Slashdot Mirror


Online Journalists Launch An Onslaught Against Donald Trump (nytimes.com)

An anonymous Slashdot reader writes: Online journalists at Buzzfeed are publicizing two controversial videos featuring Donald Trump. First the site "filed court motions seeking the release" of Trump's under-oath testimony in a June trial, in which the real estate mogul "says he planned his caustic remarks on immigration delivered during the launch of his presidential bid," bragging that they'd "led to my nomination in a major party in the country." And Buzzfeed is also publicizing a video clip from the 2000 softcore porn movie Playboy Video Centerfold: Bernaola Twins, in which Trump makes a cameo appearance. Playboy has even said that years earlier Trump actually pressured his second wife to pose for Playboy. ("Trump himself was on the phone negotiating the fee," remembered a top Playboy editor. "He wanted her to do the nude layout. She didn't.")

But his biggest problem may be the mainstream media. According to the New York Times, Trump "declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income tax returns, a tax deduction so substantial it could have allowed him to legally avoid paying any federal income taxes for up to 18 years..."

843 comments

  1. Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Meh.

    Hillary is a corrupt, lying monster who is the ultimate expression of the repressive system of the political Establishment. She shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the White House. I'm voting for Trump just because the establishment is trying so insanely hard to derail him. When the UN hates his guts, that just adds another sparkle to his appeal. He's the napalm solution for a time when everyone is tired of what Hillary represents.

    Burn the system down. Burn it all down.

    1. Re:Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Totally agree. Anybody but Hillary. I don't care if it was a random name from the phone book. Anybody but Hillary!

    2. Re:Meh. by lush_cmte · · Score: 0

      You're referring to the people who are oblivious to the lying, corrupt hag?

    3. Re:Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Another crap article.

      The first sentence says "Donald J. Trump declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income tax returns". But then later says "The documents were the first page of a New York State resident income tax return, the first page of a New Jersey nonresident tax return and the first page of a Connecticut nonresident tax return." No federal tax information.

    4. Re:Meh. by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 2

      Hag? Don't be so mean to the former administrative assistant of state.

      After all, she did mention her concussion brain damage when called in front of congress. It's not cool to call dain bramaged people hags.

      --
      _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
    5. Re:Meh. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Informative

      The first sentence says "Donald J. Trump declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income tax returns". But then later says "The documents were the first page of a New York State resident income tax return, the first page of a New Jersey nonresident tax return and the first page of a Connecticut nonresident tax return." No federal tax information.

      Where do you think the numbers on your state return come from? Maybe you've never filed taxes, but state returns say things like, "Enter amount from your Federal form on line 9a".

      State tax returns are based on Federal tax returns.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:Meh. by sinij · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Burn the system down. Burn it all down.

      I would rather not see Establishment Hilary elected, but Trump really could burn the system down, and what replaces it is going to be much worse than what we have. Corporate Authoritarianism and Full Surveillance State where we have less rights, less freedoms and where system rigged much harder against regular people. Your think your analog guns will be any good against autonomous kill drones?

    7. Re:Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      . He's the napalm solution for a time when everyone is tired of what Hillary represents.

      Burn the system down. Burn it all down.

      Hillary is a politician who for the most part has done good in her life, and, yes, she has also made some money indirectly as a result of that. Trump's life is not about perfecting the art of the deal. It is about perfecting the art of the con. He basically will say anything at any moment if it advances his goals. In short he has the self control of a middle school kid as demonstrated by all his revenge tweets and such. The fact that he planned on using racism from the get go not as something he believed in, but as a turn out strategy just makes it all the worse

      The most important quality a president must have is at least some level of self control and restraint. Hillary has shown she has that. Trump has not. Do you want him having access to far more powerful tools at 3am than Twitter? I certainly don't.

      If Trump wants to release something besides his taxes, I say release all his employees an former employees and let them talk about their experiences with Trump. I somehow doubt the one Hotel where he demanded the less pretty girls be let go is the only one.

    8. Re: Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the President has full power over kill drones, no checks and balances whatsoever?

      Are you really this fucking stupid?

    9. Re: Meh. by sinij · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, the President has full power over kill drones, no checks and balances whatsoever?

      Pretty much, and Obama already used them for killing off US citizens. Sure, it was heinous people that got killed that way, but that can quickly get redefined.

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

      "Everyone who disagrees with me politcally is either an idiot or a child. Because I'm always right!"

    11. Re:Meh. by Karlt1 · · Score: 2

      You really think that Trump isn't corrupt?

    12. Re:Meh. by sinij · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Totally agree. Anybody but Hillary.

      Anything is better than the corruption that is the Clintons.

      No, not anything. Economic devastation and deep recession followed by lots of multinational corporations becoming ex-US due to shattering of trade deals is not better. If you think US could survive couple bankruptcies like Trump's casinos, then you are sadly mistaken.

    13. Re:Meh. by quax · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And when you really get to hate the color of your living room carpet, I assume you also set that one on fire to then watch it burn from the comfort of your sofa.

    14. Re: Meh. by quax · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't think the AC has to worry. The ones that swear fealty to the leader are usually safe in an authoritarian regime.

    15. Re:Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're referring to the people who are oblivious to the lying, corrupt hag?

      I think you'll find that MightyMartian, despite being Canadian, supports "the lying, corrupt hag."

    16. Re:Meh. by stinerman · · Score: 1

      Look, enough about Trump. What about Hillary?

    17. Re: Meh. by sinij · · Score: 1

      Don't think the AC has to worry. The ones that swear fealty to the leader are usually safe in an authoritarian regime.

      I, for one, would like to be the first to welcome our drone-killing Trump overlord.

    18. Re: Meh. by quax · · Score: 1

      Well, done. But just to be doubly safe I recommend to also generously apply some spray on tan and to practice the comb over. This way a drone pilot will be able to spot from miles away that you are one of the good guys, who stands with his Mango Mussolini leader.

    19. Re:Meh. by Phydeaux · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Politically correct needs to go- individualized pronouns, safe spaces, the whole lot. Senators or Representatives (D or R) "elected for life" need to go find a real job. If you're part of the solution, chip in. If you're part of the problem, straighten out, get humble and grab a shovel, because we've got a lot of work to do. If you don't like it, go find a country that will put up with your whiney ass because America has no interest in anyone who doesn't pull their own weight.

    20. Re: Meh. by sinij · · Score: 1

      I got it covered. I already have a list of suspected communist sympathizers I am going to hand-deliver on the first day. It is easy living from there.

    21. Re:Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd prefer Stalin over Hillary, but he's dead so Trump will do.

      I second your motion to burn it all to the ground. Forget the Mexicans: I hope Trump deports everyone who lives in the Washington DC Metro area(San Francisco too while he's at it).

    22. Re:Meh. by quantaman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Burn the system down. Burn it all down.

      I'm guessing you're not a Muslim, Hispanic, black person, or resident of a Middle Eastern country.

      You won't get racially profiled, called the enemy, threatened with deportation, or have your country attacked on a whim.

      Much more likely you're white (and probably male), and as bad as Trump is the worst consequence you're likely to personally experience is a drop in your purchasing power due to the recession.

      In other words it's easy to say "burn it all down" when you're not the one in the house.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    23. Re: Meh. by quax · · Score: 1

      Gotta be careful with that my friend. Given the Putin bromance this may backfire. Much safer to stick to brown people who speak Spanish (bonus points if you rat out obese Latinas). But Arab looking Muslims will do in a pinch.

    24. Re:Meh. by bongey · · Score: 2

      Clinton is in major leagues level of corruption. Has Trump ever been under a FBI investigation multiple times ? NOPE .

    25. Re:Meh. by Phydeaux · · Score: 1

      But how does a lifetime "public servant" become a multi-millionaire? I'm sorry, but politicians are held to a higher standard as we elect them to represent us- our rights, our causes, our needs and interests. They aren't elected to profit off insider information, selling "pay for play" or to advance their causes over those they represent. You might think Trump is corrupt, but as a private individual (at least until he threw his hat into the 2016 ring), he should not bear the same scrutiny as Hillary. He and his businesses have followed and taken advantage of good and bad laws, some he's been called to account for (1972 racial discrimination rental case) and other's he's benefitted from. Hillary, OTOH, has been on the law creation side, and has had a hand in crafting laws specifically to benefit her interests, which is not what she was elected (or appointed) to do. If you decide to vote for Hillary, it signifies that you condone her actions. And it's not like they've been "hidden" or "secret". From Whitewater, to TravelGate, to Email scandal, to Benghazi to (insert 30 other Clinton scandals), she has shown her hand. Nothing Donald Trump has done is even remotely on the scale of corruption that Hillary has shown.

    26. Re: Meh. by sinij · · Score: 1

      Sure pal, your suggestion will probably work even better. I have an Arab-looking neighbor with a very nice TV, if I rat him out I can probably beat others to looting that TV after they take him away.

    27. Re:Meh. by bheerssen · · Score: 1

      Maybe you've never filed taxes, but state returns say things like, "Enter amount from your Federal form on line 9a".

      I didn't know that. But then, I've never filed state income taxes because I live in Texas, where we don't do that.

      --
      (Score: -1, Stupid)
    28. Re:Meh. by Shane_Optima · · Score: 1

      This might have carried some weight in the Bush years, but the fact is Obama and the rest of the democrats did very little to undo the most egregious damage.

      Trump is an outsider. His damage from recklessness (if indeed he maintains the same persona--more on this momentarily) is less likely to lead down the road to dictatorship than Hillary. Reports of his Hitlerishness have been greatly, greatly exaggerated and do much to alienate many people who might otherwise have been talked out of a Trump vote. Calling Trump the next Hitler has never swayed the opinion of a single person who was on the fence. If you don't understand this, then you don't understand anything.

      That said, he's far too stupid and lazy to actually inflict any real damage of that sort. He's going to end up as a puppet of the Republicans, just as bad as Bush ever was (so, there's *that* kind of damage), except he'll occasionally do something especially wacky (but entirely inconsequential) just 'prove' that he's an outsider. So, this likely outcome rather cancels my above analysis. He's not worth voting for precisely because he is not likely to burn anything down, and the Republican establishment is a great deal more odious than the Democratic establishment.

      But I'm not a fan of either, so... please vote Johnson or Stein. It doesn't matter which. It doesn't matter; it's not about them winning, it's about laying the foundation for the breakup, or at least the shakeup, of the two-party system. Don't stay at home, and for fuck's sake don't vote for the lesser of two evils. The best hope we have of burning anything to the ground is by not voting for either party, period.

    29. Re: Meh. by quax · · Score: 1

      I see that you are really channeling the Movement. It's this kind of enterprising spirit that will make America great again!

    30. Re:Meh. by sinij · · Score: 1

      Yes, Trump is an outsider and that appeals to me. I too would like to see controlled demolition of the existing political system. What has me greatly concerned about Trump is his ego-driven irrationality. While he isn't malicious when he left to his devices, he can be easily goaded into doing fundamentally stupid and destructive things. He couldn't even contain himself for the duration of a debate, now multiply this by 4 years and they will write about this in 4000AD in books about the fall of American Empire and collapse of Second Western Civilization.

    31. Re: Meh. by sinij · · Score: 1

      Of course, we can't have any of these takers get in the way of progress.

    32. Re:Meh. by Comen · · Score: 1

      No doubt, it is sad that all this BS about Hillary, sure she is far from perfect, but she will get done lots of things I agree with, you do not have to love her. Trump is a idiot, and might as well be a casino owning mafia leader running. I get people do not like politicians and would love to vote in an outsider too, but Trump is the best we can do? how about next time I will vote for an outsider if we can find someone that is half way intelligent. Sean Penn for president or something. Someone that has knowledge and can not make us all look bad. As far as burning the system down to prove a point, you must be a youngster cause I am 45 and have way too much to lose to just say fuck it, lets watch the system burn! WTF

    33. Re: Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, just keep repeating that anti-Trump FUD, buttmunch.

    34. Re: Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      asswipe

    35. Re: Meh. by quax · · Score: 1

      The country (formerly know as 'the land of the free') shall be inherited by the makers! It's only fair.

      And don't let anybody tell you to pay taxes on the TV that you got from your Arab neighbor. You turned him in, you gotta keep it. No strings attached.

    36. Re: Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow! So surprised to see you repeating your anti-Trump FUD again. Got any proof of your assertions? If not, can it meatgazer.

    37. Re: Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More ad hominem attacks against Trump.. yawn. Wake me up when you can prove it with reputable sources, not just hearsay and conjecture you mook.

    38. Re:Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're already offshoring everything. Look at Ford, Carrier... Unless a new approach is put in place the status quo will hollow out USA.

    39. Re:Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) Those happen already anyhow, even under Obama.
      2) Trump wouldn't have anybody to work with him, so nothing would really get done for 4 years except a lot of complaining and insulting people.
      3) Hillary COULD get them to do all kinds of nonsense.

      Full disclosure: I hate both major party candidates and don't want to vote for either, but the pure fear about what Trump could do strikes me as silly. The president just doesn't have that much power.

    40. Re:Meh. by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Totally agree. Anybody but Hillary.

      Anything is better than the corruption that is the Clintons.

      No, not anything. Economic devastation and deep recession ...

      ... is in store for us no matter which one gets elected.

      followed by lots of multinational corporations becoming ex-US

      ??? Have you been watching the news for the last few years? Does the rock you live under only get digital broadcast TV?

      due to shattering of trade deals is not better. If you think US could survive couple bankruptcies like Trump's casinos, then you are sadly mistaken.

      Again, we are going to have the same bankruptcies whether it is under President Clinton the Second, or President Trump. I think that is inevitable at this point. Unless Washington DC can stop bleeding money at billions of dollars a second. Of the two, only Trump has a hope of making that happen, because Hillary is going to open a few more veins of the body politic and spill its lifeblood even faster.

      Do you think countries like Venezuela are doing OK, with similar actions as to what Hillary and the Democrats will put in place? (Economically, socially, and politically.)

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    41. Re: Meh. by Nova77 · · Score: 2

      Yes, she's bad. But he's several orders of magnitude worse, in pretty much anything. John Oliver explain this rather well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    42. Re:Meh. by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      No doubt, it is sad that all this BS about Hillary, sure she is far from perfect, but she will get done lots of things I agree with, you do not have to love her.

      Foreign policy is the only metric that matters when voting for president. The president commands the military and sets posture towards other states.

      Presidents have leveraged this reality in the past to radically change the course of history.

      Everything else a president could possibly do that is in any way meaningful requires an act of congress to materialize. This is why I'm a single issue voter.

      I get people do not like politicians and would love to vote in an outsider too, but Trump is the best we can do? how about next time I will vote for an outsider if

      There are at least three Candidates on the ballot in every state and four Candidates on the ballot for president in all but 3 or 4 states.

      we can find someone that is half way intelligent. Sean Penn for president or something. Someone that has knowledge and can not make us all look bad. As far as burning the system down to prove a point, you must be a youngster cause I am 45 and have way too much to lose to just say fuck it, lets watch the system burn! WTF

      Watching things "burn" live on CNN is a possible outcome of deciding to cast your vote for a Hawk who is less likely than Obama to demonstrate military restraint.

    43. Re:Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're not going to survive what obama has done to us.
      QE will end eventually. and we dont have the life jacket of adjusting interest rates anymore either.

    44. Re: Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Liberal john oliver

      Opinion discarded.

    45. Re:Meh. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      but Trump really could burn the system down

      I think you give the president too much credit. The vast majority of decisions typically run through congress. There's an element of damage control like when you put a 4 year old raving lunatic in the seat of a toy car instead of a real one. They will likely try run you over but the effect will be a sore ankle not a hospital visit.

    46. Re:Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YOU FUCKING WHITE MALE

    47. Re:Meh. by dbIII · · Score: 1
      People always being up Hitler. Even Saddam, who compared HIMSELF to Stalin, almost as bad a monster, kept getting compared to Hitler.
      Just because idiots are comparing Trump to Hitler doesn't mean that Trump doesn't have the sort of ideas that George Washington fought against. He's a fucking aristocrat and wants rule by fucking aristocrats. There is more than one type of enemy to a Republic.

      He's not worth voting for precisely because he is not likely to burn anything down

      With a weak government/president things are going to burn down even if he doesn't light the match himself. Trump is not going to react in a way that will be of benefit to the USA.

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

      Unfortunately, there wouldn't be anything resembling a "controlled demolition of the existing political system" with a Trump administration.

      Limping along with four years of a Clinton administration with a Republican-controlled congress will maybe, hopefully (wishful thinking, I know) give enough time for a real candidate to emerge for 2020. And hopefully, Hillary will dig such a big hole for herself that she doesn't stand a chance at renomination.

      I'll just go ahead and toss this out there now: FRANKEN 2020

    49. Re:Meh. by swb · · Score: 1

      The political and bureaucratic processes, let alone the other branches of government and the actual required cooperation of individuals required for truly destructive behavior by Trump largely mitigate the existential doom he's painted with. He's one man and can't really burn anything down on his own.

      Hillary to me actually represents corporate authoritarianism, mostly because she's so invested in corporate power. The kinds of people she represents are the privileged apparatchiks of corporate authoritarianism -- the degreed professionals, lawyers, MBAs, bankers, CPAs and people with a literal stake in the preservation of the status quo.

      Worse yet, she has managed to somehow synthesize their interests and the interests of the identity politics of the left, to where she is Janus-faced, at once a champion of Blacks, women, LGBTs and the status quo power structure. It's actually quite amazing she manages to hold high standing with both when traditionally such political bases represented antagonistic positions towards each other.

      That she manages this leads me to believe she doesn't really represent either of them, and only represents her own will to power. The ideology of Hillary is the ideology of Hillary's political power, not any coherent representation of a political world view.

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

      I hope your right, a lone fighter could take out an army of drones easily. Sci-fi bs aside, emp's really exist but range is limited, ai is years away from an autonomous battle ready state, rf jamming is more than effective at disabling almost all drones. So ya, army of soldiers vs army of drones, is much rather fight the drones, they are more predictable, and easier to takes out. It's the nukes and star wars project weaponry that scare me.

    51. Re:Meh. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      followed by lots of multinational corporations becoming ex-US due to shattering of trade deals is not better

      It's idiotic trade deals and our tax code that have chased US companies out of the country.

      And yes - the US can afford a rate of failed initiatives that parallel the small number of bankruptcies (relative to his hundreds of business ventures) on Trump's record. Because right now the US is nothing BUT a failing operation, financially. You get that, right? Debt has increased more during Obama's tenure than under all other presidents in history combined. The entire nation is essentially bankrupt and living on printed money and debt to places like China.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    52. Re:Meh. by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

      Actually, the President can do a lot today. Trimming the executive branch down should be very easy.

      First, the regulation process doesn't require congressional input. Trump can issue new proposed regulations that simply discard most of the current CFR. Then he waits for public input for a while, ignores that input, and BAM! those regulations are gone using the same method that created them.

      Second, people enforcing the now-removed regulations get laid off. The civil service union won't like it, but the employees aren't getting fired exactly, their positions have been obsoleted.

      Third, he demolishes the office buildings and turns them into federal parks. Personally, I'd prefer nuclear waste storage sites, but we can't always get what we want.

      It would take decades for leviathan to recover from that. A couple of Constitutional amendments and it might be centuries.

      (While I disagree with Mark Levin on term limits, and on Trump, his Liberty Amendments book lays out a solid plan for bringing the federal government back under the control of the states. Most relevant here are: The amendment to require an affirmative vote for approval of new regulations, and the amendment to give the states veto power over Supreme Court decisions.)

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    53. Re:Meh. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      But then, I've never filed state income taxes because I live in Texas, where we don't do that.

      Most people who live in Texas come from somewhere else.

      I'm one of them, too.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    54. Re:Meh. by Karlt1 · · Score: 1

      1. Unless you live in New York, you never elected Hillary Clinton. In 70 years she spent a few years as a Senstot and 4 years as Secretary of State

      2. How many ex presidents haven't used their status as ex-presidents to become rich? The only President in my lifetime that I don't think is wealthy is Carter.

      3. You really think Trump is going to represent our rights?

      4. Do you think that Trump wasn't involved in "pay for play"? He's admitted to doing it and he's contributed to the Clinton foundation for just that reason. He's also been fined for directing funds from his foundation to give illegal campaign contributions to the Florida AG so she would drop her investigation of Trump U.

      5. Speaking of Trump U. Was that in anyone's interest?

      6. Trump has not just taken advantage of bad laws. He's been fined for his use of his foundation for personal gains, he's been involved in illegal discrimination a number of times in his career, just recently he was found to have done business with Cuba illegally.

      7. If Benghazi and watergate were anything more than a Republican witch hunt, why have Republicans been unable to get either of the Clintons on anything besides Lewinsky?

      8. Do you really think that Trump won't use his position to enrich himself? He's already doing so, overcharging his campaign and paying his businesses for services.

    55. Re:Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you should study history a bit. Trump's campaign has all the basic markers of fascism : nostalgia for past glory, anti-elitism/populism, anti-media, isolationist/anti-foreigners, scape-goating immigrants, call for police authority ...
      And if it wasn't clear enough, he has made clear his admiration for strong dictators like Putin.
      His only addition to basic fascism is his stupidity and hyper-narcissism.

      Of course, there are safeguards that would prevent him from turning the US into a dictatorship in a few years, but simply electing him would be a disastrous message to the US and the world, and smarter assholes will follow in his footsteps, the safeguards can only last a few years.

    56. Re:Meh. by cinnamon+colbert · · Score: 1

      hillary is corrupt
      but trump is as corrupt and sleazy ?
      you do know that most of corrupt liar is gop fantasy (benghazi, vince foster) ?
      Do you think the NIH (war on cancer), NTSB, National Parks are good ? Trump tax cuts, goodbye to all that
      There are about 10 million people on ocare, many of whom no doubt are on chemo
      you stop ocare day one, who pays for the chemo ? we just let them die ?

      but lets stipulate to your ideas about clinton; is the man who goes on a 3am rant about ms universe really better ?
      really ?
      look at argentina: they voted in a trump (peron) and they went from nearly a 1st world country to nearly 3rd world

      http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06...

      Trump U targets grieving army war widow:
      The sales pitches seeking to separate Cheryl Lankford from her money began during the recession as she struggled to get back on her feet after the death of her husband, an American soldier serving in Iraq.
      Two of them were from companies that have boasted the Trump name.
      One was Trump University, the real estate sales seminar that Donald J. Trump promoted as a way for average people to profit from opportunities in the housing market. Ms. Lankford said she spent $35,000 from an Army insurance payment to learn Mr. Trump’s secrets.

      also
      http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06...
      http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08...

    57. Re:Meh. by cinnamon+colbert · · Score: 1

      sigh
      what do you mean
      QE is fed, independent of potus
      what did obama do, stave off a second great recession ?
      you have gone to st louis fred data base downloaded private sector job growth for obama vs reagan (yeah population is larger, but older)

      you know that ted cruz and a republican rep from, iirc, WA, posted onfacebook, send in your ocare horror stories ?
      and they got back no horror stories, but hundreds of posts along the line of thank god for ocare, i can now afford medicine for me or my family and have money for food ?????
      is that really so awful (ps cost ocare much less cost of trump tax cuts to 1%)
      ???

    58. Re:Meh. by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      In practice, even if you are a white male, the collapse of the economy and the country being engulfed in pointless, possibly Nuclear, wars are going to seriously damage your quality of life. And the argument "Clinton is corrupt, therefore let's vote for Trump!" is so utterly bizarre: Clinton has had baseless claims of corruption against her, therefore her opponents are going to vote for someone who openly admits to using bribes?

      What?

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    59. Re:Meh. by Ritz_Just_Ritz · · Score: 1

      "In other words it's easy to say "burn it all down" when you're not the one in the house."

      You've hit the nail on the head, even if by accident. Those folks don't feel like they have a stake in maintaining the house since it is clear the political class and its well heeled supporters (and the media) don't feel inclined to invite them to the party. I guess it shouldn't be shocking that the hipster elite don't understand or particularly empathize with that crowd. What makes the concerns and fears of that group any less relevant than your own or those that you list above? Just because you don't rub elbows with them as you plunk down your $5 for a double wide venti latte with truffles on top doesn't mean their voices are irrelevant or "deplorable."

      I haven't decided who I'll vote for yet, but I'm leaning towards the arrogant ass versus the demonstrable corrupt politician who's been feeding off of and perpetuating the broken system that exists today for decades.

    60. Re:Meh. by Raenex · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing you're not a Muslim, Hispanic, black person, or resident of a Middle Eastern country.

      I'm guessing you're a goony beardman from San Francisco.

    61. Re:Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump isn't racist. He's pandering to ignorant voters that listen to conservative AM radio to get their votes. It's an act.

    62. Re:Meh. by ultranova · · Score: 1

      (While I disagree with Mark Levin on term limits, and on Trump, his Liberty Amendments book lays out a solid plan for bringing the federal government back under the control of the states. Most relevant here are: The amendment to require an affirmative vote for approval of new regulations, and the amendment to give the states veto power over Supreme Court decisions.)

      You do realize this gives the states the ability to simply ignore your rights?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    63. Re: Meh. by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      Don't think the AC has to worry. The ones that swear fealty to the leader are usually safe in an authoritarian regime.

      You might want to ask the (deceased) friends of Lenin and Stalin before repeating the above.

      HINT for the lazy: They killed them, to create an 'air gap' between their iron fist on power, and anyone below who served them.

    64. Re: Meh. by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      Don't think the AC has to worry. The ones that swear fealty to the leader are usually safe in an authoritarian regime.

      You might want to ask the (deceased) friends of Lenin and Stalin before repeating the above.

      HINT for the lazy: They killed them, to create an 'air gap' between their iron fist on power, and anyone below who served them.

      Oh yeah, and didn't Kin Jong Un have his mentor, who was also his uncle, killed.

      Fealty to "the leader" indeed.

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

      No, not anything. Economic devastation and deep recession followed by lots of multinational corporations becoming ex-US due to shattering of trade deals is not better. If you think US could survive couple bankruptcies like Trump's casinos, then you are sadly mistaken.

      If Nafta is removed, I think Ontario and Quebec hydro should hit the off switch until it is re-instated perhaps with better terms for Canada. I wonder how many lights would go out south of Canada.

    66. Re:Meh. by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

      Yes, it would give a supermajority of the states the ability to prevent the supreme court from finding new "rights" in the Constitution, and yes, some of those new "rights" might be mine. I'm OK with that.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    67. Re: Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh good! A leftist from another country said so. CASE CLOSED.

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

      You forgot anti-communist and anti-globalist. Those were actually the keys of the Nazi party.

      But don't worry, Trump isn't Hitler. If you reject the nationalists now, you are going to end up with ultra-nationalists in a decade or so when the Anglo-American nationals have nothing left to lose.

    69. Re: Meh. by quax · · Score: 1

      The AC didn't strike me as ambitious, but I should have added that in addition to fealty, you also need to keep your head down.

      Don't stick out and bring attention to you (neither negative nor positive). That'll do the trick.
       

    70. Re:Meh. by Kohath · · Score: 2

      Hillary already called almost half the voters "enemies". She doubled down and said many of them were "deplorable", "irredeemable" and "not America".

      If I have to choose between my government hurting others or hurting me, what's my rational choice?

      And why do blacks, Hispanics, and so many other people get a pass for supporting a candidate who so obviously hates many of their fellow Americans?

    71. Re:Meh. by quax · · Score: 1

      They now make double wide venti latte with truffles on top? Awesome!

    72. Re:Meh. by quax · · Score: 1

      Flowerpower was yesterday, nowadays it's about hating the haters. Deal with it.

    73. Re:Meh. by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Hillary already called almost half the voters "enemies".

      A bad comment but she seemed to be referring to the party itself, and not the voters.

      She doubled down and said many of them were "deplorable", "irredeemable" and "not America".

      She apologized (unlike Trump's offensive comments). She was also right, about half of Trump's supporters are racist or sexist..

      If I have to choose between my government hurting others or hurting me

      Did Obama hurt you? The fact is that neither candidate it likely to have much impact on the lives of middle class whites.

      And why do blacks, Hispanics, and so many other people get a pass for supporting a candidate who so obviously hates many of their fellow Americans?

      Because that candidate obviously doesn't hate many of their fellow Americans.

      She's clearly frustrated with a lot Trump's core supporters, everyone is at least frustrated with some portion of the US electorate. But I see no evidence that she actually "hates" them.

      I wouldn't necessarily say Trump "hates" any demographic, even if his policies would be extremely harmful and discriminatory to them.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    74. Re:Meh. by Kohath · · Score: 1

      When politics and government become a circular firing squad, people naturally choose "burn it all down".

    75. Re:Meh. by quax · · Score: 1

      Actually burning it down would take some more effort than just voting for a batshit crazy billionaire who's only in it for himself.

      It may feel nice to send some big fuck you at the polling station but that feeling won't last long.

    76. Re:Meh. by Kohath · · Score: 1

      I see no evidence that she actually "hates" them.

      She says that stuff over and over. That's "evidence". If you watch the videos, then you do see it.

      Maybe you meant to say something else that's not literally false?

    77. Re:Meh. by quantaman · · Score: 1

      What makes the concerns and fears of that group any less relevant than your own or those that you list above? Just because you don't rub elbows with them as you plunk down your $5 for a double wide venti latte with truffles on top doesn't mean their voices are irrelevant or "deplorable."

      Ok, what are these fears and concerns that will directly affect their personal lives? And do note that the average core Trump supporter is actually doing pretty well economically.

      I haven't decided who I'll vote for yet, but I'm leaning towards the arrogant ass versus the demonstrable corrupt politician who's been feeding off of and perpetuating the broken system that exists today for decades.

      How is Clinton demonstrable corrupt? The strongest corruption accusation I've heard is approving a uranium deal involving Russians that was also OK'd by multiple other agencies.

      Trump on the other hand is demonstrably corrupt, there are multiple recorded instances of him using money to try and influence politicians.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    78. Re:Meh. by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Did Obama hurt you? The fact is that neither candidate it likely to have much impact on the lives of middle class whites.

      Obama did everything he could so that people like me who work and pay for government paid the maximum amount, while reserving essentially all the benefits of government for his core voters and big money donors. He didn't act like he was President of all Americans. And because of that, America is a lot more divided now than we were before Obama.

      Does taxing group A entirely for the benefit of group B "hurt" group A? Yes, I'd say it does.
      Does dividing neighbor against neighbor "hurt"? Yes, I'd say it does.
      Does doubling the national debt "hurt"? Yes, I'd say eventually it does.

    79. Re:Meh. by Shane_Optima · · Score: 1

      Hitler meant it. Trump doesn't. Trump is an amoral twat more concerned with popularity. Saying that he'll deport 11 million people or whatever it was, doesn't make it so. The next jerkoff to come along might mean it, but I don't think a Trump presidency makes that more likely (actually, probably very slightly less likely.)

      That said, I'm not pro-Trump for reasons already outlined.

    80. Re:Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Corporate Authoritarianism and Full Surveillance State where we have less rights, less freedoms and where system rigged much harder against regular people. Your think your analog guns will be any good against autonomous kill drones?

      Okay, but could you describe the hypothetical post-Trump system?

    81. Re:Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, yes I do think my analog guns will be very good against "autonomous kill drone"(whoever has those) You see we can't even enforce our national will on a bunch of assholes living in caves in a country with less than 20Km of railroad. What makes you think the people in charge would be any better at the asymmetric fight when it is in their own backyard?

    82. Re:Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey, you get it! We don't need no water, let the mother (&^$%- er burn. (bloodhound, not Scott&co)

    83. Re:Meh. by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      Another crap article.

      The first sentence says "Donald J. Trump declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income tax returns". But then later says "The documents were the first page of a New York State resident income tax return, the first page of a New Jersey nonresident tax return and the first page of a Connecticut nonresident tax return." No federal tax information.

      You just keep deluding yourself with ignorant assumptions, junior. Yes, ignorant. You have clearly demonstrated that you don't know the first thing about the relationship between a state tax return and a federal tax return. The important thing is that he's going to make sure that neither he nor any of his friends ever have to declare a loss again to avoid paying taxes. Then, with all that extra money in his pockets, he's going to "create jobs" for you. Jeezus, what a sucker.

    84. Re: Meh. by Mitreya · · Score: 1

      Sure, it was heinous people that got killed that way, but that can quickly get redefined.

      It was "heinous people" when they knew who they actually killed, which was not always.

    85. Re:Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "In other words it's easy to say "burn it all down" when you're not the one in the house."

      You've hit the nail on the head, even if by accident. Those folks don't feel like they have a stake in maintaining the house since it is clear the political class and its well heeled supporters (and the media) don't feel inclined to invite them to the party.

      The fallacy in your argument is believing that you can easily contain the fire to the houses of the bad guys who deserve to have theirs burned down. Revolutions typically don't go nearly that cleanly. Yes, sometimes revolution is the least bad option, but you really do have to carefully explore all other options before you go that route. Just ask the Syrians.

    86. Re: Meh. by Nova77 · · Score: 1

      Can you go past the partisanship and look at the evidence/policies instead? If all you care is listen to one side of the story you'll never be objective.

    87. Re:Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, let's continue making sure it's hard for our minorities to get jobs by importing more and more illegal immigrants. Ignore the fact that Trump is the only one who maybe, just maybe wants to do something about the fact that many primarily-black inner cities are downright deadly, and trying to solve nonexistant "police violence" problems does nothing for them. Ignore the fact that there are plenty of legally-immigrated Mexicans who don't exactly appreciate the fact that other people get in illegally, not to mention his wife is an immigrant. Also ignore the fact that people from the Middle East are flocking to the west (and not just away from warzones), which wouldn't be happening if it was so discriminatory against them.

      The house is already on fire, and the left keeps pouring more gasoline onto it.

    88. Re:Meh. by Gussington · · Score: 1

      The entire nation is essentially bankrupt and living on printed money and debt to places like China.

      This is the typical stupid shit Trump supporters say that make no sense.
      Firstly the economy isn't great, but is hardly in the bin.
      Debt is a shade over GDP, or about 1.1 debt to income ratio. To put that in perspective, my mortgage is 5 times my income and I'm doing fine.
      So yeah, Hillary might not make things better, but they're also unlikely to get much worse either. Trump however is almost guaranteed to fail. That is your choice.

    89. Re:Meh. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Burn the system down. Burn it all down.

      Fuck you Move to somalia where there isn't any system at all, and post your insanity. Please.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    90. Re:Meh. by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

      She was also right, about half of Trump's supporters are racist or sexist..

      The astounding part of this is that people who make statements like this... claim it's the other guy who is a RACIST

      --
      Murphy was an optimist
    91. Re:Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where do you think the numbers on your state return come from? Maybe you've never filed taxes, but state returns say things like, "Enter amount from your Federal form on line 9a".

      State tax returns are based on Federal tax returns.

      Shut up ; shut up . You FUCKING EXPERT. You think that just because it's a "FACT" you can go telling people what to think??? We ain't FUCING listening BUD. TRUMP is a super brilliant who knows more about taxes than all of the congress will ever know. He even hired a guy called an "accountant" to explain it to him. No FUKING experts for him. Go back home to Berkleystan or whatever fucking MIT (is that where Romney was born?) you stuck up Asshoel think you are better than us cum from.

      The biggest problem with this post is that I'm really not able to tell if I'm a trump supporter or a parody. After all, as a foreign national, I might benefit from the collapse of the US economy and US influence after he's elected? Also I know that this kind of posting annoys Trump supporters and will likely drive more of them to vote, but I'm still posting it. Fuck it. We need some idiocy in the USA to distract from the idiocy going on over here in Europe. Trump for the. best. president. of. the. world. EVER.

    92. Re: Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And still his best argument to vote Hillary is "She is not as bad as Trump".

      Ringing endorsement there, speaks to all her qualifications and experience that she would bring to the job, ie nothing!

      In general I don't want either of the main candidates and I can still vote for anybody else, even if I have to write it in.

    93. Re:Meh. by doccus · · Score: 1

      Yeah.. I don't see Trump being able to effect much, if any at all, change. The rot is spread far too deep, and if, once elected, he ever becomes too much of a pest for the rotters in the "shadow government", they WILL find a way to get rid of him. Even if it's not very pretty. The truth is, that in John Titor's timeline, the government had become so corrupt and dictatorial that all out civil war (Real war!) was the only way out. And it DID go nuclear. Interestingly enough, he was emphatic about not saying what color or sex the president was.. which could either indicate that BHO stayed in via martial law, or killary won despite everything.
      I think Titor should have been taken a whole lot more seriously, if only because of his surprise at the twin towers still standing. This was in1999, ande the only time he let things slip, as he was usually VERY careful about not polluting our timeline. His timeline just occurred 15 years earlier than ours, is all...

    94. Re: Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll watch it because I'm curious, but it's hard to take it too seriously after the gushing support that Obama got (and still gets, despite being basically Bush III) from the rest of the world. The rest of the world's support for the hawkish, corporate-hegemony-propping treaty supporting Clinton baffles me.

      Trump may be bad for the US, but Clinton will go full-steam ahead with the foreign policies that make the world hate the US, but the world loves her because...?

    95. Re:Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, that explains why you're so angry all the time. A liberal who came to live in Texas, no shit.

    96. Re:Meh. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I don't care if it convinces anyone or not, but Trump does remind me of Putin and his rhetoric, back when he was taking power in my country. People were mad at all the old politicians, and wanted a "strong hand" that would just "fix things" quickly - and they sure got one, for decades to come.

    97. Re: Meh. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      That depends entirely on just how paranoid the leader is.

      There were many people who thought they were safe because they were zealously loyal to Stalin, for example. Most high-ranked ones didn't outlive him.

    98. Re:Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She called half of Trump's voters deplorable.

      And you know what? The polls on various racist attitudes among those voters show that she's been generous. It's more like 60-70% on some of the douchebaggery.

      And you guys aren't going to vote for her ever, because you're convinced that she's Satan incarnate. What's the point of trying to appease your racist ass, then?

      So, come November, we get to rub it in your face, nice and slow grind - and all you morons will still have those Trump/Pence stickers on your cars for easy identification.

      And then, when all you shitholes finally crawl back under your rock, it will truly be morning in America.

    99. Re: Meh. by quax · · Score: 1

      Not rising to any rank of prominence is probably prudent - just stay a face in the mass, cheering on el Douche.

      There's probably a business opportunity here for a self-help guide; "Fascist America for Dummies"

    100. Re:Meh. by Shane_Optima · · Score: 1

      I think that the missing piece here is paternalistic conservatism--this variety is very weak in America. As delusional and hypocritical as they can be regarding "big government", they do ultimately have a vision that's rooted in individualism. It's a sickly form of individualism, but it's fundamentally rather different from that aristocratic, pragmatic, paternalistic conservatism found in much of the rest of the world. The religious component is important key here. People in Russia might be fairly religious, sure, but how many of them believe they are living in the end times and at any minute the Antichrist is going to pop up and try to implant a ID chip in their hands as part of his plan for world domination? As I recall, 20-30% Americans believe something like that. Discriminating against gays and Muslims is one thing; actually behaving in an overtly dictatorial manner is quite another. America is probably the most patriotic country on Earth and that patriotism is almost entirely rooted in the idea of freedom. The moment they or their immediate family feel violated, I think there will be pushback.

      Also, It doesn't receive a lot of attention, but despite years of gradual erosion of states' rights (largely because people keep trying to use that as an excuse for institutionalized bigotry) we are still fifty different states with fifty different governments and completely separate police forces.

      Plus, it must be repeated: Trump is ultimately empty and uncaring and unintelligent, and his party does NOT like him. You can point at his quotes all day long; whence comes the follow through? How does this page in the history book read that ends with him actually having the drive and daring to risk imprisonment or assassination by trying to do dictator stuff?

    101. Re:Meh. by hucker75 · · Score: 0

      He's racist, and America needs that badly.

    102. Re:Meh. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I used to think that paternalistic conservatism is very weak in America. Then I've seen what Trump voters say, and I now firmly believe that to be a myth.

      The ultra-religious conservatives are the minority - they turned out for Cruz, by and large, and lost.

      At the same time, I have considerable personal interaction with ultra-conservative Tea Party types (I happen to have some intersecting hobbies, such as a collection of "assault weapons"). And I have found that their patriotism is rooted neither in individualism nor in freedom. Oh, they want both for themselves, and other people like them, but they emphatically deny it to anyone who thinks differently. They believe in the freedom to worship the flag and Jesus, and not much else.

      Of course, it's not necessary for "them or their immediate family" to be violated, either. Authoritarianism does not necessary trample everyone's freedom's equally - indeed, that is largely how Putin still has pretty insane approval ratings. Trump voters are making a conscious decision that they want authoritarianism that operates in their interest, by repressing the "others" whom they believe to be the source of their plight.

      Not coincidentally, authoritarian thinking is the strongest single predictor of whether one is supporting Trump or not.

    103. Re:Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seriously think Congress will let Trump burn anything down? Lord, what a cretin. The best answer to this is deadlock is better than Hillary and those retarded, moronic democrats continuing to fuck this country up more. I mean, we're $20 TRILLION in debt. Hillary wants to double that (or more). What will you liberals do when the money ACTUALLY RUNS OUT?

      That's the problem we face as a nation, much like Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, California and any other place run by Democrats for decades.

      It's about time we stop spending more than we bring in, force people off welfare and get some personal responsibility going in this country, or we'll end up like Mexico. A giant corrupt shit pile.

    104. Re:Meh. by Shane_Optima · · Score: 1
      I skimmed it but didn't see a list of all the factors they tested for. Did it include fear of Islam? Dissatisfaction with government? A desire to see change (any change) ?

      I'm not pro-Trump but I really think this black and white thinking is dangerous. Sure, most fascists are voting for Trump, except for the ones who are "throwing away their vote" on a third party. And most of the Communists are voting for Hillary, except for the ones who are "throwing away their vote" on a third party. Neither block is all that big a concern right now.

      I very briefly considered going pro-Trump under a few lines of reasoning, one of them being that he might burn down the right and let something else grow in its ashes, preferably by further splitting the religious conservatives away from the rest. (I now tend to believe that a Trump loss is more likely to accomplish this than a Trump victory.) A lot of people are pro-Trump for fiscal reasons (which I do think is pretty misguided.) A lot of people are pro-Trump for immigration security reasons, which... is painful to say but as stupid as his shit is, once it gets toned down and made legal by his advisors (his first suggestion for a problem is usually illegal) it becomes less stupid than Hillary's.

      On a wide variety of topics, the mainstream left is no longer interested in pursuing a reasonable pro-freedom (genuine freedom, not freedom fries jingoistic crap) agenda. Bruce Perens, a reasonable enough guy in most respects, appears to be a prototypical example--he refuses to concede that there should be any ideological test for new prospective citizens whatsoever. You can be openly anti-free speech, anti-freedom of religion, pro-dictatorship, pro-summary justice, pro-'America should be given back to the British', pro-murder (as long as you don't claim to be interested in doing it yourself), whatever, but according to Perens and millions like him we must not contemplate being at all selective in whom we invite in to live here. You can come live here under the protection of our constitution, even if want to see that constitution burn.

      With a lot of people, this particular issue first appears to be confusion with rights granted to birthright citizens (of course we can't kick people out of the country they were born in), or a general ignorance of how other countries do things (virtually no one has open borders, and you can't even visit countries like the UK at all if you're famous for having horrible political views), but even after a long discussion I've never seen anyone reconsider their initial stance on this issue.

      The left is defining themselves as being anti-right, instead being of pro-liberty and pro-equality... which is horrifying. More horrifying than Trump wanting to ban all travel from certain countries (which is still pretty dumb, of course. And also unlawful back when he was saying on the basis of religion instead of country.) It's not terrifying because I live in mortal fear of terrorist attacks, but because it may lead to more and more people becoming disillusioned with the left's going dogmatism.

      “If this is joking around, I’m no longer amused," Cenk Uygur, creator and host of The Young Turks, said on the program. "This is exactly how fascism starts.”

      That's not how fascism starts. That's just some low level bully stuff. Arrest him for facilitation or petty theft or something, if indeed it is a crime to order someone to take away someone's coat, then he can get 5 days in prison for misdemeaor whatever, some great fun for the media and then we move on. If it's not a crime, then don't arrest him. Being a dick who says dumb shit don't lead to fascism. If Howard Stern were elected, it wouldn't lead to fascism.

  2. Legal maneuvers are ... legal! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It might shock people to discover that successful business people file their taxes better than people who don't. While it is true that the government needs to do a better job educating the masses (personal finance education should be mandatory in high-school) poor people should stop pretending that using so-called loopholes is illegal or immoral, because it is neither.

    The only thing that is immoral is that some people know about these tricks while other people do not. If you don't like the loopholes, change the laws, but don't blame the people who make use of them.

    1. Re:Legal maneuvers are ... legal! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I , for one , applaud those (especially the rich) who figure out any way to avoid paying taxes. They are less responsible for the atrocities that are committed in all of our names in places like Syria.

    2. Re:Legal maneuvers are ... legal! by Dunbal · · Score: 0

      If you don't like the loopholes, change the laws

      That doesn't work. Rich people are mobile, and so is their money. Change the laws enough and they all leave your country and take most of the wealth with them. What you have to do is realize that the more you squeeze, the less you get. The higher taxes go, the more people find loopholes or out and out cheat. So stop turning people into criminals or scaring them out of your country and deal with the other end - the end that creates 2 BILLION dollar websites and fails to account for trillions (6.5 trillion - give or take a few hundred billion) without even a shrug let alone a scandal.

      Yeah who am I kidding. As if taxation would even begin to cover the budget deficit in the first place.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:Legal maneuvers are ... legal! by lush_cmte · · Score: 1

      Not sure about anyone else, but I kinda like to keep the money I've earned.

    4. Re:Legal maneuvers are ... legal! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of legal maneuvers, would be nice if we did that thing... you know.... Due Process. Trump has already tried and convicted Shillary and is implying someone should carry out the sentence. But, hey, you can legally avoid paying taxes, that is what we need to remember.

      Same holds true for Shillary as a lawyer, she did her job. Don't like it change the laws.

    5. Re:Legal maneuvers are ... legal! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Change the laws enough and they all leave your country and take most of the wealth with them.

      Why didn't that happen when the top Federal rate was 90%?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:Legal maneuvers are ... legal! by beelsebob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The point is, that if he's filing tax returns saying he's making massive massive losses, he's clearly not a successful businessman.

    7. Re:Legal maneuvers are ... legal! by SmaryJerry · · Score: 0

      Massive losses on your tax return do not mean you are losing money. Things like depreciation, interest, charitable donations, etc all make you look like you lost money and in real estate, which is Trump's business, you can accumulate massive depreciation of assets if you choose. From an accounting perspective, everything Trump said in his debate was correct. His debt ratios are off the charts good and his companies are very far from in trouble. The fact Hilary was arguing about how much money he owes was either blatant stupidity on her part or exploitation of the ignorance of the audience. It's really sad to see these lies perpetuated in mainstream media showing it also falls into one of those two categories. Any accountant that was listening would have to agree..

    8. Re:Legal maneuvers are ... legal! by Dunbal · · Score: 0

      What makes you think it didn't?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    9. Re:Legal maneuvers are ... legal! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the other side of that often-quoted figure is that 90% of the taxes you did owe were covered by loopholes stretching halfway to Mars. No one actually paid 90% tax.

    10. Re: Legal maneuvers are ... legal! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what gas.
      Loopholes are mostly found in complicated financials. There is much less you can do, find, hide, when you earn less than 100k. And you certainly dont have advocates that slip loopholes into bills and regs for you.

    11. Re:Legal maneuvers are ... legal! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I , for one , applaud those (especially the rich) who figure out any way to avoid paying taxes. They are less responsible for the atrocities that are committed in all of our names in places like Syria.

      This is a textbook example of a false equivalency fallacy.

    12. Re:Legal maneuvers are ... legal! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you read the Wikipedia page you cited, it doesn't say anything about rich people leaving the country in the years the top tax rate was 90%.

      If you want to argue that well, "nobody actually paid the top rate", then the same could be said for today. Because, even with all the pissing and moaning from right conservatives about taxes, taxation in the US is really not that high (as shown by your own citation).

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    13. Re:Legal maneuvers are ... legal! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The on-paper top marginal rate didn't affect reality due to widespread use of shelters (mostly holes which have since been closed). You have to look at how much was paid in practice, and it turns out the top pays about the same and the bottom 2/3 now pays much less.

      The Fantasy of a 91% Top Income Tax Rate:

      However, it is worth noting that from 1958 to 2010, the taxes paid by the top 3% of earners, as a percentage of total personal income (which can't be reduced by shelters), increased to 3.96% from 2.72%, while the percentage paid by the bottom two-thirds of filers fell to 0.51% in 2010 from 2.7%. This starker division of relative tax burdens can be explained by the inability of upper-income groups to shelter income.

    14. Re:Legal maneuvers are ... legal! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You misspelt "stealing".

    15. Re:Legal maneuvers are ... legal! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you complain when you don't get to keep the money you earned when you go to the grocery store? Or when you pay rent? If not, then maybe you need to re-evaluate your dependence on the numerous services the government provides you. Good luck earning money when your house burns down because there are no public fire departments, all of the private ones think your house is too expensive to allow in their service area, and there are no roads to get there even if they wanted to come save you.

      Or even better, good luck getting anybody to take your money for anything after you get the government to go away. Your fiat currency is only worth anything because the government you don't want to pay for its services exists. And yes yes I know, blah blah blah gold. Go ahead and pretend gold has any intrinsic value and isn't just another fiat currency propped up by make believe.

      The idea that somebody is taking away something you earned is a fiction.

    16. Re:Legal maneuvers are ... legal! by slashrio · · Score: 1

      No it's not. If you can't find a loop hole and still don't pay tax, it will be taken from you at gunpoint whereas spending money in a grocery is free choice.
      So your statement is also an example of a false equivalence fallacy.
      If you want equivalence, then privatise the whole government and get your service on a contract basis.
      Some people call this 'anarchism', but I'm not quite sure why.

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    17. Re:Legal maneuvers are ... legal! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do not understand the point Dunbal is making.

    18. Re:Legal maneuvers are ... legal! by Jack9 · · Score: 1

      > The higher taxes go, the more people find loopholes

      Stop repeating this obvious misconception of tax law. There's nothing to "find". You either lobby more loopholes or you make clearly beneficial decisions that *might* get you in trouble and do a cost benefit against the penalties and lawyer fees.

      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
    19. Re:Legal maneuvers are ... legal! by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      Umm, did the upper group gain income faster than their tax burden increased?

      The lower group may have had a reduction in taxes paid, but the lower group also faces gigantically inflated prices for medical care and housing. The upper group also faces said increased cost, but obviously it's a vastly smaller proportion of their income. So overall, whether or not the taxes shifted, most Americans (the lower group is the overwhelming majority of all the people) have done worse.

    20. Re:Legal maneuvers are ... legal! by Third+Position · · Score: 1

      Change the laws enough and they all leave your country and take most of the wealth with them.

      Why didn't that happen when the top Federal rate was 90%?

      Er, maybe because when the top Federal rate was 90%, Europe was still digging itself out from the wreckage of 2 world wars, India and China were mostly know for massive famines, Korea was involved in a civil war, and Made in Japan was synonymous with cheap junk?

      You can only charge monopoly prices when you have an actual monopoly. The US does not have a monopoly any longer.

      --
      American Third Position
      Finally, a real choice!
    21. Re:Legal maneuvers are ... legal! by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      No you're right, it doesn't say that. I guess the actual tax rate just hovers around 20% of GDP through MAGIC.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    22. Re:Legal maneuvers are ... legal! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lack of globalization.

    23. Re:Legal maneuvers are ... legal! by Ritz_Just_Ritz · · Score: 1

      That was TWENTY years ago. Let's re-run the litany of documented Clinton scandals since then, shall we? Meh...look here for all that...

      http://www.theatlantic.com/pol...

      For f's sake, Bill Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives and BARELY spared removal from office when the necessary votes fell just short in the Senate. The last person that happened to was Andrew Johnson back in 1868. Quite an exclusive club. Scandal follows the Clintons like the dust cloud follows Pigpen.

    24. Re:Legal maneuvers are ... legal! by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Rich people are mobile, and so is their money. Change the laws enough and they all leave your country and take most of the wealth with them.

      Money is mobile, wealth isn't. A rich person can leave, but they can't take a factory with them. They'll have to sell it. All that leaves the country is dollars, and all those can do is give an economic stimulus when they come back to buy American goods and services.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    25. Re:Legal maneuvers are ... legal! by Kohath · · Score: 1

      If a tree falls in the woods and no one mentions it on Wikipedia, is it still standing?

    26. Re:Legal maneuvers are ... legal! by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      The problem is that it's not that high due to loopholes created by the rich for themselves. That's why Buffett's effective tax rate is lower than that of his secretary. That's ultimately the problem - the middle class is getting screwed royally. That's why Trump is so popular.

    27. Re:Legal maneuvers are ... legal! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      That's ultimately the problem - the middle class is getting screwed royally. That's why Trump is so popular.

      He's popular because he pays no taxes? How does he expect to pay for that big military build-up he's promoting?

      Let's not bullshit. He's popular because he's a straight-up bigot. He's popular because he's a bully and half the people will always love a bully, hoping against hope that he won't pick on them. He's popular because he's on TV.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    28. Re:Legal maneuvers are ... legal! by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Why didn't that happen when the top Federal rate was 90%?

      Because very, very few people paid the top federal rate, because of all the loopholes. When a high tax rate without all the loopholes was passed recently in France, people did leave the country. You can get details here.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    29. Re:Legal maneuvers are ... legal! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      You can get details here

      I agree with you, phantomfive. Taxes in the US aren't as high as people on the right constantly complain. That's why rich people aren't leaving.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    30. Re:Legal maneuvers are ... legal! by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's like people don't realize things change. True on both sides. Easy to find people who don't realize all the sulfur reductions we've seen, and other pollution controls, and think that the world is just as polluted as it was in the 1970s.
      Also easy to find people who somehow don't remember all the tax cuts we've had since the 1970s.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    31. Re:Legal maneuvers are ... legal! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correction: They will threaten to leave, but they'll stay and groan and then pay. It's rather inconvenient to just move an entire business to a country with entirely different culture, laws, infrastructure, and labor requirements.

    32. Re:Legal maneuvers are ... legal! by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      No, he's popular because he's willing to say "the middle class is getting screwed". Democrats can't say that because 1) it would hurt their pandering to the poor and 2) it would reveal that Obama's presidency has been an economic disaster (which they should admit but blame Republicans for, but that would dig into their hilarious bullshit that Clinton was responsible for the economic high times of the 90s).

    33. Re:Legal maneuvers are ... legal! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      it would reveal that Obama's presidency has been an economic disaster

      I guess you don't remember what an "economic disaster" actually looks like. It has been eight years since we've seen one, so I guess it's understandable.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    34. Re:Legal maneuvers are ... legal! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er, maybe because when the top Federal rate was 90%, Europe was still digging itself out from the wreckage of 2 world wars, India and China were mostly know for massive famines, Korea was involved in a civil war, and Made in Japan was synonymous with cheap junk?

      You can only charge monopoly prices when you have an actual monopoly. The US does not have a monopoly any longer.

      Nice fantasy. The US has never had a monopoly. Instead, huge amounts of money were spent to help many parts of Europe rebuild - even before they voted in the Marshall Plan the US was providing lots of aid (a lot of which was provided with no expectation of repayment!). Other parts of Europe didn't need rebuilding, because they hadn't participated in the war - Sweden and Switzerland owe much of their post-war economic prosperity to that decision.

      Some places didn't get to benefit from the rebuilding funds, because Joe Stalin wouldn't let them. Certainly the single biggest contributor to slow economic growth (in some parts of Europe) after the war was Communism, not any imaginary US monopoly. The Communist states, incidentally, weren't buying US goods - another blow to your monopoly theory.

      But the biggest blow to your theory is the simple reality that recovery from the war was phenomenally fast. Much of Europe (and Japan) experienced an economic "Golden Age" in the 1950's - the same period in which that US high tax rate existed.

      In reality, even when the top rate was 90%, very few people paid anywhere near that - there were lots of loopholes then, just as there are now. If you want to get rid of the loopholes, you have to insist that ethical practice of law be a major component of the legal system, and the USA doesn't have that - the public doesn't understand the issues, and the groups from benefit from the current disaster of a legal system are very skilled at dividing and misdirecting the public. The lawyers choose to write and use and allow extremely complex tax laws - the US federal code is over 2700 pages in length - in order to create long term business for their profession. Worse, there are tens of thousands of additional pages of relevant commentary, precedent, and instructions. The lobbying laws (also written by lawyers, and upheld by lawyers serving as judges) make matters even worse, since they allow outright bribery to be disguised as "lobbying", which gives the political parties and politicians a huge incentive to create complex tax law.

      You can hide an enormous number of loopholes in such a complex body of law. Force the law to be, say, 50 pages - easily readable by any educated adult - and it would be a different story.

      Imagine if software people were able to force everybody to use buggy software, in order to create a demand for their services, and you would have an approximation of what has been done in the US legal system.

    35. Re:Legal maneuvers are ... legal! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's popular because he appeals to the racist audience. That's it. There's nothing else.

      How do we know? Well, someone actually ran a study and recorded Trump supporters' answers to various questions. Turned out that literally the only thing they had in common was a negative view of Blacks, Mexicans, and Muslims. Not just immigrants, mind - all of them.

    36. Re:Legal maneuvers are ... legal! by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      You are of course assuming that the 900 million dollar "loss" is anything but some creative accounting so that he effectively no longer has to any taxes whatsoever.

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

      If a *movie* can hide that kind of profit/loss, think about what a casino might be able to do. I expect that plenty of profit was made, just he was able to have some accountants figure out a way to play with the numbers enough to show a 900 million dollar loss somehow for the express purpose of avoiding future taxes. Like the examples above, the practices are probably dubious at best, but legal enough so as to discourage any investigation or legal action (of if there is it will be in the courts effectively forever).

      So yeah, probably ethically terrible, but one could argue smart enough to use legal loophole. Why he doesn't want it released is probably because it *is* probably a pretty dubious practice, which done on the down low billionaires probably get away with all the time. However if brought under enough scrutiny, and political pressure and the dig deep enough would probably show some irregularities that he may have to answer for that normally would never see the light of day.

  3. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    AMEN.

    Vote for Hillary = Affirmation that you're cool with corrupt politics.
    Vote for Trump = Drop napalm on the whole F-ing thing.

  4. Not Nerds noteworthy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will Trump Pardon Snowden?

    1. Re:Not Nerds noteworthy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The answer is No.

    2. Re:Not Nerds noteworthy by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      Will Trump Pardon Snowden?

      If by pardon you mean firing squad then yes absolutely.

      "I think Snowden is a terrible threat. I think heâ(TM)s a terrible traitor and you know what we used to do in the good old days when we were a strong country you know what we used to do to traitors right?" - DJT

  5. So, technically-minded people are anti-trump? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can understand that, but you do realize the alternative is Hillary right? ok. Just checking.

    1. Re:So, technically-minded people are anti-trump? by lush_cmte · · Score: 0

      I cannot, CANNOT allow that hideous woman into the White House. Say what you want about Trump, but he'll upend the table and at least make the next 4 years much more entertaining.

    2. Re:So, technically-minded people are anti-trump? by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      Trump will destroy the USA as a world power, make it a laughing stock in international relations, destroy its remaining manufacturing with trade protectionsim that cripples it for decades like East Germany, and wage war on nations that he perceives insults from - dooming us to nuclear holocaust in a way not seen for decades.

    3. Re: So, technically-minded people are anti-trump? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember the ancient Chinese curse

      "May you always live in interesting times"

      The times that are most interesting are the times witch are hardest to live through.

      I hate both Hillary and Trump.

    4. Re:So, technically-minded people are anti-trump? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Trump will destroy the USA as a world power, make it a laughing stock in international relations,.

      Haha, too late!

    5. Re:So, technically-minded people are anti-trump? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with western society is that most of it's members have long since been inoculated against true hardship, such as that found in the 3rd world, and therefore no longer have any true understanding of just how bad things can truly get, or even have been in the past. The problem with change, is that it is the ultimate double-edged sword - it cuts both ways.

      Be very, very careful what you wish for - if you wish to vote for the anti-civilization party, (which is exactly what the US Republican Party/GOP has become), just because it's a change, then don't be surprised as to the outcome... It's people like you that are responsible for the Iraq war, and are therefore anti-civilization and anti-humanity itself - the very enemy the US constitution was designed to counteract.

    6. Re:So, technically-minded people are anti-trump? by lush_cmte · · Score: 1

      Hehe! Agree!

    7. Re: So, technically-minded people are anti-trump? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If trump wins the first thing Dems AND GOP do is impeach him; no one wants him and he is dangerous

    8. Re:So, technically-minded people are anti-trump? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump will destroy the USA as a world power, make it a laughing stock in international relations, destroy its remaining manufacturing ...

      Obama did it first, episode 1370 - "Barry Get Reelected".

    9. Re:So, technically-minded people are anti-trump? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good ol' politics of fear....Now, I have no horse in the race so what I'm saying is: doesn't matter whether it's Trump or Clinton, the US already look foolish to the rest of the world with this clown show they call an election. The next president of the US will either be John Wayne Gacey or Ronald McDonald.

    10. Re:So, technically-minded people are anti-trump? by Jzanu · · Score: 0

      Keep pretending you fucking Trump-shill, I hope you're getting paid something for this shit.

    11. Re:So, technically-minded people are anti-trump? by Boronx · · Score: 1

      You most likely live on that table.

    12. Re:So, technically-minded people are anti-trump? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dooming us to nuclear holocaust in a way not seen for decades.

      You are the real Netanyahu and I claim my $5.

    13. Re:So, technically-minded people are anti-trump? by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      You are antsemetic piece of shit

  6. The Income-Tax Canard by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 0

    Stefan Molyneux on how Trump should answer the income-tax question.

    1. Re: The Income-Tax Canard by melted · · Score: 0

      That was beautiful

    2. Re:The Income-Tax Canard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typical Republican bullshit.

      Talk endlessly about creating jobs while at the same time creating trade policy allowing U.S. companies to send hundreds of thousand of jobs to Mexico and millions of jobs to China.

    3. Re:The Income-Tax Canard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My bet is Trump is playing the media *again*.

      My bet is Trump actually released that return.

      There are 3 places it could have come from. His accounting firm, himself, or the IRS. The first would end up sued out of existence by doing that. The last would end up with people fired and jailed. That leaves only one option Trump released them.

      I give it 2-3 days and he plays out the string and lets them dance all over it and then he reals them back in again. He has been doing this to them for nearly a year now. Someone in the media falls for it every time. He laid it out quite clearly in his book how to do exactly this.

    4. Re:The Income-Tax Canard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stefan Molyneux on how Trump should answer the income-tax question.

      This guy's is great!

  7. Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I find it funny that there are so many Trump supporters here when you stop and realize what kind of corrupt inside deal he'll give Microsoft if they give him a big enough kickback. Will all of the government computers be forced to run Windows? Will open source be outlawed altogether? Enjoy your burning down of the system. Personally if anarchy is your thing I would have voted for Vermin Supreme.

    1. Re:Heh by lush_cmte · · Score: 1

      And you think Hillary is any different? Bill Gates is one of her top donors to the Clinton Foundation.

    2. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump 2016! ..... from Canada.

    3. Re:Heh by lush_cmte · · Score: 1

      #WhyThankYou

    4. Re:Heh by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 2

      Another of her top donors is Saudi Arabia -- a place where women are considered property. But let's ignore that and focus on the allegation that Trump called a beauty queen fat 20 years ago -- a woman whose weight gain violated her contract with Trump for Miss Universe.

    5. Re:Heh by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      Will open source be outlawed altogether? Enjoy your burning down of the system. Personally if anarchy is your thing I would have voted for Vermin Supreme.

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

    6. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can't dig anything so they dig up some random crap from 90's. Some people are desperate to get psycho HIllary voted in.

    7. Re:Heh by dbIII · · Score: 1

      a woman whose weight gain violated her contract

      Do you really want someone who is that much of a control freak running the country?

  8. poor sod by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Funny

    Never realized how much scrutiny his life would get if he got the nomination.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:poor sod by Boronx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Trump doesn't see these as negatives. Many of his supporters on here don't either, and even think these stories might help him. These guys know essentially zero about politics.

    2. Re:poor sod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump using tax laws to his advantage? Planning to adopt popular republican causes in order to win the republican nomination? Doing a cameo in a playboy video? Marrying hot women? Oh yeah, huge scandals there. Surely this will be the end of Trump, just like the other hundred "this will definitely sink Trump" moments of the last year+.

      You people look at tedious, condescending, corrupt, artificial people like Hillary et. al. and think that's what people *want* in their politicians, just because that's how politicians have always been. Wrong.

    3. Re:poor sod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it that he got the nomination... or that he's poised to WIN IT ALL and has no strings to the trillionaire puppeteers that run the show?

    4. Re:poor sod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump using tax laws to his advantage?

      It's the part about not paying any taxes that gets under people's skin. We have a name for such people; we call them free loaders.

      Planning to adopt popular republican causes in order to win the republican nomination?

      Which republican causes would those be? Care to elaborate? Seriously, which of his pet "causes" are you talking about? Are any of them actually Republican?

      Doing a cameo in a playboy video?

      It kind of gets under the skin of the "family values" crowd. Those are the only ones I know of who would care.

      Marrying hot women?

      It's not marrying "hot women" that is the scandalous part. It's the cheating on his wife--particularly his first wife--that hits a raw nerve with many. I can only imagine how many women will cringe when His Trumpness decides to take the angle that "Hillary was Bill's enabler". Hell, I'm a guy and it makes me cringe, frankly.

      Oh yeah, huge scandals there. Surely this will be the end of Trump, just like the other hundred "this will definitely sink Trump" moments of the last year+.

      What makes my flesh crawl when thinking about Trump is his unbridled vanity. It also does not help that he comes across as compulsively petty and thin-skinned. It just doesn't make for a pretty pose.

      You people look at tedious, condescending, corrupt, artificial people like Hillary et. al. and think that's what people *want* in their politicians, just because that's how politicians have always been. Wrong.

      And what makes you think that because a lot of us have rejected Trump that we actually want Hillary? Hint: there are more than two candidates in the race. Bonus hint: even those who do end up voting for Hillary will do so not because they actually like "tedious, condescending, corrupt, artificial" politicians but because they see her as a superior choice to Donald.

    5. Re:poor sod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you know more about politics ... as an engineer. LMAO!

    6. Re:poor sod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "These guys know essentially zero about politics."

      Which is exactly why a lot of people do like him. They're sick of politics as usual and just want to disrupt the entire system. Even if it means pulling a V for Vendetta style "burn it all down". The grand experiment called America is over slowly bleeding to death from greed, corruption, and lack of ethics. Not unlike our Italian cousins in Rome who also once dominated the known world until corruption and poor leadership killed it from within.

      But we forget that the president is not king. There are three branches to our federal government, and one of them has the power to impeach. The way most party line Republicans are backing away from Trump, I don't think that would be too difficult.

      Everyone Sucks 2016!!

    7. Re:poor sod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well he's far and away been the most successful "politician" this year, so perhaps "these guys" might actually know more than you an the pundits.

    8. Re:poor sod by Boronx · · Score: 1

      America has been through worse, so I have some hope. The with burning it down, besides the chaos, of course, is that we'd only get old fashioned despotism as a replacement. There is no better idea out there yet. I also wonder whether "burning it down" will ever be a good move in the nuclear age.

  9. Re:Whoopty Doo by Jzanu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nope, voting for Hillary just means you're going for someone with experience to be president for 4-8 years, rather than the insane guy dreaming of nuclear war with fallout for thousands.

  10. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    All these attacks on Trump are only driving people to support him. He is perceived as the enemy of the media, and people hate the media more than they hate Trump.

  11. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Vote for Garry Johnson (or other third party for that matter) = I would rather throw my vote away than see things continue the way they are.

  12. So what... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "But his biggest problem may be the mainstream media. According to the New York Times, Trump "declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income tax returns, a tax deduction so substantial it could have allowed him to legally avoid paying any federal income taxes for up to 18 years..."

    So what. If you lose money on investments, business, etc. you get to write it off and carry the loss forward in future years. The idea is that you took a big hit and get to offset future gains until to break even.

    Somebody want to explain to me why this is bad?

    1. Re:So what... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because he apparently sucks at being a businessman, something he claims he's good at, and make him perfect for the job of President.

    2. Re: So what... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he really sucked at it he wouldn't still be doing it. Capitalism tends to weed out those who suck at it. Board of directors, investors, bosses, etc. fire people who can't perform.

      But that doesn't fit your narrative.

    3. Re:So what... by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      Because he apparently sucks at being a businessman, something he claims he's good at, and make him perfect for the job of President.

      This. I honestly believe the only reason Trump is avoiding to show his tax returns is that it would reveal his net worth is *far* less what he claims it to be.

    4. Re:So what... by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Also, it's going to show that he have given nothing (or almost nothing) to charitable causes.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    5. Re:So what... by bheerssen · · Score: 1

      And next to nothing in federal or state income taxes, for that matter. Frankly, if you are running for public office, I think it behooves you to pay into the system. At the very least, it looks bad to the middle America types for whom working hard and paying taxes is a mark of patriotism. (Even as they complain vociferously about those taxes.)

      --
      (Score: -1, Stupid)
    6. Re:So what... by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      That really caught my attention during the debate, specifically the "you don't pay income taxes" "that makes me smart" exchange. You'd assume most blue collar workers who do pay a shitload in taxes would be pissed by that line of thinking.

    7. Re:So what... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      You'd assume most blue collar workers who do pay a shitload in taxes would be pissed by that line of thinking.

      You really think that most blue collar workers, as they file their 1040EZ or have that HR Block guy in the kiosk at the mall do their taxes ... don't check every box available to them that reduces their tax burden? That's what you think?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    8. Re:So what... by Powercntrl · · Score: 1

      You'd assume most blue collar workers who do pay a shitload in taxes would be pissed by that line of thinking.

      Or at least be reminded of what happened to Al Capone.

      But nope, most Trump supporters are too busy hating on Hillary, brown skins, LGBTs, etc. to care what Trump represents as an actual political leader. He could be out in the street clubbing puppies, and the "Make America White Again" folks would still vote for him.

      --

      ---
      DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
    9. Re:So what... by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      Of course they do. But they still pay. No one likes paying taxes, but that's a far cry from sympathizing with a loudmouth who flat out declares he pays no taxes because he's smart in a nothing less than a presidential debate.

    10. Re:So what... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      But they still pay

      Actually, only about half of the people pay. Many blue collar types (since you mention them) pay very little or no federal income taxes at all, or even get cash "back" on the taxes they don't pay. A small minority of the other half pay the vast majority of all of the income taxes.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    11. Re:So what... by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      Boy, they sure are smart then!

    12. Re:So what... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      What would you call them if they didn't take advantage of the deductions that give them that you-owe-nothing status?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    13. Re:So what... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he's not releasing them because it keeps the media singing "Trump, Trump, Trump!" all day long, and Americans don't like paying taxes nor do we tend to like the IRS all that much either. So its incredibly good coverage, i.e. this is the best the media can do? and so forth. When he finally does release them, there will be a purpose to that, probably a great maneuver to completely discredit the media and HRC at some point they may actually have something that might hurt him with there being nothing in his taxes that's negative (best case he pays some taxes and made a ton of money, so he gets bragging rights). His business is real estate and media-related, like pageants. This guy knows the media, how it works, and how to work it. It's been really amusing to watch them flail about, unable to get rid of their bias and beliefs to deal with the reality of what's happening.

  13. Re:Whoopty Doo by lush_cmte · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes, yes...I'm sure Mr. Trump wants nuclear war...

  14. Re:Whoopty Doo by ArtemaOne · · Score: 1, Troll

    Ah, no. Pretending that Clinton is not warmonger is dangerous. I can't believe I agree with a AC.

  15. Re: Whoopty Doo by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That, and it's going to fracture the GOP - which could lead to more than a two party system.

    --
    _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
  16. Re:Whoopty Doo by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hillary is the candidate proposing to launch physical wars against cyber-attackers, the biggest two of which are big nuclear powers. Trump is the candidate who wants the US to stop being Team America: World Police. The candidate with then 20 years of bad political experience is the one who wants to perpetuate the current failed policies that have brought the US to the brink of bankruptcy and an internal race war. She's also accused of murdering 50 people, committing treason with state secrets, attacking several women her husband is accused of raping, and covering up health problems that may kill her during her first term, and money laundering and pay-for-play through the Clinton Foundation. The worst the DNC can dig up on Trump is that he allegedly called a beauty queen fat who violated the terms of her contract to be Miss Universe. No, the Frank and Claire Underwood award goes to... Hillary and Bill Clinton (in that order).

  17. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Experience with abusing her position for cash after riding her husband's presidency to attention? Experience with screwing up in those positions? Experience with leaving Americans to die? Experience with covering up gross and treasonous crimes? Experience with fixing primaries? Experience with hiring hundreds of people to scream "racist" online to everyone who vaguely disagrees at her? Experience with people around her mysteriously showing up dead?

    Yeah, she's got the experience to be president, if being a rat is the equivalent of being president.

  18. Re:Scary times ahead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you for taking the time to read this, and God bless.

    Really donnie, lay offa the amphetamines

  19. Re:Whoopty Doo by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 0

    "Not sleeping with President Bill Clinton" for 8 years does not mean that Hillary has the experience to be president.

    --
    If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  20. Re:Whoopty Doo by lush_cmte · · Score: 0

    We'll have to look at Mr. Trump's tax returns to see the paycheck stubs from Mr. Putin.

  21. form by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The ultimate reaction to a devastating cyber attack will be a full on nuclear response. Who will strike fast and early, Hillary or Trump. Oh, and the alternative is surrender, just so you know your options and who will implement your choice.

  22. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you know if he thought it would make his dick (or his hands) look bigger, he'd press the button (with his dick, or his hands) in an instant.

  23. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only one candidate has voted to start an actual war, and has sat by and watched the Middle East explode in country after country.

  24. Re:Whoopty Doo by lush_cmte · · Score: 1

    Because, destroying the entire world with a nuclear holocaust leaves a darn whole lot of the world for Mr. Putin to rule over...

  25. Slashdot is the Fourth Reich by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot is full of morons fighting each other to see who gets to fellate Trump first.

    1. Re:Slashdot is the Fourth Reich by lush_cmte · · Score: 1

      Poll: Who would you rather fellate? Hillary Trump

    2. Re:Slashdot is the Fourth Reich by Phydeaux · · Score: 1

      But apparently you (Mr. Anonymous Coward) don't mind getting pegged by Hillary. The definition of a Cuck.

  26. Re:Whoopty Doo by lush_cmte · · Score: 1

    To paraphrase Gen. Colin Powell: "Everything she touches, she royally screws up."

  27. The house always wins by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Remember, Trump's >$900million loss came from running a fucking casino. And this was in the go-go 90's when people were actually making and spending money.

    You've got to be a special kind of businessman to lose almost a billion dollars running a casino.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:The house always wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (God help me, I'm about to defend Trump.)

      Unless it's the first year and you're building them and have to compete with other big businesses. That's how big businesses work. It's like how many years Microsoft lost money on the xbox, or on Azure.

    2. Re:The house always wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You have to be a special kind of person to think that the nature of your business venture actually affects your accountant's recommendations.
      He hired the best accountants, the KPMG type and Anderson type. The Enron, The Lehman, The Fed, they all use accounting tricks.
      Pay your taxes slave!

    3. Re:The house always wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that supposed to be relevant?

    4. Re:The house always wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      You employ a slave mentality if you willingly pay taxes. Taxes are a game. You don't know this and you appeal to emotion instead of reason.

      Smart people try not to pay taxes and hire the best accountants money can buy.

      See KPMG, See Anderseen, Lehman Bros, Enron.. they all use the same guys, same tricks. It's accounting.

    5. Re: The house always wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assuming he did, indeed, lose that money.

    6. Re:The house always wins by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Is that supposed to be relevant?

      Now that is an interesting question. Remember, Donald Trump's only public record is as a businessman. He's never held any public office. So his record as a businessman is the only data we have to evaluate him.

      At very least, a businessman who loses almost a billion dollars running a fucking casino had better be prepared to answer other questions about his skill at business.

      Doesn't that sound relevant to you?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    7. Re:The house always wins by argStyopa · · Score: 0

      If you think he actually lost $900 mill to write off $900 mill you're as dumb (or biased) as the journalists writing the story.

      I don't doubt he lost money (it's not like he's EVER been even mildly competent as a businessman) but cf Hollywood Economics: (https://www.amazon.com/Hollywood-Economist-2-0-Financial-Reality/dp/1612190502) let's remember that according to the accountants, none of the LotR movies made any money at all.

      --
      -Styopa
    8. Re: The house always wins by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Assuming he did, indeed, lose that money.

      Well, if he didn't lose the money and still claimed the loss on his income tax, we have a whole different discussion, involving lengthy prison sentences. One thing for sure: we now know why Trump has been so adamant about not releasing his tax returns.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    9. Re: The house always wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is it with you people about him not wanting to release his taxes while he is under an active audit? Don't give me that BS about there is no IRS restriction either. While there is no explicit IRS restriction, his tax lawyers are smart in advising him not to disclose until the audit is complete. No different than when your lawyer tells you not to discuss anything during an active investigation.

      But it is better to smear him and make up BS as to what he is "hiding" to fit the narrative...

    10. Re:The house always wins by bongey · · Score: 1, Interesting

      But you said Trump wasn't a billionaire? This proves Trump was a billionaire in 1995. One cannot record billion dollar loss without having a billion dollars worth of assets at one time. Since the IRS audited it, that means Trump had at least a billion dollars in 1994,but 20 years later he somehow doesn't.

      How much do you want to bet that Trump leaked the tax returns himself?

    11. Re: The house always wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The immorality is that the laws have been bought to make those tax loopholes for the rich

    12. Re:The house always wins by sinij · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One cannot record billion dollar loss without having a billion dollars worth of assets at one time.

      It is just like RIAA 'piracy damages' valuations, so yes you can record loss much larger than market valuation of assets at any time.

    13. Re:The house always wins by bongey · · Score: 0

      Trump leaked these himself and the NYT took the bait. It proves Trump was billionare in 1994 and almost 99% likely he is billionare now.

    14. Re:The house always wins by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      All you want. The only reason Trump is adamant about discussing his tax returns is precisely they would dispel the discourse about him being a billionaire.

    15. Re:The house always wins by Lisandro · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd argue the opposite. His tax returns would prove he is NOT a successful self-made billionaire. For a guy who's built his candidacy on an ego trip this is important.

    16. Re:The house always wins by bongey · · Score: 1

      libtard the RIAA is a trade assiociation with no actual assets. You cannot record a loss to something you don't own.
      CPA wife says most likely took the loss on property assets on a write down, which is double bonus on the end.
      IE less property tax, carry forward and then you don't record capital gains until you sell the property.
      CPA Wife works for one of top 50 companies in the world as a tax manager.
      ie she has made 100+ million tax payments.

    17. Re: The house always wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But there *really* is no restriction whatsoever, which was his argument to justify not releasing his taxes. He even said as much during the last debate for god's sake.

      Remember when we expected accountability from our presidents?

    18. Re:The house always wins by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

      For the benefit of some of our readers who've not been out of the basement in a while: A "casino" is a place where you insert 2 week's salary into something called a "slot machine" and they try to fool you into thinking that you've still managed to come out "ahead" because you got a "free" steak dinner + 2-3 drinks out of the deal. So you can maybe see why The Donald might be challenged to make a profit in this scenario. I think anyone would be, no?

      Oh, wait--you say he owned the casino? Um... I'll get back to you, thanks.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    19. Re:The house always wins by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 2

      Remember these are paper losses. Trump is the quintessential crooked American businessman, with shady accountants who will find a way to cook the books to his advantage. The profits will have been transferred into tax exempt trusts. Only the losses remain where they belong.

    20. Re:The house always wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not the same at all, Azure and Xbox had plans that specifically stated they expected to lose money for at least 5 years while they obtained market share. Trump went into those businesses expecting to make money not lose 900 million.

    21. Re:The house always wins by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 1

      This is a very American attitude, though not by any means limited to the US.

      If people want nation states, they need institutions to run them, and defense forces to enforce their existence. Most people do seem to want this, and they do not pay for themselves.Part of Trump's appeal is emphasizing the tribalism that underlies the desire for borders.

      I am totally out of sympathy with the attitude that says: "I want the nation state with the benefits that accrues to me personally. However, I would be stupid, as a wealthy individual with access to sleazy accountants, to pay my share, because I can force the burden onto the middle class and the poor." The analogous attitude in business is that "there is a fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder value, and any kind of actions within the limits of the law that we can take to achieve this are not only acceptable but mandatory."

    22. Re:The house always wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you know what a nation is? It really seems like you should if you are going to throw terms like "nation-state" around.

      It takes a special kind of stupid to talk about the finances of our current system, which is so, so, so far away from being a nation-state, in the context of what members of a nation-state think about their taxes.

      After you've educated yourself on what a nation is, try to figure out what taxes would need to be to pay for only those portions of the US federal budget that benefit the nation that pays for everything. I don't want to spoil the surprise for you, but it would be a tax cut, even for those with good accountants (but maybe not for those with the best accountants).

    23. Re:The house always wins by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1, Informative

      Is it safe to assume that you've never actually done your own taxes? Nor read to the point of comprehension the return prepared for you by H&R Block?

      There isn't a box on the form for "net worth", nor a place to list assets. The closest you get is depreciation schedules, and those don't cover a whole lot. It is pretty common for wealthy people to have no income, and also not to actually own anything.

      Unless he wrote off a payment to a hit man as a business expense, it is hard to imagine anything that might be in his taxes that are worse for him, politically speaking, than not releasing them. He isn't releasing his tax returns because they don't exist in any meaningful sense, and they won't until the audit is concluded. When you are under audit, the IRS is saying that the documents you submitted are not your tax return, and they are going to use the audit process to create your return.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    24. Re:The house always wins by Jack9 · · Score: 0

      > For a guy who's built his candidacy on an ego trip this is important.

      I don't think he's a billionaire either. At least, not in the same sense as the Clintons aren't billionaires. There's not a lot of value to actually being one, vs saying you are (or are not) one since the whole point is being able to leverage (other) capital. Being "unwilling" to self-fund his campaign was enough to recognize a fraudulent claim. That being said, his candidacy is based on his popularity so his ego is incidental. I don't care if Hillary is physically or even mentally damaged anymore than if Trump has a billion dollars or not. I think it's clear as to what things are true and neither matter to me in the slightest. While Trump may end up being a puppet, policy good and bad, can be undone. Hopefully he undoes some of the bad with the inevitable good he will unravel. Or maybe he won't do anything of the sort, but I'll roll the dice on him over Hillary.

      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
    25. Re:The house always wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, just like those clintons. Do people think connected millionaires handle their money that differently? If you have $50k in liquid assets, you should have a trust as a tax shelter. It's the USA.

    26. Re:The house always wins by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      I hate to defend Trump here but there are ways you can screw it up that are understandable. Trump didn't know how popular his casino would be. There was an overall market shift happening where the market for casinos has become saturated.

    27. Re:The house always wins by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Do you have a "slave mentality" if you put money in the collection plate in Church too?

    28. Re:The house always wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > He isn't releasing his tax returns because they don't exist in any meaningful sense, and they won't until the audit is concluded.

      According to his lawyers, audits prior to 2008 are concluded. There is no legitimate reason not to release those returns. Furthermore, Richard Nixon released his tax forms while they were under audit, and the IRS has stated that there is nothing legally preventing people from releasing tax forms while they are under audit.. "Under audit" is a lame excuse that Trump didn't have ~6 months ago when he claimed he would release them before the election (either he was lying or he changed his mind).

      It may be inconvenient to do so, but there is nothing stopping Trump from releasing his tax forms like every other candidate has for the last 40 years, including his own VP running mate who released his.

      The only logical conclusion is that Trump simply doesn't want to release his tax forms. There is no other rational explanation.

    29. Re:The house always wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All this shows is the need for the law to change so that the extremely rich can't take advantage of these tricks. Otherwise you end up with situations like this where billionaires pay nothing in taxes and regular taxpayers pay the nominal rates for their entire lives. If what Trump has alluded to is correct (near-zero taxes), then that should be cause for fixing tax law, not for bragging about being a freeloader when it comes to paying for government services that everybody uses. It's the height of hypocrisy if he can complain about the poor state of infrastructure and inadequate help for veterans while simultaneously paying almost zero to support them because of screwed-up tax law.

    30. Re:The house always wins by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Casinos go bankrupt all the time you ignorant twat.

      This is how it works:

      A new casino opens up in the area and starts drawing most of the whales. In response your casino borrows several billion dollars to fund an expansion and remodel.

      If the new paint job is successful, you get the whales back and a few years later pay off the loan. If unsuccessful you cant make the minimum payments on your loan and declare bankruptcy because the loan is for more than your casino is now worth.

      As far as the 1990's, Atlantic City (where his casinos were) got hit hard by a little gem built in New England called Foxwoods which quickly became the largest casino in the world (at the time, tho there is a larger one in Asia now) and grabbed all the business from New York to Maine that Atlantic City once got.

      Foxwoods was making over a billion dollars per year just in slot profits and it never reported its table games revenue because its deal with the State of Connecticut left table game revenue exempt from taxation at the cost of a flat 25% rate on the slot profits. Atlantic City never even had a poker room until Foxwoods came along. The only legal poker on the east coast at the time.

      Now STFU and stick to subjects you know something about.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    31. Re:The house always wins by Kohath · · Score: 0

      ... it is hard to imagine anything that might be in his taxes that are worse for him, politically speaking, than not releasing them.

      People don't genuinely care whether he released his tax return. It's all pretense and phony posturing. And it's not news. If he releases the tax return, then the news media/Clinton campaign can spend weeks writing stories/ads about this line and that line. Releasing a return would be a dumb mistake.

    32. Re:The house always wins by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Casinos go bankrupt all the time you ignorant twat.

      Yes, the poorly run ones.

      Atlantic City never even had a poker room until Foxwoods came along.

      Poorly run, as I said.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    33. Re: The house always wins by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What is it with you people about him not wanting to release his taxes while he is under an active audit? Don't give me that BS about there is no IRS restriction either. While there is no explicit IRS restriction, his tax lawyers are smart in advising him not to disclose until the audit is complete. No different than when your lawyer tells you not to discuss anything during an active investigation.

      When he decided to run for president, I guess there was no way he could have known he'd be expected to release his tax returns.

      http://www.mediaite.com/online...

      Nobody has to "smear" Donald Trump with BS. He does it himself so much it's made his skin orange.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    34. Re:The house always wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Argues the opposite
      >Presents no actual argument
      >Thinks he won

      This is why Trump is going to win in a landslide.

    35. Re: The house always wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he said his lawyers advised him not to release. I guess none of you have had to deal with the government and investigations. There is a reason lawyers tell you not to talk about investigations.

      I expect accountability from all. If he does not release his taxes after the audit then you can add a point to your side.

    36. Re: The house always wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize GP literally just said he knows there are no restrictions. Parroting the same thing over and over again doesn't really help anything.

      This guy must think after saying it enough, GP will suddenly come to a realization. "You know what? After hearing that for the 635th time, I think I finally want to change my opinion on this..."

      Idiot.

    37. Re:The house always wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember, Trump's >$900million loss came from running a fucking casino. And this was in the go-go 90's when people were actually making and spending money.

      You've got to be a special kind of businessman to lose almost a billion dollars running a casino.

      I'm not a Trump supporter, but this comment shows you don't actually understand tax law. This was 3 leaked pages from his taxes only denoting the one item, but it doesn't show where or when those taxes were incurred. The release does not say where or when those losses were incurred; he has many real estate businesses as well as casinos and other ventures and it could have come from any where. Also, it's possible to realize tax gains or losses years later if you need to do a restatement, for example his businesses could have been hit hard during the ealry 90's recession and they were running them in a way to mitigate the damage; that may have failed and they decided to recognize the loss. This is not uncommon; for example Northrup Grumman struggled for years to turn around a shipyard htey owned in Mississippi after Hurricane Katrina, but all efforts failed adn they wrote down the asset taking a $3B loss years later. If he had a similar situation, and if his corporations are set up as S-Corps or LLCs those losses get transferred to his personal taxes.

      Without seeing the full release, you can't provide any judgement about what happened. Unfortunately this seems to be someone trying ot manipulate the media and electorate as an October surprise against Trump, because it's telling that only 3 pages of a tax return that's likely hundreds of pages long was released. And you all are falling for it.

      Judge the man on his policies and demeanor, not someone trying to play political manipulator.

    38. Re:The house always wins by argStyopa · · Score: 0

      Agreed, but let's be clear and recognize that there's nothing immoral or unethical about avoiding tax LEGALLY.

      Warren Buffet has a salary of $1; his secretary pays more income tax. Yes, that's fucked up.

      Relevant to this election, do you think it's more or less likely to get fixed if we continually elect vested insiders ?

      --
      -Styopa
    39. Re:The house always wins by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Without seeing the full release, you can't provide any judgement about what happened.

      Good point. It's why Trump needs to release his taxes. Remember, his business experience is the only metric by which we can judge him. Well, that and his insane 3am rage-tweets.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    40. Re:The house always wins by Lisandro · · Score: 2

      That is complete bull. The closest to a tax return Trump ever disclosed was his PFD form submitted to the Federal Election Commission mid-year, where he listed about $360 million in yearly revenue. Revenue, not income. His actual income we'll never know until he publishes his returns, but it will be way, way below that figure.

      Bad news for a man who built his campaign about how being really successful as a businessman qualifies him for office.

    41. Re:The house always wins by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Repeating falsehoods doesnt make them true.

      It just means that after the ignorant twat was corrected, he doubled down on his delusion.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    42. Re:The house always wins by Solandri · · Score: 1

      A very common business tax tactic is, if you are making a lot of profit, you buy an asset which is (initially) losing a lot of money, and link the two together. Basically the excess profit you're making gets shifted over (tax free) to be spent fixing up the money-losing asset. You don't end up having to use your personal money (from which taxes have already been taken out) to fix up the money-losing asset.

      The net result is you personally don't make as much money (lower overall profit). But you gain ownership of another asset which, once its fixed up, can be quite a bit more valuable than what you paid (because it was broken initially), and thus is worth more than the profit you gave up. This is especially true in real estate, where the land and property value tends to appreciate, but the debts and losses of the business sitting on the land may make it too toxic for a buyer without the financial resources to survive the initial fixing-up period.

    43. Re:The house always wins by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      What kind of logic is that? Trump lost $900M in a year. That means he made bad business decisions that exceeded his worth by $900M. Second, that doesn't anything for Trump today. He could be a billionaire; he could be just a millionaire. He could also be broke.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    44. Re:The house always wins by kbg · · Score: 1

      You just answered your own question. It is impossible to lose money running a casino. Those money got "lost" in a different way.

    45. Re:The house always wins by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Repeating falsehoods doesnt make them true.

      Let's talk about falsehoods:

      This is what you said,

      Casinos go bankrupt all the time you ignorant twat.

      They don't go bankrupt "all the time", and they definitely don't go bankrupt in the 1990s, unless they're run by Donald Trump. Why don't you give us a list of major casino/hotel complexes that went bankrupt in the 1990s?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    46. Re:The house always wins by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      You just answered your own question. It is impossible to lose money running a casino. Those money got "lost" in a different way.

      You're right. Cocaine is a hell of a drug.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    47. Re:The house always wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "He isn't releasing his tax returns because they don't exist in any meaningful sense, and they won't until the audit is concluded. When you are under audit, the IRS is saying that the documents you submitted are not your tax return, and they are going to use the audit process to create your return."

      Funny, the IRS disagrees, and has stated Trump can release his taxes returns, even those under audit. Sure, it the audit goes against him, those specific returns will be amended, and he would have to re-release those, if he wanted to.

      Donny's just afraid the tax returns will show he's not a great businessman, which will show him for the fraud he is.

    48. Re:The house always wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be a great explanation if there weren't precedent for a presidential candidate under audit releasing his returns--Nixon.

    49. Re:The house always wins by Cl1mh4224rd · · Score: 1

      He isn't releasing his tax returns because they don't exist in any meaningful sense, and they won't until the audit is concluded. When you are under audit, the IRS is saying that the documents you submitted are not your tax return, and they are going to use the audit process to create your return.

      This is incorrect. The IRS has officially stated that there is nothing preventing Trump from releasing his tax information:

      In a statement Friday [February 26, 2016], the IRS said that federal privacy rules prohibit the agency from discussing individual tax matters, but “nothing prevents individuals from sharing their own tax information.”

      IRS: Trump can release tax returns, regardless of audit

      --
      People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
    50. Re:The house always wins by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      There was an overall market shift happening where the market for casinos has become saturated.

      That market shift you're talking about didn't happen until a decade later. Casinos in the '90s did very well, no matter where they were.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    51. Re: The house always wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember when we expected accountability from our presidents?

      No? Was this sometime before American politics was a game of My Dad Can Beat Up Your Dad?

    52. Re:The house always wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you have a billion dollars in assets, and 1 billion and 1 dollars in debt, are you a billionaire, are you broke, or are you simply quite rich? If those assets are making you money faster than you're losing money to interest, you can still claim to be rich, but claiming billionaire status is disingenuous. Trump is obviously lying about his wealth when he releases a financial statement valuing his name (not existing contracts to use it, just the name itself, i.e. speculative future income), so it leads many of us to wonder to what degree he is lying.

    53. Re:The house always wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > He isn't releasing his tax returns because they don't exist in any meaningful sense, and they won't until the audit is concluded.

      What a bizarre apologia.

      (1) It does not apply to all of his returns for previous years which are no longer being audited. Clinton has released something like 35 years worth. Trump doesn't even have one year? Yeah, right.
      (2) So what if his returns are not finalized? Anybody can ammend a previously filed return anyway. I'm pretty sure Romeny ammended his returns after he lost in order to claim even more deductions. Nobody cares if his current returns aren't perfect. Show us what he gave the IRS, that's a start.

      > it is hard to imagine anything that might be in his taxes that are worse for him, politically speaking, than not releasing them.

      No its not. How about zero charitable donations? Or income levels unbefitting his image as a billionaire? Or a bunch of loophole deductions that are essentially cash transfers from the government to the rich - real estate is full of that kind of thing.

    54. Re:The house always wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but that's really only deferring paying taxes on the profits, unless you really do end up making a loss on the asset.

    55. Re: The house always wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > we now know why Trump has been so adamant about not releasing his tax returns.

      Do we? If losing a billion dollars was the worst thing in his returns, then he could now get all the benefit of releasing his returns since the worst is already public. But he's still adamantly refusing to release them. That strongly suggests there is something even worse in there that he does not want made public.

    56. Re: The house always wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No different than when your lawyer tells you not to discuss anything during an active investigation.

      It's a lot different because a lawyer will advise you of that because you might reveal harmful details to the investigators. All we're asking for is the exact information that the investigators have.

    57. Re:The house always wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You instantly lose the argument by calling someone a 'libtard'

      All conservatives are functionally retard brain dead fucking nazis

    58. Re:The house always wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is complete bullshit. He submitted tax returns the audit determines whether it is truthful.

      He sure as hell could have politically damaging parts in his taxes. Things like: he's a billion dollar loser, he doesn't pay taxes, he pays massive amounts of interest on loans from Russian banks.

      The fact that he isn't showing his taxes is cowardice. He knows they are damaging or he would have done it. Instead he makes up bullshit excuses that never stopped anyone.

    59. Re:The house always wins by publiclurker · · Score: 1

      funny how trumpets think that they can spew out garbage that only they are ignorant enough to believe and expect others to buy it.

    60. Re:The house always wins by fatwilbur · · Score: 1

      Not defending Trump here, but I think the primary reason is he invested heavily in gambling-mecca-hopefuls like Atlanta and New Jersey. These turned out to be bad bets for a lot of people, as these places couldn't compete with Vegas.

      As the industry suffered in those places, the long term valuations of those places would be written down quickly, so it's really not surprising to lose $1B when marking down assets of those size.

    61. Re:The house always wins by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Not defending Trump here, but I think the primary reason is he invested heavily in gambling-mecca-hopefuls like Atlanta and New Jersey. These turned out to be bad bets for a lot of people, as these places couldn't compete with Vegas.

      As the industry suffered in those places, the long term valuations of those places would be written down quickly, so it's really not surprising to lose $1B when marking down assets of those size.

      If we were talking about the mid to late-2000s, you would be right. But losing money with casinos in the 1990s is like losing money selling cocaine in Miami in the 1980s.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    62. Re:The house always wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not just a casino. Also property collapse. This is 1995 we're talking about. Five fucking years into a huge fucking recession.

    63. Re:The house always wins by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      Trump is a buffoon and money grubbing opportunist but you are saying crooked? That would imply illegal. I think you are confused. Legal tax exemption and loopholes are not illegal. The Clintons do illegal things.

    64. Re:The house always wins by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      Finance isn't your thing, it's beyond you. Trump could have had a stellar decade and intentionally put those losses in one year.

    65. Re: The house always wins by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      there is no law or rule requiring release of tax returns, it's merely a tradition. I'd agree it should be a law.

    66. Re:The house always wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's funny how baristas act like they know anything about business. Go return to your parents basement.

    67. Re:The house always wins by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 1

      ... it would be a tax cut, even for those with good accountants (but maybe not for those with the best accountants).

      Let's examine that claim a bit...

      Centuries ago, it was possible for the elites to claim "divine right of kings" and maintain their fiefdoms based purely on a supposed mandate from God. Taxes could be levied on the poor, while exempting the elites, because God wanted it that way. Today, the masses will not accept this. A "divine right of robber barons" is not going to pass the sniff test, so the elites must be able to at least make a plausible case that the state operates in the interests of the masses, not just a privileged few. Costs to run the country, and defend its existence need to take account of that reality.

      The above reality being recognized, let us look at where the federal taxes levied go, and which uses of taxes you want abolished.

      First, I assume you wish to abolish the (supposedly separately funded) social security and Medicare programs. With most businesses having eliminated their own employee pension schemes, this is the main unavoidable contribution they must still make. It means, of course, not just no retirement benefits (no problem: the wealthy can afford their own pensions) but also such expensive entitlements as disability insurance, Medicare and Medicaid among other entitlements Medicare is horrendously expensive, partly for reasons that have to do with the way health care is structured in the US. (Unlucky if you are one of the individuals who finds it impossible to get privately funded replacements, such as because of preexisting conditions.) It is just conceivable that you could eliminate these programs over time. After all, individuals also bear some of the cost. There is no way the masses would accept an abrupt removal of their benefits, though, so reductions in the cost to business would have to be a slow process..

      With that out of the way, we can examine where the main federal taxes go.

      • By far the biggest is the military. I would argue that these costs could be hugely cut back, though only with a big short-term hit to the economy. What is needed is a small standing army and air force, together with a minimal nuclear deterrent. There is no way the elites would permit this, however. Their ability to project power globally relies on the current bloated monster.
      • You have federally funded education initiatives like the Head Start program, training and placement for unemployed, and grants for low income college students. Individually, these are not too expensive, but collectively they command a measurable proportion of the budget. I would personally not favor eliminating most of these, and I think acceptance of the system is impaired by doing so, but I concede eliminating them is possible.
      • I believe food stamps are funded from regular taxes, not social security, so these need to be considered separately. Yes, they could be axed. Some children would die, and more would be mentally and physically damaged by malnutrition, but that is not the elites' problem.
      • There is government support for scientific research. Outside of that with military applications, it is actually not a huge amount of money.
      • There are regulatory authorities to ensure things like food safety and disease control. While business would probably like to see them go, as complying with regulations costs them money, I personally think for most purposes they need to stay.
      • There is infrastructure spending, such as on the roads. You could replace this with a system of toll roads, as in Europe in centuries past.
      • Veteran's benefits could be eliminated, but the outcry from the masses would make this quite untenable

      Overall, I agree with the theory that much smaller and cheaper government is feasible. I do not think it can be done in practice unless (i) you can convince the population at large that programs to benefit the bulk of the population should be eliminated for the benefit of big business and the rich; and (ii) you can convince the elites that their global ambitions need to be forgone for the benefit of everyone else. I think you have a tough task ahead.

    68. Re:The house always wins by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Not just a casino. Also property collapse. This is 1995 we're talking about. Five fucking years into a huge fucking recession.

      Commercial real estate was rebounding like crazy in '94 and '95. Vacancies were at their lowest point in 15 years.

      Nobody was losing money on real estate in 1995.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    69. Re:The house always wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed, but let's be clear and recognize that there's nothing immoral or unethical about avoiding tax LEGALLY.

      Lots of legal things are immoral or unethical.

    70. Re:The house always wins by dev-in-seattle · · Score: 0

      If you use the word libtard as an attack, you automatically lose, "donkey".

    71. Re:The house always wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you dumb? The billion dollar loss is related to income, not assets.

    72. Re:The house always wins by Gussington · · Score: 1

      This proves Trump was a billionaire in 1995.

      It does no such thing.

      One cannot record billion dollar loss without having a billion dollars worth of assets at one time.

      Of course you can. You acquire a business under huge debt for a song, then use those losses to offset your profits. This is tax avoidance 101 which the 1%ers use all the time to avoid paying for your local schools and hospitals. Wake up.

    73. Re:The house always wins by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Do you have a "slave mentality" if you put money in the collection plate in Church too?

      No, because unlike taxes the Church doesn't literally extract payment at the point of a gun as libertarians here are fond of saying.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    74. Re:The house always wins by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Sure.
      This isn't one.

      --
      -Styopa
    75. Re:The house always wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember, Trump's >$900million loss came from running a fucking casino. And this was in the go-go 90's when people were actually making and spending money.

      You've got to be a special kind of businessman to lose almost a billion dollars running a casino.

      Oh please. If you want to talk crooked are you aware of what Hillary Clinton has been up to. Fucking moron.

    76. Re:The house always wins by Verdatum · · Score: 1

      No one is asking for the return generated as a result of the audit. People are asking for the return that he submitted to the IRS. If the audit reveals that the return was a complete fabrication or slightly flawed (and I doubt it will), that's a separate issue. There is nothing preventing him from disclosing a copy of what he originally sent to the IRS.

    77. Re:The house always wins by Maritz · · Score: 1

      In response your casino borrows several billion dollars to fund an expansion and remodel.

      Spend billions once things are running against you? Wow, smart.

      You've clearly got expertise.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    78. Re:The house always wins by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Finance isn't your thing, it's beyond you. Trump could have had a stellar decade and intentionally put those losses in one year.

      That's sheer idiocy. First of all, these are Trump's PERSONAL taxes, not his business. That means that Trump personally lost over $900M in a year. If they were his business losses that would be stupid on Trump's not to shield himself. There's a reason people create LLCs: so they don't have to absorb losses personally. Obviously you don't understand business.

      Let's for the sake of your argument he had "a stellar decade and intentionally put losses in one year." While some deferment of losses can happen over multiple years, he still lost $900M. Over a decade that means $90M per year. You're not allowed to defer profits from an entire decade from any tax code that I know.

      Is such a move even allowed? Some say it might have been illegal.

      Others have raised another scenario entirely — that Trump’s advisers may have created a new tax entity, possibly offshore, to which he continued to owe some or all of the $916 million. This strategy, which is illegal and is called “parking” debt, would have allowed him to claim to the IRS that he still was incurring losses to avoid declaring any debt he had erased as income.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    79. Re: The house always wins by chihowa · · Score: 1

      I'm assuming he meant to put "lose" that money, with the scare quotes. Profitable businesses "losing" money is not exactly a new phenomenon.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    80. Re: The house always wins by clong83 · · Score: 1

      It is a show of good faith. I'd agree that release of tax returns is kind of an arbitrary litmus test for trustworthiness, but it's one that presidential candidates have adhered to for quite some time now. I honestly don't give two hoots how much he paid in taxes, or what his net worth appears to be, as long as everything he did appears to be legal. I can't blame him for taking advantage of existing loopholes, anymore than I can blame myself for every valid deduction and credit that I take. I made the same type of argument when Romney hemmed and hawed about this for awhile.

      He has every right to keep them to himself, I don't deny it. Releasing his taxes could make him vulnerable, either by embarrassing him, or reducing his leverage with an ongoing audit by giving the IRS 1000s of extra CPAs to pore over them for free. I fully expect that releasing his returns would damage him in some way. But it's SOP for presidential candidates to do this, and doing so helps a candidate demonstrate they are more interested in the job of governing than they are about their own stake. He has never once shown any willingness to defer his own interests in the name transparency or the public good, and for this reason alone (along with a whole host of others in his case) I cannot support him.

      As an aside, even if he didn't release this year's tax returns due to the audit, he could still try and show good faith by showing several of his most recent accepted tax returns. They aren't all under audit.

    81. Re:The house always wins by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

      Accountants follow the laws on the books for their client's benefit. By your definition all accountants are shady.
      The more you make, the greater chance of getting audited. So the richer you are, the more closely you need to follow the laws.
      Your comments have broad populist appeal, sure, but they are devoid of common sense.

      --
      Murphy was an optimist
    82. Re:The house always wins by michael_wojcik · · Score: 1

      You've got to be a special kind of businessman to lose almost a billion dollars running a casino.

      We call that special kind of businessman a "con man".

      Trump runs con games, pure and simple. He fleeces investors and suppliers. His aren't sophisticated cons; he's just made them work on a large scale, through a combination of bullying and demagoguery. Pretty standard stuff, really.

    83. Re: The house always wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Expectations are more important than law.

      Trump is continually failing.

    84. Re:The house always wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One cannot record billion dollar loss without having a billion dollars worth of assets at one time.

      Borrow 100Million. Lose it. Repeat. Repeat again 10 times.

      Of course it's a bit suspicious that someone would keep lending in these situations, but given the right dodgy connections, it's possible to arrange.

    85. Re:The house always wins by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter whether Trump willingly did his tax dodge or not.

      The point is that in order to do so, he had to suffer a massive fucking financial loss. Running a casino.

    86. Re:The house always wins by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      it is hard to imagine anything that might be in his taxes that are worse for him, politically speaking, than not releasing them.

      You mean, like the fact that he didn't contribute anything to his own charity in 8 years?

      Or any charity, for that matter? The latter we don't have a proof for, yet, but a tax return would be one.

    87. Re:The house always wins by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

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

      there are 30~ entries there.

      i found it by googling "1990 bankrupted casinos"

    88. Re:The house always wins by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      there are 30~ entries there.

      That is a list of casinos that never opened.

      i found it by googling "1990 bankrupted casinos"

      And if you were to actually look at the list, you wouldn't find a single casino that went bankrupt in 1994-95.

      This is why you should always look at the pages you cite so you don't look foolish.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  28. LOL, the whole system is rigged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You (well, I do anyway) always know who will win every presidential election. "They" (that is, the people actually in control; ie. those with money) set the whole thing up.

    Please come back and view this post after the election. Hillary will be president. It's already set. I'm recording this in stone at this point now: HIllary Clinton will be President of the United States in 2017. This has already been decided by the True Rulers that all of you are too weak and stupid to fight against.

    1. Re:LOL, the whole system is rigged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and no, I don't think Trump is any better or worthwhile. The whole system is designed to push down anyone who would actually be a good President. The True Rulers could never have that!

    2. Re:LOL, the whole system is rigged by lush_cmte · · Score: 1

      Vote Hillary = A bigger, stronger, more-oppressive system, led by a corrupt, lying, incompetent old hag Vote Trump = Small hands and a gosh-darn good time for at least the next 4-years

    3. Re:LOL, the whole system is rigged by Powercntrl · · Score: 1

      Vote Trump = Small hands and a gosh-darn good time for at least the next 4-years

      Yeah, Trump's proposal to shut down the EPA will be great. Let's toast his victory with some refreshing Flint Michigan tap water!

      Seriously, Trump supporters, if you want a huge wall, air pollution out the wazoo, no gay marriage, and plenty of low-paid manufacturing jobs: FUCKING MOVE TO CHINA.

      --

      ---
      DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
    4. Re:LOL, the whole system is rigged by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Vote Hillary = A bigger, stronger, more-oppressive system, led by a corrupt, lying, incompetent old hag

      How can the system become stronger under her leadership if she's incompetent?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    5. Re:LOL, the whole system is rigged by richieb · · Score: 1

      Vote Trump - see 20 million people loose health insurance. I bet you lots of Slashdotters are under 26 and on their parent's plan. If Trump wins you'll get kicked off - day one!

      --
      ...richie - It is a good day to code.
  29. Re: Whoopty Doo by lush_cmte · · Score: 1

    This is absolutely true. The entire country has had its fill of the holier than thou elites.

  30. Re: Whoopty Doo by lush_cmte · · Score: 2

    I actually think the "fracture" of the GOP has already occurred. What you're seeing now is the populist, national birth of something entirely new. No wonder the MSM and political elites are sh*tting themselves...

  31. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't read political news or have a google account but all i've seen for the last few months on google news is what a doofus the guy is. All the neighborhood kids seem to be anti-trump too. I was only vaguely aware of politics in grade school, and mostly interested in the space shuttle, God I was such a nerd.

  32. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump trump trump it up.

    If Trump wins it, I hope all those people jonesing for the return of factory jobs that could afford a comfortable life in 1960 that blame immigrants for taking all the jobs they wont do aren't too disappointed when that fails to materialize. The only way that might happen is if import taxes are jacked up, we all pay more to subsidize their dream lifestyles.

  33. Re: Whoopty Doo by lush_cmte · · Score: 2

    Try other news sources. What you see of Trump depicted via the MSM is nothing than a fictional caricature. Yeah, Trump is a loud, brash New Yorker, but that doesn't make him anything like what they say he his. And I mean "they", the MSM who are licking the boots of Hillary.

  34. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Crashing this world with no survivors!

  35. Re:Whoopty Doo by Jzanu · · Score: 1

    I hate all these ignorant fucking kids running rampant on Slashdot.

  36. Holy crap . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    . . . The Trump fellators have crawled out of the woodwork for this article.

    1. Re:Holy crap . . . by lush_cmte · · Score: 2

      I'm an Anti-Hillary fellator, thank-you-very-much! :)

    2. Re:Holy crap . . . by Required+Snark · · Score: 1

      You are the one who sucks.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
  37. ahem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hillary has done NOTHING as secretary of state to deal with Putin as he has gone 500+ nuclear warheads over the treaty limit, AND she and her hubby took lots of Putin pals cash into their "charitable" foundation (which spends 80%+ of its cash on the Clintons and their friends rather than on actual charity) and she as SecState allowed Putin to grab a large chunk of the US Uranium mining capacity.

    Oh, and Hillary was firmly in the lead on the Iraninan "deal" that gave billions of dollars to the largest state sponsor of terrorism (Iran) and set them up for fullscale nuclear weapons capability in less than 10 years.

    Oh, Trump's a "meanine" who says harsh things, so he's like Hitler and wants nuclear war!!!

    Pu lease [intentional] ... give it a rest. the only person in this election cycle who has a proven record of being unable to handle government power and government secrets, and who is proven to either be a total incompetence in foreign policy or have a lust for setting entire regions of the world on fire is Hillary ("Russian Reset" and "Arab Spring") Clinton.

    1. Re:ahem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think the Iran deal is a good thing, and Iran and Hezbollah are fighting against ISIS and Al Nosra etc. these days, so Iran is a large exporter of counter terrorism. Although, if it's "moderate" terrorists fighting less "moderate" terrorists (that Hillary et al. consider as moderate enough to give them support), what a mess that is.
      If terrorism is that bad, it would actually be logical for Israel to ally with Hezbollah to root out the worse terrorists.

    2. Re:ahem... by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      And there we have the liberal attack, with their typical homophobic slur that they accuse conservatives of using. All because someone online doesn't agree with them, on every issue, 100%.

      Do you ever wonder why you can't convince people that your views are better?

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    3. Re:ahem... by mrbester · · Score: 2

      I see all these posts with "right", "left" and "liberal" thrown out casually. Usually the "left" and "liberal" are used as pejoratives, yet from this side of the pond there is no "left" or "liberal", only "right", "more right" and "far right". There isn't even a "middle" in US, probably due to the continuing knee-jerk, hide-bound fear of "commies" that pervades the US mindset.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    4. Re: ahem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think anybody under 85 in America is afraid of "commies" anymore. Even Putin isn't a commie, just another dictator. The fact is if you don't live in Russia, China, or the US, your opinion doesn't matter much because any one of those three countries can do literally anything and no one will stop them. US wants to invade some third world country? No one cares. Russia wants to make too many nukes? What are you gonna do about it? China wants to directly sponsor actors to commit international industrial espionage on a massive scale and ignore every international agreement on, well... anything? They have nukes, too. Oh yeah and probably the largest standing army on earth. No one will bother them either.

    5. Re:ahem... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Says more about you than anything else. You are somewhere to the left of Stalin.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    6. Re:ahem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Israel would rather see ISIS in control of the country than the Syrian government. They're part of the problem.

      http://news.antiwar.com/2016/06/21/israeli-intel-chief-we-dont-want-isis-defeated-in-syria/

    7. Re:ahem... by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1, Informative

      Of course, in Europe, anyone who thinks people have the right to own property is "right wing".

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    8. Re: ahem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends if you count people as property...

    9. Re: ahem... by Bartles · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of people under the age of 85 that fled communism to live in the United States. There are either people who have experienced or observed communism and fear it, and those who are too stupid to learn from history.

  38. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Uh, she was also a well-regarded attorney, a U.S. Senator, and a Secretary of State, not to mention the lead on healthcare when Bill Clinton was president. What experience does Trump have again in domestic governance? How about foreign affairs? He has a business empire that's had many more failures than successes, has starred in a reality show, and is unafraid to appeal directly to bigotry. That's it.

    Between Clinton, Trump, Stein, and Johnson, Trump is either the least qualified or second-least after Stein. Johnson, as a former governor of a middle population state, is actually the only one that even sniffs Clinton's level of relevant experience.

  39. Trump the victim, whaa whaa whaa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh boo hoo, Trump is a poor victim of a left wing media that's working to undermine his campaign. Oh whaa whaa whaa, poor Trump.

    The Press ALWAYS digs into candidates wherever there is a story, it's not an 'Onslaught' its journalism.

    Look, he's a tacky little conman, no more no less, he sells perfume at $62 a pop, and he claims he sells it for $300 a bottle and its the best selling perfume in the world, but in reality, its discounted to $13 and doesn't sell at that price even.

    1. Re:Trump the victim, whaa whaa whaa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you one of those morons who volunteer to change crooked Hillary's pullups for free? What does Hillary's pullup smell like today?

    2. Re:Trump the victim, whaa whaa whaa by lush_cmte · · Score: 1

      Pullups are made by Huggies

      She's sportin' Depends ...Just lookin out for ya.

  40. The more the globalist MSM bashes Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The more he goes up in the polls. Thank you MSM. You're scared and you're desperate, we know. But Donald Trump lives in your stupid heads, rent free.

    ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

    1. Re:The more the globalist MSM bashes Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are an idiot

  41. Re: Scary times ahead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and seriously lay off the PCP. try quaaludes, for the benefit of everyone else.

  42. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She stopped being a lead after she gotom the payroll of big insurance intwrests, though.

  43. Five year olds have one thing in common... by SuperKendall · · Score: 0

    They believe in fantasy over reality.

    If you don't agree with the original post about Hillary, well then we'd really have to categorize you as far more the five year old than the weary grownup, who sees the world as it is, not as he has been told it is.

    I don't know why you choose to believe lies you then parrot, but it will not end well for you to accept such blatant mistruth wholesale. The dichotomy has to do something unpleasant to your mind, after a long enough time...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  44. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course he was caustic intentionally! He was trying to get press coverage. He knew exactly what he was doing. This is a standard technique you use anywhere you want attention, "First get their attention, then after that you can show them you're a nice guy".

    That's what he's doing now. His current crop of fans, including me, are in the bag. He can change his message now, be nicer, and attract more people who are on the fence.

  45. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah forget those stupid educated, experienced experts. I'm going to hire my Trump to work on my car. To hell with those ivory tower mechanics and all their technical words.

  46. He obeys the tax laws. Get him! by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

    Trump had a loss on his taxes and now he is following the law to not overpay future taxes? How dare he!

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  47. Globalists see the world as a big tax farm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The reason they push for less sovereign control of your national interests is that they can load your future generations up with debt and voila, game over.

    You do not recall why America was formed? To get away from the oppression of the Bank of England. It caused misery and so much that people risked crossing the ocean to have a new go at their lives.

    Hillary is basically going to sign a blank cheque to the likes of the Bank of England circa 1600's.

    That is why some people should not be allowed to vote they are too stupid and are a burden to society.

  48. Context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Scale of the losses relative to the market and the company assets?

    Trends for competitors in the same market business segments in the same markets at the same time?

    Nope. Though not.

    This year Airbus posted a 1.4 BILLION Euro loss on just its A400M and A250 product lines alone. In the second quarter of this year alone, Boeing lost 973 million dollars on just its commercial aircraft. Neither Boeing nor Airbus are being run into the ground, being run by bad CEOs, or are in any danger. There are always varying business cycles, varying dates at which investments and business unit losses are assigned, and so forth.

    Just how much money has Hillary lost in her many businesses that make and employ thousands of American workers??? Oh, that's right, the woman has never created ANYTHING other than political corruption, and the only people she employs are political hacks in NYC and Washington DC, and the people she indirectly hires to fly her around on private jets and put her up in hotels - all billed to her "charity" fund, of course. She went from "dead broke" to half-a-billion dollars in only eight years (four of those years on a 186K per year StateDept salary) by speaking behind closed doors with Wall Street bankers and Saudi Leaders. Her duaghter Chelsie went from college straight into a $600K+ per year spot on a national television network (at NobodyButClinton) which is probably cheap for a network that wants another connection to a future President Hillary...

  49. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Experience in turnining lybia & syria into a hellhole with millions dead. Not only did she steal 30k emails from ur government, she can piss on u and u will still called her experienced

  50. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well regarded by whom?

  51. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Vote for Garry Johnson (or other third party for that matter) = I would rather throw my vote away than see things continue the way they are.

    Gary Johnson is so uninformed he didn't even know what Aleppo was. Johnson is a fucking idiot. Voting for him would be an idiotic move.

  52. Re:Whoopty Doo by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 0, Troll

    Clinton was a shyster lawyer, a carpetbagger senator, and a Secretary of State with the ability to make every situation she oversaw crumble into failure. Not to mention, for a healthcare program that went nowhere, her husband put her in charge of it with no authority to actually do anything but make speeches.

    So, I still don't see what experience Hillary Clinton has over Donald Trump to qualify her for the Oval Office.

    --
    If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  53. So what's the news? by guruevi · · Score: 1, Interesting

    You pretty much have to be a sociopath or psychopath to make it to the level Trump/Clinton make it. There have been numerous studies proving that C-level executives and politicians are exponentially more likely to exhibit those signs.

    Whether or not he actually got the tax break, it indeed makes him smart. If you knew how to game the system the way Trump, Gates, Jobs or Clinton did, you would do it too. Jobs purportedly never drove with a license plate on his vehicles, Gates did the overseas tax dodge, they found and used the loophole. Trump did the same, sure he screwed people over but he didn't cause the crisises Madoff, Bank of America, Wells Fargo have gotten involved in. It's not like he sold access to a US government office he held through a charity.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    1. Re:So what's the news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you might do it. Half the world might do it. But don't just assume everyone is like you.

    2. Re:So what's the news? by Bender+Unit+22 · · Score: 1

      I would guess that Hillary would have done the same too and avoided to pay taxes, if it wasn't because she choose a career path in politics so she was smart enough to figure out that could be a problem in the future.
      I am not writing this to defend Trump because I really don't like him but the only positive thing I can find for Hillary, that she knows politics. I don't find any of them to be great presidential material.

    3. Re:So what's the news? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      If you knew how to game the system the way Trump, Gates, Jobs or Clinton did, you would do it too.

      Wrong, I know how to game the system and choose not to, because I like to put a fair share of my money into funding the civilization I live in, so I just do my taxes vanilla style. Much easier too.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    4. Re:So what's the news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Clintons reduced their taxes by taking a deduction on the donation of Bill's used underwear. Literally. I'm not so sure that she was smart enough to figure out that could be a problem in the future.

    5. Re:So what's the news? by guruevi · · Score: 1

      You'd voluntarily overpay your taxes? You're the idiot. I'll do your taxes and keep the balance if it's the same to you.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    6. Re:So what's the news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > There have been numerous studies proving that C-level executives and politicians are exponentially more likely to exhibit those signs.

      Only 1 in 5. That's still 80% psychopath-free.
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/13/1-in-5-ceos-are-psychopaths-australian-study-finds/

    7. Re:So what's the news? by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      Typical view that in order to succeed you have to hurt people.

      So why was the Soviet Union such a spectacular failure?

  54. Re:Whoopty Doo by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 2

    It APPEARS, repeat appears, that everyone cares about these factual statements by the press, contrary to the "Goring" of Hillary
    Looking like the pressure is on the Donald to do some real work for a change.

  55. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Vote for Johnson = Climate change is happening, let's do nothing.
    Vote for Stein = Die science die.
    Vote for Castle = Who the fuck is Castle? Let's see... right, vote for compulsory right-wing Christianity.

    Enjoy the election.

  56. Re: Scary times ahead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fuck you. I will not have my children's lives get destroyed because Trump cant control himself and is certifiably mentally ill.

  57. Please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At what point did reporting the facts become "onslaught against Donald Trump"? I mean he's running to be president, it's no gangsta rapper catfight.

    1. Re:Please by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      At what point did reporting the facts become "onslaught against Donald Trump"? I mean he's running to be president, it's no gangsta rapper catfight.

      This. Honestly, all that's necessary with Trump is to publish what the guy says on record on every public appearance.

  58. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uh, she was a Yale Law grad and congressional counsel before she even married Bill and was the first female partner in the Rose Law firm.

  59. Re:Whoopty Doo by Lisandro · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Clinton would be a fucking weak candidate on any other occasion, no arguments there. But for Pete's sake, she's running against Trump. Trump. I can't even believe there's a choice to be made here for half the population of the US.

    The GOP will have no one but themselves to blame after loosing this election.

  60. The downvoting is impressive! by ArtemaOne · · Score: 2

    I don't know if I've seen so many points expended to suppress both sides of an argument.

    1. Re:The downvoting is impressive! by sinij · · Score: 1

      I don't know if I've seen so many points expended to suppress both sides of an argument.

      Shows that /. moderation system works rather well. No side was able to stack this story with +5.

    2. Re:The downvoting is impressive! by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 0

      I don't know if I've seen so many points expended to suppress both sides of an argument.

      • The Left implies that Trump is dumb and says mean things to people, mainly girls - Trump seems to be backing them up on that.
      • The Right admits that Clinton is competent, but implies that she has gotten away with (among many other bad things) murder.

      Choose your next President to get things done and defend the Free World ...

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    3. Re:The downvoting is impressive! by ArtemaOne · · Score: 0

      True, and then there are those like myself who have seen the "left" and "right" cause more problems than they've fixed, and just want personal liberty restored so we can be considered a free country some day. I agree with all the negative remarks, and disagree with most of the positive!

    4. Re:The downvoting is impressive! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The right does NOT "admit that Clinton is competent". Her 30 years of failures and corruption prove just the opposite.

    5. Re:The downvoting is impressive! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well at the moment I only see anti-Trump posts getting +5. And the story submissions to Slashdot that make it here are all anti-Trump too. The information we "get to read" here reminds me a lot of the MSM, and a bunch of other sites and services doing the same thing now.

    6. Re:The downvoting is impressive! by Required+Snark · · Score: 5, Interesting
      You understand the the claim of "murderous" Hillary Clinton is pure slander, don't you?

      If you accept that charge then what about President George "My Pet Goat" Bush? He and his entire core team were in the Oval office when intelligence sources reported about a possible Al Qaeda attack on US soil. They thought it was unimportant and sloughed it off. It was completely ignored.

      Based on the standard you apply to Clinton then Bush, Cheney and pretty much every person in that room should have been convicted of criminally failure to execute their duties of office. The President and Vice President and Secretary of State should have been hung and the rest sentenced to life in a federal penitentiary.

      My conclusion is that you are all foul hypocrites who are so hyper-partisan that you put your party ideology above the national interests of the United States.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    7. Re:The downvoting is impressive! by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      You understand the the claim of "murderous" Hillary Clinton is pure slander, don't you?

      It would have been so easy to at least provide links to evidence supporting your declarations. Instead it is more of the same crap of people just spouting their positions without bothering to support them.

      If you accept that charge then what about President George "My Pet Goat" Bush? He and his entire core team were in the Oval office when intelligence sources reported about a possible Al Qaeda attack on US soil. They thought it was unimportant and sloughed it off. It was completely ignored.

      The PDB was declassified, anyone who cares can read it and make up their own mind.

    8. Re:The downvoting is impressive! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Based on the standard you apply to Clinton then Bush, Cheney and pretty much every person in that room should have been convicted of criminally failure to execute their duties of office. The President and Vice President and Secretary of State should have been hung and the rest sentenced to life in a federal penitentiary.

      Yes absolutely they should.

    9. Re:The downvoting is impressive! by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      You understand the the claim of "murderous" Hillary Clinton is pure slander, don't you?

      I don't know... killing a bunch of Libyan Nationals with air strikes when no war was declared kinda sounds like murder to me.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    10. Re:The downvoting is impressive! by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      By that standard, what president since 1945 is *NOT* a murderer? Even Gerald Ford, with his all of two and a half years in office, presided over the last year of the Vietnam (not declared) "War".

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    11. Re:The downvoting is impressive! by ArtemaOne · · Score: 1

      And then there are people who think all of them should be charged.

    12. Re:The downvoting is impressive! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, great, I'm all up for putting the entire Bush family in prison forever if the Clinton family is in the next cell.

      Are you?

    13. Re:The downvoting is impressive! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      then Bush, Cheney and pretty much every person in that room should have been convicted of criminally failure to execute their duties of office. The President and Vice President and Secretary of State should have been hung and the rest sentenced to life in a federal penitentiary.

      Your right everyone of them should have been put in prison but they weren't. Not only for that but also the war crimes they committed.

  61. Oh more Eau Du Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ha, so what you're saying is "well Hillary pooped her pants la la la."! You can't even defend your candidate without sounding like a school kid in a playground!

    "Trump Empire by Donald Trump, En savoir plus....Few people have been able to achieve the same level of success as Donald Trump. If you want to exude success just like him, then you need to try the cologne called Trump Empire. It is a masculine scent that was first launched in 2012." $3.50/50ml.

    Oh, that's sounds sooooooo amazing. So lets go see "...collaboration between The Trump Organization and Five Star Fragrance Company", Seems to be "Perfumia Holdings Company", PERF on Nasdaq.

    Net Profit Margin: Q3: -11.35% 2016: -2.15%

    Loss making. It figures! Yeh.... nothing is able to achieve the same level of success as Donald Trump. If you want to exude success just like him, then you need to try the cologne called Trump Empire. It is a masculine scent.

  62. Re: Whoopty Doo by Lisandro · · Score: 1

    I find the concept of media cottonballing Clinton fairly ridiculous. She was rightfully bashed on several occasions, notably during the private email server scandal.

  63. Re:Whoopty Doo by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    So you're saying that Trump's a semi-successful demagogue, and this qualifies him to be President. Just checking.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  64. Re:Whoopty Doo by Phydeaux · · Score: 1, Interesting

    What a clueless git. So think of it this way- when Trump is elected President, the media will be a serious watchdog on everything he does for the next 4 years. Good or bad, you'll know about it. IF Hillary is elected, the media will continue to faun over her, hide her illegal dealings, lie about events far worse than Benghazi and EmailGate and generally ignore every illegal, immoral or unConstitutional thing she does. You think that Obama's emphasis on race relations is bad, just wait. She's all pay for play and there will be a slew of VERY unsavory characters that run through the White House, and not all of them will be sporting a blue dress. Pick your poison brother, because Hillary for the next 4 years will end in a civil war.

  65. Re:Whoopty Doo by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It scares the crap out of me that here on Slashdot, a site with presumably smart people like engineers and programmers, so many people are defending and rooting for Donald Trump.

    Either Slashdot is not as intelligent as I thought, or it is more right-wing than I thought, which of course is not exclusive.

  66. Re:Whoopty Doo by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    Yes, yes...I'm sure Mr. Trump wants nuclear war...

    Did you get Johnny Smith to shake Trumps hand?

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  67. Re: Scary times ahead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think Hillary is more likely to start a war than Trump is.

  68. Re:Whoopty Doo by stinerman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Vote for the lizard, not the wizard.

  69. Re:Whoopty Doo by slowdeath · · Score: 1

    Yeah because only one candidate has ever held elective office. The other is just a poser.

  70. Re:Whoopty Doo by Lisandro · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've experienced the same living in South America and witnessing people i used to regard as smart defending the likes of Castro, Chavez, Kirchner and Rousseff. It was a sad eye opener.

  71. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You mean the same media who exposed the email scandal? That media?

  72. Re:Whoopty Doo by quax · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not only not mutually exclusive but also highly correlated.

    It's what you get with miserable public education, corporate news media that's only in it for the ratings, and a population where most people don't have a passport and never left their country.

  73. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Amen. The woman is only experienced if you count several decades of impressive job titles won through nepotism when she did a terrible job at all of them once provided with the responsibility of the office.

    The gall of this woman to brag about her stamina for having to endure 12 hours of congressional testimony while sitting in a chair should enrage anyone who has seen the movie "13 Hours".
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4172430/

    As Secretary of State, she demonstrated herself to be a total buffoon of a micromanager by forcefully inserting herself into military decision-making process (disrupting the OODA loop) when she was so stricken with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Hypothyroidism, and Parkinson's to render her bedridden and unable to perform when the infamous "3am" phone call (which she used to dog-whistle against BHO during the 2008 DNC primary) came in and finally landed in her outrageously incapable lap.

    Her legacy as the literal founder of ISIL(it was her brainchild to topple Muammar Gaddafi, leaving Libya in anarchy) should terrify anyone who thinks that Daesh are bad people.

  74. Re:Whoopty Doo by Phydeaux · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Don't get it, eh? Trump is not the GOP, which is why he was the winning candidate. This election is about immigration, national identity and an economy that's fscking over the middle class and making them pay for everything. The GOP as a party is dead, they just haven't stopped twitching. All you have to do is look at HRC and Trump's campaign slogans- "I'm With Her" is all about Hillary, who will continue to screw over the white middle class to bring in Democrat-voting, public assistance-using blacks, latinos and migrants and make the middle class pay to become a singled-out minority. Trump's "Make America Great Again" is about America for Americans, "To Ourselves and Our Posterity" and looking out for the American who wants an equal footing and opportunity (used or not) to be his or her own person. America is equal opportunity, not equal outcome and anyone who's tells you differently is a Democrat.

  75. Re:Whoopty Doo by William+Robinson · · Score: 1

    It scares crap out of me to witness idiots as Presidents, who know some truth about terrorism and still funding them. Watch this video and then google how much taxpayers money we are giving Pakistan to fund this against our own citizens. Trump may be speaking a lot out of his head, but some issues raised by him made me think.

  76. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Washington DC insiders are experienced at graft and fearmongering. Not much else. I'll take the moderate democrat pretending to be a Republican who hasn't been part of the problem, vs encouraging the DNC's sabotage of Bernie Sanders any day of the week.

    I will vote for Trump with both middle fingers extended in the air to all the shills claiming HE is the most likely to start WWIII, vs. the neocon that voted for the Iraq War in the Senate and is now doing everything in her power to start a nuclear slugging match with Russia.

  77. Just like Citizens United by Kohath · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Buzzfeed is a corporation, just like Citizens United is a corporation. We heard it was wrong for Citizens United to spend money to make a political film. Where's the outrage about Buzzfeed spending corporate money against Trump?

    Please post your expressions of outrage here. Unless your outrage was phony. Or selective, partisan outrage. Or you can explain why corporation B can legitimately spend on politics, but corporation C can't.

    1. Re:Just like Citizens United by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait let me get this straight. When Trump dodges taxes, we're supposed to hate the game not the player, but when a corporation makes a movie about it in compliance with the supreme court decision, fuck the game let's kill the player?

      Do I have that right?

    2. Re:Just like Citizens United by Jzanu · · Score: 2

      One exists to make money on selling a product, the other is just a front group for wealthy donors who have exceeded the limits for personal campaign contributions.

    3. Re:Just like Citizens United by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do some fucking homework. A PAC and a website are fundamentally not the same. At all. (follow the money)

    4. Re:Just like Citizens United by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 1

      So your argument is that we must be hypocrites or "phony" or "selective" if we don't just lie down and take it.

      How about this? We regret this route was taken, but that's what you get with CU.

      Or how about this? We heard it was right that money = speech. But now that we've wisened up and decided to play your game against you, now you're all butthurt about us not lying down and taking it.

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    5. Re:Just like Citizens United by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is part of journalists' job to raise questions about politicians and especially candidates for office in the public interest. While the line gets blurred, this doesn't make them the same as a political action committee that is intentionally spending money purely in the interests of a particular candidate. It's not "political spending", it's spending on newsworthy subjects that usually include all candidates. It's a different situation.

    6. Re:Just like Citizens United by Kohath · · Score: 1

      How about we just say "both B and C have the same freedom of speech and the people who want to arrest one of them for it are wrong"?

    7. Re:Just like Citizens United by Kohath · · Score: 1

      How about just not being a hater at all?

    8. Re:Just like Citizens United by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      First, I think this is an exceptional situation - there's a stupid, childish, hotheaded racist demagogue close to taking the White House. If we don't take exceptional (but legal) steps to stop this exceptionally bad situation from happening, then the lessons of history have been wasted.

      Next, even though the rules have changed in an undesirable way, BuzzFeed is playing by the new rules, they're not doing anything the other side isn't. While it would be morally admirable to abstain from the newly legal behavior, if you're going to admonish them for playing by the rules then you should be consistent - you're the one showing selective, partisan outrage by singling out BuzzFeed.

      Finally, Hillary has promised to overturn Citizens United within her first 30 days in office. Trump, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have a real position on campaign finance reform. On one hand, he implies that he doesn't like corporate money in politics in his campaigning, but on the other he's put forth far-right judges as potential supreme court picks, which would serve to maintain the status quo or even make it worse if possible. So, Buzzfeed's actions could serve to ultimately reduce corporate money's interference in politics, if Hillary keeps her promise.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    9. Re:Just like Citizens United by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > First, I think this is an exceptional situation - there's a stupid, childish, hotheaded racist demagogue close to taking the White House. If we don't take exceptional (but legal) steps to stop this exceptionally bad situation from happening, then the lessons of history have been wasted.

      I agree. And she should step aside.

    10. Re:Just like Citizens United by Alomex · · Score: 1

      Or you can explain why corporation B can legitimately spend on politics, but corporation C can't.

      Because the rules changed. The final arbiter is the Supreme Court, they said it is fair game, so fair game it is.

      I might have been against the forward pass in football (approved 1906) but I would be a fool not to use it today in the NFL. This doesn't make me a hypocrite. You move on, accept the decision, and play the game according to the (new) rules.

    11. Re:Just like Citizens United by Kohath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We were told it was wrong, not that it was "against the rules". Where's the outrage about Buzzfeed intentionally doing wrong?

      If the rules change back and Buzzfeed does this again, you want people at Buzzfeed arrested for it, right?

    12. Re:Just like Citizens United by Kohath · · Score: 1

      You want the Citizens United decision overturned so people at Buzzfeed and Citizens United can be arrested next time they do this?

    13. Re:Just like Citizens United by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      Buzzfeed is a corporation, just like Citizens United is a corporation. We heard it was wrong for Citizens United to spend money to make a political film. Where's the outrage about Buzzfeed spending corporate money against Trump?

      Please post your expressions of outrage here. Unless your outrage was phony. Or selective, partisan outrage. Or you can explain why corporation B can legitimately spend on politics, but corporation C can't.

      My first time on BuzzFeed, so I clicked a few links.

      My IQ dropped by at least 20 points in those few minutes on Buzzfeed.

      What a garbage website. One can find snark (fark.com). Or satire (theonion.com). And so on... But insipid time-wasting idiocy – that isn't even funny or entertaining – seems to be the domain of buzzfeedcom.

    14. Re:Just like Citizens United by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Sure, if the decision is overturned and they do it again they should be arrested!

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    15. Re:Just like Citizens United by Alomex · · Score: 2

      No, we were told it was against the rules, which is why it went all the way to the Supreme Court. That is a fact.

      And yes, if the rules change again, I definitely want anyone who violates them arrested.

    16. Re:Just like Citizens United by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhh because they are different types you goddam retard. This keeps churches etc from pushing political agendas. Would you want that? Maybe citizens United should have filed as something other than a 501c(4). You know because they certainly could of that wanted to.

      And if it's such a big goddam deal, then why not?
      This is solely citizens united a fault.

    17. Re:Just like Citizens United by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The American Civil Liberties Union - the fucking ACLU - supports the Citizen's United ruling.

      When you are on the opposite side of a free-speech issue from the ACLU, you need to take a long, hard, look at yourself.

    18. Re:Just like Citizens United by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      Because it wasn't "wrong for Citizens United to spend money to make a political film". It was "wrong for Citizens United to spend money to make a political film that was against Democrats". See how that works?

      It's like the facebook guy giving $20M to defeat Trump. Is Lessig having a cow over that?

    19. Re:Just like Citizens United by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buzzfeed is buzzfeed. They were terrible before today and will continue to be so. They did not like the fact that their own methods were being used against 'their gurl' by 'trump people'. So now they are 'going after him'.

      There is no partisan outrage from me. I knew they were bad before they said this. This is merely confirmation bias for me.

      I am 100% behind you corps should keep their mouths out of it. In fact I would go so far as to say to be saying one way or the other is bad business.

    20. Re:Just like Citizens United by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wonderful logic in many respects, but I think you are blind to the fact that the supreme court didn't change any rules in this case, but rather explained to one group of folks that they were wrong about what they believed the rules to be.

    21. Re:Just like Citizens United by raind · · Score: 1

      Which corp has more power / money?

      --
      Get up!
    22. Re:Just like Citizens United by CaptainLard · · Score: 1

      Where's the outrage about Buzzfeed spending corporate money against Trump?

      In the parent post, dumbass. Surely if you were not outraged at citizens united you are equally un-outraged at whatever buzzfeed is posting. Right?

    23. Re:Just like Citizens United by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citizens United is a political organization, which exists for no purpose other than electioneering, while BuzzFeed is a jounalistic organization. I'm guessing you don't consider BuzzFeed to be "journalism", but you do consider Fox News to be, so let's just say that BuzzFeed isn't electioneering any more than Fox News is.

      In other words, you don't see BuzzFeed political ads on TV, and you don't see Fox News political ads on TV (other than Fox itself). Contrast that with Citizens United that is putting content on other media channels.

      dom

    24. Re:Just like Citizens United by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Um... because Buzzfeed is supporting the correct narrative?

      An article from the left-leaning Washington Post... apparently they're not all blinded by the light of their chosen ones:

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

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  78. Yessiree by Sperbels · · Score: 0

    A fine specimen of a man you republicans picked.

  79. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's a Hitler vs Stalin election, what can you expect? Only there is disagreement about who is Hitler and who is Stalin, or which one you would choose above the other.
    Me, for what I care about : danger posed on the international scene, I'd rather vote Kim Jong Un than Hillary Clinton.
    Up and counting toll from Hillary's kind of policies : less than half a million dead, but seven million refugees. Something to brag about indeed!

  80. Re:Whoopty Doo by Boronx · · Score: 1

    They are in it for more than ratings. I don't know what the hell for, but it's not just ratings.

  81. Re: Whoopty Doo by Jzanu · · Score: 0, Troll

    Don't worry, it's not your fault - it's just that you are mentally retarded.

  82. Re:Whoopty Doo by Boronx · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Drop napalm on the whole F-ing thing."

    That thing, the place where you live?

  83. Re:Whoopty Doo by Lisandro · · Score: 1

    You should really google on populism. What Trump brings to the table is what the rest of America (continent) has been suffering for the past 15 years, sans Canada.

  84. Re: Whoopty Doo by Boronx · · Score: 1

    There's plenty of opportunity to see Trump unfiltered. The media has mostly cleaned him up and made him more palatable.

  85. Timely, too by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't know if I've seen so many points expended to suppress both sides of an argument.

    What's interesting is looking at the moderation levels over time.

    For the first hour after the article was posted, there were a lot of pro-Trump comments.

    Now it's 2.5 hours later and all those articles have been modded down. What's left is pro-Hillary, in a roundabout way.

    You can tell when something's gone up and down because of the tags., If something has "Score: 2 insightful" it means someone modded it up (to gain the "insightful") and someone else modded it down.

    When Whiplash took over I mentioned that this site goes to pot around 6 weeks before a presidential election, and becomes unbearable starting around 2 weeks before an election. This year I think it'll be worse than previous election years.

    I can't *wait* until the election is over, so we can go back to having insightful posts.

    1. Re:Timely, too by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      It's meta-moderation correcting the early bad mods. The alt-right moderators are always out in force on every story about Trump it anything "social justice" related. They get in early to try to control the debate, and unfortunately it works.

      Later meta-moderation cleans up, and the tone of the debate changes. Unfortunately most if the comments and views come early on.

      Best way to counter it is to keep meta modding, but only stories from those threads since after the first 10 your votes count for less.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Timely, too by Enigma2175 · · Score: 2

      You can tell when something's gone up and down because of the tags., If something has "Score: 2 insightful" it means someone modded it up (to gain the "insightful") and someone else modded it down.

      Why not just click on the score and see the exact moderations done to the message? I don't think it lists in what order they happened, but you should be able to figure it out by the final score.

      --

      Enigma

    3. Re:Timely, too by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Because it doesn't work with javascript disabled.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    4. Re:Timely, too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't *wait* until the election is over, so we can go back to having insightful posts.

      Yeah, but then we're still going to have the underlying drumbeat complaining about President Clinton for the next 8 years. Meh.

  86. Woman, too by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 0

    A fine specimen of a man you republicans picked.

    And an exemplary specimen of a woman from you Democrats.

    1. Re:Woman, too by cinnamon+colbert · · Score: 1

      so, your argument is that Trump is okay cause he isn't a worse sleaze then hillary
      like you kid comes home from school and says i cheated on a test, but the other kids cheated more

      and you say, well, if the other kids cheated more, then it is okay that you cheated ?

      that is your argument ?

    2. Re:Woman, too by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      It baffles me how/why anyone could actually defend this man. He doesn't even attempt to hide how bad he is.

  87. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    /. supports Hitler style candidates. Godwin is so strong here that they pretend to rally against it but really, they embrace fascism.

  88. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hillary has experience in politics like Al Capone had experience in business.

  89. The media should focus on its job by epyT-R · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Reporting the facts. All of them. Leave the editorializing to the readers.

    1. Re:The media should focus on its job by michael_wojcik · · Score: 1

      I find it rather fascinating that you think editorializing isn't part of the job of "the media". Care to support that thesis?

    2. Re:The media should focus on its job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They'd call it Readerizing if it was for the readers to do.

    3. Re:The media should focus on its job by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      Most citizens are unable to grasp the implications of complex situations, even if they had all the facts delivered to them in a non-biased way.

      The news certainly should attempt to inform people why fact X matters and what it might mean to our real world lives. I wish we had a non-profit news source, funded by the public, who's charter was to deliver the facts in an unbiased way, explain them in an unbiased way to that people understood what is at stake, and also reported on bad reporting, called out people telling lies, etc..

      Unfortunately, saying things like "evolution isn't real, god did it" is considered factual by 50% of congressional house members (whether they truly believe it or not is another thing). So good luck implementing a neutral news company. The second the public funded news says something like "The Earth is X billions of years old", it is labeled a liberal lie. Or "The Earth is warming and the primary cause is man", the news company would be labeled as some sort of agenda driven biased liberal news source.

      Maybe before we decide we need less editorializing, we should first decide what the actual facts are about the world? The US can't even get that far.

  90. Journalism = SRBM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since when did modern journalism in this country.. about issues in this country... exchange words like "report" with "defame" and then become so vile that there is no distinction between factual accounts and efforts by so-called journalists to use the English language to bring news to the masses? Not too far in the distant past (read when I worked as a reporter for a scholastic newspaper) words like "onslaught" were used... by those called "journalists" to describe what they saw happening before them... and *not* what they MADE happen. It seems altruism and advocacy are lost on an island that modern news reporting has abandoned like the lost city of Atlantis.

  91. Re: Whoopty Doo by Jzanu · · Score: 0

    You are a god damn retard son, you seriously need to grow the fuck up and develop that little part of your brain called a prefrontal cortex. It helps you understand when you're doing stupid shit that sounds good to teenagers but fucks over not just your life but the lives of everyone in the world.

  92. Re:Whoopty Doo by Jzanu · · Score: 1

    That was actually funny! Wrong, but funny. You're OK, just don't be an idiot anymore.

  93. Re:Whoopty Doo by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

    Well, we only have his word that he does. But he could be lying.

  94. So that's how Trump's spinning it by gman003 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I was wondering how he was going to try to recover from his recent string of bad news. Looks like his method is to pretend it's a conspiracy by the left-wing media to ruin him with an "onslaught" of bad press. Which implies that the stories are false or exaggerated, without actually making that claim. Clever, in case he ever needs to admit that the reports are true.

    Truth has no sides. Reality has no bias. If these things are true, and I have seen no indications that they are not, then the news is making Donald Trump look bad because Donald Trump is actually bad. If he steals money from charity to bribe investigators to turn a blind eye to his fraudulent businesses, the blame for the bad press afterward lies purely at the hands of Trump, not on the media and press.

    1. Re:So that's how Trump's spinning it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " If these things are true, and I have seen no indications that they are not" ... but you should see no indications they are true either. Perhaps the media really is biased.

    2. Re:So that's how Trump's spinning it by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Looks like his method is to pretend it's a conspiracy by the left-wing media to ruin him with an "onslaught" of bad press.

      There does seem to be an onslaught of bad press about him. Sometimes there really is a conspiracy and the evidence is usually exactly what the conspiracy theorists said would happen.

      You know whats worse than someone who is going to vote for Trump? Someone that doesnt see obvious things like the vast left wing media conspiracy which is so evidenced that you even cited it.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    3. Re:So that's how Trump's spinning it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn. Insinuation of an insinuation to show that someone you already hate is worth hating and reality is on your side. Double down with two false accusations with no basis in reality while claiming to take the moral high ground.

      Hell of a drug you are on. What is it?

    4. Re:So that's how Trump's spinning it by jmac_the_man · · Score: 1

      Reality has no bias. If these things are true, and I have seen no indications that they are not, then the news is making Donald Trump look bad because Donald Trump is actually bad.

      Reality may not have a bias, but The New York Times does.

      The allegations that the New York Times is making are almost certainly true. But the implications they are making are false.

      The documents that the Times printed showed that Trump lost a bunch of money by investing in a casino in 1995. The Times is also reporting (accurately) that in 1995, you could "carry over" business losses from previous years and deduct them (against your gains) until either 1. you ran out of losses or 2.18 years passes from the original loss. (The rules are substantially the same today, but those are the rules from 1995.)

      The Times is implying that Trump did something shady or illegal by taking a fairly standard tax deduction. (The same deduction, in fact, taken by The New York Times this year.) BREAKING: DONALD TRUMP TOOK THE SAME TAX DEDUCTION THAT EVERY BUISNESS OWNER WHO LOSES MONEY ALWAYS TAKES isn't really news, but they and the rest of the media are reporting on it like it's a gigantic scandal.

      Meanwhile Obama has weaponized the IRS and the Justice Department against his political opponents and Hillary Clinton and her cronies hid her records, including top-level classified information, on secret servers so the American people wouldn't be able find the corruption until it was too late, but the New York Times doesn't care about ANY of that this morning.

      I hate Trump, don't get me wrong. But the only reason this is a story is that the New York Times is a bought and paid for wing of the Democratic Party.

    5. Re: So that's how Trump's spinning it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was a famous quote from a stsgfer after a speech by Barry Goldwater, the guy who ran against LBJ. It was "stop those reporters! They're going to report on everything he says!"

    6. Re:So that's how Trump's spinning it by Woldscum · · Score: 1

      Pot Kettle.

      The New York Times Paid No Taxes in 2014

      http://www.breitbart.com/big-j...

    7. Re:So that's how Trump's spinning it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was wondering how he was going to try to recover from his recent string of bad news

      You did? Seriously?
      "The liberal media" and its many conspiracies have been a way for Social Conservatives to explain their candidates' many failings coming to light. It is been this way since Rush Limbaugh first labeled anyone who disagreed with him with that title. If you were born in the 90s it has been this way your whole life.

    8. Re:So that's how Trump's spinning it by gman003 · · Score: 1

      I never said there *was* a media conspiracy, only that Trump was implying that there was. I have seen no evidence that it exists, save for the claims of Trump and other random nutjobs. Groundless claims by people with no reputation for accuracy are not evidence.

      And if this election has taught me anything about the media, it's that the right-wing, not the left, has a ridiculous amount of control over press and public perceptions. They've managed to convince far too many people that Clinton's "scandals" are on par with Trump's - something that even a cursory look shows to be completely and objectively false.

    9. Re:So that's how Trump's spinning it by slimjim8094 · · Score: 1

      I think you're attributing too much to the Times. They - several times - point out that what he did was perfectly legal and acceptable, and otherwise don't waste any time discussing it, instead discussing how the deductions work and other aspects of his finances. Any characterization of him in the article has nothing to do with legality or even ethics - it's about his skill as a businessman, at using the rules to his advantage, as a responsible citizen, and of course overall his suitability to become the President.

      People hate taxes. People also try to pay the least taxes possible. We all do it - and we're supposed to, since the tax code explicitly encourages certain behaviors like charity and investing for the future. I personally reduced my tax bill last year by $1000 because I (retroactively) maxed out my HSA. But most people have to pay taxes because they get a paycheck and it's just taken out and they have no way around it. And they watch people with astonishing amounts of money (which includes Trump, regardless of his exact income) get out of the thing that they have no control over. The government spends their money, not Trump's. This feeling people have isn't really open for debate - the tax code has undergone significant upheavals due to similar public outrage before. (The creation of the AMT is just one example, but virtually every other loophole counts.)

      The question is, what does your average working person think about Donald Trump as a man who is on their side? This is a question they answer emotionally, not by referring to the depreciation schedules or a philosopher. Do you think the average American is impressed or angered by Trump losing approximately ~%0 of his effective income between 1995-2013 (at least) while they lost about ~20%? Certainly he is trying to convince people that they should be impressed. But what did they think of Romney, who had very similar tax- and bankruptcy-law acumen?

      Notice - I haven't actually judged Trump negatively or positively in the above text. Does it seem like I have? All I did was described facts about him and the American people. Personally I actually agree with what Romney said in 2012 - basically it's up to the legislators to make a tax code that reflects the public policy about who should pay what taxes, and if a man like Mr. Trump can avoid paying taxes then either that's what he should be doing according to our Congress, or they should fix it.

      It's not patriotic to pay extra tax and nobody is seriously arguing that it is. The questions people have about him have nothing to do with money.

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    10. Re:So that's how Trump's spinning it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe the term you're looking for is "vast left-wing conspiracy."

    11. Re:So that's how Trump's spinning it by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      obvious things like the vast left wing media conspiracy

      This only makes sense if by "left wing" you mean "not as right wing as Hitler".

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  95. Re:Whoopty Doo by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Either Slashdot is not as intelligent as I thought, or it is more right-wing than I thought

    Trump is not "right-wing". He is a populist, with an eclectic and shifting mix of the worst of both left and right.

    "Right-wing" means fiscal responsibility, balanced budgets, free trade, and cutting entitlements, ... like Bill Clinton.

  96. Re:Whoopty Doo by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

    The government is not the country (where we live). The government is not the nation (who we are).

    --
    See that "Preview" button?
  97. Re:Whoopty Doo by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2

    It scares the crap out of me that here on Slashdot, a site with presumably smart people like engineers and programmers, so many people are defending and rooting for Donald Trump.

    The post you replied to doesn't appear to be doing that. Though GGGP posts may have been, they were done by ACs, which could very well be the same ACs that post GNAA spam.

    Besides, ones intelligence isn't inherently going to make them favor a particular candidate. That, and to be honest I think the whole presidential race is stupid anyways.

  98. Re:Whoopty Doo by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2

    In other words, she's an IRL Cercei Lannister?

  99. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So take the proven warmonger, the one either too ignorant to know how to handle classified information (or do you choose to believe she willfully broke the law?), the one who let her own staff die rather than send ready-to-go assistance, and loves pay-to-play for her Government role - over the populist who doesn't have an income and fortune built on tens of millions of foreign donations and gifts?

  100. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The media didn't expose the scandal, CREW did. They filed FOIA requests that came back empty - when they shouldn't be empty - and then started pushing the narrative. Judicial Watch also pushed on it for months before the mainstream media finally took it up..

  101. baby abused boys when will I say you are no more? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    puclic transport companies in brazil support criminal organizations offering hot spots AND technology for actions of cyber depredation, or phracking. whatever.

  102. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Tend to doubt there's much of interest in Trump's tax returns. Otherwise the clintondrones at the IRS would have already leaked them.

  103. Re: Whoopty Doo by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

    The fracture is decades old now. Since 1988, there has been a growing gulf between the GOP establishment and the GOP voting base.

    This election season won't result in a third party. It will be a return to the two party system. Your choice lately has been between Globalism and Marxism fast, or Globalism and Marxism slowly. This year, the Republican voters are turning the Republican party into a pro-America and pro-American party, a clear choice for a change.

    We tried warning the GOP elites. First, we started the Tea Party movement. That rapid rise should have been taken as a warning shot. It meant that millions of Americans were unhappy with the GOP leadership. The Tea Party brand got corrupted, so no one uses that name now, but we, the voters, are still here, and our apathy has given way to cold anger. We intend to win the war for the GOP in the next decade or less.

    --
    See that "Preview" button?
  104. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By people who don't care that she literally couldn't pass the bar exam. That exam that every practicing lawyer has to pass.

  105. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean the scandal they ignored until it became impossible to ignore? Or the way they said it was all "just politics" and tried to whitewash it, like they tried to do with the actions of impeached President William Jefferson Clinton?

  106. Re:Whoopty Doo by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 0, Troll

    Perhaps you're less intelligent than you thought. Really, the rampant down-voting on this story tells us how scared shitless leftists are about having no viable argument against Trump causing them to pull out all the stops to get stop the debate from happening at all. It'll save you money on toilet paper, I guess.

  107. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... smart people like engineers and programmers ...

    People who use and support a hierarchical system demand that everyone effect change from within; rather like telling colour-blind people they need to learn what red looks like. When slaves, women, or criminals can't speak to anyone, of course, nothing will change. At that point, revolution is required. For the US election, the violence isn't gun battles in the street, it's pushing the 'wrong button' until the system protecting the people at the top, breaks.

    Trump has known for 4 years he wanted to run for president: That was time he could have used to learn how US politics works, what the recurring political issues are, how to speak in public, how to formulate an answer. At the moment, he can't string 3 sentences together. Senator Clinton has a lot of experience telling voters how important she is; Trump bitching repeatedly about non-issues isn't going to beat that. As the pressure of public performance increases, the candidate who tells the best story, wins. At the moment, that isn't Trump.

  108. Re:Whoopty Doo by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 4, Informative

    an economy that's fscking over the middle class and making them pay for everything

    I think I fit the definition of the middle class (between my job and the rent I collect I make just north of $80k/year) and I don't feel like I am being made to "pay for everything", nor do I feel like I'm being fucked over in any way. The top 1% income earners pay 50% of all of the federal income taxes, and the bottom 80% (which I'm part of) barely pay 15%, so please do explain why you think I'm getting fucked over and/or how I am being made to "pay for everything."

  109. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Strange, people keep claiming Trump voters are uneducated. Yet all of the people who want to turn our public university system into a political indoctrination machine obsessed with classifying regular behavior as "microaggressions" and insisting white males are the sole force of evil on the planet for the sin of drawing breath. You know, destroying education for their own purposes and attempting to force their thought upon everyone else rather than letting facts stand on their own.

    This is the behavior of "educated" people. Makes one wonder just what that "education" consists of. If this is their behavior, perhaps being "uneducated" more of a compliment.

  110. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just curious, how do you think Trump would have responded in Johnson's place?

  111. Re:Whoopty Doo by bytesex · · Score: 4, Interesting

    More like:

    Vote for Hillary: cool with the corruption that comes with politics as usual.
    Vote for Trump: watch me introduce corrupt business practices into that mix.

    --
    Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
  112. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    faggot

  113. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    27 years ago the authoritarian USSR fell along with the Berlin wall. Now a bitter soviet thug is working in coordination with a new American authoritarian to build a new wall and baiting a race war to destablize the USA; just as freedom destabilized the USSR. But you'd have to have half a brain to understand that. Is America too stupid to fall for it? You betcha.

  114. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no scandal in reality, just political smear campaigns. Clinton is innocent of all charges.

  115. Re: Whoopty Doo by MrMoolz · · Score: 1, Troll

    Well said. That's a nice condensed overview of the state of regressive liberal ideology. This 'state of being' that is being pushed by Progressives/Democrats has made me realize that these people don't have good intentions. In fact, it has, with great horror, made me totally indifferent and repulsed that they would find this oxymoron behavior something to strive for or even acceptable. In layman's terms, these people are f*cking nuts!

  116. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You assume that educated, degreed and presumably smart people like engineers and programmers have the same viewpoints as you do. How incredibly Marxist of you. Guess what... you aren't Albert Einstein. I applaud you on your 3 degrees of vision for world policy (note: the rest of us are In the 357 degrees you don't see). Slashdot is a forum not a political party (I truly hope) so your opinion is yours and by democracy it isn't anybody else's. Not all of the hipster movement has decided to back another 8+ years of Obama's failed policies by choosing Hillary so why do you assume its a movement and thus not any single voter's personal opinion piling up person after person? If so I'm that "other guy" that is tired of the H1B job removal (just Google Disney job replacements...)

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/last-task-after-layoff-at-disney-train-foreign-replacements.html?_r=0

    The transfer of funds from our country to others that would love for us to just go the "f" away and stop bothering them (Iran (billions partially documented and who the F knows what wasn't documented), Iraq (billions with nearly zero accountability), the list goes on). The systematic degradation of our infrastructure and our military at the expense of the ability of our nation to defend itself and survive in a global economy... has faded for the last 8 years. Entitlements are the undoing of our country... just research how many currently collect it .vs. how many pay in. Entitlement programs, though not the biggest marble in the bag.. through big business are a part of the fundamental collapse of cities like Chicago where jobs based on vehicle production used to guarantee good wages and the possibility of retirement that could sustain a valued worker into their twilight years. Now Chicago is an un-adulterated war zone that gun legislation cannot fix and gang-based violence rules the streets.

    Under the new tenure you would support.... fly-byes of Soviet fighters and bombers.. Iranian warships harassing our countries Navy and God knows what else would be acceptable as Hillary would give 1/3 of a shit as Obama did.

    Shame on you.... you're our next contestant to roll out the red carpet for our next Opressor-in-chief.

    For the rest of us that fear entrusting people like you with our country.. I hope we all have a happy ending but my plans don't include that. They include getting past uniformed people like you.

    How about you take your Insightful score and move the f*ck to Canada where you can enjoy it without any financial, moral or ethical repercussions.

  117. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump's already got former US allies worried, dropping out of NATO and reconsidering up nuclear arms. Now when Long dormant instability rises in Japan and they go after Korea, your praised N.Korea will strike the US. How's that for stability? Already in motion and Drumpf isn't even in office yet. Saudi Arabia too; Lithuania next. You have no clue what a lynch pin the USA is in global stability. Kill your ass good bye if Trump makes it into office; or perhaps if he just keeps flapping his mouth. Don't be surprised if Russia gives him a nice "push" into the office; you can blame Muslims, Jews, or whatever you fancy at your families expense...

  118. Re: Whoopty Doo by Bruha · · Score: 1

    Science does not care what you think.

  119. Re:Whoopty Doo by Required+Snark · · Score: 4, Insightful
    You are so bassackward that you are more then 100% wrong.

    Here is real research by real academics who have actual PhD degrees and study the media. They are at one of the best universities on the planet: Harvard. This is the definitive definition of a qualified professional. They don't make shit up like Fox not-really-News.

    The report shows that during the year 2015, major news outlets covered Donald Trump in a way that was unusual given his low initial polling numbers—a high volume of media coverage preceded Trump’s rise in the polls. Trump’s coverage was positive in tone—he received far more “good press” than “bad press.” The volume and tone of the coverage helped propel Trump to the top of Republican polls.

    The Democratic race in 2015 received less than half the coverage of the Republican race. Bernie Sanders’ campaign was largely ignored in the early months but, as it began to get coverage, it was overwhelmingly positive in tone. Sanders’ coverage in 2015 was the most favorable of any of the top candidates, Republican or Democratic. For her part, Hillary Clinton had by far the most negative coverage of any candidate. In 11 of the 12 months, her “bad news” outpaced her “good news,” usually by a wide margin, contributing to the increase in her unfavorable poll ratings in 2015.

    This research covers 2015, but things didn't change much up to the national political party conventions. The most explosive material wasn't reported until after the first debate, and much of it is coming from online upstarts like Buzzfeed.

    The mainstream news organizations have been completely missing until very recently. The information about Trump's income tax claim could have been uncovered by the NY Times at any time in the last two years, but it wasn't. He was getting a free ride from the entire mainstream press until a few weeks ago.

    I know that Republicans have an extreme aversion to facts and departed reality many years ago, but the real world doesn't care what you think. It has a nasty habit of showing up when least expected and wreaking havoc on fools who ignore it. With any luck real world facts will finally catch up with Trump and pound him into dust. If that doesn't happen then the whole world is going on an extremely terrible ride.

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
  120. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nigger.

  121. Sorry, that's an "onslaught" ? by rbrander · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Publishing - the man's own media appearances is an "onslaught"? Isn't that more like "routine"? It barely qualifies as journalism, too easy.

    Isn't holding people accountable for their public positions the very job of journalists?

    And The Times - every journalist has been howling for those tax returns for a nearly a year, they've been expected for 40 years - and now actually showing a couple of pages of a really old one is an "onslaught"? Most would say, "no brainer".

  122. Re:Whoopty Doo by WaffleMonster · · Score: 2

    Clinton would be a fucking weak candidate on any other occasion, no arguments there. But for Pete's sake, she's running against Trump. Trump. I can't even believe there's a choice to be made here for half the population of the US.

    Have you thought about what might be wrong with your world view that prevents your beliefs from matching up with objective reality?

  123. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uh... when asked who I'll vote for, I tend to respond, who cares, they're both shitbags.

    Hillary does have a better understanding of the presidential office than probably any other person who can run for office at this time. That said, she still runs for office making first term promises that are typically just nonsense people with no Oval Office experience promise. From a second (or in her case third) term presidential candidate, the promises are blatant lies because she knows no one will hold her to them.

    The job of president is all consuming and "special projects" like ACA was typically can't consume more than maybe 10% of the president's attention. She however has already promised at least 50% of her time. Something that no president can actually live up to.

    Just because Hillary has experience doesn't mean she actually is the right person or that she'll do the job well.

    Forget corruption. I'm questioning her competence. At this time, my thoughts are "Either she's stupid or a blatant liar". The good news is I know Trump is stupid and a blatant liar. So, it really doesn't matter who is president next.

    Don't worry, this happened in Rome when Crassus became consul. There is nothing to fear :)

  124. Re:Whoopty Doo by OpenSourced · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People don't vote candidates, in general. They vote if they are happy about how things are, or if they are not. Usually, is the incumbent (I'm happy about how things are in MY life), or the challenger (I'm not happy, let's change something).

    In this particular case the incumbent cannot run, so the proxy is the candidate of the same party. Also, people suspect that the usual challengers are not really a change at all. But in this case it is, or at least it appears to be. So the excitement about it.

    Voting or defending Trump has nothing to do with Trump, really, and all to do with a desire for profound change. The people express that desire in the only way that the election game allows them, and that's not a good way, that's for sure, but it's the only one.

    You are surprised of intelligent people defending Trump, and I am surprised of how this blatant fact, the desire, of so many people, for many current politics to change or reverse course, is completely bypassed by the media, that chooses to center in the, admittedly rather pathetic, personification of that desire. That's an ad-hominem fallacy if I ever saw one, and you fall into that trap and try to keep the discussion there (the person), instead of on the politics.

    --
    Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
  125. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I actually keep laughing about how even when Trump is the candidate Hillary can't win by a massive landslide. Trump is basically throwing the votes at her and she can't make them stick.

  126. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just curious, how do you think Trump would have responded in Johnson's place?

    He probably would have failed the smell test too, but it would be more Trump's style to deflect the question by re-stating that he knows more about ISIS than the Generals do and underscore it with his little finger pointing in the air saying "Believe me!".

    I think that at some point in the next two debates Trump's knowledge that he claims to have on ISIS and the international situation needs to be put to the test in a non -multiple choice type of way. (Essay questions!)

    I am not holding my breath, despite all the angsty teen sounding posts talking about how great Trump is, his answers are over confident, show no evidence he actually possesses the knowledge level he claims to and he responds angrily and rhetorically to try to shut down those types of questions.

    Trumps commentary and general overconfident posture invokes fears that he is a victim of the Dunning Kruger effect. Before we elect him, if that is what is destined to happen we must make sure that he is not bullshiting, because there is just too much important shit at stake in the world to let him slide by like he was trying to get a C+ to scrape by on a high schools social studies test he didn't study for. If Trump is so great of a candidate he really needs to pass the smell test and so far he has done really really poorly. The Trump supporters who think that he won the debate, despite what every poll is saying, are the facts be damned type so arguing with them with credible evidence to back your position up is a waste of energy. The real deal breaker for me was when I found out (though I was not going to vote for Trump to begin with) Trump is an Anti-Vaccination believer. I cannot vote for Trump, my fingers are incapable of checking the box.. won't happen. Science is true whether you believe in it or not. (I think Neil Degrasse Tyson said that) It seems to me that Trump does not bother to base his positions on well researched evidence and facts, therefore I just cannot support him. His tax returns are just icing on the cake here. The fact he does not release them to the public like every presidential candidate in my life time has, is a red flag. It is the classic Republican talking point tactic of accusing the opponent of what he did and is doing.. He was a Birther and then denied that he started the birther movement and then turned around and said that Hillary started it and he ended it.. Which if you have any sort of memory and were paying attention to him in the 2008 and 2012 elections is a lie. See what I did there? I based my argument on evidence! Trump is not only an idiot, he is a liar and his lies are so easily debunked that his expectation that we will believe his lies is an insult to our intelligence. Fuck Trump!

  127. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fucktard

  128. Re:Whoopty Doo by J+Story · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Alternatively, you're not as smart as you think you are.

  129. This must be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This must be that impartial media I keep hearing about.

  130. Re:Whoopty Doo by saloomy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    When you have the sort of money that Donald Trump or Putin have (I've read Putin may have about $70 billion), then you generally make deals with each other. Billionaires generally come from two backgrounds, founding extremely successful companies that are one-offs. (Zara, Microsoft, Google, Apple), or by making a large number of deals that add to your holdings over time, increasing its value (Warren Buffet, Donald Trump, Sheldon Adelson, Waleed Bin-Talal, Mark Cuban).

    These guys have dealings with so many ventures it's realistically impossible to not find a connection between all of them to each other in some way. That's how they got to be so big in the first place.

    Donald Trump has struck a nerve with the american people. It's sad that he was the one to figure out how, but he did. That nerve is the sensitivity to the overtly corrupt political structure now at the helm of this country "for the people". He promised he could not be influenced because he has more than enough capital to fund his run, and live happily ever after.

    Unfortunately, the Democrats didn't do any better, by swinging their ball completely in the 100% opposite direction. Hillary Clinton seems to be as politically astute as Donald Trump is politically ignorant. She successfully derailed Bernie Sander's campaign with insider dealings so corrupt, they forced the DNC chairman(woman) to resign, along with other DNC senior staff. She has been making insider plays, taken money from just about anyone who would give it to her, no matter what the cost to the American people, or the favor required; and wiggled her way to the Democratic presumptive nominee this election year, seemingly through those backroom deals. Her entire campaign doesn't really promise anything ground-breaking, really its just more of the same overly corrupt Washington insiders. Instead, her campaign is really "I'm not him". His campaign, if he could ever get the media to stop talking about his mouth, is "I'm not them".

  131. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think you give Trump too much credit. People really, really dislike Clinton despite her progressive politics. People hate her, and not just conservatives.

  132. Re: Whoopty Doo by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

    Just curious, how do you think Trump would have responded in Johnson's place?

    He probably would have failed the smell test too, but it would be more Trump's style to deflect the question by re-stating that he knows more about ISIS than the Generals do and underscore it with his little finger pointing in the air saying "Believe me!".

    I think that at some point in the next two debates Trump's knowledge that he claims to have on ISIS and the international situation needs to be put to the test in a non -multiple choice type of way. (Essay questions!)

    I am not holding my breath, despite all the angsty teen sounding posts talking about how great Trump is, his answers are over confident, show no evidence he actually possesses the knowledge level he claims to and he responds angrily and rhetorically to try to shut down those types of questions.

    Trumps commentary and general overconfident posture invokes fears that he is a victim of the Dunning Kruger effect. Before we elect him, if that is what is destined to happen we must make sure that he is not bullshiting, because there is just too much important shit at stake in the world to let him slide by like he was trying to get a C+ to scrape by on a high schools social studies test he didn't study for. If Trump is so great of a candidate he really needs to pass the smell test and so far he has done really really poorly. The Trump supporters who think that he won the debate, despite what every poll is saying, are the facts be damned type so arguing with them with credible evidence to back your position up is a waste of energy. The real deal breaker for me was when I found out (though I was not going to vote for Trump to begin with) Trump is an Anti-Vaccination believer. I cannot vote for Trump, my fingers are incapable of checking the box.. won't happen. Science is true whether you believe in it or not.

    I love to hear people make that claim. Let me ask you one quick question that is about science.

    What species is the organism developing inside a fertilized chicken egg?

    --
    If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  133. Re:Whoopty Doo by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Either Slashdot is not as intelligent as I thought, or it is more right-wing than I thought

    Trump is not "right-wing". He is a populist, with an eclectic and shifting mix of the worst of both left and right.

    "Right-wing" means fiscal responsibility, balanced budgets, free trade, and cutting entitlements, ... like the Republican led Congress when Bill Clinton signed their bills into law.

    FTFY

    What? You thought Bill Clinton wrote every piece of legislation that Congress voted on?

    You need to watch Schoolhouse Rock.

    --
    If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  134. The Real News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a tax deduction so substantial it could have allowed him to legally avoid paying any federal income taxes for up to 18 years..."

    The real news here is how lenient the US tax system really is. Up here, on the other side of the pond, the deductions would matter only for the taxation of the same tax year.

  135. Re:Whoopty Doo by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

    That's OK. Jesus still loves you.

    --
    If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  136. Re:Whoopty Doo by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

    There is no scandal in reality, just political smear campaigns. Clinton is innocent of all charges.

    No. FBI Director Comey specifically said he didn't think any prosecutor would be willing to bring charges against Hillary (Dead-shot) Clinton.

    --
    If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  137. Re: Whoopty Doo by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

    You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  138. Re: Whoopty Doo by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 2

    This is, what, the fifth time you have spouted your vitriol against someone just for having a different opinion than yourself?

    You leftists sure are full of love for your fellow man.

    --
    If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  139. Re:Whoopty Doo by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

    Sounds better than the opposition: a quite successful charlatan who sold her position like a crack whore to all comers.

    --
    If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  140. Re: Whoopty Doo by saloomy · · Score: 0

    Still, he right about one thing: She and the rest of Washington DC have done nothing but worsen the situation over so many years. Now, even Russia is involved, when they weren't before. Whatever you can say about Donald Trump, at least he isn't a politician. At this point, it seems smart to "let someone else have a crack at it" than the same Political insiders who have amassed so much money and power and have shown very little in return over the years. This game of "insider politics" is rotting America to its core.

    Donald Trump has struck a nerve with the american people. It's sad that he was the one to figure out how, but he did. That nerve is the sensitivity to the overtly corrupt political structure now at the helm of this country "for the people". He promised he could not be influenced because he has more than enough capital to fund his run, and live happily ever after, win or lose.

    Unfortunately, the Democrats didn't do any better, by swinging their ball completely in the 100% opposite direction of him. Hillary Clinton seems to be as politically astute as Donald Trump is politically ignorant. She successfully derailed Bernie Sander's campaign with insider dealings so corrupt, they forced the DNC chairman(woman) to resign, along with other DNC senior staff when it all came to light. Just imagine what else they could be hiding, in the knowledge still under wraps. She has been making insider plays, taken money from just about anyone who would give it to her, no matter what the cost to the American people, or the favor required; and wiggled her way to the Democratic presumptive nominee this election year, seemingly through those backroom deals. Her entire campaign doesn't really promise anything ground-breaking, really its just more of the same overly corrupt Washington insiders. Instead, her campaign is really "I'm not him". His campaign, if he could ever get the media to stop talking about the stupid shit that comes out of his mouth, is "I'm not them". And thats a really important message.

  141. Hatchet job by bradley13 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Typical hatchet job - the MSM is devoted to Hillary, so they do things like this, while doing their best to ignore her games with the Clinton Foundation. Notes on the items in TFS:

    - Of course Trump planned his remarks. What, you think he made them up randomly? Read the columns that Scott Adams has been writing - at this level of the game, there are very few accidents. According to Adams, Trump is using a technique called "pacing", where you make an extreme statement and follow it up by a moderate position. As with anyone running for a higher political office: what he says during his campaign has essentially nothing to do with his personal beliefs. It's all tactics to get elected. This is, sadly, how politics works.

    - Trump appeared in Playboy? He wanted his wife to pose, but she refused. Um...so what?

    - Trump lost money on some of his ventures. This is not news. Look at the number of ventures he owns, then tell you really expect all of them to be successful? He wrote off his losses on one of his ventures, wow, what a surprise. Hillary takes a different approach, by shielding most of her assets inside the Clinton Foundation. Frankly, that's a lot worse, because the Clinton Foundation is pretending to be a non-profit organization.

    tl;dr: The MSM is in the tank for Hillary. Hatchet jobs on Trump are no surprise.

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    1. Re:Hatchet job by dbIII · · Score: 1

      make an extreme statement and follow it up by a moderate position

      He just goes over the top and then needs to take things back. It just shows that he is treating us all like idiots, and that his word is utterly worthless.

    2. Re:Hatchet job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what, exactly, is wrong with CF ?
      afaik, they are doing real good in the world, with cheap aids drugs etc
      real good for millions of people

      on the other hand, a large number of CF donors asked an aide for a meeting with Sec Clinton
      95% of the time, the aide said no
      5% of the time, the aid said yes, but these are people (nobel for 3rd world development) that a US Sec State would meet with *anyway*

      you are clearly a person who distrusts the media, yet it is *this same media* that is misleading you on the foundation !!!
      cognitive dissonance, they name is legion

    3. Re:Hatchet job by Alomex · · Score: 2

      Hillary takes a different approach, by shielding most of her assets inside the Clinton Foundation. Frankly, that's a lot worse, because the Clinton Foundation is pretending to be a non-profit organization.

      The above statement is 100% false. The Clinton Foundation does not "shield" assets any more than any other foundation. To this date not a single piece of evidence has come out to show that the Clinton Foundation is a scam, or not for profit.

      The only known issue is that one can question the morality of taking a donation from Saudi Arabia, just like we question the morality of Donald Trump paying for a self-portrait using his foundation assets. We also question the Foundation making a political contribution. This one might actually be illegal, by the way. People are still looking into it, though, so I'm holding judgement on that one until the facts are out.

    4. Re:Hatchet job by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      He pressured his wife to pose nude in a magazine. It is yet more evidence of his poor attitude towards women, even his own wife and daughter.

      The business failings are relevant because they could help him avoid paying tax, and he won't release his tax returns like everyone else does, and because he claims to be a successful businessman. If he can't succeed running a casino, it casts great doubt on that claim.

      And if he deliberately made it fail to avoid paying tax, that's probably a crime and certainly unethical.

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

      I donate more of my income to charity than the so called Clinton Foundation.

      Not hard since they only give about %6 away.

      They are not a non profit charity organization.

      Let it go. It's an obvious lie. At least put your energy into defending something defendable.

      The Clinton Foundation is a textbook money laundering scheme.

    6. Re:Hatchet job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so what?

      So it makes his moral outrage at Alicia Machado's (non-existent) sex tape an incredible hypocrasy.

    7. Re:Hatchet job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the columns that Scott Adams has been writing

      AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

      Scott Adams is the last person anyone should be reading, much less agreeing with.

      LOL forever if you are defending Trump for anything.

    8. Re:Hatchet job by werepants · · Score: 1

      According to Adams, Trump is using a technique called "pacing", where you make an extreme statement and follow it up by a moderate position. As with anyone running for a higher political office: what he says during his campaign has essentially nothing to do with his personal beliefs. It's all tactics to get elected. This is, sadly, how politics works.

      This is a classic example of how otherwise sound-minded people talk themselves into supporting a narcissistic demagogue like Trump - just invent a more complex, reasonable, and intelligent persona hiding underneath the ignorant, blustering rhetoric, and then support that imaginary persona. The key problem, though, is Occam's Razor. If you have to invent elaborate scenarios to explain why your preferred candidate isn't a duck, even though he looks, acts, and sounds like one, and has for his entire life, maybe the simpler thing is to just cut the B.S. and admit that you are in fact dealing with a duck... or a xenophobic sociopath, in this case.

    9. Re:Hatchet job by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Maybe, but...

      http://www.breitbart.com/clint...

      It's worth a watch no matter what side you're on.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  142. But it's buzzfeed by Bender+Unit+22 · · Score: 2

    The same people that tells me that I should be ashamed of being white, so, meh.
    (not that I like the giant douche, or the turd sandwich for that matter)

  143. Re:Whoopty Doo by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    People don't vote candidates, in general. They vote if they are happy about how things are, or if they are not. Usually, is the incumbent (I'm happy about how things are in MY life), or the challenger (I'm not happy, let's change something).

    In this particular case the incumbent cannot run, so the proxy is the candidate of the same party. Also, people suspect that the usual challengers are not really a change at all. But in this case it is, or at least it appears to be. So the excitement about it.

    Sorry but this is idealistic at best. People well and truly vote for candidates in the USA, and in general they seem to be confused at situations like Australia or the UK where we vote for parties. The figurehead however little power they may have in reality can make or break the opinion of a party. I mean just go through the history here on Slashdot (a typically more thinking and level headed crowd than what you get on most media sites) to see comment like "Well I would have voted democrat but definitely not Clinton" or "I'm a republican but I'm not going to vote at all this year, not for that guy".

    In general you're right with the swing towards an incumbent when times are good, but this is only a small factor.

  144. Re:Whoopty Doo by dbIII · · Score: 1, Informative

    overtly corrupt political structure now at the helm of this country

    The extremely weird thing is that casino boss and real estate swindler is overtly far more corrupt than even that yet he is listened to.
    Vote for the casino boss that cares for the little people (yeah, right), is the line he pushes and he really rubs in that all of us are little compared with him. It's the fucking aristocracy that George Washington threw out all over again.

  145. Re:Whoopty Doo by sosume · · Score: 1

    The mainstream media may intensify its one sided attacks, though both candidates are clearly questionable on a number of issues, and it only shows how biased their reporting is. This just shows contempt for the intelligence of their audience. The media should report, and let the judging to the people.

  146. Re:Whoopty Doo by Jzanu · · Score: 0

    You are just another of the stupid kids acting like you know something. Life isn't fucking debate club faggot. You ignorant fucks aren't worth the shit in your god damn diapers!

  147. Re:Whoopty Doo by dbIII · · Score: 1

    It also means tories, royalists and aristocrats (in addition to Bill Clinton who is on the right on a global scale).
    I know you are joking but he is definitely all for an aristocracy with the very rich as the new lords, which makes him very much right wing.

  148. Aren't they just preaching to the choir? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most trump supporters I talk to say they ignore cable news... and definitely dont read sites like buzzfeed, etc. How is this any different that patting yourself on the back and saying "there there, it'll all be okay".

  149. Whoa, did I read that right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The line "journalists at Buzzfeed"...."journalists". Can't be right, surely.

  150. Re:Whoopty Doo by dbIII · · Score: 1

    He had a very good personal friend running Fox. That and his persistent trolling got him attention, as he worked out during the birther attention seeking thing.

  151. Re: Whoopty Doo by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Progressive does NOT automatically equal Democrat. I'm am so sick and tired of everyone only seeing two sides, turning everything into a razor thin monolith with D on one side and R on the other. Perhaps you've heard of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who said "In all those things which deal with people, be liberal, be human. In all those things which deal with people's money, or their economy, or their form of government, be conservative." Once upon a time there was a movement of Progressive Republicans.

    "To destroy this invisible government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day." This was back in 1912. plus ça change, plus c'est la.

    Who do I stand with? Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and other like them. Both "parties" are morally corrupt, and under the control of the planet-spanning corpocracy. We had a chance with Sanders, but we squandered it. Johnson is a joke. Trump is only in this for Trump, Inc. Hillary is inherently unlikable, and is a corporate puppet who only changed her tune at all because of Sanders. Neither should be President.

    However, given the "choice" we've been presented, I still would rather have a corrupt, mean politician as opposed to a megalomaniac who is intent on building an oligarchy like his buddy Putin.

  152. Re:Whoopty Doo by OpenSourced · · Score: 3, Insightful

    People well and truly vote for candidates in the USA, and in general they seem to be confused at situations like Australia or the UK where we vote for parties.

    Sorry to disagree, but that doesn't check with the fact that, in the USA, only candidates from the two big parties have a chance to run successfully for the presidency. If people really voted for candidates, then an independent candidate would have an even chance of winning, and that's absolutely not the case. Even in this election, with two deeply flawed candidates, independents cannot even make it to the TV live debate.

    --
    Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
  153. Re:Whoopty Doo by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because Trump is a "friend" of Big Media. He knows all the stakeholders by first name. They've all been to his "resorts" for free, they are all bought and paid for by Trump, Inc. Trump is no Republican. He's a White National fascist who used popularity to force the Republican party into a nomination. He's using the same playbook the Communists did after the death of Lenin...fear, confusion, obfuscation of reality to the point the only thing people know to be "real" is Trump himself.

  154. Re:Whoopty Doo by dbIII · · Score: 1
    So how is he going to get things done and "Make America Great Again" when attempting to steer a hostile GOP from the outside to overcome the numbers of angry Democrats who will never vote the way he wants them to? There was this guy called George Washington who made sure that the United States of America was not run by an all powerful King. Brush up on that history and a bit more after it and you'll work out how a Trump Presidency would be a stagnant situation with nothing much happening for years. The only great you get out of that is a great depression. Russia would love it, China has already moved in where the USA used to have influence, but they might move faster in getting Taiwan and a few other things they haven't dared do overtly in the face of a strong America.

    America is equal opportunity

    A land where any loudmouthed trustfund baby can become President :) Watch Trump for long enough and you'll work it out, he wants a fucking aristocracy and serfs so if you are in the white middle class he wants you in your place down with the working poor. He wants us to have less rights so we can't get in the way of his cronies.

  155. Re: Whoopty Doo by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

    We'll never have a long-term viable multi-party system. Splintering has happened many times before. But with our "majority rules" and "winner takes all" system, it will always evolve back into just two parties. The only way to have true multiple parties is to add another "house" that is based on proportional representative voting of registered parties. For example, if there are a million people, and 100 seats, any party who has at least 10,000 registered, voting members gets a seat. The seats themselves are decided via a party-only vote.

  156. Does not compute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Online journalists at Buzzfeed are publicizing two controversial videos featuring Donald Trump.

    Online
    journalists
    at Buzzfeed

    I think "journalist" and "at Buzzfeed" cancel each other out, so all we can say about them is that they're online. Unfortunately.

  157. Re: Whoopty Doo by Calydor · · Score: 2

    WTF is this American fascination with saying that you're throwing your vote away?

    NO! You are telling both of the leading parties that they are so fucked up they don't DESERVE your vote!

    --
    -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
  158. Look up "Brexit" by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Look up "Brexit" - see how that attitude you describe went in that vote.

  159. It sounds quite familiar to me by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

    I am not a US citizen and don't even care much about politics. On the other hand, I am seeing a somehow common pattern everywhere: equivalent problems, provoking realities like Trump to appear and similar shortsightedness allowing them to flourish.

    I am not saying that we are witnessing never-happened-before situations. In fact, human history is full of equivalent episodes; our cyclic evolution is formed by many lows, ups and learning from mistakes. In any case, there is a problem which should ideally be fixed.

    The initial seed is the same than every time before: fear (to lose what you have, to feel unsafe, to be irrelevant, etc.). Egoist people exclusively interested in their own gain are also the ones taking advantage from this situation. And as usual, those in a position to somehow minimise the impact are either misassessing its importance or not used to a new-to-them reality. Trump-like attitudes are very old story, but somehow unusual lately and in certain countries like USA or UK (via Brexit). There are even other situations, like what has recently happened in my own country (Spain), apparently different but essentially identical: egoist interests growing supported by manipulating the fears of the many which ironically will be the ones losing the most.

    All this has even nothing to do with left/right, democrats/republicans. It is just about egoism growing via hypocritically showing an inexistent interest in others, mainly about those whose number is higher and who only want to believe that someone really cares about their specific concerns. In fact, Donald Trump represents an excellent example of ideology-free pure-egoism-driven personality. I have read quite a few bad things about Hillary Clinton and no idea what to believe. Honestly, I don't have a strong opinion about her, not even about its party (as said, I am not American and don't follow politics much). This post isn't even about recommending her as the not-so-bad alternative. This post is about highlighting what Trump represents. He isn't a politician (not even a corrupt one), but a businessman looking for new ways to make more money.

    Internet and the huge amount of available information (easily misused and misunderstood) has certainly had a big impact on this fear-backed raise of egoism. Media and intellectual elites seem also to be misjudging their exact influence and the best way to proceed. The recent Brexit was an excellent example on this front: the elites hugely misassessed the true impact of their opinion and pro-"no" campaigns. They didn't worry about communicating with the higher number of voters; and preferred to blindly trust in their self-assessed authority where anyone not seeing the evidence was wrong. I am certainly not the kind of person in a position to lecture anyone about how to talk to the many; in fact, this is one of my weakest points (even worse: I don't see it as a weakness and plainly don't care :)). On the other hand, I don't work for the media and for opinion-influencers seriously interested in helping everyone see the long-term/best-for-the-most picture. Although I am pretty good at spotting problems and do see that media attempts to undermine the influence of Trump (and similar attitudes) are actually intensifying it. Most of media seems to be mostly concerned about convincing themselves (and people like them) that his triumph is impossible, rather than about understanding that the decision is actually in the hands of people about whom they don’t even care.

    In summary, this post isn't about politics or parties, but about avoiding short-sighted egoism to succeed. Trump (and similar personalities and movements) doesn't care about anyone other than himself; If you can benefit him (or those surrounding him), he would certainly help you, otherwise not. Allowing this kind of people to have so much power will never be a good idea. In any case, thinking that someone like Trump can care about anyone different than himself would be extremely naive.

    --
    Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    1. Re:It sounds quite familiar to me by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      Just to clarify my reference to Spain, I meant the recent chaos of having to pass through 2 elections (+ still no president) after the rise of new parties precisely as a reaction to the overall anger against politicians/corruption. These new alternatives have certainly nothing to do with Trump and his defining egoism, but also had a huge media support which ultimately backfired. This media over-exposure seems to also be the ultimate responsible of the corrupted right-wing party slow growth: the first corruption news were horrible to them, but the nth ones weren't that bad. On the other hand, the fragmented character (i.e., at least, two opposing alternatives) of this reaction can also somehow justify the aforementioned evolution.

      As said, the situation in Spain isn't too clearly related to the USA/UK cases, but it does share some of the same problems: the higher number of voters, usually representing the most primary feelings of a society (fear, tiredness, mistrust, angriness, etc.) against politicians, facing a media over-exposure of evidently worse options (+ not always too honest + usually not really caring about their specific concerns) and finally behaving contrarily to what was expected (apathy towards politics or even choosing the old-but-known options in Spain or Trump/Brexit in USA/UK). Always the same irony: over-proving (or worse, trying to impose) the certainly better option drives to its partial justification (via "why are they so interested in making me see things in this way" or "I don't like corruption, but I have nothing in common with what media defends either" or similar) and to its final acceptance.

      In some cases and for some people, plainly not saying anything (or just saying a properly-understandable bit) and trusting in objectively wrong alternatives to fail by themselves tends to be a more efficient proceeding. Curiously, I am saying all this by being fully aware about the fact that such ideas are very far away from my own personality; but even a person like me (I mostly care about objectivity, with no interest in persuading anyone or making sure that a high number of people agrees with me, even proud of such a behaviour; and my interest in politics is virtually none) can see what is happening (now and quite a few times in the past). I certainly don't quite understand why those actually interested in all this (i.e., media) cannot see the reality, continue making the same mistakes and provoking the same bad-to-their-own-interests outputs.

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
  160. Boo Hoo by dohzer · · Score: 1

    Journalists, online or not (but online sounds far more "sinister") launch scathing attack on man who never pays tax, had a hard life after being given a massive wad of cash.
    So sad.

  161. Too Much Skin by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    Hillary skinned trump alive in the first debate. His skin was going to be used to cover the outhouse door but he is fat and the skin stretched almost all the way around the outhouse. Bill Maher pegged it correctly explaining Trump's hair and facial colors. It is simple. His father was an orangutan. It is a national humiliation that a man such as Trump could actually be a candidate for our highest office. Other nations think we have gone stark raving, full Bozo, crazy.

    1. Re: Too Much Skin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      STFU ASSHOLE

  162. Re:Whoopty Doo by amiga3D · · Score: 4, Interesting

    His returns will show he's not a billionaire. To him that's the worst possible thing for the media to be able to prove. He'd rather be known as a crazy jerk than a pure charlatan.

  163. Re:Whoopty Doo by amiga3D · · Score: 1, Informative

    He didn't write it but he did sign it. Bill Clinton was left wing on everything but the economy. And like he said, "It's the economy, stupid!" Bill Clinton was the last president to work with an opposition congress to accomplish anything. If the motherfucker could keep his pants zipped he could have gone down in history as one of the best presidents ever. Obama had a Democrat controlled congress and he used it to ram a shitty health care bill down everyone's throat. He got what he wanted but pissed off enough people to destroy the Democrats majority in both houses. We had a really good Democrat representative in my district until after he voted for that bill. Before Obamacare he was a sure thing every election. That one vote for the AHCA ended his political career. Now we have a tea party Republican.

  164. Don't we all try to not pay taxes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not sure the tax question is valid unless he did something illegal. Avoiding taxes is in everyone's game plan. If your an American and gladly paying more tax your an idiot. I have always said the media doesn't get Trump. His supporters see Trump as a messenger against government corruption. His message rings true to them because he echo's their frustration with corruption, the political establishment and what they feel is a lack of public service to the people. Those who will vote for Trump are really simply voting against Clinton as the establishment they want to remove. But to compare or even suggest Trump is corrupt and ignore all that Hillary and Bill Clinton have done is a disgrace to journalism. But publications like the NYT's are just propaganda machines these days. No facts, just hearsay.

  165. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly. I don't care about Trump, his life, politics, or feelings towards Mexicans.

    I only care that the extreme political left, social justice whores, and the manipulative media hates him. They are making me vote Trump.

  166. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You're the reason I am voting for Trump.

    Smug, condescending, insulting elitist asshole. I would rather be dead than be on your side.

  167. Re:Whoopty Doo by amiga3D · · Score: 1

    I know that during the Republican primaries the media coverage of Trump was largely one of wonder. "How is this happening." It wasn't really that positive it was more like he was the agent of change and the non politician that was challenging the elites. This perception was largely what I saw. There was a lot of criticism of his immigration views by the media but by and large it didn't start to get nasty until they realized that he could actually win. It's almost impossible to have positive coverage about two such awful candidates. Every single time I hear someone say something good about either one I want to laugh. The only thing I actually like about Trump is that he's not Hilliary.

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/09...

    I can't believe he was stupid enough to say that in public.....or private either.

  168. Re: Whoopty Doo by peragrin · · Score: 1

    in 2010 republicans were voted in to stop obama at ANY cost. That is exactly what they have done for the last 6 years. not try to fix the country, or lower taxes, but to stop the Obama at ANY cost.

    Those costs including stopping the government from doing anything useful. taxes, jobs, immigration, Obama has had to go around congress to do anything instead of working with them. Every time Obama tried to work with Congress Republicans would agree indiviually and then cut back and change their minds as a group.

    Hillary is a mistake, but republicans can't stop Donald, and that is far far scarier. Republicans think that once in office he will settle down and run the country like a business. The problem is Donald runs his businesses like he has his campaign. with an iron fist, and no help or good ideas from anyone else. Donald doesn't settle down, he doesn't calm down. He will drive this country apart, blame everyone but himself as he never accepts responsiblity. His answer to inner city crime, is literally jack booted thugs, and random strip searches. He has stated that freedom of the press should be taking away, Freedom of speech should be taken away,, Freedom of religion should be taken away and the right to bear arms is too broad and should be taken away. Those are from his speeches. He couched the each in political think of the kids phrasing but he said them all.

    Now do you want a person in the white house who believes the president has unlimited authority, backed by a congress who can't, and won't tell him no. Who has stated that the first 4 freedoms of the Bill of Rights need to be modified?

    Or do you want a person in the white house who is a political insider to whom congress will not only tell no to as they have for the last 6 years but will actively override her every decision out of shear spite.

    4 more years of what we have is a lot better than turning this country over to Hitler.

    --
    i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
  169. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Or have you considered that you're being lied to and manipulated, and the smart people of Slashdot see through the bullshit more clearly?

    Hillary will say anything to get elected and change nothing. (Barack Obama, 2008)

  170. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Err, I think you misused a pronoun at the end there. You meant "megalomaniac like her."

  171. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except that Hillary has never been involved in provable corruption despite decades of extraordinarily close scrutiny.

    If people are so concerned about the Clinton Foundation, then Congress could legislate tighter rules for private foundations, the only obstacle being that this would involve getting something done, which is the polar opposite of what the Republican Congress is all about.

  172. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hillary Clinton is experienced in starting wars.

  173. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People vote based on perceived image, i.e. which candidate they'd rather have lunch with:

    Lunch with Hillary: She makes you pay for the lunch and the money is somehow funneled into her pockets. As you turn around to inquire the manager about this, you suddenly find a dagger in your back. Hillary still has the same wax doll smile on her face and pretends like she doesn't know what happened.

    Lunch with Donald: He's happy to split the bill, but will only eat at a restaurant he owns. He will insult you for the entire duration of the lunch and deport you once you've paid your share of the bill.

  174. Re: Whoopty Doo by someoneOtherThanMe · · Score: 1

    What species is the organism developing inside a fertilized chicken egg?

    Salmonella?

  175. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow. You really proved him wrong, by doing exactly what he said you would.

  176. Re:Whoopty Doo by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    Vote for Trump = Drop napalm on the whole F-ing thing.

    (including yourself, the economy, social progress, etc)

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  177. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Vote for Hillary = Affirmation that you're cool with corrupt politics." to the extent that anything can be done.

    "Vote for Trump = Drop napalm on the whole F-ing thing" while actually riding the bomb down and waving a cowboy hat.

    If you want to "change the system," the way to eventually do it is probably to support rational people who are unaffiliated with either major party, at low enough levels so that virtually everyone going up the ladder recognizes we need more than two parties.

  178. Re: Whoopty Doo by Jzanu · · Score: 0

    Fuck off you little shit stain

  179. Re:Whoopty Doo by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

    Sounds like that study construes negative coverage about a politician as positive if it reports he is gaining ground. So "TRUMP IS HITLER AND MUST BE STOPPED BEFORE HE ASSASSINATES HILLARY" is a positive story...

  180. Re:Whoopty Doo by tomhath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You need to look at the media coverage of all Republican candidates together to understand what happened. The candidates thought to be the strongest opponents against Hillary received the harshest treatment (Christy, Romney, Rubio, and Cruz).

    Trump was considered a non-threat, him getting the nomination was supposed to ensure an easy victory for Clinton. The long knives didn't really come out until poll numbers showed Trump actually having a chance to win. Now that he's ahead you see the hysteria.

    .

  181. Re: Whoopty Doo by Jzanu · · Score: 1

    You stupid faggot you don't get to vote until you finish childhood. Go join the army and do something useful you fucking retard!

  182. Why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hillary will win. It's already decided. Unless they want to curry favor with the next Leader, their efforts are useless and they should have moved earlier. They may be lucky and cover our war with Russia, however. It will be long, it will be hard, it will be glorious! MILLIONS will die! After that, a depopulated EU will become an appendix of the new great US empire, which will extend to the Urals and beyond! Glory to Hillary Rodham Clinton, OUR LEADER! HAIL!

  183. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The top 1% income earners pay 50% of all of the federal income taxes

    True, but they make 90% of all of the federal income, so...

  184. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why does Putin need Trump for that? Hillary would work just as well.

  185. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Once you factor in the other federal taxes (payroll taxes), you are paying a higher effective rate than the Trump's & Romney's of the world. Have you ever asked yourself how Romney was able to amass $100m in a tax sheltered IRA account? The only tax forms that have been publicly released by Trump showed he payed nothing, nada, zero in federal taxes. Sorry, I don't buy that a real estate and casino tycoon will be looking out for "the little" guy either.

  186. Re: Whoopty Doo by Cederic · · Score: 1

    I'm not a biologist or a natural historian. Let me consult an appropriate reference or expert, and while I'm doing that, perhaps you could tell us all just what the fuck that has to do with being president of the US?

  187. Re:Whoopty Doo by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Insightful

    only candidates from the two big parties have a chance to run successfully for the presidency

    That's because the other parties tend to run:

    1) Avowed communists or other loons

    2) Supposed doctors who believe in homeopathy

    3) Would-be presidents who can't name a single leader of another country.

    Why would such people every gain any traction with a majority of the people in the US? The certainly can't get together enough people to support their campaign operations at a level that makes them strongly visible in a country of hundreds of millions of people - because would-be supporters look at them, weigh their absurd positions against reality, and walk away.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  188. Establishment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can't get anything done if you don't know how the establishment works. Secretary Clinton is not perfect, but she knows how to get stuff done. If you don't trust the things she says she wants to get done, then that is one thing, but rejecting her because she has the connections and experience is not very productive.

  189. Re: Whoopty Doo by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We had a chance with Sanders, but we squandered it.

    No, we dodged a bullet. His entire world view is based on either pure fantasy, or on making productive people slaves to non-productive people and calling that a virtue. Even Hillary Clinton (who is currently doing her best in public to pretend she likes what Sanders stands for, because she's wildly pandering to low-information young people who want free stuff) says in private (audio recording just released!) that Sanders' supporters are unrealistic live-in-mom's-basement people who want free stuff and don't know what they're talking about. She may be an evil witch, but she's correct about that. Of course, being an evil witch, she'll still lie her ass off and pretend to embrace those people's wish lists long enough to get elected. Nothing new there.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  190. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wasn't Clinton exonerated of any crimes by both the FBI and the republican investigations in each of those cases? I mean they dug as far as they could to try and find something to pin on her, but no one every found any crimes. Or were the FBI and the republicans both trying to cover up for her?

  191. Re: Whoopty Doo by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

    Which word?

    --
    See that "Preview" button?
  192. Re:Whoopty Doo by xiux · · Score: 2

    Have you thought about what might be wrong with your world view that prevents your beliefs from matching up with objective reality?

    That's a good example of a Loaded Question.

  193. Re:Whoopty Doo by William+Baric · · Score: 0

    Have you considered that maybe it's you who is not as intelligent as you think you are?

    I'm not American. Politically, I'm an old school socialist. A real one. You know, sharing of means of production and all that. More precisely, the closest label I can give myself would be social anarchist advocating mutualism as the economic system. I guess a common term (for Americans) that might broadly describe my political view is left libertarian. I am for free market, but I hate capitalism as much as I hate communism. And since social democracy (the modern left) is a mix of capitalism and communism, I hate this system even more.

    The difference between Clinton and Trump has nothing to do with "left" and "right", at least not in the traditional sense. I view Trump more to the left than Clinton. The difference is between moral systems. The simplest way I could describe it is that Trump's political view is defined by a masculine moral system, while Clinton's political view (like Obama and most modern leftist) is defined by a feminine moral system. Trump is for justice, Clinton is for equality. Trump is for helping the ones who succeed in society, Clinton is for helping the ones who fail in society. Trump's basis for social rules is principles, Clinton's basis for social rules is feelings.

    Trump vs Clinton is not right against left, it's masculinity against femininity. One thing is for sure, it has nothing to do with intelligence.

  194. Re:Whoopty Doo by myrdos2 · · Score: 1

    Have you thought about what might be wrong with your world view that prevents your beliefs from matching up with objective reality?

    He seems to believe that the majority of Americans are sensible, informed people who make rational choices in politics?

    The fool!

  195. Re:Whoopty Doo by thegarbz · · Score: 2

    only candidates from the two big parties have a chance to run successfully for the presidency. If people really voted for candidates, then an independent candidate would have an even chance of winning, and that's absolutely not the case.

    Those two are unrelated. People don't vote for minor candidates because especially in the USA it is seen as throwing away your vote. In countries with a preferential voting system minor parties end up getting seats in all houses of parliament as people can vote for them without effectively removing themselves from the system. Also you give your minor parties too much credit. The other big problem with minor parties is that for the most part many people agree with a set of ideas they have but also believe they are completely incapable of governing. They are often plagued with the same bat-shit crazy ideas underneath that we are currently criticising trump for.

    E.g. I voted for the greens one election hoping that they'd get my local seat. I would not have done so if they had a chance at another seat in parliament too because while they are an important voice that needs to be part of the political system their full array of policies would end our lives as we know it.

    I'm not in tune enough with the American system to know the minor candidates, but when I look at most other countries you end up with
    a) the pirate party.
    b) someone with great ideas on small government who's also an insane racist.
    c) someone who is an antivaxxer.
    d) someone who believes that they can fix absolutely everything but is incapable of coming up with a plan to pay for it.
    e) someone who's entire idea is the overnight shutdown of all coal and nuclear power plants and an instant ban on all combustion engines, not to mention the shutdown of all industry that would dare hurt plant or animal life.

    Among these insanes are some great ideas and some good policy, but damn would we be in trouble if they ever got complete power.

  196. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This whoopty must be one of those old white men with no college degree who feels like they are being left behind by all the smarter Asians and Hispanics

  197. Re:Whoopty Doo by thegarbz · · Score: 2

    It scares the crap out of me that here on Slashdot, a site with presumably smart people like engineers and programmers, so many people are defending and rooting for Donald Trump.

    Ever consider that the world could benefit greatly from anti-establishment anarchy? I'm sure the people rooting for Trump aren't rooting for the man, but rather the idea that it would finally shake the shit out of the establishment and maybe wake up a government who most definitely is no longer for the people or by the people.

  198. Neo-Nazi In the House! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    American Third Position

    I just want to point out to everyone that "American Third Position" is an actual neo-Nazi white supremacist organization. If you don't believe me, go look for yourself.

    Yes, they come here to Slashdot, too.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Neo-Nazi In the House! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oy vey! It's anudda shoah, I tells ya! Anudda shoah!

  199. When did Slashdot become a Political Forum? by bwanagary · · Score: 1

    Slashdot has been one of the few places I have been able to go for decades to get news of all kinds, with a focus on tech. I have been so please to not see it turn into the usual flame-wars that most other forums are. Until now. This is not the place for political commentary. If one person is allowed to make thinly disguised politically motivated posts then others will too until this forum descends into just another rant forum where empty vessels make a lot of noise.

    I love Slashdot - please don't do it!
    Thanks.

  200. Dear Trump supporters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know the vast majority of Trump supporters are not racist or stupid
    But as a liberal, i just don't understand how you can support trump

    One argument seems to be, hillary is corrupt and a liar
    most hillary charges (benghazi, vince foster) are tea party fantasy; some (clinton foundation favors) are not true (1);
    on the other hand, it is clear that Trump lies constantly (i didn't say china created global warming - tht is lying about something he said !) and that trump is a sleaze (there are many stories of how he stiffed vendors) and he is a con artist (is there any other way to spin trump u (2))
    So, your argument seems to be that hillary lies are more important ?
    re the emails, yeah, lets stipulate to worst case. i would have thought the default on slashdot is that the govt spends way way way to much time classifying stuff, mostly to cover up mistakes

    So ethics, at worst a draw, more likely hillary is more honest an more ethical then trump !!!!!

    If you look at Trumps plans, to the extent that he has any, they are (a) huge enormous tax cuts for the wealthy; unless you believe in voodoo econ, this means huge deficits and cuts to national parks, FDA, NIH, etc
    he wants to cut ocare on day 1; there are something like 10 million people getting Health insurance thru ocare; many will no doubt suffer real harm (how to pay for chemo ?) without HI
    he is just gonna cut them off and they have to wait a year for new legislation ?
    you are aware, if you are a wonk, that the gop in 8 years hasn't managed to come up with an alternative to ocare ?

    He wants more jobs in coal; it isn't liberals that are killing coal jobs - it is technology; surely you know that we make more coal now with fewer workers ?
    he wants to bring back mfr jobs from china - this is already happening , but again, we are doing more manufacturing in this country then ever with fewer workers
    20 years ago the problem was china; today it is robots

    so his ideas are stupid

    so, what, exactly, do you see in him ?
    is he really gonna round up 11 million (no, not 20) illegals ? the cost of food and transport ? and what if the million or so kids of the illegals, kids born here and us citizens, demand to stay ? what is the cost of caring for 1 million or so orphans ? can you imagine the lawsuits ? deportation is, in effect, the lawyers employment act

    what exactly is a man who calls our generals stupid gonna do about syria ?

    And doesn't it bother you that crazy (3) and racist (duke, alt right) people are supporting him ?
    and that he surrounds himself with sleazy racists like bannon and people like newt gingrich ?

    i'm sorry, i just don't get it

    1) a bunch of CF donors called a hc aid and said i want a mtg with the secstate the aid said no. a small number of cf donors did get a mtg, but they were mostly if not all people the secstate would meet with *anyway*

    2) i
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/26/us/politics/cambridge-whos-who-trump-brand.html?_r=0

    Trump U targets grieving army war widow:
    The sales pitches seeking to separate Cheryl Lankford from her money began during the recession as she struggled to get back on her feet after the death of her husband, an American soldier serving in Iraq.
    Two of them were from companies that have boasted the Trump name.
    One was Trump University, the real estate sales seminar that Donald J. Trump promoted as a way for average people to profit from opportunities in the housing market. Ms. Lankford said she spent $35,000 from an Army insurance payment to learn Mr. Trump’s secrets.

    and
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/30/us/politics/donald-trump-institute-plagiarism.html
    and
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/17/us/politics/trump-chris-christie-casinos.html

    3)https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/finally-someone-who-thinks-like-me/2016/10/01/c9b6f334-7f68-11e6-9070-5c4905bf40dc_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_believer633pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
    or if you read the revolting neo nazi racist alt right, they are largely pro trump

  201. Re: Whoopty Doo by saloomy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That's a bit extreem don't you think? Jack booted thugs? Seriously, Hitler? C'mon, no one buys that. Also, Donald Trump is running on the republican ticket, but he is far from an establishment republican like Jeb Bush is. Hilary is literally a 30 year career politician at various levels of government. She is the embodiment of Claire Underwood, with less sex appeal, and more political savvy, if thats even possible.

    Also, I didn't say Donald Trump is a good guy, or a good leader. I only said that he found a nerve in American society today, which suffers at the hands on the special interests, locked in a dance with American politics.

    But about that business of his. No doubt, he owns some of the most fantastic addresses in the world. The real-estate under his towers in Manhattan are worth quite literally billions. You don't get your company to that size "with an iron fist, and no help or good ideas from anyone else", or by "blaming everyone but himself as he never accepts responsibility".

    Donald's organization The Trump Organization has tens of thousands of employees, activities spanning the globe, and is a model for modern business, leveraging its brand and assets. America could use some of that kind of thinking. Stop fixating on the "politically incorrect" in what he says. Before judging someone on their rants, ask yourself "what is the most important part of his job". I don't care if my dentist is a muslim-hating womanizer, as long as he does my dental work well. Likewise, I don't care if Donald trump disparaged women in a Larry King episode, or suggested "stop and frisk". We aren't electing a president of the National Organization of Women, or a chief of the NYPD. We are electing a president. I want him to curb our addition to international intervention, and improve our economy by moving it more towards a "laissez faire" economic model. Something he might be familiar with having an education in economics from one of the worlds best schools for that stuff.

  202. This is stuff that matters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    /. has really turned into a shitbucket!

  203. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you are doing well, vote for Hillary. She will continue on and expand on current policies. Those who aren't doing well will vote for Trump. He is calling out the current system for the destructive effects it has had on the economy and thus the nation.

    This is why Trump will win in a landslide.

  204. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it is a common mistake to think that educated people make good decisions in politics
    most german academics didn't leave or protest in the 1930s
    or re read halberstams best and brightest; the smartest people in the country brought us vietnam, because the smartest people lacked ethics and moral

    or you have smart people who are deformed: i work with a smart guy, a programmer, who was brought up in the soviet union
    as a result, he is sort of deformed; he supports libertarians because he can't understand that gov't can be part of the solution

  205. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The spineless republicans that support him have been waiting and hoping for him to change his message since he became the nominee. Instead he spend his nights proving to the world that he is a thin-skinned sexist liar. That's your candidate: too unstable to do what even his moronic fans understand he has to do.

  206. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >I don't live in your country, but feel entitled, and even obligated, to tell you how the political system works in your country.

    This is why the internet hates Australians.

  207. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "They are at one of the best universities on the planet: Harvard."

    I came here to laugh at you.

  208. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Media helped Trump rise because they thought he would be a trojan horse to destroy Republican party and the only possible opponent who Hillary could actually beat. That is turning out to be a very dangerous gamble.

  209. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly. Winner of every election in decades is "None of the Above" - that is the true voice of democracy.

  210. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This sums it up pretty well...

    https://www.fff.org/2016/06/07/powerful-government-weak-nation/

  211. taxes are a red herring by cinnamon+colbert · · Score: 1

    trump supporters - I know most of you, no the vast majority are neither stupid nor racist
    yet whenever we point out trumnp flaws, the answer is always hillary !! benghazi !!!
    how about addressing trumps issues for once ?

    1) look at how he was unable, totally unable to resist clintons needling him in the debate and his ballistics wierdness on ms universe
    is he gonna go ballistic if putin dumps on him ? is that really what you want next to the nuclear button ?

    2) Trump lies constantly (I really shouldn't have to provide a url for this), he is a sleaze who stiffs small businessmen (a) and he is a con artist (a)

    3) he draws the support of the small number of people who are crazy (c) or racist (read alt ride blogs)

    4) his policies are stupid: there are fewer coal jobs cause of *technology* (same amt of coal today, fewer workers); the oil companies didn't bid on gulf cause fracking is cheaper; 20 years ago, trade and offshoring were issues; today the issue is robots and automation

    5) he is really gonna round up 11 (no, not 20) million illegals ? what if all the us born kids file lawsuits demanding to stay and demanding care as orphans ? can you imagine the clusterf ? mass deportation - the lawyers employment act

    6) his economic plans, to the extent he has any, are huge tax cuts for the rich
    do you like national parks ? the FDA ? the nih, NTSB, ? they are in for huge cuts

    7) as pointed out in ny times editorial, his infrastructure program proposal is based on double dip accounting, it is a stupid proposal

    8) virtually every GOP economist who served with bush I, bush II, mccain or romney thinks trump is stupid
    nearly every one

    9) you all seem to distrust the mainstream media, but far as i can tell, benghazi and vince foster are gop delusions; no there there
    okay, the email thing was stupid, but i bet dollars to donuts that if a gop person did the same, the right wing meme would be, the gov't classifies way to much stuff ,mainly to hide govt errors !! and i bet you can probably find wall str journal or national review articles to that effect !!

    10) when ever he looses, he whines. is that a winner ? is that really what you want as commander in chief ?

    11) trashing the constitution and banning muslims (who are, this is true, *one percent us population*!!) ain't gonna help terrorism (why don't we ban ex soldiers - after all, T McVeigh ???)
    Terrorism is either quasi state actors (ISIL) which requires stronger democratic states , or lone wolf teen guys - and teenage males are always with us and some are wierd; i bet if you track killings by teen age men, it is constant, what changes is their motivation whih is solely driven by wht they read in the news; if terror is big in the news, the teenager fantasizes about terror; if going postal is big, he fantasizes about terror
    answer is jobs
    a
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06...

    Trump U targets grieving army war widow:
    The sales pitches seeking to separate Cheryl Lankford from her money began during the recession as she struggled to get back on her feet after the death of her husband, an American soldier serving in Iraq.
    Two of them were from companies that have boasted the Trump name.
    One was Trump University, the real estate sales seminar that Donald J. Trump promoted as a way for average people to profit from opportunities in the housing market. Ms. Lankford said she spent $35,000 from an Army insurance payment to learn Mr. Trump’s secrets.

    also this one
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06...
    and
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08...

    b

    1. Re:taxes are a red herring by William+Baric · · Score: 1

      I'll answer your points.

      1) The best example of how Trump would act is how Sarkozy acted in France when he was president. Both have pretty much the same big mouth narcissistic personality. So what did Sarkozy did? Well, apart from partying, nothing. And that was the best thing that happened to France.

      Will Putin dump on him? I don't see why he would. Trump is a fool, but Putin is not. Putin made some serious mistakes, but he is a great politician nonetheless.

      On a side not, this new McCarthyism from the left is really, really stupid. Obama restarted the cold war, and this has to stop. You talk about the nuclear button, well I think Clinton should stay away as far as possible from it because she is the one who is the warmonger.

      2) All politicians lie constantly. It's sad, but democracy in the West is virtually dead.

      3) And Clinton draw support from feminists using the #killallmen hashtag and BLM members who chant, "What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now!". Who support a candidate does not indicate what this candidate is.

      4) You are confusing rhetoric with policy. Trump has no real policy. He'll just let the country run without interfering much. On the other hand, Clinton wants to be seen as the women who will fight for "social justice". And to me, this is not just a stupid policy, this is a dangerous policy. It will make interracial relations even worse than it is now. Pandering to a group of people by making them believe they are victims of the evil white man is the best way to destroy a society.

      5) No, he won't, that's just rhetoric for a group of stupid people, the same way Clinton uses rhetoric for her own group of stupid people.

      6) He has no real plan. He is not an ideologue. Again, he will just let the country run itself.

      7) Same as point 6.

      8) Trump is anti-establishment. Of course all politicians hate him. Why is that a bad thing?

      9) Yes, Benghazi and the email server things are dumb. But the sad truth is that ordinary people can't understand real political issues and they can't discuss things like moral or social principles. People vote on image, not on ideas. Just look at yourself and the argument you used against Trump. All your points are as insignificant as Benghazi and the email server.

      10) What kind of stupid argument is that? You should not vote based on how someone looks, but on how the country will be affected by his or her presidency. Again, Trump is a narcissist who will let the country run itself, Clinton is an ideologue who will continue the same policy as Obama. She will continue his warmongering and his "social justice" policies.

      11) If you want to see the effect of Muslim immigration, look at Europe. Civil unrest is growing and their society is on the verge of collapsing. There are more and more districts where the police will be very careful, as the possibility they will be attacked is high.

      What we see in Europe is that when Muslims become more than 5% of the population, they cease to integrate and begin to create their own sub-society. There was recently a poll in France saying that 28% of Muslims in France now consider that Sharia law should be the only law. Another 25% consider that Sharia law is still important, even if they acknowledge that France can have other laws. Even more frightening, 24% of Muslims support the idea that women should wear the burqa. Basically, there is between one and two million Muslims in France who are extremists, and that number is growing rapidly.

      As the US has only 1% of Muslims, Americans just don't see the effect yet. But Islam is the biggest threat to the West. Oh, and by the way, I'm an atheist.

      --

      You're like most people. You based your opinion on image and feelings. You try to attack Trump based on his personality. But his personality is irrelevant. Your vote should be determined by the effect it will have.

      Trump will let the country run itself. He won't do anything good, but he won't do anything bad either. On the other hand, Clinton

    2. Re:taxes are a red herring by will_die · · Score: 1

      most basically true a few stretching the truth and making up stuff based on available evidence. So how bad does hillary have to be that she is tied or losing?
      If look at the democrat party trump is the clear winner. If either party had some other candidate running that person would be far ahead in the polls and would be a slam dunk.
      so everything there does not matter, each item has a counter item that hilliary has done and in her case we actually have more evidence. hillary even know it, try to find a tv ad from her that pushes her accomplishments, she has spend over $100 million in ad so there should be some.

  212. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hillary is going to whip macho man Trump's gay ass

  213. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Were you okay with Obama? Because when he took the presidency he had a lot less experience in leading anything then Trump currently does. He was a freshman senator after all. What was it, two years as a senator? I mean, you did laugh when Obama came out and said Trump lacked the experience and thought "pot meet kettle", right?

  214. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Appeal to authority.

    Wait, you were playing the game "Which logical fallacy am I using"?

  215. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Newsflash. Japan. Korea. Russia. China. These are countries. Sovereign nations. The US is not obligated to protect them. They can go their own way. Make their own decisions. The US is not the world's "dad" and definitely needs to take a step back. Please fuck off America and take some time to work on your own problems of which there are many. Signed, the rest of the world.

  216. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It scares the crap out of me that the supposedly intelligent left can't seem to question even basic facts put in front of them.

    In case you care - I have lived abroad for years, have had many passports, don't live in my mother's basement, and graduated college.

    I often have to defend trump because you idiots (media, people, and dems) constantly throw out charges about shit he didn't say.

    At the same time, I'm not voting for him.

    But it's ludicrous to think of yourselves as so fucking smart when most of you don't even research the shit you're attacking him with. THATs what everyone is angry about and you are half the reason people are voting for the fuck it option - they are voting against your pretentious bullshit.

  217. Re:Whoopty Doo by Powercntrl · · Score: 2

    One thing is for sure, it has nothing to do with intelligence.

    Intelligence is backing up your political views with facts, sound logic, and reason. Gary Johnson, for example, agrees with the science of climate change, but considers protecting business interests to be a higher priority than the environment. You may disagree with that position from a moral perspective (personally, I do), but his logic is undeniable.

    Donald Trump thinks climate change is a Chinese conspiracy to harm our economy. Many of Donald Trump's positions are based on superstitions, incorrect assumptions, and irrational fears. Sorry, but it's the textbook definition of lacking intelligence, if you can't see why supporting such a candidate is indicative of suffering from idiocy.

    --

    ---
    DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
  218. Keep on shilling! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot, shills for the North American Social Democrat Party since 1997.

  219. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clinton would be a fucking weak candidate on any other occasion

    Clinton would be a fucking weak candidate on any occasion. If the Democrats had held a real primary and let the best candidate win they wouldn't have a problem beating Trump.

  220. so Trump is part of mitts 47% ? by cinnamon+colbert · · Score: 1

    he lost (lost) a billion dollars and you and i are paying for it
    super moocher

  221. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tax returns wouldn't show that anyway. That's not how it works.

    They likely show he hasn't paid taxes because he operates highly leveraged real estate, and can write off hundreds of millions for the next 40 years.

    This is perfectly legal, but bad optics when he's trying to court Sanders supporters. I wouldn't be surprised if he released them before the election, in a big media event.

  222. Re:Whoopty Doo by Raenex · · Score: 1

    It scares the crap out of me that here on Slashdot, a site with presumably smart people like engineers and programmers, so many people are defending and rooting for Donald Trump.

    Maybe because they're tired of politically correct bullshit like Black Lives Matter and open borders.

    Either Slashdot is not as intelligent as I thought, or it is more right-wing than I thought, which of course is not exclusive.

    Are you going to defend Clinton? Because the choice is between a corrupt, establishment politician vs a corrupt businessman. The only reason I'm leaning Trump is because he's willing to be politically incorrect.

  223. This. Trump invested very stupidly. by localroger · · Score: 1

    Trump spent way too much building the Taj Mahal because everything had to be "the best" for his ego, and then when he was already overextended he also bought the Plaza Hotel in NYC. At the time this was all Trump's personal dealings, not public, and he personally guaranteed all the loans. 1995 was the year he took his casinos public to deflect some of the losses to the investors, but he couldn't cover it all. The reason it all went south was that a few years before Mississippi legalized gambling, and quickly became the preferred destination for everyone who lived south of the Carolinas. All the AC casinos took a hit from the new competition, but Trump was far too overextended to handle the contraction.

    --
    Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
  224. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The funny part is, you probably don't know what Bernie's platform was.

    It's not actually remarkably different than what is in existence right now...

  225. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > former US allies dropping out of NATO
    Source please.. you are just spreading FUD.

  226. Re:Whoopty Doo by um...+Lucas · · Score: 1

    I'll play:

    >Hillary is the candidate proposing to launch physical wars against cyber-attackers, the biggest two of which are big nuclear powers.

    Should cyber warfare be governed by different rules? Do you imagine Russia's response would be to hackers in Uzbekistan releasing internal Kremlin emails to the world would be anything less than forceful? Or, if it were taken a step further, if the attack was leveled against their voting apparatus itself, to produce an outcome that the Uzbeks preferred? Do you think that Russia would say "well, it's only a cyber attack, we'll keep the gloves on"?

    > Trump is the candidate who wants the US to stop being Team America: World Police.

    It's hardly clear that this is the fact. Yes, he speaks of stepping back from NATO, but then, not really. But he certainly advocates a foreign policy that is based on "we're strongest, you do what we want", which will mean we'll need force projection just as much, if not more, than we do currently. He's spoken of waging all out war on Islamic Extremists, how exactly will he do that with the military brought back within our national boundaries?

    > The candidate with then 20 years of bad political experience is the one who wants to perpetuate the current failed policies that have brought the US to the brink of bankruptcy and an internal race war.

    That is Trumps true "advantage" over clinton, having had a career where his decisions were never open to outside scrutiny. That doesn't mean he has any more insight, or would not have embarked on the same failed policies, it just means that his vote is not a part of the public record.

    But then... you go on to bring out two specific examples. Brink of bankruptcy and racial tensions.

    First, we're hardly at the "brink of bankruptcy" - yes we have amassed a huge debt, but that's a debt that could be addressed in time if we had the willingness to do so. Instead, the Right specifically complains about debt for decades now, and as a "solution" rolls out unfunded tax cuts as their proposed solution. That's like you household complaining about its debt and your parents saying "you know, the solution to this is we should our bosses to reduce our pay". Meanwhile, your newest candidate has shown his economic prowess by repeatedly driving his companies into bankruptcy. Wow. If, as you think, we're already at the brink, how can you think putting someone in charge who has a repeated history of making huge gambles that blow up in his face? A self proclaimed "king of debt", who has said his intention would be to boost our countries borrowings while interest rates are so low?

    As for racial tensions - again a laughable accusation. Trump has been the one stoking racial tensions, for decades now. From housing discrimination, to advocating for the death penalty for the Central Park Five (who turned out to be innocent), to questioning the Presidents birth place, religion, etc, to launching his campaign claiming that Mexicans are rapists, and espousing an ideology that has reawakened racial sentiment to the point that the Grand Wizard of the KKK has decided to relaunch his political career. So, again, WOW.

    > She's also accused of murdering 50 people, committing treason with state secrets, attacking several women her husband is accused of raping, and covering up health problems that may kill her during her first term, and money laundering and pay-for-play through the Clinton Foundation.

    The thing is, anyone can level an accusation. In fact Trump is due in court shortly over a rather heinous accusation, himself. I'll leave you to look it up yourself.

    And Treason requires intent, which there is none. Or rather her intend wasn't in betraying country, but in trying to keep political opponents at bay. It was certainly boneheaded and wrong, but not an attempt to overthrow the government. Meanwhile, while the GOP hounds her for 30,000 missing emails, they remain silent on the literally millions of emails that went missing from the Bush administration, many mem

  227. Re:Whoopty Doo by qaz123 · · Score: 1

    Hillary said US should use 'military response' to fight cyberattacks
    "As President, I will make it clear that the United States will treat cyberattacks just like any other attack. We will be ready with serious political, economic, and military responses"
    https://www.techdirt.com/artic...
    And this was after blaming Russia for the hacks

  228. Nothing to lose? by s.petry · · Score: 0

    According to attorneys I checked with, yes I checked because the media is so full of lies, you lose ALL bargaining power with the IRS once you disclose your taxes.

    You may have nothing to lose, and the average Joe may have nothing to lose, but Billions of dollars is something else entirely. I'd also argue that due to Trump having properties and revenue for multiple separate businesses from literally all over the world his taxes are much more complex than say Gates and his foundation, which is 2 business units.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:Nothing to lose? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      According to attorneys I checked with,

      Watching Better Call Saul is not the same as actually checking with an attorney.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Nothing to lose? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's dubious that you actually consulted with attorneys about this and, if you did, were they actually tax attorneys? In any case, the IRS will only bargain with you if you're basically completely unable to pay and are on the verge of either going bankrupt, or being thrown in prison for tax evasion. They would rather get something than nothing if you provably can't pay. I assume the logic on not releasing because it would hurt your bargaining power is because it would be an embarrassment to the IRS to make a deal with you if it was publicly known what you got away with. So, in order for Trump to not be releasing because he'd lose bargaining power, he would have to know that he owes the IRS an embarrassingly large amount of money that he can't pay back because he doesn't have the money or the assets.

  229. Clinton Foundation numbers by bradley13 · · Score: 1, Informative

    Of course it shields assets. Why do you think it exists? Hillary's speech fees are paid to the foundation - this is public knowedlge. The foundation is nonprofit, this is on record. The reason for doing this is obvious: non-profits have tax advantages: she gets to keep more of her money, it's just kept in the nonprofit.

    I'm not saying this is illegal - unfortunately, it is legal. It is a common way for rich people to avoid taxes.

    As for whether or not the Clinton Foundation is "really" nonprofit, consider: A really good nonprofit that is genuinely supporting a cause puts somewhere between 75% and 90% of its income into whatever cause it supports. The Clinton Foundation has a rather different record. For example, in 2015 the New York Post published numbers from 2013 showing that they foundation spend $9 million (out of a budget of $140 million) on charity, Many times that amount when to payroll, employee benefits, travel and other expenses. You can find similar information from other sources, covering other years.

    The Clinton Foundation is a legal organization, doing legal things. It's primary purpose is to provide a way for the Clintons to shield their money from taxes, and to provide salaries to their cronies. This kind of loophole exists, because taxes are for the little people.

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    1. Re:Clinton Foundation numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, not out of a budget of $140 million. Out of donations and pledges of $140 million. No foundation spends anywhere closes to 100% of their pledges on a given year.

      Also none of the Clintons are on the payroll, so I do not know how exactly is that she's getting to "keep more of the money" if it is being spend and none is coming back to her.

      Trump on the other hand diverted $258,000 given to the foundation to pay for things tied to Trump's businesses.

      However there is one clear difference between the CF and TF foundation, The CF has made donations to worthy, well known charitable causes such as curing AIDS, the TF cannot come with a single example of that.

    2. Re:Clinton Foundation numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read some facts before speculating along your conspiracy theories. https://www.clintonfoundation.org/about/annual-financial-reports

      Feel free to point us to the same disclosures from its critics.

    3. Re:Clinton Foundation numbers by kqs · · Score: 5, Informative

      A really good nonprofit that is genuinely supporting a cause puts somewhere between 75% and 90% of its income into whatever cause it supports. The Clinton Foundation has a rather different record. For example, in 2015 the New York Post published numbers from 2013 showing that they foundation spend $9 million (out of a budget of $140 million) on charity,

      You know that that is misleading to the point of lying, right? The Clinton Foundation doesn't give much money to other charities, true. Instead it runs it's own charitable programs, and percentage-wise spends less on payroll and administrative employee expenses than most charities. I don't know if the CF is a wonderful charity or not, but it is spending money better than other charities. It's been under constant scrutiny by anti-Clinton folks for years; if they were shielding assets for the Clintons it would have come out. Instead, people just repeat the same lies as you did

      In a sense, it does lower the Clinton's taxes, in the way that donating to any charity reduces your taxes. It also means that that money is no longer theirs, which is why most people don't give 10% of their income to charity. But nobody has demonstrated that the Clintons are particularly using the CF money on themselves. Maybe they are and nobody has found the evidence (unlike with Trump's foundation). Or maybe you have evidence that the rest of the world doesn't?

    4. Re:Clinton Foundation numbers by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 4, Informative

      I have a very hard time finding the evidence for your conclusion based on any sort of independent, non-partisan, non-cherry-picked evaluations:
      Four Star, 93%+ rating from Charity Navigator https://www.charitynavigator.o...
      Charity Watch: A Rating, 88% of funds go to programs not administrative costs: https://www.charitywatch.org/r...

      The actual evidence seems to indicate that the vast majority of the money that goes to the Clinton foundation actually goes to what it's ostensibly for - charitable causes themselves. That's almost the exact opposite of a "slush fund" or a way to hide money, because they're not getting anything back out of it in any appreciable form. 12%? They'd keep more of the money if they paid standard taxes with no deductions!

    5. Re:Clinton Foundation numbers by CaptainLard · · Score: 1

      : A really good nonprofit that is genuinely supporting a cause puts somewhere between 75% and 90% of its income into whatever cause it supports.

      And the Clinton foundation rings up at ...89%! Pretty damn good according to your scale. Maybe next time read more than a tweet to understand a story...or continue just reading the tweets and shuffle them neatly into your simplistic and pre-determined world view. Bunch of words coming everyone who's dug in, feel free to tune out...

      Asked for backup, the CARLY for America super PAC noted that the Clinton Foundation’s latest IRS Form 990 shows total revenue of nearly $149 million in 2013, and total charitable grant disbursements of nearly $9 million (see page 10). That comes to roughly 6 percent of the budget going to grants. And besides those grants, the super PAC said, “there really isn’t anything that can be categorized as charitable.”
      That just isn’t so. The Clinton Foundation does most of its charitable work itself.
      Katherina Rosqueta, the founding executive director of the Center for High Impact Philanthropy at the University of Pennsylvania, described the Clinton Foundation as an “operating foundation.”
      “There is an important distinction between an operating foundation vs. a non-operating foundation,” Rosqueta told us via email. “An operating foundation implements programs so money it raises is not designed to be used exclusively for grant-making purposes. When most people hear ‘foundation’, they think exclusively of a grant-making entity. In either case, the key is to understand how well the foundation uses money — whether to implement programs or to grant out to nonprofits — [to achieve] the intended social impact (e.g., improving education, creating livelihoods, improving health, etc.).”

      http://www.factcheck.org/2015/...

    6. Re:Clinton Foundation numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Christ forbid that someone try to prevent an HIV outbreak in Africa. The Clinton Foundation should be shut down for fucking helping people.

      Go wank off to your fascist in private, you moron.

    7. Re:Clinton Foundation numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's nothing wrong with having your debts paid to charity. After all, there's little difference between being paid $100 and then donating that money to charity, and just having the payor donate that money to the same charity. In either case the payee doesn't have to pay taxes on it.

      Trump and Clinton have both had people make donations to their foundations as payment for services -- there's nothing wrong (or even questionable) about it. The problem is when you use that charity for personal enrichment. For example, if you use your charity to buy things (like pictures of yourself) for your own use, that's when it's illegal. Similarly, if you make political campaign contributions with your charity, that's also illegal.

      I've never heard any accusations that the Clinton Foundation has spent a single penny to buy things for the Clintons or to make campaign contributions. OTOH, Trump uses his foundation as a personal slush fund for the purposes of tax evasion.

      dom

    8. Re:Clinton Foundation numbers by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Not exactly an unbiased source itself. It's run by a newspaper; which way do most newspapers lean?

      One sample:
      http://www.newsbusters.org/blo...

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    9. Re:Clinton Foundation numbers by kqs · · Score: 1

      Any reputable fact checking organization (like Politifact) shows their work and their sources. I don't always agree with Politifact's overall rating, but they always explain their reasoning, and their facts are meticulously accurate. If the quoted person gets back to them with their sources, Politifact will update the article with the new information and change the rating based on the new information.

      I've not seen any convincing evidence that reputable fact checking organizations have a liberal bias. I've seen several articles which cherry-pick to "prove" bias, but nothing by a thorough third-party.

      So far this election cycle, Trump has several times denied saying things after he was recorded saying them (and those recordings were already widely available). When news organizations point this out, it is decried as proof of liberal bias. Stephen Colbert's well-known quote about bias comes to mind.

    10. Re:Clinton Foundation numbers by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Trouble is there are so many slanted "Fact checks" that at this point they have to earn my trust; they don't get it just for claiming to do so.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    11. Re:Clinton Foundation numbers by kqs · · Score: 2

      Yeah, I've noticed that rightwing pundits have recently (mostly after the debate) started a "fact-checkers are all evil and controlled by the liberals" campaign. I had hoped that people would recognize it for what it is, but I guess not. So no worries: you just go along believing what your Political Overlords want you to believe, without needing those pesky facts to get in the way.

      I'm going to guess that you were very suspicious about Obama's country of birth and his role in Benghazi, until the 2014 elections made him a lame duck so your Political Overlords needed to shift focus.

      So now you are suspicious about Hillary's truthfulness and her role in Benghazi. You probably don't remember when your priorities changed, but you can track it easily enough by looking at Fox's news story history.

      You were insanely upset that Obama was growing the deficit (even though the deficit dropped every year he was in office), but no longer much care about it since Trump's proposals will do far worse to it. But now your vague suspicion about fact-checkers has blossomed into full blown distrust and hatred, right on cue.

      Yay, propoganda works!

    12. Re:Clinton Foundation numbers by Reziac · · Score: 1

      "Yay, propoganda works!"

      Apparently so. /irony

      I stopped blindly trusting fact-checkers a long time ago; I don't care whose it is. Good as another point of reference, but there's no rule that says their reporting has to be any more accurate than anyone else's, especially now that some have a specific "debunk the other side" agenda... some more obviously than others.

      And at this point it's mostly a curiosity, because it no longer matters, but I don't really have a firm opinion on BO's country of birth. However, the released birth certificate scan-image had definitely been edited; anyone with reasonable experience at same could see it.

      I don't know if he had anything to do with Bengazi, but Hillary certainly did, per what documents I've seen.

      And for the record, I never watch Fox News.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  230. Re:Whoopty Doo by rfengr · · Score: 1

    Well you will be "rich" under Clinton.

  231. Re: Whoopty Doo by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2

    Marxism, obviously.

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  232. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Politics has little to do with intelligence. In fact, it's basically the opposite of intelligence. It's sheer emotion. No one cares what anyone's platform policies would be. They've never followed that once in office anyways. It used to be blue vs red where they were pretty evenly matched. This time it's evil vs possibly worse evil, and no one knows which candidate is the "worse evil".

    Some people would like to see the whole system come crashing down and be replaced with something better. These people have supported "whoever isn't Hillary". They will be disappointed however, because the president doesn't have the power to depose congress, which is the only way anything would change. The inertia of government is too great.

  233. How about defending truth? by s.petry · · Score: 1, Insightful

    TFA is not a Trump or Hillary issue, it's an issue of truth and the complete loss of Journalism in the USA. I don't read or watch any "news" intentionally today because it has become pure propaganda. The same shit that we used to make fun of the Pravda for when I was a kid is on open display in the US today. Instead of being pissed off about being openly manipulated, plenty of people support the propaganda.

    Looking at the majority of posts here, very few are suggesting that media has become a drastic issue. Media has been an issue, if you want an eye opener go read some Ann Coulter ("Guilty" is a good one) and validate the references and sources she lists in her books. Dollars to donuts trolls will probably comment negatively about Ann Coulter in response instead of addressing points she lays out factually in her books.

    Thankfully, enough people have been exposed to the game that propaganda is having the opposite effect. It may not be enough people, and it may not have been soon enough, but I have hope. Many people I know have done the same thing I did and started ignoring "media" and reading sources and listening to speakers directly. Media trustworthiness is rightly at an all time low in the US, lower than either Presidential candidate. Issues are not discussed, it's all personal attack all the time. It is so obviously one sided that you should immediately see which side the media is favoring. That more than anything should be considered in your selection of a Candidate.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:How about defending truth? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      if you want an eye opener go read some Ann Coulter

      The prosecution rests.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:How about defending truth? by Gussington · · Score: 1

      It is so obviously one sided that you should immediately see which side the media is favoring.

      The one that pays tax?

  234. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Vote for Trump = Proves you're an idiot that doesn't give a shit about anything except power and notoriety
    Vote for Hillary = Affirmation that the other choice is far worse than Hillary

  235. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First she will have to climb some stairs to get into the ring...

  236. Re:Whoopty Doo by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    That's exactly my view of this whole insane debacle.

    Hillary is terrible, terrible candidate...but Trump is worse than her by several orders of magnitude.

    Like you, I can't even understand why anyone has to ponder this, or why there are any "undecided" voters. I mean, WTF??

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  237. Re:Whoopty Doo by yithar7153 · · Score: 1

    I dislike both of them, but if I have to pick, I pick corrupt politics/status quo president. I did vote for Bernie not Clinton to be nominated for president, but for some reason more people voted Clinton.

  238. The absolute best thing about president Trump... by zerofoo · · Score: 1

    is that his administration will succeed in burning BOTH the GOP and Democratic parties to the ground.

    Neither party deserves to survive this election cycle.

  239. Re: Whoopty Doo by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Bernie had a platform and a history. They don't match. He is a _red_.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  240. Re:Whoopty Doo by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So how is he going to get things done and "Make America Great Again"

    Silly voter, he's just going to do it. Trust him, he has a secret plan. Remember, he knows more about ISIS than the generals (he said so himself!). And he has "the best temperament", the "best memory", and "has the best words". Those are all direct quotes so you know they're true!

    When he gets elected we'll wake up the next day and the streets will be clean, kids will say "Sir" and "Ma'am", and Leave It To Beaver will be back on the TV machine. Black people will know their place again, atheists will once again be persecuted as is proper, and mothers will go back to the kitchens where they'll spend all day cooking tasty, nutritious food for the whole family again. It'll be glorious!

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  241. Re: Whoopty Doo by amiga3D · · Score: 2

    His returns show the facts and figures of his business. From there it's simple to deduce his net worth. Hell, they've almost managed it without his returns. Actual documents will simply tweak the figures and give his opponents a chance to wave actual numbers in public.

  242. Re:Whoopty Doo by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Wow.

    The first line of this post is 'you are not as intelligent as you think you are'

    The second line is 'I'm a blithering moron' para ('I'm an old school socialist').

    What's the key flaw in socialism? You should be able to answer...(unhealthy concentration of power).

    What do you think of capitalists that don't know the flaws in their own political philosophy? (externalities, regulatory capture) That is you!

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  243. Re:Whoopty Doo by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Same rules. If you attack someone you simply hope (for political reasons) attacked you, you are a moron.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  244. Re:Whoopty Doo by fleabay · · Score: 1

    Arguably, he is.

  245. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just curious, how do you think Trump would have responded in Johnson's place?

    The beauty of Trump's style is that he doesn't have to know anything. Ask him about Aleppo, Pyongyang, Santa Claus, or Ishkabibble, and he'll answer with some version of, "It's terrible. Unbelieveably bad. Everyone knows it's bad. It's Hillary and Obama's idiotic, corrupt policies that brought us to this sad state. I'm smart. I'll have us winning in Ishkabibble so fast you won't believe it."

  246. Re: Whoopty Doo by raind · · Score: 0

    Hillary doesn't owe Putin money , nor would she accept it from him.

    --
    Get up!
  247. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, Harvard is literally the breeding ground for the Democratic elite. Notice I didn't say liberal. If you go to Harvard, political decisions will never affect you anyways, you are above the law, because you are obscenely wealthy.

  248. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It scares the crap out of me that here on Slashdot, a site with presumably smart people like engineers and programmers, so many people are defending and rooting for Donald Trump.

    That isn't my experience. People are in opposition to what they perceive as the bigger evil and Trump would face such massive opposition that his office would be effectively neutered.

    Either Slashdot is not as intelligent as I thought, or it is more right-wing than I thought, which of course is not exclusive.

    A sociopath who who wants to invade Iran while proposing unfettered muslim immigration has zero support from genuine liberals.

  249. Re: Whoopty Doo by ultranova · · Score: 1

    His entire world view is based on either pure fantasy, or on making productive people slaves to non-productive people and calling that a virtue.

    If only there was an economic system where the workers get to keep the fruits of their labours...

    --

    Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  250. There is wanting reform and being dumb by aepervius · · Score: 1

    I am wanting a few reform in the economic and politic current environment, but wanting reform does not mean putting a gun to your figurative head and pulling the trigger. I want reform with a good candidate, and doing a protest vote with an utterly disturbing populist candidate like trump is then being an utter imbecile.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  251. Re:Whoopty Doo by Lisandro · · Score: 1

    Have you thought about what might be wrong with your world view that prevents your beliefs from matching up with objective reality?

    Yes. I usually regarded Americans as more intelligent than this. Maybe i'm dead wrong.

  252. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look at the size of Trump's crowds vs Clinton's crowds... please explain How the MSM keeps telling us that Clinton has around 50% of the vote in the polls...

  253. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are other options too.

  254. Re:Whoopty Doo by Kohath · · Score: 2

    What are people supposed to do when the other candidate declares them "enemies"? Flawed as he is, if Trump is your only hope to avoid being treated like an enemy by your country's government, why wouldn't you support him?

  255. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Japan. Korea. Russia. China. These are countries. Sovereign nations.

    Yeah! Countries that have never had over 70 years of relative peace! Thanks to the good old USA! Nobody will ever acknowledge just how brutal you gotta be to keep that peace. McCarthur and Patton were right! We should have finished the job! But, by then, war had already become big business.

    But you're right. With two big oceans on either side, we should let the *rest of the world* blow itself up, because that is exactly what it will do without the US hammer ready to drop down on their ass to make them sit down and STFU! But, hey, money...

  256. So what? Its legal. by JustNiz · · Score: 2

    "it could have allowed him to legally avoid paying any federal income taxes for up to 18 years..."

    Note the use of the word "Legally".
    If you don't like what he did, change the law, don;t bitch about him following it. There are plenty of other corps (such as Apple) doing similar things.

    Besides just that fact that what Trump did is actually legal would automatically make it fuck load better than MANY things Clinton and her foundation has done/is doing.

    1. Re:So what? Its legal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't like what he did, change the law, don;t bitch about him following it.

      This was my immediate thought when a coworker first mentioned this stuff to me this morning. If he did nothing illegal, then it's essentially a "fault" of the law (and arguably, "we the people" share that fault). We can sit around not liking it all we want. We can call it morally wrong if it falls outside of our moral structure. We can even attempt to change the laws (I know, I know).

      If he broke the law, string him up (as long as Hillary is strung up with him). If he didn't, then well... He used our laws to his benefit. We all do this when applicable.

    2. Re:So what? Its legal. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Either he is a terrible businessman who somehow lost nearly a billion dollars running a casino, or he did it deliberately for the tax dodge and threw the employers of the casino under the bus.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:So what? Its legal. by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      again.... its LEGAL.
      Also thats how MOST big businesses work these days. Look at Apple.
      Don't like it? vote to change the law.

    4. Re:So what? Its legal. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It might not be legal if it was deliberate.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:So what? Its legal. by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      in the eyes of the law Intent is not a factor, in guilt or innocence, unless you're Hillary Clinton.

    6. Re:So what? Its legal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in the eyes of the law Intent is not a factor

      Actually, in a lot of law intent is a factor. In any case, this sounds like a perfectly legal though, crappy side-effect, of a well-intentioned law. It's little different than debt buying. I don't get the logic, though, of "don't bitch" about a law you'd like to change or be made because stuff is currently legal. That's precisely why we bitch about Trump and Apple. It's also a large reason we are unlikely to vote for Trump, since he's unlikely to change the law that so benefits him unless he's actually willing to put something above money.

      Oh, and yes, Clinton is no different in that respect. Which is why we bitch even more. It's very unlikely the law will be changed any time soon because businesses fund campaigns for businessmen to be elected and these politicians have little interest in anything that'd upset their own holdings or those of their contributors. It's why people were so behind Bernie, even though he alone could do very little and for all I know he would be just as bad--but at least his contributors would have been more "of the people" and maybe he'd actually listen to them.

      But, yea, keep on acting like given a choice between two shitty candidates, we might choose the one that doesn't rub the shit in our faces.

    7. Re:So what? Its legal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh. Blowback's a bitch.

    8. Re:So what? Its legal. by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      > Actually, in a lot of law intent is a factor.

      A factor in sentencing only. Its not a factor in deciding if you broke the law.

    9. Re:So what? Its legal. by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      Wrong, you don't know shit about law.

    10. Re:So what? Its legal. by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      well its good to know that next time I do something illegal I can just tell the cop/judge that I didn't mean to and he has to let me off.

    11. Re:So what? Its legal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you're saying that an accident, self-defense, negligent homicide, and murder are all the same thing?

    12. Re:So what? Its legal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://nationalparalegal.edu/public_documents/courseware_asp_files/criminalLaw/basicElements/CommonLawMensRea.asp

    13. Re:So what? Its legal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody ever claimed it was illegal to not pay taxes, just that it makes him a hypocrite. He's out there bitching about all the freeloaders (Apple, immigrants, welfare queens, etc.), when he's one of the biggest of them all!

      He had the balls to complain about Obama only paying a 20% tax rate when he was paying 0%. And given that he's a billionaire, he's weasling out of more taxes in a single year than I would likely pay in a lifetime!

      Of course, that's not to say that it's all actually legal. We already know that he uses his personal foundation to cheat on his taxes (self-dealing, making political contributions), so I think it's safe to assume there's plenty more cheating that either he's hiding from us (by not releasing his tax returns) or that we just haven't found yet.

      dom

    14. Re:So what? Its legal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or it could have been blatantly illegal and light thrown on it would expose it. The loss taken was greater than his assets ever were. This implies some creativity in representation. The guy is hiding his tax information. He plays games with his tax information. He claimed he would release his tax information if Obama would come up with proof of natural citizenship. Obama did, Trump didn't. He dangles his info to bait Clinton as well. Clearly Trump will avoid releasing his tax information. Gee it's just tax filings. The fact Trump is avoiding the release is damning in itself.

  257. Re: Whoopty Doo by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

    No, I'm using it correctly in every sense. I'm using it to refer both to Marx's own ideas, and to the ideas of the people that call themselves Marxists because their philosophy is rooted in his ideas.

    Come back after you've read Capital yourself, and the archives of the Frankfurt School. Then we can talk.

    --
    See that "Preview" button?
  258. Re: Whoopty Doo by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

    Oh, my mistake. I was unaware that only questions about the US presidency were allowed on this site.

    Or, alternatively, your response is the exact reason why the question is relevant.

    Thirdly, you don't need a degree in biology to answer a very straightforward question.

    --
    If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  259. Re: Whoopty Doo by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

    Thank you for your reply. I've asked that question on /. before, and you are the first person who has responded with anything resembling an actual answer to the question.

    --
    If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  260. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yet all of the people who ...

    You forgot to say who those people supposedly are. Better get an education, sunshine.

  261. Re:Whoopty Doo by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

    He didn't write it but he did sign it.

    He signed it so he would get re-elected.

    --
    If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  262. Re: Whoopty Doo by Cederic · · Score: 1

    Oh, my mistake. I was unaware that only questions about the US presidency were allowed on this site.

    In a discussion about Donald Trump's knowledge, the context is the fucking US presidency.

    Or, alternatively, your response is the exact reason why the question is relevant.

    Thirdly, you don't need a degree in biology to answer a very straightforward question.

    I'm not sure a degree in biology would help know the scientific name for any chicken, let alone how to differentiate between several hundred fucking breeds.

    Face it, you asked a stupid question and you got a more dignified answer than you deserved. Just what the fuck is your point, because it's completely passing me by.

  263. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good joke. Look up the uranium deal.

  264. Re:Scary times ahead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really? He 'built his own company from the ground up'? Where have you been, poor soul?

    Trump is an affirmation of the concept that the best way to make a billion dollars is to start with two billion dollars.

    He got it from his daddy.

    Now, quit praying so hard and think just a little.

    They both suck, they're both dangerous. Trump is a batshit insane demagog whose in it for the lulz. Sometimes life gives you crappy choices and this is one of them. Trump's worse. Hold your nose and vote for pantsuit.

  265. Re: Whoopty Doo by quax · · Score: 1

    Well good for you. Having lived abroad certainly sets you apart from Trump's base.

    Can't really follow your critic though with regards to the attacks. I find the most effective campaign ads are those that use his own words verbatim against him.

    And just for the record, I don't consider myself particularly left.

  266. Almost a billion in losses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bailed out by his dad.

    Who will bail out America when he bankrupts the USA?

    Hillary just as bad though...

  267. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And yet the standard 3rd world kleptocracy with socialist trappings that Clinton represents is what has actually been screwing with the rest of the Americas for the past 40 years.

  268. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clintons neomaccartheyite rhetoric and neocon behavior may lead to a US nuclear war with Russia. She needs to leave that to real warmonger professionals, the establishment Rebublicans. Aside from forcing our puppets to deal with their own detente, where has Trump said anything but bigoted shit? You think he is going to nuke Mexico?

  269. Re:Whoopty Doo by TheReaperD · · Score: 1

    I've come to the conclusion that if Trump wins, we truly deserve him as our president. It doesn't mean I'll enjoy the russian roulette ride though.

    --
    "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
  270. Re:Whoopty Doo by jmac_the_man · · Score: 1

    The Republican investigation found plenty of crimes. You're right about the FBI covering for her.

  271. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What? The media covers up for her constantly, spins stories her way without fail, even prints her campaigns press releases as "News Articles" with a little editing.

    They have allowed themselves to be literally bound by ropes and go only where campaign allows them to go. They have been locked in closets to prevent them from seeing or hearing what she doesn't want to them know.

    Try imagine what would happen if Trump locked the media in a closet while he met with a bunch of rich donors. Do you think it'd go over smoothly and silently? Hell, no!

  272. Re:Whoopty Doo by TheReaperD · · Score: 2

    But, the reality is that if the US government crashes and burns, the whole world feels the pain with Americans getting the brunt of it. The US government does not exist in a protective barrier that we're shielded from. If it explodes, we get hit in the blast.

    --
    "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
  273. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The numbers are against the globalist media. Remember:
    It takes years of honesty to build your reputation, but it only takes one lie to lose it.
    Like a cow at an electric fence: you get jolted once, and you never forget!

    Share your stories of why you stopped trusting the mainstream media.
    Here's mine: I caught CNN lying about Trump in July. In particular, I watched a YouTube cast of a Trump rally (RSBN channel streamed those live), then a few hours later, I saw a CNN anchor say something completely different about what went on there... I went back to re-watch the cast ("was I crazy or what"), then everything clicked into place. "Clinton News Network" it became.

    I suspect many people have experienced something similar.

  274. Outraged, embarrassed by HalAtWork · · Score: 1

    I am outraged that the US is embarrassing itself with the dirtiest race for the presidency ever, with the dirtiest candidates, and the dirtiest discussions surrounding it. The entire US has devolved into forum trolls, including the candidates. Yes, I am outraged. And embarrassed for my country. All of this was here before, but thankfully it has now come into the light and is completely undeniable. I hope others will share in my outrage and embarrassment and demand better for our country, and deny the presidency to both of the parties that have dragged our country down instead of building it up for far too long now.

    We can do much better than this, an ugly race unfit for even the worst tabloids. There is no more diplomacy, no more facts, just rhetoric hyperbole and coverups. It's pathetic.

    1. Re:Outraged, embarrassed by William+Baric · · Score: 1

      It's not just the US, this is the same for pretty much all Western countries.

    2. Re:Outraged, embarrassed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, but the conversation here is clearly focused on the US, in the story and the thread. I'm less knowledgeable about politics outside the US so won't comment on them.

  275. Re:Whoopty Doo by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

    Yes, yes...I'm sure Mr. Trump wants nuclear war...

    Why would Putin want nuclear war? He's getting everything he wants, including land grabs and projection of military force, without it. Would he want the Crimea if it were a radioactive sheet of glass? Of course not.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  276. Re: Whoopty Doo by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Where were you the last decade? The US has been quite good at destabilizing itself without outside help. Increasing inequality between the 0.01% and everyone else, jobs that become more precarious with time, hyper-partisan media, deteriorating value of an education, etc. Trump vs Hillary is just a symptom.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  277. It's a psychology thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump is only there so that we'll feel better voting for Clinton - the lesser of two evils. It's a psychology thing.

  278. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Progressive does NOT automatically equal Democrat.

    No they are far worse. They brought us prohibition and a fucked up tax code.
     

    I still would rather have a corrupt, mean politician as opposed to...

    You are arguing against a straw man caricature you have created of Donald Trump. Assuming and judging his intent as if you know anything about him but are so quick to accept and champion corruption.

    You are their ignorant bitch. pwned like the punk you are.

  279. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In otherwords:

    Can hillary be controlled by congress/courts? If so, then you have faith in the democratic PROCESS.

    Can trump be controlled by congress/courts? If so, you're dreaming.

  280. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hillary has taken corruption to a whole new level upon which we can add reckless endangerment of national security. If elected Hillary will be the first American president to become a billionaire from corruption in office. We'll also be far less free by the time she's done, and probably a one party state.

    It isn't "corrupt" business practices by Trump that bother you but rather ordinary business practices.

  281. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clinton would be a fucking weak candidate on any other occasion, no arguments there. But for Pete's sake, she's running against Trump. Trump. I can't even believe there's a choice to be made here for half the population of the US.

    The GOP will have no one but themselves to blame after loosing this election.

    In case you didn't notice, only the Democratic party was corrupt enough to choose a candidate over the wishes of the people. The GOP didn't choose Trump, Americans did.

  282. Re:Whoopty Doo by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 0

    1.5% of Cubans are below the poverty line. 14.5% of Americans. Cubans have more doctors and dentists per capita than the US, and medical and dental care is free. And all this is despite the US trying to grind them into dust after both a CIA-backed invasion and 2 CIA-funded attempts to kill Castro with the help of the mafia.

    One of the consequences of the trade embargo is the dropping of imports of sugar made from sugar cane. So now we have high-fructose corn syrup, and an obesiyy epidemic. In the end, the embargo harmed more Americans than Cubans. Welcome to yet another example of the law of unintended consequences.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  283. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Eh, my vote would be completely thrown away by voting for either of them. Why should I feel constrained to vote for lizards?

    I'm sick of lizards.

  284. Re: Whoopty Doo by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 0

    That's what happens when you suck up to SJWs. They specialize in dog-whistle politics.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  285. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Proposition in first sentence not self-evident.
    2. Desire for change from establishment politics understood. Belief that electing Trump will produce improvement in situation not understood.
    3. The only drawback to electing Trump is he may bring constitutional government, civil liberty, and rule of law, as we know it, to an end.

  286. Re: Whoopty Doo by Type44Q · · Score: 1

    This 'state of being' that is being pushed by Progressives/Democrats has made me realize that these people don't have good intentions.

    They may be stupid but of course they have good intentions. You, on the other hand, are a complete idiot who believes his/her own line of unreasonable and irrational bullshit. Face it; the above line proves beyond a doubt that you're either retarded or pyscho (likely a combination of each...).

  287. Re: Whoopty Doo by William+Baric · · Score: 1

    You're right, Clinton would instead happily declare war against Russia. She will certainly continue the warmongering policy of Obama.

  288. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gary Johnson [...] his logic is undeniable.

    Ahhh... Gary "it's not illegal, it's undocumented, it just is!" Johnson. If somebody punches him in the face or steals his car, it's not illegal, it's undocumented, it just is! If there is no arguing with his "logic", it is because people this fucking stupid deserve everything that's coming to them.

  289. Re:Whoopty Doo by Lisandro · · Score: 3, Insightful

    For God's sake, have you ever been to Cuba? I have. Twice. Last time i visited i had several offers to trade for my combs, shampoo and ibuprofen.

    There's a good reason people still try to flee the island to Miami in makeshift rafts and not the other way around.

  290. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't get it, eh? Trump is not the GOP, which is why he was the winning candidate.

    You're right but entirely for the wrong reasons. The reason Trump won the candidacy is the Prisoner's Dilemma. Nine other nominees were fighting over the other. Back in September 2015, Trump only had 32% of the vote among Republicans. If everyone polling then at 5% or less had dropped out and not kept going, a lot of people would have shifted to Cruz or Bush or Carson. Instead, very slowly people dropped out and Trump being the front runner kept siphoning off most the votes precisely because each small 1-2% group figured they might as well vote on the presumptive winner. It was only at the very end that there was any sort of concerted effort to consolidate all the non-Trump votes, but by then it was too late.

    Everything Trump has said is the GOP party line, regularly publicly stated or not. What killed the extant members' chances was their hubris, their stupidity, and a strong desire to play chicken to be President.

    PS - I'd rather be part of the middle class--which I and most whites aren't--and give out of what extra I have to live in a society that advantages minorities than to obsessively seek to oppress the poor-which plenty of whites are--even at the expense of providing basic health care, education, policing, etc. I'd also rather see greater taxes on the rich--which is more the Democrat stick, even if their progressive view doesn't exclude the middle class from raising taxes--than to cut services and then cut taxes even further--which by the logic that the poor don't pay taxes and the rich pay the most, invariably mean the rich benefit the most. Perhaps if we were over 50% taxes, I'd see the logic of it. But I make ~22k/year and pay ~23% taxes whole (federal, state, and local including sales tax), and I'm aware that the tax rate on others isn't the problem with the economy. Over regulation? Maybe. The fact that developed countries don't have great growth rates without, usually, government assistance into wholly new fields? Perhaps this time we can not make it nuclear bombs or death machines.

  291. Re:Whoopty Doo by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

    The mainstream news organizations have been completely missing until very recently. The information about Trump's income tax claim could have been uncovered by the NY Times at any time in the last two years, but it wasn't. He was getting a free ride from the entire mainstream press until a few weeks ago.

    How could the Times covered tax returns it didn't have until recently? According the Times, someone anonymously mailed them the returns last week. Yes, they have wanted to see the returns since the beginning however Trump had not released them.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  292. Re: Whoopty Doo by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

    Lynch-pin of stability? You've got to be kidding. Look at the Middle East. ISIS is the result of Americans meddling. 5 years of giving arms to anyone who said they would fight against Bashar al-Assad just increased the instability in the region. Russia achieved more in 1 month. Most of this could have been avoided if the US hadn't insisted on ousting Asaad, with no clear replacement. In retrospect, Asaad is still in power, the EU has been destabilized over refugees fleeing war, and Putin looks stronger than ever.

    Aleppo is going to fall soon enough, and then it's just mopping up. Sometimes it's better to deal with the enemy/devil you know. In the instance of Syria, that's how it's turning out anyway, at huge cost.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  293. So what, he's not entitled to legal deductions? by KenHansen · · Score: 1

    According to the New York Times, Trump "declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income tax returns, a tax deduction so substantial it could have allowed him to legally avoid paying any federal income taxes for up to 18 years..."

    Are we now taking the position that deducting losses is somehow 'Un-American'? Are going to eliminate medical deductions? Is the deductibility of interest paid on your mortgage at risk? This is just like when GM event bankrupt and Team Obama 'saved it', and allowed GM to 'avoid' paying any federal taxes for years as it also wrote off it's losses, which was in the billions as I recall. (BTW, by declaring bankruptcy GM should NOT have been able to retain the deduction from it's losses, but hey, that law only applies to the little people, not companies saved by Democrat politicians for the sake of a political meme - "We killed Osama Bin Laden and saved GM"

  294. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's amazing to see people say Trump might do this, and Trump might do that while Clinton regularly does all the things Trump is being speculated on. No kidding Hillary Clinton directly helped to create the problem we're in and now she's magically stopped being a corrupt globalist and we can trust her not to take judicial immunity and plead the 5th. To the paid Clinton shills on here I say this. The Constitution is always in full effect and IS LAWFUL remedy. Any law that is in conflict with the Constitution is not a law. Period! That's settled law for over 200 years. The only thing you do by trying to infringe on someones rights is remove your own rights. The Constitution's Framers were almost all geniuses by the way. They knew to put in "color of law" clauses because corrupt government would try to slowly take away rights. See Marbury v Madison, John Bad Elk v US, and Barnes v Indiana, Plummer v State and American Jurisprudence Second edition Volume 16 states that "Any law that is in conflict with the constitution is null and void from its ONSET and not from the moment is was so judged. Such a law bears NO obligation to follow and bears NO obligation to enforce." They're is NO such jurisdiction to rule over our in-a-lien-able rights it's a legal fiction enforced on us by violence and propaganda.

  295. Americans courage at all time low by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's amazing to see people say Trump might do this, and Trump might do that while Clinton regularly does all the things Trump is being speculated on. No kidding Hillary Clinton directly helped to create the problem we're in and now she's magically stopped being a corrupt globalist and we can trust her not to take judicial immunity and plead the 5th. To the paid Clinton shills on here I say this. The Constitution is always in full effect and IS LAWFUL remedy. Any law that is in conflict with the Constitution is not a law. Period! That's settled law for over 200 years. The only thing you do by trying to infringe on someones rights is remove your own rights. The Constitution's Framers were almost all geniuses by the way. They knew to put in "color of law" clauses because corrupt government would try to slowly take away rights. See Marbury v Madison, John Bad Elk v US, and Barnes v Indiana, Plummer v State and American Jurisprudence Second edition Volume 16 states that "Any law that is in conflict with the constitution is null and void from its ONSET and not from the moment is was so judged. Such a law bears NO obligation to follow and bears NO obligation to enforce." They're is NO such jurisdiction to rule over our in-a-lien-able rights it's a legal fiction enforced on us by violence and propaganda.

  296. Re:Whoopty Doo by jafiwam · · Score: 1

    Nobody is going to care about these petty attacks from the media.

    They can't stump the Trump.

    Lol, Buzz Feed.

    Yeah, I was going to say. "His biggest problem is the main stream media."

    No.

    The opposite is the case, the mainstream media's biggest problem is HIM.

    They have fallen all over themselves to be the most biased they could be for leftists and to burn the smidge of credibility they had on this election as the result. People are tired of MSM horseshit. The petty little videos these two retards found will do nothing but tank their own careers.

    Even if he loses, Trump is taking down the dumbass capitulating do-nothing right wing whackadoodles in the Republican party AND the main stream media. They hooked their wagons to leftist causes and democrats both of whom are now herding themselves off the cliff into the dustbin of history.

    Amazing, wonderful, and couldn't come soon enough.

  297. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A tax return shows nothing of your net worth.

  298. Re:Whoopty Doo by jbwolfe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Obama had a Democrat controlled congress and he used it to ram a shitty health care bill down everyone's throat.

    You didn't elaborate on what made it so shitty, so I'll suggest why (don't blame Obama): The only way this (health care for the masses) was ever going to come to reality was if those who stood the most to lose (insurers and providers of healthcare and medicine) had a say in its conceptual design. IOW, those who had the most to lose from changing the status quo limited the degree to which the status quo changed- naturally by lobbying the democrats as not a single republican voted for passage- they continue to this day to undermine the basic right of healthcare. As it turns out, this lead to insurance policies that are still too expensive for the intended recipients and insurers who resent having to cover those who most need it because it makes it hard for them to profit. The right thing to do was create a single payer system and congress (not Obama) totally half-assed the entire thing. Half a solution in this case was not a solution IMHO. OTOH, a few good things did come of it: coverage of preventive medicine, age increase of dependents, medicare improvements, pre-existing coverage, and more.

    He got what he wanted but pissed off enough people to destroy the Democrats majority in both houses.

    By that I take it you mean he drove state district gerrymandering to a new level of absurd. The resulting ideological makeup of congress is in no way reflective of the populations they purport to represent, nor the country as a whole.

    --
    Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?
  299. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Vote for the lizard, not the GRAND Wizard

  300. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, those that disagree with you are of lower intelligence? You're what wrong with the system.

  301. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm voting Libertarian, as always, but I'd prefer to see Trump in over Hillary.

    No-one in the present government likes Trump. Hillary will be able to bulldoze whatever idiocy she comes up with through at least the D side of things, and will get a huge amount of help from the entrenched bureaucracy. Trump will face rabid opposition from the Ds, will get at best lukewarm support from the Rs, and will be stonewalled by the bureaucracy. He's also about the only candidate with an actual chance of winning who might convince Congress to actually rein in the Executive branch for a change.

    As far as I can tell, electing either of the major party candidates will be a short-term disaster for the country. And a medium-term disaster. But Hillary won't change the overall direction, and will be a continuation of the slow-motion train wreck that is the Federal government. Trump causing Congress to finally exercise their rusty checks and balances would be a long-term win.

  302. considering Luckey @ Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the online media providing its own sh*tstorm postings.

  303. Re: Whoopty Doo by TroII · · Score: 1

    Sanders' supporters are unrealistic live-in-mom's-basement people who want free stuff and don't know what they're talking about

    That's not at all what she was saying. She was saying many of them are still living with their parents because, after incurring large debts to attend college, they can't find a job, so they can't make any money to pay back the loans or move out on their own.

  304. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're being a bit misleading on the whole "Obama had a Democrat controlled congress" bit, aren't you?

    Democrats held a majority in the Senate for years, but they only technically held a supermajority [60 seats] for a matter of weeks and even during that time they couldn't actually guarantee 60 votes because Senator Byrd was away from the floor of The Senate attending to the pressing work of dying.
    On inauguration day, Dems should have had 59 seats in the Senate but Senator Franken was not sworn in because the Republicans blocked it. It took 7 months of recounts and court challenges before Franken was seated to there goes one Democratic seat.
    April, Arlen Spector changed parties to Democrat.. they're technically at 59 with Franken in the wings.
    May, Byrd is hospitalized and basically out of Commission. 58.
    July, on paper Dems at 60 but Byrd out so 59. Also, Lieberman is becoming increasingly right-wing after feeling dissed by Dems in 08 election so often they're only managing to wrangle 58 votes.
    August, Kennedy dies.. 58 [57]

    There was a small-time frame between Franken being seated and Kennedy dying when Dems, on paper, had 60 votes, enough to break a filibuster, but that was only on paper because one of those votes was away from his seat. On top of that, another vote wasn't reliable.

    This all matters very much because the obstructionist Republican party had done something that was unprecedented in my memory.. they had changed the rules so that ANY bill had to have 60 votes to come to the floor for a vote. Republicans had thrown out any pretense of majority rule as stated in the Constitution and were operating as if EVERY bill was a de facto filibuster.

    So.. Democrat controlled congress? Not in any way that mattered. When the default state of the Senate is that everything will be automatically considered filibustered by the opposition party [without having to actually filibuster anything] and nothing can move forward without supermajority support.. You don't "control congress" unless you have an actual supermajority of votes on the floor.

  305. Re: Whoopty Doo by jbwolfe · · Score: 1

    Something he might be familiar with having an education in economics from one of the worlds best schools for that stuff.

    Like he says: "...because I have a very good brain and I've said a lot of things..." and: "Sorry losers and haters, but my I.Q. is one of the highest -and you all know it! Please don't feel so stupid or insecure, it's not your fault" (from a midnight Tweet?)

    I'm a YUGE fan, very bigly convinced, in total admiration of his smartableness.

    --
    Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?
  306. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what? I'm sure they don't use 50% of all services. Also doctors easily earn 10x what I make. If I had wanted to make more, maybe I would have tried to be a doctor.

  307. Re:Whoopty Doo by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

    Let me explain it to you slowly. The MSM wanted Trump to be the Republican nominee because he was easily beatable by the Democrats, unlike Ted Cruz. So they gave Trump loads of positive press, right until he got the nomination. At that point, he turned into Satan.

    They've been portraying him negatively now to try to hurt him and help their candidate, Hillary Clinton.

    Note that Gary Johnson has been in the news - headlines, even - because he apparently doesn't have other "world leaders" that he fawns over. Real big deal. Meanwhile, Hillary's poor choices in Libya are huge news right now in the UK and not even mentioned in the news here. Johnson is apparently pulling more Dems off Hillary than he's pulling Republicans off Trump, so they have to make stupid shit up about him so he'll be less appetizing to the potentially Hillary voters.

    If you understand that the press overwhelmingly wants to elect Clinton, the stories that make headlines suddenly make sense.

  308. Re: Whoopty Doo by Bartles · · Score: 1

    Yes, and was entirely unethical while practicing. She participated in an illegal real estate scheme, had her billing records from Rose Law Firm subpoenaed and "lost" them. Only to have them reappear, shortly after the statute of limitations expired, on a table in the private residence quarters in the White House. Corruption follows her every where she goes.

  309. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People don't vote candidates, in general. They vote if they are happy about how things are, or if they are not. Usually, is the incumbent (I'm happy about how things are in MY life), or the challenger (I'm not happy, let's change something).

    That contention does not hold up to reality.
    How well were things going in 2004? Under GWB, we suffered the worst Terrorist attack in our Nation's history. March 13, 2003, as the war in Afghanistan dragged on and long before the November 2004 Election we invaded Iraq. By 2004 it was clear that the Administration's promises of a quick war were bogus. The reality was that the economy was stagnant.. the deficit and debt were ballooning, we were in two Wars with thousands of casualties and it was clear they were being mismanaged..
    Things really weren't going that well.. but yet, we re-elected the incumbent administration.

    US Politics, National Politics in particular, is now far more about tribalism than a rational review of the state of the Nation.. even if that's limited to the State of the Nation for ME.. the individual voter. If your view were holding up, the vast majority of voters would look at the direction of the country and they'd reject Trump wholesale. We went from the brink of the Second Great Depression when Obama took office to a federal yearly deficit that's been cut to 1/3rd of what he inherited. Stock Market has doubled, Housing rebounded, years of consecutive GDP growth and job creation, low unemployment rate, low interest rates (great for the borrower class.. not so great for the smaller investor class)...
      I'm not saying things are perfect.. there are a lot of problems. Economic growth remains sluggish for example.. but it's growing. Turning back to the party that almost gave us soup lines isn't a rational move.

    What we're seeing is the affect of propaganda on the mob. The team that felt defeated after 8 years of GWB was riled up.. very often through hatred of the uppity Black guy in THEIR White House.
    Republicans aren't supporting Trump because they're so mad about the 5.5% unemployment rate or the low rate they have on their Mortgage. They're not supporting him because a rational analysis of his policy, or some well-founded belief about his honesty or his history of fighting for the working man is driving them. No rational voter struggling to put food on the table could believe Donald Trump gives a shit about them. They're supporting him because he's not a Democrat... because he's not Shillery.. because he's on their team and they Hate the other team. It doesn't matter how awful he is, he's theirs.

  310. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mostly everything that I know about trump comes from Bloom County where he was a reoccurring doofus and had his brain transplanted into Bill the Cat's body after a yachting accident IIRC.

  311. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Read the article. They count all 'gaining ground' coverage as completely positive, even if the coverage looks something like 'Candidate Rises In Polls After Devouring Baby, Pledging To Destroy All For Great Yog-Sothoth.'

  312. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's easy to say they pay so much taxes. It's because they also have all the resources. Middle class/lower class individuals pay so little in Taxes because they don't have anything. Can't pay up if you don't have it, obvious.

  313. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and the 5 digit old timer off the top rope.

  314. Get Your Politics Out Of My Tech-News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please slashdot, if I wanted to hear about politics I'd be anywhere else on the internet.

  315. Re:Whoopty Doo by Jawnn · · Score: 1

    Yes, yes...I'm sure Mr. Trump wants nuclear war...

    No, you're not. But given his statements about it, are completely sure that he does not want it? Given the stakes, do you think it wise to even consider a candidate for this particular office when such doubt exists?

  316. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    only candidates from the two big parties have a chance to run successfully for the presidency

    That's because the other parties tend to run:

    1) Avowed communists or other loons

    2) Supposed doctors who believe in homeopathy

    3) Would-be presidents who can't name a single leader of another country.

    Why would such people every gain any traction with a majority of the people in the US? The certainly can't get together enough people to support their campaign operations at a level that makes them strongly visible in a country of hundreds of millions of people - because would-be supporters look at them, weigh their absurd positions against reality, and walk away.

    No, it's because left and right are the two natural parties based on human nature, and whichever side is divided loses to the other. Thus, in a winner-take-all system, there's only room for two major parties.

  317. Re: Whoopty Doo by mjm1231 · · Score: 2

    If Trump had done nothing other than invest his initial "small loan" in index funds, reinvesting the dividends, he would be worth 12 billion dollars today. Even if he is worth the 4 billion he claims he is worth, he is still something of a failure as a businessman.

    --
    Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
  318. Re:Whoopty Doo by naubol · · Score: 1

    You want to drop napalm on the whole F-ing thing? That's our government, our nation, and, frankly, our world. It's not like this napalm selectively hits 'corrupt politics'.

    --
    Reality is a slackware box running on a 386 tucked away in god's sock drawer.
  319. Re:Whoopty Doo by ganjadude · · Score: 0

    It scares the crap out of me that here on Slashdot, a site with presumably smart people like engineers and programmers, so many people are defending and rooting for Hillary Clintons.

    ftfy

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  320. Re:Whoopty Doo by ganjadude · · Score: 0

    you mean that public education that has been run by the liberals since the 60s?

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  321. Re: Whoopty Doo by ganjadude · · Score: 2

    the "mean" one is trump

    the megalomaniac is clinton

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  322. Re: Whoopty Doo by MortonCrouton · · Score: 1

    I think you give Trump too much credit. People really, really dislike Clinton despite her progressive politics. People hate her, and not just conservatives.

    This is an accurate observation. It's an emotional reaction, and there's no point is positing 'defensible' rationalizations for it. Research is needed to find out what human biases she activates, and exactly who is likely to have these biases.

  323. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > smart people like engineers and programmers, so many people are defending and rooting for Donald Trump.

    It shouldn't surprise you at all. It is the inevitable result of the kind of heads-down thinking that says hard science is more important than liberal arts. Consequently all these people who neglected their eduction in things like history, literature, psychology, economics are mental midgets when it comes to any issue that isn't an engineering problem. It's why the ranting about feminazis, SJWs, gamergate, etc are so loud among geeks. They are like children with no experience and are thus easily fooled by stories that adults can see right through. And like teenagers everywhere, their ignorance makes them even more confident.

  324. You forget history. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Casinos in atlantic city ALL took a loss in the 90's.

    4 of them went bankrupt. Two owned by trump.

    blame the indians and riverboats. because that's what did it.

  325. Re:Whoopty Doo by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

    How can you possibly argue that I don't have anything? In terms of global incomes, I'm in the top 0.1% of income earners. I buy shit all the time on Amazon that, at the end of the day, I don't really need. Factory workers in China that work 16 hour days don't have even an eighth of the shit that I have. Granted they take much longer work vacations than I do, their hourly rate is much lower.

  326. Re:Whoopty Doo by ganjadude · · Score: 0

    i cant speak on her being an attorney but ive heard bad things

    she was senator of my state, and she turned it to shit

    as sec of state she gave about 1/5th of our muclear material to russia (who she claims is buddy buddy with trump, ignoring her own dealings)

    leading health care when clinton was president.... wtf does that even mean? there was no clinton care that passed (or we wouldnt be stuck with the joke of obamacare now)

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  327. Re:Whoopty Doo by quax · · Score: 1

    Oh yes, right, the US public education has been run by liberals all over America for decades.

    School board elections are just so rigged.

  328. Trump == Plant by gabrieltss · · Score: 1

    Trump was a "plant" to gaurentee Hillary "canckles" Clinton would get the Presidency. Trump and the Clinton's go WAY back they are friends, buddies business mates. They are both the most HATED, VILE people that could be running for the presidency! Hell I think a neo-nazi would be better! The U.S. is SOOOO screwed and the average sheeple/lemming doesn't even know it.

    --
    The Truth is a Virus!!!
  329. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obama was a senator, Trump is a failed actor and bankrupt businessman propped up by Russian oligarchs.

  330. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pure fantasy, but I hope it lets you sleep better after Trump fails at everything and shatters the Republican party.

  331. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By that argument, Sylvio Berlusconi should have been the greatest Italian leader since unification.

  332. Re: Whoopty Doo by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2

    I have read it. In the original language, in fact. It was kind of a set book in the GDR, you know. So yes, you keep using that word...

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  333. Re: Whoopty Doo by raind · · Score: 1

    Certainly would keep status quo, but war against Russia? Do you know this for fact or are guessing....?

    --
    Get up!
  334. Re:Whoopty Doo by ScentCone · · Score: 1

    But the parties, and what they embrace as contemporary policy priorities, change over time. Parties come and go entirely (as they've done in this country). People assemble into groups. That is perfectly natural, and of course they don't want to lose their voice or power, so they try to make that group as large as they can, even if it means compromising on things. A sufficiently sane "third" party would draw the same grouping as other parties did when they turned into what we happen to see as the two main parties today.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  335. IRS & Porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait,

    He cheats the IRS and is in porn movies? I don't need any more reasons! I am already voting for the guy! These are two of my favorite things.

    You know what it means if a presidential candidate says they are squeaky clean? It means they are lying.

  336. Re:Whoopty Doo by Z80a · · Score: 1

    People do care, but it is having an opposite effect because the american population is not trusting the media that much
    If they want to stump the trump, they should all act like they got bought by him, but that would be too much un-PC.

  337. We're screwed without Jesus. by dbreeze · · Score: 1

    Embrace the truth Slashdot, the Bible is true, we're on the doorstep of Armageddon, and if you don't know what's in the Bible you don't have a clue as to why the world seems to be losing it's sanity.

    The blood of Jesus saves. We all need salvation. None of us can save ourselves.

    --
    When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
  338. Re:Whoopty Doo by William+Baric · · Score: 1

    Social anarchism is part of socialism and it is against concentration of power. I think you should educate yourself about political ideologies before giving your opinion, because right now you look like an idiot.

  339. Re:Whoopty Doo by William+Baric · · Score: 1

    I was not talking about the intelligence of Trump, I was talking about the reason why people would support Trump, despite Trump being who he is. If you think supporting Trump means being an idiot, maybe you should consider that people may have greater motives that you obviously do not understand.

  340. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Emotional thinking.

  341. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump's "Make America Great Again" is about America for Americans....

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

    Do you actually even believe that crap? Seriously?!? And who the HELL modded you up as "Insightful", of all things? I really want someone to step forward and justify that upmod.

  342. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, we only have his word that he does. But he could be lying.

    Just in case someone thinks KeensMustard is exaggerating, I will just leave this right here.

  343. Re:Whoopty Doo by rtb61 · · Score: 1

    A vote for Clinton is a vote for someone who enjoys killing people and thinks it's funny https://www.youtube.com/watch?.... Face it the only thing that is happening is main stream media is making a fool of itself and very few people believe anything it has to say. The current US election has become one great steaming hot pile of cow manure. So many pseudo celebrities have turned their names to shite with moneyed poltical bias and blatant showing the nobodies how the rich buy elections.

    The bullshit of blaming Russia and China for the corrupt mess corporations and politicians have made of US elections is a joke. Who will they blame next 'Anonymous'. As their propaganda fails, so they spread more and look even worse and so they spread more and etc why, because they lie to each other as well. The paid propagandist lie about their propaganda effectiveness so they can sell even more. Main stream media makes a shit bucket ton of profit from the elections, hence they pump it up even further to sell even more. You have the US military spending 500 million dollars on terrorist propaganda, why, you even think they actually spent one tenth of that on productive propaganda or was it all profits and kicks and just barely enough spent on the propaganda to make it look like that money was spent on propaganda. The reason why it has all become such a mess, is they are stabbing each other in the back and undermining each others efforts, so they individually can get the snouts deeper into the trough. US government agencies in conflict with each other because of different political appointees working the causes of different competing corporations.

    Want more of the same bullshit, than keep right on voting the second worst candidate, this has been the game for decades and you morons are still lapping it up.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  344. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really, the rampant down-voting on this story tells us how scared shitless leftists are about having no viable argument against Trump causing them to pull out all the stops to get stop the debate from happening at all.

    I will just point out that it is Team Trump which is openly considering not showing up for the next two presidential debates. Just sayin'.

  345. Re:Whoopty Doo by Pseudonym · · Score: 2

    You need to look at the media coverage of all Republican candidates together to understand what happened. The candidates thought to be the strongest opponents against Hillary received the harshest treatment (Christy, Romney, Rubio, and Cruz). [...] The long knives didn't really come out until poll numbers showed Trump actually having a chance to win. Now that he's ahead you see the hysteria.

    And similarly, if you look at the study, the strongest opponent (singular, since there was only one) against the Republican frontrunners received the harshest treatment. The situation is entirely symmetrical, except that none of the strong Republican candidates won.

    What the study essentially showed was that the mainstream media treats what it perceives to be the frontrunners on both sides more harshly. Neither Trump nor Sanders were treated as harshly precisely because nobody thought they had a chance. They are now making up for lost time on Trump.

    It is true that there was a large amount of coverage on Trump. The linked version of the study does not show the breakdown between "positive" and "neutral" coverage of Trump. Assuming it's almost all "neutral" (which seems likely), the amount of coverage of Trump is explainable by the fact that pretty much everything Trump does is a headline of one sort or other.

    There's no evidence of a conspiracy here. (Like all conspiracies, perhaps lack of evidence is evidence of a cover-up?) It's just that the tactic which works for the news outlets (in the sense of maximising eyeballs) most of the time backfired spectacularly this time.

    --
    sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  346. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Epic [citation needed].

  347. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So in other words, you and the GP define "smart" as "agrees with my politics".

  348. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...the one who let her own staff die rather than send ready-to-go assistance....

    What is this "ready-to-go assistance" you speak of? Do you actually think that commando raids can be ordered like carry out at a fast food joint? Seriously?

  349. Re:Whoopty Doo by Lisandro · · Score: 1

    So in other words, you and the GP define "smart" as "agrees with my politics".

    No. It has zero to do with politics as much as all of the above being proven, documented crooks. I don't expect anyone to agree with my political views, but i kinda expected people i regarded as smart to accept facts when presented to them. I was proved wrong.

  350. Hey, idiot, a little context please... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Atlantic city was setting itself up to be the Las Vegas of the east coast, and "the Donald" was hardly the only hotel/resort builder to get involved there. Historically, most states banned gambling, so people who wanted to gamble flocked to Las Vegas where they could do it legally. Over time, other states looked at all that money and wanted some, so that was the context for Atlantic City getting in on it. Then, something interesting happened: the Federal Government allowed indian tribes all across the country to setup casinos on their reservations, which by virtue of being indian lands were out of the reach of state legislatures and laws. This made it so casinos could be in ANY state where there was a reservation, thus spelling doom for the Atlantic city dream of making heaps of money as the east coast Las Vegas. Donald Trump was hardly the only guy to invest in Atlantic City gambling and lose money on the thing. Show me a businessman who has never lost any money on a business gamble.

    Incidentally, just how many people were employed by Hillary in her many businesses? What has she ever built? Has she ever actually even accepted the concept that the laws that apply to regular people apply to her also? Is there anybody who is not an elite politician, Wall St banker, or Hollywood idiot who is not deplorable to her? The woman even thinks all the Bernie people are idiots living in mommy's basement (which she is now trying to spin as sympathy for the dumb victims of the economy Obama has presided over for 7.5 years).

     

    1. Re:Hey, idiot, a little context please... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Donald Trump was hardly the only guy to invest in Atlantic City gambling and lose money on the thing.

      No, but he was the only one to do it in 1995.

      Incidentally, just how many people were employed by Hillary in her many businesses?

      The difference is that the ones Hillary employed actually got paid. Donald Trump? Not so much.

      http://www.wsj.com/articles/do...

      http://www.vanityfair.com/news...

      http://www.foxnews.com/politic...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Hey, idiot, a little context please... by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      why does it matter that he did it in 1995? anybody else would have been successful? that was the one year that losing is somehow worse than any other year?

    3. Re:Hey, idiot, a little context please... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      why does it matter that he did it in 1995? anybody else would have been successful? that was the one year that losing is somehow worse than any other year?

      Because '94-'95 were years when commercial real estate was booming.

      Losing money on real estate in 1995 would be like losing money selling cocaine in Miami in 1980.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  351. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is almost assuredly what will happen. It happened here in Canada. When Harper was in charge, you could count on the CBC to point out every nefarious act he was committing, every dodgy deal he had on the table, and every sleazy thing he said. They were good watchdogs.

    Now that their golden child Trudeau is in charge, he can basically do no wrong. The CBC covers for him and the liberal agenda at every turn and they act as his defense whenever his policies are questioned. It's sickening. Doubly so considering my tax money goes to them.

    I want the media to dig up the dirt on ALL politicians, not just their enemies. They do not even attempt to hide the bias these days.

  352. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've come to the conclusion that if Trump wins, we truly deserve him as our president. It doesn't mean I'll enjoy the russian roulette ride though.

    Yep. Everybody, repeat after me: in a democracy the people always get what they deserve. Always. Right now, it looks like we deserve an ass raping. Just saying.

  353. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When info on Hillary or the Democrats is unofficially released, immediately it's being called an act of war, and those Russian state hackers are to blame for sure. Don't focus on the damning content of the info, deflect focus to the (made-up) source.

    When info on Trump is unofficially released, it's a harmless "leak", who cares where it came from, let's focus on the content.

    The double-standard of the dem-owned media continues...

  354. Re: Whoopty Doo by saloomy · · Score: 1

    Just because one is educated doesn't mean one speaks eloquently. It really is a skill that takes practice.

  355. Flint? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Flint Michigan has been run by DEMOCRATS for DECADES.

    “It used to be cars were made in Flint and you couldn’t drink the water in Mexico. Now cars are made in Mexico, and you can’t drink the water in Flint, but we’re going to turn this around” - Donald Trump

  356. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yep, I've been there, too. And if I had those choice, I'd 100% chose a paucity of cosmetics and pain relievers if it meant that my parents and grandparents were able to read.

    The idea that you can be "free" and illiterate defies what freedom is- the ability to learn and make up your own mind. Cuba is far from perfect, but it also seems to be the only other country in this hemisphere that has made any general progress for its people at all.

  357. Who cares. by hackus · · Score: 1

    1) I want the entire political system to die.
    2) I want the banks to follow it to hell.
    3) I want a future for young people.

    In that order.

    --
    Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
  358. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i cant speak on her being an attorney but ive heard bad things

    Did ya, now?

    she was senator of my state, and she turned it to shit

    All by her lonesome? Really? I'm gonna have some fun obliterating your rant with a bit of reality. Hillary was Senator for NY for 8 years. And NY has been a shithole for a lot longer than that. In fact, it has been a shithole longer than I've been alive.

    as sec of state she gave about 1/5th of our muclear material to russia

    [citation needed] Seriously, I have no idea what you are talking about here.

    leading health care when clinton was president.... wtf does that even mean? there was no clinton care that passed (or we wouldnt be stuck with the joke of obamacare now)

    I think the idea--such as it is--is that Hillary has been actually participating in public service long before Donald ever had the idea to get into politics. Yes, back in those days when Trump was attaching his name to just about any old flat surface he could find, Hillary was doing the hard work of making and affecting public policy. Or perhaps you are too young to remember that Hillary took the lead during Bill's presidency to champion healthcare reform? Yes, her healthcare proposal never made it into law, but that doesn't change the fact that she was at the table making serious proposals while Donald was going bankrupt and chasing skirts.

  359. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Republican investigation found plenty of crimes. You're right about the FBI covering for her.

    Name them

    Also why if they found "Plenty of crimes" as you say was she not convicted? It is not like the Republicans have not had a hardon to pin something on the Clintons for over a quarter of a century by now.. So what was the crime? Or are you just another Trump shill talking shit?

  360. Re: Whoopty Doo by amiga3D · · Score: 1

    Well, he's managed to buy some nice property along the way. Eventually it might be worth a few bucks.

  361. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just curious, how do you think Trump would have responded in Johnson's place?

    The beauty of Trump's style is that he doesn't have to know anything. Ask him about Aleppo, Pyongyang, Santa Claus, or Ishkabibble, and he'll answer with some version of, "It's terrible. Unbelieveably bad. Everyone knows it's bad. It's Hillary and Obama's idiotic, corrupt policies that brought us to this sad state. I'm smart. I'll have us winning in Ishkabibble so fast you won't believe it."

    Now, there's an idea! During a foreign policy interview ask him about some made up fictional country and let him dig himself into a hole! Later, reveal to the world what an ignoramus he is. It would be the greatest hoax since Sokal!

  362. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least she had something to sell other than hot air and failure. Jealous much?

  363. Re:Whoopty Doo by manwargi · · Score: 1

    It's complicated, and some voters aren't even in the same world as you are any longer. For some people this is no longer Democrats vs. Republicans, but establishment vs. anti-establishment. We are at the point that many people both on the left and right feel that voting for the candidate that represents them less is a strategy worth considering out of fear that their own nominee is giving their party cancer.

    This election has been so foul that there isn't really a "lesser" evil any longer. The whole "lesser evil" paradigm has been pushed to such an extreme that it's just Evil vs. Evil now and we are looking at a lose-lose situation. During the recent debate did either candidate talk about Citizens United? Which of the major candidates will mean less war, or even if you like war, smarter war? One is a threatening, blood-soaked Secretary of State that never changes and never learns, and the other is a hot head with a fragile ego. Many of the things you fear from Trump, Clinton has already actually done or at least pushed for.

    They have both handled their campaigning in perplexingly abrasive ways. While I don't need to waste any time on Trump's "mistakes" because MSM will jackhammer them into the heads of anyone who dares to listen, consider Hillary's. After that controversial primary election that left Sanders' supporters feeling shafted, Hillary did very little to bring them on board, and many of them are young people voting or first time voters, getting this kind of sour experience with the Democratic Party. On the contrary, the convention did everything they could to silence the Sanders wing, and Hillary instead sought to cozy up to Republican donors. While you'd think this is part of that deceitful "triangulation" strategy that her husband made popular, she then went on to call Republican voters a "basket of deplorables." Does she think that her donors alone will get her enough votes?

    I suggest that if anyone who doesn't live in a battleground state wants to vote third party, do so. Johnson is on the verge of meeting that arbitrary debate entry percentage, and Stein, who is on the ballot (or can be written in) in all states except Nevada, Oklahoma, and South Dakota, should be qualifying for federal funding at 5%. The electoral college will deliver your state to one of the top dogs even if you convince everyone you know to vote third party. If you do live in a swing state however, well congratulations on holding the power to decide which evil we wind up with.

  364. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The State Department failed to stand in the way of an international corporate transaction. The assumption is that now that a majority-owned Russian company holds some US uranium mines, we would just shrug our shoulders and let them do whatever they want because they own them.

    It's a pretty far cry from anything relevant, but it doesn't stop irrational Clinton-haters from believing it is.

  365. Re:Whoopty Doo by n3r0.m4dski11z · · Score: 1

    Really? Were you here in 2000? and then the next 8 fucking years when bushes policies were defended up until and after the very end of his presidency?

    Slashdot isn't as homogeneous as you make it out to be and i'm glad of that. Let americans elect someone stupider than bush and reagan. Serves them right for what they get - again and again. The dollar is too strong against my currency anyway and I would like to buy cheap goods from the US again (and elsewhere since every country prices in USD on the internet..) Have you priced out servers or software contracts in a non american currency lately? USD is way too strong!

    Vote trump! Make the american dollar weak again!

    --
    -
  366. Re:Whoopty Doo by saloomy · · Score: 1

    How is he corrupt? Has corruption of Donald even been accused? He is many things but I didn't note corruptible being one of them. Who has bribed him? Site references please.

  367. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So fucking what that's what a human does. It's a survival benefit so while you coldly calculate the lion's exact position and velocity I'll be up a tree while he eats your stupid autistic ass!

  368. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love to hear people make that claim. Let me ask you one quick question that is about science.

    What species is the organism developing inside a fertilized chicken egg?

    What an odd non-sequitur question!

    The obvious answer is Gallus gallus domesticus. The fact that you ask the question out of the blue makes me think it is some sort of trick question aimed at some sort of rhetorical stab against left leaning voters posting on this forum or some attempt to say that my quote about science being true whether you believe in it or not is some sort of opinion rather than a fact and a truth about the world we live in.. the only other answer was from the other poster below who guessed Salmonella (Species name: Salmonella Enterica, formerly known as Salmonella choleraesuis. There are six sub-species of those as well that we know of at the moment.) which is not necessarily the case, seeing as salmonella does not infect all chicken eggs. You did specify a fertilized egg so that leaves out just an egg that would be one usually consumed by humans (Eggs are tasty! They are a good brain food, if you get the kind with Omega-3 fatty acids added, they are even better!)

    This is an odd question however.. what were you trying to find out by asking me this and what does this have to do with the presidential race which is the topic of this thread? I am curious.

    I also ask, do you believe that science is not true if you do not believe in it? ( I am of course referring to established science, not fringe science, junk science or cargo cult type stuff.) You referred to the quote as a "Claim" which implies that it is some sort of belief rather than a fact of life.. it is not a claim, it is a fact of how the world works and there is no point in living in the 21st century if you don't accept that Cause and effect is a real thing. Do you believe that vaccines cause autism despite the fact that multiple studies over the course of 30 or so years unanimously show that there is no statistical correlation between them? I ask because Trump tweeted this:

    "Healthy young child goes to doctor, gets pumped with massive shot of many vaccines, doesn't feel good and changes - AUTISM. Many such cases!"

    This begs the question I pointed out that is one of the many reasons I cannot ever support him, other than his being utterly ridiculous both as a presidential candidate and as a human being not to mention as a business owner! He takes the position of being anti-science and that makes him even more ridiculous regardless of whether he actually believes that or not.. I suspect he is trying to appeal to the lower IQ voters in the republican voter base or he really is that stupid. I am not ruling out either possibility.

  369. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the classic GOP is just plain dead. It's supposed to stand on principles of small government and low spending, yet Bush spent trillions on wars and introduced shit we don't need like the patriot act. What we need is a party that isn't afraid to say "That's not the government's job".

  370. Re: Whoopty Doo by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

    The AC I responded to made the statement that "Science is true whether you believe in it or not." I simply asked a question that has a scientific foundation, rather than berating him with juvenile tantrums about going off-topic.

    As for whether you need a biology degree to know what's inside a chicken egg, I'll leave that for the original AC to answer, which he did below.

    --
    If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  371. Re:Whoopty Doo by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    They are in it for more than ratings. I don't know what the hell for, but it's not just ratings.

    They're only in it for the cash, but to get the cash you need the ratings.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  372. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The top 1% income earners pay 50% of all of the federal income taxes, and the bottom 80% (which I'm part of) barely pay 15%, so please do explain why you think I'm getting fucked over and/or how I am being made to "pay for everything."

    Not that I agree with the "being made to pay for everything" claim, but your numbers do not tell the whole story. Just as example, imagine 100 people with the following incomes and tax percentages:

    • 1 person, $54M income, 10% income tax -> $5.4M in taxes
    • 19 people, $1M income, 20% income tax -> $3.8M in taxes
    • 80 people, $25k income, 80% income tax -> $1.6M in taxes

    This gives the total tax revenue $10.8M, which means that the top 1% tax payer pays 50 %, and the bottom 80% pay 14.8%. Yet it doesn't seem fair that they pay 80% income tax, does it?

    Yes, this is constructed, but it says something about what you can do with numbers, and why throwing out percentages that sound reasonable might not stand up to scrutiny.

  373. Yeah, so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what if he wrote off a billion dollar loss? That is, for better or worse, allowed under the law. It's not criminal or unethical to minimize the tax you pay, it's simply business, and Trump is a very successful businessman.

    If you want to blame someone, blame whoever allowed for such colossal uncapped deductions on one's taxes.

  374. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump wants nuclear war with Russia? Oh wait, I thought he was bought and paid for by Putin? I can't keep track of the schizophrenic Hillary spin these days.

  375. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It scares the crap out of me that most political opinions here boil down to "blue team good, red team bad."

  376. Re:Whoopty Doo by Gussington · · Score: 1

    .. and I don't feel like I am being made to "pay for everything", nor do I feel like I'm being fucked over in any way.

    Maybe ask someone who used to be middle class and now isn't, just because that isn't you or me doesn't mean they don't exist

    The top 1% income earners pay 50% of all of the federal income taxes."

    Except Trump who pays zero. So what happens to your country if the other 1%ers follow his lead?

  377. Re:Whoopty Doo by Gussington · · Score: 1

    Yes, yes...I'm sure Mr. Trump wants nuclear war...

    I'm sure he didn't want to go bankrupt either, but after 6 bankruptcies maybe you want to be a little cautious about what Trump wants and what we end up with.

  378. Re:Whoopty Doo by Gussington · · Score: 1

    Voting or defending Trump has nothing to do with Trump, really, and all to do with a desire for profound change.

    Which is pretty dumb to think that any change must be good. Change, especially unplanned and unprepared is usually worse than no change.

    You are surprised of intelligent people defending Trump...and try to keep the discussion there (the person), instead of on the politics.

    Because Trump has no coherent policy. It's not like he has all these detailed plans of how he intends to improve anything. The few details he has provided have been blown apart (tax cuts for the the rich is going to be a $5Trillion disaster).
    The whole campaign has been "Hillary is shit, I'm awesome". So yeah it is surprising that intelligent people buy into that message.
    If you have a political argument for Trump, I'm all ears, but "Making America Great Again" isn't a policy.

  379. That word doesn't mean what you think it does ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's very funny indeed.
    In the circles of my wealthier friends, not paying any taxes is a sure-fire sign that you're not only "successful", you're a fucking genius.
    When one of them gets divorced, it's virtually a competition to see who "owns" less. That way, you don't have to part with half of it in the alimony.
    The scams are legendary, creative, twisted, unfair and some of them, sorry ladies, just fucking funny as shit cause the opportunity was handed to them by their ex-partner's daft lawyers listening to emotional grievance instead of promoting sound legal argument.
    You need to get out more often... ..and don't lend so much credulity to tax accountants - they are the fairy-tale spinners par excellence of our modern day.

  380. Re:Whoopty Doo by danbert8 · · Score: 1

    You mean can't name a single (living) leader of another country (that they admire)... For a libertarian living in a world with no libertarian foreign countries, that sounds pretty reasonable to me.

    The Libertarian Party is literally running two successful two term governors. Admit it, "electable" means from the two major parties and no qualifications or policies will make you change your mind.

    (who wants the over/under on someone replying Somalia?)

    --
    Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
  381. Re:Whoopty Doo by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

    Pure fantasy, but I hope it lets you sleep better after Trump fails at everything and shatters the Republican party.

    I guess you mistakenly think I'm pro-Trump?

  382. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When 90% of your attention comes from the media, the media owns you.

    When you draw 90% of the media's attention, you own the media.

  383. Re: Whoopty Doo by funky49 · · Score: 1

    His entire world view is based on either pure fantasy, or on making productive people slaves to non-productive people and calling that a virtue.

    Can you please provide a link that backs up what you say that includes the successes of Scandinavian countries? Thanks.

    --
    --- rapper/producer/bachelorette party stripper
  384. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you pro-Whig? I wouldn't say absolutely not the case. It's happened before, with similar circumstances (everyone was so pissed at the Whigs that they elected Lincoln). That time it took 2 presidential cycles... I'm hoping for just this one this time because the bipartsan candidates suck.

  385. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually Congressmen began counting votes for single payer and Obama came out with a strong statement that he would NOT sign a single payer bill. Please represent correctly. Actually do you think it was coincidence that Obama and Romney had the same basic legislation in mind for health care?

  386. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Make the american dollar weak again!

    As a Canadian who deals with export sales, I wholeheartedly approve of this message.

  387. Re:Whoopty Doo by tbannist · · Score: 1

    How is he corrupt? Has corruption of Donald even been accused? He is many things but I didn't note corruptible being one of them. Who has bribed him? Site references please.

    I suppose that depends on what you mean by "corrupt".

    Donald has taken and paid bribes. He's illegally dealt with Cuba while publicly claiming he would never deal with them. He's swindled people out of their money with his fake Trump University where he put two con artists with a long criminal history in charge, then when the inevitable investigation came along, he used his charity, the Trump Foundation, to bribe the Florida Attorney general into dropping the charges. Beyond that, Donald has lied about just about everything, but since he has never held a government office, he has not had the opportunity to betray that trust for his own financial benefit, yet.

    Personally, I think it's rare for anyone to accuse Trump of being corrupt, because he is so obviously corrupt, it's just not news, so I am very amused by the people who think Trump will clean up "the corruption in politics".

    --
    Fanatically anti-fanatical
  388. Re: Whoopty Doo by tbannist · · Score: 1

    The uranium deal that was approved by 10 federal agencies that Clinton had no control over? Do tell.

    --
    Fanatically anti-fanatical
  389. Re: Whoopty Doo by tbannist · · Score: 1

    f course, being an evil witch, she'll still lie her ass off and pretend to embrace those people's wish lists long enough to get elected. Nothing new there.

    Call me cynical, but that's politics, not witchcraft.

    --
    Fanatically anti-fanatical
  390. Re: Whoopty Doo by tbannist · · Score: 1

    Sorry, "the mean one" is Trump and "the megalomaniac" is also Trump. Clinton is "the politician" with everything good and bad that it implies.

    --
    Fanatically anti-fanatical
  391. Re: Whoopty Doo by gzuckier · · Score: 1

    Especially when the majority of your net worth is the brand value of your name based on your feeling of its worth. Q.When you publicly state what youâ(TM)re worth, what do you base that number on? A: I would say itâ(TM)s my general attitude at the time that the question may be asked. And as I say, it varies. Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/...

    --
    Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  392. Re: Whoopty Doo by gzuckier · · Score: 0

    It's about time hillary took the blame for invading Iraq.

    --
    Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  393. The Internal Revenue Code is a Mess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would anyone NOT attempt to legally reduce their tax obligation? If you don't like the "loophole" he found then take it up with Bill Clinton who signed the law Trump used in 1993.

  394. Re:Whoopty Doo by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

    When info on Hillary or the Democrats is unofficially released, immediately it's being called an act of war, and those Russian state hackers are to blame for sure. Don't focus on the damning content of the info, deflect focus to the (made-up) source.

    Um no. When Donald invites foreign powers to hack his opponent, that's almost treason. In this case, we are discussing a release of tax data from over 20 years ago which has nothing to do with security. The source was made-up? Bahahahahaha. The one thing you don't hear from the Trump camp is that the documents are not real. They can't lie that far.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  395. Is losing a billion on your tax return a bad thing by gosand · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one who thinks that it's possible that he was able to claim losses like that through shady (or quite possibly legitimate) ways?
    You're assuming that by claiming losses, he ACTUALLY lost that money. I have more confidence that businessmen know how to cheat their way out of having to pay taxes, like hiring accountants/lawyers to find ways to shield their money. After all, the wealthy are the ones who pay to have laws passed that benefit them. So really all that a tax return is a CLAIM that he had a billion in losses. That doesn't make it so. And we all know Trump has no issue claiming things that aren't true.

    There is a reason the wealthy stay wealthy.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  396. Re:Whoopty Doo by Reziac · · Score: 1

    Like I've said before, Trump IS the "third party candidate" -- IMO he only ran as a Rep because that was the field he was most likely to beat. He's not beholden to either party.

    And what's good for Trump is good for America, simply because when America is prosperous, business prospers. Trust the selfish motive even if you don't trust the man.

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  397. Re:Whoopty Doo by Reziac · · Score: 1

    Because the Democrats haven't figured out how to get more taxes out of the middle class without losing too many votes.

    When there's no longer an alternative, watch what happens to taxes (and their bastard cousin, regulatory fees)... see California for a realworld example.

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  398. Re:Whoopty Doo by Reziac · · Score: 1

    I recall when the same nuclear-war hyperbole was floated about Reagan. How'd that work out for ya??

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  399. Re:Whoopty Doo by volmtech · · Score: 1

    I see that you are getting a lot of grief for being right (correct).

  400. Re:Whoopty Doo by Reziac · · Score: 1

    Good point... let's all sing along!

    "I'm proud to be a deplorable..."

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  401. Re: Whoopty Doo by werepants · · Score: 1

    You don't get your company to that size "with an iron fist, and no help or good ideas from anyone else", or by "blaming everyone but himself as he never accepts responsibility".

    You underestimate the power of having a ton of money to start out with and a rich dad to bail you out whenever you mess up. Also, being willing to screw over all of your contractors whenever you can get away with it is a great way to save some cash. Oh, and make sure to use clever accounting to completely avoid paying your share of taxes.

    Even then, if Trump was just competent, you would've expected him to at least stay even with the market, but as it is he performed far worse, even counting all of his unethical business dealings.

    What's more, how do you know Trump is even that successful? Because he says so? If he really was so rich, and charitable, and successful, why doesn't he release his tax returns? Especially considering that he was the leader of the birther movement, it's completely hypocritical to withhold his personal information from the American people.

  402. Re:Whoopty Doo by clong83 · · Score: 1

    To be fair, Johnson did name someone in Peres, and the interviewer disallowed that answer and asked for a current head-of-state office-holder. I think it threw him off being rebuffed like that. To be clear, I'm not a Johnson supporter, and he definitely should have been able to name somebody.

    The whole thing then made Jill Stein look like an even bigger moron when she doubled down by giving three answers that the interviewer had specifically disallowed.

    Agree that this is all a big part of why third party candidates don't get any traction. They are generally way out of their league, have kooky niche ideas, or both.

  403. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Considering he's bankrupted nearly every business he's ever run . .. .. just the guy to save the country from the evil republicunts.

  404. This article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ummmm... why is this article on Slashdot, stick to tech topics. Wierd. I'm sure HuffPost and others will cover this. Even tech sites now are political. okay. i dont get it.

  405. Re: Whoopty Doo by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

    Thanks for your insightful rebuttal. I found it to be well reasoned and quite comprehensive.

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  406. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As an attorney, she was involved in Savings and Loan scandals, as well as a disputed firing from the congressional Watergate investigation.

    She was the lead on a health care initiative that went nowhere, and lead to upending Congress to a Republican majority less than a year later.

    As a United States Senator, please point out any non-trivial piece of legislation she was responsible for bringing to the floor for a vote. Hint: there aren't any.

    As Secretary of State, she seems to have accomplished flying to over a hundred countries on the taxpayer dime, while possibly exposing classified information and racking up over a hundred violations of Federal law. Oh, and during that whole "Arab Spring" thing, the only countries that were involved that aren't still at war, or under military coup are countries that our State Department didn't do shit in. The other ones (Libya, Egypt, Syria) turned out oh-so-good, didn't they? Oh, and that whole "rise of ISIS" thing...

  407. Re:Whoopty Doo by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

    Oh, the Republican Party has all but given up on Trump - look how many surrogates he has stumping for him - practically nobody except for has-beens and washouts that have no other way back into the spotlight.

    The GOP is cutting their losses and stopping the damage by focusing on Congress. If Hillary gets elected, she still can't do shit without compromising with the House and Senate.

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  408. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bull shit. Start informing us about the investments he should have done when you actually have a net worth in the billions. The man must be doing something right (with money) if he can fly around in that private jet, own a tower in one of the most expensive cities in the world, and live in 5 star resorts for 30+ years. (BTW that jet alone is worth more than his inheritance)

  409. Online "Journalists" by nessman · · Score: 1

    So basically they're fat smelly unemployed losers sitting in their mom's basement wearing underwear and likely show up as level 2 sex offenders on the national registry.

  410. Re: Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Hey, you're free to move there anytime you want. Just remember, you won't be able to get out afterwards. Such is the Cuban way.

  411. Re: Whoopty Doo by werepants · · Score: 3, Insightful

    His entire world view is based on either pure fantasy, or on making productive people slaves to non-productive people and calling that a virtue.

    There is not a single policy that Bernie has advocated that isn't being put to good use in Northern Europe - he's really a Democratic socialist after the Scandinavian style. So are you saying that Finland is an imaginary place?

    On your second point: Too true, I hate it when productive people (like contractors, who actually build useful things) are unpaid slaves to non-productive people (like freeloading Trump and his ilk).

  412. Nixon vs. The Joker? by vandamme · · Score: 1

    Either way, you can't blame me. I'm voting for Johnson, AKA Neither Of The Above.

  413. Re:Whoopty Doo by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    Keep in mind that Castro/Chavez/... is the guy that they already have. And the only way to remove them, usually, is through violence. So the bar for any other guy would be relatively high to justify all that. People might not like their leadership or its platform, but it takes a lot of dislike to get to the point where one is willing to wage war to topple the leaders.

  414. Re:Whoopty Doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    only candidates from the two big parties have a chance to run successfully for the presidency. If people really voted for candidates, then an independent candidate would have an even chance of winning, and that's absolutely not the case.

    Those two are unrelated. People don't vote for minor candidates because especially in the USA it is seen as throwing away your vote. In countries with a preferential voting system minor parties end up getting seats in all houses of parliament as people can vote for them without effectively removing themselves from the system. Also you give your minor parties too much credit. The other big problem with minor parties is that for the most part many people agree with a set of ideas they have but also believe they are completely incapable of governing. They are often plagued with the same bat-shit crazy ideas underneath that we are currently criticising trump for.

    E.g. I voted for the greens one election hoping that they'd get my local seat. I would not have done so if they had a chance at another seat in parliament too because while they are an important voice that needs to be part of the political system their full array of policies would end our lives as we know it.

    I'm not in tune enough with the American system to know the minor candidates, but when I look at most other countries you end up with
    a) the pirate party.
    b) someone with great ideas on small government who's also an insane racist.
    c) someone who is an antivaxxer.
    d) someone who believes that they can fix absolutely everything but is incapable of coming up with a plan to pay for it.
    e) someone who's entire idea is the overnight shutdown of all coal and nuclear power plants and an instant ban on all combustion engines, not to mention the shutdown of all industry that would dare hurt plant or animal life.

    Among these insanes are some great ideas and some good policy, but damn would we be in trouble if they ever got complete power.

    Voting for candidates who are not members of the two main parties - in any country, is not a vote for morons (even though many of them are morons) - it's the only way to make the two main parties consider presenting an agenda that includes policies they didn't cook up themselves (new policies that may even represent what electors want). The two main parties are always in cahoots - despite their claims of different views they all court the same sources of funding.

    tl:dr? When you vote for the main parties you vote for them setting the policies that suit the corporations that fund them. When you vote for other candidates (who can't get majority support even if they do win a election) you vote for policy changes in the next election campaign.

  415. Re:Whoopty Doo by dbIII · · Score: 1
    The briber is just as corrupt as the person who gets the bribes.

    Has corruption of Donald even been accused

    The big story this week seems to be Trump bribing Fidel Castro. The big stories of the past involved Atlantic City and Vegas mobsters.

  416. Re: Whoopty Doo by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    It cannot lead to a more than a two party system in long term (like, more than a couple of electoral cycles) - the math doesn't add up. The electoral system of this country only permits two major parties sucking everything else in their orbit.

    So the most you can expect is that a different party replaces GOP.

  417. Politicians by NewYork · · Score: 1

    Machiavellianism (willingness to manipulate and deceive others), Narcissism (egotism and self-obsession), Psychopathy (the lack of remorse and empathy), Sadism (pleasure in the suffering of others) >:(

    And politicians have also mastered the art of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  418. Hollywood "loses money" all the time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hollywood (which supports dems by a large majority, and is pushing Hillary overwhelmingly) posts losses for every movie they make. They post massive losses for big-budget movies. Do you really believe they are actually losing money ?

    It seems you expect billionaires would report multi-million-dollar gains on their tax returns. It's not how it works. Most of the "profit" stays in the companies and gets reinvested or divested into offshore entities legally. Reinvesting money counts against income, so it's quite possible for a company to appear to lose money on taxes, because it has no reason to sit on the cash it would otherwise make as profit.

  419. Re: Whoopty Doo by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

    I wrote a reply to this on Monday, but for some reason it didn't get posted. I don't feel like trying to redo it again, with all the quoting and unquoting, so I'll just leave the basics instead.

    My intention was simply to see the response to the question, which usually gets reactions like Cederic's above. (The fact I asked an off-topic question does not warrant the level of vitriol in his post. I have to assume he has a personal animosity against whatever point he believes I was making.) I started asking similar questions a few years back, during abortion debates, after one poster on a forum stated that a human embryo is "no more human than a cancerous lump in a goat testicle".

    I'm agnostic on the abortion debate, and think both sides have valid points. (Literally, I don't care if it is legal or illegal. Where it is legal, it can be done in accordance with regulations. Where illegal, those who are involved should be arrested like any other lawbreaker.) Both side also have stupid arguments and outright lies, to try to win over people to their mindset. I'm tired of the BS.

    Lately the arguments have gotten to the point of debating if the embryo/fetus/unborn baby is "a person" or not. Another tactic on the pro-life side is asking if abortion should be allowed one day before a woman's due date. This often leads to the "a person/not a person" debate. Well, rather than try to nail down what designates "personhood", I moved to the scientific terminology, remembering the idiocy of the "cancerous goat testicle" line. Someone can make the argument that a fetus is not a person, but they can't make the argument that a full term fetus is not of the species Homo sapiens. Just as a monarch butterfly is Danaus plexippus, even when it's actually a caterpillar or inside a cocoon.

    So, no, I wasn't specifically trying to imply that you are not following a scientific line of reasoning in your own actions. But I did ask it to determine if you, or other responders, do use scientific or unscientific reasoning.

    --
    If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  420. Re:Whoopty Doo by jwhitener · · Score: 1

    Donald Trump has struck a nerve with the american people. It's sad that he was the one to figure out how, but he did.

    Most career politicians, and most political science majors, know exactly how Donald did it. Any of them could have done it, but they would not stoop that low.

    Donald is using demagoguery (an appeal to people that plays on their emotions and prejudices rather than on their rational side), in the exact same style as many authoritarian dictators have used in the past. Blame "others" for perceived problems that may or may not exist, demonize the "others", etc.. He is able to stoop much lower than any other politician because he is a textbook narcissist likely with psychopathic tendencies, according to a Harvard Psychology Prof. http://countercurrentnews.com/2016/02/psychologist-explains-trump-is-literally-a-narcissistic-psychopath/

    His real skill is not that he discovered demagoguery, his real skill is media manipulation. Namely, his ability to say a whole bunch of stuff that elicits emotion (dog whistles for instance) without actual saying anything. News anchors can pin him down and make him say anything concrete. He just dances around issues, which allows the viewer to fill in their interpretation of what he said.

    Did you see The Office episode where Jim "helps" Dwight with his speech by replacing the words in a Mussolini speech with whatever was relevant in this day and age for the topic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzE7lXM6mho

  421. Re:Whoopty Doo by wkwilley2 · · Score: 1

    I'm sure he didn't want to go bankrupt either, but after 6 bankruptcies maybe you want to be a little cautious about what Trump wants and what we end up with.

    Out of 500 businesses, 6 going under is one of the best track records for any company owner. A 98.8% success rate is pretty damn good, especially when we're talking about the possible future leader of our country.

    --
    Have you ever fallen asleep at the keybhanusdiog?
  422. Re:Whoopty Doo by Gussington · · Score: 1

    So I have a 100% record in business, does that make me more qualified?
    I have also never sexually assaulted anyone, paid more tax, and if you like I can say that I'll bomb the hell out of our enemies, make the country great again, and save our jobs, all without explaining how any of that will actually happen.
    Is this all that is required to convince you that I'll make a great president? It doesn't seem to be a very rigorous measure...