Slashdot Mirror


Peter Thiel Is Joining Donald Trump's Transition Team (theverge.com)

Peter Thiel's time spent campaigning for Donald Trump during the election season has paid off. According to a statement released today, Donald Trump has named Thiel to the executive committee of his presidential transition team. The Verge reports: Thiel, who donated $1.25 million to Trump's campaign late in the election cycle, mostly stood alone among colleagues in his support for Trump, who was publicly disdained in the Valley. Thiel's support came at a cost to businesses like startup accelerator Y Combinator, which soon attracted negative publicity for having Thiel as a part-time adviser. Thiel also brought criticism to Facebook, where he is a board member, although Mark Zuckerberg defended his place at the company. Thiel further angered First Amendment supporters by bankrolling the Hulk Hogan lawsuit that brought down Gawker. Thiel said before the election that he would find some way of working with the Trump administration, and although his final role is unclear, his appointment to Trump's executive committee signals the relationship will indeed continue.

820 comments

  1. he bet on the winner by turkeydance · · Score: 5, Insightful

    he reaps the rewards.

    1. Re:he bet on the winner by dbIII · · Score: 1

      he reaps the rewards.

      What sort of rewards? Did that story about Thiel feeding off the blood of the young (injections supposedly for longevity) turn out to be the utter bullshit it sounds like or is he really that weird and creepy?

    2. Re:he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bully? Remind me who were the ones screaming people down with accusations of "racist, misogynist, nazi, hitler", etc to anyone who dared to disagree with them? Logical debate was not permitted. It always devolved into name calling and outrageous comparisons to hitler or the kkk.

      The marxists that make up today's left-wing movement absolutely despise the American system and the constitution. They detest free speech and free elections and would just prefer to use government force to cram their ideals down everyone else's throats. They are always demanding more and more power be given to the federal government, not caring about the abuses of power it results in, because they believe it will be THEIR power to use against their opponents. With their loss of this election, they are are slowly realising why such power is not to be granted. Their opponents now wield this power, and they are terrified of it being used against themselves.

    3. Re:he bet on the winner by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      is he really that weird and creepy?

      I have met Peter a few times, and listened to him talk many times. He is certainly weird, but I don't think he is creepy. He has a lot of original idea and insights, although many of them are ... well, weird ... like his idea to start an independent libertarian utopia on an ocean platform. He is a self-described libertarian, so I was surprised to see him endorse Donald. But the American people voted for change, and if Peter lands a spot in Trump's administration, it certainly won't be business as usual.

    4. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thiel is not an American bully. He's a dirty kraut.

      I wonder how many jews his family killed in WWII. In any case they must be proud of him

    5. Re:he bet on the winner by ATMAvatar · · Score: 5, Funny

      like his idea to start an independent libertarian utopia on an ocean platform.

      Would you kindly vote Trump?

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    6. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Uh no, we're terrified of all the damage Trump is going to do to the country and the planet. This will be a huge step backwards. He's already planning to bring coal burning back, push the Keystone Pipeline through, picked Ebell, and it's been less than a week. This man will damage us all, wait and see.

    7. Re:he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you ever read the shit you write? What a phucking clown.

    8. Re: he bet on the winner by khallow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He's already planning to bring coal burning back, push the Keystone Pipeline through, picked Ebell, and it's been less than a week.

      Amazing how little it takes to scare you. Keystone XL pipeline should have been approved a decade ago and coal burning hasn't been shown to be a big deal, let us note once again! And appointing someone not particularly environmentally friendly who still has to survive passage through the Senate. Oh dear, he'll be gassing six million Jews next.

      Maybe you should learn how to manage your fear rather than justifying bullying behavior on the basis of unreasonable fear.

    9. Re:he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the American people voted for change, and if Peter lands a spot in Trump's administration, it certainly won't be business as usual.

      The American people voted for Clinton as she won the popular vote. Our rigged system decided otherwise. I just have to ask, if this is democracy why bother having elections at all ? Let's appoint a monarch and be done with it. In either case the majority of the popular vote counts jack squat.

    10. Re:he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. I'm glad because to the victors go the spoils. To the spoiled liberal brats throwing tantrums go the tear gas and jail.

    11. Re:he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think facebook and paypal suck so I don't use them already.
      I urge others to consider do so as well.

    12. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > coal burning hasn't been shown to be a big deal

      Wow you have really gone full retard, haven't you?
      What's next, chemtrails and HAARP?

    13. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bring on that House UnAmerican Activities Committee, Gingrich. KHALLOW has the moral high ground here. Not.
      FWIW, we only have one planet and we will soon use it up.

    14. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Retard!

    15. Re:he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm going to suggest that racism, misogyny are beyond simple disagreement.
      You're ignorant.

    16. Re:he bet on the winner by dbIII · · Score: 2

      A bit of an aside, but personally I think the people who push for some sort of Utopia should read the original book of that name. It's a satire. The bit about never needing lawyers is a major clue, especially since it was written by a lawyer.
      A Utopia need perfect people. The Salem witch trials demonstrates what happens when a little Utopia finds a few people who are not perfect in their midst. One person's Utopia is another's nightmare, so it's hell for anyone who isn't perfect, such as every child ever born while they are still growing up.

      I'm not suggesting it's the case with Thiel but it's also often the case that wealthy people pushing for a system with no oversight really just want to make sure that nobody is in the way when they are trying to scam a rube. Those are the fake "libertarians" to watch for, the ones that just want to pollute downstream and raise their middle finger at the poor people downstream that cannot afford to stop them. Their idea of "liberty" doesn't stop at your face, it involves punching anyone who is not strong enough to fight back while making it illegal for other to gang up on someone strong.

    17. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh noes! He's going to allow pipes to carry oil instead of those so much more environmental methods such as trucks and trains!

      Get your head screwed on, pipelines beat the alternatives, and saying no to them doesn't do what you think it does (because I'm betting you think it means people won't be able to buy oil).

    18. Re:he bet on the winner by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 5, Insightful

      if Peter lands a spot in Trump's administration, it certainly won't be business as usual.

      When is the last time a Republican Administration had an openly gay man in a senior role?

      Peter would make a decent tech adviser to Trump. For all the people bitching that Trump is a raciest, homophobic, bigot... well, you're not paying attention...

    19. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe educate yourself and know the difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic.

    20. Re:he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      You're a fucking cretin.

      There are no "Marxists" in the American government. Washington is far right of centre.

    21. Re: he bet on the winner by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1


      . I'm not sure where Thiel quite fits in, unless he can wrangle an appointment to run the FCC, or even a place on the Supreme Court

      Whom do you recall better, Kevin Martin or Karl Rove?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    22. Re:he bet on the winner by haruchai · · Score: 1

      "Remind me who were the ones screaming people down with accusations of "racist, misogynist, nazi, hitler"

      Bitch, please. Have you seen what minorities have had to put up with?
      And the people who are screaming at them barely fucking vote.

      "With their loss of this election, they are are slowly realising why such power is not to be granted. Their opponents now wield this power, and they are terrified of it being used against themselves"
      Be terrified that they realize how much power they'll wield if they show up to vote. Millions of Dem voters couldn't get it up for Clinton &stayed home. whereas
      Trump got fewer votes than Romney in 2012, barely more than Al Gore in 2000, a couple million less than Bush in 2004.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    23. Re:he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should read it again. Particularly about the argument immediately devolving into name calling.

    24. Re:he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      who were the ones screaming people down with accusations of "racist, misogynist,

      Is it still ok to shout if it is true? Maybe not Hitler, but misogynist for sure and racist very likely.

    25. Re: he bet on the winner by haruchai · · Score: 2

      There is no Plan(et) B

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    26. Re: he bet on the winner by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He's already planning to bring coal burning back

      Coal isn't dying because of politics. It is dying because of cheap shale gas. Coal is not coming back.

    27. Re:he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For all the people bitching that Trump is a raciest, homophobic, bigot... well, you're not paying attention...

      It isn't a lack of attention, it is labeling as political attack. It serves to frighten liberals, progressives, and the Left generally. Frightened people are easy to control and direct. Just look at the current protests and riots. Fearful, ignorant people. Labeling - mission accomplished.

    28. Re:he bet on the winner by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      people who push for some sort of Utopia should read the original book of that name.

      I had to read it in high school. When my teacher asked which country came the closest to the utopian society described by Thomas More, I said either a Nazi concentration camp or a Soviet gulag. I didn't do well in that class.

    29. Re:he bet on the winner by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      So Trump's cozying up to Evangelicals, conservative Catholics and other social conservatives with pretty strong guarantees of a Supreme Court willing to rip up abortion and gay rights didn't happen?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    30. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe educate yourself and know the difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic.

      Maybe you should educate yourself since a constitutional republic doesn't require an electoral college system. When I say rigged system it's in reference to the electoral college system.

    31. Re:he bet on the winner by dbIII · · Score: 1

      When my teacher asked which country came the closest to the utopian society described by Thomas More

      Wow - with a teacher missing the point so far doing well would be tricky and I admire you calling them out that way.
      The bit about drunks following string all the way home from the pub should have been enough to show the teacher that it was all about how the dream of a truly perfect society is shown as joke. I first read it one day when I had been planning to do silly things with ropes down waterfalls but the risk of being burnt to death getting to the waterfalls that day was a bit too high. It was the only book available and more entertaining than I expected.

    32. Re:he bet on the winner by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 2, Informative

      So Trump's cozying up to Evangelicals, conservative Catholics and other social conservatives with pretty strong guarantees of a Supreme Court willing to rip up abortion and gay rights didn't happen?

      He was running for office and letting them know it would be ok...

      There is zero chance that abortion rights and gay rights are going away...

      Side note: abortion rights should go away, but gay rights should stay, for whatever that is worth. I still can't understand how anyone is for child murder, but there are funny people in this world.

    33. Re:he bet on the winner by quax · · Score: 1

      For all the people bitching that Trump is a raciest, homophobic, bigot... well, you're not paying attention...

      He only plays one on TV, but hell did the alt-right and KKK soak it up ...

      At any rate that's not really the problem, that he's a Russian asset much more so.

    34. Re:he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump is a long-time supporter of GLAAD.

    35. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      coal burning hasn't been shown to be a big deal

      I'd encourage you to go visit a country like India or China, live near a coal burning plant for a year, and come back and tell us how "not a big deal" it was to breathe that in all day. Or just do some research - it's definitely more than "not a big deal".

      Look at Germany - they've got enough solar and wind power to supply _all_ their needs.

      Remember the massive power outage in New York in 2003? People talked about how clear the air was. That was just for a short time! Imagine a clean energy future for your kids where they can go outside, look at the beautiful blue sky, breathe in the clean air. I don't think people know what they're missing.

    36. Re:he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It is NOT a Democracy, it is a Republic. You really should have paid attention in school.
      You obviously didn't learn shit about the document that governs this great republic called the constitution.
      Article II and the twelfth amendment are very specific how the president is chosen, you should read them.
      Oh I forgot, the constitution keeps getting in the way of the liberal agenda, they would rather scrap the whole thing, including how the president is chosen.
      This is exactly what you are talking about, just toss out Article II and repeal the twelfth amendment and use a popular vote.
      Allow a few states to decide who becomes the president, sounds like a brilliant plan that only a liberal would suggest.
      This would have been how this one would have worked, Hillary won less than 20 states Trump won 29, two are still undecided.
      There is a reason why it is done this way, just because you didn't get your way doesn't mean it needs to be changed.
      It has been working just fine for over 200 years.
      As Obama told Trump before the election "Quit whining about it being rigged" here is a hint it is not rigged.
      You want to blame someone, blame Hillary and the DNC, They screwed over Bernie and gave the Republicans the White House.
      You all deserve exactly what you are getting.

    37. Re:he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I still can't understand how anyone is for child murder, but there are funny people in this world.

      No one is for child murder.

      Everyone is for dictionaries.

    38. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it is not a child.

      Let say you have a suitcase of 1000 fertilized embryos and a crying baby and there is a building fire. You can only save one, which do you save?

      If it was 1000 toddlers or other babies or the one baby the answer would be obvious.

    39. Re: he bet on the winner by KeensMustard · · Score: 1
      It will if Trump has anything to do with it.

      He'll drag that dead thing out of the house and prop it up in a lawn chair, and pretend for the sake of all passers by that Coal is just dandy and we are having a roaring weekend partying at Coal's place.

      The Force of Reality is not strong with this one.

    40. Re:he bet on the winner by KeensMustard · · Score: 2, Informative

      Perhaps the angry words has something to do with the spate of violence that has broken out against those Americans who were targetted by Trump's hate during the campaign?

    41. Re:he bet on the winner by Alypius · · Score: 1

      I played that video game. Didn't end well. :p

    42. Re:he bet on the winner by Alypius · · Score: 1

      Pfft. C'mon now, you know that identity politics is only for leftists. Anyone who goes off the reservation is, at best, inauthentic and at worst, an Uncle Tom.

    43. Re:he bet on the winner by elrous0 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Bully? Remind me who were the ones screaming people down with accusations of "racist, misogynist, nazi, hitler", etc to anyone who dared to disagree with them?

      The funny thing is that that bullying is what may have led to the polls being so wrong about this election. Many Trump supporters were so scared of being labeled racist, sexist, homophobe, blah, blah for merely supporting Trump that they kept their support secret and avoided pollsters. Just another way that all the SJW bullying backfired. There has been a Thermidorian Reaction building for some time against an SJW movement that has become increasingly radical in recent years. And it has caught the left completely off-guard.

      Every time an SJW tells someone in Iowa that they're a transphobe for wanting male and female bathrooms, a lifelong Republican gets his wings.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    44. Re:he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Made up BS.
      Meanwhile there is video of Trump supporters getting beaten simply because they voted for him.

    45. Re:he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't mind so much them complaining about the election process, but they need to shut up about the result of this one.
      Both candidates knew what system they were dealing with when they went in.
      Hilldog thought she had it locked up and didn't bother to campaign in some states.
      This is the result.

    46. Re: he bet on the winner by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You're not getting it, The pipeline encourages and cheapens the use of a fuel that we need to stop using. There is also likely some adverse environmental effects of the pipelines installation.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    47. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fuck off stupid fagget

    48. Re: he bet on the winner by avandesande · · Score: 1

      How many years before the gas runs out- 5 years, 10 years?

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    49. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fuck your minorities - go fix your own shithole first, then whine

    50. Re:he bet on the winner by MrL0G1C · · Score: 0

      What has this got to do with marxism? It's a sad state of affairs that your absurd ignorant post got modded up.

      Trump is a racist, there is plenty of proof of that online, not least that he barred blacks from living in his properties (again, look it up, he was sued in court for doing this), you can't get much more racist than that.

      Trump is outright sexist, that is very obvious.

      Trump is a bigot - look the word up, he fits the description easily.

      Todays US govt is not Marxist, it is Corporatist, the corporations own it, they pay for it, Clinton was their candidate, not the peoples. People voted for Trump because they didn't like the wall street candidate, trouble is people don't understand that Trump IS the corporation and he will fuck everything, especially the water we drink, the air we breath and the land we live on. Trump has appointed someone who will decimate all pollution controls, he has promised to pollute more and remove restrictions.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    51. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder how many shits like yourself were born by those fucks that escaped retribution

    52. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      electoral college existed for longer than you, it serves a purpose. You dont like it or like it when it suits your agenda, such as electing nlgger obama 2 times

    53. Re: he bet on the winner by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      How many years before the gas runs out- 5 years, 10 years?

      Most estimates are that America has at least enough to last a century at current usage rates.

      As more areas are explored, and recovery techniques are improved, that estimate is likely to grow.

      There are plenty of good reasons to stop using fossil fuels, but "we are running out" isn't one of them.

    54. Re:he bet on the winner by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      with accusations of "racist, misogynist, nazi, hitler", etc to anyone who dared to disagree with them? Logical debate was not permitted.

      Trump says offensive things and doesn't apologize or even try to clarify the brashness most of the time. Do you really need examples? I find him a Class-A Jerk in that regard, closely approaching Nazi-ism. (I hope his deeds turn out better than his statements.)

      They are always demanding more and more power be given to the federal government, not caring about the abuses of power it results in

      Letting big corporations and the rich run and control everything also results in abuses of power. Somebody or something runs the show regardless, and that gives them power. Humans being humans, shit happens.

      I see the rich buying the laws they want so that they get even richer and buy even more laws, ruining democracy.

      Trump may not be a small-government person anyhow. He's a RINO; the GOP may be in for a surprise.

    55. Re: he bet on the winner by ranton · · Score: 1

      Coal isn't dying because of politics. It is dying because of cheap shale gas. Coal is not coming back.

      Technically anything could come back with enough subsidies.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    56. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fuck you and fuck your nlgger faggets

    57. Re:he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, at a minimum he *is* a misogynist and a racist. Only time will tell how he stacks up to the rest.

    58. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Coal is used in the production of 70% of the world's steel supply. Attacking domestic coal production also attacks domestic steel production.

    59. Re:he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US doesn't have a left wing movement. The abuses of power and expansion of government were by your right wing governments. Where have you been? Americans, crack me up.

    60. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't like america, you and the minorities can go back to their 3rd world shit hole of a country and be free of the horrible white man oppression forever.

    61. Re:he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That doesn't mean squat. How many times has the some religious or political person against LGBT rights been caught at the airport with their Thai boy lover or other crap.

    62. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to smash more cars and set more fires before we'll believe in how justified you are to do those things.

      Remember peaceful protests don't solve anything, you need to riot, destroy and kill to get the results you want.

    63. Re:he bet on the winner by jandersen · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Remind me who were the ones screaming people down with accusations of "racist, misogynist, nazi, hitler",

      True - as one of the people who feared the election of Trump as a very bad thing indeed, I have to admit that people on my side did tend to do that, and that was wrong.

      The marxists that make up today's left-wing movement absolutely despise the American system and the constitution. They detest free speech and free elections and would just prefer to use government force to cram their ideals down everyone else's throats. They are always demanding more and more power be given to the federal government, not caring about the abuses of power it results in, because they believe it will be THEIR power to use against their opponents. With their loss of this election, they are are slowly realising why such power is not to be granted. Their opponents now wield this power, and they are terrified of it being used against themselves.

      - but as this illustrates, your side engage in exactly the same tactics. And that is why American politics is broken: there is no honest and open-minded debate to be found, at least not in public. It is tempting to point the finger at lack of education or blinkered religion, both of which probably contribute, in some way, but I have met people who were both illiterate and deeply religious, but still managed to teach me a thing or two about open-mindedness and being willing to listen.

      I don't know the solution - I don't think any of you guys do either - but I think it is very likely that the way to the future, from where we are now, can go two ways: either towards ever deeper conflict between two almost exact halves of the population, perhaps ending in civil war, or people can decide that they have to start reaching out to their "enemies" and seek compromise and understanding. There is still time to make the better choice, but the longer you continue down the path of division, the harder will it be to heal the wounds.

      So, why don't we start the process here and now? It isn't really all that hard - it is of course necessary to state your viewpoints and your grievances, but it is also your duty to be willing to listen to the other side and try to take on board some of it. Let me give you an example: I think the Trump is an absolutely appalling twit - based on the way he appears to insult without thinking, and apparently lies without shame and so on. This is my subjective view of him, and I may be wrong. I absolutely understand and accept the anger that is felt by his supporters; they happen to be mostly male, white and working class, but the gross indecency of the ever growing inequality in the US is unversal and hurts all except the few that richer - one of whom happens to be Trump, by the way. So, there you have it - it may only be a small, symbolic gesture by one individual, but that is all any of us have to give, and it is genuine; I really do want the situation to improve, and I really am willing to give Trump the chance to prove himself, but it won't matter unless everybody else is willing to do the same.

    64. Re: he bet on the winner by AaronW · · Score: 2

      Its purpose has long since passed. Originally there was not direct voting for President.

      The whole electoral college system and winner-take-all state behavior severely distorts the election. Because of this setup, the candidates typically only focus on the swing states and completely ignore the needs and wants of other states which might have significant votes that just won't reach a majority in that state. For example, because of this Republicans will ignore the wants and needs of states like California and New York and Democrats will often ignore states like Texas. By eliminating the electoral college and making it a direct vote the President needs to consider the concerns of ALL of the states. While, say, a democrat won't get a majority in Texas, they still need to focus on the needs of the state because the votes still count from democrats in the state.

      It also hurts solidly red or blue states when their own party candidate wins because they know they're going to get the majority votes anyway.

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    65. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet what you don't seem to understand is that this what Republicans want. It's their ultimate goal to destroy the world.

    66. Re:he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bully? Remind me who were the ones screaming people down with accusations of "racist, misogynist, nazi, hitler", etc to anyone who dared to disagree with them? Logical debate was not permitted

      So blaming minorities for the ills of the country is debate now?

    67. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some states like Texas have passed so many restrictive laws on abortion clinics that most have shut down.

      What do you say to a 13 year old rape victem that lives there and is forced to carry her assailant's child?

    68. Re: he bet on the winner by khallow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'd encourage you to go visit a country like India or China, live near a coal burning plant for a year

      I'll note that I've lived near a coal plant for about five years. But it was in the developed world with actual pollution controls.

      Look at Germany - they've got enough solar and wind power to supply _all_ their needs.

      For two costs: 1) doubled their electricity prices, and 2) having to import major power when solar and wind didn't supply their needs.

    69. Re:he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speech isn't violence. No one can be assaulted via twitter.

    70. Re: he bet on the winner by oobayly · · Score: 1

      So he lied to get elected. And people are OK with that? How do you know which campaign pledges were "acceptable" less and which ones will be actioned?

    71. Re:he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For fucks sake anon, get some fucking perspective. This post is exactly why it's pointless reading the discussion on political stories on Slashdot. It's hysterical nonsense and it gets to +5 insightful. It's as insightful as being hit in the head with a brick.

    72. Re:he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have no idea what are you talking about. Have you ever lived in totalitarian marxist country?

      I bet you didn't; I did.

      The american political landscape is shifted significantly to the right; that republicans would be considered far right party by any moderate person.

      Also to make the conclusions that Trump is racist, misogynist and nazi; you just need to listen what he says.
      He on his own volition expressed approval and admiration of Musolini, Kim Jong Un and many other dictators.
      He expressed (in an interview) regret of not having the opportunity to have sex with his own daughter. You can see the disgust on Invaka's face when he said it.
      He.... oh by the God my man just go through his interviews; or his twitter. There is so much material to understand what he stands for, and how he pulled the greatest long con on a whole nation.

      And no haha he just meant it as a joke is no excuse; there are things that are too horrible and disgusting to be even considered, and much less made into a joke.

    73. Re:he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not outrageous when it's true. That said:

      Trump is likely morally superior to most people. I'm not talking about a biblical sense, but in a "I took care of myself, my family and friends to get where I am", he doesn't drink, he doesn't take his anger out on his family, etc. This may frame his policies regarding recreational drug use, tobacco and alcohol, but I don't think he would try to engage in prohibition II.

      When one makes a racist remark out in public, it's a racist remark you can not take back, especially when it's of public record. Hitler may not have intended to round up the jews and exterminate them originally, but the people around him, like Himmler's may have suggested it or even made it Hitler believe it was Hitler's idea. Now look at Trump and Pence. Pence is Trump's Himmler. Pence is going to be the one to suggest rounding up the gays and transgenders and subject them to conversion therapy. That will be "concentration camps" in Trump's administration if Pence even suggests that. If all Trump does is weaken gay rights, that's all it is, it would not survive a constitutional challenge to strip rights from any group since that would involve trying to prove those people aren't human.

      I don't believe Trump really wants to, or even gives two shits about Muslims or Mexicans, but it's a populist idea to shit on them in public, and as such, Trump's win has made most of the insane racists, KKK members, neonazis' and so forth come out of the woodwork because they "know" Trump isn't going to stop on their freedom of assembly or freedom of speech. I think these people are going to be in for a rude surprise when Trump sees the price tag for rounding up all the visa-overstays (illegal immigrants) that came here by plane and send them back. If it cost only $1000 to ship each person back, you're looking at a 12 billion dollars, at the minimum. I assure you it's not going to be that little. Why do you think the Nazi's decided it would be cheaper to try and kill the Jewish people rather than drop them off somewhere else in the world? There is no place to drop them. The ancient land of Israel covers all the area it does now minus the West Bank down to the Nile River in Egypt. When the Ottoman Empire collapsed pre WWII, the land of Israel was still part of Syria (which lasted all of 4 months) and then the French carved it up, and the British made things worse.

      So there will be no Muslim or Mexican concentration camps, the spike in private prisons stock prices was weirdly reactive in suggesting this. Yes if the Trump administration goes through with it, maybe there will be temporary increase in the prison population, but there will certainly not be any mass executions. So the parallel's to Nazi Germany and Hitler are rather off the mark.

      The only thing that Trump and Hitler have in common are the nationalist sentiment, which is something that Trump used to get elected, but unless he is going to use non-whites as punching bags in every public speaking event, I don't believe Trump himself cares that much about nationalism. Trump just hates losing. That wall for Mexico? That's not getting built, or whatever part of it gets built falls down, the existing wall is a joke and anyone who wants to get around it, just goes straight over it. It's not like ladders only exist on the US side. So every time you hear "Make America Great Again", the alt-right sees that as a license to be shitty people.

      So should we give Trump a chance? No I don't think it's a good idea. Look at Russia, Look at Ukraine, Hell even look at South Korea. When you let the business elite run the country, the end result is either looting the country to enrich themselves, or ending up in jail because the elite enriched themselves and weakened the very protections that would have kept them out of jail. Trump is going to make the USA bankrupt. Be that by enriching himself, or by somehow convincing congress that things like mass deportation and country walls will somehow create millions of jobs. It won't. Tearing up trade agree

    74. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for the laugh. People are getting far too serious in here with so many invocations of Godwin's Law...

    75. Re:he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not yet a child. Mothers choice to do with her body as she wishes / needs (from a medical standpoint in particular) overrides that of an unborn fetus.

    76. Re:he bet on the winner by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      Speech isn't violence.

      Tell that to the OP whining about the people responding in kind to Trumps hate speech.

      No one can be assaulted via twitter.

      These people are reporting ACTUAL assault (which criticism of Trump, his character and his policies, is not).

    77. Re: he bet on the winner by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      You need to smash more cars and set more fires before we'll believe in how justified you are to do those things.

      I'm not smashing any cars: but I will state the obvious. Trump said quite clearly before the election that he would not accept the result if he didn't win. Trump is president elect. What he says is permissible for him, is permissible for everybody. Trump poisoned the well.

      If it's okay for Trump to reject the results of the electoral process if he doesn't like it, it's okay for the 75% of Americans who didn't vote for him to reject the result as well.

    78. Re: he bet on the winner by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 0

      Correlation, causation, yada yada yada.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    79. Re: he bet on the winner by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      And how much coal exactly do you need for smelting steel, really? Something like one percent of the total US coal consumption?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    80. Re: he bet on the winner by khallow · · Score: 1

      What is? That I happened to live near a coal power plant? Or that Germany has indeed obtained the negative consequences that one would expect from subsidizing (via electricity consumers) renewable energy so much while shutting down its coal and nuclear plants?

    81. Re:he bet on the winner by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Trump opposes same sex marriage. Just having gay people as friends or around him doesn't charge anything, just like having a black friend doesn't mean you can't be racist.

      Let's wait and see if he supports efforts to annul people's marriages.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    82. Re: he bet on the winner by Zone-MR · · Score: 1

      Have you considered the costs of the world *not* adapting sustainable green energies? Of course the adoption of clean energy is more costly in the short term, and less costly for our future.

    83. Re:he bet on the winner by khallow · · Score: 1

      American Bullies protesting on a US interstate because Trump won. And American Bullies no doubt riding Trump-provided "SWAT vehicles" followed them around until they returned to a nearby college campus. No arrests were reported.

    84. Re: he bet on the winner by khallow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm pretty sure most of us understand the Luddite obstructionism strategy quite well. We have other needs than just using less petroleum. I believe a pipeline does a good job of balancing the relative neediness of the needs.

    85. Re: he bet on the winner by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Difference perspectives.

      To those who see oil as a reliable, low-cost energy source, the choice is between a pipeline or trains.

      To those who see oil as energy source with serious environmental consequences, the choice is between ensuring continued use of oil in the future or finding alternative and less-damaging alternatives, even if they are more expensive.

      If you've been campaigning for the country to do everything possible to reduce dependence upon oil, installing a pipeline to bring large quantities of oil into the country is going to look counterproductive.

    86. Re: he bet on the winner by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      Fossil fuels don't 'run out' as such. It just gets more expensive over time, as the cheapest to access deposits are the first to be extracted. Eventually you have to go from 'stick a pipe in the ground' to deep wells, then expensive offshore driling, then more-expensive fracking wells that have to be relocated at regular intervals, then even-more-expensive shale processing... until you eventually come to a point where it's so expensive to get more out, you might as well just go with renewables anyway.

    87. Re: he bet on the winner by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      It was a major election on a close margin. Whenever that happens, regardless of who wins, there is going to be a bit of rioting. The losing side will feel disenfranchised, because the other side only won by a slim majority yet secured a 100% victory. It just feels unfair, and unfairness makes people angry. This is one of the inherent problems of any political system which incorporates majority-wins votes, and a reason proportional representation was invented.

    88. Re:he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well said. We can interpret it in a bunch of different ways but the karma angle is always satisfying.

    89. Re:he bet on the winner by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The debate on abortion in the US is legally messy. There's one faction that campaigns for abortion on demand without restriction, one side that campaigns for a total ban with maybe the narrowist exception to save life. The majority of people don't actually support either position, but because of the importance of the Roe case it's not possible to campaign for a compromise: The pro-choice faction needs to defend Roe at all costs, and they know that if they lose it the pro-life faction will sieze the chance to rush straight to the opposite extreme in many states. There is no possibility for anything in between.

    90. Re: he bet on the winner by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Oh noes! He's going to allow pipes to carry oil instead of those so much more environmental methods such as trucks and trains!

      The (monetary) expense of those trucks and trains is preventing a lot of oil being burned. It's a net gain.

      If we make it much cheaper for people to burn oil then they'll do so. That's not an improvement.

      --
      No sig today...
    91. Re:he bet on the winner by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      For all the people bitching that Trump is a raciest, homophobic, bigot... well, you're not paying attention...

      u wot? He got sued successfully for not letting black people rent his properties. That is pretty much textbook racism. I've not seen anything suggesting he's homophobic though, but he is demonstrably racist.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    92. Re: he bet on the winner by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Coal isn't dying because of politics. It is dying because of cheap shale gas. Coal is not coming back.

      If Trump can make coal cheaper to kill a wind farm near one of his holiday homes, he will.

      --
      No sig today...
    93. Re:he bet on the winner by Joce640k · · Score: 0, Troll

      The funny thing is that that bullying is what may have led to the polls being so wrong about this election. Many Trump supporters were so scared of being labeled racist, sexist, homophobe, blah, blah for merely supporting Trump that they kept their support secret and avoided pollsters.

      That doesn't mean they aren't racist, sexist, homophobes, etc., it just means they were secret racist, sexist, homophobes.

      No matter what the reasons, stupidity won out. We now have a President For Narcissism And Stupidity.

      --
      No sig today...
    94. Re:he bet on the winner by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Letting big corporations and the rich run and control everything also results in abuses of power.

      Yep. The problem is that people have elected Donald Trump to try and "fix" this problem.

      The real fix would have been "none of the above".

      --
      No sig today...
    95. Re:he bet on the winner by fnj · · Score: 1

      there are funny people in this world

      I believe you mean "evil bastards" but are intimidated from saying what you mean. Murder is as evil as it gets.

    96. Re:he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Bully? Remind me who were the ones[...]

      Ooooh. Poor little alt-right loser. Always bullied, always victim.

      Cry me a river.

    97. Re:he bet on the winner by fnj · · Score: 1

      It is true that repulsive antisemitic bigots have attached themselves to Trump. Pretty much identical to the way that disgusting outright marxist-leninist vermin have attached themselves to the Democrats. However, one is defined by one's own beliefs and actions.

    98. Re:he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do recognize that it is possible to both (a) support anti-LGBT legislation and (b) have a token gay friend (or, I guess in this case "presidential transition team executive member")? You're aware that racists and misogynists and homophobes often make exceptions for "one of the good ones?"

      The policies Donald Trump and Mike Pence have advocated for in the past are racist, homophobic, misogynist, etc. But look! A gay guy! And a woman! We'll get Ben Carson in here and now we got us a black guy, too! See! What are those lib-tards complainin' about?

    99. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No he wont. Trump insinuated a lot of stuff, but most was just crap he said to get poor unemployed white guys to vote for him.

    100. Re: he bet on the winner by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Actually, he bet on possibly the biggest loser on the planet.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    101. Re: he bet on the winner by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Hey, that sounds great! How's about if the president elect does it first though, with him being such a great "leader" and all?

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    102. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "terrified of the damage..." he said, while burning down his own city and attacking people.

    103. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh fuck you.

      There was not a single riot when Obama was elected twice, you fucking hypocrite.

    104. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Double down? Cool strategy. I will enjoy Trump's second term that you're handing him.

    105. Re:he bet on the winner by haruchai · · Score: 2

      "getting shot when they point guns at the police" - there seem to be more minorities getting killed, NOT pointing guns than white guys who DO

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    106. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference is that the right might insult you for your beliefs, but they would die for your right to hold them.

      The left will try to destroy your life if you dare hold an opinion they disagree with, such as not wanting grown men in dresses to use the same bathroom as their 7 year old daughter.

    107. Re:he bet on the winner by c · · Score: 1

      For all the people bitching that Trump is a raciest, homophobic, bigot... well, you're not paying attention...

      Thiel is rich; don't fool yourself into thinking the same rules apply to him.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    108. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's purpose is more relevant than ever. You only disagree because you're a hypocrite and your team lost this time. Stop being so myopic.

      What you are promoting is commonly known as, "two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner."

      It's called tyranny of the majority.

    109. Re:he bet on the winner by Kjella · · Score: 1

      When is the last time a Republican Administration had an openly gay man in a senior role? Peter would make a decent tech adviser to Trump. For all the people bitching that Trump is a raciest, homophobic, bigot... well, you're not paying attention...

      I think he's a businessman first and foremost who cares about what gets done not who's doing it, but he has to pander to the religious right. Mike Pence is obviously a counterweight and when you're going with "lets make America great again" you pretty much have to appeal to traditional values. That said, he's pretty quick to blame the whole group for over-representation or problems with small segments within that group. Islamic terrorism is a problem with Muslims, illegal immigration is a problem with Mexicans, it's easy to feel harassed and discriminated when you're a non-terrorist Muslim or of Mexican descent and not an illegal immigrant.

      I'm a male. "My" 50% of the population accounts for something like 99% of the rape cases, so is that a male problem? On the one side I want to say fuck off, I haven't raped anyone and I'm just me. I got zero guilt or responsibility for what other men do and you got no legitimate reason to treat me differently than anybody else. On the flip side of that, if we happen to walk the same dark roads home a late night I totally understand that she'd be a lot more afraid that I'd drag her into the bushes and rape her than I am of she doing the same to me. Statistics are unfair. And they're more unfair, the more specific and accurate they are.

      I guess I'm like most people, I like to use statistics when they're in my favor and not ignore the facts. I don't like the statistics when they're in my disfavor because I'm lumped in with people I don't want to be associated with. It's very easy to end up in a cognitive dissonance where you want one set of rules for me to judge others and one set of rules for everybody else to judge me. It's so subtle that most people don't even realize they're doing it, they cry out their innocence when people pin a problem on them yet make broad generalizations in the very next sentence. But you can't really stop speaking about certain things being prevalent in certain groups either.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    110. Re:he bet on the winner by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Uhm. OK. You know why we called him a racist and a misogynist? Because he is a racist and a misogynist. Unless you were asleep during the campaign, you couldn't possibly have missed that.

      The Nazi and Hitler references? Well, I could point out that he's a populist demagogue, running on a platform of racial scapegoating (and that's not a small part of this campaign, that's been the core of the campaign he ran since he stepped on that elevator and made his first speech announcing his candidacy), who's advocated violence against peaceful opponents, and who's made it clear he plans to abuse the law to punish opposition.

      But... there's a quicker way to demonstrate he's a fascist. which is to ask the Neo-Nazis what they think. And they're pretty much unanimous in supporting him. . They're doing victory laps.

      What would you call him?

      Don't fucking mainstream him because he won. He's still the fascist we warned you about. And he's an existential threat to this country.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    111. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Keep your legs closed, slut."

    112. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regulations haven't been the biggest killer of coal, price and availability of natural gas has. That won't change.

    113. Re:he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because you have limited capacity for brain and for empathy, does not mean that if you don't understand something, then it is bad.

    114. Re:he bet on the winner by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      I have to admit that people on my side did tend to do that, and that was wrong.

      Why?

      Trump is, objectively (OK, I'd substitute "fascist" for "nazi/hitler") all of those things. Have we reached such a point of resignation to the apparently inevitable that we're now normalizing Trump, treating him as just another Republican president rather than the existential threat to Democracy he poses?

      Normalizing fascism doesn't make it go away. It might make you, in the short term, seem like a "reasonable person" but does nothing for you three hours later. And in the meantime such normalization strengthens it.

      I really do want the situation to improve, and I really am willing to give Trump the chance to prove himself

      Trump has made it abundantly clear what he is and what he plans to do. To give him the "chance to prove himself" is a surrender to some pretty horrific policies and principles. You would have laughed at anyone who said that of Mussolini. Maybe you think he's only kidding, but there's no reason for you to do so other than, perhaps, a quaint sense of projection and wish everyone was as nice as you are, and that attitude in the past is why terrible people have gone on to get away with terrible things.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    115. Re:he bet on the winner by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      He's not much of a homophobe, but he is certainly racist and bigoted, that's well-documented and indisputable at this point.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    116. Re: he bet on the winner by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      It was rigged by the people who wrote the Constitution.

    117. Re:he bet on the winner by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      How much racism does Trump have to spew from his own mouth (see: Gonzalo Curiel, central park five) before you accept that he has racist beliefs? How many times does he have to go to court for racist actions (discriminating against black tenants) before you accept that his actions are racist? How many racist messages from racist sources does he get to retweet before he has to face some responsibility for doing so?

      Also the openly racist element among his supporters aren't merely unfortunate hangers-on as many Trump supporters would like to believe. They were pulling the strings in the upper echelons of his supporters throughout the campaign. His campaign seemed to react quickly to the whims of his supporters on 8chan. It could be a coincidence, but that's hardly reassuring.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    118. Re:he bet on the winner by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      You need a coalition government. It's the only way to avoid a two party system that lurches from extreme to extreme.

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

      America could protect its steel production from cheap imports by requiring it to be low carbon. Win for the environment, win for jobs.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    120. Re: he bet on the winner by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Farming sperm whales would be more than just a technical challenge.

    121. Re: he bet on the winner by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      You're not getting it, The pipeline encourages and cheapens the use of a fuel that we need to stop using. There is also likely some adverse environmental effects of the pipelines installation.

      Hillary may have been edged out, but it was Stein who really, really, lost, as in completely annihilated. Get over it.

    122. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's their ultimate goal to destroy the world.

      It is the way of their kind...

    123. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bring on that House UnAmerican Activities Committee

      Indeed, that's pretty much what Clinton threatened to do: government control of the media and persecuting anybody who disagreed with her or her party line through the federal government.

    124. Re: he bet on the winner by Major+Blud · · Score: 1

      typically only focus on the swing states

      If you switch to a straight popular vote, you'd have something similar but a switch in locations. Candidates would ignore rural areas and only campaign in cities:

      "The urban areas of the United States for the 2010 Census contain 249,253,271 people, representing 80.7% of the population, and rural areas contain 59,492,276 people, or 19.3% of the population. "
      https://ask.census.gov/faq.php...

      Maine and Nebraska can split their electoral votes....there's no legal hurdle preventing other states from doing the same.

      --
      If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
    125. Re: he bet on the winner by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Luddites opposed new technology. We are opposing old technology because better alternatives are available.

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

      Umm you mean like the ACLU defending the KKK's right to hold rally's? I think you have it backwards.

    127. Re:he bet on the winner by quax · · Score: 1

      For a voter base that does not believe in climate science but features many who think the earth is 6000 years old, it comes quite natural to ignore these kind of pesky facts.

      Give it another year and they'll tell you that Mother Theresa had nothing on Trump.

      But that's merely a sideshow anyhow. Word in intelligence circles is that Trump has been compromised by the Russians. There's a high likelihood that in voting for Trump the Republicans put a Benedict Arnold into the White House.

    128. Re:he bet on the winner by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Trump is, objectively (OK, I'd substitute "fascist" for "nazi/hitler") all of those things.

      You're complaining about talk. Talk isn't fascism.

      Trump has made it abundantly clear what he is and what he plans to do.

      Politicians say they'll do lots of stuff. Is it wise to believe them?

      ...terrible people have gone on to get away with terrible things.

      The President isn't a king. He has to follow the law. We have a system of checks and balances to prevent leaders from doing "terrible things".

      We used to have a limited government, so government had less power and fewer opportunities to do "terrible things", but we gave that up because people wanted free stuff and wanted to regulate their neighbor's lives. Maybe we should give up the free stuff and the self-righteous meddling and get back a smaller, less powerful government?

    129. Re:he bet on the winner by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

      Except the only reason he is "openly" gay is because gawker outed him. He took they really well eh?

    130. Re: he bet on the winner by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      How many years before the gas runs out- 5 years, 10 years?

      There's enough natural gas in the ground around Grande Cache, Alberta to supply the US at the current rate for nearly 80 years(best estimates). And it hasn't even been tapped yet. That area is nearly 200 miles away from the oil sands deposits.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    131. Re:he bet on the winner by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Make sure to keep that smug attitude in 2020.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    132. Re:he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the Trump is an absolutely appalling twit

      You call for the people not rioting to be calm and give a pass to the ones who are. Say we need to come together and begin working together, and then you say Trump is a twit.

      I think you need to take a hard look in the mirror. The rioting and name calling obviously doesn't bother you in the least. Since Trump has been elected I have seen stories in the NYT that are outright lies, the sources they used said the NYT lied about what they said. I've seen CNN do a live piece on a riot in NYC but couldn't find any real rioters, they are all paid, so used their cameraman to pretend to be one so they could interview him and the studio reporter accidentally outted him by asking how he was doing.

      Its not even the liberals that are rioting, its PAID protesters. Media outlets have seen the people being bussed into the riots and handed signs and given directions. You come and pretend to be the voice of reason and only blame the people not causing problems while name calling the president elect.

      We no longer care about your opinion if you are going to be a "twit" yourself. When you grow up and can discuss things in a respectful manner, there will be a place for you. Until then you will be laughed at. I suspect you are a paid poster here.

    133. Re: he bet on the winner by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      1. How much did they save in healthcare and pollution mitigation and climate change mitigation costs?

      2. Germany is the heart of Europe, and part of their strategy is to make use of geographical distribution and a highly interconnected grid. I.e. it's by design.

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

      If you pull the tiger's tail, don't be shocked when it turns around and has you for lunch...

    135. Re:he bet on the winner by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      He's not much of a homophobe, but he is certainly racist and bigoted, that's well-documented and indisputable at this point.

      Indisputable? Really?

      Ok, then explain his campaign spokesperson, who is black...

      I'd dispute it completely, if you think he is racist, that is because you want to think it, you've been convinced by MSM and Clinton's campaign of it, not because of any evidence.

      And what happened in the 1970s stays there, that was another time, he isn't racist today, even if maybe he was in the 1970s.

    136. Re:he bet on the winner by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      That said, he's pretty quick to blame the whole group for over-representation or problems with small segments within that group. Islamic terrorism is a problem with Muslims, illegal immigration is a problem with Mexicans, it's easy to feel harassed and discriminated when you're a non-terrorist Muslim or of Mexican descent and not an illegal immigrant.

      1/3 of Mexicans voted for him, the smart ones understand he wasn't talking about LEGAL Mexicans, just ILLEGAL ones...

      And they ALSO understood that when he first said "DEPORT THEM ALL", he didn't REALLY mean that, it was just his starting position, he has already moved off from that and now just "DEPORT THE ILLEGAL MEXICANS WITH A CRIMINAL RECORD".

      You have to start at the extreme position and work towards the middle.

      "Ban all Muslims" has turned into "Extreme vetting from countries that sponsor or harbor terrorists" for example.

      I never for one second thought he meant "ALL" in either case, I have a brain and use it. :)

    137. Re: he bet on the winner by impos · · Score: 1

      I'd encourage you to go visit a country like India or China, live near a coal burning plant for a year

      I'll note that I've lived near a coal plant for about five years. But it was in the developed world with actual pollution controls.

      Said pollution controls which are viewed by your ilk as 'oppressing' to business concerns, and always a target for GOP politicians and industry.

      Look at Germany - they've got enough solar and wind power to supply _all_ their needs.

      For two costs: 1) doubled their electricity prices, and 2) having to import major power when solar and wind didn't supply their needs.

      Citations needed. Plus, even if electricity prices doubled, the savings from not having environmental disasters and increased healthcare costs from coal may even out.

    138. Re:he bet on the winner by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 2

      u wot? He got sued successfully for not letting black people rent his properties.

      In the 1970s, and it wasn't "successfully", he never went to trial, never admitted any guilt.

      In any case, it was the 1970s, that was another time (quite common back then, he wasn't unique there), or would YOU like to be judged on what you did 40 years ago?

    139. Re:he bet on the winner by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

      I was commenting on the poster implying Thiel is happily openly gay. He is not, he is homophobic and reacted exactly as I would have expected as a multibillionaire. He squashed the little people.

    140. Re:he bet on the winner by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The debate on abortion in the US is legally messy.

      That is one of the problems of having "laws" written by courts...

      As messy as Congress can be, the courts can be "too simple" in this regard.

      Side note: My personal belief is that you do not have an abortion, even to save the life of the mother. You do not kill children for any reason whatsoever. I will not stand before God and tell him "I wanted my wife to live, so I killed my child to save her".

      That being said... I'm not so fixed on this to be unable to see that not everyone agrees with me. Abortions being illegal (murder) except in the case of rape, incest, or the life of the mother, I could compromise on. I could also understand if the child is damaged in some way, brain dead or otherwise never going to live anyway. If a doctor certifies that this is the case, then fair enough, I can compromise there.

      I personally wouldn't do it, but I also understand we live in an imperfect world and other people have points of view.

      The problem with the whole "A woman's right to choose" is that the choice is the death of a child. How about my "right to punch you in the nose because you're an idiot"? Do I get the "man's right to choose to punch idiots"? To me, that is equally stupid as the "woman's right to choose nonsense". Murder is illegal for a reason, after all. You can't just do ANYTHING that you want in this world, we have rules...

    141. Re: he bet on the winner by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 2

      You can't get elected otherwise, most people are idiots and have no idea of the issues...

      Hoping for it to be otherwise is to live in delusion.

      Smart people read between the lines and figure out what they are really saying, then pick the person who covers the important issues in a broad and general sense.

      If you want some measure of detail beyond that, donate a million dollars and you'll get it. Otherwise, you pick the one who paints a general picture and hope for the best.

    142. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But in the future we will have more advanced technology, greatly reducing the cost of any and all future activity.

      Why do people try to create all these expensive, regressive policies when there is such a thing as technological advance?

    143. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > coal burning hasn't been shown to be a big deal

      Wow you have really gone full retard, haven't you?
      What's next, chemtrails and HAARP?

      Companies love to sell things cheap and to hell with the real costs to:

      1) The planet
      2) The peoples health
      3) Hell, everything else that's living's health
      4) Future generations

      Have we cleaned up coal a great deal via EPA requirements? You bet. Still I'd rather see them continue to focus on fracking and natural gas. From the eia coal regardless of how much cleaning you do to it produces about twice the CO2 as natural gas. Despite some solvable issues, generally fracking has worked afaik.

      I'd rather see zero emissions sources, such as careful use of nuclear, solar, etc, or at least moving towards them. With nuclear you have to figure out how to first get rid of all the old plants and build new plants and second make sure no one cuts corners on safety for the entire lifetime of the plant, not even once.

    144. Re:he bet on the winner by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      He has a black campaign spokesperson because he likes loyalty more than he dislikes black.

      He was also certainly racist when he made those comments about Gonzalo Curiel and the central park five. I guess he can turn it on and off like a switch and I'm just supposed to look at the times when his racism is "switched off."

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    145. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then what's the big deal? Let the market decide. Market prices in lawsuits from pollution, too.

    146. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The debate on abortion in the US is legally messy. There's one faction that campaigns for abortion on demand without restriction, one side that campaigns for a total ban with maybe the narrowist exception to save life.

      You are correct that it is messy, but any legal mess arises out of the real issue. Your portrayal of the first faction is actually a deceit, as it is not the real position of the pro-choice, but a deceitful picture created by the other, anti-abortion faction that wants to be able to scream that pro-choice means ripping babies from the womb and murdering them. That is what Trump did during the debate.

      That story is a concocted lie. That is something you left out.

      I could further describe the anti-abortion group, as there have been other issues, but that alone is enough for me, and I'm more bothered by your misrepresentation of the pro-choice position.

       

      The majority of people don't actually support either position, but because of the importance of the Roe case it's not possible to campaign for a compromise: The pro-choice faction needs to defend Roe at all costs, and they know that if they lose it the pro-life faction will sieze the chance to rush straight to the opposite extreme in many states. There is no possibility for anything in between.

      You somewhat have the outcome right, but you are off in the premises. The pro-choice faction needs to be careful because of that extremism by the anti-abortion faction, which means every act of theirs has to be watched for the hook. They're far too inclined to duplicty and subterfuge, as demonstrated by their TRAP laws.

    147. Re:he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am a lot more left than you, and I don't support same-sex marriage. Because it doesn't mean anything.

      The state should have defined civil unions for all sexes, removed any reference to "marriage" from legislation, and ensured that legislation would also come into effect such that pension rights would apply in the normal reading to same-sex couples with a civil union, and left it at that.

      The concept of marriage that many other people have is different to that used by the religious or conservative, but it wasn't enough for you to have the same effect or rights, you had to strip other people who are not interfering with you of a traditional meaning.

      That's known as rubbing their noses in it.

      Now we also cannot understand gender, apparently it's whatever someone says it is depending on which bathroom they want to go into. So same argument - let's go for unisex bathrooms and be done with it.

    148. Re:he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are participating in and perpetuating mass hysteria. Trump just appointed a homosexual to join a woman and a black man on his transition team. His daughter, son-in-laws, and grandson are all Jewish. He was the one who fought to allow blacks and jews into country clubs. It goes on and on.

      Your problem is that you bought Hillary's propaganda hook, line, and sinker. America's problem is that almost half the country did as well, and the result has been civil unrest, calls for assassination, genocide (of whites), and civil war (by people with no guns who don't control the military or the police).

      It would be HILARIOUS if it wasn't happening in my country.

    149. Re: he bet on the winner by impos · · Score: 1

      Obama wasn't a misogynistic, racist, tax-evader in bed with the Russians.

    150. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      khallow is not only monumentally stupid, he's also a Space Nutter. There's no fixing that, since his religion teaches him that the Earth is just a "rock" and you can just colonize another planet when things go wrong here.

      I've met more mature 8 year olds.

    151. Re:he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, are you pretending that liberals call people names more often than conservatives, or that conservatives ever attempt logical debate? That accusation is so far removed from reality that I can't tell if you're trolling or just crazy. Seriously, go find me even a single clip of Trump saying something logical and coherent during the debates. Hell, at any point during his candidacy. The Republican platform for this entire election has been one of evoking emotion and spewing word salad, with not a cogent argument to be made at any point.

    152. Re:he bet on the winner by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      a openly gay man who secretly funds anti gay laws? (which is what gawker uncovered about him that got him pissed in the first place)

    153. Re:he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't seem to understand that the more you deride and attack a group of people, the more they identify with each other and come to hate you.

      The behavior of people on the Left will lead to a return of organizations like the KKK. Trump is the only thing standing between your side and them. Be careful when you attack him. Strike him down, and he will be a martyr. What comes next will be remembered for hundreds of years.

    154. Re:he bet on the winner by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      That doesn't mean they aren't racist, sexist, homophobes, etc., it just means they were secret racist, sexist, homophobes.

      Well, quite. It's the whole "I'm not sexist but..." as in "I'm not sexist but... I voted for someone known to be sexist and racist and who's party and VP stand for removing hard won rights like abortion and gay marriage."

      As in "I'm not a sexist homophobe but I just voted in people to oppress those groups".

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    155. Re: he bet on the winner by craXORjack · · Score: 1

      President Trump could loosen regulations on coal as a short term way to pump life back into the Appalachian economy where he has lots of support. But to stay true to those supporters over time he needs to supplant that industry with others. If many, stable, well paying jobs are created there, those ex-coal miners will have no reason to bemoan the loss of jobs in a dirty, dying, and dangerous business.

      --
      Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.
    156. Re: he bet on the winner by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      I'll note that I've lived near a coal plant for about five years. But it was in the developed world with actual pollution controls.

      There are pollution controls because of what? Regulation. Now what does Donald Trump want to slash? Regulation. Why are you so comfortable about your health?

      Someone here on /. made it clear that he worked for a coal-powered power plant. Is that you?

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    157. Re:he bet on the winner by whoever57 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The term "pro-life" angers me greatly. The vocal pro-lifers are nothing of the sort. I believe there is a very strong overlap between being "pro-life" and supporting the death penalty.

      Also, most of those "pro-life" people don't care about life after birth. If the child dies in poverty, they don't care. That's not pro-life.

      "Pro-life" means "Control". It's about control, not just of birth but of the sex lives of young people.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    158. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That being said... I'm not so fixed on this to be unable to see that not everyone agrees with me.

      Good, because we can't stand before you and your God. Nor can you make anyone else do so.

      We are limited to this world.

      Abortions being illegal (murder) except in the case of rape, incest, or the life of the mother, I could compromise on. I could also understand if the child is damaged in some way, brain dead or otherwise never going to live anyway. If a doctor certifies that this is the case, then fair enough, I can compromise there.

      That might be more work than you know, and more complication. And there are lots of other factors including selective reduction and conjoined twins, among others. Even implantation of embryos.

      I personally wouldn't do it, but I also understand we live in an imperfect world and other people have points of view.

      I hope you didn't intend this, but the implication to your words here is that a perfect world, other people would not have points of view. You may want to watch your phrasing.

      How about my "right to punch you in the nose because you're an idiot"? Do I get the "man's right to choose to punch idiots"? To me, that is equally stupid as the "woman's right to choose nonsense". Murder is illegal for a reason, after all. You can't just do ANYTHING that you want in this world, we have rules...

      Yes, in this world, we do have rules. One of them is that murder is defined as more than just homicide, which is the killing of a human being. We don't even have to worry about your definition of a human being to show your fallacious reasoning. As you should well know, there are laws that cover this. Intent matters. Circumstances matter. Killing another human being may be a crime of deliberate intent, it may be a crime of recklessness, it may be a crime of an accident, or it may be a tort, only answerable for civil damages. Or it may be entirely lawful, upheld by the law.

      Insofar as punching someone else in the face is concerned, yes, you can have that right, should the circumstances merit it. For example, somebody is about to do something dangerous, because they are an idiot, while not ideal, you may find the law accepts that. If you think it is nonsense, then I must tell you, the law you live under is likely nonsense by your standards.

      Is it in all situations? No, but neither, despite what you may believevyou have heard, is abortion legal in all possible situations.

    159. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember the recent total blackout of South Australia? If you want clean air from blackouts, renewables are for you, and they will be coming to California and the UK soon enough. Personally, I would rather choose a reliable clean energy source with a small environmental footprint, that can actually deliver at scale.

      Germany is still burning coal and relying on their neighbors ample hydro resources to balance their grid. Their carbon emissions are still terrible, and their energy prices are even worse. If they had chosen nuclear instead, they would be done already and at a small fraction of the cost. Unfortunately, their choices will continue pushing their meager carbon targets decades into the future, giving them abundant time to reflect.

      When imagination is incompatible with reality, that is called fantasy, and it is a distraction from workable solutions, no matter how well-meaning. If you really care about future generations, educate yourself so that you may wade through the sea of lies that renewable advocates spew in order to make informed decisions. I will provide two hints: 1) meaningful comparisons must be made with actual units of energy produced and not peak capacity or record days, etc., and 2) compare the land area and raw resource inputs required for various generation sources.

    160. Re:he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .. reach out to their "enemies" and seek compromise and understanding ... the longer you continue down the path of division, the harder will it be to heal the wounds.

      Do you even comprehend what you've wrote?

      The people who are desperately trying to disassemble the establishment voted Obama, then Trump. They are the problem?

      You're drinking too deeply from the MTM pool of nonsense. It's now being said that a gay billionaire isn't really gay. What exactly should we be told to believe next to bridge the divide?

      Are you the Electric Monk from Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency?

    161. Re: he bet on the winner by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Trading petroleum is a sin in the green religion. "Get your head screwed on" doesn't really work against religious tenets.

    162. Re:he bet on the winner by stdarg · · Score: 1

      Why was the Curiel thing racist? I think it's pretty self-evident that a Mexican-heritage judge who is a member of fucking "La Raza" may not be fair dealing with a presidential candidate whose policy positions are fairly harmful to Mexico. It's equivalent to a hypothetical where while Obama was running for office, he was involved in a lawsuit presided over by a white judge who was in a "lawyers for the KKK" association.

    163. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The pipeline encourages and cheapens the use of a fuel that we need to stop using.

      If you believe this, why don't you suggest the pipeline is built, with taxation to make it the same price as per now.

      Then tax the transport via trucks even more.

      What is the point of requiring us to transport it inefficiently?

    164. Re:he bet on the winner by Kohath · · Score: 1

      So it's wrong for a president to "cozy up to" 25+% of the population? Please tell us which parts of the population deserve to be represented by their elected leaders and which parts are second class.

    165. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That is one of the problems of having "laws" written by courts...

      As messy as Congress can be, the courts can be "too simple" in this regard.

      If you read those decisions,I believe you'll find that the actual opinions by the courts are far more nuanced and complex than you may realize. Which has lead to the fuggheads in legislatures (not just Congress, though it has had its share of involvement) trying to worm their way through the cracks to achieve their preferred goal.

      If they had simply tossed out a blunt hammer of an opinion, it would be a lot less messy. The "problem" as you call it, is not simplicity, in court orders or the situation. The problem is the complexity of interests to balance and examine. A lot of people see the scales of justice and that deceives them, but I think a better image would be an orrery.

      You, on the other hand, and I hope you don't mind me saying this, clearly prefer a blunt and simple solution.

      So no, no, your problem is that they are "too complex" instead. You chose the wrong word, which has lead your thinking astray.

    166. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >no planet b

      Not that the plebs know about...

    167. Re:he bet on the winner by stdarg · · Score: 1

      Statistics are unfair. And they're more unfair, the more specific and accurate they are.

      But you just said "I totally understand that she'd be a lot more afraid that I'd drag her into the bushes and rape her than I am of she doing the same to me."

      How can you say that and say that's unfair?

      I guess I'm like most people, I like to use statistics when they're in my favor and not ignore the facts.

      The thing with rape and general violent crime stats is even though you're a guy, they are still in your favor in some sense. Surely you have people in your life you care about, who may not be men. I have a wife, a mother, a sister, and if one day I have a daughter I want them ALL to practice common sense when it comes to their safety, which damn well includes being more suspicious of strange men in isolated settings. That's not unfair, it doesn't hurt my feelings, and I doubt it actually hurts your feelings either.

      I'm not a Muslim or a Mexican so I can't say directly, but I think at least some of them feel the same way. Considering Trump got more of the Hispanic vote than Romney or Bush while simultaneously having a far more serious anti-illegal-immigration stance, I think they must. Not sure about Muslims.. I mean I personally know a Muslim guy who hates Trump, but at the same time, he hates overly religious Muslims, like really really hates them, and tells them to leave the country if they want to have a "pube beard" or if they encourage their wives to wear hijabs. The reason he hates Trump is he just finds him embarrassing, and all his Muslim friends hate Trump.

    168. Re:he bet on the winner by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      I don't think you know what a racist is...

      A real racist doesn't "turn it on and off", it is part of who they are...

      Complaining about someone of color does not make you a racist. For example, Al Sharpton is a pile of dog shit. Saying that doesn't make me a racist, because the color of his skin is not the problem, it is his behavior that is the problem.

    169. Re:he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're delusional.

    170. Re: he bet on the winner by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      Wasn't there just a breakthrough in chemistry where CO2 could be easily turned into Ethanol? Why move crappy oil across the country when you could make your own fuel?

    171. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2-3%

    172. Re: he bet on the winner by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Appalachia is a poor location for almost any industry. It would be more cost effective to pay the coal miners to move elsewhere, and then turn Appalachia into a really big national park.

      Disclaimer: I used to live in Appalachia. I got out when I was 18 the same way many other young men leave: by enlisting in the military. Now I live in California. I miss the forests and the mountains, but not much else.

    173. Re: he bet on the winner by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      It'd be a case of cost and you'll have to put more energy in than you get out. This would be an ideal method of cleaning up the aerospace industry, but lobbying and politics would get in the way.

      The good thing about CO2-> ethanol is you can use cheap renewables to create the ethanol and the fluctuations of the wind and sun matter much less.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    174. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amazing how little it takes to scare you. Keystone XL pipeline should have been approved a decade ago

      In 2006? There you go, blaming Bush for everything.

      and coal burning hasn't been shown to be a big deal, let us note once again!

      Actually, since 2006, reducing coal burning has been shown not to be a big deal.

      And appointing someone not particularly environmentally friendly who still has to survive passage through the Senate.

      If only it were that mild! This is more about someone who is akin to deceit and other issues of character. I know, I know, you want to underplay it, but that's not a lie others buy.

      Oh dear, he'll be gassing six million Jews next.

      Even Hitler took a while to get that plan in motion. He didn't even have the concept of gassing down, though some of that might have been his own experiences in the first World War.

      Ah, I get it, I get, you want to pretend that if it's not Hitler-level, it isn't that bad. Well, ok, then we won't mobilize the largest set of armed forces in history to put an end to his tyranny, even ignoring the ally we made.

      Let's just send the Girl Scouts of America after him, America's 37th line of defense, after the New Hampshire National Guard.

      Maybe you should learn how to manage your fear rather than justifying bullying behavior on the basis of unreasonable fear.

      That's what we've been telling Trump. Hasn't worked out yet. Can you maybe pass it along to him?

      Thouh it seems his handlers have kept him in line this week.

    175. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That what happened to her is a terrible thing, her assailant will be punished, but that two wrongs do not make a right.

      Really, someone gets assaulted, and the right thing to do is murder the innocent?

    176. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a wimpy weeping pussy. Waah! They're bullies!

    177. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please show me all of these riots, Because I haven't seen one. And my city is 65% black.

    178. Re:he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still can't understand how anyone is for child murder, but there are funny people in this world.

      You have to think about it more like Star Trek's Prime Directive. If you want to take your logic to its conclusion, you have to admit that by taking inaction against outlawing all condoms and birth control, you are more guilty than Hitler when it comes to the billions of single cell humans you have prevented from having access to full lives.

      In fact, we should encourage so much breeding, that the resulting starvation causes us to turn into cannibals. Because clearly that is the most ethical way to not murder babies.

    179. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod up. This guys gets it.

    180. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about when he wouldn't let black people live in his properties?

      What you fail to mention is, all the people you mentioned, are RELATED to him. So of course he is going to fight for them. And Donald loves Jews, why? Because Jews == Money.

    181. Re: he bet on the winner by Uecker · · Score: 1

      > > Look at Germany - they've got enough solar and wind power to supply _all_ their needs.

      Nonsense.

      > For two costs: 1) doubled their electricity prices, and 2) having to import major power when solar and wind didn't supply their needs.

      Even more nonsense. A typical slashdot discussion: No facts involved. And some idiot mods it insightful.

    182. Re:he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      - but as this illustrates, your side engage in exactly the same tactics. And that is why American politics is broken: there is no honest and open-minded debate to be found, at least not in public. It is tempting to point the finger at lack of education or blinkered religion,

      I still have faith in Free Speech (and Democracy) leading to the best possible outcome. However Hillary went insanely out of her way to keep the power of home email servers and other free speech communication tools out of the hands of the masses. She probably justified it to herself with fears of empowering racists and sexists with Free Speech tools they could use to help Hitler finish the Holocost. I disagree. FCC complaint id #12-C00422224-1

    183. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Answer the fucking question then. And answer why.

      You know he's fucking right. You would save the 1 baby that is alive. Not a bunch of fucking cells who have yet to take life. The same reasoning applies. A fetus != a human life. It just doesn't. And no amount of weasel words will make it so.

    184. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I pray that one day you are faced with having to have an abortion or having a love One have one. Because you are trying to run a marathon in shoes you've never even fucking wore before.

      So go ahead and stand on your high horse. And preach to your high power god. A god who killed people, because they disobeyed him. But murder is wrong remember? Ohhhh that's right, it's only wrong when it fits your narrative, just like the god you praise. So love thy neighbor, until he does something you disagree with, then it's kill him.

      You religious people are so fucking see through. It is sad that grown people in this day and age really believe in a magic man from the sky. Fucking classic.

    185. Re:he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bully? Remind me who were the ones screaming people down with accusations of "marxists, despise America", etc to anyone who dared to disagree with them? Logical debate was not permitted. It always devolved into name calling and outrageous comparisons to communists or SJWs.

      The racists that make up today's right-wing movement absolutely despise the American system and the constitution. They detest free speech and free elections and would just prefer to use government force to cram their ideals down everyone else's throats. They are always demanding more and more power be given to the church, not caring about the abuses of power it results in, because they believe it will be THEIR power to use against their opponents. With their loss of this election, they are are slowly realising why such power is not to be granted. Their opponents now wield this power, and they are terrified of it being used against themselves.

      - made some adjustments to make a point.

    186. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about the other 75%. They are the majority. Their opinions should hold just as much weight.

    187. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are the words he said though? The words he used to describe the situation. The words he used is what makes it racists.

    188. Re:he bet on the winner by MightyMartian · · Score: 0

      Wow, so you would seriously let a woman die rather than allow her to have a lifesaving abortion.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    189. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      70s != 40s

      We had laws in the 70s we didn't have back then. So keep trying to make trump look good. What he did was wrong, whether it be in the 70s or now, or even then.

    190. Re: he bet on the winner by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Less emotionally, abortion rights are really about people having an inherent right to personal autonomy. There's no one reasonably suggesting a ban on tubal ligation or snipping the vas deferens in man's testes, and yet gametes are just as capable of forming a human life as is a zygote or a fetus. So really, all the anti-abortion types just pick their own artificial moment when some cells are a human life, declare that point the point where the state should use its vast powers to prevent interference.

      If you're going to declare that a batch of cells that will eventually become a fully formed human must be protected as legal persons, then why not sperm cells and ova? Why aren't anti-abortion types demanding an end to surgeries that remove the fallopian tubes?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    191. Re:he bet on the winner by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      It's wrong to give that 25% the effective power to impose their beliefs on the other 75% through the force of law. You can protect the 25%s interests without basically making them the masters of the 75%.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    192. Re: he bet on the winner by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      That's the problem with politicians. You don't know what are lies and what are the things they actually intend to go through with. I'm definitely not okay with it. It's why I didn't like Clinton because she was saying things to get elected. For example she was for the TPP for a long time and then Sanders came along and became popular. Then Clinton announces she won't pass the TPP if she's elected. Everyone knows that if she got in that TPP was going to be signed. And as much as I didn't like her I didn't want Trump in.

      The danger with Trump, as he has repeatedly stated, is that he isn't a politician. So as far as we know he could have been completely honest in what he wants to accomplish as President.

    193. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am a proud oven dodger.

    194. Re:he bet on the winner by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I'm glad we can agree that a racist doesn't "turn it on and off." You admit Trump has been a racist in the past, does that not mean he's still a racist? Or does a "real racist" have to be racist 100% of the time, incapable of interacting with anyone without using racial slurs? I bet David Duke has refrained from such behavior at times. Hitler had a Jewish doctor, so we know he wasn't racist 100% of the time.

      Trump didn't complain about a judge who happened to be Hispanic. He said the judge would not be able to do his job *because of his ethnicity.* How can that not be racist?

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    195. Re:he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When you say child, you really mean fetus. That's where the wheels begin to come off of any discussion. It is a womans right to choose what grows inside her body. Murder of a living person is one thing, but you consider abortion murder of a living thing.

      Unfortunately you want to extend the definition of a larger rule into a smaller confine to make your life easier to live when in all actuality YOU will never be subjected to that rule. That's where all progress is grounded. It is sad you feel the need to control others behaviour when those actions have no impact on your life or quality of life. Just be happy your mom wasn't in a position where she was forced to make that decision herself.

      Instead of making demands, why not make peace with yourself? Instead of forcing others to live as you want them to, extend your hand without judgement? You can't cause you're a 'christian'.

      I don't believe in your invisible sky god. I can't say 'jesus will fix it' with a straight face. You have deluded yourself into thinking that you are doing the work for a god... how can you expect anyone respect your opinion?

    196. Re: he bet on the winner by Zargg · · Score: 1

      typically only focus on the swing states

      If you switch to a straight popular vote, you'd have something similar but a switch in locations. Candidates would ignore rural areas and only campaign in cities:

      "The urban areas of the United States for the 2010 Census contain 249,253,271 people, representing 80.7% of the population, and rural areas contain 59,492,276 people, or 19.3% of the population. "
      https://ask.census.gov/faq.php...

      Maine and Nebraska can split their electoral votes....there's no legal hurdle preventing other states from doing the same.

      What's the functional difference between splitting a state via electoral votes vs just counting popular vote? If California allowed splitting the electoral vote, 1/3 of their 55 votes would go red, which is more than most rural states have in total.

    197. Re:he bet on the winner by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Someone might have told Obama the same thing in 2009. He might have been able to accomplish something if he'd tried to be President of all Americans rather than saying "Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.".

    198. Re:he bet on the winner by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      And how exactly did he impose anything on the 25%? It's not like any of them were put into abortion camps to have fetuses "ripped" out of them. It wasn't like they were all forced into gay marriages.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    199. Re:he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Side note: My personal belief is that you do not have an abortion, even to save the life of the mother. You do not kill children for any reason whatsoever. I will not stand before God and tell him "I wanted my wife to live, so I killed my child to save her".

      The question is: how many cells does it take to make a child? A majority of citizens support permitting abortions in the first trimester, but not thereafter. That's also the most common deadline in other western countries. It can even be brought in agreement with religious arguments by saying that the soul does not enter the embryo until after three months (incidentally, that's also the time until which most natural "god-approved" miscarriages occur).

    200. Re:he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He has no original ideas, you're a moron for asserting that.

    201. Re:he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the better known GOP aren't shy about listing which Amendments they'd like to repeal or amend further.
      I've see the 1st , 14th, 15th, 17th, 19th kicked around their wish lists of yearning to be transported back to their favorite time period

    202. Re:he bet on the winner by Kohath · · Score: 1

      They were forced into insurance contracts -- which they believed were a violation of their faith -- against their will. Then Obama lost the midterms in 2010 due to his heavy handedness and the government has been gridlocked ever since.

      That's the tactical reason why Presidents should "cozy up" to all Americans. The moral reason is that all Americans deserve a government that tries to fairly represent their rights and interests.

    203. Re: he bet on the winner by raind · · Score: 1

      So much for Draining the swamp. Pence ? Lol

      --
      Get up!
    204. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He did NOT say that. Once again, the Dems use a lie as the basis for all their ongoing arguments.

      When asked if he would commit to accepting the result of the race, regardless of outcome, Trump responded, "I will look at it at the time."

      "What I'm saying is that I will tell you at the time. I'll keep you in suspense," Trump said during the final debate at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

      What he stated is a completely valid response, given that there was numerous cases of democrat-benefitting election fraud that were being discovered.

      And what was the clinton crowd's response to Trump's comment? "Oh, he won't accept the results. That puts our democracy in danger, blah blah." And what's happening right now? Clinton supports RIOTING over the result in numerous cities. Their ignorance and hypocrisy is allowing them to be used as tools of malicious organizations like MoveOn.org and George Soros for the purpose of destroying the American way of life.

      For everything the Left has accused Trump of, they themselves are guilty of tenfold.

    205. Re:he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "child murder"

      Thanks for that civility so that we can address a difficult subject which is most certainly not child murder.

      and this shit gets uprated ?

      WTF ?

    206. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have it wrong Kohath, Obama's tactical mistake was letting Republicans not take responsibility as he passed a law that was accommodating their wishes at the expense of his own party.

      Instead of doing that, he should have simply done what was in the interests of his own party, and passed a law that Americans would have loved.

      Well, I guess it didn't hurt him, he got handily re-elected, Romney gained almost nothing on McCain and the country is doing reasonably well so the day he leaves office, anything that goes bad is not his problem. He can just wash his hands of it. He must have learned from Ronald Reagan.

    207. Re:he bet on the winner by Gussington · · Score: 1

      So much for the anti establishment candidate. Trump will line the walls with his cronies and financial supports, just like every other politician before him, and the corruption will continue.
      Good work rednecks, you got sucked in big time.

    208. Re:he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's still a few adults in this country. Ones who have been around long enough to know what real racism is and shake their heads when they see the term being diluted and bandied about by the special snowflake crowd that had everything handed to them and never knew hardship. The most recent few generations have been conditioned to have an ultra-sensitive definition of the term that allows them to use it against literally anyone in the world they want to.

      So they accuse Trump of racism because some kkk member endorsed him, yet give Clinton a pass when she states she personally admires Robert Byrd. How messed up is that? Trump has no control over who endorses him. That's a one way street, to be decided upon by the endorser. Clinton on the other hand, is 100% responsible for her decision. If we find out most members of the kkk prefer new diet pepsi over diet coke, does that somehow reflect poorly upon pepsi? I'd think most sane people would say "no", but then again, we may have to question the sanity of some of those involved.

      Misogyny is a term in the same boat. Hyper-sensitivity reigns again. If you're against Hillary, it can't possibly be because of her policies, her past, her crimes, or her character. No, it's solely because you're a misogynist and must hate all women. Same goes for the "grab 'em by the pussy" locker-room talk. Only people who live in some bubble of denial think this actually means someone is a misogynist. It's crude, it's crass, it's testosterone-fuelled locker-room talk. That's all.

      Almost everything you believe about this guy is based on the barrage of lies from the Dems and the media. Oh, and speaking of violence against peaceful opponents, you might want to check into the riots and assaults that are currently being committed by the Cinton crew. They are consistently proving that the voters made the right choice and are waking people up to the savage backwardness of the Left.

    209. Re:he bet on the winner by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Side note: abortion rights should go away, but gay rights should stay, for whatever that is worth. I still can't understand how anyone is for child murder, but there are funny people in this world.

      Because anyone with an 8th grade education knows that a foetus isn't a child? That is the really funny part.

    210. Re: he bet on the winner by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Amazing how little it takes to scare you. Keystone XL pipeline should have been approved a decade ago and coal burning hasn't been shown to be a big deal, let us note once again! And appointing someone not particularly environmentally friendly who still has to survive passage through the Senate. Oh dear, he'll be gassing six million Jews next.

      You do realise Hitler was responsible for a lot more bad shit than gassing Jews right? I suggest you visit the Topography of Terror museum in Berlin and get some perspective on how tyranny manifests itself in a modern democratic country. Maybe you should learn how to manage your fear rather than justifying bullying behavior on the basis of unreasonable fear.

    211. Re: he bet on the winner by Gussington · · Score: 1

      For two costs: 1) doubled their electricity prices,

      They stopped externalizing their cost of energy production, the cost accurately reflects the actual cost.

      and 2) having to import major power when solar and wind didn't supply their needs.

      Germany exports more electricity than they import for profit. Tell me how this is bad?

    212. Re: he bet on the winner by Gussington · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure most of us understand the Luddite obstructionism strategy quite well

      Haha you are so funny. The guy stuck with 19th century energy model is calling people in the 21st century Luddites? Just think about that for a moment before you make a bigger ass of yourself...

    213. Re: he bet on the winner by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Fossil fuels don't 'run out' as such.

      I get your point, but eventually they will in fact run out.

    214. Re:he bet on the winner by Gussington · · Score: 1

      - but as this illustrates, your side engage in exactly the same tactics. And that is why American politics is broken:

      It's broken because too may people think in terms of 'sides'. As soon as you frame the discussion as us and them we all lose.
      Take the red and blue out of it, or your preconceived notion of 'sides'. The toilet is broken and we had the choice of a plumber with a flakey reputation, or a used car salesman, and we chose the used car salesman to fix our toilet. That is the reality we are in now.
      I don't what goes through some people's heads, but this highlights the weaknesses of the democratic system. It only works if substantial amount of people are educated. Whether red or blue, we should all be able to agree that education standards need to vastly improve if we want a stronger democracy.

      FWIW, since I support democracy I'll give Trump a chance as he won fair and square according to the system. But I don't be surprised if we end up with shit all over the floor.

    215. Re: he bet on the winner by KeensMustard · · Score: 1
      So he lied, and his actual plan was to re-inistute the GOP establishment agenda - the very thing he railed against and the primary reason why those people voted for him?

      How will the poor unemployed white guys react when they find out?

    216. Re: he bet on the winner by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      He did NOT say that. Once again, the Dems use a lie as the basis for all their ongoing arguments.

      All he had to do is say that he expected a clean election and barring any major fraud, would accept the result either way: he didn't say that. Whoever these 'Dems' are, sounds to me like they got it right.

      And what was the clinton crowd's response to Trump's comment? "Oh, he won't accept the results. That puts our democracy in danger, blah blah." And what's happening right now? Clinton supports RIOTING over the result in numerous cities. Their ignorance and hypocrisy is allowing them to be used as tools of malicious organizations like MoveOn.org and George Soros for the purpose of destroying the American way of life.

      For everything the Left has accused Trump of, they themselves are guilty of tenfold.

      Well, that's what Trump says, but he's a liar. Most pertinently, he lied to the people who elected him. You want to ban protesting now? Sorry, but you'll need to be able to protest later when it's the promises he made to YOU that he fails to keep.

    217. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you know what a racist is...

      A real racist doesn't "turn it on and off", it is part of who they are...

      Taken one way, that means that a person can never change. We aren't leopards with immutable spots, we are intelligent human beings, there might be factors we cannot change, but in other regards, yes, we can change our character. So that is untrue.

      Taken another way, it would seem you think a person would have to so unable to control their actions that they couldn't restrain themselves in order to be a racist. That is also untrue, as humans are capable of deceptive action as you should be aware.

      This is especially true since if you knew racists, they're quite capable of pretending to be beneficent.

      And particularly with politicians, I know you are aware that they can be quite unctuous. I submit then, either you don't know what racists are, or you don't want to admit it.

      Complaining about someone of color does not make you a racist. For example, Al Sharpton is a pile of dog shit. Saying that doesn't make me a racist, because the color of his skin is not the problem, it is his behavior that is the problem.

      What, you're not picking Obama for your example? Usually he's the choice name when conservatives are whining that they can't criticize a black man, it is so unfair.

      Of course, I should note, even racists today don't think the color of skin is a problem, it is the associations they make with the people who belong to that racial group. Skin color is an identifier, not a problem in itself. (There are even rare instances where skin color is an actual issue to be addressed.)

      But you do have something right. It is behavior that is the problem. When a person complains that Obama wasn't born in America, that is behavior. When a person complains that Al Sharpton never remarks on black-on-black violence, that is behavior.

      Both of those examples, by the way, are provably untrue, yet frequently practiced by conservatives critics. They say something false, which makes them misinformed at best, liars at worse, and race is clearly a factor to them when they choose to behave that way. And when examining that behavior, others find that to be racist esecially since you never do it for others. It would take a lot of effort to demonstrate that there was no racist components to it.

      In your instance, however, calling Al Sharpton a pile of dog shit, well, ok, let's assume that isn't racist, then that's just rude and hostile on your part. You didn't even give a reason. That makes it not just rude, but unfounded. Now maybe you'd say, oh, but I call David Duke, Cliven Bundy, Anne Coulter, piles of dog shit.

      Well, then congratulations on your bipartisan rudeness. Still rude. And if you never take that kind of action, ok, then you're just partisan in your rudeness. That is not a good state either.

      You'd do better if you took the log out of your own eye first. Look at your own behavior, and see how it isn't helping you.

    218. Re:he bet on the winner by crow5599 · · Score: 1

      I LOLed.

    219. Re:he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Side note: My personal belief is that you do not have an abortion, even to save the life of the mother. You do not kill children for any reason whatsoever. I will not stand before God and tell him "I wanted my wife to live, so I killed my child to save her".

      No, your personal belief is that YOU do not have an abortion. That's a million miles away from saying that your personal belief is that NOBODY has an abortion.

      And the pro-lifer's extension of the "every sperm is sacred" philosophy is arbitrary nonsense. Every time you waste a sperm you commit murder.

    220. Re:he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "When is the last time a Republican Administration had an openly gay man in a senior role?"

      I don't think the first openly gay man having to pay to get in the door is the look you desire.

      Especially over 2 decades after the Dems confirmed one.

      "For all the people bitching that Trump is a raciest, homophobic, bigot... well, you're not paying attention..."

      One robin does not make spring. Once a cocksucker, always a cocksucker.

      And raciest? Sorry, he absolutely appeared in a porn video. I have no clue how you can dispute that is not racy, as well as his well-documented other faults he's caught on video or audio doing that you also declined to list lest it bury your argument further.

    221. Re:he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "perhaps ending in civil war", that one your going to loose because you guys don't have guns.

      : p

    222. Re: he bet on the winner by Kohath · · Score: 1

      No they won't. Pay attention and think for one minute.

      The last bit costs an infinite amount to get to. No one will ever spend even close to an infinite amount. So there will always be considerably more than the last bit available.

      To say they'll "run out" is to say they'll keep extracting it beyond the point where the cost to extract it is infinite.

    223. Re: he bet on the winner by Gussington · · Score: 1

      No they won't. Pay attention and think for one minute.

      The last bit costs an infinite amount to get to. No one will ever spend even close to an infinite amount. So there will always be considerably more than the last bit available.

      Ok, ok, technically not run out, but for all intents and purposes it is no longer available for most people. The end result is the same.

    224. Re:he bet on the winner by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      You admit Trump has been a racist in the past, does that not mean he's still a racist? Or does a "real racist" have to be racist 100% of the time, incapable of interacting with anyone without using racial slurs? I bet David Duke has refrained from such behavior at times.

      It takes long term behavior to change, not one or two things.

      Being racist in 1975 and then not being racist for the past 20 years means you're no longer a racist. If you don't allow people to ever change, then they won't.

      David Duke is clearly a racist, but I'm sure he still loves his mother and would probably help an injured black person on the side of the road. It isn't a "pure evil/pure good" thing.

      Hitler had a Jewish doctor, so we know he wasn't racist 100% of the time.

      Hitler didn't actually hate Jews, that was just a means to an end, "useful idiots" so to speak. He did business with them and you should read up on Emil Maurice who was from Jewish decent. He was SS Member #2 right behind Hitler, yet Hitler ordered Himmler to make an exception for his friend.

      Yes, one of Hitler's best friends... was Jewish! :)
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Trump didn't complain about a judge who happened to be Hispanic. He said the judge would not be able to do his job *because of his ethnicity.* How can that not be racist?

      I don't see that as racist at all. If the roles were reversed and I was the judge (I'm white) and Trump were Hispanic and complained that I was white and thus wouldn't be impartial due to my race... then he might be right!

      Trump isn't saying Hispanics are bad, or lessor people, he is saying that his race is a conflict of interest. And it CAN be one, and it isn't racist to point that out.

    225. Re:he bet on the winner by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      I believe there is a very strong overlap between being "pro-life" and supporting the death penalty.

      Well to be fair, there is a world of difference between supporting killing a child and killing a murdering adult.

      That being said, I'm 100% behind abolishing the death penalty, it is barbaric, the state should not be in the murder business. The state makes mistakes, I'd rather let 100 guilty men go free than to put to death 1 innocent person. It is morally horrid.

      I'll take it further, I don't believe in "life in prison without parole", it is equally inhumane. Now that doesn't mean you can let them all out, but there has to be a middle ground. Sadly we no longer have "new land" to send them to, such as the British did with Australia.

    226. Re:he bet on the winner by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Because anyone with an 8th grade education knows that a foetus isn't a child? That is the really funny part.

      What, you mean public schools that don't actually teach the truth anymore?

      I hate to tell you, but an unborn child IS a child, even if you were mistakenly taught otherwise.

    227. Re: he bet on the winner by khallow · · Score: 1

      Luddites opposed new technology.

      Oil burning is a new technology. It's only a couple centuries old.

      because better alternatives are available

      Funny how the "better alternatives" cost more.

    228. Re: he bet on the winner by khallow · · Score: 1

      The guy stuck with 19th century energy model is calling people in the 21st century Luddites?

      Yes. I think it's appropriate due to the regressive, primitive belief system in question.

    229. Re: he bet on the winner by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Yeah, everyone switches to a substitute fuel that becomes comparatively less expensive long, long, long before they "run out" of the original fuel. But the original fuel continues being used for a few (fewer and fewer) special situations where it still makes economic sense.

      That's the process affecting coal right now. Gas is cheaper. Coal use is declining. If this continues, coal use may mostly end, even though there's a ridiculously huge amount of coal still around and it's not exactly expensive. Running out isn't even remotely a factor.

      Fossil fuels will probably easily last until nuclear fusion takes over. Even if that's another 150 years.

    230. Re:he bet on the winner by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Wow, so you would seriously let a woman die rather than allow her to have a lifesaving abortion.

      I would, yes... and yes, that includes my wife. I will not kill a child to save another person, it is immoral in my opinion.

      If you disagree, fair enough, but that is how I see it.

    231. Re:he bet on the winner by publiclurker · · Score: 1

      so women mean so much less to you than gays. Don't know why you think you can excuse this belief by making stuff up, however.

    232. Re:he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll take it further, I don't believe in "life in prison without parole", it is equally inhumane.

      Do some deep reading on what some of the serial killers who are currently in prison did and I hope you'll change your mind about not giving those psychopaths life in prison without parole.

    233. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Catholic Church position is that tubal ligation or vasectomy is not licit. Reasonable arguments are made for that. Also, the Declaration of Independence establishes that life is an inalienable right, so that would reasonably suggest that an unborn child can also enjoy that inalienable right. It follows that personal autonomy is not unlimited and can be restricted where it infringes on another person's natural right.

    234. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nay, lad, you can keep on doing that in your parents' damp and dank basement, and fantasize that your neckbeard and acne will one day be the height of postapocalyptic fashion.

    235. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Horseshit. Angry racist low-information shitheads rallied with some truly hateful rhetoric, generally misspelled, and it's readily available in a google search. Jesus fuck, your people are the gun nuts.....

    236. Re:he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It takes long term behavior to change, not one or two things.

      Correct, making your example less meaningful.

      Being racist in 1975 and then not being racist for the past 20 years means you're no longer a racist. If you don't allow people to ever change, then they won't.

      Sure a person can change, but they have to show it. You're assuming that we believe Trump hasn't been racist for the past 20 years, that we've seen nothing he's done, and find it racist. You know, like the birther business he willfully engaged in.

      And if that person says "we settled that case with no admission of guilt" then maybe I'm going to think that they haven't changed. You know he did that. This year. That shows something very recent.

      He could have added just a little bit expressing how terrible the racism and bigotry that did occur at the time was bad. It wouldn't even have necessarily needed him to take responsibility, though that would be even more indicative. No wait, he was very dismissive, it just one of those things. And he threw in the bit about no nasty commercials. LOL. Sure dude, and the only way that's true is technically, in practice, Trump did say all sorts of nasty things. That kind of superfluous deceit does him no favors. It's a red flag, not for racism, but for dishonesty.

      David Duke is clearly a racist, but I'm sure he still loves his mother and would probably help an injured black person on the side of the road. It isn't a "pure evil/pure good" thing.

      Which basically means all your harping from before is meaningless. David Duke is clearly a racist, but you think he can help an injured black person on the side of the road. Ok, then Donald Trump can still be a racist, he can just be a little more canny about it, maybe even a little more oblivious.

      Hitler didn't actually hate Jews, that was just a means to an end, "useful idiots" so to speak. He did business with them and you should read up on Emil Maurice who was from Jewish decent. He was SS Member #2 right behind Hitler, yet Hitler ordered Himmler to make an exception for his friend.

      Yes, one of Hitler's best friends... was Jewish! :)
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Then I'd hate to be someone he really did say, since that sure makes the Holocaust...exactly as terrible as it is before, you're just saying it was somehow comparable to the concept of Useful idiots? At least stick to scapegoats. Idiots has an implication that you should really avoid. If you don't want to intend offense, that is.

      You can say whatever you imagine was in Hitler's mind, pointless though those excuses are, but the fact of his extermination program won't ever change. This little aside isn't helping your image either, you know. That gratuitous "useful idiots" was really a net loss in terms of persuasiveness.

      You can make it back though, just say you realize now it was an offensive and insensitive expression that you chose without properly considering.

      Trump didn't complain about a judge who happened to be Hispanic. He said the judge would not be able to do his job *because of his ethnicity.* How can that not be racist?

      I don't see that as racist at all. If the roles were reversed and I was the judge (I'm white) and Trump were Hispanic and complained that I was white and thus wouldn't be impartial due to my race... then he might be right!

      Trump isn't saying Hispanics are bad, or lessor people, he is saying that his race is a conflict of interest.

      And it CAN be one, and it isn't racist to

    237. Re: he bet on the winner by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Yeah, everyone switches to a substitute fuel that becomes comparatively less expensive long, long, long before they "run out" of the original fuel.

      Maybe, maybe not. Right now we have no suitable substitute for oil. If it ran out in the next 10 years there is no complete substitute available (in some uses cases maybe, but not all). We know the peak oil argument, just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it can't happen prior to the next gen tech being ready. This is why we need to invest in new technology, so we do have substitutes when we need them. These things don't invent themselves.

    238. Re: he bet on the winner by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      It was a major election on a close margin. Whenever that happens, regardless of who wins, there is going to be a bit of rioting.

      Trump legitimised the protests by refusing to say that he would accept the result if he lost. If it was okay for Team A to protest if Team A lost, it's okay for Team B to protest if Team B lost. Simple enough.

    239. Re: he bet on the winner by khallow · · Score: 1

      It's not hard to find such comparisons. From the link, France has a cost of $0.19 per kWh, Germany has $0.35 per kWh. The US has $0.12 per kWh.

    240. Re: he bet on the winner by khallow · · Score: 1

      They stopped externalizing their cost of energy production

      Exaggerations of petroleum externalities are some of the most blatant propaganda out there. Just look at the huge double standard between how subsidies for fossil fuels are calculated versus how they're calculated for renewables.

      Or calculated the cost of fossil fuel externality by assuming that one would use expensive sequestering to return concentrations to 1850 levels of CO2 rather than merely adapting to the problem (such as it is) instead.

    241. Re: he bet on the winner by jandersen · · Score: 1

      I think you are generalising beyond what is reasonable - I can think of many on the right side of the spectrum, who would be happy to kill somebody for having the wrong opinion - or skin coulour; I think you know them too. And I don't deny that there are extremists on the left who would do the same. But there is a very large group of people that are either moderately right- or left leaning, and they are fully prepared to defend the rights of other people to express their views, even if they think they are wrong.

    242. Re: he bet on the winner by khallow · · Score: 1

      Oh dear, he'll be gassing six million Jews next.

      Even Hitler took a while to get that plan in motion. He didn't even have the concept of gassing down, though some of that might have been his own experiences in the first World War.

      Ah, I get it, I get, you want to pretend that if it's not Hitler-level, it isn't that bad. Well, ok, then we won't mobilize the largest set of armed forces in history to put an end to his tyranny, even ignoring the ally we made.

      Well, do you want to pretend that? I don't see anyone else here who does.

      I despise people who use over-the-top rhetoric like comparing Trump to Hitler merely because they say similar-sounding (at least to the listener) things.

      Hitler got to the point where he killed tens of millions of other people through a combination of luck, a much more unstable and corrupt society than the US, unmet needs of his followers, and his own personal attitudes and behavior. People who compare Trump to Hitler are completely ignoring most such context. While some things are similar, the differences are very important here.

      First, Hitler and the upper leadership showed a mendacity and obsession with power that isn't present with Trump or his followers. They were quite brazen in pursuit of power such as rhetoric and propaganda (the movie, "Triumph of the Will" or use of phrases like the borrowing Nietzsche's "will to power") or the "Beer Hall Putsch" (an attempt to overthrow the current Bavarian government). And of course, the Nazis wasted no time solidifying their control of Germany once they gained power.

      He showed a continued reckless disregard for the law even before the Nazi takeover. In addition to the coup attempt, there were the lethal riots and fights in the streets with the Communists. There was the complete trampling of hate speech laws (which should someone pay attention illustrates the futility of hate speech laws in general - when it really mattered, the laws and the subsequent court cases of Nazi allies of Hitler merely gave the party more publicity). He got off easy on the Beer Hall Putsch because the judge was in his pocket.

      Trump and his followers don't do that. Further, as an alleged billionaire, Trump would stand to lose a lot from any actual law breaking on the scale that Hitler succeeded at. There have been many populist politicians over the years in the US. There have been many people who advocate against immigration. There have been many vegetarians and dog owners too. Most do not kill six million Jews.

      Finally, if we're going to make comparisons, why compare Trump to Hitler, but not to Franklin D. Roosevelt? Most of Trump's advocated immigration actions are from the FDR playbook, let us note, from banning immigration from certain parts of the world to setting up concentration camps for certain ethnicities.

    243. Re:he bet on the winner by jandersen · · Score: 1

      You call for the people not rioting to be calm and give a pass to the ones who are. Say we need to come together and begin working together, and then you say Trump is a twit.

      Well, I think he is - but I am open to being proven wrong. Also, I think calling him a twit is pretty moderate fare, compared to what people are throwing at each other atm. Isn't he the one who leads on "straight talk"? But I don't agree with the extreme hysteria on both sides; Trump won fair and square, as far as I can see, so we have to accept that, however reluctantly, and give him a chance to prove that he is in fact able to lead the nation and not be as thin-skinned as he has tended to be during the campaign - or thoughtlessly vitriolic as he used to be.

      In return, I think it is also appropriate if the other side stop the more unrealistic and hysterical tirades against Ms Clinton. If you call people "murderer" and "traitor", you will need to be able to produce valid evidence. The same protection that protects you from being found guilty based only on accusations, also applies for her, even if you hate everything you imagine she stands for, so produce solid evidence that will stand up in a court of law, or desist.

      Its not even the liberals that are rioting, its PAID protesters. Media outlets have seen the people being bussed into the riots and handed signs and given directions. You come and pretend to be the voice of reason and only blame the people not causing problems while name calling the president elect.

      We no longer care about your opinion if you are going to be a "twit" yourself. When you grow up and can discuss things in a respectful manner, there will be a place for you. Until then you will be laughed at. I suspect you are a paid poster here.

      Feeling better, now you've got that off your chest? I don't mind being called a twit - I don't think I am one, but again, I may be wrong.

      As for the so-called paid protesters - isn't it a long-standing practice in America, that people are being organised into all kinds of rallies? Like when somebody wants to organise a write-in campaign by producing a standard letter that people can download and send in, just adding their signature. I don't see that as particularly suspicious or wrong; those on the right probably do it the same way, I imagine.

      Finally, it is perfectly possible to be respectful and mature without grovelling; and if you are yourself a mature person, then you will be able to ignore a minor taunt like the word "twit", and instead come back with your reasons why you disagree with me in a fairly measured way. I won't mind being told that I am being foolish, dangerously naive or even stupid, if that is what you think, but I do expect that you will give me well thought out reasons and arguments, otherwise I will find it hard to engage with what you say.

    244. Re:he bet on the winner by jandersen · · Score: 1

      ... that one your going to loose because you guys don't have guns.

      May I suggest that you read up on what Gandhi achieved in India against the military might of the British Empire? Guns can help you win a battle, but that is all.

    245. Re:he bet on the winner by jandersen · · Score: 1

      Do you even comprehend what you've wrote?

      Yes. However, I didn't understand what you said - I've over it several times, and it doesn't seem to make sense. I can't see that people have been trying to "disassemble the establishment"; they have tried to make things fairer, they have tried to make the political system less corrupt and skewed towards making the rich richer and the poor poorer, and still haven't managed to achieve that, as far as I can see. And who is the "gay millionaire"? Trump? He has rather a lot of children for a gay person, but if he is, good on him.

      What exactly should we be told to believe next to bridge the divide?

      I would recommend you to believe only what you yourself can check out and confirm; that is the scientific way. Of course, that also implies giving up on conspiracy theories, since once you start checking the facts, they tend not to add up. But to bridge the divide, simply be willing to exactly that: check out the things people say when you disagree with them, without deciding a priori that they are wrong; accept that in some cases you may be in the wrong.

    246. Re:he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When was the last time an openly gay man was dumb enough to give 1.2 million dollars to the party of Ronald "laughing about gay people dying of aids" Reagan?

    247. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize all of Trump's proposals involve the use of federal power and federalism, right?

    248. Re: he bet on the winner by LinuxLuver · · Score: 1

      Electing anyone who has never held any elected office before to the top job rarely ends well. On climate change alone Trump is a disaster for the planet. For anything else he's just a likely disaster for Americans. Freedom of speech doesn't mean no one can disagree with you. It just means you don't get imprisoned or killed for saying what you think. Where people get this idea they can talk drivel without consequence may hold the key to why they talk drivel in the first place.

      --
      Only boring people are ever bored.
    249. Re: he bet on the winner by LinuxLuver · · Score: 1

      Trump narrowly beat Clinton in 3 states and lost the popular vote. Hardly a strong mandate.

      --
      Only boring people are ever bored.
    250. Re:he bet on the winner by werepants · · Score: 1

      Side note: abortion rights should go away, but gay rights should stay, for whatever that is worth. I still can't understand how anyone is for child murder, but there are funny people in this world.

      So, I'm guessing you're one of those who believes that human life begins at "conception"? Could you specify whether conception is when the sperm fertilizes the egg, or when the egg implants in the uterine lining, or when the zygote begins dividing, or perhaps reaches some arbitrary number of cells? Because if you draw that line at fertilization, most birth control pills are equivalent to constant indiscriminate murder. And it becomes immoral to have sex any time except at the peak likelihood of successful implant, because if eggs are fertilized at the wrong time of the month then the zygote still gets aborted just as part of the normal menstrual cycle.

    251. Re:he bet on the winner by werepants · · Score: 1

      In any case, it was the 1970s, that was another time (quite common back then, he wasn't unique there), or would YOU like to be judged on what you did 40 years ago?

      I know, just like we should have excused anything that Hillary did in the 80's, or 90's, or 2000's - those were different times as well. If people show you what they are like, believe them. Stop excusing Trump just because he's your guy.

    252. Re: he bet on the winner by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      If Clinton had won, then there would be Trump supporters rioting right now, and for much the same reason.

      The only way to really solve this would be to greatly reduce the power of the office of President, to the point that it wouldn't really matter so much who controlled it. It's just too much power today for one person to wield, and the 'superstar president' effect reduces campaigns to a media circus.

    253. Re: he bet on the winner by billdale · · Score: 0

      What a hypocrite, defending Trump's misogyny, racism and slurs against the disabled, then calling Progressives "Marxist?!? Are you DAFT???

    254. Re:he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I actually don't think anyone ever called Trump a homophobe or even a transphobe. Racist? Sure. Anti-semite? Adjacent. But he's a NYer, so the gamut of LGBTQetc is perfectly fine.
      BUT the interesting part with Thiel is his role in the upcoming apotheosis of the surveillance state. His company Palantir already has a relationship with Giuliani and was used in NY. under Bloomberg and de Blasio. The potential for abuse of this powerful police tool is endless, and under Homeland Security tsar Giuliani (should he get that) it would certainly be abused. For National Security, of course.
      Giuliani was a pretty good mayor until the day that Police Chief Bratton got public credit for reducing crime in NY. Bratton was out, and Giuliani's inner Duce was revealed. As a NYer myself, I never forget the day when, in his 2nd term, Rudy G decided to get really serious and... fight jaywalking. Yes, he built metal fences on sidewalks to prevent people from crossing in the middle. Mind you, I think crossing in the middle can be dangerous, and shouldn't be done carelessly, but nanny state anyone? And telling NY pedestrians where they can and can't walk?

    255. Re:he bet on the winner by humptheElephant · · Score: 1

      If people are against legal abortion, then they should support sex education in schools, free birth control, government help with child care, etc. We could reduce the need for abortion then. People don't go around saying, "hey, abortion is fun, I think I'll get pregnant and have an abortion."

    256. Re:he bet on the winner by msauve · · Score: 1
      You're arguing semantics, and trying to extend a commonly understood term to create a false equivalence for your argument. A fetus is alive in the same way a finger is. It is not a separate life as is a child.

      If your objection to abortion is based on the Christian religion, why do you not accept scripture...

      Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

      ...which clearly says life begins at birth (when breath starts)? And why do you equate the life of a woman with the "life" of a fetus, when the Bible draws a clear, and wide, distinction?

      Anyone who strikes a person with a fatal blow is to be put to death... If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows.

      Go ahead, try to find something more directly relevant in the New Testament.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    257. Re: he bet on the winner by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Exaggerations of petroleum externalities are some of the most blatant propaganda out there.

      What exaggeration? Fossil fuels are generally burnt as they are consumed, and that pollution costs lives. If those lives were included in the purchase price of fossil fuel it would cost more than non-fossil fuel options.

    258. Re:he bet on the winner by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Side note: My personal belief is that you do not have an abortion, even to save the life of the mother. You do not kill children for any reason whatsoever. I will not stand before God and tell him "I wanted my wife to live, so I killed my child to save her".

      Perhaps you should talk to someone in obstetrics. In a lot of cases it's likely to be "I wanted to live by this rule so both my wife and doomed child were sacrificed for my political belief".

      Dumbed down absolute rules are brutal - ask anyone from a totalitarian state. We have judges for a reason instead of an automatic penalty for every crime.

    259. Re:he bet on the winner by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I hate to tell you, but an unborn child IS a child

      I find it extremely funny that people who would do something as radical as change the definition of what a human being is have the gall to call themselves "conservatives".
      It's nothing but a goalpost shift via very weaselly wordplay.

    260. Re:he bet on the winner by Agripa · · Score: 1

      The best part is if you do it right, you can bet on both for twice the price.

    261. Re: he bet on the winner by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Maybe Obama should have banned transporting the oil via truck and train then also.

    262. Re: he bet on the winner by khallow · · Score: 1

      Fossil fuels are generally burnt as they are consumed, and that pollution costs lives. If those lives were included in the purchase price of fossil fuel it would cost more than non-fossil fuel options.

      Pollution controls would eliminate most of that and it does in Germany. In Europe, only 99k people are alleged by this study to have died from air pollution, including the relatively heavily polluted eastern Europe. Those seven million deaths are quite irrelevant to Germany's energy policy since German power plants are in Germany not in the developing world where the deaths from air pollution are.

      I think you're demonstrating quite well the dishonest approach used to evaluate the externalities of fossil fuel use.

    263. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at Germany - they've got enough solar and wind power to supply _all_ their needs.

      Replying to this post rather than GP since it has a higher rating. The GP's statement is completely false. Due to their shift in nuclear energy policy, Germany has to burn a lot of coal, most of it the dirtiest type, lignite. See the gross power production chart, renewables provided Germany with only about a third of its energy, far short of the _all_ that you contended.

    264. Re: he bet on the winner by Gussington · · Score: 1

      99000 deaths is not enough for you?

    265. Re:he bet on the winner by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      A fetus is alive in the same way a finger is. It is not a separate life as is a child.

      You are not correct. Even the criminal laws don't agree with you, because killing a pregnant woman will get you charged with double homicide.

      Go ahead, try to find something more directly relevant in the New Testament.

      The Bible has nothing to do with it... Murder is not illegal because the Bible said so, it is illegal because it is not compatible with civilization.

      Abortion is murder, it has nothing to do with religion. People who think otherwise simply support child murder, full stop.

    266. Re:he bet on the winner by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      I know, just like we should have excused anything that Hillary did in the 80's, or 90's, or 2000's - those were different times as well. If people show you what they are like, believe them. Stop excusing Trump just because he's your guy.

      I don't, I think Dick Cheney should be in prison for war crimes and perhaps George Bush along with him...

      If Trump brings back waterboarding, then I'd support impeachment for him as well.

      What Clinton did 20 years ago is largely water under the bridge as well, but she has MUCH more recent issues, pay-to-play, e-mails, Foundation, etc... She has recent crimes and if she is really, really lucky, Obama will pardon her...

      You cannot equate Clinton's real crimes to Trump being a boorish man...

    267. Re:he bet on the winner by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      If people are against legal abortion, then they should support sex education in schools, free birth control, government help with child care, etc.

      I do... as a Republican, I think our current leaders approach to those two topics is shameful.

      I think Ivanka Trump's insistence on paid maternity leave is very important, as she put it, "it is a start", and everything must start somewhere. That was the policy that was her "condition" to her father to have her support for the election. She'll expect that to get done and she has enough of daddy's ear to do it.

      I fully support sex education, all of it, in school. The use of condoms, STDs, life choices, all of it. Let the kids make up their own minds, don't force feed them just one point of view.

      Side note, I think school should be extended down below Kindergarten, I'd love to see vouchers for parents to pick their own preschool options, such as Montessori and others, for their kids.

    268. Re:he bet on the winner by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      So, I'm guessing you're one of those who believes that human life begins at "conception"?

      Yes

      Could you specify whether conception is when the sperm fertilizes the egg

      This one

      Because if you draw that line at fertilization, most birth control pills are equivalent to constant indiscriminate murder.

      Yes, they are... That is why my wife doesn't take them and has never taken them. We do use other birth control methods however. For example, condoms are fine.

      if eggs are fertilized at the wrong time of the month then the zygote still gets aborted just as part of the normal menstrual cycle.

      Yes, but that is God's work, not human's. You didn't take an overt action to cause it.

      In other words, people die all the time, sometimes for good reasons, sometimes for no reason at all. That doesn't make them bad, it is just life. You go when it is your time to go.

      There is a difference between billions of fertile eggs dying every year due to nature and millions killed on purpose.

      That is why the law, for example, splits out homicide between intentional and unintentional, and sometimes you can kill someone and not go to jail because it was an honest accident due to events beyond your control.

      ---

      Note: I fully get that not everyone agrees with me, thus the willingness to compromise. I give my point of view and set my position, then figure out what I can actually get, because I don't live in a world that has to do what I say. I honestly wish BOTH sides would remember that, because I hear it too often from both extremes that they don't wish to be reasonable.

    269. Re: he bet on the winner by khallow · · Score: 1

      99000 deaths is not enough for you?

      There are two obvious rebuttals, one which I already mentioned. Those are deaths over an area of about 740 million people. Germany is a very clean portion of that (and 11% of that population) and likely to have far less deaths proportionately. But even if we assumed that deaths from air pollution in Germany were proportional to the deaths in Europe, we're looking at 11,000 deaths instead of 7 million deaths.

      Then there's the other side of the coin, the number of lives saved by fossil fuels instead of using less efficient, more costly renewable energy exclusively. It's obviously impossible for me to calculate, but 11k deaths is an easy number to beat and I think that happens here.

      A key problem with computing fossil fuel externalities is that people invariably just calculate the negative externalities. But when it comes to something as fundamental as energy infrastructure, there are huge positive externalities to cheap energy which are being ignored. Those not only save lives, but they make every aspect of society cheaper and more efficient.

    270. Re: he bet on the winner by swalve · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter where candidates campaign. Do you think holding a rally in Boise instead of LA will change any minds?

    271. Re:he bet on the winner by swalve · · Score: 1

      You are delisional. But even if you aren't, who is the worse person? The one who bullies on behalf of the minority, or of the majority?

    272. Re:he bet on the winner by swalve · · Score: 1

      So you admit that Republicans are pussies?

    273. Re:he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really am willing to give Trump the chance to prove himself

      Thank you. His lies during the campaign were a successful strategy, and whether they also reflect the core of his being remains to be seen. In a best-case scenario, now that he's obtained the power to make positive reforms, he will do so. I dearly wish Hillary had been defeated by a more honorable strategy.

      I don't feel ill will toward those who perceived him as the lesser of two evils in the contest with Hillary. But I do feel ill will toward the Republican primary voters who elevated him above 16 more decent candidates. I'm a Republican, and I'm dismayed to learn how many of my fellow Republicans are in need of a remedial critical thinking course. (Many Democrats lack critical thinking too, of course. The slouch toward socialism, promoted by Bernie, would have been a disaster.)

    274. Re:he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is why the law, for example, splits out homicide between intentional and unintentional, and sometimes you can kill someone and not go to jail because it was an honest accident due to events beyond your control.

      The law also allows entirely intentional killings, so sometimes you can kill someone, and not go to jail, because your intent was considered sufficiently reasonable by a jury, or even the law itself. In fact, you may even be required to state you were absolutely trying to kill someone, as just trying to wound them may not be appropriate.

    275. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then murdering a pregnant woman is not double murder. Take your pick.

    276. Re:he bet on the winner by NeoTubNinja · · Score: 1
      As someone who is pro-choice, the biggest problem isn't with abortion itself, it's creating the environment where abortions become increasingly necessary. Almost to a T, people who are pro-life support all the policies that increase the need for abortions. I support birth control and making it readily available to people who can't afford it. Places like Planned Parenthood who do A LOT MORE than just abortions. Pro-life supporters usually don't. I support spending my tax money on the impoverished, especially the children. In my experience, a lot of those who are pro-life are of the opinion most poor people are leechers of the system, regardless of how hard they work. They are not in favor of reaching out to that child after he is born, just making sure he is born. I'm in favor of universal healthcare and education. Things the child of a single mother could really use. Once again, I find more often than not, most pro-life supporters are not in favor of these things. Despite being pro-choice, I'm not for the death penalty in most cases. I find most pro-life supporters are in favor of it, however.

      That being said... I'm not so fixed on this to be unable to see that not everyone agrees with me. Abortions being illegal (murder) except in the case of rape, incest, or the life of the mother, I could compromise on. I could also understand if the child is damaged in some way, brain dead or otherwise never going to live anyway. If a doctor certifies that this is the case, then fair enough, I can compromise there.

      What about if the mother is financially unable to care for a child? What if she has mental health issues that would prevent her from being an adequate mother? What if she was using birth control and happened to be one of the rare cases where it failed? I'm gonna go ahead and assume those wouldn't be exceptions to the rule, but they should be.

      Side note: My personal belief is that you do not have an abortion, even to save the life of the mother. You do not kill children for any reason whatsoever. I will not stand before God and tell him "I wanted my wife to live, so I killed my child to save her".

      So you instead want to say "I wanted my child to live, so I killed my wife to save him/her."?!?! Neither is a desirable choice, but that just seems cold. You're talking about somebody you made vows with. Someone you promised to love for eternity. I couldn't do that to someone I claimed to love. So what I usually see in a pro-life supporter is this: A person who fights the things that would help alleviate the need for abortions, but at the same time opposes all the policies that would help single mothers or orphaned children afterwards. It's like they read the part of the Bible that said "Thou shalt not kill." but completely glossed over "Love thy neighbor."

      That is one of the problems of having "laws" written by courts...

      As opposed to God? THANK GOD we have laws written by man. Otherwise, rape might be legal. "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days." -- Deuteronomy 22:28-29 Just like gay marriage, what it really comes down to is people flexing their religious muscles. This is largely an issue that doesn't really have an effect on the people outside of those directly involved. Your day-to-day life isn't going to change just because Jane Doe down the street had an abortion anymore than it did because Adam married Evan and not Eve. If it's REALLY about the morality of killing unborn children, there is probably a lot of soul searching to be done for all the women and born children who we condone killing with our military.

    277. Re:he bet on the winner by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      As someone who is pro-choice, the biggest problem isn't with abortion itself, it's creating the environment where abortions become increasingly necessary. Almost to a T, people who are pro-life support all the policies that increase the need for abortions. I support birth control and making it readily available to people who can't afford it. Places like Planned Parenthood who do A LOT MORE than just abortions. Pro-life supporters usually don't.

      Careful with that broad brush, you might be shocked...

      Planned Parenthood would do itself a lot of favors if it split aborts away from the main company and make it a separate thing...

      What about if the mother is financially unable to care for a child?

      That is what adoption is for, another thing that needs a serious overhaul. Plenty of people would love to adopt, but it is expensive and an absurdly complex process.

      So you instead want to say "I wanted my child to live, so I killed my wife to save him/her."?!?! Neither is a desirable choice, but that just seems cold.

      I'm sure it does, to someone who doesn't believe in the afterlife...

      You're talking about somebody you made vows with. Someone you promised to love for eternity.

      Yes, and one of those vows was to never harm our family, including our children. And eternity is much longer in the afterlife than it is here, this is all just temporary.

      I couldn't do that to someone I claimed to love.

      Do you claim to love your children? Would you ever take a specific action to kill one of them? I wouldn't.

      As opposed to God? THANK GOD we have laws written by man.

      That has been the downfall of many civilizations in this world, when man thought he was better than God. You'd know that if you were more knowledgeable about history.

    278. Re: he bet on the winner by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Then there's the other side of the coin, the number of lives saved by fossil fuels instead of using less efficient, more costly renewable energy exclusively. It's obviously impossible for me to calculate, but 11k deaths is an easy number to beat and I think that happens here.

      Impossible to calculate yet you'll happily make a conclusion based on this impossible to know number? That doesn't sound a little odd to you?

      A key problem with computing fossil fuel externalities is that people invariably just calculate the negative externalities. But when it comes to something as fundamental as energy infrastructure, there are huge positive externalities to cheap energy which are being ignored. Those not only save lives, but they make every aspect of society cheaper and more efficient.

      I don't disagree, but the positive curve is trending down, while new energy is curving up. It's only a matter of time before fossil fuels are obsolete. So the question becomes, do you spend more now to benefit more later, or continue to save now and get screwed over when your investment is no longer viable and you need to pay a lot more to catch up?

    279. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SoCareful with that broad brush, you might be shocked...

      Allowance for exception was made. Almost to a T and the like. But don't claim it is not an exception that the pro-life brigade doesn't go for abstinence only and no methods of birth control. They pass their conscience clauses to boot. A pharmacist discriminating is offensive, no less. And violations of HIPAA are wrong.

      Planned Parenthood would do itself a lot of favors if it split aborts away from the main company and make it a separate thing...

      Nope. It would needlessly complicate matters and raise costs. Sorry, but Jon Kyl will have to remain a liar. A liar. For life.

      Do you claim to love your children? Would you ever take a specific action to kill one of them? I wouldn't.

      Conjoined twins. One dies, or they both die. It is a choice people face in this world. Ask Ben Carson. Also the real choice is the pregnant woman dies with the fetus, or she doesn't die. It's one thing if you give your life for your child. Your life for nothing? Selfishness.

      That isn't even bringing up terminal illness or some over the top scenario where one of your children is going to kill say, a classroom of kindergarten students if you don't stop them. Sometimes I wonder about that mother in Sandy Hook.

      Of course, she could have prevented that by not buying guns, so...

      That has been the downfall of many civilizations in this world, when man thought he was better than God. You'd know that if you were more knowledgeable about history.

      You're confusing Mythology with History. Atlantis was not real. Nor Lemuria. There might have been a guy named Noah with a boat, but the rest of the story is fiction. And Babylon fell to outside forces, not because of their ziggurats.

      And no amount of prayer would have saved the Garamantes or Aztecs.

    280. Re: he bet on the winner by khallow · · Score: 1

      Impossible to calculate yet you'll happily make a conclusion based on this impossible to know number? That doesn't sound a little odd to you?

      What's odd about it? I don't have the resources to do this, but it's rather obvious that cheap energy has transformed society over the past few centuries beyond just the lower direct cost of the energy and most of our current technologies and industries came about in the first place because of the low cost of energy.

      I don't disagree, but the positive curve is trending down, while new energy is curving up. It's only a matter of time before fossil fuels are obsolete. So the question becomes, do you spend more now to benefit more later, or continue to save now and get screwed over when your investment is no longer viable and you need to pay a lot more to catch up?

      You're making an obvious unwarranted assumption. Renewables are getting cheaper, yet somehow switching over to this cheaper renewables infrastructure in the future gets more expensive? That doesn't make sense.

      The argument against procrastination is on really weak ground. We should make this expensive switch now even though it would be much cheaper and better justified economically later? Cheaper renewable and more expensive fossil fuels means you might not even have to lift a finger to incentivize the switch.

    281. Re:he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if this means they both die?

      Could you share your reasoning on that?

      Is it simply a "It was God's will" thing like Christian "scientists"?

    282. Re:he bet on the winner by werepants · · Score: 1

      if eggs are fertilized at the wrong time of the month then the zygote still gets aborted just as part of the normal menstrual cycle.

      Yes, but that is God's work, not human's. You didn't take an overt action to cause it.

      In other words, people die all the time, sometimes for good reasons, sometimes for no reason at all. That doesn't make them bad, it is just life. You go when it is your time to go.

      There is a difference between billions of fertile eggs dying every year due to nature and millions killed on purpose.

      That is why the law, for example, splits out homicide between intentional and unintentional, and sometimes you can kill someone and not go to jail because it was an honest accident due to events beyond your control.

      ---

      Note: I fully get that not everyone agrees with me, thus the willingness to compromise. I give my point of view and set my position, then figure out what I can actually get, because I don't live in a world that has to do what I say. I honestly wish BOTH sides would remember that, because I hear it too often from both extremes that they don't wish to be reasonable.

      Good job on the birth control thing - if you legitimately believe that way and are willing to forgo all contraceptive pills in your family based on your beliefs, that puts you a good step above most pro-lifers.

      That said, I don't think the distinction on how a fetus gets aborted matters. The "rhythm method" of contraception has been around for a long, long time, and it plain and simple doesn't prevent eggs from being fertilized. Are these people committing continual manslaughter? Honestly, if you really go that far, then I think it might become immoral to have kids at all, or ever risk activity that would allow a fertilized egg to be aborted by natural causes or otherwise.

      Think about it like this: if you want to save a kid's life, is it worth risking another kid's life for every chance at it? Obviously the answer is no. Every time you attempt to conceive, you run a serious risk of aborting a fertilized egg. By your definition, there's no moral way to conceive a child unless you can do it in such a way that you guarantee that no zygote can be aborted - and there is no way to get that guarantee.

      The whole "natural" vs. "unnatural" thing is nonsense. Rape is natural, considering that it happens in the animal kingdom everywhere. Malaria is natural, so clearly there's no moral problem with allowing a child to die from malaria, right? Whether you make a choice that has a large chance of killing a child, or you outright choose to kill a child, you have done something horrific. I have found no logical argument that allowing a zygote to abort from natural causes is manslaughter, ergo early term abortion is not murder.

    283. Re: he bet on the winner by Gussington · · Score: 1

      What's odd about it? I don't have the resources to do this, but it's rather obvious that cheap energy has transformed society over the past few centuries beyond just the lower direct cost of the energy and most of our current technologies and industries came about in the first place because of the low cost of energy.

      True, but that's not the question. Today, in 2016, is there more value in pursuing alternative energy sources over retaining purely existing legacy ones?
      Similar to the argument from the 1980's of do we spend more money on these new PC things, or stick with our trusty typewriters? Sure PCs cost more, but there might be some additional value going forward that is worth the extra spend now.

      You're making an obvious unwarranted assumption. Renewables are getting cheaper, yet somehow switching over to this cheaper renewables infrastructure in the future gets more expensive? That doesn't make sense.

      You're right that doesn't make sense, you may need to rephrase your question.

      The argument against procrastination is on really weak ground. We should make this expensive switch now even though it would be much cheaper and better justified economically later? Cheaper renewable and more expensive fossil fuels means you might not even have to lift a finger to incentivize the switch.

      Someone has to lift a finger. Change doesn't just happen by magic fairies.
      The kicker here is that the pro-business, anti-green right wing have shouted loudly how silly this all is. But the new energy market has invested over $2Trillion dollars in the last decade in this industry, and has consistent double digit growth year on year. Even if you hate hippies, and are the greediest free market capitalist, you have to admit that it would be good to get in on this action rather than let the Germans and Chinese take the lion's share of a new booming industry for free?
      New Energy is the PC/Internet boom of the 80's and 90's, there are trillions of dollars to be made. You can choose stick with your cheap typewriter, and wait til PCs become cheaper, then maybe one day buy a PC and Apple Mac. Or you can get in early, spend money now, and become the next Microsoft or Apple. The saving millions of lives is just an added bonus.

    284. Re: he bet on the winner by khallow · · Score: 1

      True, but that's not the question. Today, in 2016, is there more value in pursuing alternative energy sources over retaining purely existing legacy ones?

      Why do you think that renewables haven't been sufficiently pursued?

      The kicker here is that the pro-business, anti-green right wing have shouted loudly how silly this all is. But the new energy market has invested over $2Trillion dollars in the last decade in this industry, and has consistent double digit growth year on year. Even if you hate hippies, and are the greediest free market capitalist, you have to admit that it would be good to get in on this action rather than let the Germans and Chinese take the lion's share of a new booming industry for free?

      Whose $2 trillion was that again? If I threw $2 trillion of public funds at stamp collecting, I imagine I could get a lot of awesome stamp collecting.

      New Energy is the PC/Internet boom of the 80's and 90's, there are trillions of dollars to be made. You can choose stick with your cheap typewriter, and wait til PCs become cheaper, then maybe one day buy a PC and Apple Mac. Or you can get in early, spend money now, and become the next Microsoft or Apple. The saving millions of lives is just an added bonus.

      The market is already saturated. At this point, I'd wait and see who survives.

      If this market can survive on its own, then fine. But it's funny how much subsidies it consumes.

    285. Re: he bet on the winner by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Why do you think that renewables haven't been sufficiently pursued?

      When you do decide to sell your Apple shares? If your investment is still paying dividends then there's no reason to change your position.

      Whose $2 trillion was that again? If I threw $2 trillion of public funds at stamp collecting, I imagine I could get a lot of awesome stamp collecting.

      When your stamps create cleaner and cheaper energy, ie one of the most critical resources used in human history then get back to me.

      If this market can survive on its own, then fine. But it's funny how much subsidies it consumes.

      Compared to the trillions that the fossil fuels have accumulated over more than a century in subsidies it is peanuts. And it will deliver much higher ROI. Why the double standards?

    286. Re: he bet on the winner by khallow · · Score: 1

      When you do decide to sell your Apple shares? If your investment is still paying dividends then there's no reason to change your position.

      Depends on the situation. But extremely low dividends aren't much different from no dividends. In the case of Apple, it's around 2-2.5% dividends per year. That's a bit low without an expectation that they'll grow their company a significant amount. Given that I don't trust their future growth potential, I don't invest in it.

      When your stamps create cleaner and cheaper energy, ie one of the most critical resources used in human history then get back to me.

      Irrelevant. Saying something is a two trillion dollar industry while ignoring the massive subsidies, isn't a serious observation.

      Compared to the trillions that the fossil fuels have accumulated over more than a century in subsidies it is peanuts. And it will deliver much higher ROI. Why the double standards?

      Why indeed the double standards? The actual subsidies for oil are significantly lower when you compare like to like. For example, most oil subsidies are consumption subsidies not production subsidies. Right there that's a huge difference since consumption subsidies may actually cost the producer more than they help (since the company may actually be losing money on the transaction).

      Second, most of the subsidies for fossil fuels are oil subsidies in oil-producing countries like Iran, Russia, and China. Renewable subsidies are significantly higher in the developed world than their fossil fuel subsidies are.

      Third, there is, of course, the large double standard in subsidies. Notice how you claim a century's worth of fossil fuel subsidies, the vast majority of which are quite irrelevant to today's market. It would be foolish, for example, to claim that wind or solar power deserves a century of subsidies just because fossil fuels have supposedly gotten that treatment.

      And it will deliver much higher ROI.

      You do realize that isn't currently true?

    287. Re: he bet on the winner by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Depends on the situation. But extremely low dividends aren't much different from no dividends.

      There's two paybacks from investing, dividends and capital gain. Apple shares, like the new energy industry has experienced massive capital gain.

      Irrelevant. Saying something is a two trillion dollar industry while ignoring the massive subsidies, isn't a serious observation.

      Right, so why do you insist that fossil fuel is so good then?

      Why indeed the double standards? The actual subsidies for oil are significantly lower when you compare like to like.

      Well compare away. I notice an obvious lack of examples here so I'll start:
      Every war ever fought in the middle east.
      7 million deaths each and every year for free, pretty much a WW2 every decade.
      Now your turn.

      You do realize that isn't currently true?

      Yes, do you realise why subsidies exist?

    288. Re: he bet on the winner by khallow · · Score: 1

      Yes, do you realise why subsidies exist?

      Money without effort.

    289. Re: he bet on the winner by Gussington · · Score: 0

      Money without effort.

      Yes, much like the benefits you receive from a stable democratic government that required no effort from you for the first 18 years of your life. So you get it now...

    290. Re: he bet on the winner by khallow · · Score: 1

      Yes, much like the benefits you receive from a stable democratic government that required no effort from you for the first 18 years of your life.

      Funny how those things aren't much like subsidies. They're a variety of paid for services operated by government. Actual subsidies are near universally corporate welfare.

    291. Re: he bet on the winner by khallow · · Score: 1

      Every war ever fought in the middle east.

      Of course not. If companies had to pay for their own security in the Middle East, it would be vastly cheaper. For example, if government pays $100 per pet for robotic poop scoopers so that I don't have to exert myself for the $1 of time and effort it takes to collect the poop from my pet, it's not $100 of subsidy to me. It's $1 of subsidy.

      And why isn't the cost of those wars counted towards the cost of renewable energy subsidies? They benefit too even if it is a little bit more tenuously than fossil fuels (these wars after all stabilize global trade which renewable energy is dependent on). That's the usual double standard in play.

      7 million deaths each and every year for free, pretty much a WW2 every decade.

      Dishonest comparison since the renewable energy subsidies won't be in the places with the deaths (developed world subsidies versus developing world pollution and deaths) and of course, ignoring the positive externality of cheaper energy.

      Further, we could eliminate most of these deaths with the usual pollution controls developed in the 1970s and 80s. No need to switch to renewables when there's a cheaper option at hand.

      You see this repeatedly in play. For example, the IMF estimated $5.3 trillion in fossil fuel subsidies in 2015. They gloss over that more than $2 trillion of that is just due to China's mess (air pollution and "other vehicle externalities"). Further, despite generating more CO2 than the US from energy production and vehicle use, the Chinese contribution to global warming is somehow an order of magnitude lower. And of course, positive externality of cheap energy is nowhere to be seen in their charts.

      There's two paybacks from investing, dividends and capital gain. Apple shares, like the new energy industry has experienced massive capital gain.

      Why should I expect either to have good future capital gain over a typical investment horizon?

    292. Re: he bet on the winner by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Funny how those things aren't much like subsidies. They're a variety of paid for services operated by government. Actual subsidies are near universally corporate welfare.

      They are exactly the same thing. Welfare is welfare whether to a person or a business. You do know that a business is just a group of people right? And they offer goods and service to other people? Whether you offer welfare to individuals one at a time, or to a business that services a bunch of people at once, the result is the same, you pay money to get something back in return.
      Did you pay full fees for your school? The roads you drive on? The water out of your tap? Your Internet service? How about the fact you don't speak Russian now, how much did you pay for that on the day you were born? No, the government subsidises the cost of these things because they have a benefit to society greater than the cost of the subsidy.
      Energy independence is quite possibly the greatest benefit any country can achieve, because upon that everything else can be built, and the most costly thing to the economy, war can be largely avoided.

    293. Re: he bet on the winner by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Of course not. If companies had to pay for their own security in the Middle East, it would be vastly cheaper.

      Of course you will provide references to back that claim up.

      For example, if government pays $100 per pet for robotic poop scoopers so that I don't have to exert myself for the $1 of time and effort it takes to collect the poop from my pet, it's not $100 of subsidy to me. It's $1 of subsidy.

      What if they pay a bunch of guys to risk their lives so you don't have to risk yours What's that worth to you?
      How much stuff do you have right now that you get to keep because someone else is preventing bad guys to killing you and talking your stuff? You can't argue against the concept of welfare if you enjoy the protection of state.

      And why isn't the cost of those wars counted towards the cost of renewable energy subsidies?

      Because we're not in the middle east securing the use of solar panels? Really?

      They benefit too even if it is a little bit more tenuously than fossil fuels (these wars after all stabilize global trade which renewable energy is dependent on). That's the usual double standard in play.

      That really is grasping at straws. Take a look at all the conflict in the world, then see which ones we get involved with, and see if you can find a pattern.
      The Iraq conflict has been going for 25 years, and cost us trillions. You seriously think that would've happened if we didn't rely on oil so much? Oil is the most subsidised energy there is. If you don't like subsidising energy you should be all for new energy because that is the greatest benefit to independence. Once achieved you no longer need to subsidise it. It will only be temporary while fossil fuels will require subsidies forever.

      Dishonest comparison since the renewable energy subsidies won't be in the places with the deaths (developed world subsidies versus developing world pollution and deaths) and of course, ignoring the positive externality of cheaper energy.

      That's your opinion, the facts says otherwise.
      Renewables are the next big industry. Imagine having this same discussion when oil was discovered. You'd be complaining that we shouldn't bother with this new oil fad, let's stick with burning wood and steam engines.

      Further, we could eliminate most of these deaths with the usual pollution controls developed in the 1970s and 80s. No need to switch to renewables when there's a cheaper option at hand.

      Too late, renewables are already cheaper for developing countries with no existing infrastructure, and getting cheaper every day.
      You are betting that you can keep modifying your typewriter to an electronic version to compete with PCs.

      They gloss over that more than $2 trillion of that is just due to China's mess

      China is the world's leading investor in renewables. They have already recognised the folly of fossil fuels and have jumped in with both feet. Would you prefer the new global mega industry to be monopolised by the Chinese, or should America try get a slice of that pie?

      Why should I expect either to have good future capital gain over a typical investment horizon?

      The choice is gains (get involved) or losses (let the Chinese and Germans own the next big thing). Which do you prefer?

    294. Re: he bet on the winner by khallow · · Score: 1

      They are exactly the same thing.

      Words have meaning. For subsidy:

      1. A sum of money granted by the state or a public body to help an industry or business keep the price of a commodity or service low:

      1.1 A sum of money granted to support an undertaking held to be in the public interest:

      1.2 A grant or contribution of money:

      Welfare is not a subsidy. And note that I didn't say all corporate welfare was subsidy either!

      Did you pay full fees for your school? The roads you drive on? The water out of your tap? Your Internet service? How about the fact you don't speak Russian now, how much did you pay for that on the day you were born? No, the government subsidises the cost of these things because they have a benefit to society greater than the cost of the subsidy.

      None of that is subsidy. You aren't even close.

      Energy independence is quite possibly the greatest benefit any country can achieve, because upon that everything else can be built,

      Greater than freedom? Greater than long life? Greater than education? Greater than prosperity? You can build all these things on energy dependence too as the Japanese have discovered.

      and the most costly thing to the economy, war can be largely avoided.

      Except when war can't be largely avoided. To note a recent example, Iraq was unable to avoid being invaded in 2003.

    295. Re: he bet on the winner by khallow · · Score: 1

      Of course not. If companies had to pay for their own security in the Middle East, it would be vastly cheaper.

      Of course you will provide references to back that claim up.

      Because? What oil company needed to invade Iraq or Afghanistan to protect their infrastructure?

      What if they pay a bunch of guys to risk their lives so you don't have to risk yours What's that worth to you?

      Sounds like it could be negative value here to me. My life isn't infinite in value and it would take very few deaths to outweigh the value of my life.

      And why isn't the cost of those wars counted towards the cost of renewable energy subsidies?

      Because we're not in the middle east securing the use of solar panels? Really?

      The transportation network is very heavily petroleum-dependent and you argued that the full cost of Middle East wars should be laid at the feet of petroleum producers and users. Well, that includes solar panels. They don't magically grow on houses.

      That's your opinion, the facts says otherwise. Renewables are the next big industry. Imagine having this same discussion when oil was discovered. You'd be complaining that we shouldn't bother with this new oil fad, let's stick with burning wood and steam engines.

      Do you have a link to these "facts"? I couldn't help but notice that your link didn't support your assertion. It merely claims that "investment" which is not "subsidy" was higher in the developing world for the first time in 2016. There were plenty of years before 2016 and plenty of subsidies in the developed world which aren't being counted here.

      Too late, renewables are already cheaper for developing countries with no existing infrastructure, and getting cheaper every day. You are betting that you can keep modifying your typewriter to an electronic version to compete with PCs.

      Then the switch from fossil fuels to renewables will happen sooner than I expect. I have no problem with that, assuming your assertions are actually true.

      China is the world's leading investor in renewables. They have already recognised the folly of fossil fuels and have jumped in with both feet. Would you prefer the new global mega industry to be monopolised by the Chinese, or should America try get a slice of that pie?

      Why do you think the US has a chance? They've already lost to the Chinese on this.

      Why should I expect either to have good future capital gain over a typical investment horizon?

      The choice is gains (get involved) or losses (let the Chinese and Germans own the next big thing). Which do you prefer?

      False dilemma. First, the Chinese are already owning the Germans despite a variety of German and EU protectionist schemes, including renewable energy subsidies.

      Second, by letting the Chinese and Germans pay the huge development costs, we'd just pay for the final product. Far cheaper to do it that way especially since renewable energy isn't that big a deal. If they overcharge for these products, then just continue to use existing fossil fuels and other such competitors. It's a buyers market out there.

    296. Re: he bet on the winner by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Words have meaning. For subsidy:

      Yes, yes they do

      Subsidy: A grant or contribution of money:

      Welfare: financial or other assistance to an individual or family from a city, state, or national government

      Welfare is not a subsidy.

      Yes it is.

      None of that is subsidy. You aren't even close.

      The government contributes money on your behalf. So according to your own definition (all three of them) you are wrong

      You can build all these things on energy dependence too as the Japanese have discovered.

      Japan used to be the second biggest economy in the world, now that is China who are investing heavily in new energy. See the pattern?

      Except when war can't be largely avoided. To note a recent example, Iraq was unable to avoid being invaded in 2003.

      Over fossil fuels. Do you see how it works now?

      You have no reasonable position here.
      Either you don't agree with welfare or subsidies in which you need to stop accepting the welfare/subsidised benefits you currently receive from living in a developed nation. Or you don't believe that new technology can be better than old technology, in which case stop using your computer, and reply back on a typewriter.
      Since you choose to participate in both a welfare/subsidy economy, and use modern technology, your actions speak louder than words.

    297. Re: he bet on the winner by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Second, by letting the Chinese and Germans pay the huge development costs, we'd just pay for the final product. Far cheaper to do it that way

      And pay licensing fees for the rest of life to foreigners. That's a great long term plan for independence you have there.
      I bet you'll be the first to bitch that too many jobs are going overseas too....

    298. Re: he bet on the winner by khallow · · Score: 1

      I corrected your earlier post, but you still choose to be wrong. I won't bother to attempt to fix this any further.

    299. Re: he bet on the winner by khallow · · Score: 1

      And pay licensing fees for the rest of life to foreigners.

      Would happen anyway. The US has demonstrated considerable prowess at inventing stuff and then technology-transferring it to other countries.

    300. Re: he bet on the winner by Gussington · · Score: 1

      And pay licensing fees for the rest of life to foreigners.

      Would happen anyway. The US has demonstrated considerable prowess at inventing stuff and then technology-transferring it to other countries.

      Like Microsoft, Apple, Google, Ford, GM, Boeing etc. All the richest companies are American, because they were the innovators in those fields. America could be a new energy global powerhouse and control a trillion dollar industry that is likely to last centuries. But no, we're too short sighted to see past subsidies=communism! So the Germans and Chinese will have it handed to them on a plate.

    301. Re: he bet on the winner by khallow · · Score: 1

      Like Microsoft, Apple, Google, Ford, GM, Boeing etc.

      Microsoft and Apple are the only two companies you mentioned founded since 1916. China has changed a wee bit since then. So has the US. I think it's ridiculous to speak of today's environment as it were the environment of pre-First World War US. That world hasn't existed for a long time.

      Microsoft and Apple are notable both for their lack of manufacture and the amount of brainpower they bring to their respective industries.

      Solar power doesn't require what those big companies have. And we've already seen a massive die-off of US companies in solar power at the expense of the Chinese, who fared far better when there was oversupply around 2011.

      China has already won in this particular market with the only remaining significant US competitor being Elon Musk's SolarCity which is heavily subsidized and being propped up by Tesla Motors as well.

      But no, we're too short sighted to see past subsidies=communism!

      The obvious rebuttal is that the US already tried and just ended up giving a lot of solar tech to the Chinese. Seriously, there's 60 years of development of solar power in the US. Similarly, there's something like 20-30 years of history of solar power subsidies as well. You've had plenty of time to show your strategy can work. It's time to stop wasting our money on this crap.

      So the Germans and Chinese will have it handed to them on a plate.

      So what? You still don't get that they have to offer it cheaper than the alternatives or we don't buy it. Meanwhile Germany and China are squandering their wealth on these poor strategies. Works for me.

    302. Re: he bet on the winner by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Microsoft and Apple are the only two companies you mentioned founded since 1916. China has changed a wee bit since then. So has the US. I think it's ridiculous to speak of today's environment as it were the environment of pre-First World War US. That world hasn't existed for a long time.

      The concept of innovation still exists. Massive technological innovations don't come along every day, the steam engine, the automobile, flight, transistors etc. Successful countries were the ones that got onboard early and led development. In fact one of the main reason the US has been so rich and successful is its early adoption of technology. For some reason this went out the window with the latest technology for reasons that make no sense.
      You can be a leader or a follower. Renewable energy is already taking over the world, even if the fossil fuel lobby in the US doesn't want to believe it. I'm not American, and I travel a fair bit. Your attitude to renewable energy sounds exactly like a typewriter salesman from the 80's.

      Microsoft and Apple are notable both for their lack of manufacture and the amount of brainpower they bring to their respective industries.

      Apple are massively into manufacturing, they do all the design work, and own all the IP, then outsource the labour to cheaper markets. They are the model the US could be doing with renewable energy.

      Solar power doesn't require what those big companies have.

      Elon Musk says otherwise.

      And we've already seen a massive die-off of US companies in solar power at the expense of the Chinese, who fared far better when there was oversupply around 2011.

      That is normal for any new industry. Do you think Ford is the only guy that ever tried to make cars? There will a lot of failures before the nut is cracked, but you'll never succeed by giving up.

      China has already won in this particular market with the only remaining significant US competitor being Elon Musk's SolarCity which is heavily subsidized and being propped up by Tesla Motors as well.

      So do you think Elon knows something you don't, or you know better?

      The obvious rebuttal is that the US already tried and just ended up giving a lot of solar tech to the Chinese. Seriously, there's 60 years of development of solar power in the US. Similarly, there's something like 20-30 years of history of solar power subsidies as well. You've had plenty of time to show your strategy can work. It's time to stop wasting our money on this crap.

      It's not my strategy, but it's quite clear the decades of effort are finally paying off, and this is the time you want to throw in the towel? Are you the guy that sold your Microsoft shares in 1994?

      So what? You still don't get that they have to offer it cheaper than the alternatives or we don't buy it. Meanwhile Germany and China are squandering their wealth on these poor strategies. Works for me.

      Time will tell if they are poor or rich. Good luck selling those typewriters...

    303. Re: he bet on the winner by khallow · · Score: 1

      The concept of innovation still exists.

      Concepts don't pay the bills.

      For some reason this went out the window with the latest technology for reasons that make no sense.

      If you're referring to renewable energy, it's because it didn't make economic sense from more than one angle. First, you have to subsidize it. The Obama administration was quite hostile to oil production yet it still massively grew under his watch due to fracking and rail transportation of the resulting oil. If instead, he had been similarly hostile to renewable energy subsidies, he could have triggered a large collapse in the industry just by undermining the subsidies.

      Second, solar power is the sort of industry where the US just isn't competitive any more. Once they figure out how to make cheaper solar panels that do the same thing, then where are you? This is very different from the software companies you referred to earlier.

      Chinese firms can already figure out how to make cheaper hardware for iPhones, but they can't legally make the software to run the hardware. And the technical expertise to make hardware doesn't overlap with the technical expertise to make the software.

      You can be a leader or a follower.

      Being a leader doesn't mean much when followers will eat your lunch and take over the market. And being a follower is cheaper.

      Apple are massively into manufacturing, they do all the design work, and own all the IP, then outsource the labour to cheaper markets.

      That's a funny way to say that they don't do their own manufacture. Also, their product is the software that runs on their machines. Chinese companies can't duplicate the markets that Apple has made.

      In comparison, what software runs on solar panels or wind generators? The hardware is the product and China excels at making hardware.

      So do you think Elon knows something you don't, or you know better?

      I think Tesla and SolarCity will probably go down together while before, there was a chance that Tesla would survive. I've seen mergers like that before and it's fine as long as the sick company isn't too sick for the healthier company to clean up (which I think will be a big problem here) and the leadership can fix the problems associated with the sick company.

      It's not my strategy, but it's quite clear the decades of effort are finally paying off, and this is the time you want to throw in the towel? Are you the guy that sold your Microsoft shares in 1994?

      I don't think it's "quite clear" to you. Solar and wind power just isn't that hard to figure out, technology-wise.

    304. Re: he bet on the winner by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Concepts don't pay the bills.

      Yes they do. That is exactly what is paying the bills. Or do you think the economy is being propped up by horses and carts and hand picking apples?
      Innovation is how we are paying our way today, you are a special kind of fool if you aren't aware of that.

      If you're referring to renewable energy, it's because it didn't make economic sense from more than one angle. First, you have to subsidize it...

      Yes, yes we've already been over this. You don't know why subsidies exist, nor do you admit to believing in their value even though you benefit from them right now. You've made that clear.

      Second, solar power is the sort of industry where the US just isn't competitive any more. Once they figure out how to make cheaper solar panels that do the same thing, then where are you? This is very different from the software companies you referred to earlier.

      You realise this industry sector is more than just solar panels right? Actually I don't think you do.
      This discussion is pointless when you lack the basic understanding of how subsidies assist emerging industries to reach an economy of scale to become potentially profitable and of net benefit to the economy. But maybe we should just keep our typewriters forever and see where that gets us instead...

  2. What do you make of it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    #pizzagate ?

    1. Re:What do you make of it? by Mashiki · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That one involves democrats they're above the law. Now just remember that Thiel is a traitor to gay people, Trump is Hitler, and buzzfeed is saying he's launching the jack-booted right-wing death squads now...

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  3. Crony Capitalism by srwood · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A little conflict of interest here with his company Palantir Technologies and its half a billion dollars in defense contracts.

    1. Re: Crony Capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Possibly correct, if he is appointed secretary of defense.

    2. Re: Crony Capitalism by prefec2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why? Corruption is the standard in Washington. I wait for the day when Trump voters find out that Trump is also part of a rich elite. That they will stay poor and have no jobs. Lower taxes is BTW only good for people who earn that.much that they have to pay them.

    3. Re:Crony Capitalism by dywolf · · Score: 1

      He'll be appointed Press Secretary or Minister of Information is my guess.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    4. Re: Crony Capitalism by lucm · · Score: 0, Troll

      Lower taxes is BTW only good for people who earn that.much that they have to pay them.

      Yes, that's why people who voted for Trump are attacked and robbed in Chicago.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    5. Re: Crony Capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> Lower taxes is BTW only good for people who earn that.much that they have to pay them.
      >
      > Yes, that's why people who voted for Trump are attacked and robbed in Chicago.

      The non-sequitur logic of the average Trump voter, folks!

      They say Trump's campaign has emboldened the bigots.
      But even moreso, he's emboldened the stupid.

    6. Re: Crony Capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, that's why people who voted for Trump are attacked and robbed in Chicago.

      Or it could be that Trump voters aren't the only pricks. There's plenty of Clinton voters that are pricks too.

    7. Re: Crony Capitalism by prefec2 · · Score: 2

      What has this to do with my argument. In case your police is not capable enough, they need more men/women and better training. In case robberies in Chicago have to do with inequality and lack of work, you need to educate people and fix tour economy. Low taxes will not help with that.

    8. Re: Crony Capitalism by lucm · · Score: 1

      What has this to do with my argument. In case your police is not capable enough, they need more men/women and better training. In case robberies in Chicago have to do with inequality and lack of work, you need to educate people and fix tour economy. Low taxes will not help with that.

      I was referring to a specific incident this week where a guy was pulled from his car, beaten and robbed (on camera) while people attacking him were shouting "he voted for Trump".

      So this has everything to do with your argument. When you don't pay taxes and you're constantly on the receiving end of government services, anything that threatens to stop the gravy train is a target. That's why the liberals always have an edge with the poor.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    9. Re: Crony Capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The power to tax is the power to destroy." what this means is that Taxes are Force.. Its no different then when someone sticks a gun to your head and robs you.

    10. Re: Crony Capitalism by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Aaaaaaand, that ladies and gentlemen, is why you lost. You want people to listen to you? Stop calling them names and find out why this has happened.

    11. Re: Crony Capitalism by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      I didn't lose in the sense that I don't live in the USA. Fuck trump supporters they're thick as shit and couldn't win a debate with a monkey, they ignore reality - how can you debate with someone who completely ignores reality and believes irrational illogical crap.

      Out of the pan and into the fire, sure Hilary is bad, but trump is worse, Bernie sanders was the non-corrupt sane choice.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    12. Re: Crony Capitalism by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Right, do people really think Trump got rich by passing tax cuts and efficiency savings on to his employees? The immigrants he employed to build his real estate?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    13. Re: Crony Capitalism by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Its no different then when someone sticks a gun to your head and robs you.

      And then builds a driveway for you and pays for your kids' tuition. Fuck that guy!

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    14. Re: Crony Capitalism by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Why? Corruption is the standard in Washington. I wait for the day when Trump voters find out that Trump is also part of a rich elite. That they will stay poor and have no jobs.

      It's not going to happen. Cognitive dissonance will lead them to excuse his failures (and failures to even attempt certain things) and blame them on the "other" party. Look at how many people supported Clinton in the primaries, after Obama. Obama presided over a congress ready to pass the ACA, as a handout to insurance companies. He didn't close gitmo. He ran the least transparent administration ever after promising to run the most transparent. Then the DNC says "okay, we gave you Obama who was a failure, now support our candidate Clinton!" and the Democrats say "OK!" and then we have Clinton who the polls during the primaries said couldn't win against Trump and what do you know? Clinton couldn't win against Trump.

      Why would the Republicans be any different?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    15. Re: Crony Capitalism by Raenex · · Score: 1

      All right, but apart from that, what have the Romans ever done for us?

    16. Re:Crony Capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have ANY idea how much government business Google has? Do you have any idea how many people switched back and forth between being Google employees or senior government officials? More than 250.

      It isn't a conflict of interest unless Thiel is involved in assigning contracts that his own company is bidding on.

    17. Re: Crony Capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I don't think Trump supporters are capable of logical debate, they just spew nonsense rife with contradictions and fallacies.

      This is incredibly dangerous. On the basis of how someone else voted, you can therefore ignore them, not engage in debate, not compromise, maybe you want to lock them up or kill them.

      Change is needed and a change candidate was offered. He might not be the right one, but that's what backing the candidate for big banks & the status quo gets you.

    18. Re: Crony Capitalism by rholtzjr · · Score: 1

      What do you mean WHEN we find out he is/was part of the rich elite? We have always known he was part of it.

    19. Re: Crony Capitalism by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      Maybe you knew that. However, answers of his voters show that they voted for him in favor to hurt the establishment/elites.

    20. Re: Crony Capitalism by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      My outside view tells me that both big parties work in similar ways. I also have the impression that it was stupid to select Clinton over Sanders, not only because of Trump, but of her harmed reputation. I do not know if she is corrupt. However, the Democrats should have understood that many people think that way. Fortunately, Trump might not be that bad for the EU, as it might help our politicians to get their flipping act together. The vote for Trump was a conservative vote (in the sense that people do want the old days back, where they knew which was right and wrong). This happens when people feel threatened by the development in a country.

      We have populists in the EU and the only way to stop that is to support those who feel outclassed in society. So politicians have to address this feeling together with fixing capitalism/the economy. The latter is necessary to really stabilize society.

      Anyway, Trump is now in office for four years and senate and the house of rep. are in republican (teaparty) hands. So a lot of strange and dangerous things will happen the next four years (or at least two). As long as he does not push the button on the end of humanity, we will survive this.

    21. Re: Crony Capitalism by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      Most people vote for someone not based on logic, but based on feelings. This is not new. My argument is that people voted for Trump to communicate that they feel outclassed and forgotten (since ever). Furthermore, they feel that Clinton is part of the cause (i.e., the establishment). In case things get still worse for them the next four years, they might feel that they have been betrayed and vote differently. This does not mean that they will vote for the republicans. Maybe the republicans will split up. Unfortunately, the Democrats which sounded like the left party in the past never did something left in the past (not even ObamaCare qualifies as that).
      Therefore, they have no standing in Congress. As long as they cannot win Congress, there cannot be a positive transformation. Also they need a truthful answer for all those left behind white people. And that is super difficult, because you have to offer them a place in society and in the same answer be against racism, sexism, etc. In short: What is in for them in liberalism? (Hint: Liberalism != Neo-Liberalism)

    22. Re: Crony Capitalism by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      I do not know about this incident. In case that really happened, it did not have anything to do with liberalism. This was stupid violence. In the same way, as people have been threatened by Trump voters because they looked like Clinton voters.

      BTW: Trump had an edge with the poor in this vote, as the poor did not consider Clinton to support them.

      Anyway, if you have poor people in your country which cannot earn the money they need to live, then it is obvious that they need the support of the society (and the government should be the tool of the society to address the issue).

    23. Re: Crony Capitalism by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      " maybe you want to lock them up or kill them."

      Thanks, you just proved my point.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    24. Re: Crony Capitalism by RandomSurfer314 · · Score: 1

      Apparently not all of you...

    25. Re: Crony Capitalism by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      I think part of the problem is large swathes of the media have stopped becoming critical of the establishment in any way that doesn't obviously benefit themselves.

      "people voted for Trump to communicate that they feel outclassed and forgotten"

      All they had to do is join the democrats and vote for Bernie Sanders.

      I'm an environmentalist and to me this is a massive disaster worst than any natural disaster, the negative consequences of this could be astronomical.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    26. Re: Crony Capitalism by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      Joining Sanders would have been a logical choice, but this is about feelings (yes this is totally not enlightened). Also, Sanders said things which are culturally not compatible with white people in the mid west or people which are labeled white trash (which is super racist btw).

    27. Re: Crony Capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Colleges cost money, govt doesn't pay for that. They will give you a loan though. And a driveway is personal property. We just paved our drive way before winter. We payed for it, not the govt.

    28. Re: Crony Capitalism by Gussington · · Score: 2

      I wait for the day when Trump voters find out that Trump is also part of a rich elite. That they will stay poor and have no jobs.

      This is the problem with stupid people, they are too stupid to work this out, and will never work it out as he'll continue to shout loudly that it's someone else's fault. We have a rich elitist 1%er telling the working class that he's on their side, and they fell for it hook line and sinker. It takes a special kind of stupid to get sucked into that one.

    29. Re: Crony Capitalism by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Actually, in my country, it does. And the driveway was a public road analogy.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    30. Re: Crony Capitalism by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      What will it take to turn the arrogance off? Le Pen in power in France? AfD as part of the German government? Keep sucking your fingers in your ears and shouting "stupid stupid" because that's been hugely successful so far.

    31. Re:Crony Capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A little conflict of interest here with his company Palantir Technologies and its half a billion dollars in defense contracts.

      The right to ethical government is certainly one of the rights protected by the 9th Amendment (rights retained by the people) and the 10th.

      Even the appearance of conflict of interest must be avoided when reasonable alternatives exist.

      As such, he either gives up all ownership in the company, or he (and Trump) will be violating the Bill of Rights.

      It's up to the public to insist on that. Certainly we can't rely on the US legal profession to do so - they routinely violate the right to ethical practice of law (another 9th Amendment right), and they won't want to draw attention to themselves. If the public doesn't insist on ethical government, we won't get it.

  4. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trumps Actions will Speak Louder that words.

  5. pay to play by davids-world.com · · Score: 1

    Oh, my bad, that was the other side's policy. I got confused there for a second.

    1. Re:pay to play by lucm · · Score: 3, Informative

      Oh, my bad, that was the other side's policy. I got confused there for a second.

      Do you mean the "furniture for pardon" program implemented during the Clinton presidency? Or the more popular "cash for pardon", also implemented by Clinton? Or maybe the more recent "donate to the Clinton Foundation to meet the secretary of state" program? There's also the classic "sell uranium to the Russians as long as they contribute to the Clinton Foundation" program.

      You'll have to be more specific.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    2. Re:pay to play by Kohath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How about the $750,000 speech Bill Clinton gave for Ericsson 9 days before telecom equipment was left off a list of items prohibited by Iran sanctions. Just a coincidence probably.

    3. Re:pay to play by Imazalil · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're willfully missing the point.

      Clinton is questionable as hell, and that is why she wasn't elected.

      Trump promised (or technically implied so, maybe there is a literal swamp he'll be draining somewhere) to clean things up. Now, he is putting people into government that were throwing money at him. Sure, they're a transition team and all that, but so much for a clean break. Screaming Clinton this, Clinton that doesn't make Trumps hypocrisy any better.

    4. Re:pay to play by bongey · · Score: 1

      Difference is the people put their necks on the line to work and campaign for Trump.I wonder how many death threats Theil got from left. Unlike Clinton/Obama who just go down a donor list.

    5. Re:pay to play by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're a fucking moron.

    6. Re:pay to play by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      Clinton is questionable as hell, and that is why she wasn't elected.

      No not really. She seems no more questionable than many, many other politicians, certainly less so than Trump. And bear in mind that the Republicans have had it out for her for decades. Everything with a sniff of dirt has been dragged out in public and pounded on. Given that level of scrutiny, few people would look as clean as a whistle.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    7. Re:pay to play by Kohath · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So? Trump sucks. But I prefer Trump to Hillary because:

      - While Trump said nasty things about groups, Hillary said nasty things about groups that include me.
      - Trump stood up to the political correctness bullies in the culture and the paid liars in the press.
      - If Hillary got elected, the press and bureaucrats would have helped her get away with continued corruption. With Trump, the press will investigate Trump Administration wrongdoing because the press are almost all leftists who hate Trump. And bureaucrats will resist and leak. We might actually know what the government is doing.
      - All the political pundits rediscovered checks and balances! Maybe they'll even start to consider whether it's wise to put government in charge of everything.

      Also, on issues:

      - Judges who might actually care what the Constitution says instead of voting a party line
      - Corporate tax reform so we can have business taxes that are like every other country in the world
      - Obamacare repeal -- a failing law that the majority never wanted, sold to people based on a deliberate lie
      - Environmental policy that might be more for people and less beholden to the green religion
      - Immigration policy that's designed to help Americans, not one designed to replace us with a population that's easier to control
      - Hopefully trade deals that aren't about the President and friends personally lining their pockets. Maybe they'll still be about that, but there's at least a little reason to hope.

      Trump will probably be a bad president. So would Hillary. So was Obama. So was Bush. But maybe we can make a little progress on a few things before the next election.

    8. Re:pay to play by stdarg · · Score: 1

      Trump promised (or technically implied so, maybe there is a literal swamp he'll be draining somewhere) to clean things up.

      Why does that imply to you that Peter Thiel shouldn't be on the team? How is Peter Thiel part of the "swamp" in DC?

      Now as for the people like Giuliani being on the team, I never interpreted Trump as saying he wouldn't work with any politicians or establishment types. I mean when searching for a VP pick he explicitly said he wanted people with DC experience because he'd have to work with Congress and all the bureaucracy. So what's the contradiction? It's just about deciding whether a given person is a problem solver or a problem creator. And even people who were ineffective in the past could be more effective with different leadership.

    9. Re:pay to play by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clinton is questionable as hell, and that is why she wasn't elected.

      Well you do have to ask why she is "questionable". What it looks like is because FOX and the republican hate engine have been poisoning her since Bill Clinton was in office.
      20+ years of poisoning American "minds" against her. Running her was just plain stupid.

      20+ years of poison dedicated to Jesus Christ would make him a terrible candidate.
      "Jesus is pro drunk and trying to destroy the world's water supply by turning it into wine!!! He wants to get your kids drunk!
      His mom was 13 when she had him and got knocked up by someone who was not her husband I might add. So look for more adulterous welfare moms from Jesus!
      He can raise the dead but only if they are his friends, everyone else stays dead!
      He lives with 12 men and a fag hag and they spend all day rubbing each other with oil. This twisted pervert will force your sons to become gay!
      Jesus says that if you do not had a sword you should sell your cloak and buy one. How can this hypocrite just keep spewing his 'man of peace' lies!
      The guy has personally talked to Satan.
      Jesus had condemned religious leaders, Jesus wants to take your faith away!"

    10. Re:pay to play by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      '- While Trump said nasty things about groups, Hillary said nasty things about groups that include me.'
      awww... did the old lady hurt your feelings?

      Trump was a Democrat during most of the Obama administration. He played you like a fiddle. Remember this three years from now when Trump is impeached and Pence, the traditional Republican is president.

    11. Re:pay to play by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      Trump would trample all over the constitution:

      Trump vs. the Constitution: A Guide - POLITICO Magazine

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    12. Re:pay to play by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Yeah. And instead of the press and the bureaucracy helping him like they would have helped Hillary, they'll oppose him. He won't succeed in doing as many unconstitutional things as she would have.

    13. Re:pay to play by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Well that makes it ok for Trump to do whatever he likes then. I thought he was going to drain the swamp, not fill it with even more shit?

    14. Re:pay to play by Gussington · · Score: 1

      So? Trump sucks. But I prefer Trump to Hillary because:

      - While Trump said nasty things about groups, Hillary said nasty things about groups that include me.

      Which group is that specifically?

      - Trump stood up to the political correctness bullies in the culture and the paid liars in the press.

      Trump stood up to anyone who dared question him, and promoted a bully culture where you shouldn't ask questions. Trump has actually stated he wants libel laws so the press cannot ask these questions. You think this is better?

      - If Hillary got elected, the press and bureaucrats would have helped her get away with continued corruption.

      Fox News is the press isn't it? Breitbart? Drudge Report? WSJ? New York Post? You are saying that these outlets would not question a Democrat presidency?
      And not sure who you think the 'bureaucrats' are? But a Republican Congress and Senate wouldn't exactly be Hillary sympathisers.

      All the political pundits rediscovered checks and balances!

      This is the biggest risk with Trump. Checks and balances rely on open media, FOI, transparency and accountability. Trump as openly made statements against these things, and worse demonstrated that he is against it by not disclosing his tax returns.
      A President can be as extreme as they like, but accountability and transparency are a requirement for all Presidents regardless of political ideology.

  6. It's the transition team, people. by tlambert · · Score: 1

    It's the transition team, people.

    You very, very rarely go from "transition team" to "cabinet position". It's a somewhat meaningless post, other than access to give advice. Who thinks Trump will be taking most of the advice he gets, rather than acknowledging it, then ignoring it and doing what he wants to do anyway?

    1. Re:It's the transition team, people. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Informative

      You very, very rarely go from "transition team" to "cabinet position".

      Trump chose his vice-president to lead his transition team.

      This is a guy who, as governor of Indiana, when facing a breakout of AIDS in the rural community due to drug use, chose "prayer" as his only solution.

      This is a guy who signed a bill with a government mandate that families hold funerals for miscarried or aborted fetuses.

      This is a guy who as governor, instructed law enforcement to investigate women who miscarried to make sure they weren't aborting their fetuses.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:It's the transition team, people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's the Vice President

      Sorry he wasn't your pick but the electorate didn't have a problem with him.

    3. Re:It's the transition team, people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Good. I want the Republicans to go all in: have Roe v. Wade overturned, ban abortion, eliminate the fillibuster, repeal the ACA, lower taxes on the top earners while shifting the tax burdern to the lower and middle classes, have gay marriage overturned, everything. Make things as painful as possible for as many people as possible. Most people, it seems, only respond to pain; make them feel it.

    4. Re:It's the transition team, people. by dbIII · · Score: 2

      This is a guy who as governor, instructed law enforcement to investigate women who miscarried to make sure they weren't aborting their fetuses.

      Isn't it strange how the people who scream "small government" and "freedom" go out and employ extra people just so that they can poke their noses into the most private places.

    5. Re: It's the transition team, people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's fucking do it.

    6. Re:It's the transition team, people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tiocfaidh ár lá!

    7. Re:It's the transition team, people. by physicsphairy · · Score: 5, Informative

      mandate that families hold funerals for miscarried or aborted fetuses

      This was so crazy that I had to look it up. Turns out "hold a funeral" is "dispose of remains properly" -- the bill required that fetal remains be either interred or incinerated. Generally speaking that would be the responsibility of the healthcare facility in custody of the remains.

      Tell me straight, is "require families to hold a funeral" truly the most accurate and reasonable way you could come up with to indicate the nature of the bill, or is it a purposeful deception?

    8. Re:It's the transition team, people. by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 0

      So he's crazy like a lot of republicans?

    9. Re:It's the transition team, people. by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 2

      You know whats sad - most "conservatives" I know would still manage to find a way to blame it on the democrats.

    10. Re:It's the transition team, people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. And Trump and Pence are sticking to the homophobic, crazy evangelical script 100%. The hiring of the *homophobic bigot* Peter Thiel just goes to show how awful they are.

    11. Re:It's the transition team, people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a guy who signed a bill with a government mandate that families hold funerals for miscarried or aborted fetuses.

      Wrong. Pence may be a jerk, but get your facts straight.

      http://www.snopes.com/pence-la...

    12. Re:It's the transition team, people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And apparently democrats... #spiritcooking

      Thats just people being people.

    13. Re:It's the transition team, people. by quantaman · · Score: 1

      This is a guy who, as governor of Indiana, when facing a breakout of AIDS in the rural community due to drug use, chose "prayer" as his only solution.

      This could be awkward, aren't Christians traditionally the enemies of vampires?

      --
      I stole this Sig
    14. Re:It's the transition team, people. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Well, he's still less batshit insane than either Clinton or the rest of the Republican presidential candidates (except for Kasich).

      That is truly damning by faint praise, but there you have it. The best and the brightest....

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    15. Re:It's the transition team, people. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Good. I want the Republicans to go all in: have Roe v. Wade overturned, ban abortion, eliminate the fillibuster, repeal the ACA, lower taxes on the top earners while shifting the tax burdern to the lower and middle classes, have gay marriage overturned, everything. Make things as painful as possible for as many people as possible. Most people, it seems, only respond to pain; make them feel it.

      You must be the guy in front of me with the license plate holder that said "Sticks and Stones May Break My Bones but Whips and Chains Excite Me". (The actual plate was 'N2LTHR').

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    16. Re: It's the transition team, people. by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Homophobic? Isn't Peter Theil gay?

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    17. Re:It's the transition team, people. by lucm · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This is a guy who as governor, instructed law enforcement to investigate women who miscarried to make sure they weren't aborting their fetuses.

      Isn't it strange how the people who scream "small government" and "freedom" go out and employ extra people just so that they can poke their noses into the most private places.

      What's strange is that you would take this anecdote and try to pass it as a huge pattern. You're arguing like a woman who knows she's wrong.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    18. Re:It's the transition team, people. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh, the irony. A far leftist, suddenly concerned with what's happening in flyover territory. Funny how there's such concern in the last 72 hours, when, before, all you had was laughter and abuse. Oh wait, that's all you have now, too. Nothing but blistering abuse for the ignorant proles who are too stupid to follow your leftist enlightened ways. Here's a video you need to watch. It concerns why you lost, and will continue to lose in the future.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    19. Re:It's the transition team, people. by lucm · · Score: 5, Funny

      The hiring of the *homophobic bigot* Peter Thiel just goes to show how awful they are.

      He's also sexist, since he won't have sex with women.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    20. Re:It's the transition team, people. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Good. I want the Republicans to go all in

      Lots of liberals said the same thing back in 1980 when a B-movie actor was elected president.

      He was re-elected in 1984 with one of the biggest landslides in history.

      Over the past year, many people have underestimated Donald Trump ... "he will flame out before the Iowa Caucus", "he can't survive Super Tuesday", "he can't win over moderate Republicans in the upper midwest", "he is leading the Republican Party into the wilderness", "he doesn't stand a chance against Hillary". So far, they have all been wrong.

    21. Re:It's the transition team, people. by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 3, Insightful

      mandate that families hold funerals for miscarried or aborted fetuses

      This was so crazy that I had to look it up. Turns out "hold a funeral" is "dispose of remains properly" -- the bill required that fetal remains be either interred or incinerated. Generally speaking that would be the responsibility of the healthcare facility in custody of the remains.

      Tell me straight, is "require families to hold a funeral" truly the most accurate and reasonable way you could come up with to indicate the nature of the bill, or is it a purposeful deception?

      This is what happens when you believe what you read at Media Matters. In this case, MM was blindly copying from Esquire:

      http://mediamatters.org/resear...

    22. Re:It's the transition team, people. by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1, Troll

      That's the Vice President

      For now. Soon, Obergruppenfuhrer Pence.

    23. Re: It's the transition team, people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Beidh Ãr là linn!

    24. Re:It's the transition team, people. by tsotha · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This kind of unhinged nonsense just confirms Trump's election was the right thing for the country.

    25. Re:It's the transition team, people. by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 0, Insightful

      The women were to have been asked if they wanted their fetus buried or cremated. A judge struck down that part. What's the point of legislation like that other to introduce religious dogma where it doesn't belong?

    26. Re:It's the transition team, people. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0, Troll

      Wait a minute, NOW you're citing Snopes? I thought Snopes couldn't be trusted? Make up your mind, AC.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    27. Re: It's the transition team, people. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0, Troll

      Homophobic? Isn't Peter Theil gay?

      According to the Trump transition team, Peter Theil is not gay. He's a straight man who has sex with other men because he's so alpha.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    28. Re:It's the transition team, people. by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Pence is Trump's impeachment insurance.

      Trump's the first republican to hold a pride flag on stage. http://m.washingtontimes.com/n...

      On Sunday, at a rally in Colorado, Mr. Trump proudly held up a rainbow flag with the words “LGBT for Trump” written on it to a cheering crowd of thousands. It was an historic moment for gay equality and the Party of Lincoln as the 2016 GOP nominee for President of the United States held high the flag for gay equality. No other Republican Presidential nominee in history has embraced the LGBT community in such a loud and proud way.

      He's also said trans could use what ever bathroom they wanted and Caitlyn Jenner took Trump up on bathroom offer. http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/28/...

    29. Re:It's the transition team, people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was so crazy that I had to look it up. Turns out "hold a funeral" is "dispose of remains properly" -- the bill required that fetal remains be either interred or incinerated. Generally speaking that would be the responsibility of the healthcare facility in custody of the remains.

      You are understating what that actually means.

      Here’s what will happen after a woman gets an abortion in the state of Indiana, starting this July. She will be told, verbally and in writing, that she has the right to choose what she does with her aborted fetus. She will be given a list of her options for disposal, and offered counseling. The fetus does not have to be named, but it will receive its own burial-transit form, just like any dead body. This form will travel with it to a funeral home, where it will be buried or cremated. There won’t necessarily be a ceremony; the fetus may not get its own headstone or urn. But it will be laid to rest in the way of a human. Aborted fetuses in Indiana, nearly all smaller than a peapod, will no longer be treated as medical waste.
      The Atlantic: State-Mandated Mourning for Aborted Fetuses

      Tell me straight, is "require families to hold a funeral" truly the most accurate and reasonable way you could come up with to indicate the nature of the bill, or is it a purposeful deception?

      I'd say requiring that it be laid to rest like a fully-formed human is pretty much the equivalent of a funeral. There isn't necessarily a priest reading passages from the bible nor people dressed in black, but it is significantly more elaborate and requires much more involvement from the mother than previously.

      And that was the point of the law wasn't it? Why make any changes at all if not otherwise to solemnize the process in the mind of the mother?

    30. Re:It's the transition team, people. by dbIII · · Score: 1

      It's the proverbial straw on a camel's back and one of many examples making up that huge pattern.
      All I'm really saying is watch what they do before listening to what they say. The politics claimed by the person doesn't really matter so much in these cases, it's what they actually do (eg. extra draconian rules instead of "freedom").

    31. Re:It's the transition team, people. by Kohath · · Score: 2

      Also, since when does anyone care who is on the transition team? The transition team disappears in a few weeks. They don't make policy.

      Try not to wet your pants every day between now and the inauguration.

    32. Re:It's the transition team, people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Turns out "hold a funeral" is "dispose of remains properly" -- the bill required that fetal remains be either interred or incinerated.

      "inter - place (a corpse) in a grave or tomb, typically with funeral rites."

      And it's cremate, not incinerate.

      "cremate - dispose of (a dead person's body) by burning it to ashes, typically after a funeral ceremony."

      And honestly, as far as "dispose of remains properly" goes, as a Hoosier who realizes how much of a scam funerals are and honestly the whole system is, that's just bullshit. When I go, I want to go the cheapest way possible. If it were legal, I'd want my corpse dumped in the landfill*. I'm dead. If I've got a soul, I sure don't give a fuck what happens to my "shell". And I sure don't give a fuck that people bother to show up to visit me after I'm dead.

      * I can see the reason to be against this. (1) We have an obsession as humans in keeping track of every last human corpse, to detect murders. (2) We have a concern of spreading disease. Well, mass grave it is then. Like most places, there's giant, unusued quarry pits. So, dump away.

    33. Re:It's the transition team, people. by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 0

      And that was the point of the law wasn't it? Why make any changes at all if not otherwise to solemnize the process in the mind of the mother?

      I have a sister-in-law who has had three miscarriages, she held a funeral for every one of them, a real funeral.

      Life begins at conception, anything else is just absurd...

    34. Re:It's the transition team, people. by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Over the past year, many people have underestimated Donald Trump ... "he will flame out before the Iowa Caucus", "he can't survive Super Tuesday", "he can't win over moderate Republicans in the upper midwest", "he is leading the Republican Party into the wilderness", "he doesn't stand a chance against Hillary". So far, they have all been wrong.

      We have the truth, right there...

      Lots of Democrats love to parrot that Donald Trump never really was successful or knew anything, that it was all Daddy's money and Donald knew nothing.

      I notice the Dems aren't laughing anymore...

    35. Re:It's the transition team, people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Previous AC here. Don't be so quick to trivialize her experience.

      A miscarriage is the loss of a future. That's a big deal. Funerals are rituals for grieving loss of a future. Even the death of an adult means there will be no more future with the deceased. So a funeral is not unreasonable at all for your sister-in-law's situation. And that's why any mandatory funeral process for an abortion is bullshit, the future wasn't lost, it was simply not chosen.

    36. Re: It's the transition team, people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes. He was publicly outed by gawker. This discussed this. Check YouTube.

    37. Re:It's the transition team, people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Deus Vult!

    38. Re:It's the transition team, people. by Alypius · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have faith in America for that exact reason. Reagan was an idiot who was going to start a nuclear WW3. W was going to impose a theocracy. Trump's not even inaugurated yet. Let's calm down, be vigilant, and see what happens.

    39. Re:It's the transition team, people. by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      We now know that the Democrats had their finger on the scale, promoting and "elevating" Trump on the grounds that he would be among the easiest Republican contenders to beat.

      That, I've got to assume, is no longer true.

    40. Re:It's the transition team, people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "AIDS in the rural community due to drug use, chose "prayer" as his only solution" - Well, the fact is that 'prayer' still is pretty much the only solution for most STDs. Otherwise, "Keep calm and pretend it is Friday".

    41. Re:It's the transition team, people. by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 2

      I take it you haven't seen the so-called Pied Piper memo?

      It wasn't Daddy's money and influence propelling Trump over the past year, it was Hillary's. As disturbing as that revelation was to me, I can only imagine how Trump took it. He must feel like the victim of the world's most elaborate troll.

    42. Re:It's the transition team, people. by Jarwulf · · Score: 1

      Your first claim about mandatory funernals is an outright lie and I can't find citations for the others. Congratulations on successfully deceiving. Its a shame people read and will believe this nonsense just because it fits their preconceived notions.

    43. Re:It's the transition team, people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Trump was the easiest to beat, they just chose the worst possible candidate to run against him.

    44. Re:It's the transition team, people. by Alypius · · Score: 1

      it was simply not chosen.

      Incorrect. It's worse than that; it was rejected.

    45. Re:It's the transition team, people. by mukinrestak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, no, no, We have a huge problem with him. Hillary was just EVEN FUCKING WORSE.

    46. Re:It's the transition team, people. by bongey · · Score: 1

      "gay marriage overturned", you do realize Peter Thiel is gay, and gave a speech at the RNC convention about being gay? Oh yeah you didn't.

    47. Re: It's the transition team, people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They let that slide because money. Rest assured that once the well runs dry they'll stab him in the back.

    48. Re:It's the transition team, people. by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      There's nothing wrong with your sister or you holding those beliefs. There would be something wrong if she tried to pass legislation requiring everyone else to hold those same beliefs. Do you understand the difference?

    49. Re:It's the transition team, people. by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      No, I mean the Democrats are no longer secretly "elevating" him, as the Wikileaks memo put it. He now realizes that what he thought was an ego-boosting electoral conquest was rigged in his favor all along. He was literally trolled into getting himself elected POTUS.

      Which is why he was wandering through the White House with a "WTF just happened?" look on his face.

    50. Re:It's the transition team, people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a sister-in-law who has had three miscarriages, she held a funeral for every one of them, a real funeral.

      Now imagine if your sister-in-law was put in jail because she didn't sign the right forms or otherwise follow the right legal procedures for said funeral. Because that's the problem.

    51. Re:It's the transition team, people. by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 0

      There's nothing wrong with your sister or you holding those beliefs. There would be something wrong if she tried to pass legislation requiring everyone else to hold those same beliefs. Do you understand the difference?

      I totally do... which is why I think it is horrible that we have such laws on the books... Such as the one that says I can't bar black people from renting my apartments...

      After all, legislation requiring me to hold someone else's beliefs is wrong, right?

      See the problem with your position? It works fine when it is something you support, but do you really support it both ways? I 100% agree the GOVERNMENT should not discriminate, which is why I SUPPORT gay marriage, because the GOVERNMENT issues the licence.

      However, I as a PRIVATE citizen don't have to support it, and the laws should not try and require that I do, such as baking them a wedding cake.

    52. Re:It's the transition team, people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a country with such easy access to assault weapons it is recipe for a civil war. :(

      I hope that there are still some principled republicans (like John McCain and others that say nay to Trump) to keep any dystopian nightmares at bay.

      Also we need to think why rural america feels that way; sure they threw a tantrum, but we still love them :)

    53. Re:It's the transition team, people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you wanted that kind of pain you should have voted for Clinton.

    54. Re:It's the transition team, people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sure, hillary is corrupt as hell, but most politicians are. she's a known commodity and things really wouldn't have changed that much. because...

      congress is assuredly going to remain republican-controlled for at least the next four years due to the current and upcoming member composition and the makeup of the next cycle's senate elections.

      but with trump, everything is going to get fucked over like a cheap whore -- and it's the entire country that is going to get bent over and raped with barbed wire.

    55. Re: It's the transition team, people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is but Trump doesn't care about identiy politics like the liberals do.

    56. Re: It's the transition team, people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's sad is that I don't know if the guy was a troll or not. Because there are really people who argue Peter Thiel is not gay due to his political beliefs.

    57. Re:It's the transition team, people. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      People did underestimate Trump, and those people are still unable to figure out how he actually manages to do it. Every week he does something that should destroy the career of any politician, yet it only ever seems to make his approval go upwards. He's insulted an entire ethnic group, he's lied, he's mocked a reporter's disability *on camera* and then denied it afterwards, he's had a skeleton-in-the-closet dug up in which he bragged of his womanising ways and ability to get away with groping because he is rich. Any other politician would have gone down in flames five times over, but Trump is somehow immune to all this. It's like all the historic rules of politics just no longer hold true, and anything goes now.

      The more concerning part is that this might hold true as President too, and he is used to an autocratic managment approach in the private sector. People complained about Bush using his executive powers to overrule Congress, people on the other side of the political divide complained about Obama doing the same... but Trump may be worse than either of them. If Congress won't build the wall, I wouldn't be surprised if he simply orders the army to seize property and start construction.

    58. Re:It's the transition team, people. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Yeah I mean sure. If you ignore reality and that Trump has done most of the things Hillary has been accused of supporting, you know plus sexual assult and the blatant woman-hating of VP, then yes if you ignore everything bad about the Trump/Pence combo and blow up every transgression of Hillary beyond the point of reasonableness then yes, Hillary was even worse.

      Back in reality-land, no.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    59. Re:It's the transition team, people. by fnj · · Score: 1

      Folks, this is what brainwashing does to you. It makes people into bizarre idiots who see everything in the exact reverse of the way it actually is.

    60. Re: It's the transition team, people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The whoooooooosh you hear is the sound of a trump launched cruise missile joke going just inches above your head.

    61. Re:It's the transition team, people. by jrumney · · Score: 1

      Trump chose his vice-president to lead his transition team.

      To be fair, it was only because his first choice for the position is in the process of being impeached.

    62. Re:It's the transition team, people. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Trump's victory seems to have emboldened scum like you to spout your misogynist bullshit quite openly. Don't expect not to be called on it though.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    63. Re:It's the transition team, people. by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      As a hypothetical Trump voter - I'm unlikely to want an abortion. I can afford health care. I am not gay so I don't want to get married. The only pain I'll feel would be taxes, although they may not go up.

    64. Re:It's the transition team, people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a lunatic and don't even know it.

    65. Re:It's the transition team, people. by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Reagan did go all in, he caused untold damage and was arguably the worst president in history.

    66. Re:It's the transition team, people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm glad to see that the left-wing kook fringe finally gotten over their post-election batshit mental unhingement.

      And that they're back to their regular kind of a batshit mental unhingement.

      Keep up the good work.

    67. Re:It's the transition team, people. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Trump's the first republican to hold a pride flag on stage. http://m.washingtontimes.com/n... [washingtontimes.com]

      On Sunday, at a rally in Colorado, Mr. Trump proudly held up a rainbow flag with the words “LGBT for Trump” written on it to a cheering crowd of thousands. It was an historic moment for gay equality and the Party of Lincoln as the 2016 GOP nominee for President of the United States held high the flag for gay equality. No other Republican Presidential nominee in history has embraced the LGBT community in such a loud and proud way.

      And he held the flag upside-down. Further, the only reason he held it up is that someone wrote his name on it. He likes to see his name. And his name was written on the flag upside-down proving that it wasn't anyone from the LGBT community who gave it to him, but merely a prop.

      Caitlyn Jenner took Trump up on bathroom offer.

      That sounds like the beginning of an interesting story.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    68. Re:It's the transition team, people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know whats sad - most "conservatives" I know would still manage to find a way to blame it on the democrats.

      The Dems have been blaming Bush for the last eight years, even for things that were entirely the fault of Obama and his team (including H. Clinton)

    69. Re: It's the transition team, people. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The two things are not mutually exclusive. Look at Yiannopoulos. Similarly women can be misogynist. Lots of women opposed getting the vote, for example.

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

      I totally do... which is why I think it is horrible that we have such laws on the books... Such as the one that says I can't bar black people from renting my apartments...

      After all, legislation requiring me to hold someone else's beliefs is wrong, right?

      See the problem with your position?

      Nope. The problem is with your representation. The above poster made a statement about a particular set of beliefs and actions, namely the burial of fetal remains, and you, being a tricky-minded person, with an agenda and an axe to grind, adopted a position of rhetorical sophistry to attack them, by bringing up another, unrelated subject that was not addressed by the remarks, but is an outside factor.

      Because what h33t l4x0r said was "There would be something wrong if she tried to pass legislation requiring everyone else to hold those same beliefs." which was not a generalized statement of the position of anti-discrimination laws, but rather a reference to this particular situation, where there is tolerance for allowing fetal burials, but it is considered wrong to force that specific same belief on others.

      Sorry, but h33t l4x0r was not attempting to make such an articulation regarding anti-discrimination laws in general, but rather, addressing the particular matter of ceremonial funerals for fetal remains, which is a reasonable accommodation to make. However, I will note that there are, in fact, problems with how people specifically act in regards burials, so it should not be assumed to go to any and every extreme, even within the narrow range of that subject.

      This may be pointless edification, however, as you are using sophistry to asserted that a specified acceptance was somehow extended to all points, or was a general statement, when it was not.

      Of course, even were it to have been intended that way, it'd still be you using rhetorical tools, and not a legitimate argument anyway. The way to address you, if it were worthwhile, would simply be to articulate the intent properly, but that's not really worthwhile, since you are not going to accept it anyway.

      It works fine when it is something you support, but do you really support it both ways?

      Ah, no, most people do not, so it isn't supported in all ways, no. Both ways, I won't use that term, since it implies there is only a pair of directions it could go, when the situation is more complex. See above, my link to the burial in Alabama. There are more.

      You make me think of Robot Santa, from Futurama, who sees a bunch of robot mobsters beating up a shop-keeper, and says, ""Mobsters beating up a shopkeeper for protection money! Very naughty. Shopkeepers not paying their protection money — exactly as naughty!""

      Except you know, you don't have Santa's excuse for faulty programming of his logic circuits.

      But yep, when it comes down to it, no, people don't support it all ways. That would be dumb. And don't bother to call it hypocrisy, that's a petty argument that's full of your usual bullshit.

      I 100% agree the GOVERNMENT should not discriminate, which is why I SUPPORT gay marriage, because the GOVERNMENT issues the licence.

      Good for you, cupcake, you're able to recognize what a lot of folks don't, that government is involved in marriage, that it isn't just a religious practice.

      It is actually a legal instrument.

      However, I as a PRIVATE citizen don't have to support it, and the laws should not try and require that I do, such as baking them a wedding cake.

      Oh wait, I spoke too soon. You're forgetting something, that marriage a contract, and gives rights to both parties in it. That means that a third party can be held to the terms of the contract themselves, when circumstances merit it.

      I get it, you'd rather have us worry about the poor cake baker, rather than the bank, the hospital, or the cem

    71. Re:It's the transition team, people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's strange is that you would take this anecdote and try to pass it as a huge pattern. You're arguing like a woman who knows she's wrong.

      I guess it's OK when the Left is sexist.

    72. Re:It's the transition team, people. by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      I love you people. You're every bit as entertaining as the idiots who ran around screaming about Obama when he was elected. Have a little faith in the system, it's worked for over two centuries. Obama shoved bad shit through when first elected and the backlash was he had to work with a Republican majority in Congress. If Trump starts going all right wing he'll wind up drowning in Democrats. I expect to see him undo the worst of Obama's policies and then hopefully he'll sit down with ALL of Congress and try to work on things. If not, he'll end up in a war with the other side just like Obama.

    73. Re:It's the transition team, people. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      They aren't wrong. Those things are true. People haven't been underestimating Donald Trump so much as overestimating American voters.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    74. Re:It's the transition team, people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Life begins at conception, anything else is just absurd...

      The Bible says otherwise. God only puts the soul into the body once it is fully formed.

      Genesis 2:7 "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

      Which was the official position of the southern baptist convention even after Roe V Wade.

      Resolution On Abortion, adopted at the SBC convention, June 1976:

      WHEREAS, Southern Baptists have historically held a biblical view of the sanctity of human life, and
      WHEREAS, Abortion is a very serious moral and spiritual problem of continuing concern to the American people, and
      WHEREAS, Christians have a responsibility to deal with all moral and spiritual issues which affect society, including the problems of abortion, and
      WHEREAS, The practice of abortion for selfish non-therapeutic reasons want-only destroys fetal life, dulls our society's moral sensitivity, and leads to a cheapening of all human life, and
      WHEREAS, Every decision for an abortion, for whatever reason must necessarily involve the decision to terminate the life of an innocent human being.
      Therefore be it RESOLVED, that the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Norfolk in June 1976 reaffirm the biblical sacredness and dignity of all human life, including fetal life, and
      Be it further RESOLVED, that we call on Southern Baptists and all citizens of the nation to work to change those attitudes and conditions which encourage many people to turn to abortion as a means of birth control, and
      Be it further RESOLVED, that in the best interest of our society, we reject any indiscriminate attitude toward abortion, as contrary to the biblical view, and
      Be it further RESOLVED, that we also affirm our conviction about the limited role of government in dealing with matters relating to abortion, and support the right of expectant mothers to the full range of medical services and personal counseling for the preservation of life and health.

    75. Re: It's the transition team, people. by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

      Just because he is gay does not mean he isn't homophobic. He is somewhat like royalty with his money. Kings/dukes/Noble's in Europe and Great Britain could be gay and not killed for it. Common folk not so much. As others have mentioned, Thiel did not take kindly to be outed by gawker, which is now bankrupt by his funding of the Hogan lawsuit. Roy Cohn (you know one of Trump's early mentors) was also gay, and yet he participated in the McCarthy hearings. J Edgar Hoover was also gay, but homophobic.

    76. Re:It's the transition team, people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As disturbing as that revelation was to me, I can only imagine how Trump took it. He must feel like the victim of the world's most elaborate troll.

      Really? I'd be laughing my ass off. Come January, he'll be moving into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
      Where's Hillary going?

    77. Re: It's the transition team, people. by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      he was secretly funding anti gay laws, which gawker uncovered, which got him pissed.

    78. Re:It's the transition team, people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The electorate clearly did have a problem with him, since his team got 2.5 million votes less than the Democrats.

    79. Re:It's the transition team, people. by stdarg · · Score: 1

      Most of the things Hillary has been accused of? Umm not possible since most of the things Hillary is accused of are related to her time in office. When was Trump in office?

      Trump hasn't mishandled classified material. He hasn't accepted donations from foreign governments to influence government policy. He hasn't deleted evidence during Congressional hearings. He's never chosen staffers who have their own scandals. He doesn't give highly paid speeches on Wall Street that contradict many things he says in public. Can you elaborate on what things you're talking about?

    80. Re: It's the transition team, people. by stdarg · · Score: 1

      It's a stretch to say the least. You need some pretty compelling evidence that's he's homophobic if he's also openly gay.

      This sounds like hateful identity politics to me. A gay guy doesn't agree with you and suddenly he's a homophobic bigot, I'm sure somehow he's also racist and misogynistic as well. The accusations seem to cluster like that among the "progressive" and "tolerant" left.

    81. Re:It's the transition team, people. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Here's a tip, try responding to the post I wrote not the one you wish I wrote.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    82. Re: It's the transition team, people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously I was being sarcastic.

    83. Re: It's the transition team, people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So Theil fears himself?

    84. Re: It's the transition team, people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And Obama was going to declare martial law. Right? Right? Remember that? I have several conservative friends who swore Obama
      Was building FEMA camps for white people to live in. While at the same time allowing all the muslims to take our places. What happen to that plan boys? Oh that's right it didn't happen because you are fucking delusional.

    85. Re: It's the transition team, people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or truth. There wasn't no future to begin with because it wasn't a human being yet.

    86. Re: It's the transition team, people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude do some research, Jesus Christ. He is a gay guy that opposes gay marriage for Christ sakes. Look at some of his other views.

    87. Re:It's the transition team, people. by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      "Have a little faith in the system, it's worked for over two centuries."

      Sure, if you set the the bar really low for the definition of "worked". It didn't stop the great depression or prevent the largest prison population in the world or prevent 10's of millions of people from being in poverty whilst at the same time having millions of millionaires.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    88. Re:It's the transition team, people. by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      Look at the photos of his meeting with Obama. He's not laughing.

      He's utterly terrified.

    89. Re: It's the transition team, people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry Alypius, I wasn't talking about you being delusional. Just people in general who have an agenda.

    90. Re:It's the transition team, people. by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      Obama had a supermajority congress when he was first elected.

    91. Re:It's the transition team, people. by Gussington · · Score: 1

      This was so crazy that I had to look it up. Turns out "hold a funeral" is "dispose of remains properly" -- the bill required that fetal remains be either interred or incinerated. Generally speaking that would be the responsibility of the healthcare facility in custody of the remains.

      Tell me straight, is "require families to hold a funeral" truly the most accurate and reasonable way you could come up with to indicate the nature of the bill, or is it a purposeful deception?

      I'm too lazy to look it up, and since you already have, can you tell me what the penalty was for not following this law?
      The only reason I ask is that I know personally of cases of women having natural miscarriages (nature really is a bitch) in early stages and the disposal is merely a painful period and a couple of flushes of the toilet. Sounds terrible, but nature is terrible, I'd hate to think a rich white guy is trying to dictate how nature works, and would punish women because for merely being a victim of a relatively natural event.

    92. Re:It's the transition team, people. by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      All presidents are arguably the worst president in history.

    93. Re: It's the transition team, people. by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Homophobic? Isn't Peter Theil gay?

      Sssshhhh don't tell the Republicans.
      I personally don't think Trump cares, his love of money and gold plating trumps any natural discrimination he might feel, however the Republicans he's in bed with don't think the same way. Abortions and gays are the most dangerous things in the Universe, so this will be interesting.

    94. Re:It's the transition team, people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone who would want Trump 'gone' also wouldn't want Pence or any of their buddies taking over. Trump may only do one truly smart thing during all of this - it was his choice of an even less-desirable president than himself; the ultimate defense against an assassination attempt. Pence is his Quayle.

      This is why when someone takes a pot-shot at trump, he has to go all 'Designated Survivor' and take out *everyone* in line until Kiefer Sutherland is the last man standing.

    95. Re: It's the transition team, people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you cocksmoking Trump apologist.

    96. Re:It's the transition team, people. by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Show me a perfect government. It's largely worked okay for the majority of people. Perfection has to wait until the afterlife.

    97. Re:It's the transition team, people. by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Yes he did. And he destroyed it by how he used it to cram the AHCA through with no compromise. He didn't have to compromise so he rammed it in and laughed when the Republicans bitched. Then he wondered why he suddenly had to deal with a Republican majority in Congress that did their dead level best to cripple his presidency. If Trump pulls that same crap he'll suffer the same fate as Obama.

    98. Re: It's the transition team, people. by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

      He is only "out" because gawker outed him. He reacted very badly to it and has caused gawker to go bankrupt by using the hogan suit. Just because he is gay does not mean he is not homophobic.

    99. Re:It's the transition team, people. by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      Why don't you just call your apartments the "Whites Power Nazi Apartments" That should solve your problem. And how about the "God Hates Fags Bake Shop". Problem solved.

    100. Re:It's the transition team, people. by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Why don't you just call your apartments the "Whites Power Nazi Apartments"

      What, you mean like "Black Entertainment Television"?

      Perhaps I should start a TV channel called "White Entertainment Television", imagine the heads exploding over that one...

      Bunch of hypocrites... again, you STILL don't get it, you don't understand how 60 million people voted for Trump...

    101. Re:It's the transition team, people. by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      What's there to get? That America is mostly gun-toting racist assholes? Everyone knows this. The whole world knows this.

    102. Re:It's the transition team, people. by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      What's there to get? That America is mostly gun-toting racist assholes? Everyone knows this. The whole world knows this.

      And that is why you lost, and will continue to lose...

      You are wrong, but can't see it due to your own prejudice and bias...

    103. Re: It's the transition team, people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, you mean like "Black Entertainment Television"?
      Perhaps I should start a TV channel called "White Entertainment Television", imagine the heads exploding over that one...

      I know you like to think that, you have this self-satisfying picture in your head that you'd get all this feedback which would prove other to be hypocrites. That is what you want, since somehow, you think it will prove you right.

      Well, leaving aside your lack of resources or skils to pursue this idea, people would laugh and tell you that your idea already exists. You'll have plenty of shows. No shortage of them.

      I would advise discretion in the programming though. I dount you'd want to air the Secret Diary of Desmond Pffeifer. Maybe you could pickup the 700 Club.

      Bunch of hypocrites... again, you STILL don't get it, you don't understand how 60 million people voted for Trump

      Yes, yes, other people don't get it, they don't understand. Meanwhile, checking out the totals, Trump didn't gain voters. I actually feel the opposite, that Trump only treaded water, and more of the issue was that not enough people in the right places voted for Hillary.

      And that due to malapportionment in the House, and the Electoral college itself, the system is broken, but this had nothing to do with this election per se.

    104. Re: It's the transition team, people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's there to get? That America is mostly gun-toting racist assholes? Everyone knows this. The whole world knows this.

      Don't say this, it isn't true. 60 million people is less than 1/5 of 330 million, and slightly more people voted for Hillary. That's right, Donald Trump cannot honestly say he won more votes than Hillary, Donald Trump will dishonestly say he did, most likely, but that just shows how prone to lies he is.

      Trump didn't gain voters over Romney as of now, he's barely over McCain, behind Hillary, and way behind Obama. The only thing Trump will likely be right about was that the election was rigged.

      He won't realize why, but it will be true.

      Anyway, don't let your ire over Trump get ahead of you, it just lets grousers like FlyHelicopters stroke their own egoes. They want to be the persecuted victim, the martyr to bullying. Better to show their own faults, not give them something that they feel good about.

      Especially when Trump's own Twitter post is saved, and the facts are not entirely in his favor.

      No mandate for him. No glory. Just chance and another rigged election. His own words. He made no net gains. He's still behind in votes.

    105. Re:It's the transition team, people. by lucm · · Score: 1

      Trump's victory seems to have emboldened scum like you to spout your misogynist bullshit quite openly.

      Seeing how you overreact to a fairly mild comment, I'm wondering if Clinton defeat didn't embolden the more fragile women to fly off the handle when they are upset. After all, we all know that they probably had to inject her with heavy doses of sedatives to calm her down when she realized that she had lost - that's why she was unable to face her partisans that night - and nobody in the media called her on for that hysterical behavior, so that could send a message that being overly emotional is socially acceptable for a woman.

      Her behavior that night was unfortunate because people will now remember that the first presidential candidate who ran away on election night because she couldn't deal with the pressure and her emotions was a woman. A billion misogynists comment on internet forums will never cause as much damage as she did that night by letting half the country down. That's quite a legacy.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    106. Re: It's the transition team, people. by Alypius · · Score: 1

      Lol I didn't think you were. It reminded me of the fears that Obama was planning a takeover resulting from news that federal agencies not known for their weapons were buying billions in ammo (like NOAA).

    107. Re:It's the transition team, people. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      We tried being nice and we got Brexit and Trump. It's time to push back.

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

      We tried being nice and we got Brexit and Trump. It's time to push back.

      Just because you don't get your way it doesn't mean you get to be violent. That's not how democracy works.

    109. Re:It's the transition team, people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that you're lying as others have pointed out, what's interesting is that now the lairs on slashdot do all the upvoting. This is why regulars now come in anon and come less frequently. We're tired of you liars.

    110. Re:It's the transition team, people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > You are wrong, but can't see it due to your own prejudice and bias...

      Dude, we just elected a straight-up racist.
      The people who voted for him are either also straight-up racists or totally chill with racism.
      Neither are shinning examples of "winning."

    111. Re: It's the transition team, people. by stdarg · · Score: 1

      He is only "out" because gawker outed him.

      That is not really true. From http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05...

      Owen Thomas, the former editor of Valleywag who wrote the article about Mr. Thiel, offered his side of the story in a telephone interview on Wednesday. “As I’ve said before, I did not ‘out’ Peter Thiel,” said Mr. Thomas, now business editor at The San Francisco Chronicle. “I did discuss his sexuality, but it was known to a wide circle who felt that it was not fit for discussion beyond that circle.

      He was "out" it just wasn't a publicly discussed thing. Now, maybe you're trying to quibble with what "out" means... if you're trying to say that you're not "out" unless anybody with even a remote interest knows about it, and it's indexed by google, then I dispute that. By that definition, I'm not "out" as a heterosexual, which is retarded.

      The key issue here is really that Peter Thiel did not consider himself a public figure whose private issues can be discussed on a public forum. I've certainly never heard of the guy before this issue came up, so he's definitely not as public a figure as, say, Hulk Hogan.

      How does that make Peter Thiel a homophobe, any more than it makes Hulk Hogan a heterophobe for being "outed" on a sex tape? It just doesn't make sense.

    112. Re: It's the transition team, people. by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

      So your take on your own quote, "but it was known to a wide circle who felt it was not fit for discussion beyond that circle" is that he was out? So was Rock Hudson I guess back in the day. What part of "not fit for discussion..." is out? What is your definition of out exactly? Your lover knows? I've known people who are out. They don't care who knows.

    113. Re: It's the transition team, people. by stdarg · · Score: 1

      Like I said, "not fit for discussion" means that he considers himself not really a public figure and/or that sexuality in general is a private matter that some people aren't comfortable having discussed by strangers. That's also the link between Thiel and Hulk Hogan... notice he didn't choose to fund a lawsuit about some random libel that Gawker may have done... it was specifically another example of them invading someone's privacy over a sex matter.

      You didn't respond at all to my example that by your standard, I'm an "in the closet" heterosexual, and you may be too. Does that make sense? No it doesn't. Being comfortable with your own sexuality is not the same as having no qualms about your sex life being discussed by strangers on various websites. I mean are you married? Do you feel comfortable telling me, here and now, all the details of your sex life with your wife? Tell me about the last time you tried anal with her and how she felt about it. Do you ever think about threesomes with people you know? What are their names? Hey after all, if you're heterosexual you must be comfortable discussing all of this with strangers right? Remember to use real names, you have nothing to hide or be ashamed of.

  7. Well played by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well played. Enough said, really; but when I heard this that little tiny conspiracist in me couldn't help but wonder if Thiel was Si Valley's designated "just in case" man. Like... he drew the short straw at the last Stone Cutter's meeting or something...

    1. Re: Well played by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You presume the elites are all connected and working in harmony. They are not, they have social networks very similar to your own; friends, freinimies and enemies. I suspect Thiel has more enemies than friends at this point. And those enemies are now going to change to freinimies.

  8. Peter Thiel and Hulk Hogan by tlambert · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Thiel further angered First Amendment supporters by bankrolling the Hulk Hogan lawsuit that brought down Gawker"

    I'm pretty sure the only people who felt angered at this as a first amendment issue were the folks at Gawker.

    Everyone else was pretty happy to see the Silicon Valley Version of TMZ (Thirty Mile Zone) go away, and quit outing the sexual orientation of businessmen whose only possible reason for being considered "public persons" was having been promoted as such by Gawker in the first place.

    Peter Thiel and Hulk Hogan: I personally cheered for the verdict in this case, and am glad Thiel backed it.

    1. Re:Peter Thiel and Hulk Hogan by Mashiki · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure the only people who felt angered at this as a first amendment issue were the folks at Gawker.

      Oh that's not true. There were quite a few people here on /. who were upset too. They seemed to think that Thiel was evil for backing someone who couldn't afford to pay for a lawsuit on their own. I'm sure they also felt the same way about Judicial Watch, EFF, ACLU, NRA and so on.

      Wait, I'm hearing something through the grapevine...they're not upset over JW, EFF, ACLU, NRA, etc. They were just upset because Thiel supported Trump, gave no fucks towards their snowflake feelings and helped Hogan burn Gawker to the ground, after Gawker refused several court orders.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:Peter Thiel and Hulk Hogan by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      I'm sure you'd be OK with someone offering to pay any lawsuits naming you as a defendant, and that this wouldn't result in lots of people suing you hoping to make a buck.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    3. Re:Peter Thiel and Hulk Hogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are also people who say Thiel is no longer "gay" because they disagree with him.

      Yes, really. The article isn't hard to google.

    4. Re:Peter Thiel and Hulk Hogan by lucm · · Score: 1

      "Thiel further angered First Amendment supporters by bankrolling the Hulk Hogan lawsuit that brought down Gawker"

      I'm pretty sure the only people who felt angered at this as a first amendment issue were the folks at Gawker.

      Everyone else was pretty happy to see the Silicon Valley Version of TMZ (Thirty Mile Zone) go away, and quit outing the sexual orientation of businessmen whose only possible reason for being considered "public persons" was having been promoted as such by Gawker in the first place.

      Peter Thiel and Hulk Hogan: I personally cheered for the verdict in this case, and am glad Thiel backed it.

      If Thiel had sent his check to Clinton instead of Trump, all his previous actions would have been deemed heroic and he would probably have won a Nobel prize like Obama and Gore. Some people say that history is written by the victors, but actually history is written by the biased liberal media and the biased liberal academia.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    5. Re:Peter Thiel and Hulk Hogan by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Would you be OK with a defendant in a lawsuit for which you had legitimate cause tying you up in court until your money ran out?

    6. Re:Peter Thiel and Hulk Hogan by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Would you be OK with a defendant in a lawsuit for which you had legitimate cause tying you up in court until your money ran out?

      Let's ask Gawker shall we? They did that multiple times, to numerous people that they slandered.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    7. Re:Peter Thiel and Hulk Hogan by Mashiki · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm sure you'd be OK with someone offering to pay any lawsuits naming you as a defendant, and that this wouldn't result in lots of people suing you hoping to make a buck.

      That depends. Did I turn around and refuse multiple court orders and have a past history of engaging in SLAAP like-behavior to stop people from suing me for ruining their name?

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    8. Re:Peter Thiel and Hulk Hogan by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      There are also people who say Thiel is no longer "gay" because they disagree with him.

      Yes, really. The article isn't hard to google.

      This is very common with people who engage in identity politics. If you wander off the plantation, you're a non-person. This is very true if you're anything but white, in which case you're just scum anyway. Oh and if you're Asian, you might be Schrodinger's minority, oppressed today, part of the white-capitalist-patriarchy tomorrow. Thiel isn't the only case, he's just the most recent high profile case. Those on left who engage in this type of bullshit said the same thing about Clarence Thomas, Ben Carson and Stacy Dash for example.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    9. Re:Peter Thiel and Hulk Hogan by ArylAkamov · · Score: 1

      The fact that somebody modded you down for this is amusing to me.

    10. Re:Peter Thiel and Hulk Hogan by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      The fact that somebody modded you down for this is amusing to me.

      It's hilarious as fuck. Some people just don't like it when the facts are jammed in their face.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    11. Re:Peter Thiel and Hulk Hogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I were in the US I'd be considered far on the left of your political spectrum, surely more so than Sanders, and still, I agree with most of that ... gawker was a pile of turd and Thiel did nothing wrong.

      A note though: I think "actually history is written by the biased liberal media and the biased liberal academia" is only true for liberal people living in their bubble. Likewise, for conservatives-in-a-bubble it's the other way around: their view of history is written by biased right-wing media (*cough* Fox news *cough*) and biased right-wing everything (you may have a point with academia, but I really hope you're not talking about climate change denial, creationism and other nutjob stories for gullible). I'm still optimistic enough to believe that there are people out there not living in that kind of bubble.

    12. Re:Peter Thiel and Hulk Hogan by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      That isn't identity politics. It's human nature. Tribal species.

    13. Re:Peter Thiel and Hulk Hogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you know why academics and members of the media tend liberal? They have had to practice skepticism and critical thinking.

      The looney-toons policies of the religious fundamentalist core of Republican Party cannot survive rational evidence-based analysis. The Democrats don't get a free pass, but their BS to sanity ratio is much better than the Republicans, who actually courted the alt-right and Christian Coalition.

    14. Re:Peter Thiel and Hulk Hogan by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Do you know why academics and members of the media tend liberal? They have had to practice skepticism and critical thinking.

      You don't need skepticism and critical thinking in gender studies, African American studies, and communication degrees. Cultural marxists have taken over the university system.

      The looney-toons policies of the religious fundamentalist core of Republican Party cannot survive rational evidence-based analysis. The Democrats don't get a free pass, but their BS to sanity ratio is much better than the Republicans, who actually courted the alt-right and Christian Coalition.

      As opposed to the ctl-left, looney-toon social justice warriors? Remind me again which side now is rioting in the streets? Which side was shooting cops? Which side keeps pushing Oppression Olympics politics to the point of insanity?

    15. Re:Peter Thiel and Hulk Hogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it is because they are not independent workers, and typically have to collaborate with a wide set of people, some of whom are actively stealing their ideas or stealing credit for some of their work. Being too truthful can hurt your career.

      Similarly if you had critical thinking skills, you should ignore the pronouncements from senior members of any party, representatives of banks and so on.

    16. Re:Peter Thiel and Hulk Hogan by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      What about the "inventor of email"? Do you really think that Gawker should have had to pay Shiva Ayyadurai $750,000 because Gawker debunked his claim to have invented email?

      That's Peter Thiel using his money to bankrupt someone he did not like and allow a falsehood to continue to be promoted.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    17. Re:Peter Thiel and Hulk Hogan by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      That isn't identity politics. It's human nature. Tribal species.

      To a point? I agree. On the other hand, the stuff we've seen over the last ~5 years is far beyond human nature. It's actively fostering of the in-group, out-group if someone doesn't adhere directly to the doctrine of the group. This isn't unique to the current regressive left, it was also the MO of the Catholic Church ~400+ years ago. It's the MO of various groups today, but the whole "you're not gay because you support Trump" or "if you don't vote for Hillary, you're a sexist/misogynist" and so on is beyond that scope.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    18. Re:Peter Thiel and Hulk Hogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, in the US, truth is supposed to be a defense against slander or libel. Gawker wasn't lying about Hulk Hogan sleeping with his friend's wife. The emotional distress argument is normally moot when it's a matter of public interest. In the Gawker case, rather than this being decided as a matter of law by a judge, they allowed the jury to decide it (improperly, by the look of it) even though a previous court had already determined that it was a matter of public interest.

      Then, there's the insane nature of the damages. The award was more than an order of magnitude larger than in any similar case ever. The court apparently decided that Hogan's emotional distress was not only higher than parents forced to watch their child die horribly, but was, in fact, vastly greater. And that's just the part for emotional distress. Somehow, because he won on emotional distress, he also got $4.95 for every viewing of the video through Gawker, based on a crazy valuation where it was worth that much to every viewer (even though the advertising revenue to Gawker for each viewing is obviously a tiny fraction of that), plus a crazy valuation of $15 million of increased value to Gawker. Add to that, the fact that damages in these cases are specifically barred from being "ruinous" in Florida law and these damages were clearly ruinous.

      There's no denying that Gawker was a sleazy gossip rag, but they also appear to have been an honest sleazy gossip rag. There are plenty of sleazy, _dishonest_ gossip rags out there, also constantly inflicting emotional distress, but with lies that actually should be actionable. Somehow, they seem to keep publishing lie after lie after lie. I would love to see some of those squashed. As far as Gawker itself, I would have been happy to see their business model fail, and for the public to stop eating up the kind of garbage they apparently spew, but this is just beyond the pale. Their speech should have been protected by the law, and we should all be disturbed that it wasn't. Just about everything about this case is wrong.

    19. Re:Peter Thiel and Hulk Hogan by lucm · · Score: 1

      I don't think there's a lot of sophisticated conservatives that are glued to Fox News. And besides Dennis Miller there's not a lot of conservative comedians. There's definitely a gap in that market. For the liberals there's more options, from top shelf to guttermouths.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    20. Re: Peter Thiel and Hulk Hogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is because conservatives are stuck up assholes who are full of themselves. ;)

    21. Re: Peter Thiel and Hulk Hogan by lucm · · Score: 1

      That is because conservatives are stuck up assholes who are full of themselves. ;)

      There's plenty of stuck up assholes to go around. Have you ever been to a charity event organized by bored housewives on Long Island? They all vote Democrat but you can bet that if someone in need was to knock at their door the answer would involve pepper spray and/or a forceful removal by private security goons.

      I'll tell you this, if your car was to break down and your phone was dead, you'd be better off if it happened in the bible belt than in any zipcode populated by Clinton voters.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    22. Re:Peter Thiel and Hulk Hogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think there's enough evidence to say "any party," though your statement is probably true for most of them.

      Let's move from senior members to candidates. I don't think Johnson or Stein lied to the public during the campaign much. That's not to meant say that they were right! They were both unintentionally wrong more than once. Clinton and Trump were intentionally deceitful with measurable frequency. I'm no Hillary fan, but Trump objectively lied more to the public during the campaign than she did.

  9. Let's hear it for the HIV! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If we root for the HIV, maybe Thiel will fall over from Kaposi's and intestinal failure from sperm overload!

  10. I thought Trump hated gays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess the DNC are liars

    1. Re: I thought Trump hated gays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe if you believe the media and the monster they declare Trump to be.

      How many GOP presidential candidates, or candidates from either party, have taken pictures such as this?

      http://www.inquisitr.com/3702676/donald-trump-surprise-president-elect-supports-lgbt-community-holds-rainbow-flag-at-colorado-rally-lgbt-for-trump/

    2. Re:I thought Trump hated gays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you met his VP ?

    3. Re: I thought Trump hated gays by lucm · · Score: 2

      Maybe if you believe the media and the monster they declare Trump to be.

      How many GOP presidential candidates, or candidates from either party, have taken pictures such as this?

      http://www.inquisitr.com/3702676/donald-trump-surprise-president-elect-supports-lgbt-community-holds-rainbow-flag-at-colorado-rally-lgbt-for-trump/

      Trump has shown over the last 2 years that he has a backbone of steel. I wasn't expecting that from him but the man is tough as they come, and as soon as the campaign was over he started showing his true leadership.

      Of course we won't hear about it on TV or in the newspapers because the liberal media will spend their time in FUD mode. At first it was "the markets are gonna crash because Trump" until the next day the markets open on an uptick, then it was all about the "massive demonstrations against Trump" of 700 people in NYC. The media are even more useless when it's a Republican administration than when they get their propaganda straight from Obama press secretary.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    4. Re: I thought Trump hated gays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ayup - the Liberal brats need to smoke some more weed and chill out. Rioting in the streets is not a good idea.

    5. Re:I thought Trump hated gays by Z80a · · Score: 1

      This is an odd election where a conservative took the spot of the DEM president candidate, and a relatively liberal took the spot of the republicans.

    6. Re: I thought Trump hated gays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CNN interviewed one protester in NYC, the studio anchor said he knew that guy and said hi because he was a cameraman on a story CNN did with him in Africa.

      Thats right, CNN used their own cameraman to interview to show how upset the protesters were. They forgot to tell the studio anchor and he accidentally outed him by trying to say hi.

      video

      You will have to excuse me as I laugh about the protests instead of taking them seriously. CNN is finished.

    7. Re: I thought Trump hated gays by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      but the man is tough as they come,

      No he ain't. He got really bothered when someone made a jibe about small hands, and jumped to defending the size of his willy. Those are not the actions of a man with a backbone of steel, those are the actions of a deeply insecure man.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    8. Re: I thought Trump hated gays by lucm · · Score: 1

      but the man is tough as they come,

      No he ain't. He got really bothered when someone made a jibe about small hands, and jumped to defending the size of his willy. Those are not the actions of a man with a backbone of steel, those are the actions of a deeply insecure man.

      I don't know what's your day job, but unless it requires a deep insight in human psyche, I would advise not to quit it.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    9. Re: I thought Trump hated gays by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      I don't know what's your day job, but unless it requires a deep insight in human psyche, I would advise not to quit it.

      Enlighten me, then how being insecure about having a small willy is now a good thing. You're not insecure are you?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  11. Congratulations! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am liking Thiel more and more. I'm glad Trump won the presidency, and for the first time in my life think we elected someone who actually cares about making things better in the US. I look forward to where things go from here.

    1. Re:Congratulations! by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I can't wait to watch the intellectual contortions you put yourself through as you and your fellow Trump supporters being to realize what it is you actually elected.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Congratulations! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahahaha. The best part is you believe such nonsense. Trump will enrich the rich and no one else. That you thought otherwise is amazingly stupid.

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

      I've heard that TPP and TTIP are already going through their death throes thanks to Trump.

      So right there are two huge wins that us average people have been dreaming about for years now. Globalist garbage being brought to an unwilling citizenry by none other than the Democrats that so many people wanted to vote for. Here it is, crushed because of the one the dems told you was Satan: Donald Trump.

      I have a feeling some big apologies are going to be necessary by the dems and their supporters.

    4. Re: Congratulations! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Trump doesn't care about America or the planet. He only cares about Trump. He's a con man, flat out. And he suckered half the country. And he is now one of the most powerful men in the world, if not THE most. And we're going to pay.

    5. Re:Congratulations! by lucm · · Score: 1

      Trump will enrich the rich and no one else.

      No you misunderstood - he's going to *repel* Obamacare, not maintain it.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    6. Re: Congratulations! by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 2

      How exactly was that different from the other candidate? I'm shocked she didn't throw Bill under the bus in her run at the position.

    7. Re:Congratulations! by quax · · Score: 1

      In all likelihood they will eventually learn that he has been owned by Russia (once Putin doesn't need him any more).

      I don't even feel like blaming Russia, they are just doing what's best in their national interest, after having been squeezed on the Ukraine.

      Just the facts:

      1) Trump had no interest in changing the GOP platform presented at the Republican convention, with one exception, he pulled all the hawkish lingo that condemned the Russian intervention in the Ukraine.

      2) His second campaign manager Paul Manafort spent considerable time in the Ukraine working for the former president, and Russian asset, Viktor Yanukovych. He had to step aside when this connection became too much of an obvious liability to the Trump campaign.

      3) The Russian deputy minister confirmed that they were in contact with the Trump campaign through-out the election process.

      4) According to a CNN report, a Kremlin advisor admitted they coordinated with Wikileaks.

      5) Trump has considerable business interests in Russia and visited the country often.

      6) Trump exhibits considerable sexual appetite.

      7) Russian "political culture" perfected the art of compromising politicians with embarrassing material, they even have a word for it.

      8) Mother Jones reported that a retired Intelligence officer came forward, alleging that this is exactly what has been done to Trump.

      Trump made for the perfect Manchurian candidate.

    8. Re:Congratulations! by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      It'll still all be Hillary's fault.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    9. Re: Congratulations! by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

      Wow, just wow. So jimmy carter, you know the guy from 76 is STILL building houses for people. Carter foundation, Clinton foundation, Bush foundation, Reagan Foundation all do serious work. I've not seen anything of merit that the Trump foundation does even though the guy is super rich. What was the one article I saw, Trump is richer than all the past presidents combined.

    10. Re: Congratulations! by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      Jimmy Carter, Bush, and Reagan were running this election cycle?

    11. Re:Congratulations! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have serious doubts about this considering that you just elected one of the people who spearheaded the TPP as vice-president.

    12. Re:Congratulations! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someday you're going to realize you sound like a birther or an 'Obama is a muslim!' nutter. There's many ways to handle that realization; I just hope it's not doubling down on stupid.

    13. Re: Congratulations! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's more like Clinton failed to con voters into believing she gave a damn about them; neither candidate had impressive numbers by any stretch of the word.

    14. Re:Congratulations! by quax · · Score: 1

      Once I have to link to Alex Jones for my contentions I will take this under advisory. As it is all of these things come from pretty reputable sources. I just didn't bother to put the links in, such as

      http://www.motherjones.com/pol...

      or this one

      http://www.mobypicture.com/use...

      At any rate, if he is a Russian asset it will come out eventually, until then the suspicion is well founded given his behaviour, and other governments will take it into account.

      NATO is but a paper tiger at this point. Not that Trump voters will care, but you shattered the Western alliance. If you think this is on the level with being unable to comprehend a birth certificate, then you have bigger problems anyhow.

    15. Re: Congratulations! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No he's saying that those past presidents try to do some good in the world. What has trump done other than help himself? But you already knew that.

      I seen trump on TV on Election Day giving a $20 bill to a ~10year old kid. This kid was surrounded by a bunch of other people and kids. No one else got a single thing but a smile and a wave from trump. I watched this man pull out his wallet filled with 20s, and give 1 kid 1 $20 bill while everyone else clapped and smiled.

      Amazing world we live in. Quite sad.

    16. Re: Congratulations! by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      How many of those did things *after* they left office?

      Were you upset he did it in front of you? How exactly do you think the Clinton Foundation worked?

    17. Re: Congratulations! by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

      You know with the internet you can do a quick search and discover all sorts of things. For example, Hilary founded an advocacy group in Arkansas in 1977 for families and children. While 1st lady of arkansas she worked to expand health care for the poor, & worked for public education reforms. While at Yale she took on child abuse cases. All this and more is generally available. Now remind me again of the any charity work trump has ever done. Try googling "Trump charity work". Mainly the hits are about how little he has done relative to clinton and how he is the most selfish billionaire.

  12. First Amendment what? by gavron · · Score: 1

    Both Peter Thiel and Donald Trump are thin-skinned rich white guys who bully anyone that they think insults their thin-skinned specialness.

    Both have shown clearly they are FOR free speech when that speech is FOR them, and AGAINST free speech when that speech is against them.
    That means they are neither pro free speech, the first amendment, or basic human rights.

    It is not surprising that a narcissistic misogynist xenophobic racist bully would enlist others like him to a transition team.

    Trump's history is full of contracts where he refuses to pay and unilaterally changes how much he'll pay after he gets the product. If this sounds familiar it's the same as what Darth Vader did with Lando Calrissian when he took Han Solo's carbomite-frozen body to Jabba the Hutt.

    Those who voted for Trump for President are in for a few nasty surprises when he does the same things to our allies, to our treaties, to his own campaign promises, and to the people of this land. Unfortunately, so are the rest of us.

    E

    1. Re:First Amendment what? by burtosis · · Score: 1

      Trump's history is full of contracts where he refuses to pay and unilaterally changes how much he'll pay after he gets the product. If this sounds familiar it's the same as what Darth Vader did with Lando Calrissian when he took Han Solo's carbomite-frozen body to Jabba the Hutt.

      Trump glaring menacingly at liberals: "I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."

    2. Re:First Amendment what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a narcissistic misogynist xenophobic racist bully

      You're the one using "white guys" as an insult.

    3. Re:First Amendment what? by lucm · · Score: 1

      it's the same as what Darth Vader did with Lando Calrissian when he took Han Solo's carbomite-frozen body to Jabba the Hutt.

      Lando Calrissian was a backstabbing cunt who totally deserved to get backstabbed himself. First he sold his best friend to the Empire, than turned against the Empire again. He's a fucking flip-flopper, I can see why you'd probably vote for him.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    4. Re:First Amendment what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your gutter language and lack of understanding of something as simple as Star Wars makes it clear why you voted for Trump.
      You do both him and you proud.

      Come was eloquent some more. It's been a while since someone used vulgar language so poorly in a vain attempt to make a point, not understanding even a movie metaphor.

      E

    5. Re:First Amendment what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a racist full of hate. Be smarter.

    6. Re:First Amendment what? by lucm · · Score: 1

      Your gutter language and lack of understanding of something as simple as Star Wars makes it clear why you voted for Trump.
      You do both him and you proud.

      Come was eloquent some more. It's been a while since someone used vulgar language so poorly in a vain attempt to make a point, not understanding even a movie metaphor.

      E

      First, your Star Wars reference is not a metaphor, so before you try to educate people learn the language.

      Second, Lando Calrissian sold his best friend to the Empire and turned against the Empire only because Vader decided to take Leia prisonner as well - obviously Calrissian wanted to fuck her now that Solo was out of the picture, that's why he reacted like that. So first he betrayed his friend, then he betrayed the Empire, then he betrayed the people of Bespin. That's a textbook backstabbing cunt.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    7. Re:First Amendment what? by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      What was Lando's choice, die on the spot? In the end he blew up the death star and everything worked out for the best so apparently he made the right choice.

  13. Act like an adult! by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Good. I want the Republicans to go all in: have Roe v. Wade overturned, ban abortion, eliminate the fillibuster, repeal the ACA, lower taxes on the top earners while shifting the tax burdern to the lower and middle classes, have gay marriage overturned, everything. Make things as painful as possible for as many people as possible. Most people, it seems, only respond to pain; make them feel it.

    Gah! Is there nothing more important to liberals than winning?

    Is getting your way more important than burning everything to the ground and salting the Earth?

    There are people out there who have different opinions than yours. They want to live peacefully in this world, and deep down you do as well.

    GET OVER YOURSELF AND START ACTING LIKE AN ADULT!

    1. Re:Act like an adult! by currently_awake · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Once burned twice shy, we can only hope the voters learn from experience. Trump appears to make things up as he goes along, in a job that requires planning, due diligence, and attention to detail. I expect he'll dig a very large hole to bury the Republicans in. I really hope this doesn't happen, as that really big hole will likely have plenty of room for mass graves of the innocent as well. He doesn't need to hit the "Big Red Button" to kill people, his conventional military forces are fully able to kill a hundred thousand humans a month.

    2. Re:Act like an adult! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you new to this country? That's been the way Washington has operated for some time. It's especially interesting that you attribute this to liberals, as if they are the only ones that have ever done it (hint: it's been the Republicans doing it the last 8 years).

    3. Re:Act like an adult! by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Are you talking to the Dems or the Republicans? Is there some alternative universe where Republican congresscritters worked cooperatively with the Democratic president and settled their differences with studied debate instead of wondering where he was born? I must have missed that memo.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:Act like an adult! by Bigbutt · · Score: 1

      Wait, that's what Trump said he was going to do. Now I'm puzzled. Are we expecting him to lie about what he wanted to do in the first 100 days?

      [John]

      --
      Shit better not happen!
    5. Re:Act like an adult! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone said something along the lines of "Liberals took Trump literally but not seriously. Trump supporters took him seriously but not literally."

    6. Re:Act like an adult! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      his conventional military forces are fully able to kill a hundred thousand humans a month.

      100K a month? Shit, one dude at the edge of a trench with a pistol could easily kill 60 an hour, 480 a day if we limit it to office working hours. Eleven guys doing that for five days a week for a month would kill over 100K.

      So If my entire armed forces were killing 100K people a month I'd have to put my boot up their asses for being a bunch of limp-wristed goldbrickers. That's not even 3.5K kills per day and that's just godawful pathetic if you're a modern army with modern weapons slaughtering civilians.

    7. Re:Act like an adult! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      LOL. Such an odd thing to say, given who just got elected. Such an odd thing to say in general, given the "no compromise" binge the right has been on for years (wouldn't confirm *any* cabinet appointments no matter how trivial, wouldn't appoint a Supreme Court Justice, broke filibuster records, etc., etc.)

      Thank you for continuing to confirm that the right does not exist in the same reality as the rest of us.

    8. Re:Act like an adult! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump appears to make things up as he goes along, in a job that requires planning, due diligence, and attention to detail.

      I see your point. After all, real estate development like building skyscraper hotels or vast casinos doesn't really provide much background in terms of "planning, due diligence, and attention to detail," does it? It also seems likely he was working by himself for most of that, so no experience with multi-functional teams or staffs.

      I expect he'll dig a very large hole to bury the Republicans in. I really hope this doesn't happen, as that really big hole will likely have plenty of room for mass graves of the innocent as well.

      Trump already has lots of experience with the digging of large holes. I doubt any of them has turned into a mass grave yet like those ISIS has been creating lately. The mass graves around Mosul wouldn't have been filled with bodies if the US had a continuous presence in Iraq. Who was it again that took the US out of Iraq? Not Trump.

      Once burned twice shy, we can only hope the voters learn from experience.

      The voters did learn from experience. That's why they hired Trump. The problem isn't "red buttons" as you mention, but red clown noses. The Obama administration has been full of them.

    9. Re:Act like an adult! by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Living with the consequences of your actions is part of being an adult. Voters who fell for the Trump meme or didn't vote need to learn what happens when you don't take democracy seriously. The same with Brexit, it should be as hard and as painful as possible so when the voters are sat unemployed and hungry they might think twice about voting to lose their own jobs because a newspaper told them to.

    10. Re:Act like an adult! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see your point. After all, real estate development like building skyscraper hotels or vast casinos doesn't really provide much background in terms of "planning, due diligence, and attention to detail," does it?

      You mean the vast casino that went bankrupt three times before permanently closing? Yeah, that's a great example of his skills at planning, diligence and attention to detail. It takes a special kind of stupid to fuck up a business where half the customers are addicted to literally giving you their money.

    11. Re:Act like an adult! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's not the voters who need to learn. Clinton was incredibly unpopular, and no one listened no matter how many times this was repeated. And then Trump, in an impressive display of intelligence rivalling most 9 year olds, realized that at least pretending he gave a damn about the rust belt's problems would help him. Clinton and the DNC fucked up in so many ways; of special note was choosing to dismiss leaks showing corruption by saying "don't look or the scary foreigners win!" Did they (and everyone here still parroting this nonsense) think that appealing to xenophobia and red scare bs would attract more liberal voters?

    12. Re:Act like an adult! by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Funny, I don't recall the Democratic president ever allowing them to work with him.

      https://www.washingtonpost.com...
      http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...

      Over and over again, we heard that Obama would not negotiate with the Republicans. Obama was of the opinion that either they allow him to do everything he wants, or he will take his ball and go home. It is impossible to work with someone who won't even talk to you about what they want without throwing a hissy fit.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    13. Re:Act like an adult! by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Odd, that first link combined two links together, not really sure how that happened.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  14. Just the echoes by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

    Both Peter Thiel and Donald Trump are thin-skinned rich white guys who bully anyone that they think insults their thin-skinned specialness.

    Both have shown clearly they are FOR free speech when that speech is FOR them, and AGAINST free speech when that speech is against them.
    That means they are neither pro free speech, the first amendment, or basic human rights.

    It is not surprising that a narcissistic misogynist xenophobic racist bully would enlist others like him to a transition team.

    Trump's history is full of contracts where he refuses to pay and unilaterally changes how much he'll pay after he gets the product. If this sounds familiar it's the same as what Darth Vader did with Lando Calrissian when he took Han Solo's carbomite-frozen body to Jabba the Hutt.

    Those who voted for Trump for President are in for a few nasty surprises when he does the same things to our allies, to our treaties, to his own campaign promises, and to the people of this land. Unfortunately, so are the rest of us.

    E

    Relax everyone. This is just the echoes of the Clinton campaign dying down.

    Clinton ran a campaign of spite and malice, she created a tidal wave of hatred and loathing, the waves of which are still sloshing around the tub.

    It'll take about two weeks (from the election). People will see Trump acting presidential, that he isn't a monster, and that his plans are sensible and good for the country.

    In the mean time, just let them work it out of their system.

    Maybe it'll make their transition quicker.

    1. Re:Just the echoes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are a fucking idiot

    2. Re:Just the echoes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The tolerant, loving, peaceful liberals are out there right now, lighting fires, burning flags, smashing windows, and violently attacking people simply because their beliefs don't align with theirs. Hypocrisy on parade. These are the people that we almost handed the election to.

      They're not very smart though. They don't learn. They got caught bussing in DNC and Soros-org paid protesters for BLM and election riots, and now they're doing it again. These are the exact same acts that cost them the election, and now it's going to cost them any remaining ounce of credibility, respect, and tolerance the people might have left for them. Obama administration lets them get away with this, simply because they promote his party's agenda. Their his useful idiots. Once Trump takes power though, play time will be over and the rule of law will be reinstated to correct the bad behavior.

      The Left don't seem to understand that attempting to force people into their line of thinking simply won't work, and that it will eventually result in a catastrophic backlash that they will never see coming, and will never recover from.

    3. Re: Just the echoes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice try, Trump.

    4. Re:Just the echoes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like the terrorist right who took over a bird sanctuary or used terror to try and fight against grazing rights? Those terrorist republicans? You support terrorism. Good job you fucking cretin.

    5. Re:Just the echoes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're still in the "anger" phase of your traumatic experience. Give it time and you'll eventually reach acceptance. Acceptance that the schools will finally have the anti-American tumor excised from them, allowing a new generation to grow up into productive, decent people who respect others, work hard, and don't go stomping their feet demanding handouts and getting violent when they don't receive them.

      The degenerate Leftist media programming is also on the list of stains to wipe up in order to ensure a prosperous future full of intelligent, well-informed, happy people.

      There is much damage to sift through, replace, and repair, but America is up for the task!

    6. Re:Just the echoes by Alypius · · Score: 1

      Am I the only one who notices how people who try so hard to establish their "patriotic" bona fides are the only ones burning the flag? Ever?

    7. Re:Just the echoes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because a patriot is about the substance, not the symbols.

    8. Re:Just the echoes by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I really hope you're right, and Trump drops every crazy bigoted position he held throughout his campaign. It will be especially hilarious to watch his supporters curse the sky with frustration as he abandons plans for a Muslim ban (may have already happened), mass deportation, and the Great Wall of America. It would mean that Trump played them all like a cheap fiddle and then discarded the issues they cared about as soon as he got what he wanted out of it.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    9. Re:Just the echoes by hambone142 · · Score: 1

      Disclaimer: I voted for neither.

      I find it interesting that those who celebrate "diversity" only want to see *their* diversity succeed.

      I find it interesting that those calling people "haters" are hating those who are associated with the winning party.

      What do they expect? A "do over"?

      The election is over.

      Get used to it. All of the belly aching in the world isn't going to change the election. Did we see this happen from the Republicans when Obama won?

  15. The good and the bad by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

    I'm sure you'd be OK with someone offering to pay any lawsuits naming you as a defendant, and that this wouldn't result in lots of people suing you hoping to make a buck.

    I'd take the good with the bad. There's a cop I'd like to take to court for violating my rights - can I get someone to pay for my lawsuit too?

    1. Re:The good and the bad by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      I'm sure you'd be OK with someone offering to pay any lawsuits naming you as a defendant, and that this wouldn't result in lots of people suing you hoping to make a buck.

      I'd take the good with the bad. There's a cop I'd like to take to court for violating my rights - can I get someone to pay for my lawsuit too?

      Quite possibly. The ACLU is a good starting point, but there are some other organizations that might also help if you have a good case.

  16. wut by ArylAkamov · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Thiel further angered First Amendment supporters by bankrolling the Hulk Hogan lawsuit that brought down Gawker.

    I didn't realize publishing private sextapes and ignoring orders from judges was a first amendment issue, but hacked nudes were a completely different, terrible thing to do.

    http://i.imgur.com/CQ5qgvu.jpg

    1. Re:wut by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      I didn't realize publishing private sextapes and ignoring orders from judges was a first amendment issue, but hacked nudes were a completely different, terrible thing to do.

      Of course it is. When you're actually a sexist, it's easy to hold conflicting positions on something while claiming to hold the moral high ground.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:wut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you're actually a liberal

      FTFY.

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

      What most people seem to be ignoring is that Gawker actually _did_ take down the sex tape on the Judges order. The part that they didn't do was take down the article written about it. The part of the order requiring that to be taken down was blatantly unconstitutional.

    4. Re:wut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know I've seen images of Jeff Goldblum naked with erect penis on the beach on reddit and these were not distributed by Gawker but some other rainbow press like the daily mail. I'm not saying it's okay but I'm pretty sure this is more or less standard nowadays, whether you like it or not.

  17. Go to sleep, my... by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

    you are a fucking idiot

    There there, it's all right.

    Go to sleep now, it'll all be better in the morning, about a week and a half from now.

    1. Re:Go to sleep, my... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      idiot

  18. Re: Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't believe they fell for that.

  19. THIEL FOR SCOTUS by udachny · · Score: 0

    If the only thing that Trump does that of what he mused to do is put Thiel into SCOTUS then his presidency is already better than Clinton's.

  20. TPP is dead by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 3, Informative

    I've heard that TPP and TTIP are already going through their death throes thanks to Trump.

    You are incorrect.

    TPP is dead.

    Donald Trump’s victory in Tuesday’s presidential election has prompted President Barack Obama to abandon the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement, the Wall Street Journal reported late Friday.

    According to the Journal, the White House had hoped to push the deal forward in the lame-duck session of Congress, assuming Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton had won the election. Her loss has already changed the political landscape:

    Also of note since Trump won: Canada has said it's willing to renegotiate NAFTA, Mexico said it's willing to renegotiate NAFTA, stock market has hit new highs, money previously allocated by the government for the purpose of building the wall has been found, and two of Trumps scandals (the underage rape, and the muslim hajib thing) were found out as complete fabrications.

    I'm waiting to hear the liberals on Slashdot spin the death of TPP as a bad thing because it was due to Trump.

    1. Re:TPP is dead by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      And you think Canada.is.jusy going to allow its exports to have tariffs thrown up but allow American goods through unmolested? What does "renegotiate NAFTA" even mean?

      And before you answer, ponder that 38 states have Canada as their largest trading partner.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:TPP is dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please cite a source that isn't effectively an alt-right fantasy novel. See if you can find one from outside of your echo chamber, where people actually verify facts rather than making things up to support positions they have already reached.

    3. Re:TPP is dead by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Mexico said it's willing to renegotiate NAFTA, ..., money previously allocated by the government for the purpose of building the wall has been found

      There is no credible source for those claims. Mexico has said that it is willing to "discuss" NAFTA, but the idea that they are willing to renegotiate it in a way that would impose the tariff barriers that Trump proposed is laughable:

      "Meanwhile Mexican Economy Minister Ildefonso Guajardo said they were willing to discuss the importance of the agreement with Mr Trump."

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    4. Re: TPP is dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two articles from the same echo chamber website. If you think what they produce is news, then I have a bridge to sell you in your moms basement. Water front property. ;)

    5. Re:TPP is dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buh buh buh that means rich people made money!!!!!

    6. Re:TPP is dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Links with [breitbart.com] after them always make me imagine the thing in the link brackets has quotation marks around it. Is it really the most legitimate news agency?

    7. Re:TPP is dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody's obligated to spin anything for your idiotic amusement. I'm a conservative, and I do not support assholes like you. We won, we should be uniting the nation, not behaving like cunts.

  21. Relax by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

    Fuck his crony capitalism that shit belongs in 1816 not 2016. Trump will see the break up of the US in ways the Southern Confederates could only dream about. Now the opposite ideology has the real economic strength to secede and take a third of the US states with it. Then Trump can fume and have tantrums all day.

    Ease off man, chill.

    Take some time off, catch up on your sleep, read a good book.

    Everything will seem fine in about a week or so.

    You don't have to carry the world on your shoulders all the time.

    We can handle the world for a few days - go ahead and relax for a week or so.

    1. Re:Relax by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      We can handle the world for a few days

      Last time the world was left in your hands, you elected Trump. If we leave it in your hands again, god knows what disaster will happen.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  22. Re:fuck trump by lucm · · Score: 2

    Trump will see the break up of the US in ways the Southern Confederates could only dream about.

    You mean when the Democrats were fighting to keep slaves and the Republicans freed them?

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  23. Re:fuck trump by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

    will see the break up of the US in ways the Southern Confederates could

    Good. I'm tired of waiting on the south to catch up. Maybe we can go back to being 50 states. I'd personally have no problem being South Canada.

    We can leave the South to their backwards theology driven ideology. (What is it about that latitude?)

  24. Cleaning the swamp? by Kwyj1b0 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've been hearing a lot of talk about "Give Trump a chance", and "let's judge him when he gets to office" by people who voted against him, but are practical enough to want a good leader.

    However, this seems to be a pattern with Trump - using donors or people who already agree with him in key positions and advisors. His economic team consists of big donors, and discredited hacks like Stephen Moore and Larry Kudlow (this is non-partisan; even economic advisors of previous republicans presidents don't agree with Moore). He takes an climate-change skeptic (Myron Ebell) to lead the EPA transition.

    Yet, I haven't heard a peep from most people who supported Trump about this. The "blue collar" crowd who supported him was about people sick of "Establishment politics", and instead wanted someone "looking out for the working class". Trump's isolationist and trade-war leaning policies, and embrace of supply-side economics have a proven record of hurting workers. Together with clear cronyism (to be fair, this was obvious before the election), I'm surprised that the "blue collar" crowd isn't even slightly upset.

    Trump's supporters seem to still be in the post-game high - "Our team won!"; are they going to hold him to his (crazy) campaign promises? Are they going to expect him to loosen libel laws, build a wall, bring back sweatshop factory jobs? A co-worker remarked "Trump's victory speech was a step towards healing", instead of realizing that the stirred up crazy is still out there; he doesn't get credit for not being as crazy enough to follow through on his campaign promises.

    1. Re:Cleaning the swamp? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      are they going to hold him to his (crazy) campaign promises?
      Not any more than the Nobel Peace price winner was held to his.

    2. Re:Cleaning the swamp? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > the stirred up crazy is still out there

      It sure is. Look at the bogus "hijab stealing trump supporter" stories today, or the horrific attack on an accident victim in Chicago, with bystanders chanting that he was a trump supporter, so it's ok to attach him to his own car and drag him down the street.

      There's a lot of crazy out there. But let's be honest, much of that isn't Trump-derived, as it is media induced.

    3. Re:Cleaning the swamp? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    4. Re:Cleaning the swamp? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might be right. But who do you choose for these types of positions? Anyone with political experience or holding an elected position is basically a part of the establishment, anyone else is going to be quite the opposite of a blue collar worker and probably out of touch with them.

    5. Re:Cleaning the swamp? by quax · · Score: 1

      Trump's victory speech was a step towards healing"

      Corpses don't heal.

    6. Re:Cleaning the swamp? by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Yes, we intend to hold him to his promises.

      We were serious about what we wanted when we nominated and elected him, and we sincerely hope that he intends to follow through. Neuter the EPA, cut taxes, cut regulation, build the wall, bring jobs back - all of it. We even want to hold the enemedia accountable when they intentionally publish lies, and we'd like to have some free trade agreements, which are different from the Free Trade, Inc.(TM) agreements we've been pushing lately.

      Oh, and if you want to call it isolationist and trade-war leaning to have policies that aren't designed to distribute American wealth around the world at the expense of the American people, I can't compete with your wounded feels, but that still don't make it so.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    7. Re:Cleaning the swamp? by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Informative

      So you think poisoning the environment is somehow going to help society?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    8. Re:Cleaning the swamp? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You realize that unemployment is lower than it has been in a very long time?

      Facts matter.

      You can't create as many jobs as he promised without increasing immigration. There aren't that many unemployed people in the country!

      Math matters too.

    9. Re:Cleaning the swamp? by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

      That war has been won. Now, they spend their time doing things like this.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    10. Re:Cleaning the swamp? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep the environmental poisoning in your own yard, and you pay for the wall (most illegals came here on planes and overstayed their visas you 2-dimensional thinking idiot), and pay the extra taxes to cover his tax cuts.

    11. Re:Cleaning the swamp? by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      Obviously you are concern-trolling if you think working class give a shit about climate change. Guess you'd propose Al Gore and Elizabeth Warren be appointed... Trump is hiring successful people, and if they don't serve him he will fire them

    12. Re:Cleaning the swamp? by DogDude · · Score: 2

      Yup. Ironically enough, the dummies who voted for him are the ones who are going to be the most fucked over: poor, uneducated people in the middle of the country. Fuck 'em. I think that Trump is a human piece of shit, but my taxes will go down, and if things get too scary, I can leave. Those dumb fuckers are going to have to live with what they did. They won't learn from it, but karma's a bitch.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    13. Re:Cleaning the swamp? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just who the hell do you think nominated Trump in the first place? I'll give you a hint - it's not the people that voted for him.

      The DNC needs to take every last bit of blame for this immeasurable blunder. Their shenanigans have put quite a few pieces of the nation in jeopardy.

    14. Re:Cleaning the swamp? by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      you aint getting any of that.

    15. Re:Cleaning the swamp? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really just can't understand how anybody voted for Trump because they were sick of "Establishment politics". He IS the Establishment! These people are upset with the government for catering to rich immoral businessmen who care more about making money than keeping their countrymen employed... so they voted for one of those immoral businessmen directly. What, did they think things were going to be better somehow if they just took out the middleman?

      I get the anger. I do. I live in Michigan, which is a place where a lot of factory work has gone away and isn't coming back. I see the results first-hand. But how is voting for a guy who loves offshoring and hates paying employees (just look at how he's treated his businesses for his entire life) going to make things BETTER? How is voting for a party who opposes the social welfare programs that these people need in order to transition into new careers and keep their families alive and healthy in the meantime going to make things BETTER? How is voting for the party that is explicitly against labor unions, worker's rights, and fair distribution of taxation going to make things BETTER? How is voting for the party that not only let the Flint water crisis happen but intentionally caused it going make things BETTER?

      The Republican party only cares about the rich. The Republican party hates the poor, hates workers, hates farmers, hates anyone who tries to claw any money away from the rich so that they can do frivolous things like feed their families or try to have any prosperity of their own. I understand that the working poor are angry, but if you're not rich voting Republican is like putting a knife in your own eye. Vote for somebody who's actually interested in helping you.

    16. Re:Cleaning the swamp? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The labor participation rate is 62%. 20 years ago it was 68%.

    17. Re:Cleaning the swamp? by MightyMartian · · Score: 0

      The war has been won, really? You think deregulation won't mean more crap gets dumped into watersheds, more dangerous emissions? Oh, and let's not get started on the idea that CO2, despite all the physical and climatological evidence, doesn't increase net energy (temperature) in the oceans and lower atmosphere.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    18. Re:Cleaning the swamp? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct. And the Baby Boomers weren't as old as they are now. A big chunk of the population is retiring. Because they are old.

    19. Re: Cleaning the swamp? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't you get the memo, less govt == good. Free market == good.

      But what they didn't say was, whom it was good for. And it isn't us.

    20. Re:Cleaning the swamp? by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Yes, we intend to hold him to his promises.

      How exactly?
      When he shits on you, and make no mistake he will shit of everyone, what exactly are you going to do about it?

    21. Re:Cleaning the swamp? by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1
      Will: He used to just put a belt, a stick, and a wrench on the table. Just say, "Choose."

      Sean: Well I gotta go with the belt there.
      Will: I used to go with the wrench.
      Sean: Why the wrench?
      Will: Cause fuck him, that's why.

    22. Re:Cleaning the swamp? by Kwyj1b0 · · Score: 1

      Neuter the EPA, cut taxes, cut regulation, build the wall, bring jobs back - all of it. We even want to hold the enemedia accountable when they intentionally publish lies, and we'd like to have some free trade agreements, which are different from the Free Trade, Inc.(TM) agreements we've been pushing lately.

      Let's focus on jobs: the issue that "blue collar" cares about. Are they the steel plants, coal plants, and car manufacturing jobs of years gone by? Most of those jobs are gone because of automation, not because of immigrant labor. In fact, US manufacturing output is higher than ever (Google it), but the jobs in manufacturing is at an all time low.

      Or perhaps it is the Foxconn type sweatshop labor that he'll bring back. Will Americans work for the same price (or risk this being automated as well)? Or maybe Trump will impose a tariff on all good manufactured outside the US? Other countries will then place a huge tariff on US goods. Or companies manufacture US consumables in US (welcome to your $2000 iPhone), while other countries get them from operations in China. And this tariff other countries place on US goods? It causes a contraction because domestic (within US) demand cannot rise enough to make up for the fact that US exports are no longer competitive in international markets. Unemployment in the US goes up, which causes people to consume less, which causes further contraction

      Perhaps they are new jobs in fracking and oil (or other infrastructure projects)? Good. Infrastructure projects, while temporary, do boost the economy. Except Obama has been trying to get infrastructure projects for a long time, and Congress refuses to play ball (and fracking might not be the best industry anyway). Trump and Congress will likely pay for those by cutting other projects of course, and depending on where that is, we might have bigger problems. Trump's whole budget proposal was flawed (based on the non-partisan CBO, but who really cares what they think).

      Oh, and if you want to call it isolationist and trade-war leaning to have policies that aren't designed to distribute American wealth around the world at the expense of the American people, I can't compete with your wounded feels, but that still don't make it so.

      This isn't about feels - the people who are against trade wars includes prominent conservative Economists. They know that barriers to free trade are bad; the Donald, of course, has a good brain and doesn't need experts contradicting him. Which is why he goes for crony advisors.

    23. Re:Cleaning the swamp? by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

      If this isn't about feels, then certainly you have data to back it up. Note that I said data, not arguments, not models - data. Show me some data.

      While you are busy researching that, try really, really hard not to notice how America prospered prior to the 1962 Trade Expansion Act, and how we have withered since.

      Also, try not to notice that Britain fell into the trap of "free trade" around 1850 and over the next 50 years or so we went from half of their production, to double it. In the period from 1865 through 1900, commodity prices fell 58%, real wages grew by 53% despite a doubling of the population, GDP grew by 4% annually, and production grew by 5% annually.

      How have we fared in the "free trade" era? 20 trillion in debt, and each year we sell another trillion dollars worth of our land and productive assets in exchange for consumer goods. How long do you think we can keep that up?

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    24. Re:Cleaning the swamp? by Kwyj1b0 · · Score: 1

      If this isn't about feels, then certainly you have data to back it up. Note that I said data, not arguments, not models - data. Show me some data.

      Here you go: Economy of the US; also, models (if they have a good track record) are certainly valuable. Any time anyone makes a prediction, they have a model. Those with the most disdain for models are often arguing from ideology instead.

      While you are busy researching that, try really, really hard not to notice how America prospered prior to the 1962 Trade Expansion Act, and how we have withered since.

      Define prosperity - certainly there are problems, but overall the years after 1962 have been great. While the gap between productivity and wages has increased, there are reasons that have nothing to do with trade. I repeat, US exports and manufacturing are at an all time high (Google it); manufacturing employment, however, is not doing so well.

      Also, try not to notice that Britain fell into the trap of "free trade" around 1850 and over the next 50 years or so we went from half of their production, to double it. In the period from 1865 through 1900, commodity prices fell 58%, real wages grew by 53% despite a doubling of the population, GDP grew by 4% annually, and production grew by 5% annually.

      How have we fared in the "free trade" era? 20 trillion in debt, and each year we sell another trillion dollars worth of our land and productive assets in exchange for consumer goods. How long do you think we can keep that up?

      Debt financed growth has been a valid strategy to get out of slumps and recession. No one is saying that debt isn't a problem. But most policy experts (of which neither of us are) disagree that massive tax cuts and austerity aren't the way to fix it. Trade wars aren't the way to fix it. These policy experts (all over the political spectrum) have much better historical records (of their predictions and work) than the current crop of Trump advisors - and they have unequivocally rejected his trade/economic/budget plans. Now, you can certainly claim that Trump's advisors are actually smarter than the other policy experts, but this is not backed up by their track record - Stephen Moore being a prime example.

    25. Re:Cleaning the swamp? by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

      I was doing pretty good keeping a straight face until you got to the part about the experts with prediction records, and then I busted out laughing. How many of your experts were on TV in 2007 telling us that there was no bubble?

      Look, if you don't have data, just admit that you are repeating hearsay and move on. You don't need to spin an elaborate tale about how your friend has data and he's really smart so I should listen to you.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    26. Re:Cleaning the swamp? by Kwyj1b0 · · Score: 1

      Look, if you don't have data, just admit that you are repeating hearsay and move on. You don't need to spin an elaborate tale about how your friend has data and he's really smart so I should listen to you.

      (a) I never said listen to me, I said listen to the experts yourself.
      (b) I gave you the data, you lazy child - its the very first line of my previous message. Since you clearly have no inclination to gain knowledge (or you would have at least looked at the data, and responded with data), I'll leave it at that.

      I was doing pretty good keeping a straight face until you got to the part about the experts with prediction records, and then I busted out laughing. How many of your experts were on TV in 2007 telling us that there was no bubble?

      On the subject of experts: an expert on international trade doesn't have anything to do with housing bubbles. And even if experts are sometimes incorrect, at least they have a framework and approach that can be verified, improved (this is crucial and is why I don't listen to ideologists), and are held accountable to. Your argument is "Expert X got something wrong, so I have no reason to listen to them about anything, but will instead follow a man (Trump) who started a Mortgage company just before the crash. Because I'm blue-collar and know that street smarts is better than all them expert talk."

      The only valid point you made is that I should move on. To any who later come upon this thread, there is enough information (including data) for them to form an educated view (if they are so inclined).

  25. Cause that's what it boils down to in practise... by denzacar · · Score: 3, Informative

    The law in case requires treatment of what is nothing but medical waste as if it were a dead body.

    Throughout the law in case, legislators explicitly removed ANY limitation of gestation time or any choice from the pregnant women on the matter - making it a law that 1-week, 2-week or 20-week abortion MUST be treated the same as a body of a grown human being.
    It MUST be issued a burial transit permit and it MUST be either buried in a graveyard (i.e. interred) or cremated - at the expense of the clinic or the parent(s).
    It cannot be disposed of as what it is - medical waste. As was the case prior to that law.

    Furthermore, law requires informing the parent(s) of the "fetus" about "counseling that may be available concerning the death of the miscarried fetus".
    Which is treating a removed cyst as if it is a dead human. And if the human is dead due to a surgery, that means someone killed it.
    I.e. Abortion is murder.

    Also, parent(s) are required to sign off on the "final disposition of the miscarried fetus" - i.e. the burial.
    Thus, the law DOES require families to hold funerals (as only licensed funeral facilities may conduct burials of human bodies) - if they chose not to have the burial of the "fetus" taken care of by the clinic.
    In which case, the clinic must bare the costs of the procedure - IF they can even find someone willing to do the "interment or cremation".
    Cause while on one side there is an active campaign against anything abortion related in that state, on the other there is no money in it for the funeral homes.
    For either of those reasons, they tend to refuse to provide burial services to clinics.

    "We're all figuring it out," said Patti Stauffer, the vice president of policy at Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky. So far, she hasn't had much luck finding potential funeral homes and cemeteries - a lot of the businesses she's called have told her no. "It's not like we have hundreds of people that are interested in working with us," she said.

    That doesn't mean implementing the law won't be logistically challenging, though. "There's going to be a lot of man hours involved," said Curtis Rostad, the executive director of the Indiana Funeral Directors Association. "I think a lot of funeral homes are going to be doing a lot of man hours to do this, for not a lot of income."

    Which in practice leaves clinics with a single solution - to shift the burden of the burial of the "fetus" onto the patient.
    "Fetus" must be treated as a dead body...
    Clinics can't find a business partner to do it for them...
    But a patient can simply walk into a funeral home with their burial transit permit and their bag of medical waste and have the "fetus" interred or cremated. Yay!

    I.e. Either the parent(s) must take the "body" to a funeral home and have it buried at their own expense - OR the clinics will be forced to have parents take the body to a funeral home and have it buried at their own expense.
    Or clinics can simply close. That's an option too.
    Just like coat hangers and falling off a stool are an option.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  26. Re:fuck trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yep, they switches name just for the lulz and to confuse future historians, I'm sure.

  27. Government mandate family funeral is a lie. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Government mandate family funeral is a lie.

    Lie by omission and exaggeration. You nutcases are doing the left no favors with your lies.

    I voted for Obama twice, but no criminal hillary.

    Seeing the left implode is hilarious and makes me think thrice about voting for a Dem again.

  28. Republican Alt Right calls themselves libertarian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's interesting that you point out that Thiel is a libertarian. Trump and Thiel are both Alt Right. That they associate with a party or an ideological label is a matter of convenience.

  29. Oh boy, not this shit again by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Keystone was shut down because it was primarily a way for Canada to ship oil to China. It's of very, very limited use to the United States while presenting significant risks (oil pipelines break all the time because it's cheaper to let 'em break than to maintain them since the tax payer cleans up the spills).

    Coal burning isn't a big deal because we regulated the fuck out of it. It's not profitable when they coal burners can't externalize their costs by dumping crap into the air and water. That's what shut down coal burning.

    He won't gas jews, but I am worried about my daughter's access to reproductive services. She's got some fairly serious congenital health issues that might someday require an abortion of a non-viable fetus to save her life. This is a surprisingly common occurrence that Mike Pence believes his God forbid's. If you think I'm speaking hyperbole then you don't know the horror of child birth left in God's hands. Educate yourself.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Oh boy, not this shit again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Keystone was shut down because Warren Buffet wants to keep making money running oil on his trains.

    2. Re:Oh boy, not this shit again by khallow · · Score: 0

      Keystone was shut down because it was primarily a way for Canada to ship oil to China. It's of very, very limited use to the United States while presenting significant risks (oil pipelines break all the time because it's cheaper to let 'em break than to maintain them since the tax payer cleans up the spills).

      Even if that were true, it's a great use of a pipeline. Geez, WTF is wrong that people think the US shouldn't assist trade between Canada and China for advantage when it can?

      He won't gas jews, but I am worried about my daughter's access to reproductive services. She's got some fairly serious congenital health issues that might someday require an abortion of a non-viable fetus to save her life. This is a surprisingly common occurrence that Mike Pence believes his God forbid's. If you think I'm speaking hyperbole then you don't know the horror of child birth left in God's hands. Educate yourself.

      After reading your complaint, it's time to recall that there are people with legitimate complaints about Trump and Pence. Pence can't go back in time and reverse Roe versus Wade. Surely, you'll protect your daughter's reproductive rights from Pence since it's such a big deal to you, right?

    3. Re:Oh boy, not this shit again by AaronW · · Score: 5, Interesting

      My sister similarly has major health issues and relies on a number of provisions of Obamacare in order to stay alive. Losing insurance for her would be a death sentence. Several provisions of Obamacare are helping to keep her alive and a productive member of society:
      - Nobody can be turned away due to pre-existing conditions.
      - All medications must be covered (minus deductible) though some may require petitioning.
      - No lifetime limits on care

      As it is, my family has to help subsidize her care since the monthly deductible on one of her medications is $500/month and she's on a teacher's salary that doesn't pay a lot. Without insurance her medication jumps to $5000/month.

      My mother also at one time had to have a procedure similar to an abortion when the fetus died and had to be extracted. If they're so anti-abortion, why not work on ways to make it much less needed by offering more birth control and pre-natal healthcare to women? To me it just seems that they want to make women second-class citizens by legislating their bodies rather than help make it so the procedure is needed far less. People like Pence also seem to go out of their way to make it harder for wanted children by fighting against programs like CHIP.

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    4. Re:Oh boy, not this shit again by khallow · · Score: 1, Insightful

      My sister similarly has major health issues and relies on a number of provisions of Obamacare in order to stay alive. Losing insurance for her would be a death sentence.

      That's what Medicare/Medicaid are for.

      Without insurance her medication jumps to $5000/month.

      That's fine, if she's one of a few with those costs which currently is the case. But what happens when it becomes a significant fraction of the population? The answer is that we naturally revert to "sucks to be you" medical care where you pay for what you can afford.

      Sooner or later everyone's medical care costs become greater than society can afford and they die.

      My point behind this is that things like Obamacare are ongoing disasters in US health care. In addition to those high deductibles and expensive insurance, I see massive increase in unofficial monopolies on drugs (how much did her $5k per month drugs cost ten years ago?); insurance pools that healthy people steer clear of despite the tax penalty; a massive increase in Medicaid combined with reduction in Medicaid benefits; and a number of indications that insurance companies are consolidating or failing in ways that leave most of the US in oligopoly conditions for the Obamacare markets (such as a large fraction of the US covered by only one or two market participants).

      What's the point of your sister needing provisions of Obamacare, if it's going to harm hundreds of millions of peoples' health in the process? Maybe we can do better for all involved?

    5. Re:Oh boy, not this shit again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look, nutball, either God exists or he doesn't. If he does, his knowledge exceeds yours.

      Let me point out what requires not the slightest bit of divine insight--you don't want a problematic abortion, don't fuck. Fucking is optional, believe it or not. Notice some basic reality before making irrational and self-contradictory metaphysical extrapolations.

    6. Re:Oh boy, not this shit again by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Informative

      "If they're so anti-abortion, why not work on ways to make it much less needed by offering more birth control and pre-natal healthcare to women?"

      Because the opposition to abortion doesn't exist in isolation. It has to coexist with other ideological commitments, and two of them are in opposition to this action.

      There's a libertarian ideology which overlaps with abortion opposition. This one doesn't actually care about abortion either way, but it strongly opposes any form of government-imposed intervention. This one says that the government should not have the power to dictate what medical services an insurance company or healthcare provider should be required to provide: This is a transaction between a service provider and customer.

      There's also a religious ideology. This one opposes abortion, but it also opposes contraception - something seen as an enabler of sinful fornication. From the religious perspective, non-marital sex is an inherently immoral action: Even if contraception reduced the number of abortions greatly, you'd only be exchanging one evil for another.

      There are many ideologies competing, and individuals often subscribe to multiple ones which partially conflict - this means there must be some form of compromise or reconciliation to make them fit together.

    7. Re:Oh boy, not this shit again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keystone was shut down because the price of oil was too high. Now that it is down again, Keystone is back on the table.

    8. Re: Oh boy, not this shit again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "WTF is wrong that people think the US shouldn't assist trade between Canada and China for advantage when it can"

      Raping the planet is not the answer.

    9. Re:Oh boy, not this shit again by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      The oil is going to move regardless of method, Keystone or not. The pipeline is the safest method of doing that transport. I'm all for forcing the people that make money off the pipeline pay for any cleanups but lets not pretend running oil by rail is an improvement.

    10. Re:Oh boy, not this shit again by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 0

      Keystone was shut down because Warren Buffet wants to keep making money running oil on his trains.

      This could have been a factor, but the more likely reason is that Obama felt he owed one to the crackpot religious Greens. Will we finally get the TMT built now, and in Hawaii where Galileo intended?

      I'm glad to see Thiel on the transition team, and let's hope he gets appointed to a post where his technical expertise can be used. I would like to see science and technology get the Cabinet level position it deserves.

    11. Re:Oh boy, not this shit again by Major+Blud · · Score: 2

      - Nobody can be turned away due to pre-existing conditions.
      - All medications must be covered (minus deductible) though some may require petitioning.
      - No lifetime limits on care

      In all fairness, Trump* has stated that he wants to keep some of those things:

      http://www.ontheissues.org/201...

      *I didn't vote for him, and it's obviously hard to take what he says at face value.

      --
      If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
    12. Re:Oh boy, not this shit again by fluffernutter · · Score: 2

      Wow, I just want to say that you are a stone cold asshole. Obviously conditions like this are rare and will stay that way. The bulk of the population is not suddenly going to get rare conditions that require a lot of money to treat.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    13. Re:Oh boy, not this shit again by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Christians have it wrong. The Bible says "don't spill your seed", i.e. a bag that collects is just fine. The Bible is just saying "don't stain the carpet" and "I'm not changing the bloody sheets".

      Seriously, it's just deliberately interpreting some vague suggestions made before birth control was even an idea by unknown people in a way that deliberately causes maximum misery and suffering.

      If there is a heaven, God will be like "... the fuck?"

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    14. Re: Oh boy, not this shit again by khallow · · Score: 2

      Seven plus billion people won't magically go away just because you don't like pipelines. That pipeline not only creates economic value in the US south (since they'll refine the petroleum first), but it also helps a billion people improve their lives (those Chinese you don't seem to like very much). You're for improving lives, right?

      This is the huge difference between reality and imaginary dangers. This pipeline has huge concrete benefits, while the supposed dangers of slightly higher consumption of cheap fossil fuels are computer models that have never been verified in the real world.

    15. Re:Oh boy, not this shit again by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Keystone was shut down because it was primarily a way for Canada to ship oil to China. It's of very, very limited use to the United States while presenting significant risks (oil pipelines break all the time because it's cheaper to let 'em break than to maintain them since the tax payer cleans up the spills).

      Uh what? That makes no fucking sense, the pipeline is going in the wrong fucking direction. That's on top of the fact that they were planning two pipelines here in Canada one to the west coast and one to the east coast. One of which was called the "Northern Gateway Pipeline" and the explicit point of it was to ship oil to China and asia. Keystone's entire point was to ship Canadian oil to the US for refining because Canada doesn't have the capacity thanks to environmental legislation.

      And no, oil pipelines do not break all the time. Old pipelines break, especially when they're 40-50 years old, and environmentalists shit themselves when companies want to replace them or even upgrade them with better monitoring equipment. But, you rarely hear about trains derailing and dropping their cargo all over the place unless it's in a river, or vaporizes a part of a town like Lac-Mégantic.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    16. Re:Oh boy, not this shit again by khallow · · Score: 1

      What's the share of US GDP consumed by health care again? Why it's 17.5%. It's not going down. More and more people are getting these supposedly rare billing conditions. And we need society for other things than merely paying medical bills. You know, things like food, shelter, security, etc.

    17. Re:Oh boy, not this shit again by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      How are people going to have food and shelter if they are too sick to work? More and more people are having these conditions because they have hope now that they can be treated.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    18. Re:Oh boy, not this shit again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your post was not informative, and was full of nonsense. You must get all your information off the internet. You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

      Maybe you should just join the rioters and burn stuff. Drink some gin and juice and cause mayhem. That is apparently all you twitter turds know how to do anymore.

    19. Re:Oh boy, not this shit again by FeelGood314 · · Score: 1

      Keystone would connected Canadian oil to the US gulf coast refineries. Please look at a map. The fastest way to China is across the pacific ocean and Canada has much easier access to the pacific without going through the USA.

    20. Re:Oh boy, not this shit again by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      Compare that to other countries. Where people are also getting those rare conditions.

    21. Re: Oh boy, not this shit again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, having trains derail and create massive damage to the environment is.

      You would sling acid in the face of a rape victim. No wonder you wackos want muslims in the west so badly.

    22. Re:Oh boy, not this shit again by khallow · · Score: 1

      How are people going to have food and shelter if they are too sick to work?

      I suppose you're right. Having access to whatever standard of health care is considered right at the moment is more important than not starving or freezing to death.

    23. Re:Oh boy, not this shit again by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      The meaning of the story is actually very clear when you read it in context. The 'spilling seed' wasn't the issue: It was about levirate marriage. Under Jewish law of the time, if a man were to die married but childless then his wife (like all his other property) is inherited by his brother (In event of multiple brothers, properly is divided - but one of them gets the wife or wives). This is not optional on either part: The brother *has* to marry the wife, like it or not. Onan inherited a wife in this way (after God killed his brother for general wickedness), but he really didn't want her. Even worse, he was legally obligated to father a child - who, if male, would then be the legal child of his dead brother, not himself, and thus immediately qualify for a share of the wealth.

      This put Onan in a rather awkward situation: He gets a wife he doesn't want, he can't get rid of her, and he has a legal duty to impregnate her, and to add insult to injury he then has to give most of the wealth he just inherited to this child (if male) upon said child reaching maturity - and the child wouldn't even be his own legally, so couldn't continue his line, but would be the child of his disgraced brother instead.

      Well, Onan wasn't standing for that, so crafty Onan thinks he can weasel his way out: He will carry out his expected sexual duty, but in such a way as to avoid fathering a child by refraining from orgasm within his new wife. No son means Onan gets full inheritence, and he isn't providing a legal child to his brother whome he didn't really like anyway.

      Unfortunately for Onan, the omniscient God takes marital duties very seriously, and smote Onan dead on the spot for his violation of Jewish law. The moral of the story isn't too hard to see: Do your duty to your family and to your people, no matter how much it may cost you personally. And if you don't, God is watching, and he has a temper.

    24. Re:Oh boy, not this shit again by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      There is no standard of health care that is right at the moment. There is a healthy society and there is a society full of illness. A society that is full of illness cannot produce. I don't know why you keep bringing up the starving and freezing thing, a society that is well is better able to fend for themselves meaning less starving and freezing.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    25. Re: Oh boy, not this shit again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " huge difference between reality and imaginary dangers."

      There is also a huge difference between reality and imaginary technologies, khallow.

    26. Re:Oh boy, not this shit again by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Even if that were true, it's a great use of a pipeline. Geez, WTF is wrong that people ...

      Trading petroleum is a sin in the green religion.

    27. Re:Oh boy, not this shit again by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Why do people worship this arsehole?

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

      Keystone Pipeline has nothing to do with shipping oil to China. It goes from Alberta to Illinois and Texas. It is complete with the exception of phase 4 (XL) from Alberta to Nebraska which was not approved.

      Northern Gateway in British Columbia was intended for shipping oil to China, which makes way more sense.

    29. Re: Oh boy, not this shit again by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Keystone XL provides essentially no tax revenue to the US, and exports raw, unrefined crude oil. It provides a handful of maintenance jobs, but nothing significant. Canada wants to run it through the US because it is cheaper than running it to a Canadian port.

    30. Re:Oh boy, not this shit again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a copy and paste comment that has appeared several times in other Slashdot posts. Shill.

    31. Re:Oh boy, not this shit again by Solandri · · Score: 0

      My sister similarly has major health issues and relies on a number of provisions of Obamacare in order to stay alive. Losing insurance for her would be a death sentence. Several provisions of Obamacare are helping to keep her alive and a productive member of society:
      [...]
      and she's on a teacher's salary that doesn't pay a lot. Without insurance her medication jumps to $5000/month.

      At the risk of sounding unsympathetic, if she's on a teacher's salary that doesn't pay a lot, and her medication cost of $5000/mo exceeds her salary, then no she isn't a productive member of society. All Obamacare does is transfer her costs to society overall. Her medicine costs are still being paid, just not by her, meaning she's a net drain on a society not a productive member.

      This doesn't mean your sister deserves to die. We as a society have decided that certain disabilities shouldn't matter (Americans with Disabilities Act), and the people afflicted with them should be allowed to live and function in society even if their net contribution (after costs to accommodate their disability) is negative. Government-sponsored health care works the same way.

      But regardless of how much people want to believe every human life is priceless and don't want this to be about money, you have to draw the line at a certain dollar amount. How much is society willing to pay to keep an ill person alive? $5000/mo? $10,000/mo? A million dollars a month? There's a fundamental balance here that has to be met - conservation of productivity. The total amount of productivity generated (basically people's earnings) has to equal the total amount of productivity consumed (cost of everything people use and consume). A society cannot survive on a system where it takes 2 people working to produce enough to keep 1 person alive. You can go into the negative in rare cases - if only the occasional sick or disabled person costs society more than they give back, that's ok. Society can pay the cost of the net drain in those rare cases while still remaining balanced overall, in order to preserve its philosophical belief in the sanctity of life. But you trying to bring up your sister as a typical case violates this balance. If we need to preserve Obamacare because lots of people who are net drains on society need it to survive, then no that's not an argument for preserving Obamacare. That's an argument for overhauling it or getting rid of it before it bankrupts society.

    32. Re:Oh boy, not this shit again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to have no idea what benefits Medicaid and Medicare provide.
      You cannot prove that 'hundreds of millions of peoples health will be harmed' because this persons family member has insurance.

      Why is the medicine 5000/month in the US when it is likely less than 50/month in other areas of the world?

      You make a lot of points that show a total lack of awareness. You must work in IT. ;)

    33. Re: Oh boy, not this shit again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reality is that China is moving away from oil faster than the US.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-year_plans_of_China#Thirteenth_Plan_.282016.E2.80.932020.29

    34. Re:Oh boy, not this shit again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is it possible to offer more birth control to women? Women have all the birth control.

      Men have no reproductive rights. The only thing they have is condoms, which are only 82% effective* or vasectomy. 40+ years after the birth control pill for women there is still no equivalent for men. In fact, some feminists don't want to see it happen because it means they lose control. *

      Once a woman get pregnant the man has no say at all whether the baby will be kept or aborted.

      * https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/condom/how-effective-are-condoms

      * https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/apr/28/malepillwomensloss

    35. Re:Oh boy, not this shit again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keystone was shut down because Warren Buffett owns the trains that are being used to transport the oil instead. Did you think the oil was just going to stay in the ground if it didn't move to market over a pipeline? No, we move it via less efficient and higher risk trains instead, because that benefits the powerful Democrat supporter who owns the trains.

    36. Re:Oh boy, not this shit again by Gussington · · Score: 1

      There are many ideologies competing, and individuals often subscribe to multiple ones which partially conflict - this means there must be some form of compromise or reconciliation to make them fit together.

      Or do what most other modern countries do and remove ideology from public policy.
      If the only reason you can come up with to block a reasoned and logical policy is that your belief in your chosen fairy tale says not to, then you should be removed from the decision making process.

    37. Re:Oh boy, not this shit again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My are sure worried that he's going to be gassing people, say he's planning on building concentration camps and that since he controls the congress (their words) they are going to go along with anything he says or proposes. Fuck, they've been on the phone with their friends almost nonstop about this all week.

    38. Re:Oh boy, not this shit again by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Ideologies are not just religious. They can be religious, but not all are.

    39. Re: Oh boy, not this shit again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if he doesn't? I guess that makes you guys a bunch of gullible idiots ;)

    40. Re:Oh boy, not this shit again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At the risk of sounding unsympathetic, if she's on a teacher's salary that doesn't pay a lot, and her medication cost of $5000/mo exceeds her salary, then no she isn't a productive member of society. All Obamacare does is transfer her costs to society overall. Her medicine costs are still being paid, just not by her, meaning she's a net drain on a society not a productive member.

      Ahem, once again, it seems you misapprehend the problem. It's not so much, whether or not you sound unsympathetic, in this case, you are sound like somebody who thinks they know the situation, and yet makes so many mistakes in reasoning, that it shows you don't know the facts very well. First off, the proper term to use is not Obamacare. The term is health insurance. Health insurance is what takes a group of people, and allows them to combine resources, rather than rely on individual effort. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is merely part of the system that sets the terms and conditions for the situation. Note what I said here carefully. Pay attention to it. It was deliberate to refer to it as part of the system. This is important, because that medication cost? You don't know what it is truly costing to produce the medicine, and in this world of intellectual property and patents, another part of the system is influencing the cost. You don't know the actual level of productivity involved, in that cost, or how much effort is required. Really, you don't know what it takes to produce this medicine, or even what the insurance company is paying, as they can negotiate substantial discounts. It is far too complicated a situation to rely on those sparse facts. This dovetails into another error in your words. You do not know the level of her productivity towards society. Salaries do not exist on a continuum of how much value one can produce. Frankly, with teachers, the results are so hard to ascertain in the long-run, that I'd be doubtful of any system able to appreciate that, but I won't digress into a discussion of the failures of the assessment systems in place, I'll just point out that teachers, like many employees, are not paid based on value produced, but on what people are willing to accept for their labors.

      This doesn't mean your sister deserves to die. We as a society have decided that certain disabilities shouldn't matter (Americans with Disabilities Act), and the people afflicted with them should be allowed to live and function in society even if their net contribution (after costs to accommodate their disability) is negative. Government-sponsored health care works the same way.

      Oh my, no. There is no mention of government-sponsored healthcare in the words, you should look again, and if you read more of AaronW's posts, you'd know she's private school teacher. You're jumping off tangent. This is simply about regulation of the insurance company, not health-care. Certainly we could discuss that subject, but you'd also have to recognize that that isn't relevant to the discussion so far.

      Government's role in this case, is regulated. So we're talking government-regulation of health insurance. Which is separate from government regulation of healthcare, it should be noted.

      But regardless of how much people want to believe every human life is priceless and don't want this to be about money, you have to draw the line at a certain dollar amount. How much is society willing to pay to keep an ill person alive? $5000/mo? $10,000/mo? A million dollars a month? There's a fundamental balance here that has to be met - conservation of productivity. The total amount of productivity generated (basically people's earnings) has to equal the total amount of productivity consumed (cost of everything people use and consume). A society cannot survive on a system where it takes 2 people working to produce enough to keep 1 person alive. You can go into the negative in rare cases - if only the occasional sick or disab

    41. Re:Oh boy, not this shit again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is the actual cost of producing the medicine? Not the cost of dealing with a regulatory process designed by industry insiders to keep competition out, not the cost of taking publicly funded university research and patenting it, not recovering marketing costs, but the actual cost of making doses.

      The number one reason medicines cost so much in the US is the government enforced monopolies that drug companies enjoy. In other words, your representatives were bought by industry and helped industry bend you over a barrel. The ACA attempts to provide some lubrication by distributing the harm and concentrating the benefits...in other words, making me pay for some part of your sister's medicine...but your sister isn't the reason those laws were passed. The insurance companies, and the drug companies, are the actual beneficiaries.

      It would not be at all surprising to find they could produce the medicine your sister needs for $5 a dose, and would if they hadn't been given the ability to instead charge $5000 by the legislature.

    42. Re:Oh boy, not this shit again by khallow · · Score: 0

      A society that is full of illness cannot produce.

      We have millennia of societies full of illness which were quite able to produce. Health care is not as important as you make it out to be. Keep in mind that the lion's share of health care goes to end-of-life care for people who just aren't going to produce any more. There's room for a lot more demand at that stage including expensive drug intake.

      My view is let's not let society degrade to the point that we can't function. That means health care is not and never should be the highest priority.

    43. Re: Oh boy, not this shit again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it would mean the only bet that could pay out, didn't pay out. It's still the only non-idiot bet, though.

      And, we definitely wouldn't be idiots enough to make an argument that requires that something both exists, and doesn't exist, simultaneously.

    44. Re: Oh boy, not this shit again by khallow · · Score: 1

      Keystone XL provides essentially no tax revenue to the US, and exports raw, unrefined crude oil.

      Think about this. You claim that oil from this pipeline will go straight to port bypassing many competitive, high volume refineries. So somehow it's better to ship low value crude to some distant port than higher value refined products? Or for that matter, perpetually ignoring the US market this whole time even though it's likely to frequently offer better prices than those foreign destinations?

      Everyone involved in the debate on Keystone XL agrees that the oil will be refined. The debate, silly as it is, about whether the refined products are exported is what is disagreed upon.

      The fact is that most if not all of the Canadian crude is designated to be processed in U.S. refineries, not exported directly. But a large portion of the diesel fuel, gasoline and other products of those refineries is indeed expected to be sold overseas. Exactly how much is impossible for us to predict, however. And expert sources are in disagreement.

      and note this

      Using NRDCâ(TM)s assumptions, and data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, we calculate that 50.4 percent of the output of those refineries went for export in 2014. But that means 49.6 percent stayed in the U.S.

      So even ignoring the refining, half of existing oil that goes through these refineries ends up in the US. No point to making an argument that is so broken.

    45. Re:Oh boy, not this shit again by khallow · · Score: 1

      Compare that to other countries. Where people are also getting those rare conditions.

      But sis needs $54k a year in insurance payments. Her life depends on us not making that comparison!

    46. Re:Oh boy, not this shit again by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Well, profiting off the ill and going bankrupt for getting cancer isn't right either.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    47. Re:Oh boy, not this shit again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry to hear about your daughter. Assuming it comes to that medical conclusion (and I pray it doesn't), the principle of double effect would probably be the ethical path to resolve a very difficult and emotional circumstance. I sincerely doubt that a Trump administration would deny the availability of that decision.

    48. Re: Oh boy, not this shit again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MRA alert! Asshole on the loose!

    49. Re: Oh boy, not this shit again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pascal's wager has been decisively debunked many times.....what id Shiva is the one true god? Given the fecundity of God mythology, you're in a crapshoot. So PEW doesn't constitute an argument; it's just fearmongering.

    50. Re: Oh boy, not this shit again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Pascal's Wager is consistently "debunked" by the same stupid means--false restatement of it, followed by refuting the resulting Straw Man. And the evidentiary distinction for some religions is overwhelmingly higher than others. Yes, I fully expect you to directly lie on the question. Instead, try knowing something about the religions at hand. It isn't that there is "no evidence", or a lack of -differentiating- evidence, it's simply that you are willfully ignorant of the domain.

      If I am investing in the stock market, and I have one alternative that is likely to pay a high return, investing in it remains the right rational decision. Nowhere in my doing that am I claiming "that this will go up is a fact". That is the false equivocation that is universally made "debunking" it... because, idiots.

    51. Re:Oh boy, not this shit again by khallow · · Score: 1

      Well, profiting off the ill and going bankrupt for getting cancer isn't right either.

      How many peoples' lives is that worth? In this world, we have routinely have trade offs between choices. A key health care problem universal throughout the developed world has been rising health care costs (see "Exhibit 7a" which is from the OECD, showing decade by decade increases as a fraction of GDP of selected countries).

      2013 snapshot also from the OECD).

      And there's no obvious level of activity that will stop at. While the average growth (averaged over countries) from 1970 to 1980 is larger than any other decade, the average growth in the GDP fraction of health care costs is 2.6% from 1970 to 1990, while it is 2.3% from 1990 to 2010. That's not much of a slow down in the rate of growth of the share of GDP devoted to the health care industry.

      Perhaps the for profit nature of the US industry is driving the higher relative costs of US health care (ignoring other factors like subsidizing of health care as a tax free employee benefit), but everyone's health care costs are increasing considerably faster than the ability of their economies to pay for those health care costs.

      I think why is encapsulated in the reasoning further down this thread. A lot of people need or will need expensive medical care and they'll vote for any policy that gets them the medical care. Costs will continue to rise IMHO because we're just smearing more and more expensive lipstick on a pig. Under the current model of medical care, we will die in a rather short period of time, triggering progressively more and more expensive treatments as we get closer to dying.

      Sure, technology can radically change that. But it hasn't yet.

    52. Re:Oh boy, not this shit again by khallow · · Score: 1
      Erm, let's try that again. Typo in my HTML.

      Well, profiting off the ill and going bankrupt for getting cancer isn't right either.

      How many peoples' lives is that worth? In this world, we have routinely have trade offs between choices. A key health care problem universal throughout the developed world has been rising health care costs (see "Exhibit 7a" which is from the OECD, showing decade by decade increases as a fraction of GDP of selected countries).

      In the linked article, fifteen developed world countries (including of course, the US's crazy rise in health care costs since 1970) show considerable growth in their health care costs as measured as a fraction of their GDP (and maintained over the course of the recession, see this 2013 snapshot also from the OECD).

      And there's no obvious level of activity that will stop at. While the average growth (averaged over countries) from 1970 to 1980 is larger than any other decade, the average growth in the GDP fraction of health care costs is 2.6% from 1970 to 1990, while it is 2.3% from 1990 to 2010. That's not much of a slow down in the rate of growth of the share of GDP devoted to the health care industry.

      Perhaps the for profit nature of the US industry is driving the higher relative costs of US health care (ignoring other factors like subsidizing of health care as a tax free employee benefit), but everyone's health care costs are increasing considerably faster than the ability of their economies to pay for those health care costs.

      I think why is encapsulated in the reasoning further down this thread. A lot of people need or will need expensive medical care and they'll vote for any policy that gets them the medical care. Costs will continue to rise IMHO because we're just smearing more and more expensive lipstick on a pig. Under the current model of medical care, we will die in a rather short period of time, triggering progressively more and more expensive treatments as we get closer to dying.

      Sure, technology can radically change that. But it hasn't yet.

    53. Re: Oh boy, not this shit again by khallow · · Score: 1

      Pipelines are a real technology.

    54. Re: Oh boy, not this shit again by khallow · · Score: 1

      I'll note two things. First, it's a future plan not a present action. Second, where's the evidence that they actually are planning to move away from oil? None of the "focus areas" or "policies" are petroleum related.

      The accompanying "infographic" similarly mentions no such plan. The only thing even close is point #16 which proposes to promote use of electric vehicles and increase the industrialization of same.

    55. Re: Oh boy, not this shit again by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Costs will always rise, it is called inflation. But when you make it an all you can eat buffet, then yeah your going to be throwing food into a bottomless pit. Costs are rising in the US more than any other nation and the average American isn't getting anything for it.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    56. Re:Oh boy, not this shit again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One sister is going to harm hundreds of millions of people? What a heartlessly monstrous thing to say. Did you pull the wings off flies when you were a child? Do you still do it?

    57. Re: Oh boy, not this shit again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh FFS. You're making a claim that willfully fails to take into account the multiplicity of gods.....and you accuse me of not understanding evidentiary criteria? Yikes....

    58. Re: Oh boy, not this shit again by khallow · · Score: 1

      Costs will always rise, it is called inflation.

      There are two things to note here. First, GDP throughout the developed world grows faster than inflation. Second, health care expenditures grew faster than GDP by quite a bit. So right there we not only have health care growing faster throughout the most advanced parts of the world, it's growing faster than the economies of those advanced parts of the world.

      Something will give, obviously, but right now it looks like what's going to give is the attitude that the average person deserves on average more health care than they can pay for.

    59. Re: Oh boy, not this shit again by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Well, interesting you mention GDP, because if a person's wages was actually going up relative to their increase in output then they would likely be able to afford their own health care. As it is, the system is designed so that the heads of companies get to dictate what is done with the additional rewards and they have not chosen to filter it down to the common worker. Therefore the only entity in place that can fill this gap is the government. If the government does not want to change the system of distributing capital then they must continue to collect taxes to fill the gap.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    60. Re: Oh boy, not this shit again by khallow · · Score: 1

      Well, interesting you mention GDP, because if a person's wages was actually going up relative to their increase in output then they would likely be able to afford their own health care.

      Increase in output is not proportional to GDP. Just because you can do the work of 100 men of the past, let's say, doesn't mean that you're doing work that is of equal value to the work that those 100 men were doing. You might be doing work that is even less valuable than the work those 100 men were doing.

      As it is, the system is designed so that the heads of companies get to dictate what is done with the additional rewards and they have not chosen to filter it down to the common worker. Therefore the only entity in place that can fill this gap is the government. If the government does not want to change the system of distributing capital then they must continue to collect taxes to fill the gap.

      Public policy with respect to health care, world-wide is one of the many reasons those heads of companies have such power. Growing health care costs drive up either directly or indirectly the cost of employing people. That reduces demand for labor, meaning the surviving businesses (which tend to be larger businesses) which do hire have better pricing power and more power over their labor.

    61. Re:Oh boy, not this shit again by khallow · · Score: 1

      Why is the medicine 5000/month in the US when it is likely less than 50/month in other areas of the world?

      Because we have a bunch of people for which it is more important that they get that medicine via any political policy no matter how bad than having society pay $4500 per month for that via insurance pooling.

    62. Re:Oh boy, not this shit again by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Keystone was shut down because it was primarily a way for Canada to ship oil to China. It's of very, very limited use to the United States while presenting significant risks (oil pipelines break all the time because it's cheaper to let 'em break than to maintain them since the tax payer cleans up the spills).

      As opposed to the risks of spills from the current way the oil moves by train?

      Keystone would be an honest environmentalists dream, as pipelines are way safer than the way oil moves without the pipeline. Stopping the pipeline doesn't make Canada put all that oil back into the ground, it just decreases the transport costs and increases the overall safety of the transport.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  30. Hyperbole by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    but not necessarily unhinged. Pence is on the extreme right. He's intensely religious and believes his religion dictates his actions.

    The thing that frightens me about Christians more than most religions is that their God punishes _them_ for _my_ sins. Think about Sodom & Gomorrah or the Floods. Think about how many baby's God killed. Sure, they're with God now, but they're still dead.

    To many Christians who take the bible literally my sinning represents an existent threat to them. Not just their "way of life" but their actual lives. This makes Christianity powerful, because there is a powerful incentive to spread the faith by any means necessary. It's one of the reasons it's as successful as it is. But if your a non-believer and you notice it then it's downright terrifying...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is the same with islam btw, all abrahamic religions share the old testament, where these stories come from.

      Abrahamic religions are a powerful way to turn any people into conquerors, that's way the abrahamic meme is so resilient.

      Scary as fuck if you are not a part of it ideed.

    2. Re:Hyperbole by bongey · · Score: 2

      None of what you said is remotely close to the majority of Christians believe, you are utterly clueless. Maybe you need to stop think Christians are all like Westboro cult.

    3. Re:Hyperbole by tsotha · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You realize we've had devout Christians in the oval office before... right?

    4. Re:Hyperbole by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Think about Sodom & Gomorrah or the Floods. Think about how many baby's God killed.

      I think the moral of the story is that if you see an angel, invite him in for a cuppa. Don't grab all your mates and bring them round to gang ra... uh gang know the angel. No matter how sweet that Angel ass. Was there a deeper moral?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    5. Re:Hyperbole by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 1

      >>To many Christians who take the bible literally

      You're talking about the Old Testament, and there aren't many of those. The whole premise of Christianity is that Christ's teaching in the NT overwrites the silly, angry, vengeful crazy stuff in the OT. The whole scenario you describe is an example of "OT God" getting an upgrade in the NT. This is basic, Theology 101 kind of stuff, and you really shouldn't make statements about what "many Christians" believe on big sites like slashdot without doing a minimum amount of study on the topic. You are embarrassing the many Christians who vote Left, and merely emboldening the ones who vote Right.

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

      Terrifying alright. We actually have a mandate to cut the heads off nonbelievers so that our God will not persecute us on their behalf.

      Oh wait, that's another religion entirely.

      You are talking about the "turn the other cheek" and "judge him not lest ye be judged" religion. Believing that someone is a threat to you because they might give a shit that you'd end up in "hell" must be absolutely awful. I feel so sorry for you. I guess I need to pray for you. Oh wait, that'll really get your knickers in a bunch, won't it. Sorry. I just don't know what to do. Would I have to not exist for you to be happy?

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

      Amongst all this craziness, it's this "duality of man" that makes this all so "god damned" frightening right now. Always has been, and, by the numbers, scientifically, most likely always will be.

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

      > the extreme right

      I didn't realize they started trotting Jews and homosexuals into gas chambers in Indiana.

      Oh, right. Hyperbole

    9. Re:Hyperbole by Gussington · · Score: 1

      None of what you said is remotely close to the majority of Christians believe, you are utterly clueless. Maybe you need to stop think Christians are all like Westboro cult.

      Or Mike Pence, who you know is going to be the the actual VP....

    10. Re:Hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > He's intensely religious and believes his religion dictates his actions.

      He believes _his_ religion should dictate _everybody's_ actions, and he will bring in laws to make that happen.

      captcha: subsume !!

    11. Re:Hyperbole by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Hooo boy, if you're frightened of Christians and what they might do to your Freedom, you're in for a *big* shock when you take a look at Islam and Sharia Law.

      You might want to sit down first.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    12. Re:Hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real problem is that most of those supposed Christians haven't read the bible at all or are conveniently ignoring parts of it. While writing to the church in Corinth, Paul told Christians that they should enforce their moral code against members of the church and not the rest of the world. It was quite explicitly stated:

      I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.
      What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”

      1 Corinthians 5:9-13 (NIV)

      I'm sure much of what the average non-Christian people of Corinth were doing at the time makes current American culture pale in comparison. How about thousands of official prostitutes in the service of the temple of Aphrodite? If that wasn't enough to tell the church in Corinth to condemn their fellows, the hedonism of secular America isn't enough either.

  31. Actually Gawker was in the right by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    publishing these sorts of things has long since been declared free speech. They did ignore the judges order, which was a tremendous mistake. They made that mistake because they didn't realize a billionaire was backing Hogan and gunning for them. But all they had to do was follow the judges order until it was (inevitably) overturned and they'd have been fine. The whole thing was a hit piece by Thiel and any sane person would stand with Gawker in light of that.

    And if we're talking morality Hogan's no spring chicken himself. What made those tapes a matter of public interest was his racist comments. Like it or not Hogan's a public figure and there is a public interest and good in knowing his character. You never know when they guy might have gone into politics.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Actually Gawker was in the right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Since when have private memorabilia that's never intended for public viewing ever been a free speech issue? Does Hogan have no right to privacy?

  32. To prevent medical or other use of the remains. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To prevent medical or other use of the remains.

    It is an ethical question, not necessarily or even primarily religion-based.

    Once human life is commoditized yours becomes a target as well. Choose wisely.

  33. Need more sunglasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're going to need a whole lot of sunglasses.

  34. Weak try at misdirection, Liar. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    You are a Liar. Own it.

    Liar. Possibly every word you write is a lie, including 'the' and 'a'.

    You lied. Got caught and shown citations. Your reaction - lie by misdirection.

    PopeRatzo = Liar.

    1. Re:Weak try at misdirection, Liar. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's a total stereotyping bigot, too. Just look at his posting history.

  35. Re:fuck trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny how a year and a half ago, people were calling people who flew Confederate flags traitors. Now we have crybullies who don't like that an election didn't go their way and they're calling for secession. What's that make them? Oh, right. Traitors.

  36. This Liberal is confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I, being a liberal Hillary supporter, know for certainty that Donald Trump hates all blacks, latinos, and homosexuals. However Peter Thiel is a homosexual. As a liberal, I love homosexuals and think they can do no wrong. However Thiel supports Trump. My liberal logic can only conclude that Peter Thiel is a closet heterosexual.

    Case solved. Thank Secularism for the logic and reason that allows me to keep my preconceived ideas of race and gender identity while still being tolerant and inclusive.

    Yea for liberalism. Remember if you are not a liberal you love hitler and want to have sex with underage baby elephants

  37. Get used to that being the continued response by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Humans are sadly very tribal so the Trump supporters are going to be unwilling to admit he's not what they wanted him to be. One common denial tactic you'll see is a redirection where someone points out that Trump or his people do something bad, is to point out a time that the other team, Secretary Clinton in particular, did something similar. To them that justifies it in the sense "We are still in the right because the other guy would have been even worse." It is a way to deflect acknowledging criticism.

    You saw the same thing with supporters of President Obama. When he was criticized for things that went against campaign promises, such as offering government transparency, supporters inevitable dredged up President Bush. Basically since President Bush had done something they would argue was worse, that would excuse what President Obama did.

    Same shit, different side. Expect to see plenty of it as there is essentially no way at all that Trump can keep most of his promises. Many that see them selves as on that "team" won't want to acknowledge criticism as valid, so they'll deny it when they can, or use redirection like this when they can't.

    1. Re:Get used to that being the continued response by stdarg · · Score: 1

      One common denial tactic you'll see is a redirection where someone points out that Trump or his people do something bad, is to point out a time that the other team, Secretary Clinton in particular, did something similar.

      I'm not sure that's really true. Many of the things Trump will be accused of simply don't apply to Clinton... she's not a billionaire, she's not big in real estate, she hasn't had bankruptcies and all that. At the same time, many of the accusations against Clinton simply don't have an analog with Trump since he's never held office. There's no way to say "Oh yeah well Trump also mishandled classified material" or whatever.

    2. Re:Get used to that being the continued response by lucm · · Score: 1

      she's not big in real estate, she hasn't had bankruptcies and all that.

      Interesting. Are you aware of her role in real estate deals that led to the bankruptcy of a bank that cost $73 million to the US government?

      --
      lucm, indeed.
  38. Re: To prevent medical or other use of the remains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure gattica may come true some day. Pence is more focused on a fantasy version of reality than sci-fi. Choose wisely indeed.

  39. hey looser, go cry on this MOFO by cheekyboy · · Score: 1
    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    1. Re:hey looser, go cry on this MOFO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure how that link is relevant...

  40. It's good to see that the breitbart guy is in by Z80a · · Score: 1

    While not a role model by any means, the people on breitbart are not exactly your typical republican blockhead and tend to be more on the rational side, at least when it's convenient.
    But that thing of getting his family on the transition team is quite weird as hell indeed.
    Best case would be that he "ran out of people he do actually trust".

    1. Re:It's good to see that the breitbart guy is in by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      They are more *logical* (I don't think rational is the right word) but their ideology is vastly more disgusting. Breitbart's alt-right is a neoreactionary white nationalist movement. I'd gladly take less-logical republican blockheads over "rational" quasi-nazis any day.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:It's good to see that the breitbart guy is in by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      His chief problems are going to be if he tries to get family members into Cabinet.

      As to Breitbart's rationality, other than that I think the writers are pretty intelligent people who know how to manipulate irrational people, I see little that is rational.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  41. Yes, he's gay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But he is also white, male, and filthy stinking rich. That makes up for his indiscretions.

  42. Castle in the swamp by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Yes, we intend to hold him to his promises

    And he will not listen.
    Thiel is the good news here - that bad news:

    Mr Trump said three of his five children — Donald Trump Jr, Ivanka Trump and Eric Trump — and his son-in-law Jared Kushner would help oversee the transition.

    He wants to be a fucking King with his Princes running things just like in Saudi Arabia.
    It's not a new world, it's the old one that George Washington fought against.

    Enjoy your new King Trump voters. Maybe he will throw you some crumbs but don't expect him to keep his word, he hasn't done it in the past so why start now?

    1. Re:Castle in the swamp by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

      Wait, wasn't working for her husband Hillary's entire claim to fame? And wasn't she promising to put Bill to work if she had won? Seems a bit odd to start whining about a president getting free labor from his family now.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    2. Re:Castle in the swamp by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Wait, wasn't working for her husband Hillary's entire claim to fame?

      She didn't have an official position and little actual power unlike these Princes appointed to oversea parts of the Kingdom he's going to try to make out of the Republic.

  43. Funny That by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am currently wearing a t-shirt depicting President Lincoln holding a cat, with the caption "Bromance". When my far-right, conservative co-worker saw the shirt, he launched into a tirade. I did not realize that republicans had disavowed Lincoln until then.

    1. Re:Funny That by lucm · · Score: 1

      Another fine example of liberals rewriting history. You're on the wrong side of the war against slavery? No problem, let's just tell everyone that over time both sides switched places; it's even more convenient than denying things since you get to claim their heroes in the process.

      I wonder if you truly believe that bullshit you linked, or if it's a case of cognitive dissonance; and I'm not sure which is worse.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    2. Re:Funny That by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fucking idiot you don't understand history or demographics or migration go learn something you fucking retard

    3. Re:Funny That by lucm · · Score: 1

      fucking idiot you don't understand history or demographics or migration go learn something you fucking retard

      What should I go anywhere to learn something? Just right here reading your posts I get to learn about the fetal alcohol syndrome, it's truly fascinating.

      Just to confirm my diagnostic, could you complete this checklist of symptoms? Ask around if you're not sure about what some of the words mean.

      [ ] abnormal appearance
      [x] low intelligence
      [x] behavior problems
      [ ] small head size

      --
      lucm, indeed.
  44. Your daughter's "reproductive rights" will be fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Your daughter's "reproductive rights" will be fine, we just won't have to pay for her abortions if she chooses to have them.

  45. Re:fuck trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean the Democrats and Republicans are the same now as they were back in the 1860s?

  46. Re:Enough rope for impeachment by khallow · · Score: 1

    For example, Constitution specifies that one of its purposes is to "promote the general Welfare"

    Preamble is non-binding, sorry.

    and it is mostly the rich who desperately want all the data about Anthropogenic Global Warming to be ignored, so they can keep getting richer, while ocean levels rise and drown the home of millions of ordinary citizens.

    I'd rather see evidence than data. Evidence would distinguish, say between AGW being serious enough that we need to restructure our energy infraustructure worldwide and a bunch of powerful government officials steering public debate, while data won't. For example, the IPCC won't consider costs and benefits of other strategies for dealing with AGW even though their advocated strategy already requires radical immediate changes in our societies and energy infrastructure in order to attempt.

    Selling a particular, high cost mitigation approach hard while ignoring other reasonable approaches such as adaptation (and combinations of mitigation and adaptation) is evidence of such propaganda.

  47. Re:fuck trump by lucm · · Score: 1

    You mean the Democrats and Republicans are the same now as they were back in the 1860s?

    Fundamentally, yes.

    For instance, a century from now people will look back in horror at current late term abortions and wonder how anyone with a conscience can see a human being that would have chances to survive by itself as an inconvenience that can be simply thrown in the garbage - just like we currently can't understand how people could consider slaves as property before the Republicans stepped in. Of course at the moment any argument against late term abortion is bundled with the abortion clinic bombers and the extreme christians - typical guilt by association strategy.

    The usual liberal narrative is that "the north" and "the south" have switched places over time but that's because the money has moved north and the liberals try to follow wealth. Look at this week electoral map and tell me that you can see a clear north/south division between the parties. Even the Mason-Dixon line is irrelevant nowadays. Nevada, Florida, Montana, Pennsylvania, Maine, it's all mixed up all over the place.

    No, things haven't changed. The Democrats are still trying to impose their corrupt agenda, to have a monopoly on social norms and to have a small elite clique make a living at the expense of the working masses (such as forcing small business owners to pony up big premiums to their insurance companies, or avoiding immigration reforms so they can keep their underpaid Mexican gardeners), and the Republicans are still trying to protect freedom, defend the nation against economical threats and take a moral stand against injustice.

    Of course just like it was back in the days the Democrats control the media so they spin things in a way that make them look like the only acceptable option, but as we've seen with this election this brainwashing machine is starting to collapse.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  48. Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of the purposes of the electoral college is so that there isn't mob rule and everything gets decided in California and New York. Beyond that, it also serves the purpose of mitigating voting irregularities in any one state from affecting all others. A democratic republic is not a direct democracy and shouldn't be.

  49. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quid pro quo. I'm glad we got rid of typical politician, because having an idiot in office sure isn't helpful.

  50. Thiel Supports Transatomic Power MSR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Peter Thiel's Founders Fund is investing in the TAP molten salt reactor. This is one of many promising designs that seek to address the concerns about nuclear and allow it to displace fossil fuels through superior economics. Additionally, the republican platform supports leveling the energy market, solving the Thorium Problem, and enabling development of advanced nuclear:

    We support the development of all forms of energy that are marketable in a free economy without subsidies, including coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear power, and hydropower. A federal judge has struck down the BLM’s rule on hydraulic fracturing and we support upholding this decision. We respect the states’ proven ability to regulate the use of hydraulic fracturing, methane emissions, and horizontal drilling, and we will end the Administration’s disregard of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act with respect to the long-term storage of nuclear waste. We encourage the cost-effective development of renewable energy sources — wind, solar, biomass, biofuel, geothermal, and tidal energy — by private capital. The United States is overwhelmingly dependent on China and other nations for rare earth and other hardrock minerals. These minerals are critical to advanced technology, renewable energy, and defense manufacturing. We support expediting the permitting process for mineral production on public lands. We support lifting restrictions to allow responsible development of nuclear energy, including research into alternative processes like thorium nuclear energy.

  51. Re:Enough rope for impeachment by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    Selling a particular, high cost mitigation approach hard while ignoring other reasonable approaches such as adaptation (and combinations of mitigation and adaptation) is evidence of such propaganda.

    And... which "reasonable approach such as adaptation (and combinations of mitigation and adaptation)" has Trump indicated he might support?

    --
    No sig today...
  52. Re:Your daughter's "reproductive rights" will be f by smooth+wombat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    we just won't have to pay for her abortions if she chooses to have them.

    Then why are my tax dollars being used for drug treatment programs for people who chose to use drugs? No one forced them to shoot heroin, snort cocaine or smoke weed. Let them pay for it themselves.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  53. Re:Your daughter's "reproductive rights" will be f by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2

    Because it is not about junkies, it is about crime prevention. Far better and cheaper if a junkie in a need of the next fix won't have to rob and maybe kill someone to get the money.

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  54. Re:Your daughter's "reproductive rights" will be f by smooth+wombat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Because it is not about junkies, it is about crime prevention.

    So then, war on drugs?

    Far better and cheaper if a junkie in a need of the next fix won't have to rob and maybe kill someone to get the money.

    Far better and cheaper to let them kill themselves than waste money on people who are smarter than all the experts and ignore the Mt. Everest-sized evidence about the dangers of drug use.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  55. Re:Enough rope for impeachment by VernonNemitz · · Score: 1

    The Preamble of the Constitution clearly specifies the purpose of the document. How can anyone who works at some cross-purpose be considered a defender of the Constitution?
    Regarding evidence, Follow The Money. See who has been supporting the deniers of AGW --and note that the magnitude of the donations absolutely indicates rich donors, not poor donors.
    Finally, I did not specify any "high cost mitigation approach" in my prior post. While it is supposedly widely known that while the first step to solving a problem is to recognize the problem exists, my other post only talked about denial and ignorance, regarding AGW. But here's how I would choose to deal with it: I'd promote nuclear fusion research. Knowledge is power, and the sooner we have that knowledge, the sooner we will have the associated power!

  56. Re:Your daughter's "reproductive rights" will be f by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

    So then, war on drugs?

    It's not a war on drugs, it's a war on personal freedom. Remember that at all times. They're not going after the big pharma drugs that kill people. If truth be told, they're not really going after the illegal drugs that kill people, either. It's just profitable theater.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  57. Re:Your daughter's "reproductive rights" will be f by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

    You seem have a problem with reading comprehension. Please reread what I have written until you actually get it.

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  58. Re:Your daughter's "reproductive rights" will be f by amiga3D · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Good point. Let's let them pay for their choices too. Everyone wants freedom to choose but they want someone else to pay for the consequences.

  59. This is clearly impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We've been repeatedly informed that Trump hates gays (and everyone else who isn't a white heterosexual male by birth), how could this happen? I guess he'll send Thiel to the death camps after the transition is over.

  60. You can get a job with Trump too... by dbreeze · · Score: 1

    https://www.greatagain.gov/ser... Did Obama throw it wide open to the public like this or did he do an internal/private search? Trump mentions in the application to assume there will be FOIA requests for any info provided, so he knows he's gotta answer for who he picks and who he doesn't. Can't get much more straightforward than that...

    --
    When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
  61. We do volunteer to help women and that's Catholic by raymorris · · Score: 3, Informative

    > There's also a religious ideology. This one opposes abortion, but it also opposes contraception - something seen as an enabler of sinful fornication. From the religious perspective

    Specifically, that's the old-school CATHOLIC view. Most religious people don't hold that view, and the Pope himself is moving toward a more moderate position.

    > "If they're so anti-abortion, why not work on ways to make it much less needed by offering more birth control and pre-natal healthcare to women?"

    We do, and we get even more "bang for the buck" helping women who are already pregnant not just with traditional "pre-natal care" (aka doctors), but a whole range of services helpful to someone who is worried about their ability to have and raise a child. The center my wife and I volunteer at provides classes covering everything from pre-natal nutrition and exercise through what to do when your baby won't stop crying, and where to go next to get support in raising a school-age child. We provide diapers, toys, and a "mom's night" when we have childcare and the new moms can get a break. Almost everyone who volunteers there would be considered "religious", though that term isn't my favorite.

    Anyway, a lot of us take Matthew 25:40 (and Matthew 25:35-40) seriously, and a there are many ways to "love your neighbor" when your neighbor is a pregnant teenager who is scared and broke.

  62. And they are coming out into the open by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

    KKK is having a parade in NC to celebrate the trump victory. The rats are coming out into the sunshine again. Back to the 50's to make america great again. I only post this as surprisingly, I think a number of /.'s may want to attend. Maybe the donald could be in the front car with thiel driving.

  63. Re: Your daughter's "reproductive rights" will be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except that junkie isn't gonna rob his fellow junkie who he knows doesn't have shit, he's gonna bus into the nice neighborhood and steal from people who actually, you know, have nice things.

  64. Re:Enough rope for impeachment by khallow · · Score: 1

    Sounds like he supports adaptation. So there's that.

  65. His point is Clinton isn't president elect by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    Saying "but Clinton did X!" has zero meaning after the election because she didn't win. You can't legitimately use that to deflect criticism from Trump. That Clinton did something in the past, or might have done something in the future, does not matter to what Trump does since he's the one who will be in the big chair.

    Also if you want to make progress, it stands counter to that to try and make excuses for politicians.

    1. Re:His point is Clinton isn't president elect by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Trump hasn't done anything yet. I'm sure there will be plenty of real things to criticize him about next year. Until then, it's all sore loser talk.

    2. Re:His point is Clinton isn't president elect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your argument is nonsense. It's completely logical to discuss her flaws in a discussion about why she didn't win.

    3. Re:His point is Clinton isn't president elect by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Trump hasn't done anything yet. I'm sure there will be plenty of real things to criticize him about next year. Until then, it's all sore loser talk.

      He's said a lot terrible things, and as a world leader that actually has real world effects. But yes, I agree let's let him actually fuck something up before we put the dogs on him. Just don't act surprised when this happens.

  66. Re:Enough rope for impeachment by ooloorie · · Score: 1

    specifies that one of its purposes is to "promote the general Welfare" --which does not mean promoting only the welfare of the rich, and it is mostly the rich who desperately want all the data about

    Neither does it mean promoting the welfare of poor people, or immigrants, or Christians, or lesbians, or any other group. What the "general welfare" clause and oath refers to is that, within the already very limited original Constitutional powers of the federal government, it is further restricted to only acting in ways that clearly and directly benefit all people. That means spending money mainly on defense and interstate commerce. It does not mean massive taxation followed by massive subsidies to Democratic constituencies.

    want all the data about Anthropogenic Global Warming [phys.org] to be ignored, so they can keep getting richer, while ocean levels rise and drown the home of millions of ordinary citizens

    That claim is utterly stupid; sea level rise is so slow even under worst case scenarios, that people adapt by migrating. You can try to argue that this is a bad thing or that it is "costly" (for whom?), but the idea that people "drown" because of it is ludicrous.

    Next, Trump claims to want to make America great again, but then he goes and starts appointing people who promote ignorance, not knowledge. Knowledge Is Power! --not ignorance. It is know-how that was one of the factors that made America great in the first place.

    Yeah, we clearly should staff the EPA with large Democratic donors or their political minions so that they then have the power to funnel large amounts of money into failing green energy ventures and hassle opponents of the Democrats. Knowledge is indeed power!

    The last thing I'll mention is Trump's claim to oppose abortion --and that means enslaving pregnant women, when they don't want to stay pregnant,

    I am firmly pro-choice myself and do not consider a fetus to be a person. However, I respect that other people have other beliefs. Trump's stated position on abortion that women should pay for their own abortions and contraception, and that late abortions should be limited. Sorry, but this doesn't "enslave" women: non-medical abortions after 24 weeks are already extremely rare.

    What Democrats and progressives fail to understand is that compromise is a necessary part of politics. The rigid and leftist positions of Democrats and Hillary on issues such as abortion, religious freedom, and big government programs is what cost them the election. And Trump's obviously rude and loudmouth demeanor was canceled out by Democrats' insults hurled against white males, the less educated, and successful professionals. Who would have thought that calling people "racists", telling them that you are going to shut down the companies they work for, and telling them that they didn't deserve what they earned would induce them not to vote for you? Obviously, Hillary and her highly paid campaign consultants were too stupid to figure that one out.

  67. People are stupid by DogDude · · Score: 1

    People are too stupid to correlate their pain with their actions. These same mouth breathers who voted in this piece of human shit keep voting for the people who offshore their jobs, while complaining about losing jobs. They complain about not having access to health care, yet they vote for people who take away their health care. Fuck them. Let them feel pain because they deserve it. I don't believe for a second that any moron who voted for the Oompa-Loompa will learn a thing. They're too damn stupid.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re:People are stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All right, paradox time. This - sentence - is - false! Don't-think-about-it-don't-think-about-it...

      It's going to be an interesting 4 years (haha 8 Years they aren't going to let us have the option to vote for anyone that might actually be good for president they've made sure of that.)

  68. Re:Your daughter's "reproductive rights" will be f by Pascoea · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Your daughter's "reproductive rights" will be fine

    Unless you live in Texas (down to one operating abortion clinic, last I heard) or anywhere else in the country that feels as though the rights of cells outweighs the rights of a living breathing human being.

    You kid yourself if you don't think this particular issue is going to come up in an administration that is 100% controlled by the Republicans. That isn't a Trump bash or a poke at the republicans. It is an observation based on facts stated by those particular people. Bible Belt Republicans were licking their chops, looking at Roe v Wade as soon as the election results started coming in.

  69. Re:Your daughter's "reproductive rights" will be f by ooloorie · · Score: 1

    The discussion is about the federal government and federal spending.

    Federal tax dollars should be used neither for funding abortions nor for funding drug treatment programs. Both of those ought to be state and/or local issues.

    Furthermore, the only reason we need these programs is the ill-conceived federal war on drugs.

  70. Re:Your daughter's "reproductive rights" will be f by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    People make mistakes. It's usually cheaper to help them than to just hope they die before causing too much trouble.

    Somebody always pays, even if it's only the state having to collect and cremate the corpse.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  71. SHUT UP ALREADY! by s.petry · · Score: 2

    Within 24 hours of being the confirmed President Elect the leaders of both Canada and Mexico willingly made it public that they are willing to renegotiate NAFTA. US Stocks have soared with the same, more gains than at any other time in history.

    Prior to the election 3 of 4 Americans said that the Country was headed in the _WRONG_ direction. 4 out of 5 Americans said that our Justice system was broken. In California, a State where the Democratic candidate won and voter intimidation is high only 3 out of 5 voters voted for the Democratic candidate. US wide, 2 out of 3 Hispanic/Latinos, Black Americans, Asian Americans voted for the Democratic candidate, and women overall barely broke 50% in voting for the Democratic candidate.

    Instead of silencing opinions you dislike and intimidating voters, look at what happened in the Democratic Party! YOU SHOULD BE PISSED OFF AT YOUR PARTY! Massive amounts of corruption and collusion with media to prop up a candidate that nobody really wanted to lead the party! Outright lies about popularity and fake polls giving false hope that that same candidate would win. Right up to election day Democrats were lied to by the people leading them. When you have to bring out free concerts by huge names and have the sitting President campaign several times a day you should have known that it was looking much worse than they were telling you!

    And if your party lied to you about Clinton what on Earth gives you any faith that what they were saying about Trump was true? MSM has a whopping 6% trust rating for a good damn reason!

    As a Constitutional Conservative I am happy to watch the party continue to collapse. Democrats are losing more and more support every day these pathetic protests occur. Just like the NFL who has allowed anti-Americanism to become showcased, more and more people will become fed up with the lack of respect you have for others.

    I am boycotting any MSM station that plays lip service to these "protesters", and recommend that all people do the same. I'm not impressed by fake protests full of paid protesters and supported by pure propaganda. Democrats need to get their shit together and put this in check if they ever want to win another election. Americans tend to support those being oppressed, and the Democrats are oppressing their own.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:SHUT UP ALREADY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Constitutional Conservative + "allowed anti-Americanism" in the same paragraph. Glorious.

    2. Re: SHUT UP ALREADY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shannon, you're a jerk. A hell of a drummer, but a fucking jerk....

  72. Re:Cause that's what it boils down to in practise. by swillden · · Score: 1

    Furthermore, law requires informing the parent(s) of the "fetus" about "counseling that may be available concerning the death of the miscarried fetus".

    I don't see anything wrong with that. Many parents of miscarried fetuses do benefit from counseling. This is obviously more common with later-term miscarriages, because the parents have had more time to build expectations about their coming child, but there's really no "line"; different people react in different ways. I don't see how it hurts anything to inform them of counseling options. Those who don't need it because the fetus wasn't yet a baby in their minds (note that the mental transition from fetus to baby has nothing to do with science, and little to do with religion; it's mostly a function of hopes and expectations) will simply shrug it off. Those who need it might get it, and that's good.

    FWIW, my wife had an early second-trimester (~16 weeks) miscarriage many years ago. After it was taken, she asked to see it, and when the nurses brought it to us one of them had put a tiny gold ring on one of its arms. The hospital disposed of it as medical waste, but my wife kept that ring and still regularly wears it on a chain around her neck. Every mother's day she puts it on, without fail. Do NOT try to tell her that her baby was "just a cyst".

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  73. Re:Your daughter's "reproductive rights" will be f by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So the same argument applies to abortions then. Most aborted babies are future criminals, ie blacks.

    Planned Parenthood was founded by a literal eugenicist who literally wanted to exterminate blacks from America. Also she was one of Hillary's role models.

    But Trump, the guy who blazed the trail for letting blacks and Jews into country clubs, is somehow the racist and anti semite. The guy who famously stated that tranny Kaitlyn Jenner could use any bathroom she wanted in Trump tower, is somehow transphobic. The guy who appointed homosexual Peter Thiel to his transition team is somehow going to put all homosexuals in death camps.

    It goes on and on. Face it, liberals, you've been sold a bill of goods by Hillary and the DNC. You need to find a new party, or completely demolish the one you have and rebuild it from the ground up. Until then, Trump is going to fight for your rights and your prosperity, and enforce laws as written. If you riot in the streets, you WILL face consequences for that. If you FUND riots in the streets, well...

  74. Re:Your daughter's "reproductive rights" will be f by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

    It's not a war on drugs, it's a war on personal freedom.

    So like trying to prevent a woman from having an abortion? Isn't it her freedom to what she wants with her body just as, according to you, it's a drug user's freedom to do drugs?

    They're not going after the big pharma drugs that kill people.

    Big pharma used. Comment can be ignored.

    "Big pharma" is responsible for keeping billions of people alive. It was "big pharma" who finally wiped out small pox and rinderpest. "Big pharma" almost had whooping cough beaten until those who claim "big pharma" is evil stopped getting their kids vaccinated.

    "Big pharma" doesn't deliberately make drugs to kill people. That is why their drugs undergo years of testing and trials to make sure, to the largest degree possible, their drugs don't kill someone.

    It's just profitable theater.

    Fine, then stop using every drug "big pharma" makes. That includes any form or aspirin or other headache medicines, no vaccines and if you happen to get cancer, don't you dare use the drugs "big pharma" makes to keep you alive and remove the cancer. Wouldn't wan to enrich those evil doers at "big pharma". Sound fair?

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  75. Muslim, immigrant woman: 'I voted for Trump' by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 3, Interesting

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/11/...

    Nomani, a former Wall Street Journal reporter and co-founder of the Muslim Reform Movement, first made her self-described "confession" in a Washington Post column on Thursday. Since it published, she told Costello, she has received a torrent of abuse on social media. It's a symptom, Nomani insisted, of an increasingly hostile "liberal honor brigade."

    And that is what the left doesn't understand... and it is one of the reasons Clinton lost...

    Liberals, self-proclaimed "tolerant" people, attack anyone who doesn't hold their values.

    1. Re: Muslim, immigrant woman: 'I voted for Trump' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that is what the left doesn't understand... and it is one of the reasons Clinton lost...
      Liberals, self-proclaimed "tolerant" people, attack anyone who doesn't hold their values.

      Says FlyHelicopters, attacking liberals. As usual. Blithely unaware of his own impulsive compulsion to do that himself, let alone the tendencies of conservatives to do the same, while hypocritically presenting themselves as far too noble to do so.

      I know, I know, you want to claim you're concerned, but you know, with the great Trump as the standard-bearer, who has incessantly attacked others and their values himself.

    2. Re:Muslim, immigrant woman: 'I voted for Trump' by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Liberals, self-proclaimed "tolerant" people, attack anyone who doesn't hold their values.

      All of them? All of those types of people are all the same. Does that not sound strange when you say that out loud?
      There's weirdos on all sides of the fence, but as soon as you buy into the us vs them, you become one of the weirdos.

    3. Re:Muslim, immigrant woman: 'I voted for Trump' by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/11/...

      Nomani, a former Wall Street Journal reporter and co-founder of the Muslim Reform Movement, first made her self-described "confession" in a Washington Post column on Thursday. Since it published, she told Costello, she has received a torrent of abuse on social media. It's a symptom, Nomani insisted, of an increasingly hostile "liberal honor brigade."

      And that is what the left doesn't understand... and it is one of the reasons Clinton lost...

      Liberals, self-proclaimed "tolerant" people, attack anyone who doesn't hold their values.

      Values like equal rights and innocent until proven guilty? You're right, they should just bend over and take it from the fascists.

      --
      ~X~
    4. Re:Muslim, immigrant woman: 'I voted for Trump' by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Values like equal rights and innocent until proven guilty? You're right, they should just bend over and take it from the fascists.

      Nice strawman... try again... but you probably can't because you're blind to it...

      Again, Trump won, there is a reason for that, figure it out and you win 2 Internet points...

  76. Re:Your daughter's "reproductive rights" will be f by smooth+wombat · · Score: 0

    Somebody always pays, even if it's only the state having to collect and cremate the corpse

    Cost for cremation is roughly $1,000, all costs included. Cost to treat someone for drug use, for one year, is roughly $4,700.

    Cost benefit analysis says it's cheaper to not treat. As we see every day in Detroit and Chicago, letting the users and dealers kill each other off saves the taxpayers money by not having to jail them.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  77. Good (from a liberal) by bdrasin · · Score: 1

    I am a liberal who is dumbfounded and heartbroken by the election, but I would NEVER criticize any smart people for working for the new administration. Trump will be by far the least prepared and qualified President in the history of the country and I want him to have the best advisers possible. The extent to which he is capable of listening to them will determine how much or little damage to our civilization will suffer in the next few years. I've no illusions that the political causes I support will be devastated, but at this point its about survival.

  78. We didn't elect a far right Islamic by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    to the Whitehouse. And I'm not expecting Trump to reign Pence in. It was made pretty clear early on that Trump would let his VP run the show, and here we are with Pence running the Transition.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  79. Re:Your daughter's "reproductive rights" will be f by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

    Big pharma used. Comment can be ignored.

    But then you didn't, so why did you continue? Answer, you know that's not a valid reason to stop. Snarky bullshit used. What's your point?

    "Big pharma" is responsible for keeping billions of people alive.

    And medical misprescription is one of the largest killers in America, maybe the largest depending on who you ask but definitely in the top five. One hand giveth...

    It was "big pharma" who finally wiped out small pox and rinderpest.

    Today, virtually all of the basic research is done at universities, partially with public money. Big Pharma then goes through certification processes for which they have lobbied and which are shady as fuck, and spends the majority of their money advertising.

    "Big pharma" doesn't deliberately make drugs to kill people.

    They deliberately sell drugs which they know to be inferior in order to make a profit. There's a fine line between those two things; I agree they're not identical, but in both cases people are preventably dying for profit.

    That is why their drugs undergo years of testing and trials to make sure, to the largest degree possible, their drugs don't kill someone.

    The bar to bring a new drug to market is set very high, which helps discourage new players from even entering their damned dirty game. But the bar to bring a derivative of an old drug is much lower; under FDA rules you don't have to prove that it is even as efficacious as the drug it's replacing. You only need to prove that it doesn't kill notably more people than the old version, and bingo! Approval. Then you tap that massive advertising budget (larger than testing and R&D combined) to "warn everyone" about the "dangers" of your old drug. Maybe you even get the FDA to announce that they're investigating it, perhaps to take it off the market. Patients who aren't even qualified to read the PDR, let alone to sniff out bullshit in what they find there, are going to go to their doctors and demand they not get the old drug, because advertising works. And they're not going to do any research first, either.

    It's just profitable theater.

    Fine, then stop using every drug "big pharma" makes.

    Because I am not an idiot, I am not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I am also not going to be dumb enough to endorse a completely corrupt system. We can develop new drugs, vaccines, and therapies without Big Pharma even existing. The majority of research already happens outside of their labs. The rest of it can, as well.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  80. Hey dimwit - you fail! apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: Gigabyte IRAM is a hardware ramdisk based on DDR Ram & SATA 1 bus so YOU FAIL moron https://hardware.slashdot.org/...

    * Loved posting this under your "+5 FUNNY" post so everyone can see how FUNNY it is when you fuckup, lol...

    APK

    P.S.=> Eat my dust, bitch... apk

  81. Re:Your daughter's "reproductive rights" will be f by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    It costs money to employ people to collect and identify corpses. This is all assuming that there aren't any other costs, like crime as a result. And that your are a soulless accountant with no regard for human life.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  82. Trump's already done some great things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump did in eight months what various factions in the Democratic and Republican parties have been trying to do for two decades: namely destroy the remnants of the Clinton and Bush crime families.

    He humiliated and insulted Jeb! and his whole corrupt family during the Republican primaries. Trump called the Iraq War and Middle East intervention a disaster right to the man's face, deep in GOP country. He repeatedly pointed out how 9/11 happened on his brother's watch and therefore made his administration a failure.

    Then he defeats Clinton -- a corrupt sociopath if there ever was one -- in the best way possible. Now I can watch her and her smug, entitled supporters eat crow.

    As a bonus, he's humiliating sycophant Chris Christie by demoting him and letting Pence take charge of the transition team. Since Christie has nothing to offer Trump other than liabilities, I suspect he won't get anything meaningful in the new cabinet.

    FWIW, I didn't vote for Trump, but watching him humiliate these assholes with this idiot-savant pursuit of petty vengeance and self-aggrandizement is absolutely thrilling.

  83. Re:We do volunteer to help women and that's Cathol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The religious extremists of Amerika are not Catholic. They are combinations of "born-again," "evangelical," and "dominionist" that pick and choose the most extreme passages from the Torah and hammer them into their tortured belief system that includes Republican Conservative Jesus.

  84. Re:Cause that's what it boils down to in practise. by denzacar · · Score: 1

    I don't see anything wrong with that. Many parents of miscarried fetuses do benefit from counseling. This is obviously more common with later-term miscarriages, because the parents have had more time to build expectations about their coming child, but there's really no "line"; different people react in different ways.

    Clearly, as your comment there points out - it is not common for a procedure where a woman simply wants to have, what is at that point nothing but a cyst, removed from her body.
    Nor is it common to treat it as a "DEATH". Nothing died cause nothing was alive.
    No more than a tumor might be alive, yet there is no counseling on the death of a tumor.

    That bit is there to guilt women and to put psychological pressure on people who are running abortion clinics.
    Just like the rest of the law is there for those same reasons - plus the monetary burden.

    FWIW, my wife had an early second-trimester (~16 weeks) miscarriage many years ago.

    That is not the same thing as a voluntary abortion.
    I'm guessing your wife wasn't impregnated by a boyfriend who just shrugged it off and left her hanging there, married man who was cheating on his wife with her, nor was she raped, perhaps by a family member, nor was she in any other situation, social, economic, health or otherwise which precluded her from the luxury of pregnancy.
    In all those cases, even at 1 week, a woman who is already emotionally burdened is forced to hear a lecture about a how she killed a baby.
    I'm guessing that your wife didn't have to hear that either. That it's her fault and that she's a baby murderer.
    Which is something most women who come to abortion clinics are treated to. First outside the clinic by the pals of the newly elected vice president, then by the clinic staff, based on the laws he enacted.

    As for your wife and her unhealthy fixation on a symbolic product of a miscarriage... well... clearly neither of you thinks that she needs treatment though she STILL mourns a fist-sized lump of tissue.
    Why have closure about mental and physical trauma, when you can shape it into a "tiny gold ring", symbolically hang that psychological burden around your neck and revisit that pain every year.
    That's gotta be healthy. Mentally and all. Nursing psychological pain usually is.
    Fuck those people who'd call that a trauma. What do they know, right?

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  85. Re:Your daughter's "reproductive rights" will be f by jebrick · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Your daughter's "reproductive rights" will be fine, we just won't have to pay for her abortions if she chooses to have them.

    The Hyde amendment makes it illegal to spend federal money on abortion so that has not been a problem since 1976. Allowing women the option is becoming more of a problem.

  86. Re:fuck trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course, if you want to buy the narrative that the Civil rights era and the southern strategy never happened, transforming both major parties, then you'll also have to accept that the Republicans were responsible for "Northern Aggression", Sherman's march to the sea, etc.

  87. Re:Your daughter's "reproductive rights" will be f by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

    Okay, so if a junkie hits you with something heavy on the head to get your wallet and the phone, you are okay with the society letting you die because it is the cheapest solution? Good to know.

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  88. Posted the Marxist Theory Example Maker by mpapet · · Score: 1

    The marxists

    I know you aren't going to read Das Kapital or any summary of Marxist theory, but, you are it, buddy. The backlash that voted for Trump IS Marxist theory come to life. Shocking!

    --
    http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
  89. Re: Your daughter's "reproductive rights" will be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have built yourself up a nice ass dream land. None of what you say is reality.

  90. Re:Cause that's what it boils down to in practise. by swillden · · Score: 1

    That is not the same thing as a voluntary abortion.

    Sorry, I thought you were talking about miscarriages.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  91. To your last point by s.petry · · Score: 1

    She's got some fairly serious congenital health issues that might someday require an abortion of a non-viable fetus to save her life.

    Mike Pence has repeatedly stated, and even voted for measures, which protect the right for a mother to have an abortion when her life is at risk.

    The left tends to twist this wording to be "health" risk which includes everything from serious medical problems to minor depression.

    What I find completely batshit crazy is that both the President and VP Elect said this was a State issue, not a Federal issue. Both want to remove Federal funds from the process, and return the options to the State. If you really want abortions to be legal and funded you are free to petition your State to enact laws you agree with. Limiting Federal powers is a good thing.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  92. Victim of a troll? Not how I'd see it. by dfenstrate · · Score: 1

    I take it you haven't seen the so-called Pied Piper memo?

    It wasn't Daddy's money and influence propelling Trump over the past year, it was Hillary's. As disturbing as that revelation was to me, I can only imagine how Trump took it. He must feel like the victim of the world's most elaborate troll.

    I don't think the president-elect feels like a victim of anything. The Democrats thought they were being clever when they had their media allies pump him up in the primaries, but they ended up only helping him win the election in the end.

    --
    Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
  93. No Different by JBMcB · · Score: 1

    Remember Obama's pledge to end the lobbyists getting into the cabinet? Heh.
    http://www.politico.com/story/...

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
  94. It's complicated by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    As a public figure he's forced to balance his right to privacy to the public's right to know. Both the fact that he harbors severe racist sentiments and the fact that he's cheated on his a friend with his wife are relevant to the public. Most case law would side with the public's right to know. Gawker would have won the case if they'd just listened to the judge.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  95. Trickle down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Build the rich up by pushing everyone else down.
    The deficit that is only a problem when Dems have the office will explode
    And when it all crashes as it always has there will be no way back austerity the only way Social Security cuts with staggering inflation at the same time.

    You read it here first.

  96. Re:We do volunteer to help women and that's Cathol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In all charity, I guarantee you the Pope is not going to become more "moderate" on abortion rights. The Bible (New Testament and Old) is rife with reminders that the Lord cherishes innocent life. The spilling of innocent blood is a sin that "cries out to Heaven for vengeance." Given that, there is no Christian basis for abortion being acceptable.

    While we are called to love our neighbor (especially a broke, scared, pregnant, teenage neighbor), that does not justify abortion. It does justify bringing the mother AND child (and hopefully father) into the community and helping them get on their feet by any love and generosity necessary.

  97. Re: Your daughter's "reproductive rights" will be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Agreed. Junkies should be killed.

  98. Re:Your daughter's "reproductive rights" will be f by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2

    Yes, that was a part of my point. The other part was that helping drug users lowers the amount of muggings and burglaries, which is a good thing.

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  99. It happened, and it had EVERYTHING to do with by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    liberalism (in the modern sense of the word where leftism wears a cloak labelled "liberal").

    The American left is NOT classically liberal, it calls itself "liberal" while actually being "illiberal leftist" which is why it is so comfortable with speech codes, the importation of Islamism into western civilization, etc. These illiberal "liberals" have, via control of the education system, de-educated millions and have encouraged the total destruction of the black family via government handouts that are tied to things like low-income and single-motherhood. They have grown and groomed a multiple generations of people who have no job skills, no desire to earn a living, no knowledge of their fathers, no hope for a brighter future, and who have been taught that their misery and bleak outlook are the fault of "whitey"/"the man".

    The people in the video beating and robbing the Trump voter have almost certainly been propagandized by the house slaves like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to think that, unlike everybody else, they need ethnic "leaders" who they should mindlessly obey in their political positions and economic beliefs. The house slaves (Sharpton, Jackson, et al) of course are rewarded by their masters with a better life in the massa's house (jobs, prestige, and contracts in the modern sense), as long as the other slaves stay on the plantation (vote Democrat in elections and show up for protests when prompted). When somebody like Trump comes along, the house slaves scare the field slaves that their meager rations are about to be taken away and they stir them up into a frenzy. The violent results are perfectly predictable. Decades and trillions of dollars later, LBJ's "Great Society" has produced a generation of African Americans whose families are less intact than black families were right after slavery ended. This is really sad. Republicans always fail to grasp just how good Democrats are at keeping blacks on Democrat plantations, and keep thinking that if you set the slaves free and then leave them alone, on the assumption they are just like everybody else, they will prosper.

    Oh, and if you have adults in your country who cannot legally support themselves, the answer is NOT to infantalize them with handouts and low expectations. The answer is to eliminate some of the tens of thousands of rules and regulations that make it nearly impossible for a person of average intelligence to figure out how to engage in business and be self-sufficient as earlier generations could be. Government simply CANNOT fix what government broke in the first place, and even if it COULD, it would not. Government does not randomly create problems; it intentionally creates them because interested parties with influence and/or money want them often as part of schemes to rig and control markets - and, by definition, the people who create the problems for a reason will not allow the problems to be mitigated. It's simply insane to expect government to fix stuff like this.

  100. You seemed smarter before you started typing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You just explained why Democrats are, in January, going to be further behind in the national tug-of-war over politics (seats in congress, seats in state legislatures, federal executive positions, and state executive positions) that at any time since the Civil War ended and Democrats were all scurrying under rocks claiming to have never been Democrats like Germans in 1946 all claiming to have never been NAZIs.

    If you are totally clueless about your political opponents, you cannot defeat them by conventional means. That's where the American left is today - having a cartoon villain view of their opponents and imagining they understand those opponents, but not actually knowing any of their opponents and having never listened to their opponents. They are clueless about what their opponents believe, and thus cannot accurately predict and counter their opponents' actions. (hint: if you thought a gay man would something other than a standing ovation at the RNC convention, or that Evangelicals would not vote for Trump after the pussy grab video, then you have NO CLUE about what Conservatives/Republicans/Evangelical believe). If you get your news from the Comedy channel, MSNBC, and Huffington Post etc then you have no freaking concept of what just happened at the polls, and you are probably justified in your terror because you have been spoon-fed a total misunderstanding of your opponents.

    People on the right do not have the reciprocal problem; THEY cannot avoid knowing the left because the left is in their faces all the time in all the newspapers, nearly every TV channel, most web sites, K-12 and college education establishments, Hollywood, etc. This means that any time the right is not stupidly forming circular firing squads, the right can win. NOW it turns out that if you have the "right" right-wing candidate (Trump), the right CAN win even if it has formed its usual circular firing squad ( [cough]Ted Cruz, National Review, George Will and the 100+ Republican elites of "Never Trump"...[cough]) because the left has gone so very far left and plunged so very deep into ignorance and identity politics.

  101. ha ha ha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (a) By resorting to expletives and insults in place of rational dialogue, you have demonstrated that you lack the intellect to engage with the right.

    (b) "Ignore reality"???? you mean like the left ignoring the reality that drove all those people to vote for Trump??? ha ha ha the lack of introspection displayed here is amazing.

    (c) Trump supporters just proved you wrong by winning the biggest and most-important debate on the planet: the year-long political argument over who would be the leader of the free world and running the planet's current superpower state.

    (c) Bernie was the most insane and corrupt of all - he either never intended to win (which explains why he refused to attack Hillary on her big weak spot) and thus was just playing with his supporters and taking their money, or he foolishly thought unicorns and fairy dust would win the day for him. As a DC insider, he surely knew the DNC had rigged the process even before he began to run (everybody in DC knew it which is why Hillary had no serious Democrat opponents with big financial war chests, and anybody elsewhere who was paying attention to politics also knew it since the DNC did the rigging way back in the 1st half of 2015 with details leaking onto the web already back then) Hillary had all the delegates she needed to win lined-up before Halloween of 2015. When the Bernster failed to get enough delegates to overcome Hillary's "super delegates", he did NOT go to the convention and fight it out as he had pledged to his gullible childish supporters - he got the party to help him with that third vacation home (every citizen has one of those, right?), made sure nothing would come of the job his wife did bankrupting her college and he endorsed and campaigned for Hillary, the very Wall Street Banker puppet he had claimed to oppose. Warren did the same shtick: ranted about the Wall Street Bankers and wallowed in the adoration of the stupid, then eagerly campaigned for the hand-picked puppet of those very Wall Street Bankers and presumed her stupid supporters would not notice the incongruity; she's more fake than just fake indian.

  102. Hillarity ensues.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It apparently never occurred to you that Trump's a smart guy who was well aware that there were many Democrats who were eager to have him win the GOP primaries (on the theory that he'd be easiest to beat in the General) and that this would mean all the Democrats in the media would go easy on him in those primaries and then be caught off guard in the general???? None of the Democrats were hiding this! It even came-up in the GOP primary debates and Ted Cruz even made the accusation hoping that it would scare Trump's fans into shifting to Cruz.

    I have the sneaky suspicion that Mr Trump actually played the Democrat party like a fiddle. In case you had not noticed: It's not Hillary who is laughing her way into the White House, and all those sooooper smart Democrat strategists, pollsters, data miners, imaging experts, messaging experts and outreach consultants are now going to have to explain to future potential clients why any candidate would need their services when Trump could beat them on 1/10th the staff size and cash flow.

    We now have absolute empirical proof that the "Citizens United" boogeyman argument the left has been using as part of another elaborate conspiracy theory is FALSE. All the money Hillary piled into a mountain was not enough to buy the election in the face of a guy who spent FAR less but had an idea and a theme and agenda the public wanted. Hillary was, by Obama's bold proclamation, the most-qualified candidate in history, AND she had tons of money from nearly every massive multinational corporation and international banker - FAR more money than Trump, AND she was backed-up with cash and other support from billionaires like Steyer and Soros and Zuckerberg AND she was backed by almost every newspaper in the nation and ALL the broadcast networks and all but one of the cable networks...... and she lost.

    Sorry, but if The Donald is thinking about the DNC's "Pied Piper" memo at all, HE is the one who is LAUGHING (and Ted Cruz is crying).

  103. Re: Enough rope for impeachment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But which is more delicious? Fresh baby meat or dolphin. I say try them both and decide later.

  104. Re:We do volunteer to help women and that's Cathol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The center my wife and I volunteer at provides classes covering everything from pre-natal nutrition and exercise through what to do when your baby won't stop crying, and where to go next to get support in raising a school-age child.

    If you do not provide funding to raise and educate the child up to at least high school then what you provide is only a token service compared to what must be committed by the actually parents. But of course, it is still better than nothing. But it is not enough to give you a right to decide for them whether they should or should not keep the fetus.

  105. sorry, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump did NOT look terrified at all - he has known and been friends with several presidents and is not awed by them.

    He looked rather bored dealing with the arrogant coke-head (read Obama's autobiography) punk as he went through the formal polite ceremonial motions.

    He may have even been depressed at the thought of living in the residence portion of the White House which is smaller and less luxurious than his Trump Tower residence.

    He might also have been a bit annoyed at the childish way the Obamas ditched protocol and avoided the usual footage of the new guy pulling up in a limo at the House and also avoided the usual photos of the incoming and outgoing families posed together. The Obamas, it seems, will remain classless to the end.

    Don't get me wrong: ANYBODY elected to that office undoubtably has a bit of a "dog that caught the mail jeep" moment (as-in "now what do I do"?) but if you think you see any more fear in Trump's pictures than you saw in the photos of any previous new presidents then you are projecting.

    1. Re:sorry, but by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      Trump did NOT look terrified at all - he has known and been friends with several presidents and is not awed by them.

      They didn't hand him the keys to the building on those visits, did they?

  106. Re: Your daughter's "reproductive rights" will be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You seem to kniw so much but cite nothing. Lets see those documents. Then i promise i will believe. People have such good arguements and are probably right. But without evidence, its just hersay/talk and can not deserve merit. I think you are accurate but you fail by not providing and real evidence besides oppinion. Please take the extra step if you really believe what you write.

  107. Re: Your daughter's "reproductive rights" will be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And just because the bodybis dead does nit mean you shoulf not practice safe sex. That also has a cost.

  108. Re: Your daughter's "reproductive rights" will be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    California will always be a safe haven. Drive in, get the baby sucked out, and then see a show. Well im being sarcastic. But cali will always be a safe haven. They never show after the abortion when the mothers cry for days after - it is the hardest decision to make. Life and death of your own blood.

  109. Re: We do volunteer to help women and that's Catho by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're an asshole. Let the scared, pregnant teenager abort, FFS. Your God is entirely fictional and your beliefs pathological. You hgave zero rational basis for your beleifs other than OMG MAGIC SKY DADDY IS WATCHING, so please stop trying to inflict your pathetic pathology on the rest of us,

  110. Re:fuck trump by lucm · · Score: 1

    No that's not how logic works.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  111. I, for one, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    welcome our new oligarch overlords!

  112. Re:Your daughter's "reproductive rights" will be f by werepants · · Score: 1

    Far better and cheaper to let them kill themselves than waste money on people who are smarter than all the experts and ignore the Mt. Everest-sized evidence about the dangers of drug use.

    No, it isn't. Junkies, homeless people, desperate people all have create a very real burden to society in terms of higher police costs, emergency room costs, and lost property values because of crime. In many cases, it's cheaper to fix the problem than it is to let it continue.

  113. I know better than to comment on this one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Last time I commented on politics here, I was inundated with 2,716 loud responses, everyone in their mother yelling at me, and calling me names, slanders, insults. The things that were said were totally unbelievable.

    As if the shaming and name calling wasn't bad enough, it was followed by censure from Slashdot, all for stating a simple opinion in support of a candidate. I got down-modded, I was effectively silenced, and couldn't post again for a month without a warning from the system, telling me how absolutely evil I am.

    So no, I'm not going to fall for that again. It's truly remarkable, really, for a site that used to be all about free speech, like this one. It probably still is. Just that, some people are just freer to have an opinion than others.

    Given the way people are behaving now, on the bigger internet, I'm half afraid of being tracked down and firebombed by protestors, if I venture to say anything about the election that is unapproved by the DNC or the larger media. So, I'm going to play it safe, and say nothing new, or thought provoking with this comment.

    Is there really that much of a difference between burning flags, and burning books?
    I wonder.

    Anyway, do your thing guys.
    Say what you will. Censor me if you desire. I don't really care at this point.

    Just don't pretend to be about freedom of speech, or things that matter anymore. It's untrue, disingenuous, and in poor taste.

    God bless.

  114. Re: Your daughter's "reproductive rights" will be by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    You seem to kniw so much but cite nothing. Lets see those documents. Then i promise i will believe.

    You pretend to care but won't use google. Let's see you do some basic searches to try to verify what i'm saying. Please take the extra step if you actually care about this subject. If you won't do the research before you comment then you're a fuckup. It would take me too long to go track down citations for all of these things. If you think I'm lying or wrong about something I said, then find a citation that suggests such. THAT is how debate works, not demanding sources. Slashdot is a debate, not a scientific paper.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  115. Your "arguments" are so easy to dismantle. by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

    If you're going to declare that a batch of cells that will eventually become a fully formed human must be protected as legal persons, then why not sperm cells and ova?

    Fertilized human eggs are human beings in their earliest stage of development. Sperm cells and ova are not human beings. These are such basic scientific facts, it's clear you're being deliberately obtuse.

    Consider:
    (a) if you had been killed by a notorious criminal yesterday, you would be dead today, but at least you would not have been robbed of the life experiences and liberties that you've enjoyed to date.
    (b) If you had been killed when you were a fertilized egg, you would be dead today -- an outcome indistinguishable from (a) -- but furthermore you would have been robbed of 100% of your life experiences and liberties.

    Clear-thinking libertarians should therefore conclude that (b) is a worse crime than (a).

    If "fully formed" is your criteria for whether it's OK to terminate a human, then 10-year-old children are clearly fair game. They are by no means "fully formed."

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
  116. Cause of coal's death by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

    Coal isn't dying because of politics.

    You have to admit that for better or worse, this political attitude:

    "Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket," Obama said. "So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them."

    is a contributing factor to coal's death.

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
  117. Oh boy, not more agitation based on lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why not work on ways to make it much less needed by offering more birth control and pre-natal healthcare to women? To me it just seems that they want to make women second-class citizens

    Every woman, whether insured or not, can fill a birth control prescription at Wal-mart or Target for the low price of $9 per month. Wal-mart has nine different types of birth control available at this price, no less.

    I don't know how to make it any more accessible, short of legislation that forces retailers to pay people to follow through on filling their prescription.

  118. Another libertarian argument that you're missing by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 0

    Even religious people should not try to argue it on the basis of religious ideology. Ethical matters should be decided on the basis of arguments that appeal to a broad spectrum, including atheists.

    There's another libertarian argument that you're missing. Consider:

    (a) If you had been killed by a notorious criminal yesterday, you would be dead today, but at least you would not have been robbed of the life experiences and liberties you've enjoyed to date.
    (b) If you had been killed when you were a fetus, you would be dead today -- an outcome indistinguishable from (a) -- but furthermore you would have been robbed of 100% of your life experiences and liberties.

    Clear-thinking libertarians should therefore conclude that (b) is a greater ethics violation than (a).

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
  119. Frightening disregard for human life(and accuracy) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Texas (down to one operating abortion clinic, last I heard)

    The most cursory of searches brought me here:

    https://prochoice.org/think-yo...

    which shows ten Texas locations offering abortion services.

    outweighs the rights of a living breathing human being

    So living human beings who are unable to breathe on their own (because of temporary injury, or because their lungs are simply not yet developed enough) are fair game to be killed?

  120. Crybullies by phorm · · Score: 1

    I can't remember who coined the term, but I saw a great article months ago labelling these people as "crybullies." Essentially, they try to cram their cause/opinion down everyone's throat, and then when somebody disagrees they start in with buzzword-laden attacks labelling any detractors as being discriminatory X'ists (sexist, racist, misogynist, etc). They take any legitimate counterpoints and basically say "this is not valid, you're attacking me because I'm [insert group]". For bonus points, they'll take some of the usual nutwads/trolls/etc that really are sexist, racist, whatever, and use them as an example of how somehow everyone is against them and they're just a victim.

  121. Re:Another libertarian argument that you're missin by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    But accepting (b) leads to some ridiculous consequences. According to the potential principle of (b), you have a duty to cause pregnancy - and for men, the most productive way to achieve this goal would be serial rape. Every woman they refrain from raping is a potential child robbed of life.

  122. Requiring everyone to hold the same beliefs? Nope by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

    There are lots of legislative acts on the books that require everyone to respect the rights of others. They range from
    - trivial things (to not call others for certain reasons)
    - to more weighty (e.g., to not damage or steal the property of others)
    - to the laws with the most serious penalties (to not kill others; but curiously, these laws cease to protect the victim's rights if the victim has not completely made it through an arbitrary process called birth, or in some cases, an arbitrary stage of human development called the "third trimester")

    Not only is there nothing wrong with laws that require everyone to respect the rights of others; some of these laws are essential to any high-functioning society.

    Do these thousands of existing laws require anyone to sincerely believe that others have rights that should be respected? No. You can be inwardly contemptuous of others' rights, or you can believe we're merely biological machines upon which it would be silly to endow rights; but you'll do just fine if you merely act like you believe, by not violating the law.

    The people of Indiana, via the legislators they duly elected, decided that everyone has a right to dignified disposal of their human remains. To their credit, they didn't make an exception for those who didn't make it through an arbitrary process called birth. FWIW, Snopes says the law does not require anyone "to hold funerals for abortions or miscarriages -- much less at their own expense."

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
  123. Re:Cause that's what it boils down to in practise. by keithostertag · · Score: 1

    The recent Indiana abortion law that you refer to (HEA 1337) was halted by the Federal court in June: see http://www.indystar.com/story/... for one writeup. See http://fox59.com/2016/06/30/ju... for another. But thank you for your analysis!

  124. Really twisted by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

    It's unethical to rob liberties away from a human being that has already been created.

    A "duty to cause pregnancy" does not in any way follow from that fact. I can't even fathom what kind of twisted reasoning brought you to that conclusion.

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
    1. Re:Really twisted by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      The same reasoning you used: Valuing potentiality. Does it really matter if that life is denied before or after conception?

    2. Re:Really twisted by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

      Does it really matter if that life is denied before or after conception?

      There's a ridiculous question. It matters greatly. Your question can be restated as, "is not bringing a human being into existence the ethical equivalent of killing an existing human being?"

      And the answer is obvious. Not bringing a human being into existence is something we all do almost every day. In fact, to the extent that overpopulation is prevented, not bringing a human being into existence is an ethical plus.

      The life experiences and liberties that you have enjoyed are not mere "potentialities," they are real and actual; and it is undeniable that
      - if you had been killed 5 years ago, some fraction of them would have been robbed from you (and you would be dead today)
      - if you had been killed 10 years ago, some greater fraction of them would have been robbed from you (and you would be equally dead today)
      - if you had been killed when you were a fetus, 100% of them would have been robbed from you (and you would be equally dead today).

      But if you had never been created at all, there would be no "you" to kill and no "you" from which anything could be robbed. In fact, there are an infinite number of non-entities who cannot be victims of ethical infractions, by virtue of their nonexistence.

      Turns out this is relevant to the sentence that has been my sig for 16 years. You and I are part of "that that is," while non-entities comprise "that that is not."

      --
      That that is is that that that that is not is not.
  125. That was not the topic of the discussion. by denzacar · · Score: 1

    The recent Indiana abortion law that you refer to (HEA 1337) was halted by the Federal court in June:

    This was:

    This is a guy who signed a bill with a government mandate that families hold funerals for miscarried or aborted fetuses.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  126. Re:Enough rope for impeachment by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    With how often his executive orders were anti constitutional, were you screaming for his impeachment?

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?