands on a military base and they'll be anti-aircraft cannons on the border.

    2. Re:EUREKA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WRONG. Mexico won't build the wall. Mexico will PAY for the wall.

    3. Re:EUREKA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Be serious. Mexicans will build it.

    4. Re:EUREKA! by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      No, he intends to go after remittances by illegal immigrants to their relatives in Mexico.

    5. Re:EUREKA! by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      It takes a lot to get even dumber, but that does. At so many levels.

    6. Re:EUREKA! by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I'm just repeating what I remember him saying, I didn't say it was a great idea.

    7. Re:EUREKA! by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      lol I didn't mean to blame you for him. ;)

      Maybe while his magical tax fairy is tracking remittances, it can spare an extra wave of the wand to provide the information the IRS needs to finish auditing Trump. They've been auditing him for over a decade, because he won't stop playing games with "continuing transactions" that make it impossible for them to collect enough information to finish the audit.

  16. Be afraid by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 2

    Trump is unpopular and will probably lose delegates on subsequent votes rather than gain them. Trump is unlikely to be the Republican nominee.

    If Trump has the vast majority of support from primary voters, and doesn't get the nomination due to skulduggery, there will be rioting in the streets.

    You say he's unpopular, but only to the 1%ers.

    A very large, very scary crowd of people want to see him run.

    Be afraid of changing the rules, or of having the appearance of a non-voting process.

    Be very afraid.

    1. Re: Be afraid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump doesn't have that level of support. He's received roughly 42% of the vote on the Republican side to date. He's likely to do worse than that going forward. Under Democrat rules, there would almost certainly be a contested convention. There is no changing of rules needed to make that happen. It's what party rules already call for in the event nobody wins a majority of the delegates on the first vote.

    2. Re: Be afraid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he doesn't get the minimum number of delegates, by mathematical definition he doesn't have a majority of support in the party. He merely has the largest minority. If he doesn't have enough to win in the first round, then the convention decides.

      If that were a general election you might get a power-sharing agreement, but it isn't. It's a party political selection, not a constitutionally protected right.

      I do not understand the 'rioting' thing. They don't respect your vote? Pick another party. It's not a congressional race.

    3. Re:Be afraid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There won't be any rioting when Trump doesn't get the nomination. Riots only come due to the depression of 2018. Even then, when you think you've seen riots, BRICS will switch away from the US dollar in response to TPP/TTIP/TISA. Western economies will completely collapse and martial law will be enacted.

    4. Re: Be afraid by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      Trump doesn't have that level of support. He's received roughly 42% of the vote on the Republican side to date.

      If you think all the primary votes that Trump has received are from Republicans, you haven't been paying attention.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    5. Re:Be afraid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This goy gets it!

    6. Re:Be afraid by dbIII · · Score: 1

      If Trump has the vast majority of support from primary voters, and doesn't get the nomination due to skulduggery, there will be rioting in the streets.

      And the Party numbers men will care about that?
      Expect a rule change like the last time if they think it necessary.

      They are not afraid because it won't be their born to the purple heads getting busted but some mere plebians instead.

    7. Re:Be afraid by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Trump is very unpopular with female Republicans. If the GOP chooses him they are throwing away the election, because last time around more women than men voted and he's even less popular among non-Republican females.

      You could be right about the riots, but the real problem is the system. You only get one vote, and in some states it's winner-takes-all, so you end up with a candidate who is acceptable to only a minority because the votes are spread too thinly among the more mainstream ones.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:Be afraid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump hasn't won the majority of the vote in any state yet, and among the few that are left, he only has a shot at a majority in NY.

      He also hasn't won the majority of pledged delegates at this point.

      If he wins a majority of the pledged delegates and doesn't win the nomination, then yes, there will be rioting in the streets. But it doesn't matter, because Trump has already permanently changed American politics.

      Trump appeals to the 10, 15 or 20% of the American public known as 'disaffecteds'. These groups exist in most European democracies too, and in some cases, have a party that is now the 2nd largest. The two American parties have ignored these people, and both are paying the price right now. Both parties are already adapting their strategies and messages to try to win these voters. It will be tricky, because the language of bigotry and misogyny is hard to use without turning off other voters.

    9. Re:Be afraid by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 1

      Trump is very unpopular with female Republicans.

      And blacks, and Hispanics. Pretty much everyone except angry white men.

      That will no longer win you an election in 2016.

    10. Re:Be afraid by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Well that's the GOP's fault, now isn't it?

      If they don't like that, then maybe they should use a better voting system for their Primaries, one in which one extremist candidate doesn't win all the votes in that state because the other votes are spread too thinly over the more mainstream candidates.

      We've been bitching about this problem with elections for decades now (esp. every time a 3rd-party candidate "splits the vote" in a general election), but the establishment parties refused to change. Well Trump has now shown how stupid they were, by using their own actions against them.

    11. Re: Be afraid by GodelEscherBlecch · · Score: 1

      Yeah sure, and his rallies are packed with Democrat-hired actors just pretending to be rabid lunatics.

      From the article:

      The majority of the evidence, however, indicates that primary crossover, in which a voter from a certain party votes in the primary of the opposite party, is relatively rare.

      The whole 'article' is a giant piece of exposition about what voter crossover is, not that it actually happened, despite its obvious wishful thinking that this may be why the Republican party is such a spectacular shit show. Also, maybe you didn't notice that it is posted on the page of a political strategy consultant firm, not a journalism site? Sounds like you are the one not paying attention.

      I love this new trend where everything that reflects poorly on your point of view is some kind of conspiracy perpetrated by shills from the opposing side. Not a reason to rethink your allegiances, or reflect on whether you are / have gotten in bed with a vile group of people...no of course not - definitely just a conspiracy.

    12. Re: Be afraid by rmdingler · · Score: 1
      It may be that the article you're quoting is the final say in the matter.

      I generally prefer to peruse at least another source or sometimes even two.

      The fact that primary crossover is relatively rare is not reflective of its importance because of the relatively small numbers in which people vote.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    13. Re: Be afraid by GodelEscherBlecch · · Score: 1

      One says a blog and a video suggested it. The other says Texas frequently sees 9-15 participation from moderate Democrats and people who want more say in local issues. Neither say word one about it actually happening. Do you even read these?

    14. Re: Be afraid by GodelEscherBlecch · · Score: 1

      Or, more to the point, are you seriously suggesting that this dubious phenomenon is responsible for Trump? That is some next level denial.

  17. This is new? by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    claims that 31% of Americans they'd surveyed would consider moving to Canada if Foo were elected President.

    As has been said every 4 years for the last few decades.

    1. Re:This is new? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. It's easy to say you are "considering" moving to Canada, doing so is another thing altogether.

      This rates right up there with "my husband/wife is driving me crazy and if they keep doing it I'll kill them." Also, "my kids are a pain and I'm going to sell them."

      Most of this is rhetorical excess to make a point. The people who say it are saying they are disgusted with politics, not that they want to move to Canada.

    2. Re:This is new? by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      I know a crazy left nut job (and cat guy) that was very upset about GW Bush being elected and said he was moving to Canada. Got really upset if you said he wouldn't. Nope, never did. He's still in the same house today. I know a bunch of others that said that, not nearly as crazy.

      Love to see if the crazy lefties will do it this time - Sharpton, Goldberg, etc. We'll be far better off without them. Canada - not so much. They may demand payment for baby sitting them.

  18. A mass exodus of SJWs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is there someplace I can donate money to make this happen?

    1. Re:A mass exodus of SJWs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please no. I like not being screamed at by crazy SJWs in real life.

      How about we just send them to Mars or Venus or the Sun? (whether or not they make it, who cares, as long as they don't make it back)

  19. Moving back from Canada by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

    Are all those people who moved to Canada when Obama was elected planning to move back?

    1. Re:Moving back from Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am. I'm tired of all these pussy Canucks laughing at the rebel flag on my lifted 4x4 truck that they won't let me drive around with my shotgun in the back window. I haven't even seen my shotgun since I had to leave it back home. And they like beer that makes you get drunk. Idoits.

    2. Re:Moving back from Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I moved to Europe after W was re-elected. Maybe I'll move back if Bernie wins, but otherwise I'm quite happy here.

    3. Re:Moving back from Canada by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      They already did, about a week later. They decided a country where people are nice, guns have sane laws, taxes are adequate to provide basic needs, the social safety nett is adequate to avert excessive suffering and breaking your leg doesn't break your retirement fund was worse than Obama. If those are the kinds of things you oppose, they were right too.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  20. Salary Discrepancy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Until they realize the salary discrepancy between US and Canada ...

    1. Re: Salary Discrepancy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you add in the free healthcare then the discrepancy flips at least for middle class.
      Their tax dollars work for them while ours are used against us.

    2. Re:Salary Discrepancy by ark1 · · Score: 1

      and cold weather, higher prices...but we do have better beer!

    3. Re: Salary Discrepancy by dskoll · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not to mention we here in Canada have a relatively functional political system and we lack batshit crazy evangelical Christian politicians who foam at the mouth every time they hear the words "same-sex marriage". That's worth the price of admission.

    4. Re: Salary Discrepancy by Kellamity · · Score: 1

      If the healthcare is 'free' then why were BC Health charging me 50 bucks a month for it?

    5. Re:Salary Discrepancy by Kellamity · · Score: 1

      Better beer yes, but the wine is truly terrible (and overpriced) ;)

    6. Re: Salary Discrepancy by dryeo · · Score: 1

      There's a few batshit crazy evangelical Christian politicians hiding in the Conservative Party, just that Harper did a very good job of keeping them silent. During the election the local Conservative candidates were not allowed to talk to the voters, just Harper's message of low taxes and a government that will keep you safe no matter how much it had to violate your privacy.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    7. Re: Salary Discrepancy by dskoll · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you think Trudeau is a batshit insane leftist politician, well... we have very different ideas of what "insane leftist" means, then.

      Legalizing marijuana makes perfect sense if your goal is to reduce harm. If your goal is to fill your jail cells and waste police resources, then sure... keep it illiegal.

    8. Re: Salary Discrepancy by dskoll · · Score: 1

      The batshit insane Evangelicals in Canada have essentially zero impact on public policy, unlike in the United States where they're preventing access to abortion, telling people like me where we can and can't pee, sneakily introducing religion into the public school systems, etc.

    9. Re: Salary Discrepancy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They just have batshit crazy people like your sorry ass that blame a religion for all their problems.

      So, how's it like to live in North Mexico?

    10. Re: Salary Discrepancy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "preventing access to abortion" - don't you mean "killing babies due to someone's poor judgment and choosing to shun responsibility?"

      " telling people like me where we can and can't pee" - I guess you're OK with me standing on the sidewalk and peeing in the same spot in your yard, right?

      "sneakily introducing religion into the public school systems" - lol - how so?

      Seems to me you're an atheist (i.e. have more faith in there NOT being God than those who believe in God believe he's there), OK with murder as a response to a one-night-stand, piece of crap....

    11. Re: Salary Discrepancy by dskoll · · Score: 1

      Abortion in the United States is legal, whether or not you like it. Yet states like Texas introduce regulations that make it all but impossible for a woman to obtain that which is perfectly legal.

      The "where I can pee" thing refers to the North Carolina law that says I have to use the men's room even though I'm a transgender woman and don't look even vaguely male. Amusingly, it would force this guy to use the ladies' room because he has XX chromosomes.

      Sneaking religion into public schools refers to the teaching of Creationism in biology class.

    12. Re: Salary Discrepancy by dskoll · · Score: 1

      Excuse me? Where did I blame "a religion" for "all" my problems?

      I happen to think that religion (all religion, not just Christianity) is evil and a huge source of injustice in the world. But it's certainly not a cause of all problems in the world... just a lot of them.

      And yes, parts of the United States are no better than ISIS-ruled territory in certain respects; the US is mostly a democracy but increasingly, parts of it are dangerously theocratic.

    13. Re: Salary Discrepancy by dskoll · · Score: 1

      Oh, and I missed answering your question. Canada's a great place to live. Having spent time in both the USA and Canada, not to mention many other countries in the world, I'd definitely pick staying in Canada over anywhere else. My resolve may weaken in mid-February, but then I just look at US politics and it makes me feel better.

    14. Re: Salary Discrepancy by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      Abortion in the United States is legal, whether or not you like it. Yet states like Texas introduce regulations that make it all but impossible for a woman to obtain that which is perfectly legal.

      The "where I can pee" thing refers to the North Carolina law that says I have to use the men's room even though I'm a transgender woman and don't look even vaguely male. Amusingly, it would force this guy to use the ladies' room because he has XX chromosomes.

      Sneaking religion into public schools refers to the teaching of Creationism in biology class.

      It doesn't matter that it's legal. So was slavery. States still exercised their rights to ban that.

      Where you can pee? If that is the worst suffering you go through for being transgender, then that just shows the US people are pretty tolerant. If we go the route of allowing people to use whatever restroom they want based on what sex they feel like they are that day, we might as well just make all bathrooms unisex.

    15. Re: Salary Discrepancy by dskoll · · Score: 1

      Where you can pee? If that is the worst suffering you go through for being transgender, then that just shows the US people are pretty tolerant.

      Most US people are very tolerant. It's the batshit crazy Evangelicals who are bigoted. And hey, why don't you try going to the "opposite" restroom for the next couple of months and see how you fare?

      It doesn't matter that it's legal.

      Yes, it does. It's perfectly fine to oppose abortion and even to agitate to make it illegal. It's not perfectly fine to subvert the law with restrictive regulations. That's doing an end-run around democracy because it doesn't involve the political process.

    16. Re: Salary Discrepancy by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      And yes, parts of the United States are no better than ISIS-ruled territory in certain respects; the US is mostly a democracy but increasingly, parts of it are dangerously theocratic.

      Wow. We are killing people, feeding their kids to their moms, raping, and drowning people? Which region is doing this?

    17. Re: Salary Discrepancy by dskoll · · Score: 1

      Note the qualifier in certain respects, by which I mean imposing religious beliefs on others and forcing women who want to terminate their pregnancies to come to term.

    18. Re: Salary Discrepancy by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't that be $75 a month? Government needs money and of course the rich shouldn't pay anymore tax then the average as once they have enough money, they'll become job creators. So here we are with low taxes (income that is), the most expensive gasoline in N. American, the most expensive alcohol in N. America, half our hydro bill going into general revenue, half our car insurance going into general revenue, the highest child poverty rates in Canada, the highest homeless rates in Canada, the most expensive housing in N. America (3rd in the world), the lowest minimum wage in Canada and an economy supported by and dependent on China.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    19. Re: Salary Discrepancy by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Mostly true, as much due to Harper knowing the Canadian people generally wouldn't put up with that BS.
      I live next to a bible belt and the fuckers try their hardest to do all the same things as the American Evangelicals. Such a hateful group of people, who'd be the first ones in line to crucify Christ if he came back.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    20. Re: Salary Discrepancy by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      It's a dishonest comparison. That isn't even close to comparison to act like that makes some of the US like the Issis controlled territories.

      There are allot of similarities to democrats and the nazi party but it doesn't mean that is an honest comparison.

      Issis is imposing their beliefs allot differently than US Christians are. Christians are not cutting off the heads of non-Christians

    21. Re: Salary Discrepancy by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      Where you can pee? If that is the worst suffering you go through for being transgender, then that just shows the US people are pretty tolerant.

      Most US people are very tolerant. It's the batshit crazy Evangelicals who are bigoted. And hey, why don't you try going to the "opposite" restroom for the next couple of months and see how you fare?

      I imagine I'd be arrested.

      It doesn't matter that it's legal.

      Yes, it does. It's perfectly fine to oppose abortion and even to agitate to make it illegal. It's not perfectly fine to subvert the law with restrictive regulations. That's doing an end-run around democracy because it doesn't involve the political process.

      We do this with everythng. And the people doing it clearly campained in the elections they would be doing that

    22. Re: Salary Discrepancy by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Um, I'm not sure the OP was saying anything negative about legalizing marijuana, he was clearly calling out policies allowing Muslim immigration as being "suicidal". The two aren't the same. Heck I know a bunch of somewhat right-wing people here in the US who are all in favor of legalizing weed, but are also all in favor of banning all immigration by Muslims. (They'd even like to have a Canadian-style healthcare system too.)

      Being anti-drug-war does not necessarily equate with being open-borders.

    23. Re: Salary Discrepancy by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      If we go the route of allowing people to use whatever restroom they want based on what sex they feel like they are that day, we might as well just make all bathrooms unisex.

      And what's wrong with that? There's plenty of places in western Europe like that.

    24. Re: Salary Discrepancy by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      While it's true that Islam is currently a rather backwards and violent religion, Christianity did the same stuff back in the middle ages. And back then, Islamic society was actually rather progressive by comparison. I guess back then, Islamic society had become a lot like much of Christian society today: people followed a watered-down version of the religion, mostly to keep up appearances and to hear some nice-sounding inspirational stuff on sundays (or whatever day they worship on). But then the fundies took over and things went straight down the shitter.

      It'd be all too easy for the exact same thing to happen again with Christianity. It happened before, both with Islam and also with Christianity (again, see the middle ages), and Judaism has its own similar sects. This is the danger with these religions.

    25. Re: Salary Discrepancy by dskoll · · Score: 1

      We do this [subverting the law with restrictive regulations] with everythng. And the people doing it clearly campained in the elections they would be doing that

      In a democratic society, you cannot take away people's civil rights even if you have a popular mandate. Abortion is legal in the United States; this was decided by the Supreme Court. The Court decided in a 7-2 vote that women have a Constitutional right to privacy when deciding to terminate their pregnancies. Removing this right (a constitutional right, as decided by the court) through regulations is simply undermining the democratic process.

      If you still don't see that, imagine if it were left-wing lawmakers applying restrictive regulations to guns and ammunition and see how many people would cry foul. Well, it's the same principle.

  21. Let 'em go. by cshark · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You're not going to get very many good workers that don't like Trump.
    It's been my observation that those who work hardest, and have the most skill either don't care about politics at all, or they like Trump.

    Trump has consistently come out on our side, on this one. He doesn't like the fact that wages are being artificially lowered in high skilled professions. He wants American workers to have first priority of any job, and for the H1b Program to be revised so that it's no longer abused by billionaires. Also, he has a softer stance on intellectual property restrictions than Obama (or any democrat for that matter) does, which is important to both open source and freedom of speech. He did come out on the wrong side of the encryption debate, but in his defence... it's a complicated topic.

    He's also called for less fraud, waste, and abuse in government, which means more and better software for the plebs like us that write the stuff. And that means more work. The wall he's proposing is also employment positive for programmers, nerds, and IT, as is Keystone XL, which he's in favor of.

    I understand the populist Left, but they have yet to propose anything that benefits me as a common programmer and knowledge worker personally. Trump has proposed a dozen unrelated things that do. And I think the overwhelming majority of the tech community is smart enough to see that.

    With the industry the way it exists today, my honest feeling is that less domestic competition from people who would rather go to Canada, than stick it out is a good thing. So I encourage all far Left liberal tech workers to at least take offers like this seriously, and consider them. But the way I see it, our professional world gets better if someone with a billionaire’s mindset is running the economy. Not worse.

    --

    This signature has Super Cow Powers

    1. Re:Let 'em go. by afgam28 · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're lost deep inside a social bubble if you truly think that "the overwhelming majority of the tech community" is behind Trump.

    2. Re:Let 'em go. by dskoll · · Score: 1

      "someone with a billionaire’s mindset"

      Trump is actually a really shitty business man who happened to get lucky with one of his ventures. You already knew that. But John Oliver summarizes it nicely..

    3. Re:Let 'em go. by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Considering the number of people that I know in tech that are behind him, especially the number who are now for him because he's wanting to gut H1B's...you'd be surprised. How many of your friends have had their jobs outsourced inside the US by imported foreign workers.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    4. Re:Let 'em go. by cshark · · Score: 2, Insightful

      See, this is the problem with people on the authoritarian Left. At no point did I ever say that you were defective for having a view I disagree with. And yet, you refuse to offer me the same courtesy. You assume that your view is the absolute correct one, and that anyone who disagrees with you is either defective mentally, evil, or some other arbitrary defective thing you can think of. It's straight out of the handbook, which, incidentally, I've read. But it isn't have you have an honest conversation, friend. There can be no meaningful discussion if we can't agree that we're equals.

      Take care.
      And good luck.

      --

      This signature has Super Cow Powers

    5. Re:Let 'em go. by cshark · · Score: 0

      Really shitty business man? With a success rate over 99%?
      Well, I suppose you're entitled to an opinion, friend.

      --

      This signature has Super Cow Powers

    6. Re:Let 'em go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stefan Molyneux did a great tear down of the John Oliver piece, if anyone's interested.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    7. Re:Let 'em go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really shitty business man? With a success rate over 99%?
      Well, I suppose you're entitled to an opinion, friend.

      Do please tell us what a "99% success rate" is based on?

      Is that including Trump Air, Trump Magazine, Trump University, and the four bankruptcies:
      Trump Taj Mahal, 1991, Trump Castle Associates, 1992,Trump Hotel & Casino Resorts, 2004, Trump Entertainment Resorts, 2009 ?

    8. Re:Let 'em go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But the most amazing thing is that people take him seriously. He comes access as obviously an obnoxious, racist, narcissistic bigot.
      But never forget that he's a reality TV star.

      How much money has he actually spent on campaigning? All he has to do is open his mouth and utter a suggestion that is completely unconstitutional, and he gets free media attention for the next week.

      Nobody know what his real values are, apart from seizing fame, wealth and power for himself.

    9. Re:Let 'em go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I am considering Trump for the very reasons you have stated.

      Hillary looks like more of the same of the past 20 years.

      Sanders looks like 'lets tax everyone back to the stone age' something something social and everyone gets money. Leaving out how people will get jobs to sustain getting more money.

      Cruz just looks like the anti Hillary but is basically more of the same as the past 20 years.

      Trump is the only wild card. I am fairly convinced most of what he is saying is a lie. But I am unsure of how much. He is the only one saying "Here is how I am going to get you jobs".

      Outside of the bubble California the landscape is bleak. Those inside that bubble do not want to admit it and simply devolve to making fun of us. Here is a hint paying 2500 a month for a 2 bedroom apartment is not sane. Where I currently live I can buy a 4000-5000 sqft house on a decent spot of property for that.

      The Republicans actually had a fairly decent field this time. The Democrats basically crowned Hillary and that was that. There should have been more choice instead of autocratic dictation with a rigged vote to insure it. Trump is looking like the reasonable one jousting the system. That is what I find scary about him.

    10. Re:Let 'em go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stefan Molyneux did a great tear down of the John Oliver piece

      I made it through about twenty minutes of that. When does Molyneux get to the 'great tear down' part? All I saw was stuff for feeding confirmation biases.

    11. Re:Let 'em go. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Really shitty business man? With a success rate over 99%?

      If Donald Trump had taken the million dollars he was give by his father and just invested it in a S&P index fund, he'd be worth $10,000,000,000 more than he is right now. Yes, when you're business has underperformed the stock market over a 30 year period by that much, you are a shitty business man.

      http://www.moneytalksnews.com/...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    12. Re:Let 'em go. by quantaman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're not going to get very many good workers that don't like Trump.
      It's been my observation that those who work hardest, and have the most skill either don't care about politics at all, or they like Trump.

      I disagree strongly, in fact from what I've seen the most fervent supporters of Trump are the people who haven't had the professional success they expect and are looking for somewhere to put the blame.

      Also, he has a softer stance on intellectual property restrictions than Obama (or any democrat for that matter) does, which is important to both open source and freedom of speech. He did come out on the wrong side of the encryption debate, but in his defence... it's a complicated topic.

      Trump is pushing some kind of authoritarian nationalism, he's repeatedly talked about changing liable laws so he could sue people who criticize him and threatening the media. He'd be a disaster for free speech.

      He's also called for less fraud, waste, and abuse in government, which means more and better software for the plebs like us that write the stuff. And that means more work.

      He built his career off of crony capitalism, why do you suddenly expect him to clean up the system that kept him rich?

      The wall he's proposing is also employment positive for programmers, nerds, and IT, as is Keystone XL, which he's in favor of.

      Ehhhh, that's some very dubious reasoning. You claim any big project is a boon for programmers through secondary benefits, yet when it comes to cheap labour coming in and injecting extra wealth into the economy it's suddenly a disaster.

      I understand the populist Left, but they have yet to propose anything that benefits me as a common programmer and knowledge worker personally. Trump has proposed a dozen unrelated things that do. And I think the overwhelming majority of the tech community is smart enough to see that.

      With the industry the way it exists today, my honest feeling is that less domestic competition from people who would rather go to Canada, than stick it out is a good thing.

      For someone criticizing the populist left you have a remarkably populist anti-capitalist understanding of economics.

      The standard understanding is that more workers, more competition, means more wealth in general. There can be some specific losers when you open markets, in this case it might be American programmers. But for the US as a whole it's a benefit.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    13. Re:Let 'em go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He wants American workers to have first priority of any job

      Trump the politician likes to say things like that, but Trump the businessman systematically hired foreigners over Americans for his high-end luxury resort in South Florida. That's where he put his money, not his mouth. We're talking about hundreds of jobs here, and now he claims that Americans wouldn't have wanted seasonal jobs! Did he ask them? We know he didn't, because Americans have been complaining about it.

      You Trump supporters let this guy talk his way out of these things too easily. He's about himself, Donald J Trump, and nobody else. Period. Not about you. Not about blue collar workers and lower middle class workers trying to better themselves. Go look at his business record.

      He's also called for less fraud, waste, and abuse in government

      Wow, that makes Trump only the 21,458,332th US politician to come out with that position! What courage that must have required.

    14. Re:Let 'em go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The standard understanding is that more workers, more competition, means more wealth in general. There can be some specific losers when you open markets, in this case it might be American programmers. But for the US as a whole it's a benefit.

      Actually, all we can say is that it's a benefit for the world as a whole. It's quite possible for the US to be the specific loser, especially if money leaves the country in the form of remittances, with no goods or services received in exchange.

    15. Re:Let 'em go. by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      See, this is the problem with people on the authoritarian Left. At no point did I ever say that you were defective for having a view I disagree with.

      At no point did he say or imply that you said or implied that. What he said was that you are in a bubble if you believe the overwhelming majority of the tech community is behind Trump. And I will absolutely join him in challenging your assertion. Most techies -- like most people generally -- are not behind Trump. Forgetting personality issues for a moment, that's no surprise just because there are 4 realistic candidates (I know most people think it's Trump vs. Clinton, but Cruz and Sanders aren't completely irrelevant yet...Kasich basically is). Furthermore, the major tech job geographies are in left-leaning regions.

      I admit I was surprised at how high Trump support was in an survey of tech workers I read recently, but it was lower than the general population. No, I don't have a cite handy, but then, neither do you.

      This said, you did in fact open with a statement that people in tech who support a politician other than trump were defective, that defect being "don't work very hard".

      You assume that your view is the absolute correct one, and that anyone who disagrees with you is either defective mentally, evil, or some other arbitrary defective thing you can think of.

      I don't quite know what to say other than this is exactly what you're doing. You identified him as being in the "authoritarian Left", attributed a whole bunch of random viewpoints to him, on the basis that he disagrees with your assertion. He could himself be a Trump supporter, just one that's a bit more realistic about Trump's support within the tech community.

      There can be no meaningful discussion if we can't agree that we're equals.

      Then maybe don't open by saying all your opponents don't work very hard? And then when somebody challenges your boldest and least supported assertion, don't call them authoritarians that are incapable of honest conversation?

    16. Re:Let 'em go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Success in business isn't measured in "success rates". It's measured in profit, p/e ratios, stock price, dividends, etc., as compared to the market at large -- look at the terms Wall Street investors use, because their business is evaluating other businesses' success. If we're going by success rate I am certainly more successful than Donald Trump, and so are many others (who in fact have less money than he does). Because I've had a 100% success rate.

      In particular, you aren't 99% successful if you start 400 businesses and 4 go bankrupt. With just that data, it's not possible to properly evaluate successfulness.

      The fact is, we do not have sufficient date to evaluate Trump's success. Much noise has been made about how Trump hasn't really outperformed index funds -- and depending on what Trump's actual current net worth is, and how much of the original money was his, he might have significantly lost against it or he might have performed at market. That's at least evidence that he's not particularly amazing (neither amazingly good nor amazingly bad) in the long run at business.

    17. Re:Let 'em go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the skilled, hard-working ones you mentioned? None of them have been replaced by H1B's, because they're valuable. The ones being replaced are the generally the code monkeys (not that there's anything wrong with that, they're still more skilled than like 80% of the general population).

      The tech community may be against H1Bs, but not enough to support Trump. They're smarter than that. The strongest "single issue" voters among techies are not anti-H1B, they're pro-privacy, anti-NSA, pro-free-speech, etc, and are thus all over Bernie Sanders as the only person who voted against the Patriot Act.

    18. Re:Let 'em go. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He's also called for less fraud, waste, and abuse in government,

      You believe that? I mean sure it's a lovely platitude because who isn't against fraud, waste and abuse? The thing is though it's an incredibly difficult, nuanced problem to deal with and without actually a real, firm, detailed plan on how to begin tackling it, such a platitude is not worth the air it's exhaled in.

      The government it large, very large. This is inevitable and also not fixable because the country is large. Sure it can grow and shrink, but it is always going to be big. Big organisations have waste, or at least the appearance of waste. Anyone who's dealt with a large company, especially as a small contractor where you get the unpolished view into the guts of legal and purchasing, not the carefully curated customer service view will know that.

      They are wildly, horrifyingly, insanely inefficient. Anyone who thinks otherwise has frankly had little to to with large companies, and anyone who thinks the governent should be better than that might as well wish for unicorns.

      The thing is waste is not just present and inevitable, it's necessary, because redundancy is by definition waste. Small companies can be frighteningly efficient, no doubt. The thing is, that's indicidual ones, not en masse. En masse, small companies aren't efficient because small companies also go out of business ALL the time. The redundancy is having many of them, but if you look at one, you'll miss that. The reason individual one can be efficient is they lack redundancy and so there is no slack. If something bad happens, then they fail.

      Big companies and even more so the government simply cannot afford that.

      You *cannot* have key employees, because they will die. The governemnt is older than any human. Notonly that, you know those horrifyingly rare 1 in a million cancers? Well, that happens to someone in government on average several times per year. People do get run over by busses, die in freak accidents, never mind get old, retire, change jobs, move all the time when you're a large organisation.

      If you have no waste (redundancy) then the organisation will collapse after a 4 hours when the first person cops it.

      Secondly, a small company, or a small tech department in a big company can affor to hire the bst 0.1%. However 0.1% of the entire US population is less than the size of the governement and many large companies. They cannot hire only the best of the best because frankly those people don't exist.

      And then there's the coupling or anticoupling of fraud and waste. Time was Joe Civil Servant could give the contract to his nephew with no oversight and make a nice little packet on the side. Naturally everyone thought this was a bad idea. The huge, insane bidding processes that exclude small efficient companies are set up precisely because of those problems. What is not clear is how you can allow in small companies which can't do rigorous auditing (because they don't have a full timeaccountant let alone department and besiade that is expensive and therefore wasteful) and can't go through massive hoops to "provably" prevent fraud, while being able to get contracts. In other words how can you remove the burdensome oversight without removing the oversight?

      That's a tiny set of why platitudes of "reducing waste etc" are mindlessly stupid without somethig to back them up. Any fool can claim waste is bad (no shit!), but said fool can't actually do anything about it.

      And no, just slashing budgets does not work, because all the same mechanisms are still in place.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    19. Re:Let 'em go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump's business strategy is essentially to maximize personal profit while tanking corporations, taking advantage of bankruptcy laws and corporate shields. To me that doesn't seem a viable way to run a country.

    20. Re:Let 'em go. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Trump can't win, even if he gets the GOP nomination. Even if he somehow did, do you really think he will reverse the habits of a lifetime?

      It's the standard politics of desperation and bribery. Promises he has no intention of keeping, and tax cuts for the rich that people support because they think they will be rich one day and anyway all that money trickles down, right? I mean, it's not like they are hiding it off-shore, they are spending it in American, right?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    21. Re:Let 'em go. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It's a classic feedback loop. People associate with people like themselves. They network with people like themselves on social media, and by reading web sites with political leanings similar to their own. Google and Facebook start to realize they are a Trump supporter and ranks pro-Trump results/adverts higher. This leads them to the false assumption that most people share their views.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    22. Re:Let 'em go. by cshark · · Score: 0

      At no point did he say or imply that you said or implied that. What he said was that you are in a bubble if you believe the overwhelming majority of the tech community is behind Trump. And I will absolutely join him in challenging your assertion. Most techies -- like most people generally -- are not behind Trump. .

      That's subjective. Like I keep saying. Tell me who "most people" are, and I might have some basis for agreeing or disagreeing with either of you.

      I believe strongly that you're entitled to an opinion, even if I disagree with it. That's the key difference here. If you agreed with me on this, there would be no thread here. I'm what you might call classical liberal in approach, rather than authoritarian. For some reading, I urge you to pick up a copy of Rules for Radicals, by Saul Alinsky. That's the approach I'm commenting on. It's a formal method, not something casual that you just do. And it's designed to shut down debate.

      I don't quite know what to say other than this is exactly what you're doing. You identified him as being in the "Authoritarian Left", attributed a whole bunch of random viewpoints to him, on the basis that he disagrees with your assertion. He could himself be a Trump supporter, just one that's a bit more realistic about Trump's support within the tech community.

      I don't really care if he's a Trump supporter or not. I'm speaking from a standpoint of personal observation. I think that's the part you're missing. Why are your observations, or his more viable than mine? I'll tell you why. Because you don't agree with them. Therefore, in order to justify why I have a different outlook than you do, and it's clearly stated as an outlook, you must assume there's something wrong with me. I'm socially isolated, in this case. Perhaps I'm "uneducated," or any number of other things you could come up with to delegitimize me, rather than attempting to have a conversation based on my views. This is common fare, and it's droll. Thoroughly uninteresting at this point. Don't pretend you haven't read the book.

      Then maybe don't open by saying all your opponents don't work very hard? And then when somebody challenges your boldest and least supported assertion, don't call them authoritarians that are incapable of honest conversation?

      Modern Liberals working hard at anything, has not been my experience. It's a philosophy that's deleterious to productivity, in my assessment and observation. This is not a personal critique of anyone here.

      I'm going to call them authoritarians when they behave like authoritarians. And you don't have to like that.

      --

      This signature has Super Cow Powers

    23. Re:Let 'em go. by cshark · · Score: 1

      Thank you for giving me something thoughtful to respond to.
      I really appreciate it.

      You're not entirely wrong. The government itself, functionally, is one of the biggest corporations in history. When anything gets this big, it's like trying to stop a moving train when you refactor something. No doubt about it. We're lucky that it's as compartmentalized as it is.

      But I think there are a lot of specific cases that taxpayers, in general have some serious issues with. Take for example cases of waste, such as the hundred thousand dollar toilet seat that's strictly designed to conform to ISO 17966:2016, with the best quality control standards on earth. There's no reason that has to exist.

      Then there's cases of waste, which you correctly pointed out overlaps with both fraud and abuse. Such as, you might remember the bill that was floated in the 90's to give the feds bulk buying power to medicare and medicaid for prescription drugs (which would save the taxpayers about 11 billion dollars at today's numbers). The one that the insurance companies and various other special interests spent a fortune to defeat in Congress. I remember the commercials on television vividly. And sure, they were successful, but it's still a problem.

      In the abuse category, there's the nepotism of "no bid" contracts going to donors, which have been pervasive since the Bush Administration. Conservatives like to talk about Solyndra. Liberals like to talk about BlackWater, both are problematic for the same reason.

      I don't see why it's necessary to audit small companies that big on government contracts for fraud when there's already a system in place to do that. It's a pain in the ass, but you think of it as a necessary evil when you do government work. At least on the business level. Why not audit Congress? Audit every bill, and every amendment. This wouldn't be the first time that there was an organized effort to get rid of pork. The line item veto wasn't a bad idea. It's just a shame that the Supreme Court found that it was illegal.

      And you're right. No one man can change all of it, especially with the system of checks and balances that are in place. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't lead the charge, try to refactor the thing. Every sufficiently large codebase gets reworked or replaced eventually.

      --

      This signature has Super Cow Powers

    24. Re:Let 'em go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol. Like Sanders or Clinton are any better? Keep dreaming, buddy.

    25. Re:Let 'em go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...especially if money leaves the country in the form of remittances, with no goods or services received in exchange."

      This is silly. Your concern seems to be about some underlying material basis of wealth being transferred from place to place. That would be emigration. Human labor is the basis of currency - the less people working or the more people doing less valuable labor, the less value the currency has.

      So when H1B workers come here and create value, they are increasing the value of the dollar. If there are more and more limits placed on people - H1B or not - to be able to work and create wealth here via their effort and labor, our currencies value will eventually decrease. Unless of course less is printed.

    26. Re:Let 'em go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump took 1 million and made it into a billion. Regardless of his business acumen he's much richer than you.

      What have you done exactly?

    27. Re:Let 'em go. by houghi · · Score: 3, Informative

      And if he would have invested in Enron, it would have all been gone and he would have had nothing.

      Also you assume he would not have touched the money at all. I a; sure that he had some expenses along the way. So no interest on interest. No food. No clothes, no food, no money for a hairdresser, nothing.

      I am absolutely not a Trump fan (and even if I were, I can't vote for him) and I agree he is not the great businessman he thinks he is, but there is no reason to make up numbers that are not realistic.

      If you do the calculations correct, it might still be that he is below average and that with correct numbers.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    28. Re:Let 'em go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A > B is not subjective. The fact you can't support your claim doesn't magically make it subjective, it just highlights you might be slightly out of your depth.

    29. Re:Let 'em go. by dskoll · · Score: 1

      I haven't made a billion, it's true, but I took much less than a million and turned it into a nicely-profitable software company with 12 employees and annual sales in the millions.

    30. Re:Let 'em go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take for example cases of waste, such as the hundred thousand dollar toilet seat that's strictly designed to conform to ISO 17966:2016, with the best quality control standards on earth. There's no reason that has to exist.

      That's partly a result of accounting. It's not actually an expensive toilet seat, it's a cheap toilet seat and a bunch of stuff billed to the same account.

      That's also partly this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R9kH_HOUXM

    31. Re:Let 'em go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Building massive hotels vs playing on the stock market...

      The first takes an business man the other luck.

    32. Re:Let 'em go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not quite right on the "small companies" part of contract bidding. Well, you are right that they cannot compete. As a consequence, government contract bidding includes a ton of provisions to use small business in many ways: for a construction contract, the big company running the show may agree to purchase parts or materials from smaller (often minority or woman-owned, sometimes both) companies even if those components are more expensive. A labor contract may include several subcontracting companies that actually employee the people: government gives massive company X a contract to provide 1000 workers (DoD applications, for example). Only 100 of those 1000 will work directly for X but they will manage all 1000 in some way, perhaps doing the audits and whatnot. The other 900 are divided among small companies A-F. Benefits and rules are standardized among X,A-F, etc. so that from a worker perspective, it doesn't matter who works for whom. But the government can help out a small business owner and check a few diversity boxes.

    33. Re:Let 'em go. by avandesande · · Score: 1, Informative

      This little nugget is false, but people love to repeat it. If it weren't for people like Trump there would be no S&P.

      http://www.bloombergview.com/a...

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    34. Re:Let 'em go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's ok, Stefan Molyneux is an idiot of epic proportions.

    35. Re:Let 'em go. by ljw1004 · · Score: 2

      It's been my observation that those who work hardest, and have the most skill either don't care about politics at all, or they like Trump.

      When I'm around selfish Trump supporters, I clam up because it's not the kind of conversation I'd have with work colleagues. (at least I would in Europe, just not here in the US). I wonder if that's why you've encountered colleagues who seem to "not care about politics"? Actually, I'm also pretty much silent when with anyone from the intolerant extremes, left or right, because the likelihood of fruitful discussion is so low and the likelihood of vexation is so high.

      I understand the populist Left, but they have yet to propose anything that benefits me as a common programmer and knowledge worker personally.

      You know what -- who cares about you? I'm a programmer too, doing very well myself, and I'm going to vote for the candidate who helps those worse off than me, even at my personal expense, because they're the ones who need the help. You could put down your Ayn Rand and think about doing the same!

    36. Re:Let 'em go. by dontbemad · · Score: 1

      If Donald Trump had taken the million dollars he was give by his father and just invested it in a S&P index fund, he'd be worth $10,000,000,000 more than he is right now.

      Why is kind of sentiment always modded up? If any person on the planet had insider knowledge about the performance of the stock market for the next 30 years, they could become wildly rich as well.
      You realize that your point is essentially saying "if Trump were a mind-reader, he'd be better off!"
      No shit.

    37. Re:Let 'em go. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Why is kind of sentiment always modded up? If any person on the planet had insider knowledge about the performance of the stock market for the next 30 years, they could become wildly rich as well.

      It doesn't take "insider knowledge" to know that even with the Great Depression, the stock market has steadily appreciated over it's entire life.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    38. Re:Let 'em go. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      If it weren't for people like Trump there would be no S&P.

      Trump's company isn't traded on the S&P.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    39. Re:Let 'em go. by butchersong · · Score: 1
      That is like saying a politician that wants to close tax loopholes is being disingenuous because they take advantage of them every year in their tax returns. It makes perfect sense that Trump as a business man might choose to hire foreign workers for a position but as a public policy, believe that American's should be given priority over H1Bs.

      Take me for example. I have a small farm but am against almost all farm subsidies. There is no contradiction there -of course I take advantage of them while they are around. It would be foolish not to.

    40. Re:Let 'em go. by avandesande · · Score: 1

      All of the companies on S&P were started at some time by businessmen with capital an idea. Or are you just dense?

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    41. Re:Let 'em go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not the one you replied too, but I don't understand what you're trying to say.

      PopeRatzo says his returns have been less than the overall market. You're saying that investing in a single stock (like Enron) is gambling. Sure, but that's not really relevant.

      Also, sure he had expenses. But sticking the money in an index fund is hardly time consuming -- he could have held a normal job instead, which would cover his expenses (hairdresser, clothes, food) so he wouldn't have to withdraw the money. That is a perfectly valid scenario. Even if he took some expenses out, as long as they were substantially less than the returns, it doesn't change the math all that much.

    42. Re:Let 'em go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can bet $100 you like Bernie Sanders.

      >... from what I've seen the most fervent supporters of Trump are the people who haven't had the professional success they expect and are looking for somewhere to put the blame.
      lol nope.

      What I've seen is that his supporters, just like OP, want the law to be enforced. Illegal immigrants are actually illegally in the country but it's no longer right to even call them out on it? Come on...

      >He'd be a disaster for free speech.
      Because you think so? Ok then...

      >... yet when it comes to cheap labour coming in and injecting extra wealth into the economy it's suddenly a disaster.
      You seem to forget also all those extra expenses that the illegal immigrants you so conveniently refer to only as "cheap labour" put on the system. And come on, hit me with that "net immigration is negative" stat that only takes into account LEGAL immigration.

      My wife is an elementary school teacher. Out of her 22 students, a whooping 18 are illegally in the country. If you think building schools, hiring teachers and feeding those kids doesn't cost money then you're deluded. Oh yeah, the school does feed those kids btw.

      There are quite a few other examples of expenses and lets not talk about the fact that illegal immigrants send a good chunk of their earnings back to their country of origin so that's money that leaves the US economy.

    43. Re:Let 'em go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [I'm not one of the other posters.]

      What he said was that you are in a bubble if you believe the overwhelming majority of the tech community is behind Trump. And I will absolutely join him in challenging your assertion. Most techies -- like most people generally -- are not behind Trump.

      That's subjective. Like I keep saying. Tell me who "most people" are, and I might have some basis for agreeing or disagreeing with either of you.

      I haven't seen any relevant polling of "techies", but the analysis of "most people" is straightforward. We have a little bit of reliable polling (and some unreliable as well), we have the election results of Republican primaries and caucuses which have been held up to this point, and we have a general understanding of US political demographics.

      Registered Republicans make up less than a third of the voting public; when including independent "leaners" and voter surveys from states which do not associate a party affiliation with voter registration, we get up to around 40% of the voting public being effectively Republican. Donald Trump has so far gotten about 35% of the primary and caucus vote. I'll ignore the non-voting public and the negligible portion of the primary/caucus voters who have engaged in strategic voting (some of whom cancel each other out with respect to Trump). 35% of 40% is 15% (rounding up) or about 1/6th of the voting population (rounding in favor of your perception of Trump's support).

      If we can agree, at least generally, with the preceding arithmetic, then we have next to consider the larger portion of the population that votes in the actual election (turn out is still low, but higher than it is for primaries/caucuses). While it's reasonable to assume that Republicans and Republican-leaning independents voting in the general election would prefer to vote for Trump over Hilary or Bernie, we should not confuse that with actual support; at best we can extrapolate the primary/caucus numbers of 35% to the larger set of general election voters who are effectively Republican. I hope we can also agree that even if Bernie loses to Hilary, few Democrats are going to vote for Trump - that almost seems self-evident to me and pretty much every political analyst, (Susan Sarandon is no bellwether). At best (for Trump, or any Republican), some of Bernie's supporters might stay home instead of voting for Hilary. Let's say, just to favor your perception of Trump's overall support, that the roughly 20% of independents who are not "leaners" all vote for Trump - that would give him 35% support. He'd have to mobilize a huge (YUUUGE!) mob of pissed-off (mostly) white (mostly) male (mostly) authoritarian non-voters to make up the gap. So, it should be fairly easy to see who "most people" are: the other 65%, less a few pissed-off non-voters to spur cable TV news discussions on Super Wednesday (assuming Trump even gets the Republican nomination). And most of my estimates have been skewed slightly (by rounding) or greatly (all true independents), so that 65% result seems quite solid to me, and more likely quite low.

      - T

    44. Re:Let 'em go. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      All of the companies on S&P were started at some time by businessmen with capital an idea.

      None of whom were named, "Donald Trump".

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    45. Re:Let 'em go. by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Did I claim Trump was in S&P 500 ? I under stand perfectly the capitalization size of dow and s&p corporations. What is your point, other than appearing ignorant.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    46. Re:Let 'em go. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Maybe, but what are they going to do if the general election comes down to Hillary vs. Trump? Hillary is anti-privacy, pro-NSA, and anti-free-speech (and pro-H1B to boot).

      That's why I plan to vote for Trump if the election goes that way and Bernie isn't on the ballot.

    47. Re:Let 'em go. by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      No clothes, no food, no money for a hairdresser, nothing.

      Donald Trump does not pay for a hairdresser. The Hair is an independent, self-regulating entity. I wouldn't try to cut it, if I were you. It wouldn't like that.

    48. Re:Let 'em go. by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      I know a number of Trump supporters, people that actually call themself a supporter. They're sick of both parties and the political correctness BS. Need to dial people back. Not take offense to take offense.

      I'd love it if someone would create an "other" party tomorrow. Complete from the President all the way down to local school boards. Sick of R and D? Vote for O! Vote 'em all out!

      Of course that may simply mean that we have a whole new set of people to steal from us and they start from nothing.

    49. Re:Let 'em go. by ArylAkamov · · Score: 1

      The part that always gets to me is that they seem to be upset that instead of playing the stock market he employs 22,450 people.

      I thought it was a good thing when people created jobs?

    50. Re:Let 'em go. by quantaman · · Score: 1

      I can bet $100 you like Bernie Sanders.

      Then you'd lose $100. If I were an American I'd vote for Hillary Clinton, she's flawed but I prefer a moderate in any election and she's by far the most competent of the lot.

      >... from what I've seen the most fervent supporters of Trump are the people who haven't had the professional success they expect and are looking for somewhere to put the blame.
      lol nope.

      What I've seen is that his supporters, just like OP, want the law to be enforced. Illegal immigrants are actually illegally in the country but it's no longer right to even call them out on it? Come on...

      It's a problem but his solution ranges from a police state (you can't deport the volume he wants to move without one) and fantasy (Mexico would never pay for a wall). Besides, the discussion was about HB-1s.

      >He'd be a disaster for free speech.
      Because you think so? Ok then...

      No, because of the exact reasons I stated.

      >... yet when it comes to cheap labour coming in and injecting extra wealth into the economy it's suddenly a disaster.
      You seem to forget also all those extra expenses that the illegal immigrants you so conveniently refer to only as "cheap labour" put on the system. And come on, hit me with that "net immigration is negative" stat that only takes into account LEGAL immigration.

      My wife is an elementary school teacher. Out of her 22 students, a whooping 18 are illegally in the country. If you think building schools, hiring teachers and feeding those kids doesn't cost money then you're deluded. Oh yeah, the school does feed those kids btw.

      There are quite a few other examples of expenses and lets not talk about the fact that illegal immigrants send a good chunk of their earnings back to their country of origin so that's money that leaves the US economy.

      Keep those goalposts in place. This discussion was about HB-1s who are legal and do pay taxes.

      I agree stuff should be done to reduce illegal immigration, but what Trump suggests is massive overkill.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    51. Re:Let 'em go. by quantaman · · Score: 1

      I know a number of Trump supporters, people that actually call themself a supporter. They're sick of both parties and the political correctness BS. Need to dial people back. Not take offense to take offense.

      I'd love it if someone would create an "other" party tomorrow. Complete from the President all the way down to local school boards. Sick of R and D? Vote for O! Vote 'em all out!

      Of course that may simply mean that we have a whole new set of people to steal from us and they start from nothing.

      Sorry but I find this whole anti-PC nonsense to be completely hypocritical. Trump is notoriously thin-skinned, he's constantly complaining about the media and saying he's going to sue people for criticizing him. Somehow the freedom to offend only applies to Trump and never his opponents.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    52. Re:Let 'em go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice non-answer there. Seriously, you give a context free ratio 99% and label it as a "success rate". We can go out and look up the numbers and do the division if you just tell us what thing we're dividing by what other thing?

    53. Re:Let 'em go. by cshark · · Score: 1

      What I want to know is when Slashdot got so loaded with fascists that comments like this became toxic. Really is a sad state of affairs on Slashdot when things are being moderated this way. "Hey remember all that lofty shit we said about free speech on the internet? Just kidding. Fuck you."

      My original point, even though I never followed it through was this: If you're someone who is willing to leave your country at the first sign of a political movement you don't like coming to power, one that doesn't even have much chance of making any real change to begin with... how good can you possibly be at something like writing code, or maintaining systems? I mean, honestly. What's it going to take to get you to change careers, if you're willing to change countries over something as slight as who is President? Not much, probably. Success in any field of endeavor requires persistence and dedication.

      Anyway, let's address this:

      Registered Republicans make up less than a third of the voting public; when including independent "leaners" and voter surveys from states which do not associate a party affiliation with voter registration, we get up to around 40% of the voting public being effectively Republican.

      That's simply untrue. There are numerous polls that show that there are more conservatives in America than Liberals. Even among the non-white voters that everyone keeps talking about this cycle. But the numbers are closer than you might imagine. The 10% margin you speak of simply doesn't exist. Even Gallup has the numbers statistically tied in 2015, which is interesting. But the math is a lot more complicated than all that, with so many other things in play.

      And if you compare wins to losses in most every state where both Democrats and Republicans have played, Trump is beating clinton. Arizona for example. Where Trump's 249,916 beat Clinton's 235,697, Missouri where Trump statistically tied with Cruz at 382,093, but beat Clinton who could only pull together 310,602 votes. This is even true in states that Trump lost in. Overall turnout for the Republicans this year in general is higher than turnout for Democrats nationwide, and it's even something our friends in the media noticed.

      So, no, it's not clear that Trump is only appealing to white voters, because the facts on the ground are simply not reflecting that (sorry media guys). And it's further unclear that Clinton can rally enough of her base enthusiasm in the event of a Trump nomination to beat him, if he he is the nominee.

      --

      This signature has Super Cow Powers

    54. Re:Let 'em go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [typos corrected]

      Really shitty business man? With a success rate over 99%?

      PopeRatzo wrote:

      If Donald Trump had taken the million dollars he was give by his father and just invested it in a S&P index fund, he'd be worth $10,000,000,000 more than he is right now. Yes, when you're business has underperformed the stock market over a 30 year period by that much, you are a shitty business man.

      1968 is the year Donald Trump graduated from the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania.

      A million dollars invested in 1968 into an index fund following the S&P would be worth about $74 million in 2013. Yes, MILLLIONS, not BILLIONS.. Go to the "Historical returns investing calculator" by Chris Kahn at Bankrate :

      http://www.bankrate.com/finance/investing/historical-returns-investing-calculator.aspx

      and enter the figures, with a starting value of $1 million in 1968 and an ending date of 2013 (It only goes to 2013, not 2016, but even so the result in 2016 would be nowhere near the billions) The result is $74,167,654.01. Or, if you are suspicious that you didn't enter the right number of zeroes, enter $1 in 1968, and you get back $74.17 in 2013. The Bankrate calculator notes: "Calculator assumes dividends are invested back into your portfolio. Market value excludes inflation, taxes and/or investment costs. Calculator based on the S&P Composite Stock Price Index compiled by Yale economist Robert Shiller. " (Note that Bankrate itself is a public company on the New York Stock Exchange; read more at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankrate)

      PopeRatzo wrote: Yes, when you're business has underperformed the stock market over a 30 year period by that much, you are a shitty business man.

      So that logic proves that Trump actually IS a great business man because he took that $1 million loan and turned it into at least $4 billion (low estimate) to $10 billion (his claim). If he had literally followed the advice posted above, he would have only made at most $90 million by 2016 without extracting any money from the fund. Living expenses (food, clothing, hair cuts ha ha, university tuition for the kids), capital gains taxes, income tax, property taxes all would have eaten into the sitting pile of money like piranhas on Michael Jackson's decaying flesh.

      And the total amount of money generated from the $1 million investment actually has to be more than $4-10 billion because that is just what Trump gets to keep. Trump keeps only a fraction of the entire revenue his businesses generate; the rest of the money goes to local, state, and federal government taxes, AND all the wages he's paid to other people over the years.

      His businesses have directly employed tens of thousands of people, from "blue collar" to "white collar": concept artists, architects, civil engineers, structural engineers, electrical engineers, IT folks, computer programmers, interior designers, fashion (apparel) designers, electricians, plumbers, stone masons, sculptors, retail marketers, accountants, lawyers, furniture makers, advertisers, photographers, models, and on and on. This kind of "wealth distribution" isn't just giving people a handout, but allows them to follow their own dream careers. And many of his buildings have transformed the neighborhoods in which they were built, increasing the economic activity and further "distributing wealth".

      From "How Donald Trump helped save New York City", by Steve Cuozzo, Feburary 7, 2016 in the New York Post:

      Long before Donald Trump stamped his name in gold on buildings around the world, posted snarky midnight tweets and joined the race of the White House,

    55. Re:Let 'em go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, my post was focused on the specific matter of whether "most people" don't support Trump, which is what you asked to be shown. Unfortunately, in my last paragraph I conflated voting with support, but I think the point still holds.

      What I want to know is when Slashdot got so loaded with fascists that comments like this became toxic. Really is a sad state of affairs on Slashdot when things are being moderated this way

      As a true AC (no account, not just posting AC with an account), I cannot see whatever moderation has drawn your attention. I see your prior comment is at 1 now, but that might just be because you haven't yet earned starting at 2 and it hasn't been moderated at all - I can't tell as a true AC. If you meant moderation of my post, it's still at 0, so unless it dropped to -1 then went back, or went to 3 and then got dropped hard, I'm not sure how moderation is in play.

      Registered Republicans make up less than a third of the voting public; when including independent "leaners" and voter surveys from states which do not associate a party affiliation with voter registration, we get up to around 40% of the voting public being effectively Republican.

      That's simply untrue. There are numerous polls that show that there are more conservatives in America than Liberals.

      "Conservative" is not a synonym for "Republican", and those who self-identify as conservative do not vote solely Republican. If we're focusing on whether "most people" don't support Trump, I'd say the body of primary voting we have so far is a better indicator than polling, including what portion of the US identifies as conservative. Also, the term "conservative" is overly simplistic when it comes to actual voting. Consider, as just one example, that some voters are fiscally conservative, but socially progressive or libertarian (e.g. most social issues are none of the government's business). I have no doubt that some voters who self-identify as liberal support Trump, and some who consider themselves conservative don't. So, we cannot determine lack of support based on what portion of the US is "liberal".

      I checked my memory with stats from Gallup (on party affiliation, not "conservative" vs. "liberal") while writing the post. If you don't trust Gallup, then there are other orgs with similar findings. If you distrust all polls and surveys, then it gets very difficult to have meaningful discourse on who "most people" don't support.

      I'd agree that the statistics around "conservative" and "liberal", and even "Republican" and "Democrat" are complicated, but we're discussing whether "most people" do not support Trump, which simplifies things quite a bit, especially since we have a decent body of primary voting results to examine. The latter part of my post included my own assessment about what level of support Trump might have among Democrats and true independents (excluding leaners). I stand by that assessment, you haven't provided factual counterpoints, and polling (from multiple orgs) about Trump's negatives is generally supportive of my view. While you might try to argue that Trump has an amazingly higher percentage of support among Democrats and true independents than he does for Republicans. Most Republicans don't support Trump, based on primary results, so you'd have to provide some extraordinary evidence to support the extraordinary claim that the imbalance is made up within non-Republican voters, and refute the position that "most people" don't support Trump.

      And if you compare wins to losses in most every state where both Democrats and Republicans have played, Trump is beating clinton.

      No argument there, but that still doesn't refute the contention that "most people" don't support Trump, just that he likely has more earnest supporters than Clinton, which shouldn't be surprising to anyone. My contention was that even if he makes it to the general election and wi

  22. please please please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    please move to canada!
    please!

    Good riddance.

  23. Why do Cartels want Trump dead then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of the most hilarious things is that a lot of Mexican people have been pushing for stronger borders for a long time because it will cut off the cartel's profits which are used to subvert Mexico's politicians and buy off the police.

    Then literally retarding liberals cry foul and try to be offended on the behalf of Mexicans who actually like Trump's plan. One Cartel leader even offered a bounty for Trump's head.

    Seem to me like only evil or stupid people hate Trump...

  24. Won't happen by dskoll · · Score: 1

    Trump's an idiot, but people don't up and move countries unless there's a serious economic reason to do so, or their safety or lives are at risk. And I don't think that'll happen with Trump... at least not for the first four years.

    The Trump ad is a publicity stunt, not anything serious.

    1. Re:Won't happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bernie Sanders is proposing a %65 Capitol gains tax. If he gets elected I will consider moving to Canada so I have a chance of retiring before I hit 110 years old. Not to mention that will destroy the economy in the US.

      I'd say thats a serious economic reason to move.

    2. Re:Won't happen by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      So first, I see the top rate of capital gains tax being only 54%, and that's only on incomes above 10 million dollars.

      If you want to retire before you are 110 years old, you need...about as much money as before. The income difference is nominal -- a 2.2% increase before you hit $250k / year. You can retire on much less than $250k / year in constant 2016 dollars. You don't need 10 million dollars per year to retire before 110 years old. Capital gains are likely only a portion of your income.

      (besides which, the US taxes US citizens on income worldwide, and has an exit tax on people giving up their citizenship...).

    3. Re:Won't happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who has done a bit of this, there are also tax treaties in place between the US and Canada.

      As a Canadian citizen working in the US, Canada tried to tax me the "top up" tax (basically the difference between the higher Canadian taxes vs the US tax rates).

      If the US does the same thing, they wont owe the US anything as the tax rates in Canada are higher.

      They just need to file their annual taxes with the US, and i would imagine only the "Federal" forms which is more an inconvenience

    4. Re:Won't happen by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      First, Bernie is acting like, money belongs to the state, who allows you to keep some of it. Everything after that assumption is irrelevant.

      Second, Capital Gains are only ONE of the many Tax increases Bernie has suggested, to the tune of 18 TRILLION dollars. Yes, Bernie is a socialist/communist disguised as a Democrat, see point #1

      Taxes, all of them, are regressive. The rich can and will avoid them, the poor and middle classes cannot.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  25. Let's consider then by huckamania · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Trump says he will build a wall on our southern border and enforce our immigration laws.
    Trump says he will enforce the H1B program in the way it was intended instead of allowing foreign workers to take American jobs.
    Trump says he will halt immigration of Islamists until we can be sure they are not radicalized.
    Trump says he will allow health insurance companies to compete across state lines and take other measures to make health care affordable.
    Trump says he will renegotiate trade pacts that do not favor the United States.
    Trump says he will reform the VA and ensure our vets get the care they were promised.

    Maybe you can actually post some more things he said about what he is going to do. Those seem to be the main things that I've heard. Not sure what is so scary about any of that.

    This election for me is about the rule of law. Either we are a country where everyone is equal under the law and laws have to be obeyed, or we are not. It's as simple as that. All the talk about Trump being a fascist is way off base. Trump doesn't have a fascist organization behind him. He's got no brown shirts or brigades, it's just the democratic process and some people reckoning that at least he might do some of things he has promised.

    If nothing else, a Trump presidency would shake up the Washington first virus that has infected both parties.

    1. Re:Let's consider then by sparkeyjames · · Score: 0

      If you think a Republican majority congress is going to go along with any of that you had better STOP taking your meds.

    2. Re: Let's consider then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know I'm cherry picking just one but...

      You do realise that he's suggesting banning almost 50% of the world population because he's afraid every single one is radicalised right?

      I mean, if that's the case, he should also ban Christians. Christian radicals are also responsible for raping, pillaging and murdering puerile just trying to get on with their lives too. Just Google "Christian terrorists" - some even say that Christians are responsible for more deaths in US soil than any other religion!

    3. Re:Let's consider then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Trump says he will allow health insurance companies to compete across state lines and take other measures to make health care affordable.

      We can look at that one, because he actually put his health care position on his website - and it's useless. The position document doesn't even mention pre-existing conditions, which is a pretty good indicator that it isn't aimed at any real-world problems.

      'Competing across state lines' won't change much, because health insurance is only a competitive market for large groups and healthy individuals, and they're pretty well-served already.

    4. Re:Let's consider then by SirSlud · · Score: 1, Troll

      Trump says a lot of shit he can't do, doesn't have any experience doing, and can't back up with any even remotely concrete details. Trump says he will make you richer! Trump says he will fix all the roads! Trump says he will ban shitty music from the radio! It's pure unfettered populism.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    5. Re:Let's consider then by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I'm not so sure about that. Party politics is still essential - after all, he may run for a second term if he wins his first.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    6. Re: Let's consider then by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Let's start with the easy stuff. Okay?

      There's a difference from doing bad stuff while belonging to that group and doing bad stuff *for* their religion.

      If you can get past that, you might see he's trying to make some sense. This post should not be misconstrued to mean that I like the guy or will vote for him.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    7. Re:Let's consider then by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      I'm waiting for him to say he will make the trains run on time.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    8. Re:Let's consider then by quenda · · Score: 2

      Trump says he will build a wall on our southern border and enforce our immigration laws.

      The problem is that a wall would be insanely expensive, and ineffective. He should have checked this before announcing it as policy. Prosecuting companies who hire illegal immigrants would be more sane.

      Trump says he will halt immigration of Islamists until we can be sure they are not radicalized.

      He actually said he would stop all Muslims entering the country. Of course he would not and could not actually do it, it just the sort of stupid thing he says.

      Trump says he will renegotiate trade pacts that do not favor the United States.

      We pray he does not alter it further.

    9. Re:Let's consider then by dbIII · · Score: 1

      If nothing else, a Trump presidency would shake up the Washington first virus that has infected both parties.

      And while the United States in in paralysis you'll see Russia and China shake up the rest of the world. Not such a good plan.

    10. Re:Let's consider then by JoshuaZ · · Score: 2

      Trump doesn't understand what the nuclear triad is but likes the idea of Japan and South Korea being defended via nukes. Trump apparently wanted to criminalize abortion to the point where women who had abortions were punished (at least he took that back). He doesn't just want to enforce current immigration law: building a wall and keeping out every Muslim is not current immigration. Claiming that there even are trade pacts that don't favor the US shows a deep misunderstanding since these trade pacts are almost invariably initiated by the US. Note for example that Trump claimed that the TPP favored China when China isn't even a member. Etc.

    11. Re:Let's consider then by houghi · · Score: 1

      About the wall: that is why he will let Mexico pay for it.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    12. Re:Let's consider then by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

      And how do you intend to actually force that to happen?

    13. Re: Let's consider then by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      ... what an insidious and misleading statement.

      that's like saying, white people are responsible for the most death in America... factor in the civil war and the fact that there are just more white people... and it's a forgone conclusion.

    14. Re:Let's consider then by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      shit, he'll ban shitty music? sign me up.

    15. Re:Let's consider then by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      apparently, by intercepting remittance payments?

    16. Re:Let's consider then by jedidiah · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Actually, he was asked if people should be punished for doing an illegal thing. After that the media just ran with it. It was a well executed journalistic sucker punch.

      It doesn't show that Trump is evil, just that he can't handle the media as if he were a politician.

      Trump's real crime is that he's no good at handling hostile reporters trying to harvest a juicy sound bite.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    17. Re:Let's consider then by CaptainLard · · Score: 1

      Brilliant! While we're at it lets fix our schools with better teachers. Also we'll end poverty by making poor people work harder. Done! Every problem stated in 3 words or less gets a 3 word or less solution! Its so easy when you limit your scope to exclude all the hard parts.

      If nothing else, a trump presidency would shake up the Washington first virus that has infected both parties.

      Sure, if by shake up you mean the RNC would change their primary process to prevent this from happening again (see: the Ross Perot rule). Also, trump will either finally have some people to explain the nuances of why none of his plans will work to him and he'll do a bunch of token actions that go nowhere or he'll continue to shoot from the hip that will somehow increase government gridlock and alienate our allies. You really think the US will increase it's power when we tell Mexico to do something and they just tell us to fuck off?

    18. Re:Let's consider then by OakDragon · · Score: 2

      Maybe we'll put up a NORTHERN wall to keep all our tech workers in!

    19. Re:Let's consider then by JoshuaZ · · Score: 2

      Actually, he was asked if people should be punished for doing an illegal thing. After that the media just ran with it. It was a well executed journalistic sucker punch.

      No. This completely misses the point. Even the far-right has been in favor of making it illegal for doctors to perform abortions and for any punishment to occur to doctors, not to the women.

      It doesn't show that Trump is evil, just that he can't handle the media as if he were a politician.

      Um, no one used the word "evil" here but you. But no, if anything he handles the media far better than most politicians. See e.g. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-donald-trump-hacked-the-media/.

      Trump's real crime is that he's no good at handling hostile reporters trying to harvest a juicy sound bite.

      No. It is that Trump is an ignoramus who doesn't bother learning about issues, talks off the cuff with extreme ideas and then continues to push for those ideas. No one else would have claimed that John McCain's being a POW was a mark against McCain and a sign he wasn't a "winner" because no one else would have even thought it. No one else would have had a problem with reporters quoting when one claimed that global warming was a hoax made by the Chinese, because no one would have thought it. And no one would have quotes telling your fans that if they get violent with protesters he'll pay the legal bills, because no one else would have said anything remotely like that. All reporters are doing are quoting the actual words coming out of his mouth, and the contexts don't make them any better. No context makes keeping out a billion people from the US based on their religion a good idea. No issue of context makes his repeated claims about 1000s celebrating in New Jersey on 9/11 any less false. Etc. This isn't about reporters taking things out of context. This is what the man actually is doing and saying.

    20. Re: Let's consider then by Bartles · · Score: 1

      You mean the civil war where 400,000 white republicans died fighting to end slavery?

    21. Re:Let's consider then by TsrBomba · · Score: 1

      If you think Trump can do even one of these things, given the checks and balances of the federal government (and the fact that his personality alone is not powerful enough to revamp the Constititution or any of its supporting documents) you're simply not paying attention, or you're greedily drinking the kool-aid he's distributed to middle America.

    22. Re:Let's consider then by OhPlz · · Score: 1

      How do you sell insurance if you can't deny pre-existing conditions for at least the first year? All that does is allow healthy people to forgo having insurance until they end up needing an expensive surgery or some other high cost care. Then they buy insurance, never having contributed to the risk pool they're withdrawing from. They can even drop it afterwards and repeat the process later on.

    23. Re:Let's consider then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No brown shirts behind him? Other than the people at the Trump rallies who he suggested should rough up protesters even offering to pay their legal fees?

      Usually the brown shirts come after they fascist reach power, not before. But Trump is trying to get a head start.

      As for what is scary is that someone is dumb enough to think that a border wall is a practical solution to the illegal immigrant problem. That someone is dumb enough to think that nuclear weapons might be useful against ISIS. That someone is dumb enough to think that women who get abortions should be thrown in jail...or whatever his policy on this is currently. That someone is dumb enough to think that giving Japan and South Korean nukes will solve the whole North Korean question. None of that scares you?

    24. Re:Let's consider then by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

      How do you sell insurance if you can't deny pre-existing conditions for at least the first year?

      Simple, make (basic) insurance mandatory.

    25. Re:Let's consider then by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

      I think in this particular case Trump was completely consistent and the far right is not. If abortions are illegal, than those that instigate illegal acts should be punished. It's as simple as that. Women that proceed to get an abortion are victims? Of what exactly? Victims of sex? But what if it was consensual? Victims of not taking precautions? They were there, right?

      As the far-right also claim that abortion is murder, they're double hypocrites. The women in question are asking others to perform murder on their behalf. That makes the women extra guilty, not less so. Imagine people hiring a hitman. Are these people victims too?

      Nope, doesn't compute. The only thing that I can come up with to understand the position of the far-right is that they consider pregnant women to not be able to make choices, sub-human. In this particular case, Trump, while trying to pander to his current base, made the mistake of being logical. His base is not. Hence he needed to retract.

    26. Re:Let's consider then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And therein lies the problem. There's also the reverse issue, where an insured person who gets sick has no negotiating leverage, and can't do anything about insane premium increases.

      These problems are why any health care policy that doesn't even mention pre-existing conditions, and instead just ignores the problems with a bunch of hand-waving about 'competition', is crap. (See proposals from Trump and Cruz for examples).

      The ACA addresses pre-existing conditions via the individual mandate.

    27. Re:Let's consider then by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      No. This completely misses the point. Even the far-right has been in favor of making it illegal for doctors to perform abortions and for any punishment to occur to doctors, not to the women.

      That's because the far-right are hypocrites.

      Trump is absolutely right: women should be punished for getting abortions, IF abortions are illegal. It's no different than prostitution: if you get caught being involved in prostitution, whether as a producer or a consumer, you go to jail. Same goes for drugs: if you're a dealer or a user, you go to jail. So why would it be different for abortions?

      What Trump has done here is succeeding at pointing out the hypocrisy of the right's anti-abortion position. They don't want to punish women because they know it's far too politically unpalatable, so they just want to restrict its availability by going after doctors. Trump's position (before he backtracked) is consistent with rule-of-law: if you're going to say that something is heinous and awful and should be banned, you have to punish everyone caught being involved with the crime. If that's too draconian and has too many negative effects, then maybe you need to re-examine the underlying ethics of the policy position and whether it should be illegal at all.

    28. Re:Let's consider then by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      No. It is that Trump is an ignoramus who doesn't bother learning about issues, talks off the cuff with extreme ideas and then continues to push for those ideas. No one else would have claimed that John McCain's being a POW was a mark against McCain and a sign he wasn't a "winner" because no one else would have even thought it. No one else would have had a problem with reporters quoting when one claimed that global warming was a hoax made by the Chinese, because no one would have thought it. And no one would have quotes telling your fans that if they get violent with protesters he'll pay the legal bills, because no one else would have said anything remotely like that. All reporters are doing are quoting the actual words coming out of his mouth, and the contexts don't make them any better. No context makes keeping out a billion people from the US based on their religion a good idea. No issue of context makes his repeated claims about 1000s celebrating in New Jersey on 9/11 any less false. Etc. This isn't about reporters taking things out of context. This is what the man actually is doing and saying.

      The problem here is that Trump is just showing the GOP for what it really is. Like saying the global warming being a hoax by the Chinese: how is that any worse than what everyone else in the GOP says, which is that global warming is a hoax by "the scientists"? There's no shortage of other GOP politicians saying incredibly stupid things and not backing down on them. Remember the whole "legitimate rape" thing by Todd Akin, and "women's bodies have a way to shut that down"?

      For the fans being violent with protesters, other GOP people didn't have that problem because they relegated protesters to "free speech zones" far away from where anyone could see them.

      Trump is great. He's succeeding brilliantly at out-Republicaning the Republicans. Instead of having terrible policy positions and then tweaking them a bit when they're too unpopular, he goes full-bore and shows just how awful and hypocritical the GOP and its policies are when taken to their logical extreme. The reporters are full of shit, because they're not doing the same for other GOP candidates and pointing this out. The reporters, as part of the mass media and the establishment, are trying to squelch him, because they liked the status quo where the GOP and DNC both did the bidding of the establishment while getting the masses riled up over social wedge issues, and Trump is expertly blowing a giant hole in that. It's why the GOP is in such a panic now. They want establishment people like Rubio who will give people a safe amount of lip service on stuff like conservative issues like abortion, "religious freedom" (to discriminate against gays), etc. but while pushing corporate-friendly economic policy and keeping the socially conservative masses placated. Then Trump comes in, after the GOP has gotten their base angry about this stuff and uses it all against them.

    29. Re: Let's consider then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Contracts.

    30. Re:Let's consider then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump says he will renegotiate trade pacts that do not favor the United States.

      We pray he does not alter it further.

      the trade pacts the US signs are so ridiculously one sided that governments should fall for caving in to them, unfortunately the pressure brought to sign up affects all sides of politics in the victim states

      signed;
      a seriously unhappy citizen of a TPP signitory

    31. Re:Let's consider then by OhPlz · · Score: 1

      That's what the AHA does, but I'm not a fan of the government forcing us to purchase things. I'd rather deal with the preexisting condition clauses rather than allowing the federal government to dictate health insurance. This is something that COBRA was meant to address. Since many/most people get health insurance from their employer, it provided a way of maintaining health insurance while between jobs such that there was no significant gap in coverage. If you had no significant gap, then the preexisting condition clause of the new policy didn't apply.

      COBRA was voluntary. Now we're penalized if we have a significant gap of insurance coverage no matter what. That's not really an improvement. Next year my employer switches everyone to a health savings account with a disaster plan for insurance. That really screws over anyone with preexisting conditions that require maintenance medication and/or routine visits to a specialist. That's going to be all out-of-pocket since the health savings accounts start off empty. We had great PPO options and now we're basically not going to have health insurance at all. "Thanks Obama!"

    32. Re:Let's consider then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those are things that can be part of an honest debate, but that's not what Trump's proposal is. Instead, it's a bunch of disingenuous hand-waving that will make things worse for many people, while lying to them about it.

      He's not alone in that - Cruz is very willing to lie about his policy as well.

      Some other bits that an honest debate needs to include:

      • - HSA-based plans predate the ACA - my employer switched one to one in 2005. Your employer may have used Obamacare as a scapegoat, but that's simply not true.
      • - The only reason you can have no significant gap when changing jobs is because the federal government is dictating how health insurance must behave. It used to be when you changed jobs, the pre-existing conditions clauses kicked in. Employers used that to really screw over workers. For the portability change, you need to say 'Thanks Bill Clinton'.

    33. Re:Let's consider then by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      No, it's not, Obama and Bernie are both populists (even if their messages were different) - but Trump is something more dangerous than that. Trump is a demagogue: a populist who incites anger and hatred.

      Demagogues tend to leave great destruction in their wake.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    34. Re:Let's consider then by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >No issue of context makes his repeated claims about 1000s celebrating in New Jersey on 9/11 any less false

      I think I figured that one out, it may be his one honest mistake. He really did see a video, only it wasn't Muslims who were cheering. It was just a bunch of teenagers from Trenton happy to see those snotty New Yorkers get taken down a peg.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    35. Re:Let's consider then by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Oh the far right's claim is pure politics - it's an attempt to not look like they hate woman and distance themselves from the countries where abortion is a crime and the consequences we see there (like women getting the death penalty for having a miscarriage).

      By saying "we don't want to punish the women, they are victims" they are utterly lying about their beliefs and motives, but it's a tactical lie - intended to make an oppressive idea seem more palatable. In reality - the mere unavailability of this healthcare option is, already, punishment, if that could even be achieved (nothing suggests it could - abortion rates are actually slightly *higher* where abortions are banned unfortunately the rate of deaths and injuries during abortions is much higher).

      Trump's great sin (and the what got the far right calling him on this one) was admitting the truth about this, perhaps the only time in his entire campaign he actually spoke the truth and he fucks up by speaking a truth the people he was speaking to don't want to admit.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    36. Re:Let's consider then by silentcoder · · Score: 0

      > I'd rather deal with the preexisting condition clauses rather than allowing the federal government to dictate health insurance.

      And that's the exact reason individualism isn't the way to solve all problems because you utterly failed to consider anything but your own experience.

      So, I graduate college, I'm now off my parents health insurance and looking for work. Right now I can't afford to get my own coverage.... I get cancer. But I get a job - my employer gives coverage, my life is saved... oops "pre-existing condition - go directly to death, do not pass go, do no collect 200 dollars"

      That happened to a very large number of people.

      And that's not counting the thousands, perhaps millions, who had insurance but were killed when they needed a significant medical procedure and suddenly the health insurance company found a billion reasons not to pay. Of course, they have ALL the power there. Sure you could try sue them for breach of contract. You could try take them to court... you may even win... except you have 3 months to live without that operation and all they have to do is wait. They did this many times to many people. Hell we've had former health insurance claims investigators testify to that effect before congress a decade ago.
      And guess what the first thing is they looked for when trying to find a reason not to pay for your life-saving operation ? Any pre-existing condition that wasn't remembered or reported. You got a prescription for vagisil when you were 12 and didn't fill it in on the form ? You're fucked pal.

      Sorry, the system as it was was untenable because health insurance companies are some of the most evil corporations to ever exist, they literally exist for the sole purpose of profiting from human misery. Their profits utterly and entirely depend on letting you die, so they will do it whenever they can somehow manage to get away with it.

      I speak from some personal experience. When my daughter was 14-months old, she accidentally breathed in a peanut. It's the kind of thing that happens with babies sometimes, but she needed an endoscope to remove it. We were good parents, we realized something was wrong within hours, it was caught and removed less than a day after the incident. Which prevented complications, inflamation or infection being an issue.

      Then the health insurance company refused to pay for the operation. For months it was back and forth with one piece of bullshit after another. Eventually... I was forced to give up - and I paid the hospital by taking out a crapload of credit card debt (like so many have had to do before).
      I was lucky, she arrived at the hospital in the early hours of the morning when pre-approval is not usually sought... if it had happened a few hours earlier in the day... chances are my little girl would be just another person killed by a health insurance company.

      There is nothing you can say that will make me not hate them all and want them so fucking regulated that they can't breath. If it puts them all out of business - good, then we can get universal health care like civilized countries.

      Seriously - there's a reason terrorists don't bomb health insurance companies... it would be like the Aryan Brotherhood bombing the KKK headquarters.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    37. Re: Let's consider then by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      yeah, more or less. the point was, even absent that, white on white violence, and christian on christian violence is probably substantially greater in total numbers for the simple fact that there's a shit-ton of christians and white people.

    38. Re:Let's consider then by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      If you are going to talk down to things he says, you should at least include some things he has said, not wild speculation of what he might have said.

      Did he even say any of the things you typed here?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    39. Re:Let's consider then by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Did you know that there is a wall on the southern border? It doesn't go all the way, but it exists in some areas. Why is it suddenly racist to want to secure our borders from people crossing illegally? Do we call European countries racist when they try to secure their borders from the influx of Syrians illegally entering their country?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    40. Re:Let's consider then by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Trump apparently wanted to criminalize abortion to the point where women who had abortions were punished (at least he took that back).

      Did you actually listen to the WHOLE interview, and not the cut up portion that was all over CNN (at least)?

      The question was "If abortion is illegal, should women who get an abortion be prosecuted", if you believe in the rule of law, the answer to that is "of course". If something is illegal, and you do it anyways, don't you expect to be punished for it?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    41. Re:Let's consider then by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      And Obama prattled about "Hope and Change!" "Hope and Change!" Tell me how things have gotten better. More of our rights are eroded. FEWER people have health coverage.

    42. Re:Let's consider then by OhPlz · · Score: 1

      How are you not considering only your own experience? Like any industry, there are bad companies and good companies. You're also wrong in saying that insurance's sole purpose is to profit from misery. I can understand why you think that given your story, but it's simply not true. You know what happens without health insurance? Health care providers end up charging anything they want, especially in urgent or emergency care because they know patients can't effectively "shop around" in an urgent or emergency situation. Health insurance has contracts with providers that control the costs we pay for different types of care. If you look at your insurance claim, easily half the amount billed by the provider is instantly wiped away by those contracted rates. In my own case, I have some pretty serious medical issues, and the insurance that I'm going to lose next year does play a role in managing care across specialists. That's something that I'm going to have to do going forward, which is ugly considering I work full time. At some point, I'll be a full time patient and either end up homeless or on disability even though I have a solution today that works.

      Universal health care is a disaster. Profit motive works. What you're proposing is that we all go to the VA, like our veterans do. Except that the VA is constantly having scandals and often fails to serve its patients quickly enough. The lucky ones end up going to for-profit facilities for treatment. If you take those away, then we have no other option. The government ends up running the health care facilities either directly or through purse-strings, and we all get screwed. Patients in other countries that have socialized care come here when they're unable to get timely treatment at home. Poof, that's gone too. At least you can pay out of pocket or choose different insurers or providers. Taking all that away is not good for anyone. Remember when Obama told someone on the campaign trail that instead of getting surgery, maybe she just gets a pain pill instead? That's not the future I want for anyone.

    43. Re:Let's consider then by OhPlz · · Score: 1

      It's a tricky thing. We vote for President every four years, and we expect the candidates to have intricate plans for so many different issues. It's really not feasible, is it? Foreign policy, health care policy, education, finance, energy, environment, etc. That's why we end up with hand waving. And let's be honest, the AHA had a whole lot of hand waving of its own. If you like your plan, you can keep it. Period.

      I don't know if there's a solution that's good for everyone. I think some number of people will be harmed either way. In my own case, I was better off before. How do we fix it? I don't know, I don't think anyone else knows either.

    44. Re:Let's consider then by quenda · · Score: 1

      Why is it suddenly racist to want to secure our borders

      Who said that? Some of Trumps rhetoric has been a bit racist, but not the wall concept. Yes walls exist, and you can google how well they work.
      Its just stupid because somebody in his position should know that it will be expensive and ineffective.
      But all he cares about now is how his comments affect the polls.

    45. Re:Let's consider then by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      The only reason the VA fails is because it's NOT universal. Universal healthcare works fantastically everywhere in the world - but it needs to be universal. You can't do it small-scale like the VA is done, that does not work. It's simple economics of scale.

      The entire rest of the world manages to have better health-care than the USA and to do it cheaper, yet you take an example that is NOT an example of the same thing and show problems with that as if that is stronger evidence than all the rest ?

      Even so - the current state has not gotten rid of health insurance, it's merely regulated the worst abuses out of the system.

      And sorry but to describe health insurance as profiting from human misery is not hyperbole, it's literally their business model.

      If the best thing you can say about health insurance is "hey it gives us a kind of collective bargaining" - there are many, better, ways to get that and you find them in all sorts of industries.

      But here is the thing - one bad story is one too many because we're talking life and death matters here. There isn't room for two stories. If your experience was the only experience, it would be a working system - but the moment there is anybody with an experience like mine that is already a failure of the *entire* system. As it happens - I'm not the exceptional story, you are. Stories like yours are the rare ones.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    46. Re:Let's consider then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      disingenuous hand waving. Vagueness isn't the biggest problem with Trump's and Cruz's proposals, it's the blatant lying about how 'competition' will somehow fix things. There's no way for an insurance company to make money adding sick people to their rolls, so there is no market mechanism that will fix the pre-existing condition and rescission problems.

      I'm curious, what was your plan if health issues led you to become unemployed pre-Obamacare? COBRA only lasted 18 months, disability only replaced income and not health insurance, and the portability laws didn't have much effect on individual plans. Medicaid was/is only available if you almost bankrupted yourself and your family. None of these are very effective options.

      Also, what is AHA an abbreviation for? I'm not familiar with it in this context.

      (PS - good luck with your medical issues. Coordinating among multiple specialists is a challenge even in the best of circumstances).

    47. Re:Let's consider then by OhPlz · · Score: 1

      AHA is the Affordable Healthcare Act, also known as Obamacare.

      Instead of the mandate, I would like to have seen health insurance move from the employer to the individual. I don't get my auto insurance from work, I don't get my homeowner's insurance from work, why do we get our health insurance that way? This would make individual plans more affordable because there'd be a lot more people buying them. They're sky high now because very few get insurance that way. If it's affordable, more healthy people would buy in. In theory, the state exchanges could do this, but those are a complete mess.. at least in my area, if not everywhere. It's not without challenges. At work, you're accepted no matter what. I don't think that's true of individual plans. But that's something that could be addressed.

      I didn't have a plan for an employment gap pre-Obamacare because I've never had a gap in employment anywhere near that long. I somehow dodged that during the dot com crash.

      This whole thing is a mess and I do wish that universal health care could fix it, but just look what happened with healthcare.gov.. they can't even set up a website, who would be crazy enough to think they could run healthcare for the whole country? Our politicians work for the corporations, so it'd still be a capitalist solution but they'd be shielded by the fact that you can't effectively sue the government on stuff like this.

      There's so much with our healthcare system that I don't understand. If I bring my car in for service, I get an estimate. If I bring my body in for service, there aren't even prices listed for anything, nor is an estimate likely. Why do healthcare providers get away with that? No other type of business would. It's such a daunting problem in so many ways.

    48. Re:Let's consider then by OhPlz · · Score: 1

      You are way off base if you think universal works fantastically in any country. For some things, it's great. For other things, not so much. Specialty care is area where universal systems tend to break down. Think rationing. Think long waiting lists. Think a certain number of procedures allocated for the year regardless of how many patients need it or how long the backlog is, or what the survivability is if people are made to wait. There's a reason why the brits still have private doctors even though they have the NHS, and they've talked about re-privatizing large chunks of the healthcare system because the NHS is failing its patients. I've talked with people from Canada and the UK who have health concerns similar to my own, we get treatment here much quicker.

      The VA is universal for veterans. There's nothing small scale about it. The VA is larger than many other country's entire health care system, nationalized or otherwise. What you're saying is that we'd have to go all in and somehow that would improve it. That's insane. If we went all in, it would break down completely. They can't service the veterans we have, let alone the entire population.

      There's nothing exceptional about my situation. I work for a major US employer and our plans, up till now, have been great. That's not my experience, that's the experience of any of our employees. There may be an annoying medical coding problem now and then but that tends to be the worst of it. My insurer has nurses on staff and they work with me on managing care. If I don't know which specialist to see, they figure out what the best approach is. When the policy gets modified, they've even called to let me know how to work around the changes so I don't end up with any surprise expenses. That's not just one insurer, we've changed insurers from time to time if the savings was worth it and their usefulness has been fairly consistent.

      Universal healthcare is human misery. You can die waiting for treatment on a waiting list, and there's nothing you can do other than go to another country where the system isn't nationalized, and hope that you can afford it. If the US system goes universal, I don't know where the waited listed would go. The federal government was never intended to have this much control over our lives. Congress has sky-high disapproval ratings yet people still say they support universal healthcare. Those people that we have no faith in would be the ones enacting it. It makes no sense. We know they're incapable. It would be devastating.

    49. Re:Let's consider then by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      The vast majority of universal healthcare countries has private doctors as well, they exist specifically to cater to the edge cases where universal health care is less effective.
      But those are the edge cases. Taking your thinking to it's logical conclusion it is perfectly okay to let millions die from no care, in order to ensure to avoid anybody having a waiting list.

      Of course universal health care is not perfect, there are no panaceas. But it's outcomes is provably and by the numbers and consistently far better than private healthcare as a main system. It's also true that conservative politicians in Britain have tried to dismantle and privatize much of the healthcare system - something even Thatcher would not have dared.
      She was right too - it's led to the biggest political backlash the Brits have seen in decades. It was a major factor in why Jeremy Corbyn won the labour leadership contest. The conservatives have dug themselves into a hole with these policies that will make winning the next election require an act of god. Seems those patients and doctors (who also happen to be voters) like the NHS rather more than you credit them with.
      Truth is people like to complain, they will always have complaints - just because some British people complain doesn't mean anything - everybody complains. What you have to look at is the numbers. There isn't a single number where universal healthcare doesn't beat out private. It costs less. More people can get care - and they can get it when they need it most (which, by definition, is when they are least able to pay for it because generally very ill people cannot work). Child mortality rates are lower. Lifespans are longer and quality of life is higher. Important medical decisions are not politicized as readily - this may seem counterintuitive but it's not, for the same reason universal income grants are more free than welfare - if you don't have qualification requirements for something, you don't need bureaucracies to do the qualifying tests. If you don't have a bureaucracy, you can't abuse it.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    50. Re:Let's consider then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah - the formal name of Obamacare is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. No H's in there - ACA is a much more common abbreviation.

      But that's something that could be addressed.
      With something like the individual mandate (which brings us full circle). If there were a pure market solution to this, it would have happened by now - there are plenty of individual policy customers out there. The market works for car insurance because bad drivers have alternatives to driving. The alternatives to health insurance: dying, or bankruptcy. Both of these have happened to many, many people.

      who would be crazy enough to think they could run healthcare for the whole country?
      People on Medicare. Did you know that life expectancy in the US actually improves when people reach age 65? Before that age, we lag behind other countries - after age 65, it gets better.

      I know several folks with experience in the pre-Medicare and Medicare arenas - all of them believe that the care they've received under Medicare is better. And my one Canadian friend thinks that anyone who would choose the US system over the Canadian system, is, in his words, 'fucking nuts'.

      Good luck with your battles with the medical system, and take care.

  26. This is just a recurring PR stunt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is just a smart recruiting ad. If they get their name out there and a few people apply all the better... I am guessing they don't really care about trump.

    1. Re:This is just a recurring PR stunt by cshark · · Score: 1

      Probably not, but I think there's a more sinister reason for all this. See, if I were going to do something like this with my company, it would be for the pure and simple reason of starting flame wars on Slashdot. And, you have to assume that any tech entrepreneur is at least as evil as I am.

      --

      This signature has Super Cow Powers

  27. Trump will just take over Canada and Mexico. by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Trump will just take over Canada and Mexico.

    Now do you want to be on the mexcien front? NK?

    1. Re:Trump will just take over Canada and Mexico. by butchersong · · Score: 1

      I've often wondered if it would be better for us to simply annex mexico.

    2. Re:Trump will just take over Canada and Mexico. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      last time the US tried to take over Canada the Whitehouse burned.

    3. Re:Trump will just take over Canada and Mexico. by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      You've tried that before... didn't work out all that well for you as I recall.

      Pretty much the only good thing to come out of that attempt is that there was an Alamo for Ozzy to piss on.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  28. Re: Let 'em go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Billionaire's mindset? Draft Bloomberg or Buffet.

    With Trump what you get is an entitled misogynist brat mindset. His entire political process is to listen to angry people and then sell them a fantasist's parody solution to their fears; a wall to keep out the invaders, locking down the internet, torture as retribution..l

    Trump wants America to be his trophy wife. He's going to make you so happy, baby. It's going to be beautiful. You're going to be so rich. Everyone will fear us. It's just you and him against the world. What do you mean, you don't want to have sex with him? He's got no problem there, he guarantees it. If you don't want to have sex with him you must be disgusting, a terrible human. He wishes someone would punch you in the mouth, seriously. He'll pay the legal fees.

  29. Move to Kitchener/Waterloo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    K/W, the hate centre of Canada! Don't believe me? Search the Kitchener Waterloo records for stories on hate. Moving here (I live here... ugh) to avoid Trump's hate is jumping from the firepan into the fire. Did you know the guy who tested our hate speech laws with a book and website denying the holocaust is from here? No! Welcome to Berlin... sorry, Kitchener (Old habits die hard! This place really was Berlin, Ontario... seriously!)

  30. Soooo, moving to Canada? by papadeltabravo · · Score: 1

    And not Mexico? I wonder why.

    1. Re:Soooo, moving to Canada? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the drugs are better in Mexico, that's for sure.

    2. Re:Soooo, moving to Canada? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      They aren't moving to Mexico, because Mexico has very strong anti-immigration policy (and a wall on its southern border). Foreign nationals cannot really own much property either. And for those that think VZ, ATT, TMO and Sprint are bad, they should see the Mexican Telecom system.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  31. Let 'em go by p51d007 · · Score: 0

    Most of them are "progressive" idiots...Canada can HAVE EM!

    1. Re: Let 'em go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All echos of other people thoughts. Don't you get tired of vomiting other people's opinions out your mouth hole? Why not formulate one of your own?

    2. Re:Let 'em go by c-A-d · · Score: 1

      We don't want them!

      --
      some karma... and kinda lukewarm about it.
    3. Re: Let 'em go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The nice thing about Trump is that you don't actually have to have an opinion of your own. You just pick literally any rational compassionate human being you know or care for and ask them. All those people think he's a terrible choice for president.

      Anyone who thinks he is a good thing for the presidency, for politics in general, for the direction of the USA is a FUCKING IDIOT. He degrades the process.

      Just look at his friends, for one thing. Best example of someone Donald Trump socialised with: Roy Cohn.

      Roy fucking Cohn.

    4. Re: Let 'em go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      unmod

  32. Americans: you aren't moving for another reason... by nimbius · · Score: 2

    It doesnt matter if sortable wants to hire US or foreign citizens, and sortable knows it. What sortable is doing is casting their net for canadian employees using the widest outlets: American media.

    the fact is that while you may have qualified to immigrate to canada in the past, after the 2008 economic collapse most of canadas immigration schedules for knowledge workers changed substantially. This was partly done by conservative leaders in canada at the behest of US leaders to prevent a potentially fatal brain-drain from the US. it was also partly done as a way to shore up domestic employment numbers after the Governor General prorogued the house of commons. You see, once Steven Harper let the cat out of the bag and posted record Canadian economic losses, conservative party leaders got an easy pass to clip immigration law in the hopes of shoring up harpers PM confidence after what was widely seen as a narrow miss to send him back to his constituency.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  33. Why not? by dbIII · · Score: 2

    Since the jobs would move away why not follow them?

    Vote Trump - for the Atlantic City Casino Boss who cares. Yeah right.

    1. Re:Why not? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      What is the option?

      Vote for Bernie, because "bread lines are good" ? (yes, he said that)
      Vote for Clinton, because "we didn't lose a single person in Libya" ?

      The American people are just plain stupid. I blame public "education"

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    2. Re:Why not? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I'm not so sure that the private education is much better. The USA seems to have some of the best postgraduate students in the world but what hits the universities at the undergraduate level - not so much.
      Either way, pointing out issues with Trump is not the same as a cheer for Clinton or Sanders (or Cruz for that matter).

    3. Re:Why not? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >Vote for Clinton, because "we didn't lose a single person in Libya" ?

      Clinton just slipped up an accidentally admitted that the military-robot program is much further ahead than advertized and the Libyan ambassador was actually a terminator.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  34. please follow through by ooloorie · · Score: 0

    Europe and Canada would love to have all those progressive tech workers that keep talking about European health care and European rail systems and European government services and social responsibility and recycling and social safety nets and renewable energy. But when push comes to shove, very few of those progressive tech workers actually move, because they realize that their after tax incomes and standard of living would likely drop precipitously and that those places are far from the open minded, progressive nirvanas they fantasize about.

    So, my wish is: progressives, please follow through on your threats of leaving, instead of trying to turn the US into the kinds of places you yourself don't actually want to live in.

    1. Re:please follow through by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are delusional. We don't want americans coming to europe, we want to throw americans out.

      If the Canadians are willing to take you then great. Everybody is happy.

      It doesn't matter if you are a blue or red american, either way we don't want you here.

    2. Re:please follow through by ADRA · · Score: 1

      *shrugs* Most of my immediate neighbourhood is made up of prodominantly Iranians. Surrounding that, there's a significant mix of other races (Indians, Whites, Chinese, etc..) I'm sure that would piss off some, but honestly I could care less. Racial politics are for people oppressed or insecure.

      Hello from Canada, all welcome.

      --
      Bye!
    3. Re:please follow through by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, with all that wonderful Canadian open-mindedness, you should have no trouble attracting large number of American immigrants, right? Right...

    4. Re:please follow through by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because they realize that their after tax incomes and standard of living would likely drop precipitously

      Meh.
      It's your basic left/right-wing politics. Standard of living doesn't change much. The thing that changes is how you pay for things.
      Changing your money to coins will make your wallet thicker. That doesn't mean that you are richer.

    5. Re:please follow through by butchersong · · Score: 1

      I had a collegue that is black in the tech field that moved to Canada. He and his kids were very dark skinned and when I expressed a half serious concern about him moving to a northern latitude and vitamin d deficiency he laughed it off. Still, I think it is strange that someone with a dark skin tone would move north given how much vitamin d from sunlight seems to impact cardiovascular health, bone density and all that. It makes me wonder what the health impacts on those immigrant communities are and the long-term viability for those physical traits in those environments given the limited time modern people already spend outdoors.

    6. Re:please follow through by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are delusional. We don't want americans coming to europe, we want to throw americans out.

      Oh, I agree: many Europeans are xenophobic, bigoted, and anti-American; you seem like a good example.

      I'm referring to government policies, like the ability to study for free and the Blue Card.

      It doesn't matter if you are a blue or red american, either way we don't want you here.

      Well, being originally European, I could easily come back if I wanted to. But I left to get away from people like you.

  35. Diversity is NOT "strength" by mi · · Score: 0

    "The embracing of diversity as opposed to it being some sort of political issue is a huge advantage we have."

    Contrary to the widely-known meme, diversity is not strength. It is a weakness — a society consisting of people from different countries and races can break apart much too easily along the ethnic and religious lines, with each group "othering" the rest.

    It does provide for a nicer variety of available restaurants and decorative styles, but a "strength" it is not. It is a luxury, that drains the society's resources — both monetary and the less tangible. The US is admirably good at handling it, but don't fool yourself — a strength it is not.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Diversity is NOT "strength" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a load of bull. Having lead various teams of 20+ people now for several years and seen diversity in action, it is a strength. Diversity will bring diversity in background and diversity in solution approaches. American employees are all-rounders, excellent for presenting and sales. European employees excel in creativity, East Asian employees push all nighters and get things done through discipline, and Indian graduates are as book smart as you ever need. It's frightening how closely these groups follow the stereotypes. Regardless selling commercial research and consulting for many years now, I can tell you that a diverse team is an asset.

    2. Re:Diversity is NOT "strength" by dskoll · · Score: 1

      Contrary to the widely-known meme, diversity is not strength. It is a weakness

      It depends. It certainly can cause society to fracture as it is in Europe where immigrants are not assimilated. On the other hand, the United States' "melting-pot" approach has been quite successful in creating a cohesive society, and I think it's definitely something Canada can learn from the USA. Our "multiculturalism" approach is, I think, quite dangerous and does risk Canada fracturing along ethnic lines, though we're not (yet) quite as bad as Europe.

    3. Re:Diversity is NOT "strength" by mi · · Score: 1

      American employees are all-rounders, excellent for presenting and sales. European employees excel in creativity, East Asian employees push all nighters and get things done through discipline, and Indian graduates are as book smart as you ever need.

      If these stereotypes aren't racist, I don't know, what can possibly be...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    4. Re:Diversity is NOT "strength" by mi · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, the United States' "melting-pot" approach has been quite successful in creating a cohesive society

      Yes. Like I said, the US dealing is with diversity better than most — with the possible exception of Brazil.

      But it is still a burden and even our success is overestimated — if an American public school bans American flag as "offensive", there is a big problem.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    5. Re:Diversity is NOT "strength" by dskoll · · Score: 1

      It wasn't an American public school that banned the flag. It was a university student government. And most student governments are about as batshit crazy as the Evangelicals, except to the Left. Luckily, most of the students eventually grow up.

    6. Re:Diversity is NOT "strength" by mi · · Score: 1

      First of all, a university receiving public funds is also a public school (especially, if it is entirely State-owned as any branch of University of California is), and it did ban the flag — whether that move was initiated by the monkeys running the zoo or the older officials is secondary in importance.

      More importantly, it happened in various actual public high schools too — on the authority of local principals and school districts alike. And the courts support that — for "safety". Evidently, the "batshit crazy" is spreading, while you remain in denial (and sniping at the harmless Evangelicals).

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    7. Re:Diversity is NOT "strength" by dskoll · · Score: 1

      Look, I happen not to agree with banning the flag... but seriously? That's the best you can come up with? Isn't banning the flag just a form of protected expression? Freedom of expression doesn't mean anything if only expression we approve of is allowed.

    8. Re:Diversity is NOT "strength" by dskoll · · Score: 1

      "harmless" Evangelicals? You must be joking.

      Thanks to the Evangelicals, if I go to certain parts of the United States, I must put myself at risk of harassment, assault or murder just to use a public washroom. Thanks to the Evangelicals, in certain parts of the United States it's totally fine to deny LGBT people housing, employment and service.

      Religion mixed into politics is totally, unquestionably evil.

    9. Re:Diversity is NOT "strength" by mi · · Score: 1

      That's the best you can come up with?

      A skin lesion may simply be harmless acne, or it may be a sign of cancer. When American children are told, that American flag may be "offensive" to the supposedly fellow Americans, I'm afraid, we are towards the latter. It is not "all" I got, but I deem this to be most troubling because of how wide-spread it is — California and South Carolina are very different locales in many respects, but not in this one...

      Isn't banning the flag just a form of protected expression?

      Wow, that's a creative interpretation... No, a ban issued by a government official is not an expression at all — much less "protected".

      Freedom of expression doesn't mean anything if only expression we approve of is allowed.

      That maxim is certainly true, but irrelevant to our conversation. Mexicans weren't prohibited from displaying Mexican flag in an American school, and I proudly have a Ukrainian bumper sticker without any harassment. But I recognize and respect the American flag — while the various schools consider it "offensive" enough to be banned. To me such bans are a clear sign of our "melting pot" struggling (if not outright failing) in dealing with the diversity.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    10. Re:Diversity is NOT "strength" by dskoll · · Score: 1

      Well, OK, banning the flag probably was a stupid decision. On the other hand, had violence erupted, the school district might have faced huge lawsuits, so they were stuck between a rock and a hard place.

      And I'm not sure you can blame this on "diversity". It seems to me the real culprit is intolerance coupled with intense fear of litigation.

    11. Re:Diversity is NOT "strength" by mi · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure you can blame this on "diversity". It seems to me the real culprit is intolerance [...]

      I blame it on diversity because it is at the very root of this problem — there are enough people foreign (despite being born here) to American values and culture to credibly threaten violence over the very symbol of America. This othering by them is the problem — they would not "melt" in the the "pot" — and having to deal with such issues is the burden, the diversity presents.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    12. Re:Diversity is NOT "strength" by dskoll · · Score: 1

      Absorbing immigrants takes resources. But I dispute that it's a net loss for a country; immigrants to a country tend to over-contribute to the economy once they get established. The actual cost/benefit analysis is much more complex (PDF) than you seem to be stating.

    13. Re:Diversity is NOT "strength" by mi · · Score: 1

      But I dispute that it's a net loss for a country

      Neither the gain nor the loss are even quantifiable, but I'm satisfied that you agree, that "it is complex" — rather than insist on it being a "clear benefit".

      brookings.edu

      Brookings is a Left-leaning institution, and thus favors immigrants from poor countries, where government is the main source of wealth — who happened to represent the vast majority of new immigrants over the last several decades.

      If even Brookings' analysis remains "complex", then it is probably a net loss. At least, with the currently applied methods of absorption...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    14. Re:Diversity is NOT "strength" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have poor reading comprehension. He says that embracing diversity (versus rejecting it) is a strength, not diversity in itself. And with strength, he means like listing strengths in an interview, not like strength in lifting weights in the gym. If you think the only benefit to diversity is decoration and food, then I feel pity on you. You truly need to open your mind.

    15. Re:Diversity is NOT "strength" by PPH · · Score: 1

      a society consisting of people from different countries and races can break apart much too easily along the ethnic and religious lines

      Then your society isn't really diverse. Or you have elements within it that are willing to destroy it by emphasizing differences rather than working together for the good of all. Better to eliminate these trouble-makers than bend to their wishes for a monoculture.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    16. Re:Diversity is NOT "strength" by mi · · Score: 1

      Then your society isn't really diverse.

      You did not list the logical steps leading you to this conclusion...

      Or you have elements within it that are willing to destroy it

      Nor this one...

      Better to eliminate these trouble-makers

      Yes, yes. For everyone to be nice, you must kill all of the naughty ones.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    17. Re:Diversity is NOT "strength" by PPH · · Score: 1

      You did not list the logical steps leading you to this conclusion.

      Neither did you. So welcome to the club.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  36. Don't do it by Solandri · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I'm a U.S. citizen. I worked in Canada for a few years. U.S. tax law is crazy. The IRS taxes everything you make regardless of where you make it. Canada tax law is somewhat sane and taxes based on (1) where you earn it, and (2) where you reside (which is why all the Canadians working in the U.S. have to be careful not to spend more than half their time in Canada, lest they become Canadian residents and owe Canadian taxes on their U.S. income).

    The net result is double taxation. Canada taxes you because you made the money in Canada and (for the purposes of this story) you're living in Canada. The U.S. taxes you because you're a U.S. citizen. Now, there is a tax treaty between the two countries which lets you take the taxes paid in one country and use it as a tax credit in the other. Since Canadian taxes are higher, you basically pay the Canadian taxes and don't owe U.S. taxes. But the treaty only covers earned income (wages). It doesn't cover unearned income (interest, capital gains, etc). Have an interest-bearing bank account? Double taxed. Sell some of your stock portfolio at a profit? Double taxed. Buy a house, then sell it a few years later at a profit? Double taxed. Get married and have kids who are dual citizens by birth and one of them decides to move back to the U.S. when he's an adult? He'll be double taxed (have to pay U.S.back taxes) on all the unearned income he made while living in Canada from when he was 18 til when he decided to move.

    On top of that, you'll experience the joy of having to pay a specialist CPA who is licensed in both countries, because you sure as hell aren't going to be able to figure out how to file your taxes correctly by yourself. I was fortunate to find one who was willing to do it for "only" $500, but my taxes were simple. It's not uncommon for this to cost $1000 or more. (Note: the better employers will help you out with this - either providing a CPA or directing you to one and they'll cover the filing expenses.)

    If you're gonna flee to Canada on principle, you're gonna have to go all the way. Apply for Canadian citizenship and renounce your U.S. citizenship.

    1. Re:Don't do it by Time_Ngler · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, you are taxed for renouncing your citizenship, too.

    2. Re:Don't do it by RuffMasterD · · Score: 1

      Apparently it costs $2,350, plus several years back taxes (and accountant fees), plus an 'exit tax' on assets over two million dollars. And it can take a year to process renunciations due to a growing backlog.

      --
      Human Rights, Article 12: Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence
    3. Re:Don't do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This guy must make lots and lots of money in non-working ways. I've been doing US/Canada taxes for years and it's like 3-4 extra hours work over the Canadian taxes themselves. As he points out, you file in both countries but tend to pay in Canada. For duals living in Canada, remember forms 2555 and 1116, and invest in EFT's rather than Canadian mutual funds.

      Will only sting if I hit the lotto big up here as it's tax-free in Canada while taxed in the US. But, as we bs'd over lunch, if we have to pay the US a million on our lotto winnings, that's ok...

    4. Re:Don't do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should you be able to live in another country, still be able to vote in elections and potentially raise taxes on those who still live here, without having to also pay those taxes yourself?

    5. Re:Don't do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You need a new CPA, because the IRS does NOT tax everything you make no matter where you make it. The IRS exempts quite a lot of your overseas income, and does not tax ANY of your regular income if you a permanent resident of another country (i.e. an ex-pat).

    6. Re:Don't do it by PPH · · Score: 1

      Why should poor people, who pay little or no taxes, still be able to vote and raise taxes on wealthy people? This is the system we have. We've gotten away from requiring property ownership, pole taxes and such things as a prerequisite to voting.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    7. Re:Don't do it by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      I'll tell you why: because without it, rich people who avoid most of their taxes vote and raise taxes on poor people who can barely afford it while getting rid of any pesky laws that prevent owning slaves or working people 23 hours a day without bathroom breaks in a room without a fire escape. All of which adds up to poor people not only paying more taxes but paying it on less income and having absolutely no way to change that.

      In short plutocracy differs from aristocracy only in that it is generally worse. Aristocrats had to at least pretend to care about the lower classes.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  37. Under Obama Watch... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You might as well move to Canada. Your job moved overseas when Obama was elected. Ha!

  38. Can anyone actually move to Canada? by k6mfw · · Score: 1

    Few years ago talking with someone that retired, took vacation in Vancouver and loved the city, "I'm selling my home in Silicon Valley for lotsa bux and moving to Canada!" Whup, not so fast. Canada just doesn't let anyone move in, she was doing ping pong back and forth (live a few months in Vancouver but had to leave and live a few months more down here). I don't know all the details (and I didn't read article here) but Canada is pretty restrictive on who moves in. I heard there are exceptions like just before Hong Kong handed over to China, they allowed lots of people to move to Canada (though smooth transition as they were UK citizens). I also heard Canada has an unwritten policy prohibiting blacks moving into Canada.

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
    1. Re:Can anyone actually move to Canada? by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 1

      In the 1980s, Canada was desperate for Hong Kong Chinese and their money because Canada's welfare state was going bankrupt.

      --
      "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    2. Re:Can anyone actually move to Canada? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Canada is more open than almost anywhere, and per capita more so than the US. Canadian immigration and refugee in-take is nearly 1% of the population each year. There is no prohibition against blacks, they make up a large share of immigrants, especially from French-speaking Caribbean and African nations. There isn't even a prohibition against single male Syrian refugees, as has been reported (instead, they face more scrutiny and delays).

      Canada's immigration practices do differ from the US significantly: for instance a much larger share, about 1/3 of immigrants, must qualify under economic criteria (skills), while the bulk of the rest are for 'family reunification'. So if you are an American without family in Canada and lack the desired skills, you may not be able to immigrate to Canada.

      What Canada does not have is the powerful interest groups (as in the US) that foster large-scale illegal immigration. Deportation takes forever in Canada, but it is not a source of political division.

    3. Re:Can anyone actually move to Canada? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      It's only that hard for Americans - they have to be picky with Americans, it's the only way to keep Canada nice.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    4. Re:Can anyone actually move to Canada? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      It worked too. Welfare states tend to be a problem of their own success. People tend to live long lives in them, and raise their standard of living (having fewer kids) so you end up with an aging population. Japan is facing the exact same situation now.

      Immigrants are great cure. The immigrants are better off. They provide much needed productive youth to the economy - which lets you pay the welfare state that they and your original citizens benefit from - and everybody wins.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  39. Those who work extremely hard for their money ... by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You're not going to get very many good workers that don't like Trump.
    It's been my observation that those who work hardest, and have the most skill either don't care about politics at all, or they like Trump

    I disagree strongly, in fact from what I've seen the most fervent supporters of Trump are the people who haven't had the professional success they expect and are looking for somewhere to put the blame

    Normally I do not like to disclose whom I support, except this time

    I am for Donald J. Trump

    Many of the successful old timers, the compatriots in the tech fields, are supporting Trump as well

    You've got nothin' in comparing to us, kid - neither in professional sense, nor the experience we've gotten, nor the wealth we've accumulate

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  40. Sounds good to me by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 1

    The more American assholes move to Canada, the better off America will be. Maybe Obama will move to Canada also. One can dream, right?

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    1. Re:Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The people who'd move in this instance are Anti-Trump hence Anti-asshole. Unless you're saying they're hypocrites too?

    2. Re:Sounds good to me by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Sorry, bad news, it's the few nice Americans who want to leave. The assholes are all voting for Trump.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  41. Just go vote! by sad_ · · Score: 2

    just go vote to make sure he doesn't get elected, how difficult can it be?

    --
    On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
  42. Just like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " "The embracing of diversity as opposed to it being some sort of political issue is a huge advantage we have.""

    The diversity of requiring French be the primary language in Quebec, right?

    Whatever

  43. A great campaign in Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rummy ran a great campaign to conquer and pacify Iraq. It was in great shape before Obama got hold of it. By handing it to the ayatollah he created the civil wars we now see. The bank bailout was necessary. The only bad part was that Obama never broke them up afterward. He has years of market stability and economic recovery in which to do it.

    1. Re:A great campaign in Iraq by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Um, I don't agree with most of what Barbara said, but You kind of got your response a little confused.

      It was in great shape before Obama got hold of it. By handing it to the ayatollah he created the civil wars we now see.

      Actually, Obama had no choice on this one, the Iraqi president asked us to leave, are we going to refuse the lawful request of a sitting president and occupy his country? Bush tried to negotiate some soldiers staying, but the Iraqi president refused any concession that included lawful immunity to our soldiers, which was unpalatable to our military leaders. The entire ISIS thing falls on the Iraqi president's shoulders; he made the choice to kick the US soldiers out of Iraq, no one else did.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  44. For fuck's sake. Nobody is moving to Canada by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    For cryin' out loud, this is just senseless hyperbole. Nobody is going to uproot themselves and move to another country just because Trump gets elected. The President is temporary. Moving to another country is not so temporary, and no reasonable person is going to go through that just because Trump gets elected.

    1. Re:For fuck's sake. Nobody is moving to Canada by silentcoder · · Score: 0

      Plenty of people have left countries because the wrong person got elected before. The world was overrun with people emigrating out of a certain European country when that country elected a guy who sounded a *lot* like Trump. One of them desperately tried to get refugee status in the US, she was denied and would later be murdered while hiding in the netherlands from the hit-squads that, that Trump-like leader was sending after her. You may have heard of her, her name was Anne Frank.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    2. Re:For fuck's sake. Nobody is moving to Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's another bit of nonsensical hyperbole that only serves to diminish the importance and appreciation that the world has for the holocaust. My grandparents didn't die in the holocaust so the magnitude of those atrocities could be diluted by rhetorical dragons spewing fires of hatred and intolerance. Hitler and Trump have absolutely nothing in common. Trump is not going to round up 12 million people and gas them to death. Nobody in their right mind believe that he is anything like Hitler.

      You do a disservice to everyone who died under Hitler's regime by making these silly comparisons.

    3. Re: For fuck's sake. Nobody is moving to Canada by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Thats exactly what they said of Hitler actually. And if you thin they are so different you have not heard Trump's speeches or not heard Hitler's speeches. They are not similar. They are identical.. Trump could be using translations of mein kampf as source material and it would sound the same. I live in the one country where the nazi ideology survived world war 2. It became appartheid. The very first organised protests against it were led by a man called Seaman Malan. Formerly the deadliest fighter pilot in the R.A.F. The allies answer to the red baron. Horified to see the ideology he had fought so hard to defeat become official policy in his homeland. War hero Malan was stripped of his honors for opposing appartheid and buried without so much as an acknowledgement from the air force. And you know who else sounded exactly like Trump ? H.F. Verwoerd. The architect of appartheid. The man Malan protested against. The only nazi who got to implement the policies of the party without the distraction of war.

      Will Trump give you a holocaust ? Maybe not. But he will for damn sure give you appartheid. Likewise a crime against humanity. My people went from noble freedom loving farmers to the committers of one if the 20th centurys gravest atrocities in the space of a generation. Partly enabled by having been the victims of one 50 years earlier. I would argue the same thing is happening in Israel today.
      Do not underestimate the power of ethno-nationalistic demagogues. Germany also had checks and ballances. Hitler found one obscure loophole and turned a meaningless ceremonial position into absolute power in a single day. Verwoerd won the popular vote from a frightened and impoverished citizenry still recovering after surviving the 20th centurys first genocide courtesey Alfred Milner, Kitchener and Cecil Rhodes three names as ignominois as Hitler, Himmler and Goebels.

      From the battered survivors of the first concentration camps to disguised NAZIs in the 45 years. We could not rid ourselves of that scourge until 1989 and even then it was only because the Berlin wall fell. When the cold war ended and we were no longer useful to the west we got sanctioned into economic collapse and were forced to change.

      Don't tell me I am exagerating. I was fucking there. I listened to P.W. Botha's speeches. I saw the injustices committed in my name when they were revealed later. Almost every adult I knew fought in the army. I have seen where speeches like Trump leads with my own eyes. You underestimate the power of extreme views by a skilled demagogue. I do not. My people suffered under one and committed another.

      Do not become us.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    4. Re: For fuck's sake. Nobody is moving to Canada by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Oh btw: do you know who else thinks Trump sounds like Hitler ? Germans.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  45. Are Evangelicals dangerous? by mi · · Score: 1

    Thanks to the Evangelicals, if I go to certain parts of the United States, I must put myself at risk of harassment, assault or murder just to use a public washroom

    Citations missing.

    Religion mixed into politics is totally, unquestionably evil.

    So, you think, the First Amendment protects a school principal's decision to ban American flag, but would like to ban religious people from running for office?

    I'm afraid, your understanding of laws and ethics is just as messed up as your sexuality...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Are Evangelicals dangerous? by dskoll · · Score: 1

      In North Carolina, it is illegal for me to use the women's restroom even though I am a transgender woman and look completely female. And transgender people face enormous rates of harassment when forced to use the wrong washroom with 9% reporting assault.

      but would like to ban religious people from running for office?

      Where on earth did I say that? Religious people are quite welcome to run for office. What they should not do is push their religious beliefs on others by making public policy.

      I'm afraid, your understanding of laws and ethics is just as messed up as your sexuality.

      My sexuality? Where did I mention my sexuality? Oh right, you're among the many ignorant people who conflate gender identity with sexual orientation... I forgot that there are a lot of you out there.

    2. Re:Are Evangelicals dangerous? by mi · · Score: 1

      In North Carolina, it is illegal for me to use the women's restroom even though I am a transgender woman and look completely female.

      I suppose, a human convinced he is a zebra, would also consider any policy barring him from working as a zoo exhibit "discriminatory". But I — a Soviet-raised atheist — would simply consider him crazy. And you, probably, would too until the "oh wait!" kicks-in...

      And transgender people face enormous rates of harassment when forced to use the wrong washroom with 9% reporting assault.

      And how is this the fault of Evangelicals?

      Religious people are quite welcome to run for office.

      You said the exact opposite, when you claimed that "Religion mixed into politics is totally, unquestionably evil."

      What they should not do is push their religious beliefs on others by making public policy.

      Ah, so you are Ok with religious beliefs as long as they don't manifest themselves. Nice...

      ... conflate gender identity with sexual orientation...

      Distinction without difference to the conversation.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    3. Re:Are Evangelicals dangerous? by dskoll · · Score: 1

      ...a human convinced he is a zebra...

      Which is a completely false analogy. First of all, there's growing evidence for a biological basis for transgenderism. Secondly, human males and females are not all that different; our bodies are originally undifferentiated and have the potential to develop either way, depending on what hormones are or are not present, and how our hormone receptors react. For example, I take estradiol and it has given me breasts because my body still has some potential to develop either way. There is no potential whatsoever for my body to turn into a zebra.

      Ok with religious beliefs as long as they don't manifest themselves.

      Yes, precisely. If religious beliefs manifest themselves in how a person conducts his or her own life, that's completely fine. But if the beliefs are pushed onto others via public policy, then it's not fine at all. How is it so hard to comprehend?

      Distinction without difference...

      You are welcome to remain ignorant; doesn't bother me.

    4. Re:Are Evangelicals dangerous? by mi · · Score: 1

      biological basis for transgenderism

      I don't know, what such "biological basis" can possibly mean.

      There is no potential whatsoever for my body to turn into a zebra.

      What a bigoted thing to say! Seriously, a few more revolutions in science, and it might become possible — but that's irrelevant. Any male body is much closer to Napoleon's, than it is to a female body — yet, people claiming to be Napoleons are usually locked up...

      The "crazy" starts with the very rejection of who you actually are and continues into demanding to be made into and/or treated as something else. In that sense, my analogy is perfectly valid. I apologize for the term "crazy", but the earlier-used "confused" certainly applies.

      If religious beliefs manifest themselves in how a person conducts his or her own life, that's completely fine. But if the beliefs are pushed onto others via public policy [...]

      I contend, that "his own life" and "pushed onto others" are inseparable, if formulating and/or executing public policy is the person's very job.

      And it is just that for most office-holders, which is why I accused you of wishing to ban the religious from public office earlier.

      BTW, you are yet to explain, why you single out Evangelicals so fervently? Abortions are very illegal in Catholic Ireland and Mexico, for example, and don't even get me started on "Pride" parades in Muslim Jakarta and Tehran, or even in Hinduist Delhi.

      Likewise, your claim of facing high risk visiting a wrong bathroom because of Evangelicals remains unsubstantiated.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    5. Re:Are Evangelicals dangerous? by dskoll · · Score: 1

      I don't know, what such "biological basis" can possibly mean.

      Well, here's some reading for you: Transgender: Evidence on the biological nature of gender identity. And Science in transition: Understanding the biology behind gender identity. And Structural Connectivity Networks of Transgender People

      Any male body is much closer to Napoleon's, than it is to a female body.

      Wow, you know nothing about genetics or biology, do you? Two unrelated people are much more dissimilar than fraternal twins, one of whom happens to be male and one female. Secondly, false analogy again: Someone who isn't Napoleon but claims he is has no biological basis for that claim. I am not claiming to be someone that I'm not. Quite the opposite: I am expressing my true gender identity as it is forged in my brain.

      I contend, that "his own life" and "pushed onto others" are inseparable, if formulating and/or executing public policy is the person's very job.

      You can contend that all you want, but it's false. Our former Prime Minister Stephen Harper was a religious Christian personally very opposed to abortion, but he did not force his views on the electorate, mostly because he knew he'd lose, but partly because Canada in recent years ironically has more of a tradition of keeping religion out of political discourse than the US. In the US, the Religious Right has been extremely successful in pushing policy changes that implement its religious views.

      Likewise, your claim of facing high risk visiting a wrong bathroom because of Evangelicals remains unsubstantiated.

      It was Evangelical pressure that got the North Carolina anti-LGBT bill passed, and there are bills pending in several states that are both explicitly anti-LGBT and claiming to be in support of "freedom of religion", just so long as your religion happens to be Christianity.

      You can contend that all you want, but it's false. Our former Prime Minister Stephen Harper was quite religious and was personally opposed to abortion. However, he refused to reopen the abortion debate in Canada because most Canadians are pro-choice and he knew he could not force his religious beliefs on others. In the US, unfortunately, the religious right has been much more successful in forcing its beliefs on others.

      BTW, you are yet to explain, why you single out Evangelicals so fervently?

      We're talking about Donald Trump. If you want to see me to write nasty things about Islam, try looking at some postings I've made on Slashdot where Islam is a relevant part of the discussion. I assure you that I am an equal-opportunity religion-basher and think that Islam is one of the worst out there. But that's not the issue in the USA; evangelical Christianity is the issue there.

      And if you must know, I'd certainly take Donald Trump over Ted Cruz, who is a poster-child for the dangerous religious extremist politician.

    6. Re:Are Evangelicals dangerous? by mi · · Score: 1

      Two unrelated people are much more dissimilar than fraternal twins, one of whom happens to be male and one female.

      From the point of view of genetics — maybe, depending on what you count. But the hormones and genitalia make the sexes rather distinctly and obviously different — hopefully, you agree.

      I am expressing my true gender identity as it is forged in my brain.

      "Forged into your brain"? Is that a scientific term too? How is it different from someone claiming to be a cat or Napoleon? Can they not have it "forged into their brains" too? Or am I dealing with the sole sane patient in an asylum?

      It was Evangelical pressure that got the North Carolina anti-LGBT bill passed

      I fail to see, how the demand, that people with penises use the male bathroom, is in any way "anti-LGBT". If asked, I — an atheist — would've supported it too. There is nothing "Evangelical" or even generally religious about it. You can dress however you want, and you can fuck whoever you want, but public bathrooms are shared spaces... As long as we are separating sexes there at all, equating penis (present or amputated) with maleness seems perfectly non-controversial.

      he refused to reopen the abortion debate in Canada because most Canadians are pro-choice and he knew he could not force his religious beliefs on others

      Seems like Mr. Harper was simply a realist. My contention — about inseparability of religious beliefs from a politician's job stands.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    7. Re:Are Evangelicals dangerous? by dskoll · · Score: 1

      But the hormones and genitalia make the sexes rather distinctly and obviously different — hopefully, you agree

      No, not really. There are physical differences, to be sure, but they are relatively superficial. The same undifferentiated fetal genitalia can go either way, and structures are reused. What becomes the labia in females becomes the scrotum in males. What becomes the clitoris in females becomes the glans in males. Nature is pretty efficient at code reuse.

      Forged into your brain"? Is that a scientific term too

      Indeed. Did you read the papers on Dick Swaab's brain-bank studies of the brains of transgender people? Go read them.

      I fail to see, how the demand, that people with penises use the male bathroom, is in any way "anti-LGBT"

      It is for a number of reasons. It puts transgender people at risk without increasing anyone else's safety. Also, people forget about transgender men and forget that the law would force people like this guy to use the ladies' room. I don't know about you, but I think one's general presentation is far more likely to make people comfortable or uncomfortable than the presence or lack of a penis, particularly because anyone who scrutinizes genitalia in a public restroom is somewhat creepy at best. Finally, bills such as the North Carolina one use the scary "bathroom issue" to get passed, but it also contained provisions explicitly banning local LGBT non-discrimination ordinances (not just T, but LGBT) and also contained a provision setting the minimum wage. So we see the cynical manipulation of people's irrational fears by the religious right to push their agenda, even if parts of the agenda are totally unrelated to the fear-mongering.

      My contention — about inseparability of religious beliefs from a politician's job stands.

      Your contention, as I wrote before, can be made as much as you want. It doesn't make it a fact. Arguing by strenuous contention isn't proof of anything.

    8. Re:Are Evangelicals dangerous? by mi · · Score: 1

      What becomes the labia in females becomes the scrotum in males.

      Sure. And it all happens long before birth.

      It puts transgender people at risk without increasing anyone else's safety.

      BS. Certainly an opportunistic heterosexual voyeur, stalker (or even a rapist) can put on a dress and prey on women in bathrooms all day. Without this law, police have nothing to arrest him for until he actually strikes. So the law, by giving law enforcement legal means for removing such predators does increase somebody's safety. And, sure, the brave "progressives" denounce this argument as a "myth", but it is not.

      Whether protecting women (50+% of population) justifies inconveniencing the transgendered (0.5%) may be a valid question, but North Carolina answered it for themselves, following a democratic process. I see no reason to disagree with them and you are yet to explain, why Evangelicals are especially responsible for the decision you dislike.

      Did you read the papers on Dick Swaab's brain-bank studies of the brains of transgender people?

      I will, before talking to him. Meanwhile you are yet to explain, why person born with penis and without vagina (or with both X and Y chromosomes) calling himself a woman is any more sane, than a human calling himself a cat or Napoleon. If you wish to further argue this part, please, be sure to include a definition of the terms "man" and "woman" in your reply. For a student of biology such as yourself, this should not a burden.

      it also contained provisions explicitly banning local LGBT non-discrimination ordinances

      Opposing special treatment of a certain group is not equivalent to attack on the group.

      contention [...] doesn't make it a fact

      Sure. It is just that I deem this particular contention self-evident and your sole attempt at a counter-example fell flat...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    9. Re:Are Evangelicals dangerous? by dskoll · · Score: 1

      Sure. And it all happens long before birth.

      So? So what?

      Certainly an opportunistic heterosexual voyeur, stalker (or even a rapist) can put on a dress and prey on women in bathrooms all day.

      Actually, no. No he can not. Voyeurism, harassment and rape are all illegal, you know. Staying out of my life and letting me go to the bathroom I look most appropriate in doesn't magically legalize rape. And yes, it is a myth that the rules will be abused.

      ...you are yet to explain, why Evangelicals are especially responsible for the decision you dislike

      They are the driving force behind these sorts of discriminatory laws, many of which are couched in the language of "religious freedom", a point I mentioned but you ignored.

      Am I insane because I identify as a woman? No, I'm not. Believe me, I've talked to psychologists and counselors and no-one has thought I was anything but sane. Furthermore, I function very well in society, running a company successfully, employing people, providing for my family, contributing to my community, paying taxes and being a good citizen. The fact that my gender identity doesn't match my biological sex is just one facet of who I am. You want a definition of a "man" or "woman"? Well, it depends if you're talking about sex or gender, which are two different things. It's also the case that one's brain can be a different sex from one's body; Swaab and others have demonstrated sexual dimorphism in the brain and that the brains of transgender people are in many ways closer to the sex they identify as than the sex one naively expects from their chromosomes. All this is to say that sex and gender are more complex than you make out.

      Opposing special treatment of a certain group is not equivalent to attack on the group.

      We are not asking for special treatment. What's special? We just want to be left in peace. And in the context of the bills in the USA, LGBT people simply want the right not to be refused housing, employment or accommodation because of who they are - exactly the protections enjoyed by every other person in the US.

      ...I deem this particular contention self-evident...

      People who vehemently contend something do usually see it as self-evident... that's hardly exciting news.

    10. Re:Are Evangelicals dangerous? by mi · · Score: 1

      Actually, no. No he can not.

      What's there to stop him?

      And yes, it is a myth

      Congratulations, you've defeated a strawman. Your link explains, how improbable (though not impossible) it is to be attacked in a bathroom by a transgendered. But that's not, what I was talking about. Which was the treat posed by a heterosexual man pretending to be a woman in order to get into and stay in women's bathroom. And that has happened...

      Am I insane because I identify as a woman?

      Yes, one's elevator does not reach all the way to the top, if he considers himself a woman. But, as I wrote once before, we really ought to define terms before continuing. I am now asking you once again to post your definitions for the terms "man" and "woman". Further responses missing this information will be returned unopened. Thank you.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  46. Run Like Hell by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    Trump is so twisted and ignorant that I want to run like hell to almost any other nation if he is elected. He is a liar and an egomaniac and will try to turn the uS into a fascist nation. I would also expect a total collapse of the economic system. Recently he ranted about a deliberate devaluation of the dollar to enable us to compete with China. How many people understand, that the path to devaluing the dollar would be deliberate, high, rates of inflation? In essence, he wants to cut your paychecks in half. And if you get raises to compensate for inflation then you will be pushed into a much higher tax bracket. With inflation your property tax will also go way up as suddenly your property will be worth a lot more, low value dollars.

  47. Sent the Indian scabs to Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure they'll love the snow.

  48. Most Silicon Valley techies I know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most Silicon Valley techies I know are very much libertarian and have never been enraptured by either Democrats or Republicans. They are used to being "odd man out" politically.

  49. You haven't been paying attention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If that's your position. Heaven help you.

  50. Trump isn't every other guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought the move to Canada crowd were nothing but the adult versions of toddlers throwing tantrums for not getting their way, but if you actually sit down and pay attention to the approach Trump is taking, and the sort of man he is...

    I attended a talk by a holocaust survivor and her point was, "Hitler was nicer."

  51. stupid and stupider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there is no reason to make up numbers that are not realistic.

    I know, right? Expecting someone to do at least as well as the market is just stupid, right? Everyone does worse than the average!

  52. idiots abound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That doesn't mean that you shouldn't lead the charge, try to refactor the thing.

    oh do please tell us what refactors donald has in mind to make things better. be specific please

  53. Branding by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    True.

    However say what you want about him, but he has been pretty successful building the "Trump" brand. If all he did was S&P he might be worth more money, however he would also be unknown and probably not running pretty successfully for President (relatively speaking).

    Considering so many important things in the world is based on perceived value, confidence, and opinion, Trump has a way of lying pretty successfully...

    However when your competition (republicans) is so terrible, it is hard not to come off smelling like roses no matter what you do or say. I expect the Democrats to win by probably one of the largest landslides in US history. Perhaps that will shake up the republican party enough into reality.

  54. Polls do; and you haven't been paying attention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most Canadians are alright with said Americans moving north. As for throwing a fit, yeah, that's the issue with the past fucks who made this claim they'd move - but you haven't really been paying attention to Trump, who he is surrounding himself with, and what his supporters will do - if you think it's the same with Trump.

    Nazi comparisons are abound in every election, and it's always made me sick, but this year they're quite apt and terrifyingly so. Don't simplify tell yourself you know enough about Hitler's rise. Review it, review the methods used, the type of supporters, etc.

    It can happen again.
    It can happen in America.
    And it starts like this.

    Given that your government's immigration site is being overwhelmed, the idea of at least some of these Americans moving north would seem to me more than hot air. You may want to develop a more forgiving perspective before they're your neighbors or life is going to suck for you when you're the only asshole in the neighborhood.

    Then again, I sense, you already are.

  55. The denial... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It makes me wonder what the median age of Slashdot is now compared to when founded in 1997. Almost 20 years have passed.

  56. $1 million(1968) to $74 million (2013) via S& by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really shitty business man? With a success rate over 99%?

    PopeRatzo wrote:

    If Donald Trump had taken the million dollars he was give by his father and just invested it in a S&P index fund, he'd be worth $10,000,000,000 more than he is right now. Yes, when you're business has underperformed the stock market over a 30 year period by that much, you are a shitty business man.

    1968 is the year Donald Trump graduated from Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania.

    A million dollars invested in 1968 into an index fund following the S&P would be worth about $74 million in 2013. Yes, MILLLIONS, not BILLIONS.. Go to the "Historical returns investing calculator" by Chris Kahn at Bankrate :

    http://www.bankrate.com/finance/investing/historical-returns-investing-calculator.aspx

    and enter the figures, with a starting value of $1 million in 1968 and an ending date of 2013 (It only goes to 2013, not 2016, but even so the result in 2016 would be nowhere near the billions) The result is $74,167,654.01. Or, if you are suspicious that you didn't enter the right number of zeroes, enter $1 in 1968, and you get back $74.17 in 2013. The Bankrate calculator notes: "Calculator assumes dividends are invested back into your portfolio. Market value excludes inflation, taxes and/or investment costs. Calculator based on the S&P Composite Stock Price Index compiled by Yale economist Robert Shiller. " (Note that Bankrate itself is a public company on the New York Stock Exchange; read more at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankrate)

    PopeRatzo wrote: Yes, when you're business has underperformed the stock market over a 30 year period by that much, you are a shitty business man.

    So that logic proves that Trump actually IS a great business man because he took that $1 million loan and turned it into at least $4 billion (low estimate) to $10 billion (his claim). If he had literally followed the advice posted above, he would have only made at most $90 million by 2016 without extracting any money from the fund. Living expenses (food, clothing, hair cuts ha ha, university tuition for the kids), capital gains taxes, income tax, property taxes all would have eaten into the sitting pile of money like piranhas on Michael Jackson's decaying flesh.

    And the total amount of money generated from the $1 million investment actually has to be more than $4-10 billion because that is just what Trump gets to keep. Trump keeps only a fraction of the entire revenue; other money goes to local, state, and federal government taxes, AND all the wages he's paid to other people over the years.

    His businesses have directly employed tens of thousands of people, from "blue collar" to "white collar": concept artists, architects, civil engineers, structural engineers, electrical engineers, IT folks, computer programmers, interior designers, fashion (apparel) designers, electricians, plumbers, stone masons, sculptors, retail marketers, accountants, lawyers, furniture makers, advertisers, photographers, models, and on and on. This kind of "wealth distribution" isn't just giving people a handout, but allows them to follow their own dream careers. And many of his buildings have transformed the neighborhoods in which they were built, increasing the economic activity and further "distributing wealth".

    From "How Donald Trump held save New York City", by Steve Cuozzo, Feburary 7, 2016 in the New York Post:

    Long before Donald Trump stamped his name in gold on buildings around the world, posted snarky midnight tweets and joined the race of the White House, he was New York's most important and bravest real-estate

  57. Re:$1 million(1968) to $74 million (2013) via S&a by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1
    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  58. AH, Canadians by kaatochacha · · Score: 2

    I love when my Canadian friends talk about how accepting and multicultural they are, being isolated so far north from significant land immigration traffic.
    I always offer that we can place buses at the US/Mexico border with a sign saying "free trip to Canada", and drop off anyone who wishes to ride on the Canadian side of the border.

  59. Re:$1 million(1968) to $74 million (2013) via S&am by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Regardless of index fund performances, Trump keeps only a fraction of the entire revenue of his businesses; other money goes to local, state, and federal government taxes, AND all the wages he's paid to other people over the years.

    Trump's businesses have directly employed tens of thousands of people, from "blue collar" to "white collar": concept artists, architects, civil engineers, structural engineers, electrical engineers, IT folks, computer programmers, interior designers, fashion (apparel) designers, electricians, plumbers, stone masons, sculptors, retail marketers, accountants, lawyers, furniture makers, advertisers, photographers, models, and on and on. This kind of "wealth distribution" isn't just giving people a handout, but allows them to follow their own dream careers. And many of his buildings have transformed the neighborhoods in which they were built, increasing the economic activity and further "distributing wealth".

    From "How Donald Trump held save New York City", by Steve Cuozzo, Feburary 7, 2016 in the New York Post:

    Long before Donald Trump stamped his name in gold on buildings around the world, posted snarky midnight tweets and joined the race of the White House, he was New York's most important and bravest real-estate developer. Whatever you think about his political views or crazy campaign, Trump doesn't get enough credit for being a transformative planner who is in love with the city. No matter how many times they watch "Taxi Driver", younger New Yorkers and older one who arrived recently have no idea of what the city was actually like in the mid-1970s throughout the mid-'90s. Notwithstanding Studio 54 and a short-lived Wall Street boom, the metropolis was reeling. Rampant street crime, AIDS, corporate flight and physical decay brought confidence to an all time low. Trump waded into a landscape of empty Fifth Avenue storefronts, the dust-bowl mugging ground that was Central Park and a Wall Street area seemingly on its last legs as companies moved out. Except in Battery Park City, which was then as remote as an offshore island, few other developers built anything but plan-vanilla office and apartment buildings. Trump -- almost by force of will - rode to the rescue. Expressing rare faith in the future, he was instrumental in kick-starting the generation of neighborhoods and landmarks almost give up for dead. Many of his brainstorms were ahead of their time. Some -- like his struggle beginning in the early 1970s to build what's now called Riverside South -- were so far ahead, it can be hard to connect the dots between Trump's works and the neighborhood transformations they spawned and inspired years later. A more enlightened yardstick would measure what Trump created and how the projects lifted all boats around them.

    Now just imagine if everybody with a lot of money took the attitude of throwing money in an S&P tracking index fund and sitting back. Just imagine that the founders and managers of the stocks in the S&P would just quit their jobs and sit back and do nothing. The S&P would shrivel in value in no time flat because everybody would be expecting "somebody else" to be taking risks and generating money....and there would be NO "somebody else".

    This is the story of four people: Everybody, Somebody, Anybody, and Nobody.

    There was an important job to be done.
    Everybody was sure that Somebody would do it.
    Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it.
    Somebody got angry about that, because it was Everybody's job.
    Everybody thought that Anybody could do it.
    But Nobody realized that Everybody wouldn't do it.
    Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have done,

    The article "Should Trump have indexed?" by Matt Levine ( (BA Harvard, law degree from Yale), September 3, 2015 at http://www.bloombergv

  60. Re:$1 million(1968) to $74 million (2013) via S&am by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Adam Carolla

    Delete your account.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  61. They aren't leaving yet, calm the fuck down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How dare you call someone a fool for daring to have a backup plan in case something awful happens, in any situation.

    That Trump has any chance is enough for some of us to be concerned, because life is full of unlikely events... happening.

  62. So Canada is opening it's borders... by KenHansen · · Score: 1

    ...and it's wealth of social programs to any and all Americans that choose to cross the border and start taking high-tech jobs from Canadians? So I guess I can just cross the border, rent an apartment, and go out and apply for a job & get free health care? How long after I cross the border will I be able to vote in Canadian elections, become a Canadian citizen, and start reaping all those wonderful social programs? I'm positive Canada wouldn't discriminate against foreigners that simply start showing up and drive down the pay scales for low-skill jobs, right?

  63. "Being" vs. "Identifying as" by mi · · Score: 1

    Am I insane because I identify as a woman?

    Ok, sorry, let me clarify this a bit. You are not "insane" — that's a loaded term anyway. But you do have a delusion:

    a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary

    (That "superior evidence", in this case, is your "biological sex".)

    Either that, or, maybe, you have a lighter disorder of pseudologia fantastica.

    I'm sorry, but I'm not buying into this subtle differences between "being" and "identifying as". For a man to "identify as" woman is just as (if not more!) delusional (or fraudulent) as for a White to identify as Black. Your "bilogical sex" makes you a man, by definition — which destines you to M-labeled bathrooms, whatever you are wearing.

    it depends if you're talking about sex or gender

    Nonsense. "Sex" and "gender" are interchangeable synonyms, the latter employed purely to avoid the erotic connotations of the former, when discussing things like grammar. Your attempts to differentiate between these terms may itself be symptomatic of the delusion.

    Swaab and others have demonstrated sexual dimorphism in the brain

    Any references to "scientific papers" can not, unfortunately, be given much credence — because of how sensitive a topic this is politically. For example, imagine that same "sexual dimorphism in the brain" argument used to justify the wage-disparity between sexes. Heck, you don't even need to imagine, just consider the fate of one L.H. Summers.

    So, you are claiming, that some organs of your body disagree with others in identifying your sex (brain vs. genitalia)? Even if that were true, you are "fixing" the wrong organs... Which is, of course, your choice — just do not demand, the rest of society changes the language (and bathrooms) to accommodate it.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:"Being" vs. "Identifying as" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      again with the bigotry.