Michael Flynn Resigns As Trump's National Security Adviser (go.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from ABC News: President Donald Trump's embattled national security adviser Michael Flynn, who faced questions about a call to the Russian ambassador prior to the inauguration, has resigned. Retired Army General Keith Kellogg was named acting national security adviser to replace Flynn. ABC News reported Monday that Flynn called Vice President Mike Pence on Friday to apologize for misleading him about his conversation with the ambassador in November. Flynn previously denied that he spoke about sanctions the U.S. imposed on Russia for its suspected interference in the 2016 election, a claim repeated by Pence in January. An administration official later claimed Pence was relying on information provided to him by Flynn. In his resignation later, Flynn cited the "fast pace of events" for "inadvertently" briefing "the Vice President Elect and others with incomplete information regarding [his] phone calls with the Russian Ambassador." You can view Flynn's full resignation letter, as provided by the White House, here.

Comments

I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[Anonymous Coward]

Right?! This was just because of a miscommunication of a phone call, that's all. *waves hand*

Re:I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[FyRE666]

Let's see how quickly the Trumpanzees can blame this on Obama somehow, or call it all fake news :)

Re:I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[MightyMartian]

The line from the Breitbart crowd seems to be that Flynn is a minor figure of no importance and it's all Sally Yates' fault.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[MightyMartian]

There is no need to placate the Russians. They have a GDP lower than Italy and their military power is a shadow of what it used to be. Yes, they have nukes, but they, like all the other nuclear powers, have no intention to use them other than to maintain territorial integrity. So the real issue here is why Trump seems so keen to placate Russia, when the US's military and economic might literally dwarfs Russia's abilities.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously, you are dumb. Caviar is the most desirable substance on Earth, and the best comes from Russia. You don't want to cut it off, do you?

There's also the possibility that they may have the a secret passage to the center of the Earth.

Re:I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[Austerity Empowers]

And to combat this vile slander from WashPo, he bravely stood up to them, and resigned.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[gl4ss]

trump doesn't understand that or if he does then he thinks he can have an advantage of the situation, he was brought up during the cold war years and for that period there's like two powers in the world, usa and russia. his followers understand this much. makes it a lot easier for him to deal with china when he doesn't understand them too and they are "outside" of the power game(when they really aren't).

for Putin it suits well because Trump doesn't want Putin out of the office, trump doesn't care if Russia is democratic or not. if anything trump would want to have the same powers Putin has.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[ShanghaiBill]

So the real issue here is why Trump seems so keen to placate Russia, when the US's military and economic might literally dwarfs Russia's abilities.

That is a really backwards way of looking at it. We do indeed have all the power in the bilateral relationship, but how should we use that power? The Russians are a very paranoid people, who think the whole world is out to "get them". By trying to push them down, we are playing into their paranoia, and making them turn inward. But the end result will not be good. They are going to keep Crimea and Donbas no matter what. So should we accept that and move on to other issues? Or should we try to "punish" them, and end up with a frozen conflict and instability in Ukraine, and continued military tensions with Poland and the Baltic countries, while the war in Syria goes on and on, and more and more refugees pour into Turkey and Europe? The Russians have had a bad couple decades, and they feel like the West, and especially America, is bullying them. Treating them with some respect may go a long way. This is not a zero-sum relationship.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[Anonymous Coward]

To treat someone with respect, you must respect them. Placating the Russians for all their human rights abuses and invasions of several countries is only going to tell them they can get away with it again in the future, and encourages further violence.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[skam240]

Jesus, you could pass for Chamberlain in a heart beat.

"So yeah, Germany has had it rough lately and isnt getting any respect (the The Treaty of Versailles was not kind to them). So what if they invaded a few countries? Let's just pretend we all didnt see it and know that nothing bad could possibly come from just letting Germany invade a little bit."

I'm sure anyone living in the Baltic states felt very reasured by your post.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[dunkelfalke]

Well, if we go by the GP's logic ("There is no need to placate the Russians. They have a GDP lower than Italy") then who cares about the Baltic states? They together have a GDP lower than Hamburg.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[admin7087]

It's a very bad idea to allow a country to annex large parts of another, independent country with only mild sanctions that get lifted a few years later already. On the contrary, the sanctions should stay in place until the Crimean Peninsula is returned.

You have to take into account that Russia is estimated to be able to invade and occupy any of the small baltic countries within about two days. Since without the US NATO forces in the region are way too fragile and slow to respond, the main factor that keeps Russia from doing that (in military terms, not politically) are currently the US forces that have been moved there, since US politicians would be essentially forced to reply if American soldiers were killed in a conflict. If Russia could easily grab any of those country by military force and would have to fear only a few years of extremely modest sanctions, what would keep them from doing it?

If you think such scenarios are unrealistic, think again. Take a look not just at Ukraine but also at Georgia and Transnistria - the latter is part of Moldovia far away from the Russian border which is 100% maintained and controlled by the Russians.

Re:I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[Black Parrot]

That's right, he does have nothing to hide. He's just another victim of more fake news coming out of the Washington Post, a democrat propaganda machine.

OK, looks like it's time to escalate to heavyweight arguments.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[SharpFang]

Well, to be honest, Georgia did fuck with the Russian minorities; while one might argue against a full-scale invasion, some intervention was definitely in order.

And Ukraine? Ukraine has oil. Taking this by US standards, it's justification enough.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[dunkelfalke]

Just to clarify, you want to sanction the USA until they return Texas and California to Mexico? Or maybe the UK until they return Gibraltar to Spain? Poland and Russia until they return East Prussia to Germany? Germany until we give Schleswig-Holstein back to Denmark? Shit, I can go on and on and on. You won't believe just how many countries have annexed parts of other countries in the past.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[Maritz]

shame on slashdot for letting it get this far

You should have a look at how the moderation system here works.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[JoshuaZ]

The difference is how recent the event is. And that's important. A major reason the last 50 years have been relatively peaceful is that post World War II a general norm has been established that taking territory based on revanchist claims is not acceptable. The events by Russia seriously undermine that norm.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[Sique]

The Ukraine has no oil. The Ukraine has iron and steel. And it is the transit country for natural gas exports to the E.U., thus it can threaten to block the gas revenue for Russia.

Re:I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[sg_oneill]

As far as my casual browsing of that site goes, its up there with Infowars, Naturenews and other crackpot "just make shit up" websites.

solution:

sudo echo "www.breitbart.com 127.0.0.1" >> /etc/hosts

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[Jesus H Rolle]

That's still a lot of burgers.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[ranton]

Just to clarify, you want to sanction the USA until they return Texas and California to Mexico? Or maybe the UK until they return Gibraltar to Spain? Poland and Russia until they return East Prussia to Germany? Germany until we give Schleswig-Holstein back to Denmark? Shit, I can go on and on and on. You won't believe just how many countries have annexed parts of other countries in the past.

Every square inch of the planet inhabited by humans has been "annexed" by someone at some time in human history. The difference is we don't accept that behavior any more in the post-World War II era. Maybe that viewpoint will fall out of favor in international politics in the future, but it hasn't yet.

Re:I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[necro81]

That's right, he does have nothing to hide. He's just another victim of more fake news coming out of the Washington Post, a democrat propaganda machine.

So whines the anonymous coward.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[dunkelfalke]

Oh, I can find you several annexations in the past 50 years, no problem. Albania basically annexed Kosovo from Serbia, Israel annexed the Golan heights from Syria, Armenia annexed parts of Azerbaijan, India annexed Goa, China annexed Tibet, Indonesia annexed East Timor and so on.
Even the German reunion wasn't an actual reunion, it was an annexation of GDR by FRG, albeit a peaceful one.
Besides, there has been a shitload of wars since WW2, just because you haven't heard of them doesn't mean they did not happen. Peaceful my fat arse.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[Incadenza]

Obviously, you are dumb. Caviar is the most desirable substance on Earth, and the best comes from Russia. You don't want to cut it off, do you?

I would say the best is from Iran (if most expensive == best). And he clearly is spoiling that supply route.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[JoshuaZ]

The claim isn't that there are no wars, but that there have been few large scale wars. In general, even as the population has gone up, the total number of war casualties has been low, and as a percentage basis, the fraction of people dying in war has gone down. See e.g. http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jul/21/stu-burguiere/fewer-wars-fewer-people-dying-wars-now-quite-some/. And yes, the claim isn't that there have been no annexations, and yes, every one of those is problematic. The particular problem here is the revanchist aspect- the justifying of annexation by claims that territory was historically one's own or has people in one's own ethnic group, which only applies to some of those. Note by the way that for multiple of your examples, the country attempting annexation doesn't currently have control. For example, East Timor is independent.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[Fire_Wraith]

I'm pretty sure we don't need to worry about the Baltic states invading anyone.

As to why we should worry about someone (Russia or otherwise) invading the Baltic states, do I really need to explain why we believe that countries shouldn't be allowed to just invade other countries? That's the core reason WW2 was fought, and why the UN was created - to basically outlaw aggressive war. Yes, I realize that hasn't eliminated war entirely, but every conflict fought since then has at least made some sort of excuse of operating within the UN framework. We do not want to go back to the pre-1914 world order where might makes right.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[MightyMartian]

They're a regional power. Syria is just about as far as Russia can meaningfully project force these days. Like it as not, it's not in anybody's interest to go after Russia militarily over Georgia or Crimea, anymore than it would have been sane to go after Russia when it marched troops into Czechoslovakia and put down the Prague Spring.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[MightyMartian]

There are several nations along Russia' periphery, in particular the Baltic states, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia who are reasonably paranoid about Russia, and for good reasons, both historical and current. The US isn't the only country Russia has been practicing its dark arts on. Russia may be paranoid, but it all too often brings the conditions of its paranoia on itself, and I don't think just letting Russia get away with cyberwarfare and the cutting up of sovereign states, because we want to "move on" is a sensible thing.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[crgrace]

Just FYI, both California and Texas were independent nations when they joined (they were not annexed) the United States. They independently revolted from Mexican rule. Texas was an independent nation for over a decade, California for only a month.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[MightyMartian]

Oh for fucks sake, the seizure of Mexican territory happened in the 19th century. A helluva lot has changed in the last 160 years, including the adoption of an entirely different notion as to how nations play together. By your twisted attempt to defend Russia, Greece could demand Sicily back, because after all, it was a Greek colony 2500 years ago.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[MightyMartian]

The only reason asses got kicked is because the US played relatively nice, and in particular didn't overtly invade Pakistan. The niceties of the relationship with Islamabad are the reason the Taliban couldn't be dealt with properly.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[MightyMartian]

They have a huge army and not a lot of money. They can afford lightning strike invasions like South Ossetia and Crimea, and airstrikes in Syria. Russia most certainly could not long sustain a prolonged military campaign. But there are other ways to fight wars these days, and Obama tried to convince the US's European partners to put forth stronger sanctions, but at the time Germany in particular blinked. The Russian economy may have improved somewhat since the sanctions began, but it is not a financially-healthy country, which is why the oligarchs have kicked up the pace of burying their money in foreign assets.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[meta-monkey]

Except Putin isn't Hitler?

I don't get the hate for Russia/Putin. Is Putin a good guy? No, but on the scale of world baddies he's way, way behind China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Qatar, etc, but to the media and the left (but I repeat myself) he's public enemy #1. Why?

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[dunkelfalke]

East Timor is the only example of a reverted annexation from that list, and it took an armed separatist rebellion to do that - so much for the multitude you have claimed.
The part with fewer people dying is only true because WW1 and WW2 set the "standards" so ridiculously high. Well, that and better medical support. Compared to the 19th century wars the second half of the 20th century is pretty much competitive.

Re:I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[Cederic]

Why deny yourself the entertainment?
Similarly, don't cut off a useful source of information.

If you don't hear the perspectives of the idiots you can't educate them.

Although I do struggle with Infowars. It's not even the content, it's the horrific inaccessibility of the content. There may occasionally actually be something worth reading on there, I'm just never going to want to find it.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[Cederic]

Bury the entire population of NYC, twice....then start bleating about paranoia.

When it's the Russians killing their own, I'm not sure the paranoia is justified.

I'm also not sure how Crimea was threatening to invade Russia. Or Georgia for that matter.

Shit, you'll be telling me next that the South China Sea is a paramilitary force intent on subjugating Guangxi.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[dbIII]

Wow - you guys have got really fucked up just to be good Party Komrades and follow the same line as your Dear Leader. Because Trump likes Putin you've done a backflip.
Heard of the first amendment? Well Putin hates that idea so much that he has ordered the assassination of journalists. He's a fucking gangster with a KGB background and idolizes Stalin. He even has Stalin's library in his office, and spends a lot of time reading the notes in the margins that Stalin put there (not making it up, wish I was).

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[dunkelfalke]

Hahaha seriously? Might still makes right and most of the time countries that wage war don't even bother finding excuses. Best case they call it a police action, which is a perversion of the term.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[tender-matser]

Albania basically annexed Kosovo from Serbia,

No, it has not. Simply because you consider Kosovo a puppet state doesn't mean that its masters are in Tirana.

Israel annexed the Golan heights from Syria,

Hoping to trade them for peace, like they did with the Sinai peninsula vs. Egypt

Armenia annexed parts of Azerbaijan,

Which happened before either Armenia or Azerbaijan were independent.

China annexed Tibet,

Tibet has been part of China since the Qing dynasty. OK about opression, ethnic cleansing, etc, but they did not 'annex' it in recent history.

Indonesia annexed East Timor

Which they never managed to fully control and in the end had to give up -- East Timor is independent now.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

It's really ironic you make that comparison, considering the Treaty of Versailles really wasn't kind to them, nor was it fair. If it hadn't blamed Germany to (pretty much) the exclusion of all other parties, and hadn't saddled them with huge fines that crippled their economy, then the Weimar Republic would have been a lot more popular and Hitler wouldn't have risen to power. If you take away the population's anger and fear, then you can get them to stop tolerating the abuses of power.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

Remind me again how much territory the US has seized because of oil in the last 50 or so years?

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

I'm really surprised most people don't seem to realize this. The US crushed the Iraqi military (both times). It's insurgencies that are hard to deal with, because they don't wear uniforms, it's mostly traps (IEDs) or surprised firefights. If the US had decided that the acceptable civilian casualty rate (from US forces) was a lot higher, Iraq and Afghanistan would have been much easier.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[Ryanrule]

If the world was out to get them, they would be eating topsoil. So lets make it so.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[MatthiasF]

Um, almost all cases you show were annexations or territory gained from actual open, official conflicts (meaning a declaration of war was sent by one or both sides).

Russia was not at war with Ukraine when it annexed Crimea (or at least won't admit it openly). They invaded the Ukraine, rounded up any opposition, scuttled Ukraine's fleet and faked an election to support the annexation.

We're talking Nazi Germany kind of stunts, not like any of the cases you state.

Re:I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[nobuddy]

FLYNNGHAZI!!!!

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[JoshuaZ]

Kosovo is an independent country. China continues to have serious problems with Tibet (and the situation there has been a part of of some ongoing issues- for example it was part of why the US decided not to include China in the ISS in the 1990s). But your basic point does have some merit; it isn't like the Russian situation is the only example of this sort of thing and many have not been reverted. But every time this happens, there's a damage to this taboo which is by and large strong.

The part with fewer people dying is only true because WW1 and WW2 set the "standards" so ridiculously high. Well, that and better medical support. Compared to the 19th century wars the second half of the 20th century is pretty much competitive.

Improved medical care has mattered certainly, but that's much more in the last 30 or so years (and is partially responsible also for the decrease in homicide rates). But that's relatively recent; modern emergency medicine did improve after World War II, but the casualty death rate during the Korean War and Vietnam were both close to that of World War II. It is only in the last 20 years that the emergency medicine has improved so much as to really make a substantial difference there, and even then it isn't large enough to explain the entire effect. And the idea that the world wars were so ridiculously high isn't accurate. The Taiping Rebellion and the Manchu conquest of China both had higher total death tolls than World War I for example, even as the world population was much smaller (and in fact they occurred in relatively narrow geographic areas). There's an excellent book which discusses many of these issues (although he doesn't give as much attention to the improved medical care as I would have liked)- "The Better Angels of Our Nature" by Steven Pinker.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[painandgreed]

So the real issue here is why Trump seems so keen to placate Russia, when the US's military and economic might literally dwarfs Russia's abilities.

On reasons bordering on conspiracy theories, it's because Trump not only is beholden to financial interests in Russia, but they also have info on him. If that is the case, I suspect what we'll see is a dropping of sanctions against Russia and letting them have their way in places like Syria while also playing them up as the adversary of the USA. This will free up Russia's economy and let them build up their sphere of power while giving them the prestige of being the foil of the US. Lot's of saber rattling while objectively giving them deals.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[Topwiz]

Crimea wasn't part of the Ukrainian SSR until 1955. It has never had a large population of native Ukrainians. It shouldn't have been part of the country in the first place.

Re:I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[Hognoxious]

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

Re:I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[orgelspieler]

Not sure if this is sarcasm or not. I guess I need to re-calibrate by reading some Onion.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[dunkelfalke]

Kosovo is an independent country

Kosovo is an independent country the same way Abchasia is an independent country - in name only. It is a puppet state controlled by Albanian mafia.

It is only in the last 20 years that the emergency medicine has improved so much as to really make a substantial difference there

This is also not correct - for example more soldiers participating in the Crimean war were killed by cholera than by weapons. Typhus was rampant among soldiers during the WW1. The use of antibiotics made wounds far less likely to be deadly and so did blood transfusions that were perfected by the 1960ies.

As for the Taiping rebellion - true, I guess I am too eurocentric. But there was a reason that WW1 was supposed to be the war to end all wars - never before Europe has been that ravaged and only WW2 topped that, so the wars in Yugoslavia or all the conflicts which resulted from the breakup of the USSR were small potatoes in comparison because of the far smaller scale.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[skam240]

I'm not saying he is Hitler but the fact is you can't just pretend a country didnt invade and seize territory from another country. The type of government that feels entitled to do that is going to find ways to feel entitled to do it again.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[skam240]

Meanwhile Russia was treated pretty well for having lost a cold war they started by holding on to all of Eastern Europe and they still feel all sore about losing.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[LostInTaiwan]

Putin is not interested in destroying ISIS. He is only interested in propping up his failed proxy puppet state, Assad's Syria. ISIS just happens to be one of Assad's enemies. Assad is in a mess because he chooses to torture then kill underage boys who drew unflattering graffiti of him. That's the type of person Putin is protecting in Syria.

Putin is playing chess while Trump is still player checkers. Putin is more than happy to push ISIS out of Syria and let the rest of the world, particularly the West, deal with ISIS. Actually that's probably his plan. Let ISIS attack the West and push the civil liberties in the West to the breaking point, then he can claim moral equivalency [see O'Reilly Trump interview.]

Oh', Syria's buddy, Iran, also has troops in Syria fighting "ISIS" on behalf of Assad.

Let's not forget about the 1983 Beirut bombing that killed 200+ US Marines. That suicide bombing has Syria and Iran's fingerprints all over it. 33 years later, the same type of anti-American leadership are still running Syria, Iran, and Russia. They are now our friends??? I don't think so.

The whole Middle East is one big mess. I don't like Obama's timid response, but given the tangled interests and the fact that Obama was still cleaning up after the our last great checker player, GWB, I can understand his hesitation. He can do the right thing, fight for freedom and democracy that will consume a lot of his dwindling political capital, in addition to requiring even more planning, materials and American lives, and hope the average American will understand. Or, he can be a politician and drags his feet toward doing as little as possible, which is exactly what happened.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[meta-monkey]

If you remove Assad, what kind of government do you think you'll get in Syria? Are you thinking Iraq-level success, or Libya-level success?

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[skam240]

Well your German comparison is rediculous. While hate speech is indeed illegal there (personally I prefer US style more open free speech) no one has ever been killed by the government over it.

Outside of that, your completely ignoring the problem with Putin. The problem the Left is having and most of the pre Trump right was having wasnt with Putin's actions within his country's borders. You're right, we usually look the other way on that for most countries. The problem is with Russia's policy of disupting or outright invading any country in their claimed sphere of influence that threatens to go pro West (in other words line them selves up with us and the rest of the West). Georgia and Ukraine are prime examples and as stated in another response before mine, Putin never cared about IS. He does care about maintaining one of his few regional allies (who is absolutly no ally of ours) and a very strategicaly important military port.

On top of that you have the cyber attacks against any and all percieved adversaries of which the DNC hacks are but a small part. When Russia has problems with the policies of Eastern European governments it's funny how all of a sudden Eastern European government websites start getting hacked and shut down in mass.

In summary, it's Putin's willingness to throw his weight around towards our Allies and undermine us domestically and internationally that is the problem with Putin.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[JoshuaZ]

Kosovo is an independent country the same way Abchasia is an independent country - in name only. It is a puppet state controlled by Albanian mafia.

I disagree with this, and I suspect that a detailed discussion of the matter would take us far afield and be unlikely to resolve much.

This is also not correct - for example more soldiers participating in the Crimean war were killed by cholera than by weapons. Typhus was rampant among soldiers during the WW1. The use of antibiotics made wounds far less likely to be deadly and so did blood transfusions that were perfected by the 1960ies.

Antibiotics and blood transfusions are relevant improvements. But the death toll totals hold even when one isn't counting deaths from diseases such as cholera.

As for the Taiping rebellion - true, I guess I am too eurocentric. But there was a reason that WW1 was supposed to be the war to end all wars - never before Europe has been that ravaged and only WW2 topped that, so the wars in Yugoslavia or all the conflicts which resulted from the breakup of the USSR were small potatoes in comparison because of the far smaller scale.

But as a percentage basis of total population at the time, WW1 wasn't that much larger than previous European wars. Around 5 million people died in the Thirty Years war when there were around 600 million people alive. By WW1, there were around 1.6 billion people, and around 20 million people died. So by that standard, WW1 was only about 50% worse than the Thirty Years war.

(Incidentally, Blindsight is an awesome book and that's a great sig.)

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[SharpFang]

By installing own puppet government? Kosovo, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan. Possibly something earlier too, though I'd need to verify against the 50-year limit. Places like Panama etc.

It was especially funny in Iraq, where USA announced "first free elections", the nation happily voted for a religious fundamentalist party, then USA decided not to acknowledge results of the elections and installed own-appointed government instead.

The only difference is that while Russia just seizes the territory, USA absolutely doesn't want to acknowledge its new colonies as new states, which would make the people from these to automatically become legal USA citizens, thus the fake independency approach.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[dbIII]

Okay, so you want to go to war with Russia then

It's not as if kissing his butt and World War Three are the only two options, even if your Party tells you they are Komrade and has flipped from one to the other.

Putin is doing Putin shit in Putin's country

You really do not pay much attention to the news do you. London, Syria, Georgia, Ukraine - tell me to stop when you recognize something outside of Putin's country.

The Russians are, however, bombing the hell out of ISIS

And our Kurdish allies in Syria as well.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[tender-matser]

No, because Russia fully recognized Ukraine as an independent state, with Crimea included in its borders, something that neither mainland China nor Taiwan ever did with Tibet. In fact, Russia was supposed to /guarantee/ Ukraine's territorial integrity in exchange for Ukraine giving up all the nukes it inherited from the Soviet Union.

And the Crimea was never a "full" soviet republic -- just an ASSR (a kind of reservation) from 1921 until 1945, with another short reinstatement in the '90. Its current Russian speaking majority came into place after its native population (the Crimean Tatars) had been either killed or deported.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[Waccoon]

I seem to recall the core reason why WWII was fought was because how badly Germany was treated after WWI. Many prominent politicians predicted WWII 20 years before it happened.

Thankfully, the USA didn't repeat that mistake with Japan, a country with only a fraction the land mass of Russia, a fraction the population China, etc.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[dbIII]

Okay, so you want to go to war with Russia then?

Are you five? Do you only have the settings of hyperactive and asleep?

Which do you hate more, Putin or ISIS? If Putin, why?

Why not both? Why - he's already pissing in our pool every now and again.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[dbIII]

Well your German comparison is rediculous

Actually it's kind of appropriate. He's a Vichy Republican. According to him McCain isn't a "real" Republican, only Republicans that like Putin are "real". It's about "saving the soul" of the Republicans by bowing to outside forces, the same excuse the Vichy French used.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[meta-monkey]

Are you five? Do you only have the settings of hyperactive and asleep?

That was my exact point about your argument, that since I don't hate Putin then I'm "good Party Komrades."

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[meta-monkey]

only Republicans that like Putin are "real".

There you go again. If I don't hate Putin it means I like Putin.

And I don't even know what to tell you about McCain. I am hardly the first to call out McCain for being a D in R's clothing. Go read any Tea Party-type blog, read the comments to pretty much any article about McCain, Pat Buchanan calls him and his cohorts "the War Party," etc. This is not exactly a fringe opinion. McCain wins reelection because primarying out a long established incumbent with his kind of financial backing is next to impossible, but he's not popular with Republican voters. You'll notice Trump shit on McCain's war record and Trump's numbers went up. Doesn't that maybe indicate lots of people have seen things wrong with McCain?

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[dunkelfalke]

So by your logic you will be okay with Russia keeping Crimea after a few decades pass? Hypocrite.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

Puppet governments don't count. We're talking territorial expansion here - places where the U.S. Constitution and federal laws apply. It's not a "fake independence" approach; they are independent governments. The US obviously has a lot of sway over these places, but it's also not pulling all the strings either. There's a lot of difference between influence and direct control.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[meta-monkey]

Well your German comparison is rediculous. While hate speech is indeed illegal there (personally I prefer US style more open free speech) no one has ever been killed by the government over it.

I'm saying the entire "muh 1st amendment" argument is worthless, because the only people in the entire world who have a cultural value of free speech/press are American libertarian/conservatives. There is no free speech in China, there is no free speech in Europe, there is no free speech in Russia, there is no free speech in Saudi Arabia or the rest of the Islamic world, there is no free speech in Canada, and the only reason "free speech" half exists in the US is because of the pesky 1st amendment. The American left resorts to shouting down any dissenters, deplatforming, or just straight up putting on masks and beating with flagpoles people who want to hear a gay conservative make fun of fat feminists. If they could get away with passing "hate speech" laws in the US (with "hate speech" being defined as anything to the right of the love child of Joseph Stalin and Jane Fonda, natch) they would do it in a heartbeat. So let's not pretend there's any moral arguments going on here. If I'm supposed to hate everyone who doesn't support free speech then I need to hate everyone who isn't on the American right.

Come to think of it....

The problem is with Russia's policy of disupting or outright invading any country in their claimed sphere of influence that threatens to go pro West (in other words line them selves up with us and the rest of the West).

Ukraine had a democratically elected government that was pro-Russian. This is not a shocking development as Ukraine has been in a polity with Russia off and on for a thousand years now. Is it so shocking Canadian governments tend to be pro-American? But because Ukraine is letting Russia ship oil via the black sea and western bankers and EU technocrats aren't going to get a taste of that sweet cheddar State/CIA and western NGOs like Open Society stage a coup to install a pro-NATO puppet in Russia's primary buffer state.

So here we have Russia backing the democratically elected government of his next door neighbor, while you're backing the unelected coup sponsored by foreigners on the other side of the world and you have the audacity to lecture Putin about throwing his weight around and undermining us? I mean, the only good moral and just thing for Putin to do is enjoy getting fucked in the ass by the US in his backyard and how dare he not say "thank you sir may I have another?"

This is all about money. This is about oil, and money. Syria is not about "democratic freedom fighters!" Assad picked the Russian-backed Iran->Iraq->Syria->Med pipeline instead of the Qatar->KSA->Syria->Turkey->Europe pipeline so Hillary and Obama said "oh no le human rights violations these fuckers need some democracy!" just like Saddam did and they funded and armed the moderate beheaders and we've got 400k+ Syrians dead, ISIS, the refugee crisis that threatens to destabilize all of Europe. But Putin, throwing his weight around and meddling in his own fucking backyard, trying to stop the bloodshed we fucking started for Saudi money for American politicians, for shame for shame. How stupid are Americans? Are we never going to stop falling for this same stupid excuse for war and geopolitical meddling?

So what do you recommend we do about Crimea, anyway? You've got a peninsula full of ethnic Russians (not Ukrainians) who speak Russian (not Ukrainian) and were only attached to Ukraine by Soviet social engineers for a few decades. You may not agree with the way the referendum were held, but the results hardly seem unreasonable. Crimea is a tourist spot for wealthy Russians, and they were sending all their money to Kiev to be squandered while their infrastructure went to shit (which would eventually end their tourist industry). If you were a Crimean, would you want t

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

Well, we ostensibly learned from our earlier mistakes and sorta tried to be nice to Russia. The main problem was that the government collapse led to a shitload of mafia/gang activity, and that corruption hasn't really gone away. Add that to the fact that the Cold War was, well, cold, and it becomes hard for the West to directly penalize Russia for it. Eastern European countries could try that, because of the terrible things the USSR did to them, but even then Russia is still the most powerful in the area.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[SharpFang]

Yeah, "Puppet governments don't count." Nice handwave there.

The US has enough sway to drain these countries' resources dry and by not absorbing them it doesn't have to provide any support that would be normally benefit them as US citizens.

If anything, the Russian method is less harmful to the conquered in the long run.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

It's not a handwave; you moved the goalposts I set. If I ask a question and you reply with an answer to a different question, but claim it's close enough, I'm going to call you out on it. The US doesn't buy much oil from Iraq, and Afghanistan didn't even start commercially producing oil until 2013.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[SharpFang]

Iraq is paying its foreign debt to USA in oil.

The debt it got for a loan for rebuilding oil production infrastructure.

Infrastructure bombed by USA and rebuilt by US companies. Loan approved by puppet government.

In other words, USA robbed Iraq of its oil, legitimizing it through the process bomb-loan-rebuild-collect loan in oil.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[skam240]

You seem to be implying we have pure form free speech in the US and that's just not true. We have limits to. As measured on a scale we certainly have the most freedoms but most Western countries rank pretty close to ours. After that you're attributing the acts of the fring Left with the mainstream. I might as well counter and say everyone on the Right is rascist because a few assholes fly rascist banners at tea party rallies.

In regards to Ukraine, i wont defend the government take over but their current pro Western president was in fact democratically elected by a large margine which shows just how unpopular his predecessor's move East was. Furthermore, none of what happened (and if you want to blame an overwhelming popular uprising on NGOs, have fun with that) give Russia the right to literally seize territory in Ukraine.

And as for the Russian minorities, the way state lines have been drawn since forever there are all kinda of minorities in all kinda of countries that dont have their language listed as a state language. Furthermore, "they're ethnically Russian so it's cool Russia invaded another country and seized the territory", could be used to justify wars all over Eastern Europe as many have Russian minorities moved in by the Soviets. It's not okay for us to let it slide once here because then it can be used as a justification for more occupations later.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

I'm not finding anything to support your first assertion. Rebuilding in Iraq was partially done by US companies, but certainly not entirely. Iraq's debt-to-GDP ratio was fine until about a year or so ago, when oil prices dropped. Oil production was already back to pre-invasion levels by 2009. Most of Iraq's debt comes from before the invasion in 2003. If you have sources, I'd be happy to take a look, but I'm skeptical at the moment. Remember also that the US did contribute a substantial amount to Iraq in order to help rebuild; that doesn't excuse the invasion in the first place, of course, but it's also not territory that was seized.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[meta-monkey]

So, force the Crimeans back with the Ukrainians even if they don't want to go? Doesn't sound very democratic.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[skam240]

So any ethnic minority has the right to cede from their country and join themselves to another? That sounds like a great recipe for global chaos and the degeneration of the institution of the nation state. Should my neighbor Mohammed down the street be able to announce the property him and his family are on is now independent and then pledge allegiance to whatever country he's ethnically from? How about hispanic neighborhoods? We've got a lot of those in the US. Should we let any that want to vote to join Mexico or any other Latin American country?

And really it is democratic as Crimea is not a country and thus has no standing in this. I think it's safe to say Ukraine would not vote for their independence.

Re:I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[Ol Olsoc]

Let's see how quickly the Trumpanzees can blame this on Obama somehow, or call it all fake news :)

Trump voters are more patriotic toward an adversary than they are to America. This will not do. Good work comrades.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[dbIII]

Go read any Tea Party-type blog

I'm talking about Republicans and you refer me to a different political movement?

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[dbIII]

You misunderstood and took it as nothing but an empty insult.
There are more options than the two of war and total capitulation. The "hyperactive and asleep" is what is called an analogy.

Currently Trump owns millions to Russian banks for his campaign funds and it's starting to look very much like he's not going to pay them back in cash but instead special favors to Putin.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[ebvwfbw]

Courage? When a Democrat gets caught doing something wrong, even red handed, no doubt about it, they never seem to resign. It's only when there is a big old pile up of scandals they finally resign, like with Holder. Holder, the bird that should be in a cage.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[meta-monkey]

Currently Trump owns millions to Russian banks for his campaign funds

Yeah I don't think you can back that up.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[meta-monkey]

The Tea Party is the political insurgency that took over the Republican party. Actually took it back from the Neocon movement.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[meta-monkey]

So any ethnic minority has the right to cede from their country and join themselves to another?

Why do they not have that right?

More importantly, why is it a right at all and not simply a practical issue? The rest of your examples are pretty good reasons for avoiding ethnic/cultural heterogeneity. i.e., don't let in Mexicans because if there's enough of them they'll want to join Mexico. Don't let in Muslims because they'll want to install Sharia.

Practically speaking, Crimea is full of ethnic Russians who speak Russian who are only attached to Ukraine because of commie bullshit. Should that momentary decision back in the 1950s persist for the next million years, the fate of the Crimean minority forever bound to the political whims of the Ukrainians? This seems bad from a practical matter, and the morality seems arbitrary.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[dbIII]

Yeah I don't think you can back that up.

It appears it wasn't an analogy - you have been asleep!
It's well documented and has been reported very widely that Trump borrowed millions in campaign funds from Russian banks - perfectly legal and he didn't try to hide that at all. What is the worry is his attitude to Russia since.
Maybe try google? That way you can find it from Fox or wherever and maybe believe it instead of railing at me for providing a dirty commie link to the BBC, Washington Post or New York Times.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[meta-monkey]

I just googled it and literally nothing about campaign funds from Russian banks. Can you give me one of those commie links, oh majestic woke friend?

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[meta-monkey]

Oh, by the way, did you know it's illegal to borrow any funds for the purpose of campaign finance? Not even "illegal from Russian banks" but just illegal period, because of the threat of conflict of interest? So any evidence of Trump borrowing any money for campaigning, whether from Bank of Super Patriotic America of Putin's Bank of Evil Commie Russian Shit would be enough for legal action.

Gotta watch out for whatever fake news you swallowed. You're gullible as hell.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[skam240]

If you believe nation states could exist allowing anyone to vote themselves out of a country youre sorely mistaken.

I laughed about Muslims and Sharia law. They're fleeing that nonsense not seeking to put it on us. Name a significant movement in this country of Muslim immigrants who are trying to implement Sharia law in this country? Or maybe lay off the far right racial purity nonsense, this country was founded contrarily to those values.

As for Crimea, the Russians only live their because of commie bullshit too. AGAIN. All kinds of countries have all kinds of minorities in them, the presence of Russians does not justify an invasion. And "momentary decision"? What's that supposed to mean? Aren't all decisions ultimately made in a moment? Arent all boarders set in a "moment"?

Finally, I would suggest that letting Russia invade and occupy Crimea is not at all practical. Letting a single country arbitrarily decide that a boarder doesnt suit them and then take territory from another country does not set good precedent for maintaining global order. Maybe we should just let China redraw a bunch of boarders too while we're on it. That will clearly satisfy both countries and they will never ever have ambitions beyond those.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[dbIII]

There's that "woke" thing again - English - do you speak it?

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[meta-monkey]

Name a significant movement in this country of Muslim immigrants who are trying to implement Sharia law in this country?

In this country, not yet. In every country they inhabit it happens eventually. There's a large movement for Sharia in the UK, and they now have Sharia marriage courts already. It starts with "we should live under our own laws..." but the British government won't be able to say "well, okay, you can throw your homos off rooftops, just not our homos off rooftops." This is considered "persecution" by the Muslims and sets them on a course from Medina-mode Islam ("hey we're a religion of peace!") to Mecca-mode Islam ("convert or die, infidel").

They're fleeing that nonsense not seeking to put it on us

It doesn't really matter what the individuals want, though. One of the emergent problems from the philosophy of Islam, and why it's so dangerous, is that it allows a violent minority to control a peaceful majority, unlike Christianity which does just the opposite. Imagine a group of Christians (or westerners who grew up in a culture descended from Christianity like the secularized west) surrounding a gay man about to stone him. One person could stand up and say "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone! Judge not lest ye be judged! Thou shalt not kill!" You don't even have to believe in God or Jesus, there's enough memes there to activate some cultural programming that makes the westerners stand down. "Gee, maybe we shouldn't do this..." A peaceful minority controlled a violent majority.

Now do the same thing with Muslims. A large crowd watches as a small group is about to stone the gay. You heroically rush forward to stop the stoning and say...what, exactly? "Don't do this because...it's exactly what Mohammed said to do...?" The peaceful majority can't back you up (and don't really care), and the violent minority will accuse you of apostasy and the penalty for that is death, so you get stoned along side the homo. Great, let that be a lesson to the rest of you, don't fuck with the imam.

So it doesn't matter what they're coming here to flee. They're fleeing authentic, homo-killing Islam to set up some radical "not real Islam" in which they don't kill homos (but don't really mind so much the killing of homos, like in the recent survey in which 100% (100%!) of UK muslims thought the penalty for homosexuality should be death, they just didn't feel like doing it themselves, and as soon as there's a large enough group of them a more hardline imam will start agitating "ya know, you're really not doing this right!" and off a few homos and apostates and everyone else falls in line. Individuals don't really matter near as much as group behavior.

All kinds of countries have all kinds of minorities in them, the presence of Russians does not justify an invasion.

What justified the coup, though?

Arent all boarders set in a "moment"?

Yes, and they can change, too.

Finally, I would suggest that letting Russia invade and occupy Crimea is not at all practical. Letting a single country arbitrarily decide that a boarder doesnt suit them and then take territory from another country does not set good precedent for maintaining global order.

And letting the US overthrow the government of Ukraine to cut Russia off the Black Sea isn't at all practical or good for maintaining global order. If Russia staged a coup in Canada to block the Keystone Pipeline and so the US sent in troops, who's really the aggressor here?

You're playing "the US gets to fuck with anybody they want any time, screw their governments, get their people killed, but if anybody else does anything they're a thug who's a threat to global order."

Oh, and as a practical matter, Ukraine is not getting Crimea back. Russia's not giving it back, and who's going to make them? Not us. Not the Ukrainians. This is just yet more fallout from Obama and Hillary's completely inept foreign policy. The lesson for the future should be: quit toppling foreign governments and then acting all shocked and surprised and blaming everyone else when shit goes sideways.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[meta-monkey]

Rather than forming a mob, Christians are more likely to exhibit by-passer syndrome and just let bad things happen to gays. Some non-Christians can form that mob. Or the government can enact laws against gays. Christians would stand by idly if not silently cheer because bad things are happening to a sinner with Christians being able to claim their hands are clean, since they technically didn't cast the first stone.

Then they would not be following Christ's example. Christ didn't cheer from the sidelines while the prostitute was stoned, he stepped in. There are many Christian martyrs who died in non-violent defense of others.

We have evidence that this is true because True Conservative Christians, despite being a majority in much of the West and had a much longer history, has failed to stop the rise of the violent and minority regressive left, to the point that Christians today are seriously freaking out over the possibility of "the West" (which they equate strongly with their Christian culture and civilization) collapsing.

And these people are acting, they are speaking, they are continuing non-violent resistance to the regressive left and thereby winning hearts and minds. Every time a nice, normal looking person who wants to hear a gay conservative make fun of fat feminists get beaten with a flag pole or maced by violent leftists, a new convert from the crowd is made.

This is also the point of many of Jesus' parables. When you're struck on your right cheek, you were probably backhanded by a Roman. This is how they strike slaves. When you turn to him your left he has to punch you, like an equal. This shocks him into seeing you as human, rather than a slave. Roman law allowed soldiers to press Jews into carrying their bags but only for a mile. So instead carry it two. "I INSIST MOTHERFUCKER. HOW FAR YOU WANT ME TO GO WITH THIS, HUH?!" When they take your coat, offer them your shirt, too. "ANYTHING ELSE?? JUST TAKE THE WHOLE DAMN THING, TAKE IT ALL!" It shames them into seeing you as a person and reflecting on their poor behavior.

This is also the method that inspired Gandhi, and MLK. Conservatives, Christians, regular Americans, are following this same path in waking people up to the threats of the regressive left, and in the end it'll work. If you take out the magicy bits, the story of Jesus Christ is that of a man with absolutely nothing, no wealth, no army, just his conviction and his voice overthrowing a corrupt and entrenched political elite. It's a damn fine manual for non-violent revolution, and is why commies are always desperate to suppress it.

As for the money changers, well, when asking "WWJD" never forget one of the answers is "flip over the tables and start whipping motherfuckers."

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[orgelspieler]

God, I hope I just got trolled. That's quite possibly the most plausible conspiracy theory I've ever heard. Off to fact check with an abundance of skepticism.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[dbIII]

Okay, so you want to go to war with Russia then?

Yes and apparently "We had Hillary Clinton give Russia 20 per cent of the uranium in our country" as well as her wanting to go to war with them.
Why are you supporting a liar that is so blatant that they can't even stop their lies contradict each other?

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[meta-monkey]

You're doing the same old "everyone's the same, everything is the same" solipsism. It's easy to cherry pick outliers but that doesn't invalidate trends.

Fundamentally the Christian/western worldview and the Islamic worldview are 180 degrees apart, and lead to very different behavior in most individuals, and vastly different collective behavior. In the Christian/western worldview, man is fallen and shitty, and evil comes from inside us, so if we want to perfect our world (and get to heaven) we have to each work on our own behavior. In the Islamic worldview man is made pure, and then corrupted by the outside world, especially by the actions of infidels. This is why when a man rapes a woman they stone the woman because she tempted the pure muslim man with her brazen bare ankle. The end result of Muslims in large groups will always be the purging of those "who spread mischief in the land." That is, anyone who pisses off the leading local imam.

These lead to vastly different behaviors and societies. Understanding this requires critical thought, though, and mumbling about how "we're like, all the same, man..." doesn't get you kicked out of your hippie drum circle.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[skam240]

A) I doubt you've ever spent any time talking to Muslim immigrants in this country. Saying they cant move beyond primitive religious practices ( or have any desire to engage in such) is like saying Christians cant but then our Christian based western societies have. Gays are supposed to be killed according to the old testament which Jews, Christians, and Muslims all follow.

But "wait!" you're bound to say, the fact that they havent moved beyond is proof beyond all doubt of their degenerecy! Except it's not. Behavior like this is a function of wealth or the lack thereof. The poorer a society the more prone they are to engage in religious radicalism.

B) As for Ukraine, there's no proof of US involvement. There were however elections that were held a bit later that garnered 60 percent of the population where no pro Russia candidate showed any impressive standings. This certainly suggests a wide spread distaste for the prior government.

Really things like the Ukraine crisis highlight 70 years of failed Russian foriegn policy. Why would any non ethnically Russian Eastern European want their country under the thumb of Russia after all Russia has put them through.

Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide

[meta-monkey]

A) I doubt you've ever spent any time talking to Muslim immigrants in this country. Saying they cant move beyond primitive religious practices ( or have any desire to engage in such) is like saying Christians cant but then our Christian based western societies have.

I've argued theology for many many hours with American muslims. That and reading the Koran and the Sunnah are how I've come to understand their individual and group behavior so well.

Their individual desires are not particularly relevant because the systems of group control (death for apostasy, etc) are so strong in Islam. Much stronger than in Christianity.

But "wait!" you're bound to say, the fact that they havent moved beyond is proof beyond all doubt of their degenerecy! Except it's not. Behavior like this is a function of wealth or the lack thereof. The poorer a society the more prone they are to engage in religious radicalism.

Saudi Arabia is wealthy as fuck. They still behead gays, support terrorism and are spreading Wahabbi extremism throughout the world. In the absence of oil wealth they'd still be poor goatfuckers because their behavior results in poverty and goatfucking. You have cause and effect backwards...you think wealth results in behavior when in fact behavior translates into wealth. Same thing in American inner cities. It's not the poverty that creates the crime it's the crime that creates th poverty.

It would be fine if when the muslims fled the shithole countries they stopped following the beliefs and behaviors that made their home countries shitholes, but they don't. We took some former Nazis after WWII, but we didn't let them keep their Nazi ideology, put their kids in Nazi school, read them their Nazi books, have everybody get together for Nazi meetings where they get Nazi lessons from the Nazi teacher and then never ever criticize their Nazism and shout down as an evil Naziphobe anyone who thinks maybe this is all a bad idea. If we had done that, it's pretty likely their kids would grow up and think "ya know, there's a lot more of us Nazis here now...exterminaten das juden, eh?!" But that's what we do with muslims. It will not work out well, but when the civil wars start in France (15% of teens are muslim), in Germany (40% of kids are of "immigrant backgrounds") in a decade or two just like in Lebanon I expect you to say "gosh, who could have ever seen this coming!"

B) As for Ukraine, there's no proof of US involvement. There were however elections that were held a bit later that garnered 60 percent of the population where no pro Russia candidate showed any impressive standings. This certainly suggests a wide spread distaste for the prior government.

Yeah there is, we have leaked documents from Soros-backed NGOs that show collusion with the State department, which is basically C&C for the CIA. It's all plausible deniability...part of the same many-headed monster. "Oh, we didn't do this, it was these non-profit humanitarian groups that we just happen to converse with and trade intelligence with and they just helped express the will of the people as dictated to the people by mass media outlets who happen to be owned by the same conglomerates that donate massive amounts of money to these same NGOs and political campaigns."

Ukraine was in trouble and about to roped into the western/EU/IMF/World Bank austerity debt slavery trap, instead they elected a populist leader who thought they could develop a working economy with the ascendant Russia instead of the failing EU. But the bankers can't let their precious precious debt slaves get away, so we get a coup, and then an "election" after the pro-Russian Crimeans are already gone. The western media tells you it's all about "muh democracy" and "le ebil Putin" and you believe this. Sucks for the Ukrainians, though. They went from being slaves to the Soviet Union to slaves or the European Union.

At least the Crimeans got away. They will not be going back to Ukraine, so keeping the sanctions is pointless. Sucks the way it happened, but, well, the west shouldn't have overthrown the Ukrainian government in search of more and ever more debt slaves.

So much winning...

[PopeRatzo]

Is everybody tired of winning yet?

General Michael Flynn's tenure as NSA adviser is the shortest in US history (24 days). The previous record-holder was 348 days (Reagan's first NSA director). And I guarantee that Reagan's NSA director didn't resign because he was too cozy with and taking money from the Russians.

So much for "extreme vetting", I guess.

Re:So much winning...

[buss_error]

I think the larger issue is that by resigning, will he short circuit prosecution for a crime. Since the Attorney General would have to prosecute, or Congress hold hearings, I think it likely he is going to skate away from this because the AG is a President Trump appointee and the majority Republican congress has no interest in prosecuting anyone whose name isn't Clinton, Warren, or Pelosi.

Re:So much winning...

[guruevi]

And he was fired for it (or forcefully stepped down). How long did it take for Hillary to step down from her post after her e-mail snafu?

Re:So much winning...

[dbIII]

How long did it take for Hillary to step down from her post after her e-mail snafu

Wasn't she out of a job before the punishment became anything more than a few stern words from IT?

Re:So much winning...

[mvdwege]

It took about 1.5 hours for someone to blame the Obama administration. You guys are losing it.

Re:So much winning...

[Mashiki]

It took about 1.5 hours for someone to blame the Obama administration. You guys are losing it.

Don't let those facts hurt you. But if you think that this is "blame" and "bad" you're wrong? You're going to find very few people who see this entire episode as a bad thing, all the Obama administration do was help Trump out. And even the most rabid supporters in /pol/ and /r/The_donald agree openly that all this does is help Trump.

If you don't understand that, then I'll explain: Exposing people who lied to those up the chain, and having them thrown out for being shitty liars does nothing but improve the standing of the administration. You're likely also going to see media like politico and wapo claim that "this is the end, it's all bad." You'll also likely from regular people as a good thing as well, because they believe that there have been enough liars and opportunist in the political elite. And they voted for a president who was: Not the political elite, and campaigned on removing those who were, or were out for their own game. Which was what Flynn was doing -- in both cases.

Re:So much winning...

[Black Parrot]

It took about 1.5 hours for someone to blame the Obama administration. You guys are losing it.

Don't you know the drill? Everything will be Obama's fault until the next Democratic president is elected, and then suddenly everything will be retroactively that person's fault.

Re:So much winning...

[Mashiki]

Don't you know the drill? Everything will be Obama's fault until the next Democratic president is elected, and then suddenly everything will be retroactively that person's fault.

Considering democrats, the DNC, liberals, and progressives were pulling that into year 8 of the Obama administration and saying it was all Bush's fault? I'm sure that doesn't apply here at all.

Re:So much winning...

[squiggleslash]

When was Trump out of a job because of his Mar-a-Lago snafu?

Flynn isn't being fired because he breached mostly unofficial protocols concerning the storage of communications, he's resigned because of his communications with a hostile foreign power.

Trump, on the other hand, casually handled a national security issue involving North Korea in front of numerous $200,000 donors... uh, I mean, "members of his club", without making any efforts to maintain security or privacy. And he's still President. As is every member of his staff (and there are several) who use private email servers to conduct official business.

Like Sanders, I'm a little sick of hearing about emails. But I'm especially sick of hearing about them from people who have no interest whatsoever in the current administration's own communications practices, which are clearly "worse" (in quotes, because frankly the private email thing was always a non-scandal, and you know it.)

Re:So much winning...

[argStyopa]

Please share the link where it's proved he "took money" from the Russians? Smells like a "fact" pulled from your ass.

It sounds like he raised a tit-for-tat subject, probably saying that if Trump was elected, the sanctions would be lifted. That was at the very least wrong, ahead of the inauguration, if not outright illegal.

No need to make it more than that by inventing 'extra shit'.

Re:So much winning...

[mvdwege]

Don't let those facts hurt you.

You keep using that word...

Re:So much winning...

[PopeRatzo]

Please share the link where it's proved he "took money" from the Russians? Smells like a "fact" pulled from your ass.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/e...

http://www.reuters.com/article...

Re:So much winning...

[blind biker]

Is everybody tired of winning yet?

General Michael Flynn's tenure as NSA adviser is the shortest in US history (24 days). The previous record-holder was 348 days (Reagan's first NSA director). And I guarantee that Reagan's NSA director didn't resign because he was too cozy with and taking money from the Russians.

So much for "extreme vetting", I guess.

As an outsider, having a president that won't get into a war with the second largest nuclear power over the enforcement of a no-fly zone in Syria, yes, I'm still glad Hillary didn't win.

Re:So much winning...

[Mashiki]

You keep using that word...

Yet you can't figure it out. I'm sure you also believe that a group like BAMN is actually "alt-right" and really isn't a fascist front group. But I'm sure glad you were able to disprove...nothing I said.

Re:So much winning...

[MightyMartian]

You just keep telling yourself that. This looks more like the "death of a thousand cuts" that took Nixon down. At every turn the Nixon Administration's spin, from Agnew's downfall onward, was that they were cleaning the bad lot out, but the painful reality was that Nixon's Administration was bad to its very core. Well, that's what is happening here. Flynn isn't the only member of Trump's Administration with close ties to Moscow, he was the most incautious, but if you don't think Tillerson isn't just as chummy, then you're daft. The only thing that is going to save Trump for now is that the Republicans don't want to take out a sitting president just weeks into his presidency.

Re:So much winning...

[kqs]

no interest in prosecuting anyone whose name isn't Clinton, Warren, or Pelosi.

Only Warren and Pelosi; they stopped their muckraking campaign against Hillary the day after the election. There will be a few more accusing statements, since their fragile white herds must be pacified while they are pointed at a new target, but there will be no action.

Re:So much winning...

[mvdwege]

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

Re:So much winning...

[Tulsa_Time]

Yep... a registered Dem that was a liar... not to hard to predict.

Re:So much winning...

[PopeRatzo]

Yep... a registered Dem that was a liar... not to hard to predict.

He sure doesn't sound like a "registered Dem" when he was leading the "Lock Her Up!" chants at the Republican National Convention.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-...

Sorry, he's one of y'all.

Re:So much winning...

[Mashiki]

I'm making a point, you need me to explain it again? Or maybe you'll catch what I said. You should also catch up on the news, especially the part where it's come to light that apparently the FBI recorded the calls without warrant.

Re:So much winning...

[mvdwege]

I'm also making a point, but I'm afraid it's whizzing far over your right-wing-bubble-addled head.

Re:So much winning...

[david_thornley]

It was about December 2008 that the Republican idiots around here stopped blaming things on Clinton and started blaming Obama.

Re:Whipslash? A suggestion?

[PopeRatzo]

Slashdot is supposed to be a tech site.

Slashdot customer service here. I'm sorry you're having difficulty with the site. OK, I am happy to help:

Donald Trump is technically a puppet of the Kremlin.

Are you satisfied now? Do you think you can answer a short survey to help us maintain this dedication to our customers?

Tech Angle

[phantomfive]

It would be nice if the story had a tech angle. This one is moronic, for example, but at least it discusses encryption, which is better than nothing. The Pols are learning from their mistakes.

Re:Tech Angle

[mmell]

Okay, try some more intellectually challenging material. No pictures, but check out this document.

Ask a grownup if you need help with the big words.

Re:Tech Angle

[phantomfive]

tbh that looks like something written by someone from Anonymous. Is there any reason we should consider it legitimate, and if it is, where did it come from?

Re:Tech Angle

[mmell]

Damnit! This isn't where I meant to post this. Apologies, P5.

Re:Pence is consolidating his position

[PopeRatzo]

Unlike Flynn and Spicer, Pence cannot be fired. He was elected by the voters.

You might want to google "Spiro Agnew".

Re:w00t

[phantomfive]

Don't be too optimistic. He could be replaced by someone you like even less. I hear Oliver North is looking for a job. He has some........special skills.

Re: Whipslash? A suggestion?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nerds care about politics when it's this fucked up. Therefore political news is nerd news.

Re:slashdot == political paparazzo tabloid

[Desler]

Because Slashdot has had political stories on it for 2 decades.

Re:Whipslash? A suggestion?

[Desler]

Slashdot has had political stories for nearly all of its 2 decades of life.

Re:Whipslash? A suggestion?

[Desler]

This story from 2003 also had nothing to do with technology yet it was neither the first nor the last political story on this site. If you don't like it you can leave.

Re:slashdot == political paparazzo tabloid

[Desler]

Trying way to hard with your troll attempt.

Re:slashdot == political paparazzo tabloid

[skids]

I wonder whether having political venting articles cuts down on the amount of injection of politics into other threads... I mean... not that that does not happen a lot, but what if it happened even more.

Also, why is it the complaints about political threads are much more common when the political thread is unfavorable to the right? Can the right just not take bad press without their snowflakes being crushed?

Time to start the pool on #PresidentTweety?

[shanen]

General Michael Flynn's tenure as NSA adviser is the shortest in US history (24 days).

Does Flynn's brief "defense" quality as "alternative facts" yet, or is there some sort of requirement in #PresidentTweety's White House for Kellyanne Conway to say it first? After all, she merely said Trump had "full confidence" in Flynn about an hour before he resigned. Or maybe she'll tell us it isn't a real resignation now?

Oh, I just hope her embarrassment and humiliation is so extreme that the Donald fires her next. Then maybe the pressure will roll the rest of the way up his trousers and he'll go completely nuts so they can exorcise him with the 25th.

I need some more popcorn, but if anyone does start a pool on Trump's departure from DC, I'm going to have to move my date forward. I was expecting him to last long enough for China (AKA Jhina) to invade Taiwan (and North Korea). I was also expecting him to get Bill-Cosby-ed first, too, but I'm doubting he'll last long enough for that.

Maybe the funniest part (for very humorless values of "funny") is that the increasing chaos in DC may be better for Putin than any other outcome. Discredit American democracy? Why stop there? More like blow up the entire federal government.

(*sigh* Hard to put my Slashdot affairs in order when such an amusing story appears.)

Re:Time to start the pool on #PresidentTweety?

[MightyMartian]

Well, to a point it's better for Putin, but if Trump finally does force Congress's hand, and Pence ends up in charge, that very moment everything shifts back to the Truman Doctrine. Frankly, I think Putin overplayed his hand. He should have found a friendly candidate who wasn't a complete idiot, or worse, senile.

Re:Time to start the pool on #PresidentTweety?

[dbIII]

but if anyone does start a pool on Trump's departure from DC

Four to eight years or when it gets dragged out of his cold, dead hands. He's not the sort of guy to resign over a scandal no matter how large and an impeachment could be dragged out over four years.
Before people suggest that I'm morbid or suggesting Trump's "second amendment solution" I'll point out that I wrote that because I can't see Trump doing a Castro and resigning if bedridden.

Re:Time to start the pool on #PresidentTweety?

[dbIII]

Trump's not senile. He just never grew up and has been a whining trust fund baby his entire life.

Re:Time to start the pool on #PresidentTweety?

[shanen]

The death option should not be discounted, though I'm really not eager to discuss it. However, I don't feel any confidence in his doctor's first OR second assessments of #PresidentTweety's medical condition. You probably heard the 'healthiest individual ever' thing, but more recently he say something like 'if he dies, he dies'. He could be quite ill and would keel over before admitting it.

The other threat is because of Trump's desire to be unpredictable. I think that means who could do something so unpredictable that he disrupts the best efforts of the Secret Service and get himself shot in the process. It's not like there's any shortage of guns around if he creates the opportunity.

Re:Time to start the pool on #PresidentTweety?

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

putin? Maybe, but "blow up the entire federal government" is actually Steve Bannon's stated goal.

Re:Time to start the pool on #PresidentTweety?

[AmiMoJo]

People thought the same thing about Thatcher, until she got so toxic her own party had to force her out. Trump has less support from his party than she did to start with.

Re:Time to start the pool on #PresidentTweety?

[penandpaper]

And that is one reason to have voted for him over Clinton. The party and media loved Clinton.

Re:Time to start the pool on #PresidentTweety?

[dbIII]

People thought the same thing about Thatcher, until she got so toxic her own party had to force her out

That mechanism of removal due to a party having no confidence in a leader doesn't apply in the USA. Even if all of Congress wants him gone it's still a slow process.

Re:Time to start the pool on #PresidentTweety?

[Nidi62]

General Michael Flynn's tenure as NSA adviser is the shortest in US history (24 days).

Does Flynn's brief "defense" quality as "alternative facts" yet, or is there some sort of requirement in #PresidentTweety's White House for Kellyanne Conway to say it first? After all, she merely said Trump had "full confidence" in Flynn about an hour before he resigned. Or maybe she'll tell us it isn't a real resignation now?

Oh, I just hope her embarrassment and humiliation is so extreme that the Donald fires her next.

Conway will be one of the last ones to go, unless she herself chooses to leave. She's one of Trump's loyalists, a yes-(wo)man, and a designated mouthpiece. Personally, I think she is planning to attach herself to a Breitbart (or at least Bannon-led)TV or internet network as a lead talking head. Bannon is obviously a driving force behind a lot of Trump's policies. With all the concerted attacks against the "MSM" they are clearly setting up an opening for an alt-right "honest" media outlet. Trump is just a shell, a useful fool, an ego-driven showman that they latched onto.

Re:Time to start the pool on #PresidentTweety?

[MightyMartian]

I don't know about that. I'm thinking of interviews with him from the 80s and 90s, and while he's obviously got a pretty healthy ego, I don't recall him ever behaving erratically like this. I seriously wonder if he's got some old person's disease. He's at the age where various forms of dementia start kicking in. And that's not always a bad thing, the latter days of the Wilson Administration lumbered on because of a decent cabinet, in particular the VP, and of course there's Reagan, who no one will ever admit was already suffering Alzheimers, the signs were there (the disarray of his last year or two, falling asleep at cabinet meetings and the like). The problem with Trump is that unlike Wilson and Reagan, he has an astonishingly terrible inner circle, although Pence probably does have some ability, even if he's hardly the nicest of people around. And seeing as Pence is the one who seems to have finally given Flynn the boot, I wonder if we're seeing this first shambolic weeks finally seeing the VP maneuver into a position of supremacy. I can well imagine within a year that Pence and the Kushners will effectively be in charge, that the likes of Bannon will be a distant memory, and they'll limp through a term with Trump playing the President for the cameras.

Re:Time to start the pool on #PresidentTweety?

[dbIII]

It's been too long to be senility. The "truther" thing was eight years ago and he was up to plenty of weird antics a decade before that.

Re:That's not why he resigned

[Motherfucking Shit]

You could try repeating facts, or, you know, come up with more Fake News like him being "paid by the Russians".

Flynn Was Paid By Russia for 2015 Trip

Trump adviser Michael T. Flynn on his dinner with Putin

But don't let facts get in the way of calling everything "Fake News."

Re:Whipslash? A suggestion?

[gijoel]

This may come as a shock to you, but we nerds have eclectic interests. Sure we love tech, but we also love science fiction and fantasy. Two subjects that crop up here a lot. Some of us enjoy sports, art, and literature, and other subjects that crop here from time to time.

And some of enjoy discussing politics. Particularly when we have, without a doubt, the worst president in history. A man who is a climate denier and anti-vax. A president who releases classified intelligence on his phone in a country club for all and sundry to see. Whose political aides are so stupid that they can't even find a damn light switch. I fear I don't have time to document this administration's mistakes as they create even bigger gaffes in the time it takes me to write this.

46% of Americans want him impeached, and it was 43% last week. Also using the term SJW marks you as a bumbling entitlement warrior bravely trying to drag the world back to an era that never existed.

Re:That's not why he resigned

[Mostly a lurker]

The reason he resigned was that he had talked to the Russians before Trump was in office, but had not fully briefed Pence/Trump.

Are you sure he acted without the knowledge of Trump and/or Pence? I think the Democrats are going to attempt to disprove that assumption.

Re:slashdot == political paparazzo tabloid

[Desler]

Another swing and a miss.

Re:Pence is consolidating his position

[fustakrakich]

Technically he wasn't fired :-)

Re:slashdot == political paparazzo tabloid

[Desler]

Nope. Just dig up political threads from the early 2000s. It contains all the same butthurt.

Re:slashdot == political paparazzo tabloid

[Highdude702]

I've been reading slashdot for over a decade and never were there 10 political articles in a day day after day

Re:That's not why he resigned

[Desler]

The reason he resigned was that he had talked to the Russians before Trump was in office, but had not fully briefed Pence/Trump.

The reason he resigned is because he lied.

Re:Whipslash? A suggestion?

[the_Bionic_lemming]

And Yet I was here way before you and saw a much different /.

No.

[mmell]

This is indeed "stuff that matters" - and important "news for nerds".

Trumped up alternative facts don't last long in the face of the truth. Deal with it.

Re:No.

[kqs]

Trumped up alternative facts don't last long in the face of the truth. Deal with it.

Things like birtherism, climate change denial, Benghazi, and anti-vax paint a different story, sadly. The only reason that birtherism and Benghazi have stopped mattering is because the targets have left positions of power.

Re:slashdot == political paparazzo tabloid

[Desler]

There aren't 10 political stories posted a day now. But I suggest you go back to the War in Iraq days. There were tons of political stories and all the same whining about how political stories don't belong on Slashdot from over-entitled whiners.

Conversations before Appointment

[Anonymous Coward]

And it's far worse. He had conversations BEFORE he was appointed by Trump. The Russian Ambassador KNEW he would be appointed.

Remember Trump's "only I know who will be my choices"?? comment? Well no, Putin and the Russians had an in too.

And the timing of those calls, matched up with the stated timings in the pee memos. Giving further credence to the pee memos.

The pee memos, list Putin's courting of Flynn back in August, way before the election. So Putin picked this man back in August way before Trump picked him. Which places Trump's thoughts in Putin's head by some sort of mind-meld..... or more likely, the two worked together to put Trump in power, which means Trump committed treason to be President.

At this point, GOP need to clean house. They'll be left with Mike Pence as President, whose believed to be a Republican American, pro-business, pro-trade, pro-security. Not this Russian asshole who lies, blocks cyber-security bills, defend Russian attacks on Ukraine, removes Generals from the National Security Council meetings (FFS that's their job!), attacks NATO, attacks allies, defends Putin, attacks America, repeats Putin lies about Syria, attacks the Judicial system, defends Putin some more.... yeh we get it.

Re:Conversations before Appointment

[MightyMartian]

I think we are a long way from a Trump impeachment and conviction. I still can't see the Republicans sacrificing themselves when they control Congress and, at least no.inally the White House.

The smarter way to play this is to let Trump destroy his credibility and remaining political capital, and then inform him that he can either hand over day to day governance to Pence and then spend the rest of his term playing President on TV, or face impeachment. You get an effective Pence presidency without the nightmare that would be a forced removal from office.

Re:Conversations before Appointment

[whoever57]

I think we are a long way from a Trump impeachment and conviction. I still can't see the Republicans sacrificing themselves when they control Congress and, at least no.inally the White House.

I think that the Republican leadership is chomping at the bit to get Trump impeached. Pence is a much preferable president for the Republicans.

Re:Conversations before Appointment

[Anna Merikin]

Richard Nixon was in a similar position before his forced resignation to avoid impeachment; Until he closed the gold window -- effectively devaluing the dollar -- he had enough votes to withstand his opposition. Those Republicans who lost fortunes because of that act turned on him and, suddenly, there were enough votes to impeach.

Curiously (or not...) Roosevelt had a movement to impeach move through Congress after he devalued the dollar from $20 per ounce of gold to $35.

Should Trump move to weaken the dollar, I predict he, too, will be impeached.

And, I might add, for no other reason, at least in his first term.

Time will tell.

Re:Conversations before Appointment

[SomeoneFromBelgium]

... and then inform him that he can either hand over day to day governance to Pence and then spend the rest of his term playing President on TV, or face impeachment. You get an effective Pence presidency without the nightmare that would be a forced removal from office.

And you think that's going to work on Trump??
The guy is a loose cannon. If you would pressure him like that anyting might happen but the 'effective Pence presidency' seem pretty unlikely to me.

Re:Conversations before Appointment

[Black Parrot]

I think we are a long way from a Trump impeachment and conviction. I still can't see the Republicans sacrificing themselves when they control Congress and, at least no.inally the White House.

You're probably right, but given Trump's arrogance, thin skin, and dubious track record on Republican values, I suspect he'll get crossways with Congress long before his term is over.

Re:Conversations before Appointment

[Billly Gates]

My prediction is a return to a Republican civil war. Ted Cruz will lead the charge in 2020 and perhaps Mitt Romney on the moderate sane side will run against Trump in the primaries.

All of this will charge an already zealot left which will shift the country back far left. Bernie is the same resentment and anger at Washington from Democrats as the right was about Trump. There are 2 civil wars for m what I see. The haves and have nots. Those whose benefitted from globalization are pro Cruz and Clinton. Those who suffered are anti establishment Bernie and Trump. It's a mess with hate on all 4 sudes

Re:Conversations before Appointment

[Billly Gates]

The Republicans took over using the same fear and tactics Democrats are using now with their tea party early in Obama's tenure and still own both houses today.

My prediction is Democrats will swing both houses back if Trump is a divider and will hold him in check and roadblock until a liberal is president again.

Re:Conversations before Appointment

[squiggleslash]

Trump is massively unpopular. The Republican's own policies are, for the most part, massively unpopular when actually implemented (as an example, while a lot of people support getting rid of "Obamacare", relatively few - a small minority of voters - approve of getting rid of the "Affordable Care Act". Yes, really.)

So Trump actually gives the Republicans quite a bit of cover to do the unpopular stuff, and then hang Trump with it later. Which is why I don't see the Republicans actually impeaching Trump for at least a year - get the bad stuff out of the way, then "Oops, no, we thought he was terrible too".

Re:Conversations before Appointment

[Enigma2175]

The Republicans took over using the same fear and tactics Democrats are using now with their tea party early in Obama's tenure and still own both houses today.

My prediction is Democrats will swing both houses back if Trump is a divider and will hold him in check and roadblock until a liberal is president again.

Great prediction, care to lay some money on it? It will be a huge hill for the democrats to climb to gain any seats in the Senate in the 2018 midterms, there are 25 democratic seats up for grabs but only 8 republican. Sure, the democrats might hold on to all 25 and gain some of the 8 but it's not very likely.

Re:Conversations before Appointment

[Citizen of Earth]

Hold on to that impotent rage -- it's all you have.

Re:Conversations before Appointment

[quantaman]

I think we are a long way from a Trump impeachment and conviction. I still can't see the Republicans sacrificing themselves when they control Congress and, at least no.inally the White House.

The smarter way to play this is to let Trump destroy his credibility and remaining political capital, and then inform him that he can either hand over day to day governance to Pence and then spend the rest of his term playing President on TV, or face impeachment. You get an effective Pence presidency without the nightmare that would be a forced removal from office.

The Trump administration was apparently told that Flynn lied about the call for a while, it's only once intelligence officers leaked to the press that Flynn was forced to resign.

I think there's a real possibility that they're preparing to do the same to Trump at some point, they might just waiting till he's vulnerable enough that whatever dirt they have on him (ie "he shot someone on 5th avenue") is enough to get the house to follow through on impeachment.

Re:Conversations before Appointment

[MightyMartian]

Well, we're already seeing the "quick repeal of Obamacare" fading as the Republicans struggle to come up with a replacement. This is the greatest irony of the Trump victory, that the Republicans never actually expected him to win, and never expected to actually have to repeal Obamacare. Nearly seven years of pounding their fists, and no one in the Republican camp ever put any serious effort into a replacement.

Re:Conversations before Appointment

[Altus]

If they act now they get pence in office for a nice long time and there is plenty of time for the country to forget about Trump before the midterms. If you are worried that his lack of popularity and these scandals and all these pissed off constituents in town hall meetings might result in you losing your position, or your party losing its majority, you might consider acting.

Wait too long and the midterms will loom large and who knows what Trump might be up to. Its a tricky question and I can't put myself in the shoe's of the republican senators but if keeping Trump in place looks like it might cost them the majority in the senate they will have to move.

Re:Conversations before Appointment

[HungWeiLo]

Why would they repeal it when it's such delicious redmeat for their base for future election cycles?

Re:Conversations before Appointment

[whoever57]

Why would they repeal it when it's such delicious redmeat for their base for future election cycles?

Because it has lost its flavour now. Any attempt to blame its existence on the Democrats will backfire, since the Republicans promised to revoke it and now have the opportunity to do so.

Re:Conversations before Appointment

[shutdown -p now]

I don't see that happening in the Senate long-term.

IMO, Democrats will be running the House sooner rather than latter, for the simple reason that it's where seats are allocated proportionally to the populace - so large Democratic majorities in dense areas like the coasts do translate directly into seats there. But for Dems to take the Senate, in the age where party affiliation is the single most important question deciding whether the politician gets a vote or not, would require there to be more blue states than red states. Which, right now, means more urbanized states than rural states. And I don't think that's happening anytime soon.

#PresidentTweety is an abuser of technology

[shanen]

You got modded as a "troll"? I'd give you a "funny" if I ever saw the inside of a mod point, but I think it just shows how many trolls have sock puppets with mod points. Me thinks they are about to lose this skirmish, even if some of them are working for Putin...

Anyway, #PresidentTweety is SO tied to technology that he's always fair game on Slashdot. In most ways his rise to success is a story of abuse of our favorite technologies. Not talking so much about his stock-market-disrupting Twitter account or the viral rumor mill of Facebook as the skilled electronic warfare of the fake news sites, especially the one Bannon came from.

Related technical question: Google News is supposed to have an option to reduce the visibility of bogus news sites. And yet that one keeps showing up. Can anyone explain how? Are they bribing Google to ignore the users' preferences? Or maybe the uniqueness of the BS stories somehow bypasses the preferences? His evil minions are doing something so the fake news story scores high as a story that should appear in the top stories on Google News even though there is no other source for it?

Re:#PresidentTweety is an abuser of technology

[mmell]

I suspect the trolls keep their sock-puppets coordinated so as to maximize their effectiveness. Given the number of A/C's that post here, I wouldn't rule out some serious bot action either. Have you ever noticed the distinct similarities among A/C posts?

I wish I could outright filter out A/C posts, instead of just seeing them at -6.

Re:#PresidentTweety is an abuser of technology

[shanen]

My (repeated and ignored) suggestion would be a maturity filter. A kill list can handle long-lived trolls, but the maturity filter would deal with the fresh sock puppets. It should be an option, but I'd set mine for about 2 months as the youngest identity I could see.

I think it should also include a self-debasing feature. If a troll (or disposable sock puppet) replies to someone who won't see it, there would be a warning first, and if the warning is ignored, the comment would get a prefix warning like "Not a sincere reply, since [ID] was notified this comment is not visible to the ostensible recipient."

(I'm not doing a good job of putting my Slashdot affairs in order before departing...)

Re:#PresidentTweety is an abuser of technology

[Anonymous Coward]

My (repeated and ignored) suggestion would be a maturity filter.

You know? You just might be right. Let's start with you!

Re:#PresidentTweety is an abuser of technology

[tingentleman]

(I'm not doing a good job of putting my Slashdot affairs in order before departing...)

Why departing?

Re:Peaceful transition Obama DOJ gets revenge

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, let's see. On the one hand, we had a known philanderer playing "hide the cigar" with his intern. It was the worst-kept secret in Washington; you can't blackmail someone with something everyone already knows. On the other hand, we have a National Security Adviser forced to resign because he himself is a threat to national security. This, after engaging in back-door negotiations with America's competing superpower, and leaving some actual kompromat in the wake of his Moscow visits.

Yes, totally equivalent situations. ::eyeroll::

Re:That's not why he resigned

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe we can safely assume at this point that calling anything "fake news" is nothing more or less than confirming its veracity.

Re:slashdot == political paparazzo tabloid

[mmell]

Never have we had a President that was so hilarious before. I mean, really - first off, the guy's complexion looks like he's covered in santorum. His pithiest answer to any criticism is name-calling (which seems to be about as well as any of his sycophants can do). He apparently hasn't lived on Earth lately - or at least, has no clue what's really happening here. He's surrounded by people who can't differentiate reality from fiction (and no, calling them "alternative facts" doesn't make them true). His idea of a personal Viet Nam experience was avoiding STD's (not sure how well that went - they guy acts like he has syphilitic dementia).

I'd go on, but I really suppose I ought to leave the rest up to SNL.

Re:Whipslash? A suggestion?

[clovis]

And Yet I was here way before you and saw a much different /.

Agreed.

Re:slashdot == political paparazzo tabloid

[mmell]

"Administrivia". Okay, try some adult literature. It's a PDF - you know, one of those technical things.

Re:Pence is consolidating his position

[shanen]

You got me to wondering. Maybe it was PENCE who blackmailed #PresidentTweety on this one? I didn't think Pence was that smart or vicious, but maybe he's insanely ambitious to go with his religious extremism? Might even be setting the stage for playing the 25th?

Re:w00t

[irving47]

Never heard of Sandy Berger? This is not problem unique to either party

Re:Whipslash? A suggestion?

[jazzmans]

Jesus, has it been that long?

Sure do wish I'd signed up the first couple of years I browsed /.

What did Trump know?

[Tough Love]

What did Trump know and when did he know it? Obvious followup. (Watergate reference, if you are the only reader who does not already know it.) The NSA most probably already knows the answer but may be unwilling to reveal just how pervasive domestic surveillance really is. Now we await "deep throat". Nixon all over again, the main difference is 30 points less IQ.

Re:What did Trump know?

[MightyMartian]

I think it's pretty obvious that McCain knows the answer as well. And remember here that scandals are often as much about confirming peoples' views on the subject of the scandal as on any actual incriminating information. The fact is that Trump has been dogged by strong suggestions that the Russians were more involved in his campaign than just using Assange to fuck over Clinton, and now you have Flynn, who has been with Trump since the beginning of the campaign, basically caught red handed playing handsy with the Russian. The alt-right and Trump crowds will do their best to try to minimize this is a Flynn mucking up reporting details to Pence, but this, along with partial confirmation on at least some details of the dossier on Trump's activities in Moscow, are likely going to stick to Trump. As it is, his popularity is plunging to levels that most presidents take years to drop to, and he's been in office just three weeks. Trump's presidency is some sort of political progeria.

Re:What did Trump know?

[Tough Love]

How about this scenario: Flynn charged under the Logan act, result a foregone conclusion, sings for a plea bargain. Pattern of coordination between Russian government hackers and Trump campaign exposed.

Re:What did Trump know?

[MightyMartian]

Well yes, at that point impeachment and removal from office would become inevitable, unless Trump resigned. And I'm not sure that a blanket pardon would be forthcoming at that point either. Whatever Nixon's crimes were, they didn't involve what amounts to treason.

But I don't think it would happen. It's obvious Congress knows more than they're saying, and they'll use that as leverage. Trump may be off his nut, but those around him certainly aren't, and if he goes down some of them will too.

Re:What did Trump know?

[Tough Love]

Regardless of the likelihood of playing out exactly that way, it could, and someone is surely already feeling the heat.

Re:What did Trump know?

[MightyMartian]

And that's where Flynn comes in handy. The Administration will use him as the patsy. "Oh, the Russians knew that? Well, that dirty rotten scoundrel Michael Flynn must have done it!"

Re:What did Trump know?

[meta-monkey]

But the FBI says Flynn did nothing illegal. So, great, assume you can prove Flynn was talking to the Russian ambassador under Trump's direct orders. So what? No crime was committed. Also, if Trump is taking orders from Putin, why would Flynn need to tell the Russian ambassador what Trump was going to do? Trump would already have his orders from Putin, and no communication from Flynn to the Russian ambassador would be necessary.

Flynn was let go for lying to Pence about the conversation, not because of the actual content of the conversation. Shouldn't the narrative be "evil dictator Trump ruthlessly terminates anyone who does so much as withholds the slightest information from his people?"

Re:Whipslash? A suggestion?

[Desler]

Eh, it was more fun to read and post as AC during the early days.

They will when he obstructs

[Anonymous Coward]

He's already blocked the cyber security order, when Trump starts obstructing their legislation in exchange for his own agenda they'll wish they acted.

You can see from his rhetoric that he really really wants sanctions lifted against Russia, Trump constantly downplays Putin's invasion of Ukraine, and flatly denies Putin's cyber attack on the US, and interference in the election.

And Republicans' don't want the sanctions lifted. Pence apparently was asked to be there when Trump talks to Putin over the phone, he was on the first call, but Trump has been calling Putin on unscheduled calls since with Pence not present.

So I suspect Trump will use the leverage of blocking Republican legislation as means to force them to accept his reward-Putin agenda. And I suspect Russia will go after the Senate/mid term elections to try to get more friendlies in place.

At which point they'll wait for the next big scandal and impeach. I think they'll only try to convict if he puts up too big a fight, but impeachment is highly likely.

Re:They will when he obstructs

[MightyMartian]

If Trump starts blocking his own party's legislation to that scale, then you're going to have a full scale war between Congress and the White House, and the Republicans wouldn't have that much difficulty getting enough Democrats onboard to override his vetoes. The system was set up so that, at the end of the day the Presidency can be contained. But I still don't see impeachment. Imagine what that would do to the Republicans. It would make the Tea Party years seem like a walk in the park. It would be a civil war. Maybe they have to do it in the end if they can't force Trump's hand, but they're going to try that route first. Remember there are initiatives he wants to push that require Congress's say-so, so being obstructionist is a two-way street.

Re:They will when he obstructs

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Why would the Democrats help override his veto to push a conservative agenda? Maybe on the budge and certainly on the debt ceiling. But they will be in the driver's seat. Because anytime things fail... well... with thr R's controlling both houses and the white house, they're the ones people will blame.

Re:They will when he obstructs

[jebrick]

Trump has enough of a base to force House Republicans to back him or face getting kicked out. Please refer to Paul Ryan's dip in popularity in his home district when he crossed Trump.

The Senate as well but less likely as they have longer terms. The problem with the coattails pulling these people into office is that they have some issues pissing off the person wearing the coat.

Re:They will when he obstructs

[meta-monkey]

But I still don't see impeachment. Imagine what that would do to the Republicans. It would make the Tea Party years seem like a walk in the park. It would be a civil war.

Added to that, Trump voters don't really care about this. According to the FBI Flynn did nothing wrong. As far as I can tell his sin was lying to Pence. Shouldn't the meme be "Trump is a dictator who squashes anyone who lies to his people?"

The comments on this story are all "oh wow it's all over Trump has lost all support"...from a bunch of people who never supported Trump in the first place. I liked Flynn, but if he was lying to Mike, well, fuck him, he's booted, let's get somebody else in there and get back to MAGA.

For the US, not for a political party

[myid]

I voted for Trump, because I can't stand the Clintons. I'm not for Trump, or for the Republican party. I'm for the US - I want good government.

So even though I agree with most of Trump's positions, I'm glad that the Democrats and the press point out the ways that Trump messes up, like selecting a national security adviser who can be blackmailed. We have to correct problems like that.

Re:For the US, not for a political party

[Anonymous Coward]

I voted for Trump, because I can't stand the Clintons. I'm not for Trump, or for the Republican party. I'm for the US - I want good government.

So even though I agree with most of Trump's positions, I'm glad that the Democrats and the press point out the ways that Trump messes up, like selecting a national security adviser who can be blackmailed. We have to correct problems like that.

You wanted good government and you voted for a certified idiot ?
Does not compute. Does not compute. Does not compute ...

Re:For the US, not for a political party

[dbIII]

I voted for Trump ... I want good government

So how's that working out for you?
Given that it took less than week for him to violate the Constitution how do you rate your chances on getting to vote again?

Re:For the US, not for a political party

[Anonymous Coward]

The citizens of the USA will definitely get to vote again... whether there's more than one name on the ballot is the question

Re:For the US, not for a political party

[AmiMoJo]

You screwed up. The current government is a joke. Bogged down in legal proceedings, and its relationship with the press is a disaster. Trump is so divisive half the country is basically pulling in the opposite direction to the other, and governance is only possible as long as the Republicans control both houses. Policies are made based on alternate facts and fake news, fed directly to Trump's brain through his favourite sources of media - Fox News, Brietbart and Infowars.

Trump is in it to enrich himself and his friends, and to inflate his ego. Your dislike of Clinton resulted in a narcissist with no experience and no chance of doing a good job taking power. The best you can hope for is that other people manage to salvage something from the next four years.

Re:For the US, not for a political party

[mjwx]

I voted for Trump, because I can't stand the Clintons.

Everything you said after this was bullshit.

You didn't vote for Trump because he was more qualified. He wasn't.
You didn't vote for Trump because he had better policies: He didn't.
You didn't vote for Trump because he was a more stable candidate: He wasn't.
You didn't vote for Trump because he wasn't dangerous: He is.
You didn't vote for Trump because you want good government: He was always the worst candidate.

You voted for Trump because you hated something else. Don't pretend he was the better candidate, every act and objective measure demonstrates that to be false. At least be honest, you voted for him because you care more about seeing your team win politics than about your country.

You are what is broken in a democracy.

Re:For the US, not for a political party

[MobyDisk]

Since you are the first potentially rational Trump supporter, I honestly want to understand your positions. Do you want a wall between the US and Mexico, and if so, why? Do you want to forgive Russia for the annexation of Crimea? Let's see..what else.... do you support ending the child care tax credit? Do you believe in global warming?

Re:For the US, not for a political party

[Xyrus]

Voting for Trump because you wanted "good government" is like hitting yourself in the balls with a hammer to take your mind of your headache.

Seriously, this is the most moronic reason I've seen for voting for Trump. You could have written in just about anyone on you voting ticket.

Re:For the US, not for a political party

[ooloorie]

So how's that working out for you?

I didn't vote for Trump, but so far, I have no complaints.

Given that it took less than week for him to violate the Constitution how do you rate your chances on getting to vote again?

I see, still following the advice of your hero: "If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself."

Re:For the US, not for a political party

[luis_a_espinal]

I voted for Trump, because I can't stand the Clintons. I'm not for Trump, or for the Republican party. I'm for the US - I want good government.

So even though I agree with most of Trump's positions, I'm glad that the Democrats and the press point out the ways that Trump messes up, like selecting a national security adviser who can be blackmailed. We have to correct problems like that.

You voted for a racist motherfucker who spearheaded the Birther movement, why that God-awful racist attempt to delegitimize the first African-American president of the United Status. Since it was no longer fashionable to call Obama a n*, the best option was to call him a Muslim (as if that was a bad thing) born in Kenya (which was patently false.) And Trump spearheaded that, to deny an US born American citizen his birthright of being, you know, a US born citizen.

And this ape went on to call Judge Curiel, a US born judge, a "Mexican", questioning Curiel's ability to do his job because his parents were Mexican.

A man who to this day blames those poor black guys known as the Central Park Five for a crime they did not commit.

A man who stated the majority of illegals were murderers and rapists, with some he magnanimously assumed, being good people.

A man who pretty much promised a Muslim ban, a ban based on faith.

That man, Trump, is a fucking bigot (or played one for the bigoted masses, of which there is really no difference.)

And you looked the other way and voted for him.

That's who you are.

Re:For the US, not for a political party

[luis_a_espinal]

I voted for Trump, because I can't stand the Clintons.

Everything you said after this was bullshit. You didn't vote for Trump because he was more qualified. He wasn't. You didn't vote for Trump because he had better policies: He didn't. You didn't vote for Trump because he was a more stable candidate: He wasn't. You didn't vote for Trump because he wasn't dangerous: He is. You didn't vote for Trump because you want good government: He was always the worst candidate. You voted for Trump because you hated something else. Don't pretend he was the better candidate, every act and objective measure demonstrates that to be false. At least be honest, you voted for him because you care more about seeing your team win politics than about your country. You are what is broken in a democracy.

Thank you. I'm not sure about the OP, but I know for a fact that many people voted for him simply because Trump went George Wallace. That was an appetite long repressed and buried deep within closets. It just needed someone like Trump to yell the modern equivalent of the n* word (Mexicans and Muslims) for that appetite to burst out of the closets.

Re:For the US, not for a political party

[Ryanrule]

Fuck you and your mother.

Re:For the US, not for a political party

[strikethree]

Don't pretend he was the better candidate, every act and objective measure demonstrates that to be false. At least be honest, you voted for him because you care more about seeing your team win politics than about your country.

I did not get the same meaning out of his words that you did... or you have weird logic. ;)

What I heard him say was that he could not in all conscience vote for Clinton. The only choice left at that point is Trump. I did not hear him mention political parties at all... and yet you did mention political parties. Perhaps YOU are what is wrong with this country?

Re:For the US, not for a political party

[penandpaper]

Bogged down in legal proceedings

Isn't that normal for the government? Isn't that healthy because it means the executive doesn't haev absolute power to do what it wants? Good god what do you want?

its relationship with the press is a disaster.

Again, isn't this a good thing? Why would you want the press and the government to be in a good relationship and how would they keep the government honest if they were in bed together? Good god what do you want?

Trump is so divisive half the country is basically pulling in the opposite direction to the other, and governance is only possible as long as the Republicans control both houses

Nothing new. News at 10.

Policies are made based on alternate facts and fake news, fed directly to Trump's brain through his favourite sources of media - Fox News, Brietbart and Infowars.

Oh yes, "fake news" only comes from the places I don't like... Get a grip. If this is true then isn't i good that the other news outlets are willing to post the "real" facts? What do you want to have happen?

Trump is in it to enrich himself and his friends, and to inflate his ego.

And Clinton wasn't? I guess that is why she closed down her "charity".

resulted in a narcissist with no experience and no chance of doing a good job taking power.

Are you talking about Clinton or Trump because this describes both...

people manage to salvage something from the next four years.

Just like every other election... News at 11.

Re:For the US, not for a political party

[penandpaper]

Yes, tell other people why they do things because you know better than them.

You are what is broken in a democracy

No. People voting how they choose for whatever reason they want is not what is broken with democracy... Or do you think it would be better if everyone just voted how you vote because you are such a good dictator? Get over yourself.

Re:For the US, not for a political party

[penandpaper]

Tell us more how you know how 60 million people think...

If racism really did elect Trump; Why is it that the acceptance of interracial relationships/marriage is at an all time high? Why would people vote Obama and then Trump if they were so racist and needed a Trump to blabber it?

Here's a thought. Maybe there are different reasons to vote for him over his top contender that had nothing to do with any *ism that has been thrown around so often that "people I disagree with" is now "Nazi"...

Re:For the US, not for a political party

[null etc.]

I don't know if this is the joke or not, but in your sig you say: const int one = 65536; That is in fact wrong. In integer rollover: 65535 +1 = 0 So I'm not sure what you are getting at. If there is a joke there other than integer rollover then I don't get it.

It's probably an example of the infamous programmer "off-by-one" error. The source code he quoted actually exists in a project.

Re:For the US, not for a political party

[null etc.]

Voting for Trump because you wanted "good government" is like hitting yourself in the balls with a hammer to take your mind of your headache.

Actually, for most people, voting for Trump is like hitting *other people* in the balls with a hammer to take your mind off your headache.

Re:For the US, not for a political party

[ooloorie]

Ignorance is bliss, is it not?

I wouldn't know. You tell me.

Re:For the US, not for a political party

[penandpaper]

So far we have had the climb-down on the Muslim ban

It wasn't a Muslim ban. Even the appeals court in the 9th circuit had a hard time buying that justification from the plaintiff. Of course you would know that if you read the E.O. or listened to the arguments. The only people parading "Muslim ban" are outraged by their own shadow. This just in, candidate made promises and trying to keep them within the extent of the law.

Trump looks like a fascist trying to overrule the constitution and an idiot for proposing an illegal flagship policy and not taking proper legal advice.

Right... were you concerned about Obama's executive order that redefined how the law was interrupted? I bet not. What really happened was that the E.O. was a little vague for some parties that may be affected by the ban and so on those grounds were dismissed but if the order had been a little more specific with those parties, Washington State would not have a claim. So, the courts said: "fix your order instead of relying on us to fix it for you" and he is doing so... What is the problem? He isn't redefining law. He is using existing laws to service the security of the nation as he sees necessary, you know his job as POTUS. He is operating within the existing laws that Obama refused to enforce. He is not redefining law. He is not interpreting law. He is using existing law to direct the government. What is wrong here?

needs to have a working relationship with the press

No it doesn't. The press can investigate the governments actions without a good working relationship. Or do we need a ministry of truth to facilitate that relationship? The press isn't some authority on truth any more than the government. A press that dislikes the government will be more critical of the governments actions and willing to investigate potential abuses. Unlike what we saw for Obama or Clinton. No scandals from Obama? Sheesh, you don't buy that fake news do you? I guess, no scandals if they target the right opponents. As we have learned from feminists and other democrats, there are no wrong tactics just wrong targets.

re.re. experience. Oh sorry I was equating bad experience with no experience. The later isn't an issue and that is why the only requirements to be POTUS is: native born citizen and 35 yro. Sure, Clinton has "experience" at being a terrible politician and being married to Bill. Gratz? I guess. I would rather take an unknown than a known bad.

Re:For the US, not for a political party

[damn_registrars]

the next four years.

You're giving Trump too much credit. He has almost zero chance of making it four years. He will either die in office or resign early. His medical report is as big of a lie as everything else he says (in other words total garbage), he is likely of below average health for his age (it is rather clear that he is overweight for his height - rather you take his imaginary height or his real height).

However, Pence will do (at most) absolutely nothing to resolve the schism in the US. The only people benefiting from him being VP are the people of Indiana who now get a chance to elect a sane governor.

Re:For the US, not for a political party

[Yunzil]

I voted for Trump, because I can't stand the Clintons. I'm not for Trump, or for the Republican party. I'm for the US - I want good government.

You want good government, so you voted for someone who has no idea how to run a government and who has all the subtlety and diplomatic skills of an angry rhino in a china shop; and all because you have some childish dislike for the Clintons.

Perhaps you should rethink your strategy next time.

Re:For the US, not for a political party

[meta-monkey]

Given that it took less than week for him to violate the Constitution

[Citation needed].

Re:For the US, not for a political party

[penandpaper]

I can say it was at least a partial Muslim ban, specifically it targeted Muslims fleeing religious persecution.

It prioritized minorities being religiously persecuted. Before, it was random lottery. Just because the prioritization changed doesn't mean religious ban or even partial. 80% of all Muslims were still able to enter the country and then from these countries after reassessment. I think that is a pretty large leap to say "religious ban" because of that and the courts struggled with that reasoning as well. But because preliminary the plaintiffs didn't have much burden of proof. All they had were allegations of "racism"/"Muslim ban". It is a specious argument to make considering the document itself and considering there were only allegations.

the judges seemed far more dubious about the argument it wasn't targeted at Muslims

There was one judge that was for sure dubious but the other 2 seemed reluctant following the train of thought "Muslim ban"/racist.

comments on TV boasting that he'd had a hand in crafting it and had been asked to make a Muslim Ban that'd pass the legal tests.

But the question to ask is whether this was that order or would that be a different one. Again, there were allegations but because of the preliminary nature of the hearing the burden of proof was very limited. The document itself did not allude to such motivations and its enforcement would be applied only to what was contained in the order and not the allegations of motive behind the order.

Re:For the US, not for a political party

[Nidi62]

the next four years.

You're giving Trump too much credit. He has almost zero chance of making it four years. He will either die in office or resign early.

The only way Trump gets out early is if he dies in office or gets impeached and removed. His ego is too big to allow himself to resign. Everything has to be a success, he has to win every time. Winners don't resign.

Re: For the US, not for a political party

[TimMD909]

It's simple. It's like smoking cigarettes instead of crack. The latter will ruin you much quicker.

Re:For the US, not for a political party

[Nidi62]

I did not get the same meaning out of his words that you did... or you have weird logic. ;)

What I heard him say was that he could not in all conscience vote for Clinton. The only choice left at that point is Trump.

Or Johnson. Or Stein. Or that one Mormon guy from Utah. Or any number of write-in candidates. Sure, none of them were going to win-it was always going to be Trump or Clinton. But at least your conscience would be clear. I know mine is.

Re:For the US, not for a political party

[damn_registrars]

the next four years.

You're giving Trump too much credit. He has almost zero chance of making it four years. He will either die in office or resign early.

The only way Trump gets out early is if he dies in office or gets impeached and removed. His ego is too big to allow himself to resign. Everything has to be a success, he has to win every time. Winners don't resign.

Just tell him that he is either divorcing the executive branch (presumably to marry a younger one elsewhere) or declaring it to be bankrupt. He's big on both of those. And frankly his platforms will bring the second so much closer to reality that it shouldn't be hard to convince him of it being the case.

Re:For the US, not for a political party

[doconnor]

It's one thing to want change, but there are an infinite number of ways to change and most are worse or nonsensical.

Re:For the US, not for a political party

[painandgreed]

You didn't vote for Trump because you want good government: He was always the worst candidate.

They didn't say that Trump was the good government they were seeking. It seems many people voted for Trump because he would break shit, and then people would be forced to fix it, much like ObamaCare. Not sure if that was the case for the OP, but I have seen people stating they voted for Trump because they thought he'd essentially shake everybody up (due to incompetance) and others would have to get serious about governing. (Those people have more faith in humanity than I do however.)

Re:For the US, not for a political party

[penandpaper]

Maybe this is news to you but elections aren't decided by one issue. Sure, you as an individual may have that one issue that is important to you like your "undeniably racist Islamophobic platform" but for others that wasn't as important as other issues.

It isn't sophistry to say; others think differently than you and that there were other issues more important to them than what you think was important.

Really, why does that have to be the one singular issue that has to decide the election? Is it really "looking the other way" to think there were other issues more important? Nothing else was more important? Come on.

Re:For the US, not for a political party

[rastos1]

Trump is so divisive half the country is basically pulling in the opposite direction to the other,

Can you say: divide and conquer ?

Re:For the US, not for a political party

[strikethree]

You screwed up. The current government is a joke. Bogged down in legal proceedings, and its relationship with the press is a disaster. Trump is so divisive half the country is basically pulling in the opposite direction to the other, and governance is only possible as long as the Republicans control both houses. Policies are made based on alternate facts and fake news, fed directly to Trump's brain through his favourite sources of media - Fox News, Brietbart and Infowars.

Sounds fine to me... at least compared to the industrial scale starvation of the American people that Clinton would have continued.

By any objective measure, I have been living with half the resources my parents had available. My children have half the resources that I had available. Their children will have... nothing, if this shit continues. Better to have an amazing train wreck where we all die than to allow those fuckers to kill us while they live large.

Re:For the US, not for a political party

[david_thornley]

Actually, there were other choices. If I had been unable to vote for Clinton for whatever reasons, I'd have voted for Stein.

Re:For the US, not for a political party

[Zontar The Mindless]

Some of us of who aren't always so preoccupied as you with concocting justifications for psychopathy have heard of this thing called enlightened self-interest. You might want to read up on it sometime.

Re:For the US, not for a political party

[squiggleslash]

Trump's more qualified than some hack of a community organizer. Why do qualifications suddenly matter? Right, he's not on Team Blue.

The only person who's been elected in the last umpteen years who was, at some stage in his life, a "community organizer" was a Constitutional law professor who was later elected a Senator before becoming President. But, as you point out, he was also at one point a community organizer, that is, someone who worked with ordinary people to solve problems through the political process at a low level.

Perhaps it's time right wingers who think this is a criticism actually think about what they're saying.

Re:For the US, not for a political party

[petermgreen]

googling " const int one = 65536" turns up some C sharp graphics code as the first result, c sharp has a 32-bit int so it's not an overflow.

It looks to me like the constant is being used to implement 16.16 fixed point maths inside a 32-bit int. One of those things that makes you go wtf at first but makes perfect sense when you understand it in context.

Re:w00t

[MightyMartian]

It was funny when there was talk of him being nominated for cabinet that he'd have to get permission from his probation officer.

Re:That's not why he resigned

[MightyMartian]

Considering Flynn's troubling links with Russia, you think this was just about him forgetting to tell Pence a few details?

Seriously, three weeks in and Trump's longest standing campaign ally has resigned in disgrace. For chrissakes, even Nixon's worst didn't come to light until the second term.

Re:Pence is consolidating his position

[mmell]

Nope. Agnew and Flynn both quit before they got sent to PITA prison. D'ya suppose Trump'll pardon him? Something about "Terrible. Sad. A good man brought down by fake news like CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, BBC, Washington Post, New York Times, and the Valley News and Green Sheet"?

Jar of spiders

[Max_W]

In my opinion the modern politics turned into a jar of spiders. Everybody eavesdrop, dislike, and attack each other. It is amplified significantly for someone like me who knows foreign languages and can watch it all from several sides.

I begin to wonder if Mikhail Bakunin's ideas were really that much farfetched, if the state as an institution is necessary at all. Or is it just turned into a source of mutual misunderstanding and hostility.

Re:Jar of spiders

[ooloorie]

In my opinion the modern politics turned into a jar of spiders.

Modern politics... same as the old politics.

I begin to wonder if Mikhail Bakunin's ideas were really that much farfetched, if the state as an institution is necessary at all. Or is it just turned into a source of mutual misunderstanding and hostility.

If misunderstanding and hostility was all it was, that wouldn't be a big deal. But what the state usually turns into after a while is an institution that helps an oligarchy to enrich themselves and to commit violence against the people on a massive scale. And contrary to what socialists and progressives tell you, the usual path by which that happens is through democratic socialism and/or progressivism; their motto is "we need to destroy your liberties in order to save them".

Bakunin, however, is a flawed messenger for the dangers of statism; far better ar the classical liberal political philosophers (that sense of "liberal" having nothing to do with the modern US sense of "liberal").

Re:Jar of spiders

[penandpaper]

Modern politics... same as the old politics.

Except more shiny and faster. mmm shiny.

Re:Pence is consolidating his position

[fustakrakich]

D'ya suppose Trump'll pardon him?

Eh, he might, but I doubt he really gives a damn.

Okay - that was quick.

[mmell]

I suppose if they're allowed to make up alternative facts, it's really easy to explain anything!

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[MightyMartian]

I think that ability on their part is fading fast. The polls showing Trump's precipitous fall in popularity tell the story of a presidency in the kind of crisis that hasn't been seen since Iran-Contra or the Lewinsky affair, and, as with Watergate before it, those scandals didn't hit until second terms. The fact that one of Trump's longest supporters has been outed being chatty with the Russian Ambassador just weeks into the Presidency just blows me away. This is like a presidency on amphetamines.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[Plus1Entropy]

It's fine to use alternative facts, as long as they come from an alternate reality.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[ShanghaiBill]

one of Trump's longest supporters has been outed being chatty with the Russian Ambassador

No. That isn't the problem. There is nothing wrong with having a chat with a Rusky. Just like with Watergate, and Monicagate, the problem was LYING ABOUT IT.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're wrong.
It's illegal for a private citizen to engage in diplomacy for the US.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[admin7087]

Well, let's face it. The real problem is that neither Flynn not Bannon are remotely competent national security advisors, neither is Rex Tillerson a sufficiently unbiased foreign minister (in the light of past attempts to secure billion dollar oil deals with Russia), or Betsy DeVos a competent education minister, not to speak of the abominable choice of attorney general. Despite all this partisan chatter and division, Republicans should be able to realize that there are plenty of Republicans or independents with higher integrity who would have been better suited for these posts. I feel sorry for guys like McCain who nowadays have to worry about their own folks more than about the opposition.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[csmithers]

Yea, sure. The same polls that showed Hillary would win in a landslide.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[Billly Gates]

The Tea Party did the same to Obama. Remember those angry townhalls to block health care which ultimately handed the houses to the same Republicans today? They cried against executive orders. Now they have no problem with them and are outraged Democrats are doing the same back

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[Gussington]

Yea, sure. The same polls that showed Hillary would win in a landslide.

No, they are in fact different polls. That's not to say they are any more accurate, but they aren't the same polls.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[Gussington]

Riiight. The guy hasn't even been in office 90 days and the left...

Left? I'm pretty sure John McCain isn't left...

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[Anonymous Coward]

If the Dems could organize like the Tea Party, with a clear set of issues, get permits, and march, they would get political attention. The Tea Party members at least dressed the part, and when they marched, they actually left DC cleaner than it was.

Occupy was the Dem's answer to the Tea Party. However, their point got muddled quickly with everything from free college to free marijuana, and with staking out tents in front of city halls and parks, it went from a political movement to a nuisance.

Now we have waves of potentially violent protests. About what? That Trump is in office. That is not going to advance a single cause.

Invariably, as soon as violence hits, the LEOs will stop taking a passive role, but actively stop the protest, snatch iPhones out of people's hands, then press the fingerprinter reader against the person's handcuffed finger. From there, they can look at social network posts, and be able to make not just one around of arrests, but be able to add conspiracy charges and make subsequent arrests.

No wonder why CoreCivics, Geo Group, and other private prison companies have had their stock double since November. The left needs to not feed those beasts with their own.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[mjwx]

The Tea Party did the same to Obama. Remember those angry townhalls to block health care which ultimately handed the houses to the same Republicans today? They cried against executive orders. Now they have no problem with them and are outraged Democrats are doing the same back

You didn't think they were above a little hypocrisy did you... or even a lot of hypocrisy.

They'll also whinge bitterly about the same things they did to Obama being done to them. They made their bed, let them lie in it.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[silentcoder]

The selection pool is actually limited to "very rich people" but Trump makes exceptions for people who have publicly said things he likes to hear. Trouble is he only TRUSTS rich people. Like many rich people, he assumes everybody who isn't rich is trying to rob him - and regardless of how he blew smoke up their asses on the campaign trail it's becoming extremely clear that he distrusts anybody who isn't very wealthy.
You can see the fracture lines all over the white house and the ones struggling are constantly those who aren't rich. Bannon has caused some serious fuck-ups, up to getting himself on the national security commission (and leaks suggest Trump didn't like that and hadn't known what he was signing) ... but his position is secure, Trump trusts him because Bannon is rich. Reince Priebus and Sean Spicer on the other hand are getting constant flack from their boss - those two have actually done a halfway decent job, to the extent that it's possible in this administration. Spicer's sheer exasperation is visible every time he has to stand before the American people and say something flagrantly ridiculous because that's what the boss wants. Yet he had done it, even if he had to resort to prefacing it with "the president really does believe that..."

Which is what you normally preface a statement with when you have difficulty accepting that the person under discussion can really belief something that stupid...

But either way - he's done exactly the job Trump wanted him to do. The guy hitched his wagon to a star (even if it was a red dwarf) to jump the capitol-hill line to the front but he's been loyally toeing the boss's line ever since, and yet his loyalty isn't being rewarded, he's just getting crapped on because we won't believe the bullshit Trump sends him to relay.
What's the real difference between Steve "I wasn't happy with how much power you gave me so I tricked you into giving me more because I'm just using you" Bannon and Sean "Yes sir, I'll tell them exactly what you want me to tell them" Spicer ? Spicer isn't rich.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[Anonymous Coward]

He's left of the alt-right.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[silentcoder]

In Trump's defense he did turn down one truly horrible appointee. The GOP's wish for deputy chief of staff. He did the right thing because although the party loves this dude - he was a centerpiece of the Iran/Contra scandal, the major operative in charge of the cover-up of the El Salvador massacre and twice convicted of withholding testimony under oath.

Of course the one time Trump did the right thing he did it for the wrong reasons - he rejected the guy because during the campaign the dude had said some critical things about him.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[neilo_1701D]

You're wrong.
It's illegal for a private citizen to engage in diplomacy for the US.

You're absolutely right. But that isn't what undid him.

1. He lied to Pence about his son having a security clearance, causing Pence to repeat that lie publicly
2. He lied about the content of his conversation with the Russian ambassador.

#1 put him in Pence's sights. #2 ensured the outcome.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[silentcoder]

She did win in a landslide in the only thing polls measure: number of voters. That popular vote win WAS in fact a landslide. No, landslide is not strong enough a word - it was a fucking avalanche.

That she lost the college is also true - she won a massive amount of votes - she just won them in the wrong places, but polls don't really measure THAT.

There were a large number of reasons why Clinton didn't win the presidency. She wasn't a very inspiring candidate, a lot of democrats felt she didn't deserve the nomination over Sanders, her campaign made a number of very serious tactical gaffes (often after ignoring pleas from their on-the-ground operatives who were telling them what they needed), despite being orders of magnitude more honest than her opponent she was perceieved as untrustworthy and he as "one of us" and she couldn't alter that perception, Russian interference, Comey's incredible violation of professional ethics. All these things were played a role. No single one was THE reason - they were all "reasons".
The one thing that was NOT a factor was how good a choice her opponent was -he was the worst choice to ever RUN let alone WIN a presidency in the USA. By a long margin. He wasn't even a very good campaigner, hell his campaign was in shambles for most of the race. It was broke. It was plagued by scandals. It had no ground-game to speak off.
Ultimately - it is what it is, there's no point in crying that Clinton didn't win - and contrary to what Trumpians are saying very few people are. We tried to stop the driverless train full of dinamite from leaving the station, we failed - now it's rushing down the track. All we care about now is trying to derail it before it crashes into the next town and kills everybody.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[neilo_1701D]

This is like a presidency on amphetamines.

This is like a presidency at amature hour.

The really stupid thing is that for all the shaking-up that has been done to world leaders, the One China policy remains; Israel is still scolded; refugees are still being accepted; and there is no replacement for Obamacare on the horizon. For all the bravado, he has achieved nothing at the cost of the US's image and brand. Put another way, far from being the anti-Obama he portrayed himself to be, he has arrived at exactly the same policy positions.

The #1 thing he could do right now to show some statesmanship is to get to California, stand by the Oroville Dam and declare US infrastructure be his priority. Forget the Great Wall of Mexico. Here is a genuine crisis that is symptomatic of a deeper problem, and here is a genuine crisis handed to him on a silver platter. He want to build? Build. He wants a short-term sugar high on jobs? Employ people to build. Yes thre is a cost; but what the heck; borrow the money. He could probably borrow enough to do most of this work and still be able to say he didn't raise the national debt as much as Obama did.

But instead, he tweets about Nordstrom and how unfair they are to Ivanka.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[Buchenskjoll]

Oh no, if Trump has started firing people for lying, where will it all end?

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[MachineShedFred]

Yeah, except that all of those Republicans don't get to name nominees. They only get to "advise and consent" if they are sitting members of the United States Senate - and that advice can be freely ignored by the President, who has the sole power to appoint cabinet nominees for Senate confirmation.

If you want to see a real horror show of government, it would be Trump White House vs. the United States Congress. Vetoing bills out of spite, sending even more unqualified people for confirmation just to troll the Senate, etc. And don't think this guy wouldn't do it.

Re: Okay - that was quick.

[MachineShedFred]

The popular vote is only brought up when someone is seeking to move the goalposts in order to justify their own position.

The rules have been the same since Thomas Jefferson sat in the White House It's not like they aren't known to every single operative within the DNC and RNC. Running up the score in the most populous states does exactly dick in comparison to getting 50% + 1 vote. Campaign accordingly.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[radl33t]

but the reaction of the looney left has made me so glad he won.

A celebration of irrational thinking. Politics are bizzare.

Re: Okay - that was quick.

[Anonymous Coward]

2% more voters does not a landslide make.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[naubol]

The polls showed that Hillary had a 2/3 chance of winning. Yes, many opinion pieces oversold how likely it was she would win. So, she lost the presidency but won the popular vote in a landslide. The idea that the "polls were wrong" is not really justified. The results were well within margin.

Re: Okay - that was quick.

[naubol]

Given a single data point where the news gives an 80% chance and the 20% chance happens, the news is clearly wrong about the stats? Do you understand probability?

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[sg_oneill]

I kind of feel sorry for the people that brought his whole line about fighting money in politics and draining the swamp.

Sure he fired all the policy wonks, but now he's just got a white house full of money-in-politics and nobody knows what they are doing, and all the people who would normally say "No Mr President thats an extremely bad idea" to an incoming greenhorn have been fired or sidelined. I mean it was obvious to me what was gonna happen, but i've been around the block a few times and seen plenty of similar types go into govenor roles and completely screw the whole place up. These alt-right people, I just dont know about . Pepe memes and actually believing fox-news conspiracy theories does not make for a particularly useful political movement.

Re: Okay - that was quick.

[TimMD909]

Are these polls from the same media that showed Hiilldog as winning in a landslide? Can you even trust them? Or at least cite your sources?

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[oh_my_080980980]

You mean an incoming national security advisor.....

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[oh_my_080980980]

LMOL yeah ok Potsy. Lying under oath is perjury. It does not matter what the lie is about.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually there is a hell of a lot wrong with what Flynn did, the lie is just the turd cherry on his shit sundae. This is the 3rd Trump inner-circle (campaign & staff) moron to get yanked because he was in bed with Russia and they have not even started to look at his Secretary of State who is deeply tied to Putin & his mob buddies. The US has been compromised at the highest level and Congress appears to be disinterested as long as they get to gut all social programs and remove all taxes from the top earners. Party before country

Re: Okay - that was quick.

[Anonymous Coward]

When did the current administration start caring about lies?

Don't get me wrong, all politicians lie, but the currenr group of fools seem to be the most cavalier I've seen with their lies (plus bad at it).

Re: Okay - that was quick.

[UnknowingFool]

Some people in the administration care about lying. The President isn't one of them.

Re: Okay - that was quick.

[Anonymous Coward]

The margins were incredibly narrow which shows that both candidates were fairly terrible.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[TrumpShaker]

And how far away (time-wise) is this from happening? Or will the Republican Congress cave to the Emperor?

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[TrumpShaker]

LOL...right, don't call her an education minister, she'll think she can preside at weddings...

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[b0bby]

It's amazing how many of my friends lost their insurance and are now paying double or triple for less coverage. And this was all fully predictable to anyone paying attention.

Can you elaborate on this? I'm truly curious, because most of the times I've come across stories of people blaming Obamacare for rising costs, it turns out that they weren't actually using Obamacare and that their increases were pretty much in line with the trend which has been going on for decades. Are these people who were using high deductible plans which were phased out, or did their employers drop coverage, or what?

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[nedlohs]

Spicer is awesome. His most commonly said sentence in the back must be "You want me to say what?... ok".

The only way he lasts 4 years is if he picks up a tremendous drinking problem.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[Fire_Wraith]

You're correct in terms of the letter of the law. That said, the Logan Act, which makes private diplomacy illegal, has pretty much never been enforced in practice.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[Trailer Trash]

Self-employed. Farmers seem to be particularly getting screwed.

And, no, it wasn't high-deductible before. It is now, though.

Apparently some folks like yourself aren't reading the news. In AZ this year, the exchange prices have more than doubled. One year. It shouldn't be surprising that everybody's paying more.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[Trailer Trash]

but the reaction of the looney left has made me so glad he won.

A celebration of irrational thinking. Politics are bizzare.

The point, which you likely missed, is that as much as I don't like or trust Trump, I really don't want to give more political power to the people who are out rioting now. And that's what Hillary would do.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[Martin Blank]

that explains picking a Judge with only ten years of experience to the Supreme Court instead of the most experienced one that could be found.

Chief Justice John Roberts had five years of experience as a judge before being nominated for Associate Justice to replace retiring Justice O'Connor and then being nominated to replace Chief Justice Rehnquist when he died. While I don't agree with everything he says, he's done a good job of steering the court overall.

Going after the most experienced usually means going after the oldest, which has some potentially significant downsides not just in terms of time on the Supreme Court but also often least understanding of current issues. Going after the most qualified does not mean the most experienced.

Re: Okay - that was quick.

[Martin Blank]

80% odds of winning (though I'm not sure who had that--FiveThirtyEight had about 70% odds, and almost everyone else was 90%+) still means a 20% chance of losing. Would you play Russian Roulette with a five-chamber pistol?

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[dbIII]

Going after the most qualified does not mean the most experienced.

There's probably a thousand other choices with more experience and "Republican values" as well. Odd choice IMHO.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[radl33t]

First, you expect a lot from your readers, namely mind reading. Secondly, you honestly think the few people participating in riots have any power? Cute.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[meta-monkey]

Have you ever heard the term "RINO?" As in "Republican In Name Only?" Neocon McCain is the chief RINO, and is generally regarded by conservatives to be a traitor who can always be counted on to attack other Republicans to the delight of the leftist media.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[Yunzil]

The guy hasn't even been in office 90 days and the left has done absolutely NOTHING but wet themselves, have riots, and act like screaming babies.

I think you're confusing the left with Donald Trump.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[fahrbot-bot]

Oh no, if Trump has started firing people for lying, where will it all end?

Trump arguing with the guy in the mirror: "No, you're fired" ...

Re: Okay - that was quick.

[coinreturn]

Are these polls from the same media that showed Hiilldog as winning in a landslide? Can you even trust them? Or at least cite your sources?

You fail to understand polls. You can poll all you want, but if people don't show up to vote, they will be wrong.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[s1d3track3D]

This is like a presidency on amphetamines.

He's just utilizing the "Fail Fast, Fail Often" principle.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[dbIII]

If you want to see a real horror show of government, it would be Trump White House vs. the United States Congress.

Remember that line and let's see how things are before July. Give them time to step on each others toes.
As shown with the country club fuckup he just keeps on doing things you'd never expect a President to do.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[MightyMartian]

I don't think Congress is disinterested. I think they're trying to sort out a way to bring the situation under control that minimizes potential political fallout. The Senate, in particular, is inhabited by people in both parties who have a longstanding and deep distrust of Russia, but there's simply no way that the Republicans in Congress are going to try to take Trump out at this point.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[b0bby]

I was aware that some Obamacare exchanges had had significant price increases (Arizona appears to have had price hike in the exchanges of 50-75%, which is high but not "more than doubled"). What I am referring to is, why are these self employed farmers using Obamacare? Presumably they had health care before, but did the ACA force the removal of their plans? In which case, my understanding of how that was supposed to work is that only plans that didn't meet minimum standards would be removed. But you said they now have less coverage, so I'm wondering what has caused this.

Disclaimer - I am covered through my employer, so I haven't actually dealt directly with Obamacare. My (perhaps incorrect) assumption was that the ACA expanded coverage somewhat, forced some minimum levels of coverage, and that there were some penalties (minimal at first) for people who persisted in remaining without coverage. Nowhere in my understanding were people (other than the ones with cheap-but-subpar coverage, whose plans were removed) who already had coverage forced to use Obamacare. But it does seem that a lot of people started to say "Obamacare" when they actually were referring to "my insurance provider", and I'm wondering if that's the case with your farmer friends. Certainly it's easier to vent on "Obamacare" if you're just sitting around talking.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[MightyMartian]

I honestly think Bannon's days are numbered. He's making enemies out of the Kushners, and by all accounts, it was Ivanka who personally intervened to prevent an EO going out that would revoked Obama's LGBT protections. At some point Bannon is going to go too far, he's clearly giddy with the powers he has, and then he'll be thrown under the bus.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[dbIII]

The Republican choice for President a while back in not a real Republican? Are you suggesting the Republican Party is that badly broken?

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[MightyMartian]

There are two ways this can play. The one way, which would apply with almost every other person who has occupied the Presidency, is to learn on the job, pick better people and try to make a go of it. But this is Trump, possibly the worst President since Andrew Johnson, and I have a feeling it's going to end much the same way, not necessarily with impeachment, but certainly in ignominy, failure and impotence.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[Macdude]

The Democrats lost, as they have been losing for several years, because they've ignored a large segment of the population who rightfully feel like the Democrats don't care about them.

Despite what the Stock Market or other "stats" may show, many, many people (and areas) in the US are not doing well financially and the Democrats have ignored their plight. The Democrats ignore the issues important to many of the people in the 'Red' states and when they do notice them, chastise the people for having them.

So it's not surprising they voted against the Democrats and for someone who actually talked to them and to their concerns. The fact that it was all bull is besides the point. The Democrats are going to continue to fail until they can understand why a very large portion of the US hates them and then does something to change that opinion.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[meta-monkey]

Are you suggesting the Republican Party is that badly broken?

Yes? What do you think just happened in the last election? What do you think the Tea Party was?

The neoconservative movement was ex-trotskyites who want a more aggressive foreign policy (i.e., perpetual war). So they don't really give a shit about the issues conservative Republican voters care about, they play fight with the Democrats and lose, so long as they get their wars. So when you say "Oh my god, Republicans and conservatives have to care about what John McCain says he's your leader!" No he's not. He's a worthless piece of shit who bombed his own aircraft carrier, sang to the Vietnamese and continues his treason in the Senate. Fuck John McCain.

Re: Okay - that was quick.

[EndlessNameless]

Most people see lying as a bad thing regardless of who is being lied to---with some tolerance for truly exceptional circumstances.

To some people, there is a huge world of difference between "regular lying", which is fine, and bad lying---specifically "getting caught in a lie" or, even worse, "lying to me". These people always seem a bit scummy to everybody else.

Flynn's boss may have been fine with regular lying, but even scumbags don't like it when their subordinates lie to them or get caught.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[HeckRuler]

+5 insightful?

Sorry, but if we don't self-police this sort of bullshit we'll end up as bad as the other side.

Drumph Hil-bot
62,985,106 65,853,625
45.9% 48.0%

She won by 2.1%. That's not a landslide.

she just won them in the wrong places, but polls don't really measure THAT.

What the hell are you smoking? Polls most certainly measure the location of the poll and the state of the voter. You could argue about how the delegates vote as opposed to their constituents, but they don't appear to have been faithless.

-he was the worst choice to ever RUN let alone WIN a presidency in the USA.

You're not looking at anyone other than republican or democrats are you? Plenty of people "run". As for winning, what about Andrew Jackson? All those dead Indians? The last guy who won the election and lost the popular vote also got a few people killed. I'm not too hip on that. Trump hasn't gotten hundreds of thousands killed... Yet. ....Point taken about the train full of dynamite.

there's no point in crying that Clinton didn't win

We should reform the Democrat's election process, remove super-delegates, reprimand the DNC for so blatantly playing favorites, and reaffirm our belief in democracy. Also, teach our bloody leaders a thing or two about internal security. And maybe re-establish the 4th estate as something trustworthy.

I care about a lot of things. Tunnel vision will ruin us.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[phantomfive]

it turns out that they weren't actually using Obamacare

FWIW this doesn't really matter, because there were other things in Obamacare that covered everyone's insurance, like requiring coverage of college students until age 24, for example.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[phantomfive]

She did win in a landslide in the only thing polls measure: number of voters.

That's not the only thing polls measure. Every pollster has heard of the electoral college, and they do analysis state-by-state. Check out five-thirty-eight for a very public example of a group doing that kind of analysis, but even on cable news you can see it.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[D00MSlayer]

Nothing makes me chuckle more than hearing snowflake alt-right douchebags such as yourself try to argue that Democrats/"The Left" are a bunch of racists and sexists. It truly makes my day.

Thanks in kind.

Re: Okay - that was quick.

[Rakarra]

When did the current administration start caring about lies?

Don't get me wrong, all politicians lie, but the currenr group of fools seem to be the most cavalier I've seen with their lies (plus bad at it).

In general, they want to be the ones who tell the lies. They don't want to be the ones being lied to.
When you lie to Pence about your son's security clearance, Pence don't like that.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[Rakarra]

No, because to the left, judgment is not passed based on what you do or the content of your character (you know, merit), but your identity (skin color, what's between your legs, what you do in bedroom, whether you are a "D" or an "R" regardless of the specific policies or ideas you support)

Strawman.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[MightyMartian]

If there's a failure at the political level, it's in leaders at the state and national level not sitting down and explaining to these people that manufacturing as a major provider of low-skill high-paid jobs is done. Even if manufacturing does return in any significant amount it will employ only a fraction of the people it once did. So the politicians should have sat down, explained the realities, and then help through cheap student loans and other mechanisms to get these people retrained. Once happening now is a snake oil dealer is promising rust belt inhabitants that somehow the 1950s are coming back, and they're going to find out that it isn't so, meanwhile getting the US embroiled in trade wars that will cost even more jobs and make all those economic statements you seem to revile turn downward, thus harming even more people and reducing the resources available to help the people that the moronic campaign promises were allegedly supposed to assist.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[MightyMartian]

You fling the word "traitor" around quite freely, and yet even if I buy into McCain being a warmonger (I don't, BTW) that doesn't make him a traitor. Maybe the problem here is your histrionics. You're acting like a ten year old .

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[MightyMartian]

The Truman Doctrine has been in effect since the end of the Second World War. McCain was a wee babe when containing Russia became US foreign policy.

Re: Okay - that was quick.

[MightyMartian]

Clinton was sane peoples' preferred choice, and I think the last three weeks have proven that view correct.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[meta-monkey]

You understand that was about containing communism, not Russia, right? Is Russia a communist nation, spreading international communism in 2017?

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[meta-monkey]

The main problem is the media and leftists holding up McCain (or Lindsey Graham) as any kind of principled conservatives who in any way reflect conservative thought or who lead any kind of conservative movement. They're democrats with Rs after their names who exist so that the media can say "even people in your own party are opposed to [conservative thing]. See, we have quotes from deeply respected Conservative Republicans John McCain and Lindsey Graham."

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[painandgreed]

If you want to see a real horror show of government, it would be Trump White House vs. the United States Congress. Vetoing bills out of spite, sending even more unqualified people for confirmation just to troll the Senate, etc. And don't think this guy wouldn't do it.

I'm just waiting for the budget and other issues to come up that Trump will want passed. I certainly have no trust in his business acumen and bet that he will propose spending that will make even the Republicans blanch even through we haven't had a fiscal conservative President since Eisenhower. The wall is going to cost more money than he thinks. Even given unlimited funds, he won't be able to deport enough illegals during his term to make a difference (and they're certainly not going to do something like go after the people who hire them or alter the Social Security program to catch them). His requests to the military was a report on how to solve the problem with ISIL in 30 days and I can't even imagine what that sort of project would cost (in lives as well as money). Seeing how I doubt he's unable to load Maine with all the nation's debt and then have it declare bankruptcy and sell it to Canada, I also doubt his usual business means will suffice in running the nation. He won't like being told No and things will probably steamroll from there.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[painandgreed]

Have you ever heard the term "RINO?" As in "Republican In Name Only?" Neocon McCain is the chief RINO, and is generally regarded by conservatives to be a traitor who can always be counted on to attack other Republicans to the delight of the leftist media.

Shit. Tea Party are the RINOs. They're pretty much just Dixiecrats that switched sides back under Nixon due to Civil Rights and were later cultivated by Reagan for their money. It's not as if the actual ideals of the South and its oligarchy changed when it went from solid blue to solid red. Both parties used to have concervative and liberal sides to them, but the Democrats conservatives all fled to the Republicans and took over the party.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[Topwiz]

Since when is a 2.1% margin a landslide? Clinton didn't even get 50% of the vote.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[painandgreed]

She did win in a landslide in the only thing polls measure: number of voters. That popular vote win WAS in fact a landslide. No, landslide is not strong enough a word - it was a fucking avalanche.

Not really. She lost about a third of the votes that Obama got. Meanwhile, Trump pulled in about the same as the last two Republicans candidates also got.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[thomn8r]

If there's a failure at the political level, it's in leaders at the state and national level not sitting down and explaining to these people that manufacturing as a major provider of low-skill high-paid jobs is done.

Sadly, this. And explain that repealing environmental and labor regs will turn their back yard into a shithole and still not bring the jobs back.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[Anonymous Coward]

Almost 80% of the statements that the Dumpster said were lies.

80%

Clinton was around 20%.

Trump is a serial liar. It is all he has ever done.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[bongey]

REAGAN won EC 525-13 and the popular vote 17 MILLION.In 1984! Took 16 years to break 50 mill again. The biggest lopsided LANDSLIDE election ever. Fun Fact: Only FDR and Obama are the only incumbents to win by losing millions of votes in their re-election. Fun Fact:Reagan gained 10 MILLION from 1980 to 1984.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[Benmachine]

She did win in a landslide in the only thing polls measure: number of voters. That popular vote win WAS in fact a landslide. No, landslide is not strong enough a word - it was a fucking avalanche.

2.1% is a "fucking avalanche?" Had she won the electoral college, she would have tied Jimmy Carter at 39th place in terms of margin of victory.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/21/...

That's not an avalanche, regardless of vulgar qualifier. It is not a landslide. It is a narrow margin, and ranks up there with the narrowest in U.S. history. Let's not distort the facts any further, okay?

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[MightyMartian]

It was about containing Russia. Communism was simply the state ideology of Russia. Distrust of Russia in the West goes back a lot further than that.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[meta-monkey]

I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[meta-monkey]

And shockingly enough, Flynn was the only Democrat Trump appointed. So, Trump purges a lying disloyal Democrat from his administration, likely to be replaced with a Trump-loyal Republican, and the left is cheering. I don't know what they think they won. I think they've just been losing so badly on all fronts for so many months now that even losing their own guy in Trump's camp feels like a win?

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[meta-monkey]

Then why was it only enacted by Truman, during the Cold War? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The Truman Doctrine was an American foreign policy created to counter Soviet geopolitical spread during the Cold War.

You're making some bizarre revisionist history that the US was always enemies with Russia, when in fact we were only enemies with Soviet communism.

In fact the Russians helped preserve the Union during the civil war by using their fleet to deter the UK or France from entering on the side of the Confederacy.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[MightyMartian]

Britain's dominace iof the high seas in the 19th century would have made any significant intervention by any other power all but impossible, and Britain didn't take sides despite the need of Confederate cotton largely because of domestic political pressures due to the unpopularity of slavery.

Russia's interactions with the West do not show strong success in long-term alliances. Napoleon got nailed mightily for assuming that Alexander was a good mate. There's a lesson in that. The Kremlin has only ever viewed alliances as short term affairs to be sustained for so long as it sees value in it.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[Tinsoldier314]

I think it'd be amazing if the president vetoed every single bill, especially ones from his own party. If the House wanted to get anything done, they'd be forced to go across party lines to get sufficient votes to override the veto and eventually they'd even do it proactively once it was clear nothing would pass otherwise. It'd be one of the most bipartisan presidencies we've ever seen!

Re: Okay - that was quick.

[Hognoxious]

I know a little bit about statistics and sampling.

I suspect the people who run polls know more than a bit.

I suspect polls measure the popular vote population, not projected electoral college votes based on each and every districting subset

Most states are winner-takes-all, so I don't see what districts have to do with it. All they need to do is know which state the respondee is voting in. Not rocket science.

Re: Okay - that was quick.

[Hognoxious]

I'm curious if and how polls affected voter turnout. I wonder how many voters saw the polls leaning heavily to their side and decided their vote wouldn't matter, a sort of negative feedback loop.

Some countries don't allow polls to be published from x hours before the voting starts to y hours after it closes.

Obviously they're all communists, not free, and definitely not number one.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[meta-monkey]

The Kremlin has only ever viewed alliances as short term affairs to be sustained for so long as it sees value in it.

Which is a good policy. "Nations do not have permanent alliances, only permanent interests." As a corollary, there's no point in having permanent enemies, either.

Right now my immediate enemy is ISIS, my strategic enemy is the export of Wahhabi extremism mainly from Saudi Arabia, and my permanent vexation is American interventionism and meddling in everyone else's affairs for the financial interest of the elite. So it seems to me right now a temporary alliance with Russia to smash ISIS is in my interest, but we are instead vexed with American meddling in Russian and Russian neighbors' affairs for the banking and oil interests under the guise of "but Putin bad man he maybe kill journalists and hates fags!" Of course we have no problem doing business with China with their slave laborers and political prisoners and human rights abuses far worse than anything Putin is accused of, and no problem selling weapons to or buying oil from Saudi Arabia where they're chopping off fags' heads in the public square. Gee, it's almost as the corporate media's shrill screaming over PUTIN BAD MAN has little to do with him being a bad man, and everything to do with the oil and the banks?

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[MightyMartian]

Jesus Fucking Christ, ISIS is a minor threat. It certainly isn't existential, at least not to any Western nation. The overreaction over Islamism stuns me, when the odds are many orders of a magnitude greater of choking on a fucking chicken bone than getting blown up by a terrorist.

Did you fail math in high school or something? Do you understand that statistically, McDonalds hamburgers represent a greater threat to life than Islamic terrorism ever will?

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[serviscope_minor]

even if it was a red dwarf

Orange, and technically it's only his hands which are that small (as far as we know).

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[AaronW]

Let me see, Obamacare is keeping my sister alive.

She earns $11/hour as a teaching assistant (and often doesn't get 40 hours/week) and requires a medication that cost $5000/month to stay alive, on top of needing Epipens. Her medicine is (surprisingly), not one being gouged by the pharmaceutical industry either, it's just really expensive to obtain. Her work insurance doesn't cover her medication and the deductible is so high there's no way she could afford it. With the ACA she was able to get a plan that covers her needed medicine.

I also know several people that are actually able to get insurance because of the ACA. They work jobs that don't offer medical benefits and aren't paid very much.

And insurance rates were going up quickly long before Obamacare. If anything, it slowed the rate of increase. I'm not saying it's perfect, far from that, but it is generally much better than what we had before. I had a self-employed friend who in the 2000s had a stroke and her insurance company declared it a pre-existing condition and refused to cover it, despite being fully insured. It bankrupted her since her hospital stay was several months long and after having a stroke she was in no condition to fight it (it took months for her to regain speech). If the ACA had been in place then this would not have happened. The whole thing destroyed her and she later died in part because of that.

Another friend of mine was in a bad motorcycle accident. Without the ACA he'd be either dead or completely bankrupt. The insurance company tried to claim he should be discharged from the hospital to fend for himself with two badly broken arms and a broken leg. He couldn't even feed himself. If they had cut him off like they tried he would have lost the use of his dominant arm completely. Because of the ACA he was able to fight it because without it he would have hit their maximum. Today he's one of the top engineers at a company that makes products you'd recognize in just about every hardware store. His code runs on a product any geek or construction worker would instantly recognize. He likes to bitch and moan about the ACA, but at the end of the day it is what kept him out of bankruptcy and kept him from being a complete cripple for the rest of his life.

Obamacare is far from perfect, but it is far better than what we had before. Ideally I'd like to see Medicare opened to all and have private insurance be supplemental insurance. Before the ACA, if you had a cheap plan and you really needed to use your insurance for something expensive you'd likely be sol. Death panels? The insurance industry already had those. They could declare you hit the limit or that you had a preexisting condition and not cover you. And premiums were increasing at an insane rate before the ACA. 2014-2015 were artificially low for the ACA since the insurance industry was still trying to get a handle on things. 2016 is actually where the OMB predicted it would be.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[meta-monkey]

Your mistake is that you think I'm like you, concerned only for myself, and I'm not. I know the chance I'm going to be killed by terrorists is nil, but the chance some of my countrymen will be killed by terrorists is 100%, and I care about them, while you do not give a fuck, or actively hate your countrymen and want them dead. I'm outraged that my countrymen are betrayed by their government. The most basic function of government is "keep out hostile foreigners." The first government was two cavemen saying "okay, if someone tries to come in the cave who isn't one of us, hit him with this rock." And the government is failing in that duty by letting in foreigners who adhere to an ideology that is expressly xenocidal to everything that is not it.

I'm not a xenophobe, I don't hate the ragheads, I just want them to stay over in their desert shitholes away from my countrymen that I do care about. The problem is you're an oikophobe...you hate your neighbors. You will freak the fuck out about the possibility someone might be an evil, evil racist who maybe doesn't like black people and will nitpick every turn of phrase looking for "dog whistles" for evidence of this horrid thought crime. But Ahmed expressly says "death to the west, kill all the infidels, and we will conquer your lands and Islam will rule the world" and you say "come right on in friend!" and will rain scorn on anyone who dares criticize your best buddy Ahmed. Your entire worldview is backwards.

The other reason I don't want muslims (or generally cultures not compatible with our own) is because that's always the excuse used to expand the police and surveillance state. Import incompatible people, and when violence inevitably occurs, "Oops, like we need to take more of your civil rights to keep you safe!" It is the most basic divide and conquer tactics, and is one of the many ways the elite control the populace.

I also think long term, in the hundreds or thousands of years, instead of just what's convenient right now. I know that given enough time, with their mass migrations and high birthrates that eventually our people will come into conflict with them. It happens every damn time, and I know this because I study history. When they are few they say "we are a religion of peace." When they are more they say "we should live under our own laws." When they are many they say "convert or die." The only consolation is that people like you are the first ones they kill. When the Lebanese civil war started the muslims would come to the liberals who would say "but we are your friends, we welcomed you, we opposed the Christians who didn't want you to come!" and they said "you are very stupid!" and sawed off their heads. Cold comfort. I'd rather avoid conflict entirely, but we can't do that when you insist on bringing conflict to us, and actively oppose those who would avoid it. Islam is cancer, but leftism is AIDS.

So as you can see, my opposition to Islamification has nothing to do with fear for my own safety.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[hairyfeet]

Which is what I think is so fucking hilarious about the regressives. Those of us that supported Bernie told them this was going to happen because HRC was not only a corporate stooge but her entire platform was built on calling anyone who had a differing opinion an "ist" (remember the "basket of deplorables"? Yeah you are sure gonna win votes by calling all those that disagree with you a bunch of "ists") but instead we were just called names, ridiculed with titles like "Bernie bros"....so ya know what? I'm gonna kick back, pop some popcorn, and LMAO as all the virtue signaling east coast/west coast SJWs royally get their asses handed to them for at least the next decade if not more.

And I may not have voted for Trump (just for the record I wrote in Bernie as a protest vote) I'll give credit where credit is due and at least he ran on a platform of what he was gonna do and by God he's doing it, what did Hillary run on? What was her platform? Oh yeah she has a vagina so "its her turn" and...yeah that was pretty much it, other than a bunch of hamfisted attempts at sucking up to various special interests with obvious vote begging promises everyone could tell she didn't give 2 shits about. the regressives can have a shit and mark me troll but facts are facts and Trump HAD A PLATFORM, Bernie HAD A PLATFORM, Hillary had identity politics and a mainstream media tripping over themselves to ignore every dirty underhand play she did and kiss her ring.

So I wish those on the right nothing but luck and I hope that after the DNC gets curbstomped for the better part of the next decade either we'll get the cleaning of the corrupt cabal that is the DNC or even better the rise of a true third party in this country like The Green Party, because as it is now? those of us on the left that are actually for everyone being treated equal and are against corruption, we don't have a party, just as the fiscal conservatives got ran out of the Republican tent in the 80s by the neocons and their dreams of empire and had to form the Libertarians maybe its time all of us that don't go for racism and identity politics formed our own party and let the corrupt DNC rot.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[HeckRuler]

the kind of crisis that hasn't been seen since Iran-Contra or the Lewinsky affair, and, as with Watergate before it

Isn't it terrible that the Iran-Contra affair is more well known that the 1953 Iranian Coup d'état.

But if you want to draw comparisons to history, I'd go with pretty much everything about Andrew Jackson.

Before getting elected the "Democratic-Republican Party became factionalized" Kinda like the GOP and the TEA partiers.

Campained for "ending what he termed a "monopoly" of government by elites"

The election was personal, crude, and "the press accused Jackson's wife Rachel of bigamy". But he did win by a landslide.

"they favored geographical expansion, justifying it in terms of Manifest Destiny."

Hey, and some good things. Like pro-democracy. Voting for judges instead of appointing them. Power to the people. In that sense, he was a demagogue.

Then again, it's not democracy for everyone: "Jackson's expansion of democracy was largely limited to Americans of European descent, and voting rights were extended to adult white males only. There was little or no progress (and in some cases regression) for the rights of African-Americans and Native Americans."

He was "elected by the common man".

"Jackson created a spoils system to clear out elected officials in government of an opposing party and replace them with his supporters as a reward for their electioneering."

He kicked out a bunch of native Americans. Trump is trying to kick out a bunch of native central Americans.

"Jackson became the most influential and controversial political figure of the 1820s and 1830s."

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[vannoble]

What I don't get is why people don't understand that even if we did use the popular vote for the measure you still need a MAJORITY(>50%) of votes. Hillary only got 48.2% of the popular vote, which if we are still using the rules from the Constitution would kick it back to the House with a 3 way runoff. The Republican controlled House would still have voted Trump in as POTUS.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[Anonymous Coward]

I was with you for the most part, her victory was certainly not a landslide and it is important to keep things in perspective, but this: "As for winning, what about Andrew Jackson?" This is a Republican talking point made in defense of Bush 2. When people say that Bush 2 was the worst president ever, this is the Republican counter. First, because Jackson was a Democrat and so Republicans have the opportunity to get that little dig in, and second because Jackson was bad in many of the same ways that Bush 2 was bad - authoritarianism, cronyism, etc. The thing is, even if you blame the Indian Removal Act and its consequences entirely on Jackson (not reasonable), it had something like 1% of the mortality rate of the war in Iraq and its consequences. And that's still climbing.

It's certainly far too early to say that Trump is worse than Bush 2, though he seems dedicated to achieving that goal, but let's not kid ourselves: Andrew Jackson, while a very bad president, can't really touch Trump. He was at least rational.

Also: your proposed solution of removing super delegates - you realize that those super delegates exist in order to prevent someone like Trump from winning the Democratic nomination? That is their express purpose, and if the Republicans had something similar we all wouldn't be in this mess.

 

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[HeckRuler]

"As for winning, what about Andrew Jackson?" This is a Republican talking point made in defense of Bush 2. When people say that Bush 2 was the worst president ever, this is the Republican counter.

Holy cow dude, in case you missed it the last guy who won the election and lost the popular vote was "Bush 2". How does someone lambasting both Jackson and Bush fit into your talking-point narrative?

The parties change so much every 50 years it hardly matters to current politics what either of them did back then. Yeah, the democrats were real jackasses... back in 1830.

The thing is, even if you blame the Indian Removal Act and its consequences entirely on Jackson (not reasonable)

Not reasonable? What kind of terse, un-cited, and unexplained counter point is this? You might as well end you post with "sad". Are your words great? Are they the best words?

He signed the bloody law. He fought Indians in wars prior to his presidency. He was generally a racist asshat. But wanted all white men to vote, which was a progressive step for the time. No, I don't think any elected official ever really deserves ALL the blame for anything they do in office, but the guy was clearly... Involved.

If we didn't have super-delegates and an establishment forcing a choice down our throats, I think we'd have seen what Bernie could have gotten done.

 

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[silentcoder]

I hope you're your right. That guy is crazy dangerous.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[silentcoder]

Others have already answered well. I will simply add this: the democrats didn't ignore those people, hell the dems have been fighting for them their entire existence. It's the one liberal thing the democrats were doing even BEFORE the civil-rights-act realignment when all the liberal republicans joined the democrats. But the problems they are facing now is not something the democrats COULD have fixed. It's beyond the capabilities of government to alter global economic realities. Trump can't do it either, and the republicans attempt to repaint themselves as the friend of the working class isn't going to work either. It cannot be done. Government should have offered them alternatives - viable alternatives - and the democrats sure tried. Clinton's proposal was to offer programs for cheap and easy retraining to help the rust-belters transition to areas of the economy where there are job growth - like green energy.

I did read an interesting article recently that rather explained how somebody so far removed from everything they believed in managed to get the religious right to vote for him - and the short version is, he didn't. The evangelicals didn't vote for Trump - they voted for Pence.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[silentcoder]

Yes... and the only thing bigger than his inauguration was the death toll at Bowling Green.

Re: Okay - that was quick.

[silentcoder]

Well, firstly, Trump made the hand-size thing a part of the issues when he boasted about them during a debate. It's not wrong to attack somebody on personal grounds when they, themselves, made those personal grounds part of the discussion.

More practically - Trump hates any and all criticism, he can't take it, and that's why mocking him is an important a part of resisting his worst ideas as protest is - indeed it's why the right to mock him is enshrined in the constitution. In his case it's even more effective a strategy than usual.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[silentcoder]

No other countries with popular vote systems have such a requirement - why do you assume the US would ? Lets imagine a scenario where Stein or Johnson actually get votes and the final tally ends up say
Trump: 31%
Clinton: 32%
Johnson: 36%

In any popular vote country Johnson would be president. Most popular vote countries are vote-for-the-party and the party chooses the leader systems- which has it's own flaws, but the point stands. The current Tory government in the UK only got 38% of the vote in the last election, yet they rule with complete control.

That's the problem with first-past-the-post. Personally I believe that the best system is the one South Africa uses for local-government elections (and should really extend to provincial and national government) where 50% of the seats are elected by "won the district" and 50% are appointed by the parties divided up according to their share of the over-all vote in the city.
That ensures that the smaller parties get some seats even if their votes are too scattered to win any particular district, while also ensuring there are people in the council who are directly accountable to the voters and not chosen of some party roll.

It's not surprise that local-government is where the ANC dropped below 50% for the first time ever, and actually lost a number of major metros they had ruled ever since the constitution came into effect in 1994. If the opposition parties do well in those cities, and lives improve there - then you can expect them to lose a lot of power in 2019. I think they'll still be the ruling party - but they already lost the power to unilaterally write constitutional ammendments - and I suspect after 2019 they won't be able to pass any law without at least one other party supporting it.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[dbIII]

Wow - someone who thinks McCain is a Traitor and Oliver North is a Patriot.
No wonder things have gone to shit if there are a lot around like you.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[dbIII]

I'm not a xenophobe, I don't hate the ragheads

Pure gold. You are a one man stereotype. Do you write for Saturday Night Live?

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[Sun]

Just noting that Nate Silver is tracking how congressmen vote in alliance with Trump (here).

So far, no major revolts with Republicans.

Shachar

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[Gussington]

Have you ever heard the term "RINO?" As in "Republican In Name Only?" Neocon McCain is the chief RINO,

Of course because the only true Scotsmen do whatever it is you think of that particular day. We know how people like you think.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[meta-monkey]

Is it okay to call a vegan chowing down on a steak "not a real vegan?"

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[meta-monkey]

Do you write for Saturday Night Live?

No, I'm actually funny.

Re: Okay - that was quick.

[david_thornley]

For 2016, yes, we know who won. The Electoral College had a majority for Trump, and Congress accepted that count. Case closed. When judging how this is going to play out, the popular vote is important.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[david_thornley]

Who's rioting? I just googled "riot 2017", and found a references to one riot, in Berkeley. The violence was caused by an organized group of people who kept their identity secret (one was possibly identified as a Berkeley graduate, which doesn't mean much), so I don't know about their intentions or politics. I do know that the people who benefit from this are on the right wing.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[david_thornley]

Yep. A RINO is a Republican you disagree with.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[meta-monkey]

How about a Republican who consistently bashes other Republicans and repeats Democrat talking points, and who consistently opposes the ideology of the Republican base?

Is a vegan who eats steak still a vegan, and anyone who says "you're not a real vegan" committing a fallacy? How about a Nazi who loves Jews and prefers international capitalism to national socialism?

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[HeckRuler]

(unreasonable) (sad)

Re: Okay - that was quick.

[MachineShedFred]

The popular vote was important in November.

As time goes on, it is an increasingly meaningless statistic that is only used as I said above. The approval tracking polls show a more current "popular vote" that is actually updated. And, currently, Trump is losing that one as well, but he wasn't in the first week or so before he started doing really dumb shit.

Re: Okay - that was quick.

[atrex]

The administration doesn't care at all about the lying, or the violation of the Logan Act. The only reason Flynn got dismissed is because the media got wind of it and it made Trump/Pence look weak, foolish, and/or impotent if they continued to do nothing. That's the one thing Trump won't stand for.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[Ol Olsoc]

I think that ability on their part is fading fast. The polls showing Trump's precipitous fall in popularity tell the story of a presidency in the kind of crisis that hasn't been seen since Iran-Contra or the Lewinsky affair, and, as with Watergate before it, those scandals didn't hit until second terms. The fact that one of Trump's longest supporters has been outed being chatty with the Russian Ambassador just weeks into the Presidency just blows me away. This is like a presidency on amphetamines.

The press, reviled and hated and meekly bowing to the will of the Republicans for the last 15 years, has observed that no amount of kowtowing will reduce that hate.

They have woken up, and are now starting to do their goddamned jobs. Just wait, this popcorn party is going to get even more interesting as we find out that we have sold our souls to enemies of the United States. You folks want your Tequila neat, or the missus is going to make TeqJello shots.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[Ol Olsoc]

This is like a presidency on amphetamines.

This is like a presidency at amature hour.

This is a presidency as written by the Onion.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[eric_harris_76]

Please define "engage in diplomacy", if you can.

Please consider the First Amendment when you do it, if you can.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[Gussington]

Is it okay to call a vegan chowing down on a steak "not a real vegan?"

Sure. Now if you can explain what the qualification is to be a "true" right wing conservative then you might not sound so stupid...

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[HeckRuler]

2.1% is a landslide in anything? Sounds like mental gymnastics.

(Who ARE these people/guy?)

Re: Okay - that was quick.

[silentcoder]

In the final tally 11-million more people voted against him than voted for him. That's a fucking avalanche.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[radl33t]

Citizens with your petty, vindictive attitude are a bigger problem for our democracy than corruption in the DNC and/or the flaws of a specific candidate. I'm not even sure what you are complaining about. I think our awful government represents you perfectly.

Re:Okay - that was quick.

[shutdown -p now]

Have you ever heard the expression "No true Scotsman"?

Re:Whipslash? A suggestion?

[mmell]

Yes, we nerds are empowered by facts - not alternate facts.

You better put down the keyboard and get going, or you're going to be late for your Bund meeting.

Re:Everything

[MightyMartian]

Probably because Putin has preserved the urine-soaked sheets.

Re: Not fake news, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Been there.

Done that

You'd look less stupid if you tried a bit harder.

Emails

[friedman101]

Remember when like 70% of slashdot thought that it was a good idea to put this buffoon in power because Hillary was too "establishment" and was a dumbass about classified emails?

Any regrets yet?

Re:Emails

[Anonymous Coward]

I highly doubt 70% since most of the non-US world sees how fucking bad the Republicans are and wonders why the hell you keep voting for people who literally tells you that they are going to screw you over.

Perhaps you perceived the 5% or so active users that supports Trump as being way more than they actually are.

Re:Emails

[jez9999]

Um, right, so Trump got a free ride from the media?

Re:Emails

[tinkerton]

Remember when like 70% of slashdot thought that it was a good idea to put this buffoon in power because Hillary was too "establishment" and was a dumbass about classified emails?

It's a good question really. Or could be, with some effort. I think there are serious arguments against Clinton too, but the classified emails aren't amongst them (even though I'm judging it more severely than 'dumbass'). The choice is about shaking up the system: at what point do you decide that shaking up the system, with whatever short term effects it yields , is better then letting it evolve in its current direction. I think it's a legitimate question. The' least evil' option is the one where you will not risk major shakeups. On the other side of the spectrum is 'creative destruction', from the ashes will rise a new better order. For those who support Clinton there is of course no such dilemma.

Re:Emails

[CrimsonAvenger]

was a dumbass about classified emails

Note that the FOIA forbade what she did - the whole point of her private server wasn't to make it a convenient place for her to look at classified stuff, but a place for her to hide from the law.

Note also that if you or I had done what she did while working for the government, we'd be in jail now....

Re:Emails

[halivar]

During the PRIMARIES he did. The left wanted Trump to be the GOP front-runner so they could have an easy win in the general. Then they nominated literally the only person that could lose to him.

Re:Emails

[strikethree]

Remember when like 70% of slashdot thought that it was a good idea to put this buffoon in power because Hillary was too "establishment" and was a dumbass about classified emails?

Any regrets yet?

Nope. He is proving to be just as terrible as I thought he would; however, he is STILL a better choice than Clinton.

You do not fully understand why Clinton is so despised do you? Well, Clinton herself is not actually so terrible. Directly. It is what she would have allowed to continue that is so terrible.

The United States is crumbling around us. All of the wealth is being tied up into personal accounts of a very few people. A fucking interstate bridge fell on people and killed them. In America. Absolutely inconceivable... and yet, due to the resources all being tied up in personal accounts, people are DYING. Trump will not fight this, but he is a disruption in how that shit show works.

It is sad that the people in power essentially forced us to choose Trump as a reaction to their unholy greed. As bad as Trump wants to be, he will not be enough to cause more damage to America than the industrialized asphyxiation that a Clinton administration would have happily continued.

Do you understand now why Trump won the election?

Re:Emails

[null etc.]

Do you understand now why Trump won the election?

Yes, because people are stupid.

Re:Emails

[wjcofkc]

Yes, I also remember almost every comment critical of Trump, including mine, being systematically modded into oblivion. It did not matter that many added to the conversation in a level-headed way. It was the first time I ever found myself surprised by the readership here, and that says a lot. Perhaps I will see you in the land of trolls over this even now.

Re:Emails

[meta-monkey]

Why? According to the FBI Flynn did nothing illegal. He was let go for lying to Mike Pence. The lesson here should be that Trump demands loyalty at all times, and lying to his people gets your ass canned ASAP. How is that bad, if you're a Trump supporter?

Re:Emails

[jez9999]

The media basically admitted they were cheerleaders for Clinton, ffs.

Re:Emails

[bongey]

Nope I thought it was good idea because the PRESS would do ITS JOB. Unlike the last administration where the press was in love with Obama.There were numerous reporters that were CRYING over Obama leaving.

I didn't have that many issues with Obama, I had a big issue that the press typically only running negative stories for day or two in brief articles or 15 second clips.

Re:Emails

[Sparowl]

Seems to be working for Trump, now. Weird how all that outrage from his side about that kind of behavior went away....

Re:Emails

[david_thornley]

No on both counts.

There was no law against a private server. Powell was an enthusiastic user of private email. The FOIA says that certain information had to be available to the public, but that didn't affect where it was, and it's arguable that Clinton's emails were not subject to it. The private server would be illegal now, due to a law passed the year after Clinton was no longer Secretary of State.

If you or I had unintentionally mishandled classified material, we'd possibly lose our security clearances temporarily or permanently, or be fired. There would be no criminal prosecution. For anybody to consider prosecution, you'd have to find reasonable evidence that Clinton intended to mishandle it.

Re:That's not why he resigned

[coastwalker]

There is no evidence that he was being paid directly by the Russians. It is true that he was collecting regular fees from RT the Russian international propaganda outlet. (RT has similar characteristics to The Voice Of America, mostly real news but a clear propaganda role as well). As we were in the cold war at the time of Regan it is definitely true that none of his administration were being paid by the Russians - certainly not by their propaganda outlets. So it is not fake news to say that he was being paid by the Russians, just spin on real news. It is debatable whether in the current era of a lack of war but continuing friction between Russia and America that being "paid" by the Russians is important.

it seems more likely that Trump and his team were finding Flynn was too much of a psychopath to work with and the conversations with the Russians are a convenient reason to dump him. Remember Trump makes stuff up constantly so Flynn was only slightly stupid in neglecting to mention some of his conversations.

Re:Whipslash? A suggestion?

[kaur]

Seconded.
This story should not be here.
I can read this from CNN, Fox or my local newspaper.

Re:That's not why he resigned

[mmell]

Fake news - is that anything like "alternative facts"? :^O

Or is calling anything you disagree with a lie the only way you know how to deal with reality? You know, the problem with that strategy is that the Truth (unlike alternative facts) won't go anywhere. Long after every fairy tale you and the rest of your son of a Drumpf daddy can come up with has been disproven and discarded, the Truth will still be there.

Re:FAKE NEWS! SAD!

[Z80a]

Not many people take infowars seriously.
When even the "alt-right" (also known as /pol/) can't take him seriously, stuff's not serious.
But there will be always one or two that will buy the filter to stop his frogs from becoming gay.

Already?

[nospam007]

Already rats leaving the sinking ship.

Re:Already?

[Black Parrot]

Already rats leaving the sinking ship.

Funny way of clearing the swamp.

Re:Whipslash? A suggestion?

[dbIII]

Whose political aides are so stupid that they can't even find a damn light switch

Even more stupid than that they leaked to the press that they can't even find a damn light switch.

Re:w00t

[dbIII]

I hear Oliver North is looking for a job. He has some........special skills

He has a job, he's one of the people running the fucking NRA. That kind of explains why the NRA objected to a gun ban for suspected terrorists on the no fly list. North has got a thing about running guns to terrorists, or even giving away anti-tank weapons to Hezbolla for free!

FMP

[Anonymous Coward]

In my defense I only thought it would be funny, like voting for Darth Vader.

Re:That's not why he resigned

[dbIII]

Fake News like him being "paid by the Russians"

No that was Trump's earlier campaign manager, Paul Manafort, who did PR work for Russian separatists in Ukraine and was paid by the Russian government for it. He quit and was replaced by Bannon because of that taint.
We live in "interesting" times. The most ridiculous fake news is uncomfortably close to reality.

Re: Peaceful transition Obama DOJ gets revenge

[mmell]

Unlike alternative facts - truth hurts, huh?

Re: Peaceful transition Obama DOJ gets revenge

[mmell]

Could Bill have been blackmailed for this? I mean, compared to water sports anything involving a cigar has got to be pretty tame, eh?

Re:Peaceful transition Obama DOJ gets revenge

[dbIII]

There's enough with the underage girls without kinkshaming him. Yes it's funny, comedy gold, but still, bunching fetish people in with Trump is a bit cruel.

Berkeley Riots

[Kunedog]

Nerds care about politics when it's this fucked up. Therefore political news is nerd news.

If that were the standard then we would've surely had a post about the Berkely Riots.

Re:Berkeley Riots

[Anonymous Coward]

that wasn't politics. it was inconsequential nonsense at a university campus. My uni mates cause more damage after a hockey win celebration riot

Yeah he should have just said "of course we talked

[raymorris]

Yeah I agree the problem is lying about it. He's the incoming national security advisor. He should have said "yeah, I talked to the Russian ambassador, and I'm preparing my recommendations and report for the President based on those discussions". Just blow it off as doing his job, albeit prematurely, before the inauguration.

In theory he might have violated the Logan Act, but in
200 years nobody has ever been prosecuted under the Logan Act (one person has been indicted). As a member of the incoming administration's foreign policy team, it's not *that* weird that he would talk to diplomats from other nations and start getting to them and their positions.

Not that I'm saying it was hunky-dory to have those conversations at that time, but he certainly could have made it seem like no big deal, if he didn't lie about it.

Re:That's not why he resigned

[Anonymous Coward]

Fake news had a very specific meaning, which is propaganda consisting of outright lies masquerading as real news to influence public opinion in a given way. We're not talking about traditional media (many people now believe the majority of the MSM are "fake news", which is in itself a triumph of fake news) We know most of it comes out of Eastern Europe, and is supporting Russian moves to destabilise and break apart the west. And it appears to be succeeding. You'll notice I've not mentioned Trump even once in that, because this story has been around for a couple of years *before* the US elections, and I've been following it. What the alt-right has done is taken the term "fake news" when applied correctly to articles supporting their cause, and turned it around to mean "any news I don't like", be it real or fake.

Re:slashdot == political paparazzo tabloid

[bluegutang]

It would be hilarious if he didn't have so much damn power now.

Re: Whipslash? A suggestion?

[mmell]

Here ya go!

Looking for a nerdier side of this article?

[CustomSolvers2]

All the web links in Slashdot include a reference to the corresponding domain in parentheses, what also applies to the article titles. As you can see, the domain storing the referred article is go.com, despite belonging to ABC News. Is go.com part of ABC news? Is it a second-level domain/2-part top level domain (TLD)? None of this.

Note that I am currently doing my second attempt at collecting/ranking a big enough number of web domains (already wrote a reference to it in a previous comment). All this has helped me realise about the surprisingly complex structure of web domains, subdomains, TLDs, etc. Determining the domain name isn't as simple as it might seem and there are quite a few tricky scenarios.

I knew about go.com since the very first moment, because it is one of the most-liked domains in the whole internet (as per my current estimates, it is within the top 100; these are still too preliminary and unreliable conclusions though). What I found very curious was that it displays Disney contents (not identical to disney.com, but almost), not precisely the most logical scenario for a so high ranking. The curious explanation is that go.com behaves as a kind of second-level domain, where its subdomains store information of apparently-unrelated domains. For example and additionally to ABC News and Disney, it also stores ESPN.com contents as explained in the corresponding Wikipedia page.

Re:Looking for a nerdier side of this article?

[CustomSolvers2]

Why's that domain still in use? Inertia more than anything else.

Actually, go.com is a quite attractive URL for the English-speaking market. Disney getting money from companies for using that domain does make sense to me, but what is the point of keeping the Disney contents in the root directory? People looking for Disney stuff will visit disney.com and those interested in things like ABC or ESPN news will find this a bit weird.

Re:slashdot == political paparazzo tabloid

[Black Parrot]

There is talk among Washington reporters that they actually wonder if Trump is in possession of his faculties.

If it were you or me that would be a forgone conclusion. However, the problem with claiming that Trump is mental is that his behavior is exactly why you'd expect from a spoiled brat billionaire grown old and cranky.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Forget about Darth Vader...

[DrYak]

Why vote for the "lesser of 2 evils", when you could vote for Cthulhu ?

Re:Forget about Darth Vader...

[Cro Magnon]

Sadly, with Trump & Hilary, Cthulhu IS the lesser evil!

Re:Forget about Darth Vader...

[david_thornley]

To the best of my knowledge, neither Clinton nor Trump have grabbed people with their mouth tentacles and then eaten them. You could probably get people not agreeing with me on one candidate or the other.

Re:Pence is consolidating his position

[Freischutz]

D'ya suppose Trump'll pardon him?

Eh, he might, but I doubt he really gives a damn.

Loyalty means a lot to Trump. That is to say he expects other people to be fiercely loyal to him. He, on the other hand, seems to feel no obligation to be loyal to his followers.

Etiquette?? Anybody?

[Freischutz]

And I guarantee that Reagan's NSA director didn't resign because he was too cozy with and taking money from the Russians.

... that is Mr Ratzo ...

Mr Ratzo? The proper way to address a pope is. "Your Holiness.", or if you want to be formal: "Your Holiness, Pope Ratzo I, Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the Vatican City State, Servant of the servants of God".

Re:Etiquette?? Anybody?

[tehcyder]

And I guarantee that Reagan's NSA director didn't resign because he was too cozy with and taking money from the Russians.

... that is Mr Ratzo ...

Mr Ratzo? The proper way to address a pope is. "Your Holiness.", or if you want to be formal: "Your Holiness, Pope Ratzo I, Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the Vatican City State, Servant of the servants of God".

You may not have considered this, but it's possible he's not the actual Pope.

Re:Etiquette?? Anybody?

[PopeRatzo]

You may not have considered this, but it's possible he's not the actual Pope.

Shh. Don't tell anyone. I look good in these robes.

You can call me "Young Pope".

Re:slashdot == political paparazzo tabloid

[Gussington]

Awesome man, seriously fucking awesome.

There is talk among Washington reporters that they actually wonder if Trump is in possession of his faculties.

Of course he is, his Doctor said he is the healthiest individual ever elected President. Because that sounds like the words a professional doctor would use...

Phone call...

[johanw]

That is what you get when your non-intervention policy makes you an enemy of the intelligence services. After all, the president should abide by their agenda, or else...

Re:That's not why he resigned

[tinkerton]

it seems more likely that Trump and his team were finding Flynn was too much of a psychopath to work with and the conversations with the Russians are a convenient reason to dump him.

That is an interesting option. It's likely that Tillerson and Mattis weren't happy with Flynn and at least put up little resistance when Flynn came under fire. Flynn seems to be very much a broken clock on Islam. So, his prediction of the rise of Isis was good, his position about which side to choose on Syria was good , and - no that's two times already, day's budget is up. Well I think his position on Russia was good.
He coauthored a book with Michael Ledeen. I don't know if he's a psychopath - but he's seriously out there.

Re:That's not why he resigned

[0xdeadbeef]

Nice try Vermin... that is Mr Ratzo.

You know who else talked like that?

It's funny how quickly you people lose your composure when your power is threatened.

Presidents have little control over the economy

[sjbe]

Should Trump move to weaken the dollar, I predict he, too, will be impeached.

Trump has little control over the strength of the dollar or the economy in general. The amount of influence presidents have over the economy is almost always hugely overestimated. Yes there are some things Trump could do around the edges but anything that would have a truly substantial impact would require an act of Congress so he wouldn't be acting alone. The value of the dollar is mostly influenced by the Federal Reserve which does not report to the president and large macro-economic factors over which the president has very little control. When people talk about the president "doing something" about the economy they mostly are asking him to look like he's trying to do something because in reality he doesn't have much to work with.

A weak dollar is not necessarily a bad thing. It means that your exports are more competitive but it also means everything you import is more expensive. Conversely a strong dollar makes buying imports cheaper but makes your exports more expensive. Pick your poison. China has intentionally maintained a weak currency to support their export oriented economy. So do you want a strong dollar which makes everything you buy at Walmart from China cheaper or do you want a weak dollar which improves our ability to sell stuff to other countries but will increase the cost of much of what you buy? If the Trump manages to impose tariffs like he has promised on foreign made goods that will have all the negative effects of weakening the dollar without the positive benefits of actually weakening the dollar. (It makes everything we buy more expensive but doesn't make what we sell cheaper) That's one of the many reasons he is an idiot for suggesting it.

Trump may get impeached (very unlikely but possible) but with an republican congress he'd have to do something a LOT more heinous than try weaken the dollar. And even if he did, Pence is not exactly a welcome replacement.

Re:Presidents have little control over the economy

[Anna Merikin]

You are aware, I'm sure, that posts on /. are, by necessity, time-sensitive, and, so, not well-edited. I would have revised much of what I said were there time.

No, presidents can't act without Congress' approval -- except for Nixon and FDR, which I noted. Both devaluations were done as a fait accompli and a surprise to political donors, many of whom are international bankers. The Federal Reserve was not involved. Those political donors, in Nixon's case, caused Republicans in Congress to support impeachment, which led to his resignation. That is my take, and I was a news writer at the time....

Re: They have Kompromat on Trump

[Maritz]

He didn't say your president was a pedophile. Read it again, dumbass.

Re:That's not why he resigned

[rmdingler]

When the news media from your side and theirs (fungible) began stretching the truth to emphasize a point, everyone lost the battle for high ground.

Exactly the same thing happened in the climate change argument.

Re:That's not why he resigned

[rmdingler]

The reason he resigned was that he had talked to the Russians before Trump was in office, but had not fully briefed Pence/Trump.

The reason he resigned is because he lied.

Yes. We Americans are a highly moral set of voters. Whether or not you made a secret deal with a foreign power or sullied the honor of a young woman is irrelevant, really, unless you lie about it afterward.

Re:Yeah he should have just said "of course we tal

[silentcoder]

Fact remains though - when the call was made he was
1) Not in any way part of the executive branch
2) Not in any way authorized to speak on behalf of the executive branch

And therefore: flagrantly undermining the foreign policy objectives of the sitting president of the united states. Which is a crime and this application of the Logan act would almost certainly pass constitutional muster. The problem isn't that he spoke to Russia - it's what he spoke about, things that the constitution CLEARLY reserves for the executive branch and which he had no authority to intervene in.

The fact that, if he had waited a few weeks, he would have been perfectly within the law should not make a difference. If a cop finds a 17 year old working in a strip club they won't fail to prosecute the owner because her birthday is really, really close. They won't fail to prosecute even if her birthday is tomorrow ! She's there before it's legal and that's the end of the matter. Hell in the red states they'd probably prosecute HER as well and come up with some reason to make her register as a sex offender. I mean if they do it for sexting teens they sure as hell won't let a stripper get away with it. Even if she's a totally empowered young women doing it because it makes her, personally, feel good and pays well. Actually - that would probably make them MORE eager to punish her, punishing a drug-addicted girl from extreme poverty for doing what she had to, to survive doesn't play that well with the public (even the religious right), but punishing a proud slut sure does !

Re:Whipslash? A suggestion?

[Maritz]

There have been non-tech articles since always when it's important enough. Feel free to take your eyeballs elsewhere and give the rest of us a break from your bleating. Thanks buddy.

Re:Whipslash? A suggestion?

[Maritz]

Be sure to add to the comments, then the owners will realise how unpopular the article is.

Re:Whipslash? A suggestion?

[Bongo]

Yes, we nerds are empowered by facts - not alternate facts.

As a side note, I continue to be amazed by how often the "cover the lie by sticking an adjective in front of it" method is used.

Alternative facts.
Heart-healthy margarine.
Catastrophic global warming.
Peaceful religion.
Natural ... whatever.
Organic ... whatever.

Which isn't to say those things are all lies as such, rather, just how often marketing people use adjectives, rather than explain facts and how those facts were established, and how they were verified repeatedly, without excluding any counter-facts, and free of bias, and objective, and uh... oh ok.

Hey, Wise and Popular Trump everyone!

Re:Pence is consolidating his position

[zifn4b]

You might want to google "Spiro Agnew".

Sadly, we don't live in a world where everyone is playing a zero sum game for the most positive outcome for the entire human race. We live in tribes that we refer to as countries and for the most part we only care about the interest of our respective tribe. Even within our countries/tribes they are further broken down into sub-tribes that are all doing the same thing. It cascades down in hierarchical fashion.

The only way to function in this type of situation is to "Keep your friends close and keep your enemies closer". Sad, but true. I guarantee you that whining about it on slashdot won't make it any better. The other thing to consider is that the "system" itself has characteristics that fuels the incubator for this type of conflict. If you think it about, human civilization has never been in any other state than conflict in one form or another. I hope someone figures that problem out some day. The liberal theories of the 90's that were supposed to organically facilitate this type of change failed. Now we're back to the drawing board again.

Re: Yeah he should have just said "of course we ta

[fortfive]

Rukes for thee but not for me.

Bottes Timberland Pas Cher France

[sanyuhao]

La part des renouvelables a représenté 16,4% de la consommation énergétique finale en 2015, permettant une réduction des émissions de gaz à effet de serre européennes de 436 millions de tonnes en équivalent CO2 (MtCO2eq). Par ailleurs, le rapport dédié au sujet rappelle que "la trajectoire indicative pour 2015/2016 est 13,8%". Vingt-cinq Etats membres dépassent leur objectif prévisionnel, le meilleur élève étant la Suède (54,1% de renouvelables, pour un objectif de 43,9%). A l'opposé, la France, le Luxembourg et les Pays-Bas sont les trois pays à ne pas atteindre l'objectif intermédiaire. Seuls les Pays-Bas ont informé la Commission et présenté un plan de rattrapage. Quant à la France, la consommation énergétique finale n'est couverte par les renouvelables qu'à hauteur de 14,4%, pour un objectif intermédiaire de 16% et un objectif final de 23% en 2020 timberland Homme .

No fall, no change

[Geoffrey.landis]

I think that ability on their part is fading fast. The polls showing Trump's precipitous fall in popularity.. .

The polls are not showing a "precipitous fall in popularity". So far, three weeks after inauguration, the people who liked Trump before still like him and think he's doing good; the people who didn't like Trump before still don't like him and think he's doing badly.

Really. Look at the actual poll numbers, not the misleading headlines: no real change.
http://elections.huffingtonpos...

His approval ratings almost certainly will change as people start to judge him on what he does, not what his campaign said-- but this has not happened yet.

Re:No fall, no change

[Merk42]

His approval ratings almost certainly will change as people start to judge him on what he does...

I honestly doubt this will ever happen, in either direction.

Re:No fall, no change

[Rob Y.]

Except that some of the people who didn't like him voted for him anyway. Those folks are less likely to be forgiving.

Re:No fall, no change

[Lord Dreamshaper]

look again: his approval rating is roughly the same. his disapproval rating is up (worse) 10% in that time. approx half of the undecideds have come off the fence and none in his favour. none of the many real or perceived gaffes caused a spike that could maybe be smoothed over, rather the ongoing cumulative effect of the succession of gaffes is gaining momentum against him. less than a month is a small sample size, but it would appear that he isn't going to get much of a "100 days" post-election honeymoon period with the voters

Re:That's not why he resigned

[Anonymous Curmudgeon]

Fake news had a very specific meaning, which is propaganda consisting of outright lies masquerading as real news to influence public opinion in a given way....

The middle of your "fake news" definition is correct, but you've tacked on a few unnecessary qualifiers; it is simply "outright lies masquerading as real news". It doesn't have to be propaganda, and it doesn't have to have a specific public opinion shifting goal.

Replace it... with what?

[Geoffrey.landis]

...And, sorry, Obamacare actually *is* something to oppose. It's amazing how many of my friends lost their insurance and are now paying double or triple for less coverage. And this was all fully predictable to anyone paying attention....

I would think it would be prudent to wait to hear what the politicians who are cancelling it tell us what they are going to implement instead.

So far, it's a pig in a poke-- they're saying "we'll come up with something much much better, trust us, it will be great"-- but they don't seem to have any idea what this "better" system is going to be or how it will work.

Sorry, but I'm skeptical: I want to see some details before I'm convinced.

Re:Replace it... with what?

[aquacrayfish]

I'm in complete agreement on this. I think those even in favor of an attempted health care overhaul wanted the ACA to be better than it is. We've heard rallying cries against it for at least 7 years now, posturing included with 'we have a better idea'. There's been plenty of time to come up with a better plan in preparation for this moment and it hasn't arrived yet. Instead, all we've had is a draft bill was recently floated with a giant 'TBD' in it.

Sorry, let's say a better option comes in a year or two - they don't get extra credit for being pioneers. Preparation counts. I welcome something better, preferably a single-payer option included (no, not holding my breath on that), but if something was in the wings it would have been announced by now. They don't know yet, which is why they're being booed out of their own town halls meetings.

Re:Replace it... with what?

[Trailer Trash]

I would think it would be prudent to wait to hear what the politicians who are cancelling it tell us what they are going to implement instead.

So far, it's a pig in a poke-- they're saying "we'll come up with something much much better, trust us, it will be great"-- but they don't seem to have any idea what this "better" system is going to be or how it will work.

Sorry, but I'm skeptical: I want to see some details before I'm convinced.

Right. I mean, I can imagine those Republicans are so stupid that they'll come up with something and then say "duh, but, der, we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it". That'd be just like a stupid Republican, amiright?

Re:Replace it... with what?

[chiefcrash]

Sorry, but I'm skeptical: I want to see some details before I'm convinced.

Sorry, but we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it... ;)

Re:Replace it... with what?

[dbIII]

Was that being ironic or some attempt at a joke? You just described EXACTLY what happened with the US PATRIOT act apart from using the word "stupid" a lot. It was rushed through before anyone other than the drafters knew what was in it.

Also going on about stupidity just above a sig about ESP is ... interesting.

Re:Replace it... with what?

[kqs]

Right. I mean, I can imagine those Republicans are so stupid that they'll come up with something and then say "duh, but, der, we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it". That'd be just like a stupid Republican, amiright?

I love that quote; it's an easy way to separate idiots from people who care about facts. Intelligent people listen to the two sentences before it and realize what Pelosi was saying. Idiot partisans just assume it means "we won't show you what's in this bill before we pass it, neener neener", and of course never look deeper because they're idiots.

I encourage you to look up the whole quote. Then think about where you first heard about this quote, and ask yourself why they lied about the meaning, and why you accepted it. Also ask yourself if listening to that source is a good idea. You won't, but since this country would be better off with fewer sheep and more thinkers, I feel that I should at least encourage you.

Re:Replace it... with what?

[Trailer Trash]

I'm quite aware of the looney left talking point that Pelosi's quote makes total sense in context. And, though I'm aware of the context, I stand by what I said.

Pelosi is *nothing* but a typical leftist lunatic. Nothing. Zilch.

For those wondering about the context, hopefully this is enough to give you an idea. The part I quoted is in the middle. This doesn't include the "duhs", "ders" and general drooling that it, er, she does while babbling:

You’ve heard about the controversies, the process about the billbut I don’t know if you’ve heard that it is legislation for the future – not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America. But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it – away from the fog of the controversy.

Sorry, the reason she didn't want to talk about it was because it had a number of bombs in it that were timed to go off after elections. As they've went off, they have continued to propel the cost of insurance up astronomically. She could have been honest about this beforehand, but instead she chose to claim that it's easier to pass the bill, shove it down everybody's throat, and then let you find out what was in it.

That you've simply regurgitated a left-wing talking point means that you're one of the sheep. FYI.

Re:Replace it... with what?

[kqs]

Sorry, the reason she didn't want to talk about it was because it had a number of bombs in it that were timed to go off after elections. As they've went off, they have continued to propel the cost of insurance up astronomically.

What is amazing is that exactly zero predictions Republicans made about Obamacare came true. Zero. That's a truly amazing record. I don't think there has ever been a psychic with a worse record.

Healthcare.gov would never work? False. Nobody would sign up for the ACA? False. Only sick people would sign up? False. Would kill millions of jobs? How about that really low unemployment and many years of job growth! (Thanks Obama!) Would make employers make millions of jobs part-time-only? False. 30 million people would lose employer insurance? False. Death panels? I don't even... Would cause massive deficits? The deficit shrunk in real dollars every year that Obama was president.

"Propel the cost of insurance up astronomically"? Huh? Even with spikes in a few states health care costs are well below estimates from 8 years ago. Until Obamacare, health care costs were going up an average of 8% a year over the previous 30 years. They've gone up about 3-4% a year since. Sure, some of that was the recession, and there will be some corrections; we're seeing a few now. But that still puts costs far below expectations.

Pelosi said that people like you were telling lies about the ACA, but that once it was passed people would see through the lies. Guess what: People don't want to get rid of Obamacare! GOP officials are cancelling town halls because their fragile egos crack when they hear their constituents beg them to keep Obamacare. Every budget watchdog has warned that removing Obamacare will explode the deficit. The GOP has gone from "repeal" to "repeal and replace" to "repair" and now they're hoping they can just ignore it and let it continue.

Look, I realize that you actually believe the lies you repeat. But it's so easy to look at the actual facts. Please, please do so.

Re:Whipslash? A suggestion?

[itsenrique]

Yup. Some stories are so big if you don't cover them, people just post about it in comments of ANY story. And Slashdot has always had major political stories, I've been reading since before 9/11.

Zero sum game [Re:Pence is consolidating...]

[Geoffrey.landis]

Sadly, we don't live in a world where everyone is playing a zero sum game for the most positive outcome for the entire human race...

Those two phrases contradict each other. If it's a zero-sum game, there is no "most positive outcome"; the sum of positive and negative is fixed at zero.

I think what you mean is more like "we live in a world where everyone is playing a zero sum game instead of playing for the most positive outcome for the entire human race.

Re:Zero sum game [Re:Pence is consolidating...]

[zifn4b]

Thanks I meant non zero sum game. Actually the different is zero sum game means there must be one winner with all the rest losers like a sports bracket. In a non-zero sum game either everyone wins or everyone loses.

Fake news is real

[Geoffrey.landis]

Fake news had a very specific meaning, which is propaganda consisting of outright lies masquerading as real news to influence public opinion in a given way.

No, the term "fake news" is looney left propaganda made up in the face of Hillary's loss to explain why she lost.

No, fake news really exists, although it the term has been coopted to mean "stuff I don't agree with." There were web sites that basically completely made stuff up. some of them had small print claiming that they were satire, like this one http://www.thatsfake.com/did-e... but some of them were just clickbait sites, making shit up and trying to go viral with links reposted so that they could score with clicks, like this one: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

You're right to this extent, though, the term is much over-used recently.

Re:Fake news is real

[Trailer Trash]

I should note, by the way, that the NYT article that you linked describes *exactly* what happens when fake news is passed off by the mainstream media. The guy took a Trump talking point, made up a story about it, and passed it off.

There is literally no difference between that and the two stories that I referenced, with the exception that Time Magazine is supposedly a legitimate news source. You should be *far* more concerned about Time creating and passing fake news than some guy working by himself.

Re:Fake news is real

[AthanasiusKircher]

Both items were passed off as "news" by seemingly legitimate news organizations. Both items are fake news - literally fake.

You seem to not understand the difference between "fake" and "incorrect/erroneous" If you hand a bouncer a "fake ID" at a bar, it doesn't mean you accidentally handed them someone else's ID or maybe accidentally handed credentials that were expired or otherwise unacceptable to get into a bar. A "fake ID" implies that you KNOWINGLY manufactured a false ID (or had someone do it for you) with intent to pass it off as real.

Do you have evidence that the reporters in question actually INTENTIONALLY passed along false information? If not, they were not "fake news" according to the standard definition of the English word "fake."

And they offered corrections. Here's the detailed account from Time about the MLK bust. The reporter corrected his tweets as soon as he had recognized an error. That's NOT what actual "fake news" sites do -- because fake news sites KNOW their information is false when they MAKE IT UP, so they don't offer corrections.

As for the other incident, it's yet another example of poor reporting, but only because the Olympian gave an interview that IMPLIED a connection with Trump's immigration policies and only FOUR DAYS LATER tweeted that actually the incident occurred in December. Again, we should be critical for poor reporting here that then made an EXPLICIT connection with Trump, it should have fact-checked when the event actually occurred, but the Olympian in question was vague in her original interview and implied it had happened recently.

So, who exactly is at fault here? The Olympian was expressing concern over current immigration policies and made a vague reference to detention, which was only later clarified. Was she part of some massive media "conspiracy" to hide the truth until four days later? Or did she just innocently make reference in an interview to an unpleasant experience that occurred to her in immigration recently -- and some media articles misinterpreted her vague timeline?

I'm NOT going to excuse those media reporters who implied a Trump connection -- they made a serious journalistic error by not doing appropriate fact-checking. We should condemn their actions and poor journalism.

But once more detailed information became available, they corrected their stories -- once again, that's NOT the practice of "fake news."

There are various bad journalistic practices in the world. And we should condemn them, and even fire journalists sometimes for making truly egregious errors or showing unreasonable bias or whatever. BUT UNINTENTIONAL ERRORS ARE NOT "FAKE NEWS." Fake news is a separate problem -- and a serious one that we ignore by misusing the English word "fake" or redefining it to dilute its meaning.

Re:Fake news is real

[coinreturn]

No, fake news really exists, although it the term has been coopted to mean "stuff I don't agree with."

That's not correct - it's a looney left talking point. The two items that I referenced are *factually* incorrect. The MLK bust was never removed from the White House, this isn't someone's "opinion", it's a fact. Likewise, Trump became President on January 21, 2017. So if someone was detained at the airport in December of 2016, it had nothing to do with now President Trump. It had to do with President Obama. Again, not an "opinion", not "stuff I don't agree with", instead it is "fact".

Both items were passed off as "news" by seemingly legitimate news organizations. Both items are fake news - literally fake. There are plenty of other examples, but, newsflash: Media Matters isn't going to tell you about it.

You continue to fail at understanding "Fake News." The MLK bust story was MISTAKENLY incorrect, and it WAS CORRECTED. Fake news sites INTENTIONALLY LIE and DO NOT CORRECT.

Re:Well at least this was handled quickly

[oh_my_080980980]

So we shouldn't work together on Syria. Got it.

Re:Yeah he should have just said "of course we tal

[Anonymous Coward]

In case you haven't noticed,

a) She lost.

b) God Daddy immediately reneged on his promises to "lock her up" (along with many of his other promises).

Trump is in the big boy chair now, and he'd better get used to taking the blame for things. Hillary isn't a story anymore, and she isn't a valid deflection, either.

Re:w00t

[penandpaper]

That kind of explains why the NRA objected to a gun ban for suspected terrorists on the no fly list

Oh, I didn't realize that a citizen being "suspected" of a crime was enough justification to lose constitutionally protected rights... The whole "can't fly can't buy" campaign did a real good job of explaining why we should be able to quickly nullify rights without due process.

-.-

Re:Two different issues

[hackwrench]

Having nothing to hide and what one desires to do about undue pressure are two different things.

Re:Not fake news, but...

[Tough Love]

Not fake news, but it's certainly non-techie news...

If you insist on a techie dimension to the story, then think about why Flynn believed that his conversation with the Russian ambassador was secure and immune to evesdropping.

I can top that!

[hackwrench]

To me governments in general are minor figures of no importance.

Re:Pelosi is MORE guilty

[TrumpShaker]

with the Russians when Regan was president.

Regan was never president. White House Chief of Staff and Secretary of the Treasury before that, but never president. Unless I'm in an alternate universe, Ronald REAGAN is who you were referring to. Proofread!

FWIW, my grammar sucks, I'm working on it. But I try to re-read things I type before hitting "Submit" so that one day, maybe people will go back to thinking spelling and grammar are important again. I would love to say it's all Republicans...or all Democrats...but it's both, whether in a hurry or just ignorant. I don't know. The drop in people caring, however, is unpresidented.

"Make America Grate Again!"

Re:What were the other two?

[hackwrench]

I generally have plenty of other things to do than to get too involved in politics, but when the topic comes up, I take a passing interest, so who were the other two. I could try to do a search on it, but there's probably too much noise on the Trump/Russia front.

Re:Impossibility to apply laws

[hackwrench]

It is now nearly impossible to apply laws unless a person in power feels like it. Nobody knows what most of them even are!

Re: That's what makes them better.

[hackwrench]

You don't run a con with a dishonest face.

Re:That's not what rich people think

[hackwrench]

Rich people think that not rich people aren't competent or else they'd be rich.

Re:Whipslash? A suggestion?

[cyberchondriac]

Proof?

Re:That's not why he resigned

[Gilgaron]

It is actually a bigger deal to lie about doing things than to have done questionable things as far as security clearances go

WikiLeaks is a different beast

[Bootsy Collins]

In response to these events, WikiLeaks has tweeted "Trump's National Security Advisor Michael Flynn resigns after destabilization campaign by US spies, Democrats, press."

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/...

Wow. WikiLeaks has become a completely, utterly, totally different animal from what they were when they started out.

Re:WikiLeaks is a different beast

[bongey]

Wikileaks changed because you don't agree with them. If it was Trump they were going off on, you would be cheering them for exposing government corruption.

Re:WikiLeaks is a different beast

[bussdriver]

Is that official wikileaks? who runs that twitter account?

Re:What crime?

[DonaId Trump]

Look at this guy, folks, very smart and he has great words! The best words aside from mine, believe me. Would you like to be National Security Adviser?

Maybe not to public, but being lied to is differen

[Koreantoast]

They may not necessarily care what their subordinates say to others, but they do care if they are lied to in a way that creates a scandal.

Re:FAKE NEWS! SAD!

[Motherfucking Shit]

Not many people take infowars seriously.

Unfortunately, the President of the United States apparently does.

Re:That's not what rich people think

[dbIII]

To add to that Trump went to a "prosperity doctrine" Church.

Re:Pence is consolidating his position

[fustakrakich]

Exactly. That is why I said he probably doesn't give a damn about whatever happens to Flynn. He will wash of hands of the whole affair.

Re:w00t

[dbIII]

lose constitutionally protected rights

Joining the National Guard?
If that amendment was really about owning guns you'd have to hand the guns in at 45 wouldn't you? If it was really about owning guns then male felons could own guns, in prison, but no woman could.

Your right to own a gun comes from somewhere other than the second amendment so you can keep it after you turn 45.

Anyway, that's getting off the point of the NRA being run by someone that's the closest thing to a traitor in the USA who is still alive. The sad thing is the only one that went to jail over Iran-Contra is the fence building contractor who was paid with money that North embezzled.

Re:Peaceful transition Obama DOJ gets revenge

[dbIII]

Don't knock mimes. They do more than just punch Nazis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Marceau

Re:Yeah he should have just said "of course we tal

[meta-monkey]

Except according to the FBI nothing Flynn did was illegal. Flynn's sin was lying to Pence. Shouldn't the narrative be that Trump is a dictator who is ruthless with anyone who is disloyal to or embarrasses him?

Re:Whipslash? A suggestion?

[PopeRatzo]

Proof?

Slashdot customer service here again. I'm sorry you're having trouble seeing what's in front of your nose. I'll be happy to help you with that.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/11/...

http://thehill.com/homenews/se...

Would you mind taking a short survey about your experience with Slashdot customer service?

Wrong is not the same as fake

[Geoffrey.landis]

Wrong is not the same as "fake". Fake news is stuff that's made up.

One way you can tell the difference is by whether a correction is made when the error is pointed out. The Time story about the MLK bust you list as fake news, for example, was followed by a correction and an apology. That's journalism. Nobody is perfect; journalism consists of acknowledging and correcting mistakes.
Check here:
http://time.com/4645541/donald...

To verify, here is the article, dated 20 January. Note that the incorrect information is removed, and the article has a correction also dated 20 January:
http://time.com/4642088/trump-...

The correction reads: Correction: An earlier version of the story said that a bust of Martin Luther King had been moved. It is still in the Oval Office.

To verify that the correction wasn't backdated, here's the archived version of the article as of 1AM on Jan 21. Notice the correction: http://web.archive.org/web/201...

That's the difference.

Re:Whipslash? A suggestion?

[whipslash]

Slashdot has always had occasional big political stories. God forbid you scroll past it.

LTG Flynn deserves respect

[laughingskeptic]

Lets not forget that LTG Flynn is the type of man who has risked his life at times to answer a Priority Information Request (PIR). In many ways this takes more nerve and commitment than straight up combat. I suspect that part of the problem is that he may not have considered Pence to be in his chain of command as the vice president is not normally delegated roles in the way Trump was delegating things to Pence.

Re:w00t

[penandpaper]

You misunderstand the 2nd if you think it only applies to the National Guard. It doesn't. Here is an example, before the civil rights movement in the 60's the black community felt that police were not enforcing law and order. They decided that if the government would not enforce the laws they would. So they took up arms and marched on the legislature to get the police to enforce law in order in their communities. According to you, those people should have just accepted that the government would not help them in times of need and they should have no recourse to defend themselves from criminality. No.

Or how about the Battle of Athens where a black man was shot in the back in the polling station and the ballots stolen to be counted in secret. Some WW2 veterans stormed an armory and used those weapons to besiege the prison where the ballots were being secretly counted. Those vets stole the ballots back at gun point as private citizens while the National Guard sat back and watched. According to you, those citizens of Athens should have accepted the death of a fellow citizen exercising their right to vote and accepted a tyrant government because "national guard". No. You do not wait for the police or the national guard to defend yourself and your rights. Do not belittle such an important right because you don't like it. People have a right to self defense and a gun is an equalizer.

Felons lose rights. Your statements make zero since because they are built of a faulty premise.

Berate North all you want. But do not use a poor character or poor reasoning to justify removing rights for everyone.

Re: That's not what rich people think

[silentcoder]

Good point. Generally the rich measure personal worth by wealth - and assumes everybody else does too.

Re:That's not why he resigned

[meta-monkey]

Except according to the FBI, Flynn did nothing wrong. He resigned for disloyalty to the administration, not for illegal activities. So, even if Flynn was talking to the Russians on direct orders from Trump and you could 100% prove it...so what? The manner in which Flynn talked to them wasn't a crime.

And if this is part of the "Trump is a Putin plant" conspiracy theory, why would Flynn need to talk to the Russian ambassador about this, on Trump's orders, anyway? Wouldn't Trump have already received his orders from Putin via the dead drop in the 3rd brick from the left next to the fountain when there's a chalk mark on the mailbox?

Re: Yeah he should have just said "of course we ta

[silentcoder]

I dont think those are mutually exclusive. That is certainly a true narative. Just ask poor Chris Christie. I just do not think its the only narative. There is no way Flynn acted only. He has implied as much himself. He's just the fall guy. Trump's Oliver North

Re:Pence is consolidating his position

[meta-monkey]

According to the FBI Flynn did nothing illegal. So why would he be getting sent to prison? He was "let go" for lying to Mike Pence, not for talking to the Russians. Shouldn't the narrative be that Trump is a dictator who demands loyalty from his toadies at all time and ruthlessly terminates anyone who lies to or embarrasses him?

Range Voting

[Tenebrousedge]

Right, our system of voting is so bad that our choices were Hillary and Trump. We need to stop picking the President like we pick a prom queen. We don't care how popular someone is. We want to know how good they are. Every product and service on the Internet has a five-star rating system right next to the name of the product, because it's a system that works. Doing this for Presidential elections will increase the viability of third party candidates, and prevent asshats from being able to hijack our elections. Frankly, I think this is something that will destroy our democracy in short order if we don't adopt it as soon as possible.

Re:Yeah he should have just said "of course we tal

[Huge_UID]

silentcoder: Boy, that comment went off the rails. Enjoyed every word of though. Bravo!

Re: Yeah he should have just said "of course we ta

[meta-monkey]

So, are you saying Flynn talked to the Russians on orders from Trump? But if the manner in which Flynn talked to the Russians wasn't illegal, then it wouldn't matter whether Trump ordered him to or not.

Also, I thought Trump was taking orders from Putin. Why would Flynn need to tell the ambassador what Trump was going to do about sanctions? Wouldn't Trump have already received his marching orders from Putin?

Sorry, I'm getting all my conspiracy theories mixed up for who Trump is a puppet of this week.

Fake news and trolls

[Geoffrey.landis]

LOL. So the "difference" is that when they're caught they backtrack. Got it.

Exactly.

Fake new sites-- like trolls-- don't acknowledge errors.

Re:Fake news and trolls

[Trailer Trash]

LOL. So the "difference" is that when they're caught they backtrack. Got it.

Exactly.

Fake new sites-- like trolls-- don't acknowledge errors.

The damage is already done, and everybody's moved on. Go to the next looney left rally and ask the, um, "protestors" about the bust of MLK. You'll find that most of them think it was removed.

This works on both sides, by the way. Ask your typical conservative about Lt. Joe Gliniewicz - a cop who committed suicide but staged it to look like he'd been killed by people that he had been harassing in his city. All kinds of conservative sites carried the story about this brave hero who was tragically assassinated by thugs. Few had any follow up when it came out that he did, indeed, kill himself - apparently to avoid the consequences of multiple illegal activities that he was involved in and were close to being exposed. Some sites removed the original stories, others simply never followed up (see twitchy.com as an example).

It's the same thing. By the time the correction comes around - if ever - they've all moved on to the next outrage.

Re:w00t

[dbIII]

Yes, yes , de olde engleesh meant something different back then and the founders were idiots - that worn out excuse that insults everyone and shits on the flag.
Militia meant exactly what it means now.

Your examples have NOTHING to do with the second amendment.

Felons lose rights

But never their Constitutional rights otherwise cruel and unusual punishment would be fair game.
Try harder or just give up, that NRA inspired line is ridiculous and has been fed to you by someone who sold weapons to terrorists who had killed more than a hundred US Marines less that a year earlier.

to justify removing rights for everyone

How am I going to do that? If it's REALLY in the Constitution I can't remove it can I? Don't accuse me of doing something I cannot do.

Re:Yeah he should have just said "of course we tal

[dbIII]

Glad we agree. Then Hillary Clinton should have been prosecuted under the Espionage Act for mishandling classified information through negligence.

Ah, one of the hundreds of "but Hillary used email" people in this place.
So how do you feel about Trump's Country Club security breach fuckup?

Re: Yeah he should have just said "of course we ta

[dbIII]

Poor Chris Christie? Someone is giving tollbooth guy more than he deserves by employing him in any job with more responsibility than sweeping a floor.
With that fuckup he's shown he's too dishonest to trust with flipping burgers.

Re:Pelosi is MORE guilty

[MightyMartian]

There's a significant difference between Congressmen going on foreign trips. That's not unusual, and has gone on for almost the entirety of the US history. As Congress in general does not play a direct foreign policy role, it isn't the same as an incoming member of a new cabinet interfering directly with Executive powers being used by the outgoing president. When you add in the already troubling links between the Trump Administration and Russia, I'd say what Flynn did represents a pretty flagrant breach. And obviously Flynn thought so too, which is why he lied to Pence.

Re:Yeah he should have just said "of course we tal

[meta-monkey]

Yes, because Flynn lied by omission to Pence/Spicer about that. The FBI listened to the call and said it was fine...that didn't change. The only thing that changed is Flynn admitting he misled the administration, and getting canned for it. There still is no crime committed.

Re:w00t

[penandpaper]

Not defending North but I am defending the right of arms and self defense.

I don't think you understand any of the subject matter or written language. You seem to regurgitate various talking points without understanding the actual issue. You think a prefatory clause is the same as the operative clause. That alone is enough to dismiss everything you said. When we are talking about law, a basic understanding of language is important but I guess that is too much for you.

You are delusional.

Re:Yeah he should have just said "of course we tal

[Cederic]

I don't get this.

So ok, apparently "It's illegal for a private citizen to engage in diplomacy for the US."

But as you've pointed out, he's not part of the executive or authorised to speak on their behalf. So nothing he says or promises can be considered relevant to the running of the country, so surely he's immediately in the clear purely because he is a private citizen.

If he has standing then he's not a private citizen. If he doesn't have standing then he's not engaging in diplomacy.

I'm fucking confused.

Re: They have Kompromat on Trump

[dbIII]

He didn't say your president was a pedophile. Read it again, dumbass.

No we can't say that until he retires and all the stuff he was doing with underage girls at coke parties with Ailes and Epstein comes out in court. Rolf Harris must be fuming, he's in jail for far less than it looks like Trump has done.

Re:Well at least this was handled quickly

[MightyMartian]

By all accounts Trump had nothing to do with this. It was Pence that threw Flynn out the proverbial window.

Re:w00t

[dbIII]

but I am defending the right of arms and self defense

I have no problems with that, but if you think the 2nd amendment is where that right comes from then you'll have to hand your gun back at the age of 45.
Just as well it doesn't come from that isn't it?

You are delusional

No, but I understand that you wrote that because denial is less painful than admitting that you've been tricked by people like North.

Also you didn't explain how felons are outside the Constitution. Please elaborate.

Can we please talk about the REAL story here?

[gosand]

The National Security Adviser resigns after 90 days in office, and the President of the United States says this: "The real story here is why are there so many illegal leaks coming out of Washington? Will these leaks be happening as I deal on N Korea etc?"

Re:Pelosi is MORE guilty

[Muros]

Regan was never president. White House Chief of Staff and Secretary of the Treasury before that, but never president. Unless I'm in an alternate universe, Ronald REAGAN is who you were referring to. Proofread!

FWIW, my grammar sucks, I'm working on it. But I try to re-read things I type before hitting "Submit" so that one day, maybe people will go back to thinking spelling and grammar are important again. I would love to say it's all Republicans...or all Democrats...but it's both, whether in a hurry or just ignorant. I don't know. The drop in people caring, however, is unpresidented.

"Make America Grate Again!"

Unfortunately, your care in criticizing the spelling mistakes of others is precedented.

Re:Whipslash? A suggestion?

[clovis]

Nope you've got selective memory as the GP. There were daily if not multiple daily stories about the War in Iraq when it was still new. Same with a host of other political events.

Oh, so I don't remember that? While you're at it, tell me about what I've forgotten about growing up in the 1950's that you remember for me.

Which Iraq war? I assumes you're talking about the ones the USA was involved in. Did you mean the 1990-91 one that took place 7 years before Slashdot was created, or the 2004+ one that happened when Slashdot was 7 years old? I'm kind of joking here, but I've been here since before UID's and remember perfectly well that political articles were around and well-attended. That's not what we're talking about when we say Slashdot has changed. It's the ratio of the kinds of things, and the average intellectual level of the posters.

Slashdot has always had a streak of silliness, conversations getting derailed by politics, and brain-damaged/LSD induced rants, and I love it for that, but what has changed is the ratio of people who contribute to those are blowing a vuvuzela in every single thread has changed for the worse. Also, there seems more children here now, lol.

OTOH, it's been interesting to see the shift in the kinds of tech threads with "new" things like renewable power articles, battery technology, genetic engineering, etc. I think they've supplanted the old OS threads. Look how seldom we have OpenBSD or FreeBSD comments now, much less an article.
Also, in the first several years of Slashdot, there were far fewer articles on smartphones than we have now, lol.

Re:w00t

[clovis]

They're seriously floating Petraeus; you know, the general who pleaded guilty to intentionally leaking classified material to his girlfriend, and who is still on probation for that. The Trump administration has no bounds to its lunacy.

Well, at least Petraeus leaked to someone (Paula Broadwell) who happened to be a Lieutenant Colonel in military intelligence for the US Army and had clearance to see just about anything you can think of. For some reason the news always leaves out exactly who she was.
However, I'm not saying what he and she did was OK, because it was not OK. Even if you have security clearance you can't share or look at things that aren't in their immediate purview. It's just that it wasn't as bad as the press makes it seem.

Re:FAKE NEWS! SAD!

[Altus]

Trump does

Re:Pence is consolidating his position

[Topwiz]

Agnew resigned after pleading no contest to charges stemming things he did while Governor of Maryland.

Master Control Program

[querist]

All these mentions of the name Flynn and not one TRON Reference? Putin = MCP, anyone?

Re:Yeah he should have just said "of course we tal

[The Grim Reefer]

Fact remains though - when the call was made he was
1) Not in any way part of the executive branch
2) Not in any way authorized to speak on behalf of the executive branch

And therefore: flagrantly undermining the foreign policy objectives of the sitting president of the united states. Which is a crime and this application of the Logan act would almost certainly pass constitutional muster.

Didn't Nancy Pelosi undermine GWB's foreign policy objective of isolating Syria when she went there in 2007?

Or the 47 republican senators who wrote to Iran in 2015.

According to a memo in 1983 from Victor Chebrikov (head of the KGB) Ted Kennedy attempted to make a deal with Yuri Andropov to help him deal with Reagan if he would help him in the 1984 election.

Henry Ford, Jane Fonda, and many others have been accused of being in violation of the Logan act. I can go on naming possible violations, but it would be silly. The Logan Act is a pointless law from over 200 years ago that no one has ever been convicted of violating. I think there has only ever been one person charged with it, but was never convicted. Hell, the guy it was named after was elected to the senate two years after it was passed into law.

Re:Yeah he should have just said "of course we tal

[gatfirls]

Ahh that absolutely impartial, honorable and trustworthy FBI with absolutely no political agenda.

Re:w00t

[penandpaper]

Age 45: the prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause.

How have I been tricked by North? Or people like him? How is defending the 2nd alluding to being tricked by him or others? I know it was some time ago and it might be difficult for you to read what I write. But if you look at my first response to you, it had nothing to do with North.

Felons: You can lose life, liberty or property with due process of law. Do you understand what that means? IOW, if you were charged with a serious crime (felony) and the state respected your legal rights (due process) and found you guilty (convicted): you can be put to death, your liberty deprived, and your property taken. I doubt you have the capacity or ability to recognize the nuance between the 8th amendment and capital punishment.

Re:slashdot == political paparazzo tabloid

[rastos1]

Never have we had a President that was so hilarious before.

It's all fun and games until it blows up. Just like fireworks. You just have to watch it from safe distance. Except I'm not sure what is the safe distance from Trump. Next solar system?

Re:Well at least this was handled quickly

[Altus]

And of course we should let them take over whatever eastern European countries they want.

Re:Yeah he should have just said "of course we tal

[meta-monkey]

Do you think intelligence people who leaked all this to the press have a political agenda, or not? They're just patriots, then?

Re:Yeah he should have just said "of course we tal

[gatfirls]

I think that without a doubt the higher ups have a political agenda. If the FBI was investigating this why weren't we made aware of this every step of the way like pre-election? The people that leaked it probably did so because they knew a coverup was afoot.

I don't know any facts but I know this stinks to high heaven of coverup, and not in the Alex Jones or Breitbart way, like in the actual "The presidents top advisor was possibly violating the law with the ambassador to a country he has been constantly accused of placating." kind of way.

Re: Yeah he should have just said "of course we ta

[meta-monkey]

That would only be a reasonable narrative if he had a pattern of it. A few bad apples out of the tens of thousands of people Trump has hired does not indicate Trump is a poor judge of people.

There's also a school of business in which it's not the hiring of people that matters, but the firing of them. You can't be right about everyone all the time, but if you continuously fire all the people who suck you're eventually left with nothing but winners. See Jack Welch's management strategy.

You should really pay attention when reading...

[denzacar]

Except according to the FBI nothing Flynn did was illegal.

Umm... NO.

1 - There is no such claim in that article.

The FBI in late December reviewed intercepts of communications between the Russian ambassador to the United States and retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn - national security adviser to then-President-elect Trump - but has not found any evidence of wrongdoing or illicit ties to the Russian government, U.S. officials said.

That last bit is the source of the claim. "U.S. officials" - NOT FBI. Not even "senior officials". Just "officials".

2 - It gets better. Or worse... depending how you look at it.
By the end of the article, it's not even "officials". It's "some guy(s)".
It's "individuals".

Both Flynn, a former head of the Pentagon's intelligence agency, and Kislyak, a seasoned diplomat, are probably aware that Kislyak's phone calls and texts are being monitored, current and former officials said.
That would make it highly unlikely, the individuals said, that the men would allow their calls to be conduits of illegal coordination.

That's not reporting.
That's pure CYA and imputing unsubstantiated OPINIONS to sources without actual information - while throwing around buzzwords which telegraph credibility.

Which is why you've read that and though you read "according to the FBI nothing Flynn did was illegal".
When it's actually "according to some guys, FBI won't find anything, cause Flynn and Kislyak aren't that stupid".

3 - You know how they remake and reboot old movies? So it is still a story about same things... but it is different now?
Well... that is an OLD article.
Which doesn't match the findings in the new article, from the same paper.
As in, opinions presented in it have turned out to be, based on incomplete and FALSE information.
So false in fact, that claims of "the individuals" in that article are basically - LIES.

From claims about FBI "not finding any evidence", while the investigation is actually still ongoing...

Officials said this week that the FBI is continuing to examine Flynn's communications with Kislyak.

To "former and current U.S. officials" outright calling out Trump administration for lying about "not" making deals with a foreign power.
Foreign power which is under sanctions BECAUSE OF CYBER ATTACKS ON THE USA.
Cyber attacks, made during the election which got said administration into the White House.

National security adviser Michael Flynn privately discussed U.S. sanctions against Russia with that country's ambassador to the United States during the month before President Trump took office, contrary to public assertions by Trump officials, current and former U.S. officials said.

U.S. intelligence agencies were then concluding that Russia had waged a cyber campaign designed in part to help elect Trump; his senior adviser on national security matters was discussing the potential consequences for Moscow, officials said.

Feel free to connect those dots.
Particularly in the light of Flynn getting canned mere days after that article got published.
Cover your ass is a very popular game among those who practice "pants on fire" lying.

Neither of those assertions is consistent with the fuller account of Flynn's contacts with Kislyak provided by officials who ha

Re:You should really pay attention when reading...

[meta-monkey]

He literally promised them favors by the President, if they stay cool about sanctions they were given for attacking USA.

No he didn't, unless saying they can review it later = "literally promised favors."

A reward for attacking USA.

There is no proof Putin was behind the DNC leaks. It's far more likely Obama was the one playing politics here to fuck with the incoming Trump administration rather than that Trump's administration was playing politics to fuck with Obama.

And if telling a foreign nation to hang on because you're going to do nice things for them once you take office, here's your smoking guns.

Re:FAKE NEWS! SAD!

[Z80a]

Well, then better became a industrial scale water filter seller to get to install one on the white house.

Re:w00t

[ImprovOmega]

If Trump really wanted Petraeus on his cabinet he could just issue a pardon for the offense of leaking classified information. Then it's like it never happened (legally speaking). Yes there is a commission that vets presidential pardons and everything, but there's absolutely nothing stopping the president from exercising his discretion and issuing a pardon to whomever he wishes. That would make the most sense if he actually does pick Petraeus to replace Flynn.

Re:Yeah he should have just said "of course we tal

[meta-monkey]

Except for every administration, during the transition, appointees involved in foreign policy speak to lots of foreigners about lots of things, particularly about how relations might change with them under the new administration. Even if he said "tell my best friend Vlad to hold on, those sanctions will be lifted soon" that's not a crime.

Here you go, here's a smoking gun of Trump telling a foreign nation he's going to do them favors after he takes office. Impeachment when?!

The difference between fake news and journalism.

[Geoffrey.landis]

The story that the bust had been removed was posted at 7:31p.m.. By 8:41 p.m. the reporter had sent out e-mails and tweets correcting the information. At 8:46 p.m., Press Secretary Sean Spicer retweeted that message with the words “Apology accepted.”

So: it took an hour to run the correction.

That's the difference between fake news and journalism. Fake news doesn't make corrections.

Go to the next looney left rally and ask the, um, "protestors" about the bust of MLK. You'll find that most of them think it was removed.

This is fake news, since you in fact have not done that experiment. You are making shit up, but stating your speculation as if it were fact.

Do the experiment, and get back to me with the results.

Re:Desperate Rationalizations

[meta-monkey]

Isn't that entirely dependent on the media filter, though? Every president I can remember has had at least one cabinet member or appointee resign or be dropped because of some kind of impropriety. It's only a "laughingstock" because of the media and your perceptions. In reality it's business as usual.

In the meantime, ICE is rounding up illegal Mexican rapists and dropkicking them over the border, TPP is dead, our arming of the moderate beheaders in Syria is over, Canada and Mexico have agreed to renegotiate NAFTA, Trump's Supreme Court pick looks great, planning for the wall is underway...what exactly do I need to be desperate about? Trump is checking his campaign promises off at lightening speed.

Sad

[zedaroca]

He was against the drone assassination program, actually pointed out that the US politics was creating terrorists. One of the few actually good things that I had to say about Trump was that he put up an anti terrorism support in the cabinet. Let's count the bodies and compare to Obama/Clinton to see if he ended up being worst.

Re: Yeah he should have just said "of course we ta

[silentcoder]

>So, are you saying Flynn talked to the Russians on orders from Trump?
Let me be clear - I have no proof that this is the case, I just find the alternative quite unbelievable.

> But if the manner in which Flynn talked to the Russians wasn't illegal, then it wouldn't matter whether Trump ordered him to or not.
Not to Flynn no, he would still be guilty. It would matter to the question of "are there other guilty parties as well". It would make Trump an accomplice in the crime.

>Also, I thought Trump was taking orders from Putin. Why would Flynn need to tell the ambassador what Trump was going to do about sanctions?
What ? You never had to report to your bosses about your job ?

  >Sorry, I'm getting all my conspiracy theories mixed up for who Trump is a puppet of this week.
Perhaps a different metaphor would help then. Think of Trump as an escort. At any given moment he is doing whatever he is doing to please whoever is currently paying him. He doesn't have just one client, he doesn't even have just one regular.

Re: Yeah he should have just said "of course we ta

[silentcoder]

My choice of words was sarcastic. Trump's treatment of Christie was extremely humiliating, but in all fairness I can't think of anybody who deserves it more.

Re:Yeah he should have just said "of course we tal

[silentcoder]

>So ok, apparently "It's illegal for a private citizen to engage in diplomacy for the US."
That's a rather exceptional oversimplification. It's more accurate to say it's illegal for any person to undermine US foreign policy. That republican senate letter to the Iranians was actually illegal under the Logan Act as well. But it could be simpler. Say the president institutes sanctions against Dumbfuckistan to punish it's dictatorial leader for killing thousands of his own citizens. But in the meantime, some wealthy wall-streeter really likes the leader of Dumbfuckistan - so he goes and sends him a few million dollars to keep his personal coffers full during the sanctions. That's a crime. And well it should be.

>But as you've pointed out, he's not part of the executive or authorised to speak on their behalf. So nothing he says or promises can be considered relevant to the running of the country, so surely he's immediately in the clear purely because he is a private citizen.

And the fact that he would soon be part of the executive branch and able to deliver- changes that whole picture, it goes from "What I would do if I had the power" to "what I am going to do when I have the power" which is straight up undermining the elected president of the united states in foreign policy - an area over which the constitution gives him and his cabinet exclusive authority.

>If he has standing then he's not a private citizen. If he doesn't have standing then he's not engaging in diplomacy.
You don't need standing to undermine, or engage in, diplomacy - all you need is a reason for the foreign power to take you seriously.

>I'm fucking confused.
Yes. Yes you are, but you're even confused about what you're confused about.

Re:Yeah he should have just said "of course we tal

[silentcoder]

>Didn't Nancy Pelosi undermine GWB's foreign policy objective of isolating Syria when she went there in 2007?

That depends entirely on what she did there, I'm not familiar with the events so I can't say. Maybe.

>Or the 47 republican senators who wrote to Iran in 2015.
I'm familiar with that event and yes, yes they did and they SHOULD have been prosecuted for it.

Just because a law is badly enforced, perhaps even badly written, does not mean it's not a law. It doesn't even mean it's not a law that serves a vital purpose - at best it means the law is in dire need of an update.

Re:w00t

[dbIII]

How have I been tricked by North? Or people like him?

By assuming that your right to have a gun and the right of the NRA to pretend to be some sort of militia instead of a sporting club gone wrong are linked.
You have been conned.

Felons: You can lose life, liberty or property with due process of law. Do you understand what that means?

It means you don't lose your Constitutional rights and are still protected by the rule of law. You can't be used as an organ donor against your will for instance like in China where "might makes right". Of course some people who call themselves "conservatives" but are not would like to change things like that and make felons complete outlaws with zero protection.

Age 45: the prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause.

You don't get to pick and choose over which bits of the Constitution to follow. Just as well it doesn't apply to your guns isn't it?

Re:Whipslash? A suggestion?

[the_Bionic_lemming]

Wow, and here I didn't think I was the only one reading before registering!

You are NONAwesome for correcting me!

(you can gain awesome points for admitting you were an idiot for posting)

Re: Yeah he should have just said "of course we ta

[dbIII]

Makes sense but I couldn't see the sarcasm because some people are pushing some weird views seriously here just to show that they are good Komrades of The Party.

Re:w00t

[dbIII]

How have I been tricked by North?

For one thing you've got into a ridiculous and unrelated 2nd amendment argument to defend that traitor and embezzler and his words that even suspected terrorists should have guns (he didn't just limit it to the no-fly list, he argued that so long as the FBI or whoever had not caught them terrorist suspects by any definition should be able to buy a gun).

Look at the signal and ignore the noise

[Geoffrey.landis]

look again: his approval rating is roughly the same. his disapproval rating is up (worse) 10% in that time.

Look again, and this time pay attention to the scatter in the measurements. A 10% change in half of the population is way less than the variation from poll to poll. Don't let the nice straight trend lines fool you: that's noise, not signal.

... less than a month is a small sample size...

Exactly.

Re: Desperate Rationalizations

[meta-monkey]

That would take much longer.

Re: Yeah he should have just said "of course we ta

[meta-monkey]

It would make Trump an accomplice in the crime.

But there literally is no crime. Flynn could have said "tell my very best friend Vlad that the sanctions will be lifted as soon as Trump's in office" and that's not a crime. To what crime would Trump be an accomplice?

Perhaps a different metaphor would help then. Think of Trump as an escort. At any given moment he is doing whatever he is doing to please whoever is currently paying him. He doesn't have just one client, he doesn't even have just one regular.

I saw a list made up the other day by anti-Semites of "proof" that Trump is a puppet of the Jews. Married his kids off to Jews, says nice things about Israel, Israel says nice things about him, tweets stuff like this pair (say, isn't that an even bigger smoking gun for "telling foreign nations you'll do stuff for them after inauguration" than the Flynn calls?), why even today he's meeting with the Chief Jew. So do you also agree Trump is a puppet of the Jews?

Can we get the shorter list? Is there anyone Trump is not a puppet of?

Alternative hypothesis...and bear with me...this sounds crazy...maybe Trump is not a puppet, his platform is genuinely what he and American conservative voters want and think is best for the country, and he's been carrying out said agenda (killed TPP, restructuring H1-Bs, building wall, ICE is rounding up illegal Mexican rapists and booting them over the border, appointing originalist Supreme Court justice, etc)? Do you think there's any chance of that, or is that just too far out in left field?

Re:Whipslash? A suggestion?

[cyberchondriac]

Sorry to report that while slashdot customer service was courteous, it was overall unsatisfactory.

Regards first link: How does owning businesses in a country make you a "puppet" of that country's leader? By that logic, Trump was a puppet of Obama too. And a puppet of every leader of every other country in which he has an enterprise.
Regards the second: Calling for an investigation is a process of looking for evidence, not evidence in and of itself.

Just because a republican senator calls for an investigation doesn't mean the guilty verdict is foregone conclusion - and even if he is guilty, just look at how Hillary slithered away from her email investigation, and that did actually turn up evidence.

Re:w00t

[penandpaper]

Interesting choice of words. Conned? Hm. I am not sure how having access to an equalizer is at my expense or how increasing my odds in any violent encounter is against my own self interest. Is that an alternative fact I keep hearing about?

Kind of hard to have rights when your dead. That is what I am getting at. Sure, there are some laws to protect the corpse unlike china and that falls under "due process of law".

You don't get to pick and choose over which bits of the Constitution to follow

Oh that's rich from the "only national guard" and age 45. Which parts am I ignoring?

Just as well it doesn't apply to your guns isn't it?

It does apply to "my" guns. In an over simplified way of saying it; the right of self defense means right to kill. Guns are a lethal tool. Nuance aside (over escalation, state law, etc), self defense is a reaction to someone taking actions against you. Just like a nation does not limit the responses it has to defend itself from attacks by law so to is the citizens responses to defend themselves not limited by the constitution. Yes, case by case basis and state law to make sure it wasn't excessive or w/e that is the nuance and each case should be examined to ensure it was indeed a lawful self defense act.

I find it interesting. That all enemies "foreign and domestic" that may attack a citizen, the reaction that citizen has to attacks on life and liberty are not limited by the constitution. You have an odd idea of "conned" if you think that not limiting a citizens ability to respond to actions against me is a bad thing.

Re:w00t

[penandpaper]

s that even suspected terrorists should have guns

So, if you are suspected of a crime and a citizen: You can lose constitutionally protected rights? You like going in circles don't you?

Call me crazy but I don't think the mere accusation of a crime is enough to enact punishment that limits rights. I guess I am an old fashioned liberal.

so long as the FBI or whoever had not caught them terrorist suspects by any definition should be able to buy a gun

You mean so long as the government has not convicted you of a crime you cannot lose rights? Wow, color me surprised... -.-

Why do you want to take away peoples rights on an accusation? The "with due process of law" went over your thread, didn't it?

Re:Whipslash? A suggestion?

[PopeRatzo]

How does owning businesses in a country make you a "puppet" of that country's leader?

Not owning businesses, but owing money.

Just keep an eye on the news. Michael Flynn is already the THIRD member of the Trump organization that has resigned due to inappropriate ties to Russia. There's been Manafort, Page and now Flynn. If you think that's the last shoe to drop, you're in for a surprise.

I find it interesting too that Trump turned off the White House recording system when he had his phone call to Putin, and the Trump dossier is now lining up nicely with the timeline we're learning about. Don't blame me, I'm just customer service. I didn't make you install President Malware.

Re:Yeah he should have just said "of course we tal

[Cederic]

So basically you're telling me 1.8 million people broke US law by signing a petition demanding not to give Trump a full scale State visit to the UK.

What a strange law. Going to make an airline rich carrying them all over to the US for the trial.

Re:Yeah he should have just said "of course we tal

[Swave An deBwoner]

Funny you should mention that, but DJT already addressed that issue. So long as it's not leaking out of "Washington" it is apparently A-OK.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/02/14/trump-says-the-real-story-is-illegal-leaks-following-flynns-resignation

In a tweet, Trump expressed frustration with what he views as a culture of leaks in the nation’s capital. “The real story here is why are there so many illegal leaks coming out of Washington?” he wrote. “Will these leaks be happening as I deal on N. Korea etc?”

Re:Yeah he should have just said "of course we tal

[silentcoder]

No. None of them broke the law. UK citizens are not subject to US law and cannot break it unless they happen to be inside the US at the time.

Re: Yeah he should have just said "of course we ta

[Swave An deBwoner]

You could have a point there but we've got an awfully long road ahead of us filled with "people who suck" before we get to a "winner".

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/presidential-order-succession-case-article-1.2973129

Re:Yeah he should have just said "of course we tal

[Cederic]

Hmm. Could you let the US law enforcement and judges know this?

Re:Whipslash? A suggestion?

[cyberchondriac]

I didn't install him. I literally voted for someone not on the ballot. On principle. I didn't like any of the candidates enough to warrant my vote, so I decided to let the rest of the country decide, and let the chips fall where they may. But nonetheless, I voted, and for various congressman too.

Re:Yeah he should have just said "of course we tal

[silentcoder]

They already do. The things you're thinking off - are extradition treaty's but those ONLY apply if the action in question is a crime in BOTH countries. No extant extradition treaty anywhere in the world will allow you to be extradited for something which is legal in the country where you did it. No government would sign one - it would effectively reduce them to nothing but a vassal state.

So unless there is also a UK law that prohibits you from trying to undermine US foreign policy - you can't be extradited for doing it.

Re:Yeah he should have just said "of course we tal

[Ol Olsoc]

If a cop finds a 17 year old working in a strip club they won't fail to prosecute the owner because her birthday is really, really close.

That's a good analogy. But unless stopped, the rule of law is now null and void. Now let's all go and purchase some of poor Ivanka's clothing line.

Re:Yeah he should have just said "of course we tal

[Ol Olsoc]

Except according to the FBI nothing Flynn did was illegal

Trumpists can't use that line any more, since it was obvious that the FBI lied about not needing to prosecute that Clinton woman.

Re:w00t

[dbIII]

You can lose constitutionally protected rights

No.
Not at all.
I don't believe the line Oliver North is pushing about all gun ownership being tied to the 2nd Amendment especially since it excludes all women and everyone over 45. If it did then all those gun restrictions on former felons would be unconstitutional, unless of course those former felons are young, over 45 or female.
The NRA wasn't pushing that line a few decades back.

Re: Yeah he should have just said "of course we ta

[RespekMyAthorati]

Also, I thought Trump was taking orders from Putin. Why would Flynn need to tell the ambassador what Trump was going to do about sanctions?

It was a confirmation that Flynn would do exactly what Trump told him to, no questions asked.

Re:Yeah he should have just said "of course we tal

[meta-monkey]

Okay. What did Flynn do that was illegal?

Re:The difference between fake news and journalism

[ebvwfbw]

Yea, you're right. It was just way too much to ask the reporter to look 5 feet to the left and not come to crazy conclusions. What were we thinking?

Besides, what if Trump removed it? It's his office after all. Why is that news in the first place? MLK was never in there before BO. Can't he have what he wants in the office? No, it was written to incite hate.

Let's see you get out of this one - the Durante Pulitzer for the NY Times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... . What, them remove their prize? NEVER. Fake news, since at least the 1930s. Don't think I had to go back to the 1930s. It probably wouldn't be all that hard to find a fake article from today. Here's one now -
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

So here they are making a comparison between a leak from the DNC, based on a password of - password, that are not government secrets to something that was illegally obtained, from a private citizen, mischaracterized and was at probably the highest level of secret we have and wonders why Trump isn't happy? If that's leaked, nothing is safe. The nation isn't safe regardless of who is in the white house. Brad Manning for example caused all kinds of problems for BO when he did it. I guess BO forgot about that when he pardoned him. If he had any sense he would have made him serve his sentence.

This isn't funny. They need to get these guys and put their head on a pike.

Re:w00t

[penandpaper]

lol, I don't know where you get the idea that it excludes women and anyone over 45 but sure thing because I don't know if you have heard this but women and people over 45 still can buy guns. Is this that fake news I have been hearing about?

The NRA like all organizations changes over time back in the time when Reagan was a governor the NRA was about hunting rifles. Laddy frickin da. During that time the "modern" position of the NRA was held by the black communities that felt the police had not upheld law and order and ignored their neighborhoods.

Re:w00t

[penandpaper]

Also, I find it pretty dishonest of you to not quote the grammar effectively changing what I said. If you going to quote someone don't be a dishonest prick and change the meaning of what was said by lies of omission. You are no better than CNN.

Leading a horse to water

[dbIII]

Oh, by the way, did you know it's illegal to borrow any funds for the purpose of campaign finance? Not even "illegal from Russian banks" but just illegal period, because of the threat of conflict of interest?

Take it up with Trump not me and try feeding "trump borrow money from russia" into google.

Re:Leading a horse to water

[meta-monkey]

I did it, and not a single piece of evidence, just wishful thinking speculation. Propaganda outfits asking "Does Trump owe money to Russia...?" This is "did Glenn Beck rape and murder a girl in 1990?" tier propaganda, and you feel for it. Sad!

Re:Leading a horse to water

[dbIII]

While you are at it google "Michael Caputo" who ran the New York primary for Trump and "Once worked on a PR campaign to try to improve Vladimir Putin's image. He's not proud of that today, but he says Mr Putin wasn't such a bad guy back then." It would probably be better all around if Caputo had stayed in Russia instead of coming back to pollute Washington.
There are a LOT of connections not just the obvious financial ones.

Re:Leading a horse to water

[meta-monkey]

You're just a crazy conspiracy theorist nutjob. I saw another whacko anti-Semite who listed all Trump's "connections" with Jews and Israel to prove Trump is a puppet of the Jews. Do you believe that, too? Is there anyone Trump is not a puppet of? Illuminati? Aliens? Lizard people from the Hollow Earth?

You're hallucinating conspiracy theories because you can't face the truth: you're not as smart and well-informed as you think you are. Get help. Or don't. It doesn't really matter what you do. Trump's agenda is coming along swimmingly and all you can do is jump from delusion to delusion. Sad.

Re:Leading a horse to water

[dbIII]

You're just a crazy conspiracy theorist nutjob

So says the guy with the sig "We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state."

Perhaps you should follow my example in this case and be polite to people that you think are nutjobs and incredibly naive with it.


I can get why you are angry. You've been conned for years by a traitor bending a sporting club to his political ends.

Re:Leading a horse to water

[meta-monkey]

In what way have I been conned? Trump is doing everything I wanted. I'm very happy with what Trump has been doing since the election, and I'm getting pretty much everything I've ever wanted. 10/10 would get conned again. Stay mad bro.

Re:Leading a horse to water

[dbIII]

You have been conned by the interpretation of the 2nd amendment that twists it in such a way as to suggest that everyone has the same rights as the military without the obligation to serve (that stupid "everyone is already in the militia" interpretation on top of the other stupidity).
If you want to breed a nation of cowards that's the way to do it.
Why do you trust Oliver North's line on this and not the line that the founders took?

I didn't mention Trump. This is about North.

Re:Leading a horse to water

[meta-monkey]

What the hell does North have to do with anything?

Don't stop taking your pills, man, I don't care what the Shadow Men tell you. Hold on. We love you.

Re:Leading a horse to water

[dbIII]

What the hell does North have to do with anything?

Other thread, other story, other poster - my fuckup.

Re:w00t

[dbIII]

Seriously? You know what is written, I know what is written, and in the very unlikely situation where a third party reads down this far they will have read it as well to get here.
Are you really playing to some invisible audience that you think actually gives a shit? We'd have lost them in your sidetrack to misunderstand the 2nd amendment if not before.

Re:w00t

[dbIII]

I don't know where you get the idea that it excludes women and anyone over 45

It's in the text of the amendment defining who can join a Militia.
Why not try actually reading it instead of taking Oliver North's word for what it in it?

Fake news and journalism

[Geoffrey.landis]

Again. That's the difference between journalism and fake news, journalists do make mistakes, but, when it's done right, they correct them. Fake news, on the otehr hand, doesn't even pretend to try to get facts right; fake news simply lies right from the start.

I'm not sure what your anecdotes is intended to demonstrates. If you have to go back to 1932 to cite an example of uncorrected news reported from a major newspaper, I'd say that proves my point.

Here's one now - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/15/us/politics/leaks-donald-trump.html

Interesting link to an article pointing out that until the leaks were about him, Donald Trump loved leaks. Not fake news, since the facts seem to be correct. At best you could say it's a case with some editorializing in the body of the article. But fake news is making up facts, not expressing opinions about facts.

Here are a few other sources that appear to say the same thing:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballo...
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/15...
https://www.theguardian.com/co...
http://thehill.com/policy/nati...

Re:Fake news and journalism

[ebvwfbw]

Again. That's the difference between journalism and fake news, journalists do make mistakes, but, when it's done right, they correct them. Fake news, on the otehr hand, doesn't even pretend to try to get facts right; fake news simply lies right from the start.

I'm not sure what your anecdotes is intended to demonstrates. If you have to go back to 1932 to cite an example of uncorrected news reported from a major newspaper, I'd say that proves my point.

Here's one now - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/15/us/politics/leaks-donald-trump.html

Interesting link to an article pointing out that until the leaks were about him, Donald Trump loved leaks. Not fake news, since the facts seem to be correct. At best you could say it's a case with some editorializing in the body of the article. But fake news is making up facts, not expressing opinions about facts.

Seems you realize what I'm saying and chose to ignore it. I showed they've been lying for almost a century and that was made clear. The second one you chose to believe the fake news again, or you really don't get it. There is a huge difference between a leak and a leak that happened here. Maybe that was really lost on you. This isn't some dumbass handler (Podesta) with a password of - password or asshole at Justice or on the Hill, these guys are trusted with some of the most sensitive information the country has. The leak shows that they can get whatever they want and this is something intelligence *NEVER* divulges because it really tips their hand, in fact it shows their hand. Let's be honest about it. Hell of it is, I don't want to seem as if I wanted Trump to be President. I didn't. I don't. However he is what we have and we shouldn't throw the country away just because the left lost big time due to their continued stupidity. I wasn't a fan of BO, he really did what he could to screw the country all the way up to the last moments he was POTUS as it turns out. There is a LOT of stuff that the public really should know about him and what he did, however none of that stuff is coming out. Probably never will. The stuff everyone knows like what he did to Isreal was just him measuring his cock on the way out. However I'm sure they'll keep his very very dirty laundry secret.

Of course, I'm assuming that you care. I'm thinking you don't, until the country falls and you're the one in big trouble. Don't worry, things will heat up fast. We have the Netherlands (Wilders will win), France (Le Pen will win) that have elections, then France will exit the EU... The EU will disolve... and so on. 2017 will be a hell of a ride. We really need a different kind of guy as POTUS right now. Trump would have been fine the past 8 years, not now. We need a guy more like Eisenhower. I hope Trump is up to the task. IMHO he is way, and I mean way way way better than if Hillary were in office. She'd fubar it good. Probably destroy the whole world.

Re:w00t

[penandpaper]

Generally, I would agree but even if it is just you and me it is very dishonest to effectively change what I say in a quote. If it didn't' change the meaning then I don't really care. Perhaps I should have worded that question different but again, it comes off as dishonest because it changes what I said.

Not a grammar nazi but selective quotes of omission is a problem these days in media.

Re:w00t

[penandpaper]

So, you are going to continue believing that the prefatory clause limits the operative clause? Where else in English does that happen?

Hm. Interesting. If that was truly the meaning you would expect it to say "the right of the militia" but its "the right of the people". A well regulated militia is necessary but its the right of the people. Do you do that kind of gymnastics on language to get any meaning you want out of any text?

Language disagrees with you and the courts disagree with you. I think it is safe to say that your opinion on the matter is not only uninformed but flat out wrong.

But it did not drink

[dbIII]

I did it, and not a single piece of evidence

It kinda helps if you click on the links google comes up with and read the text kid.

Re:w00t

[dbIII]

Why so quick to find offence over something so incredibly trivial, especially when we both know what you wrote and the quoted text is only a pointer to the real text. Is the actual topic too difficult for you to deal with so now you've decided to play the man and not the ball?

Re:w00t

[dbIII]

Do you do that kind of gymnastics on language

Don't attempt to turn my own argument back on me - my entire complaint is that the NRA have done language gymnastics on the second amendment to push their own personal power and pretend it's about them and not a real militia.
I'm not attacking you, you're just the victim of being manipulated by experts who have gone as far as treason in the past so will use means that honest men would not consider. Perhaps if I was younger and hadn't seen them assembling this huge pile of bullshit over time I would have been fooled like you have.

It's certainly worked. Would you normally stand up for a traitor who sold weapons to the terrorists that killed over a hundred Marines less than a year earlier? I doubt it. You are standing up for that traitor because he's tricked you into thinking that your rights depend on that traitor when they do not.

Re:w00t

[penandpaper]

No. I just don't like being mis-represented even if 1 on 1 in addition to that media (/. comments are apart of social media) tends towards lies of omission on both sides.

Re:w00t

[penandpaper]

Okay, but where else in the English language does the prefatory clause limit or expand the operative clause of a sentence?

Again, I don't care about North and am not defending him. He did shit that was fucked up. That has nothing to do with English in written form and the courts interpretation of said English. That seems to be the main disagreement we have. If I may be so bold, you appear to interpret the 2nd to only apply to militia while I and the courts disagree with that assessment because prefatory clause does not limit or expand the operative clause of a sentence. Further, the application of that "right" that is stated in the 2nd has been upheld for people over 45 and women which destroys your idea that it only applies to the militia as defined by law. I am not sure what standing you have.

Re:w00t

[dbIII]

Just read the thing instead of finding obscure linguistic tricks to attempt to insult the people who drafted it.

Fake news is making up facts [Re:Fake news an...]

[Geoffrey.landis]

Again. That's the difference between journalism and fake news, journalists do make mistakes, but, when it's done right, they correct them. Fake news, on the otehr hand, doesn't even pretend to try to get facts right; fake news simply lies right from the start.

I'm not sure what your anecdotes is intended to demonstrates. If you have to go back to 1932 to cite an example of uncorrected news reported from a major newspaper, I'd say that proves my point.

Here's one now - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/15/us/politics/leaks-donald-trump.html

Interesting link to an article pointing out that until the leaks were about him, Donald Trump loved leaks. Not fake news, since the facts seem to be correct. At best you could say it's a case with some editorializing in the body of the article. But fake news is making up facts, not expressing opinions about facts.

Seems you realize what I'm saying and chose to ignore it.

I'm realizing what you're saying, and pointing out that it is wrong.

I really can't say it more clearly. Fake news means making up facts . You are saying people should be outraged by the leaks out of the Trump administration. Well, fine, you can think that if you want. That's perfectly valid opinion. However, if a news article does not happen to write that opinion in the body of an article, not writing it does not make that news article fake news. Fake news means making up facts .

OK, there may be a huge difference between one type of leak and another. You may even label that "false equivalence" if you like. But it's not fake news unless they are making up facts.

Got it? Fake news is news that is incorrect because it is made up with no regard to facts. Fake news is not "an article that didn't express an opinion that I personally think should have been expressed."

Look, this is important: there is a clear and bright distinction between news that expresses an opinion that you think is wrong, and "news" that simply makes shit up with the intent to outrage without any intent whatsoever to be consistent with reality. Making shit up is fake news.