Slashdot Mirror


Online Pranksters Mock Trump's $149 Christmas Ornament, Rename Trump Tower on Google Maps (yahoo.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a Digital Trends story about a suspicious malfunction on Google Maps: At some point yesterday, Donald Trump's Fifth Avenue home was given a rather unceremonious rechristening, and a search for "Trump Tower" revealed a pin for "Dump Tower" instead. It was rather tricky to find for some, and required zooming in on the building itself at just the right angle (which is perhaps how the culprit got away with the stunt in the first place). At a separate angle, someone else (or perhaps the same person) transliterated the skyscraper's name in Russian Cyrillic, perhaps meant to be a jab at Trump's alleged ties to President Vladimir Putin and company... While the team [at Google Maps] managed to put out this first fire, another quickly arose to take its place (as is often the case on the internet), and later in the day on Saturday, Trump International Hotel and Tower in Columbus Circle was renamed Dump International Hotel and Tower. Meanwhile, another anonymous reader writes: Earlier this week Donald Trump emailed his supporters selling a $149 collectible "Make America Great Again" Christmas ornament finished with 14k gold, to raise money for both his campaign and the Republican party. But Yahoo News reports that it's now getting some suspicious negative (and politically-charged) reviews on its page on Amazon. ("One Star. "It tried to put my nativity figures into an internment camp.") And another reviewer even wrote a satirical story about how their family decided on the ornament for the tree. "During our family meeting we overwhelmingly chose the other ornament but somehow we still ended up with this one. We're not sure what happened."

41 of 524 comments (clear)

  1. Good to see mocking the President back in fashion by mi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    After eight years of it being racist, mocking the President as well as other dissent is patriotic once again. That alone made voting for Trump worth it...

    And to think, it almost became sexist instead!..

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  2. In the past, people would get out the guns by HBI · · Score: 5, Funny

    Today they write supposedly comedic Amazon reviews.

    And they wonder why the word "pussy" is the first one that comes to mind. I guess Trump grabbed you really good.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
  3. Re:Crybabies by mi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, he warned us the election was rigged.

    He did warn you. And you called him a "Pants on Fire" liar for it. Suck it up, cupcakes...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  4. Re:Crybabies by Jason+Levine · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If there are that many illegal immigrants voting, shouldn't we have a nationwide recount to weed them out?

    (For the record, I don't think there are that many illegal immigrants voting and I'm not really in favor of the recount. If Jill Stein can fund it with donations, fine, but otherwise I don't think things were close enough. As much as I hate Trump, I've accepted that he's going to be President and I'm moving forward to help mitigate the damage I think he'll do. I just think that the argument that "we shouldn't have a recount" doesn't jive with the "millions voted illegally so Trump really won the popular vote" story - which has no actual evidence backing it.)

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  5. Re:Good to see mocking the President back in fashi by Oligonicella · · Score: 3, Informative

    Ah, the sweet display of irrational fear. Civics question: Which branch of government passes laws?

  6. Re:Crybabies by Rei · · Score: 3, Informative
    --
    People said I was dumb, but I proved them.
  7. Re:Crybabies by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes I do, and yes they vote. I don't blame him for trying to escape mexico , but illegals shouldn't be voting.

    --
    _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
  8. Re:President Trump (tm) by sumdumass · · Score: 5, Informative

    She won more votes, votes of equal more men, men whose votes ARE EQUAL under the constitution, she's the President elect of the United States. Trump is hoping to be the President elect of the electoral college.

    Are you trying to be oxymoronic? You simply cannot quote the parts of the constitution and ignore the specific parts pertaining to the election of the president to claim someone who failed those parts is the legit elected. Furthermore, you are basing this stupidity on the preamble to the constitution which describes the purpose for which is laid out within the constitution that you are actively ignoring.

    Do they not teach simple civics and government in high school any more?

    Electoral College should not try to overrule the will of the people, and Trump cannot be President with so many conflicts of interests, thats a violation of Constitutionâ(TM)s emoluments clause. You can't have a Trump Brand USA (tm)

    The electoral college was specifically set in place to allow "states" to elect the president of the united "states" instead of the people. The federal government has a president of the United States not the United "People". The congress and senate is the people's house and originally the senate represented the states (which is still does to a certain extent even after the constitution was amended to allow direct elections of the senators). The house of representatives was supposed to represent the people which is why all laws implementing taxes are supposed to originate there. The senate represented the states and the president is and was a figurehead to enact the sovereignty given up by the states. You have to remember, after the revolution, the thirteen colonies became 13 countries which eventually joined a confederation which ended up forming a constitutional republic that ceded only portions of their sovereignty. This is the entire purpose of the 9th and 10th amendments and article 1 section 8 that defines the original powers of the federal government.

    I don't know if you actually understand this and are simply trying to convince the ignorant to be useful idiots or if you seriously never bothered reading past the preamble and skipped school during your civics classes or something. Either way, this isn't hard to find out which you probably should have already done if you actually care about the issue as much as your post pretends to. It is not like this isn't the first time that a president has won the electoral college but not the popular vote in your life time if you are actually old enough to vote. God help us if you actually claim to be educated higher than a high school level too.

  9. Re:Crybabies by quantaman · · Score: 5, Informative

    Only if you count illegals. We have no idea what the vote count would be if you didn't count illegitimate votes in California, which is where her lead is coming from.

    So not only do you think there were millions of illegal voters, but you think these millions of people are in such an effective air-tight conspiracy that not one of them is willing to spill the beans. And they performed this conspiracy, which risked jail time and/or deportation for every person involved, to run up the score in a state in which Clinton would have won anyway.

    That is literally an insane idea.

    The simply reality is that the US doesn't bother trying to account for voter fraud because the Electoral College makes it mostly pointless.

    Which is why GOP politicians go on massive hunts looking for voter fraud after every election, and never comes up with anything but a small handful of people who were just confused.

    --
    I stole this Sig
  10. What's the objection to a recount? by swillden · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hillary lost. Get over it.

    If you're confident of that (as I am, actually), then you have nothing to fear from a recount, right? There's nothing wrong with double-checking tight races.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    1. Re:What's the objection to a recount? by swillden · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you're confident of that (as I am, actually), then you have nothing to fear from a recount, right? There's nothing wrong with double-checking all tight races and not a select few.

      Fixed that for you. Unless you fear the outcome.

      All tight races should be recounted, plus a random sample of the rest. This should be standard procedure. Plus we should also have independent re-checking of the voter registration rolls and processes. Basically, we should apply academic rigor to the election process. It's too expensive to do that universally, sure, but it could be done randomly in the normal case, and it's probably worth expending a little more effort and money on tight races.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    2. Re:What's the objection to a recount? by swillden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It wasn't that tight, Hilary got 2 million more votes than Trump. That's why he is making the claims about millions of illegal votes on Twitter now, he is worried that the closer people look and the more they demand electoral college reform the less legitimate his administration will look.

      The national popular vote was tight (Hillary's win margin was just over 1%), but that's irrelevant because that's not how the president is elected. Some key state races, however, were very close. In Wisconsin Trump's margin was 0.9%. In Michigan it appears that he won by less than 0.3%. Further, there were some irregularities in Wisconsin's results that argue for closer scrutiny. The recounting is unlikely to change the results, but it may reveal problems in the voting systems that can be fixed. As I've argued elsewhere in this thread, we should recount all close results as a matter of course, and randomly select other locations to recount as well, as a sort of hygiene for our democracy.

      Actually, what we should *really* do is use verifiable voting processes. When the discussion of voting machines began 20+ years ago, the election integrity problem caught the attention of cryptographers and other security researchers, and their work since then has produced some dramatically better systems by applying ideas from modern cryptography and information theory. They make election integrity mathematically provable (within certain fairly rigorous assumptions; the way cryptographers always work). Early designs were ridiculously impractical, but they improved and the best systems are extremely practical. See Chaum's Scantegrity system, for example.

      But the country insists on ignoring these systems. Oddly enough, every time this topic comes up on /., a nominally nerd-oriented side where I'd expect people to be fascinated by them, I post about them... and nearly always get ignored.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  11. Re:Crybabies by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 3, Funny

    If there are that many illegal immigrants voting, shouldn't we have a nationwide recount to weed them out?

    That's unrealistic. The only people who work landscaping these days are Latinos. Why would they weed out their own votes?

  12. Re:Crybabies by quantaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Never Happens

    http://denver.cbslocal.com/2016/09/22/cbs4-investigation-finds-dead-voters-casting-ballots-in-colorado/

    That's clearly a right-wing, biased publication, no?

    Broerman said after their deaths, the Sosas remained on active voter rolls and mail ballots were still sent to their home because they did not meet the criteria to have their names deleted from eligible voter rolls.

    Notice how mail-in ballots, the one voting method where voter fraud is actually very easy to commit, is never a target of GOP efforts to combat voter fraud?

    I wonder why?

    --
    I stole this Sig
  13. Re:oh boy by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    .. on the constant mockery, this will be Dubya all over again, won't it?

    Compared to Trump, George W Bush was a regular Pericles.

    You're going to see mockery on a level never before seen in human history. And the Orange Daddy earned every bit of it.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  14. Valid review by 110010001000 · · Score: 4, Informative

    One of the reviews was very insightful in that it pointed out that this $149 ornament was MADE IN CHINA. Trump supporters are suckers. He doesn't give a flying fuck about you. Neither does Hillary, but she isn't selling $149 ornaments. What a joke.

    1. Re:Valid review by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 3, Insightful

      One of the reviews was very insightful in that it pointed out that this $149 ornament was MADE IN CHINA. Trump supporters are suckers. He doesn't give a flying fuck about you. Neither does Hillary, but she isn't selling $149 ornaments. What a joke.

      No, she's selling $353,400 dinners:

      http://www.politico.com/story/...

      Everything that the left gets to riled up about Trump doing pales in comparison to similar actions on the other side.

    2. Re:Valid review by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're right. Hillary sells $353,400 dinners to Wall street bankers who can afford it, while Trump sells Chinese trinkets to his ignorant American consumers.

      Hillary takes money from the rich... Trump takes money from the poor...

      It's going to be a long 4 years watching some people who aren't rich figure out how bad they've got it.

  15. Re:She lost, get over it already by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Funny

    He is going to be our next president for the next ten years.

    I guess they don't teach US civics in Russia.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  16. Re:President Trump (tm) by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Informative

    The electoral college was specifically set in place to allow "states" to elect the president of the united "states" instead of the people. The federal government has a president of the United States not the United "People".

    Let's ask Donald Trump what he thinks of the electoral college:

    https://twitter.com/realDonald...

    And let's ask him about how people should just suck it up and accept the results of the election:

    https://twitter.com/realDonald...

    https://twitter.com/realDonald...

    So let's apply what you said to Donald Trump, first and foremost, huh?

    I don't know if you actually understand this and are simply trying to convince the ignorant to be useful idiots or if you seriously never bothered reading past the preamble and skipped school during your civics classes or something.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  17. Re: Stunning level of disrespect. by Osgeld · · Score: 5, Funny

    We never elected biff tannor before

  18. Re:Good to see mocking the President back in fashi by quax · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Voting for a racist was a great way to make your point.

  19. Re:Crybabies by quax · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My wife tried to vote absentee from Canada, her last residence was in NC. She never received a ballot or any other follow-up.

  20. Re:Crybabies by NatasRevol · · Score: 4, Interesting

    He's just copying Trump's tweet from tonight. Yes, Trump actually believes this. It's from a conspiracy nut job blog who makes shit up.

    He's trying to invalidate our system of government. Blinding people with bullshit.

    Sadly, it works. At least enough to get to president-elect.

    But he hasn't passed the EC yet, and they most definitely are watching him.

    --
    There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  21. Re:Crybabies by NatasRevol · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And Trump's trying the old 'stir shit up redirect' because of the NYT coming out with comprehensive article describing Trump's world wide conflicts of interest.

    http://boingboing.net/2016/11/...

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11...

    --
    There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  22. Re: Crybabies by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Informative

    Strictly speaking the rules are that the Electoral College picks the President, and the Constitution gives very few rules as to how they do that. Now I think the EC picking someone other than Trump would be an even worse disaster than picking Trump, but let's be clear as to what the rules actually are. And let's also be clear that Trump's vast international business network poses a potential Constitutional crisis if he doesn't divest himself of it soon.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  23. Re:Good to see mocking the President back in fashi by quax · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Let's just say the whole Birther thing is a bit of a tell, then the not renting to black folks in NYC is kind of a give-away as well.

  24. Re:Good to see mocking the President back in fashi by quantaman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    After eight years of it being racist, mocking the President as well as other dissent is patriotic once again. That alone made voting for Trump worth it...

    And to think, it almost became sexist instead!..

    Mocking Obama was always fine.

    Mocking Obama in a transparently racist manner was racist. Just like mocking Hillary with obviously sexist insults was sexist.

    Just because it's possible to mock Obama or Hillary without being racist or sexist doesn't mean that any offensive thing you say magically becomes not racist or sexist.

    --
    I stole this Sig
  25. I actually think Hilary does care by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    she's a progressive. Not necessarily a great one, but she is at least trying. You're massively underestimating the height of the bar she was trying to leap, the amount of effort needed and the compromises required to get even close to what she was trying to do. For one thing, she was poised to put single payer back on the table (Mr Clinton was going around talking about it).

    Well, America just pissed that all away for good 'ole fashion apathy. Trump got the Republican base out just like Rhomey did. Clinton couldn't get the Blacks and Latinos out. She couldn't get them excited with vague promises... Meanwhile Trump promised them the world. Lies, all lies of course. But it _felt_ good.

    Sad thing is those Blacks and Latinos are really going to regret staying home. Trump's cabinet isn't going to do them any favors, and somebody's got to fill all those private prisons...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I actually think Hilary does care by ClickOnThis · · Score: 4, Informative

      GOP votes by blacks were up 8%, and by hispanics were up 9%. They both turned out more for Trump than they did for Romney or McCain.

      It's true that Trump did better than Romney did in 2012 with both of those groups. But your numbers are way off.

      Black vote for Romney: 6%
      Black vote for Trump: 8%

      Latino vote for Romney: 27%
      Latino vote for Trump: 29%

      So, Trump added 2% to each group, not 8% and 9% respectively. And that 2% is likely within the margin of error of the exit polls.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  26. Re:President Trump (tm) by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's hilarious how Tolerant Liberals take the word of Donald Trump as gospel whenever it suits their pathetic desperate attempts at overturning an election.

    Fair enough. So you're the right person to ask: Was he bullshitting then or is he bullshitting now? Or was the electoral college really an abomination in 2012, but is a beautiful thing now? Was resistance the right thing to do in 2012, but is a Very Bad Thing now?

    Or are the very concepts of logic and consistency rigged? How far will you debase your ability to reason in order to support this corrupt urinal cake?

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  27. Re:Good to see mocking the President back in fashi by DogDude · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's called historical context, you stupid anonymous fuck. Pick up a history textbook that's not from Texas and learn something.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
  28. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  29. Re:oh boy by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And the best thing is, because Trump doesn't belong to a protected class, it won't be wacist.

    Trump belongs to the most protected class of all: millionaires.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  30. Re: Crybabies by ClickOnThis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Since when has anyone who is not an Obama critic been concerned with a Constitutional crisis?

    For crying out loud, our current President negotiated a treaty with a hostile foreign power with no consent from the Senate! He just created it out of thin air, and worse, the Senate just rolled over and let him do it!

    If a President negotiates a treaty with a foreign power, that is not a Constitutional crisis. Quite the contrary: under the constitution, that's his job. And it's the job of the Senate to ratify such a treaty with a supermajority. I'm not sure where you get the idea that the Senate is not in the picture.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  31. Re:Crybabies by grcumb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Russian Jews sent my still living uncle to a gulag back before WW2....

    That's the strangest spelling for 'communist'[*] I've ever seen.

    ...we don't hate the jews, we just wish stupid people like you learned a bit more about history.

    Why, because it would save you the trouble of learning actual history?

    ------------
    [*] Oh, OK, if I must: YES, there were Jews among the party apparatchiks at a couple of points in the Leninist/Stalinist period. They were trusted to varying degrees, but were subject to purges, too, depending on a number of factors, not the least of which was endemic anti-semitism among the Russian populace in general. But yes, some of them actually prospered under Stalin when millions of others were dying. This was not typically because of their Jewishness, but because they had other survival skills, some of which were less than admirable, this being Stalin's Russia and all. The Baltic states suffered terribly under the Soviets, but not because of The Jews.

    --
    Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
  32. Re:Good to see mocking the President back in fashi by quantaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why is it not racist to mock Trump on his hair, his skin color, his small hands?

    Because "bad spray tan" and "ridiculous hair extensions" is not a race.

    And the "small hands" thing is generally just needling him since he's bizarrely insecure about the size of his hands.

    Well I do care. I don't care for Trump, but I do care that apparently it is okay to be racist against white people, but everything a white person says can be considered racism.

    It's not OK to be racist against white people.

    Thankfully it's also relatively rare (at least compared to racism against non-whites).

    --
    I stole this Sig
  33. Re:Good to see mocking the President back in fashi by Tesen · · Score: 5, Informative

    I don't know if you were alive these last 8 years, but anyone who mocked or belittled the President was immediately shouted down as racist. With Trump in office, it will become OK to criticize the President again, which is a huge improvement.

    Perhaps you were just saying racist things? I am a progressive and I have conservative friends and we mocked President Obama all the time, but we mocked some of his policies, we never attacked his children (unlike some people on the right) nor his wife, his race, culture or religion. Perhaps you need to take a hard long look in the mirror (you do not need to tell us the results) and ask yourself if you are really being honest with yourself.

  34. Re:Good to see mocking the President back in fashi by silentcoder · · Score: 3, Informative

    I wish Obama WAS the guy Republicans kept saying he was... that guy would use his constitutional right to appoint Garland in the recess period and give the senate a last major fuck you.
    The actual Obama is too damn nice to you idiots.

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  35. Re:Good to see mocking the President back in fashi by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Informative

    I don't know if you were alive these last 8 years, but anyone who mocked or belittled the President was immediately shouted down as racist.

    I disagree. I shared that image on social media, sadly it failed to take, probably because I didn't add any snappy text caption. I thought the bottles did the job, but I guess not. I got zero accusations of racism. Absolutely zero, and I have some pretty PC types in my feed. I come from Santa Cruz, see? Only the racism was necessarily called racism.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  36. Re:oh boy by judoguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And the Orange Daddy earned every bit of it.

    Why? Seriously, how is he even a patch on life long politicians who have been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people around the world like Bush and Hillary?

    People that have added massive debt to the U.S. that has our kids names on the bills and forced crap like ObamaCare on us. Oh, he MIGHT be as bad at some point? Perhaps, but he hasn't done anything yet.

    The hatred is astounding.

    --
    Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.