Slashdot Mirror
Bannon Loses National Security Council Role in Trump Shakeup (bloomberg.com)
Top presidential strategist Steve Bannon has been booted from the National Security Council amid a reshuffling of the key panel, Bloomberg reports Wednesday morning. President Donald Trump reorganized the council, removing Bannon and downgrading the role of his homeland security adviser, Tom Bossert, the report added, citing multiple sources. From the report: Bannon, the former executive chairman of Breitbart News, was elevated to the National Security Council's principals committee at the beginning of Trump's presidency. The move drew criticism from some members of Congress and Washington's foreign policy establishment. A White House official said that Bannon was placed on the committee in part to monitor Trump's first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, and never attended a meeting. He's no longer needed with McMaster in charge of the council, the official said. Trump fired Flynn on Feb. 13 for not disclosing to the president or to Vice President Mike Pence the extent of his conversations with Russia's ambassador to the U.S., Sergey Kislyak, before Trump's inauguration.
siphoned off? That's the question we should be asking, along with why someone like him would be allowed anywhere near a national security post.
Because national security policy drives information security policy. (See, for example, the thread about DHS scaling up invasive border procedures, most of the victims of whom will be innocent Americans.)
burning down. Trump's wall is burning down, and he lit the fire.
Seriously though, he is already alienated from half the population of the United States. The people he put in position around himself profoundly represent the half that likes him, which is why he put them there. The path he is taking will leave him completely alone even across the populace. He will have nothing but his paranoia to keep him company. The idea of that makes me nervous.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
Stuff that matters, read a few more bytes into the tagline.
But how come no story on Susan Rice having unmasked multiple people in the Trump camp. It should be noted that she stated "she didn't do it, and had no knowledge of it." And of course that was proven untrue. And now we're seeing the claims making the rounds of "It wasn't political" but why wasn't the FBI involved then? Why did she do something that was outside of the preview of her job(advise the President and consume intelligence summaries)? Why does this appear to have been a case of her setting a new precedent(the unmasking). Why were they unmasked by her, when all 3 letter agencies could do this on their own if they're conducting an investigation.
And of course, why are so many of the media silent on this. When they were all over other major events similar to this and licking their chops like a dog seeing a steak. Well you can all have fun now.
Om, nomnomnom...
Bannon lasted longer than I thought he would. For a time it almost seemed like he might be able to outmaneuver the Kushners, but having Ivanka installed in the White House and having Jared running around as an official messenger and errand boy demonstrates that in the end, the only people Trump will ever really trust is his family.
And that's fine by me. Whatever I think of Trump, I actually think the Kushners are half-way reasonable people, and it's a lot better having them whispering in his ear than that vile racist troll Bannon.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Nothing to see here. Move along. ...
Can I interest you in chemical warfare in Syria? If so, remember, only we know who launched the chemical weapons. Everyone else has it wrong. Everyone!
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
Bannon appointed himself to the NSC by having Trump signed off on an executive order that he didn't read and didn't find out about until it got mentioned in the media. Your tax dollars at work.
On a related note, Trump had played twice as much golf in two months than Obama did in eight years.
Hillary Clinton was barely tolerated by half of the Democrat voters. That's why Hillary lost. Trump was a barely tolerated candidate among Republicans, but not quite weak enough to be defeated by Hillary Clinton. For example, take a look at her first-amendment positions and you'll see someone who is way to the right of center. When you have a choice between a Republican running as a Democrat and a Libertarian running as a Republican, is it any surprise that the latter wins?
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Yes, it's a big conspiracy to take away your rights and complete the liberal agenda of switching this county into a communist utopia where bookist academic types rule over small businessmen and blue collar workers.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
It used to be a site for the tech and science news
How much private citizen data has he already
Not as much as Susan Rice.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Political stories as long as they're fit the narrative eh?
The Civil War already established how that works.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
. . .which is not information security policy, it's bureaucrats getting their jollies and over-promoted mall cops living out their Dirty Harry fantasies.
All the REAL infosec policy comes out of NIST in Gaithersburg, not DHS on Nebraska Avenue. . .
What does this have to do with computers?
If Trump lasts 8 years civilization will collapse and self-driving cars will need to be work in Mad Max settings.
I stole this Sig
How so? Maybe you could take the time to explain it.
Trump will be getting the same advice from the same people, but one of those people will now have a slightly different title. How is that not important?
Steve Bannon is still on the NSC, he's just not a principal member. He is still allowed to go to all the meetings he wants to. He was only able to make one meeting meeting he was a principal member. Thus no real change.
Generally having a role removed from your list of duties is seen as a demotion, and the timing of this, after Ivanka's official installation in the White House, is highly suggestive that the rumored power struggle between Bannon and the Kushners has resolved itself in the Kushners' favor. Also note that there have been rumors that Bannon and Priebus weren't getting along all that well either. I don't expect Bannon to work for that much longer at the White House.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Hillary was so bad of a candidate that she could only be competitive against an idiot like Donald Trump. Trump was so bad of a candidate that he could only be competitive against a corrupt career politician like Hillary Clinton.
The people are so bought into the cycle of voting for the lesser evil that even with historically polarizing, horrible, and unliked candidates, 3rd parties still barely got 2.5% of the vote...
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Hillary Clinton was barely tolerated by half of the Democrat voters. That's why Hillary lost. Trump was a barely tolerated candidate among Republicans, but not quite weak enough to be defeated by Hillary Clinton. For example, take a look at her first-amendment positions and you'll see someone who is way to the right of center.
I'm not sure how you're defining the left/right divide, but at this time in history pro-first-amendment is very much a right-wing position and very much not a left-wing position. The left is doing more against free speech every year right now than the right has done in all of history.
When you have a choice between a Republican running as a Democrat and a Libertarian running as a Republican, is it any surprise that the latter wins?
Uh, are you calling Trump a Libertarian?
LOL.
That ringing sound you keep hearing? It's the cluephone. Might want to answer it.
Do you have ESP?
The US has carried a constant debt since the US Civil War. Debt is literally what makes the world go round.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Joke's on you. I'm a registered Republican. (used to be Libertarian but switched when Ron Paul was in the primaries)
As for SJWs, treating people fairly is not really garbage, and has nothing to do with maxism. Most people who are upset by SJWs are upset because they've been called out on their bullshit. That most SJWs are women and are mostly targeting men has a lot to do with the vitriol that is spewed about SJWs. A lot of guys are just too old fashioned to want to here criticism from a woman. I don't care what gender someone is, as long as the criticism is valid and constructive. Usual response to SJWs is: I don't like what you're saying, so I'll mock you to take that power away from you. But that funny thing is you can't win that way (well at least *I* find it funny)
Democrats like Obama and both Clintons are very right leaning. They are no Howard Dean, Ralph Nader or Bernie Sanders. Not that a 1 dimensional scale for measuring political views is a good metric, it lacks nuance. For example, I'm a Republican and believe in small decentralized government and in supporting small business owners, but I'm against the death penalty. Does that make me a liberal? Probably not.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Indeed. Suggestive conjecture about rumors about internal squabbling over relationships is exactly what Slashdot should focus on, because there is nowhere else on the Internet that provides that information.
I'm not sure how you're defining the left/right divide, but at this time in history pro-first-amendment is very much a right-wing position and very much not a left-wing position.
Absolutely, unless you're a woman, or black, or gay, or a Muslim, or pretty much any race/sex/characteristic other than a straight white male.
The US has carried a constant debt since the US Civil War. Debt is literally what makes the world go round.
If by "literally" you mean "figuratively,"
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Uh, are you calling Trump a Libertarian?
LOL.
He's apparently a corporatocrat, which makes him just as much of a libertarian as most of the people who call themselves libertarian. Don't like it? Separate yourself from that label to escape the association with all the crypto-corporatocrats hiding among you. Sometimes a label is too tainted and has to be discarded.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Hillary was a Republican running as a democrat? Huh? Not even close.
Hillary was *all* democrat, lock stock and barrel.. She just hit the general election knowing that radical leftist doesn't win elections so she tried to run as far right as her liberal democratic base would allow w/o howling about it.
You remember the discussions about abortion and the Heller ruling at the last debate? She had no choice but to shore up her base and took the radical liberal leftist positions on these issues at that point because she knew they were not going to show up and vote if she didn't. She's most decidedly a democrat, running as a democrat, unless you think she's just a liar who was going with what she thought was the prevailing winds...
Now if you want to argue Trump was a democrat running as a republican you might have more of a case. He wasn't bound by traditional republican views on social issues, at least during the campaign (and one would argue isn't even now). However, I think he's really what he appeared to be and marketed himself as, which turns out to be a non-politically correct position which is derived from what he thinks is common sense. It's this "common sense" thing that got him elected in the face of the Access Hollywood tapes, being out spent and being the underdog the whole time.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
The Huffington Post said he was a NAZI and that's good enough for me. I don't want NAZIs in the US government and neither should you. And no, I won't bother to research where this information came from, because NAZI.
Have a nice day.
As for SJWs, treating people fairly is not really garbage, and has nothing to do with maxism.
Fairness is equal opportunity and equality before the law, not special treatment based on assumptions of oppression, in turn based on attributes they say don't matter anyway (eg race, sex etc). Most of these SJWs are professional victims who have destroyed the credibility of those who actually have had their rights abused with the use of bad statistics, fear mongering, and fallacious shaming language.
A lot of guys are just too old fashioned to want to here criticism from a woman.
Typical SJW hypocrisy. You demonize such generalizations from men while targeting them with the same kinds of generalizations. Take your 'oppression=power+privilege' neo-marxist garbage elsewhere.
Usual response to SJWs is: I don't like what you're saying, so I'll mock you to take that power away from you. But that funny thing is you can't win that way (well at least *I* find it funny)
Mocking someone does not take power of truth away from them. SJWs are mocked because they do not speak the truth except when it benefits their self-interests.
Democrats like Obama and both Clintons are very right leaning. They are no Howard Dean, Ralph Nader or Bernie Sanders.
Hillary may be to the right these guys, but she sure isn't for equality of any sort, except maybe the oppressive 'equal outcome' of societies run on marxism that happen to put people like her on top of the pile.
Joke's on you. I'm a registered Republican. (used to be Libertarian but switched when Ron Paul was in the primaries)
So you're one of those fake 'progressive libertarians.' This is what happened to the term 'liberal.' You're just more of the same really. If you were truly for small government you would not buy into the idea of class warfare that today's social justice requires as a basis. Regardless of what you claim to be, such ideas most definitely have a basis in marxism (eg: "we have nothing to lose but our chains").
I don't care what gender someone is, as long as the criticism is valid and constructive.
People get sick of "SJW criticisms" because they aren't valid, constructive, or solicited. Attempting to engage with them in dispassionate, rational discussion is a waste of effort because before you've finished your first sentence, they fall back to name-calling. So, for the sake of expediency, people simply respond to "SJW criticisms" with "oh, shut up".
They sold uranium to Russia. The current Russia investigation should be extended to look into bank account transfers during that timeframe. Including that of the Clinton Foundation, of course..
his post described you so well....
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
So you're one of those fake 'progressive libertarians.' This is what happened to the term 'liberal.' You're just more of the same really. If you were truly for small government you would not buy into the idea of class warfare that today's social justice requires as a basis. Regardless of what you claim to be, such ideas most definitely have a basis in marxism (eg: "we have nothing to lose but our chains").
I found today's "No True Scotsman" comment.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
I can't think of any definition of "Libertarian" that matches Trump. What are you thinking there?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Does this matter? Seems debatable to me.
It does matter, but not in a nerdly way.
Why is this on Slashdot?
Because it gets lots of posts, even if many are just people complaining about it being on Slashdot. Same for everything Apple does, inequality of various people in the workforce, stuff on millennials, etc. If you want to see less of a topic, just don't even bother opening the discussion.
I disagree with your assessment of why T won. T was basically a roll-the-dice choice. Hillary was more or less a known quantity: mostly competent but bland. T presented a chance of being a true reformer but also a chance of being a dud.
It was the pioneering spirit in Americans that made them gamble at the polls. Voters have Captain Orange taking the USA Enterprise into a Strange New Frontier, full well knowing we might find paradise, Borg, and/or be infested with orange tribbles that double as toupees.
T is a casino salesman by trade: he knows how to hype the fun of gambling and exploration, plunging the ship into a dark uncharted nebula.
Let's just hope we don't hear, "Dammit Jim, I'm a doctor, not an apocalypse reverser!"
Table-ized A.I.
"Joke's on you. I'm a registered Republican. (used to be Libertarian but switched when Ron Paul was in the primaries)"
Don't feel bad. I was the other Johnson voter.
Hillary was a Republican running as a democrat? Huh? Not even close.
Well, perhaps if social issues are your wedge issues, that's pretty true for Hillary, her husband, and even Obama. however, from the Democrat/left side, if looking at national security, privacy rights, economy, foreign policy, etc. They all appear as Republicans. The main complaint about Obama by those that voted for him was that it was pretty much a continuation of Bush on such policies. He may have gotten through some form of universal healthcare, but pretty much folded on FISA, business, Middle East, etc.
The MSM is now saying that the Rice story is "sexist and racist." So didn't take long to pull those cards. It's like the Democrats think they can do anything if it's blamed on somebody who's female and/or a minority.
The US has carried a constant debt since the US Civil War. Debt is literally what makes the world go round.
If by "literally" you mean "figuratively,"
Or by "go round", OP means "function adequately in an economic way".
More like a plan to spy on everyone they oppose, make diversity akin to victim status so they can get away with anything, and create a electoral majority that's dependent on government handouts so that they can control the future of the country.
Tune in next week -- same Bat-time, same Bat-channel!
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
What? Looking at those networks (and yes, including Fox News as the other AC suggested) seems to CONFIRM the conspiracy.
Saying something is a conspiracy isn't saying it's bullshit. It's saying it's a clandestine plot. Whether or not it's true doesn't affect whether it should be called a conspiracy or not.
Considering that the conservation of angular momentum is more of a *balance* of attraction, it is quite literally the opposite.
Unfortunately we ended up with an even more self-serving and worst tempered version of Harry Mudd , but, yes, he is indeed wearing a tribble on his head.
Nononono. Debt is good! Greece is fine!
I can't think of any definition of "Libertarian" that matches Trump. What are you thinking there?
He's the "I have more money and therefore I'm right" sort. A lot of people who call themselves libertarian fall into that category, whether their self-applied label is deserved or not.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I try to remember that getting rid of the spoiler effect is merely a gateway to the goal of better choice. You are correct that it is key to getting there and that everything else comes after, but once it goes away we have to remain diligent to educate the electorate. Otherwise we could see the spoiler effect become a lingering superstition that is as effective as reality.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
There are dozens of us!
Hillary didn't lose though. She won the popular vote.
It was the non-democratic electoral college who ignored the popular vote and voted in Trump.
the only loser here is America's "Democracy"
She didn't win the popular vote. She did get a plurality of it, but that doesn't equate to winning. Especially since the President isn't elected by popular vote.
The electors rightfully ignored the popular vote and voted faithfully. Faithless electors flipping the result of the election would have been ruinous.
I'm glad you put democracy in quotes, because America is not a direct democracy and never has been. If you don't like it, change the Constitution.
I don't think Trump is anything. He doesn't really have any political stances beyond what he thinks the current crowd of people around him want to hear, and when it doubt he just says what is in his brain at the time. The closest label would probably be "contrarian". He's only Republican because that's the party he hung his coat on, but he doesn't subscribe to the existing party platform. He takes some very non-libertarian views, especially if those views will get him votes.
I liked the analogy I think I saw on Slashdot a while ago: A person in a wheelchair complains that they can't get into building X. An activist lobby to have a wheelchair ramp built. An SJW will lobby to have the stairs removed as offensive to differentially-abled persons.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Clinton got more votes than Trump. It's the states, not the people who elected Trump, and there's no "pioneering spirit" nonsense that really explains that given states are institutions, not people.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
The people are so bought into the cycle of voting for the lesser evil that even with historically polarizing, horrible, and unliked candidates, 3rd parties still barely got 2.5% of the vote...
Well, it didn't help that the third party candidates were even worse. And not just by a little.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
ok, I'll watch more carefully and see if people who call themselves libertarian match that label.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I can't think of any definition of "Libertarian" that matches Trump. What are you thinking there?
His instincts lean towards scrapping onerous, pointless regulations. Towards government more in its constitutionally described role, rather than as Nanny. He's no classical libertarian, of course. But on many topics he skews more that direction than most of his primary race counterparts, and certainly wildly more so than his Democrat opponent.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Debt is fine, if you can print money in the denomination of the debt.
If you can't, be careful. And that holds whether you are a nation state, a company, or a person.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
His instincts lean towards scrapping onerous, pointless regulations.
Honestly: who favors imposing onerous, pointless regulations?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Most people pushing for bigger government programs. That skews towards democrats, but there are plenty of republicans with the same magical thinking. They just don't consider them pointless or onerous. They, having never run a business, can't envision the compliance cost, and believe that they will make the world a utopia (ignoring that most people will search for a way around them).
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
One person's "pointless" is another person's "point"
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
There is only one problem with your argument, and it it's this: Hillary actually DID win the election, so claiming she was too "whatever" to do so flies in the face of reality.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
So you have no idea what the popular vote is then ... Got it. (Only an idiot would say she didn't win it, when she clearly did.)
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
I hope you are being sarcastic, but in case you aren't:
Greece's debt and the US debt have nothing in common.
Greece is/was tied to the Euro. When they ran into economic trouble, they couldn't sell bonds at a lower rate and devalue their own currency as any nation with its own currency can do, they were forced to do whatever the Euro Central bankers told them to do, and they were screwed. This is why they floated the idea of leaving the euro, which frankly had its upsides for them. Spain was in similar circumstances, and they are sucking it up and dealing with the austerity that has been forced upon them.
The US and any other nation with its own currency can sell bonds and go into debt to get out of recessions, much like the US did in 2009 after the economic collapse. Its worked out quite well for the US, the overall debt has been lowered, and the US fared better economically than any other western nation from that global collapse. As much as things are not awesome for everyone in the US, things are much better than they could have been had we gone the austerity route (look at Greece and Spain, they show why this is a terrible idea in a recession).
I think it's more like "I pretend I have more money on the internet therefore I'm right".
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Personally, in my view Obama succumb to reality in foreign affairs.
My opinion also. Republican or Democrat, the realpolitik tends to take over. Look at Trump. Lots of things signed, no money to fund them, many dead in water. If it wasn't for the CRA and a dead Supreme Court Justice saved for him from the previous administration, pretty much nothing would have been done in his first 100 days even with both sides of Congress supposedly on his side.
Does this matter? Seems debatable to me.
It does matter, but not in a nerdly way.
The guy is on record spouting what appeared to be a statement against having too many Asian CEOs in SV/tech. From that angle, I think this shit is nerd-relevant.
I don't think Trump is anything. He doesn't really have any political stances beyond what he thinks the current crowd of people around him want to hear, and when it doubt he just says what is in his brain at the time. The closest label would probably be "contrarian". He's only Republican because that's the party he hung his coat on, but he doesn't subscribe to the existing party platform. He takes some very non-libertarian views, especially if those views will get him votes.
Trump holds a lot of left-wing positions and a lot of right-wing positions. He's used eminent domain extensively, for example (left-wing) and obviously there are plenty of pictures of him palling around with the Clintons and other liberal politicians. He simply does whatever suits him and pushes him ahead. He also panders to the right incessantly with the "pro-police" garbage and all that.
Do you have ESP?
Uh, are you calling Trump a Libertarian?
LOL.
He's apparently a corporatocrat, which makes him just as much of a libertarian as most of the people who call themselves libertarian. Don't like it? Separate yourself from that label to escape the association with all the crypto-corporatocrats hiding among you. Sometimes a label is too tainted and has to be discarded.
I have no idea why you think he's a corporatocrat - that was Hillary Clinton. Libertarianism is at odds with both Clinton and Trump.
Do you have ESP?
Hillary Clinton was barely tolerated by half of the Democrat voters. That's why Hillary lost. Trump was a barely tolerated candidate among Republicans, but not quite weak enough to be defeated by Hillary Clinton. For example, take a look at her first-amendment positions and you'll see someone who is way to the right of center. When you have a choice between a Republican running as a Democrat and a Libertarian running as a Republican, is it any surprise that the latter wins?
As a Republican that opted to vote for Kasick in the primaries and Clinton in the prez race, I'd say that any GOP candidate (not just Trump) would have defeated Hillary. And by the same token, any Democrat candidate other than Hillary would have beat the fuck out of Trump's campaign.
These was a fight among unlikeables (sp). With that said, the notion that Trump won because he was a Liberatian in Republican disguise is absolutely ridiculous. The motherfucker was a birther, a goddamned George Wallace who dog whistle the right tunes. Oooooh the Mexicans, oooooh the Muslims, etc, etc.
Trump cemented his popular power way before Hillary was in the picture. The "better than Hillary" slogan came as an afterthought, a revisionist sophistry with which to hide the fact they voted for a fucking Birther bigot.
Most people who are upset by SJWs are upset because they've been called out on their bullshit.
They're tired of the never-ending victim brigade over bullshit grievances, like Halloween costumes.
A lot of guys are just too old fashioned to want to here criticism from a woman.
And some guys just want to White Knight for women, regardless of merit.
That most SJWs are women and are mostly targeting men has a lot to do with the vitriol that is spewed about SJWs. A lot of guys are just too old fashioned to want to here criticism from a woman.
Uhm. Are they? How do you know? Is OrangeTide a masculine or feminine name? Neither. I have no idea if the majority of SJWs who post on the Internet are women or not. Being an "old fashioned" person, I tend to think they're all men, because when I started using the Internet, everybody was male.
According to random Internet site, 66.2% of the female gender people in the Americas use the Internet compared to 65.8% of the male gender people. So if I'm just picking odds here, most SJWs might be female. By a margin of 0.5%. I'm going to guess that there are significant factors that skew SJWs to one sex or another, but I have no idea what they might be or what the actual skew is. How do you know?
Except he is still on the NSC, can see all information from the NSC, and has an open invitation to all NSC meetings. It is just not required that he be at the meetings.
Fact he was only able to attend one NSC meeting due to scheduling conflicts,, thus this isn't really a change at all.
But go on and believe Steve Bannon was fired from NSC, if it makes you feel any better after Hillary lost the election.
Poor A/C why do you shout at the rain?
Well when you host your own website you can decide what can and cant be posted.
In the mean time, I'll keep reading slashdot and continue to be not surprised about news articles related to major players in major online political movements and how they are fairing in their current role in real world politics.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
There were two big political stories today:
1. Steve Bannon's butt moved to a different chair.
2. The Syrians launched a nerve gas attack, killing roughly 50 people, and blatantly violating a "red line" laid down by America, and violating their disarmament agreement with the UN. This will likely trigger a military response from America, complicated by the thousands of Russian soldiers and hundreds of Russian aircraft defending Syrian airspace.
I have no problem with general news on Slashdot, but I think it is absurd that #1 was covered while #2 was not.
I have no problem with general news on Slashdot, but I think it is absurd that #1 was covered while #2 was not.
Was there a submitted story for number 2? Had someone taken the time to write a summary [and really badly edit it]?
Remember they will only show what is on the submissions
2. The Syrians launched a nerve gas attack
Do we actually know this with absolute certainty? Based on evidence from...the "Syrian Observatory on Human Rights" aka "One Guy Who Lives in the UK"? Based on FSA social media accounts, because those are never BS propaganda? ( http://www.independent.co.uk/n... )
When that recent airstrike in Mosul killed 100+ civilians the US was quick to say "musta triggered a nearby ISIS carbomb factory....not really our fault"....but when the Syrians/Russians say "our airstrike must have hit a jihadi chemical warehouse...not our fault"....the ONLY conclusion made in the West is they must be lying through their teeth? What incentive would Assad have to employ a weapon that is well-known to provoke a Western response, given that he is already well on his way to winning the conventional ground conflict without it?
Really? Explain to me how a successful businessman and former governor who smokes a little recreational weed and has a wacky sense of humor is worse than a corrupt politician who destroys evidence and a reality television star that spouts continual lies and attacks on anyone who questions him?
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Generally having a role removed from your list of duties is seen as a demotion, and the timing of this, after Ivanka's official installation in the White House, is highly suggestive that the rumored power struggle between Bannon and the Kushners has resolved itself in the Kushners' favor. Also note that there have been rumors that Bannon and Priebus weren't getting along all that well either. I don't expect Bannon to work for that much longer at the White House.
I suspect Trump was forced to remove Bannon from the NSC and will likely be forced to remove him from his other positions. Bannon might retain a strictly ceremonial position, but no actual power. Even the other republicans consider Bannon to be too extreme.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
When you have a choice between a Republican running as a Democrat and a Oligarch running as a Republican, is it any surprise that the latter wins?
Fixed that for you. Trump is as much a libertarian as Margret Thatcher was a communist.
And it is not just surprising that he won, it's shameful and destructive. It also says a lot about those who voted for him that they cant he was an oligarch.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Democrats like Obama and both Clintons are very right leaning. They are no Howard Dean, Ralph Nader or Bernie Sanders. Not that a 1 dimensional scale for measuring political views is a good metric, it lacks nuance. For example, I'm a Republican and believe in small decentralized government and in supporting small business owners, but I'm against the death penalty. Does that make me a liberal? Probably not.
Sounds like you've discovered what we in the ROTW call Thrid Way politics. A departure from strict left-right politics where you chose the best solution for a problem completely disregarding political philosophy, you can have a government that has both left and right policies (I.E. left on healthcare and right on trade restrictions).
BTW, there isn't really a left in the US, even Bernie Sanders is pretty much centre right on Europes scale. Obama was definately a bit right of centre, Hillary was right of him, not as far as GWB and Trump is so far beyond GWB's position that he makes GWB look like a modarate.
As for SJWs, treating people fairly is not really garbage, and has nothing to do with maxism. Most people who are upset by SJWs are upset because they've been called out on their bullshit. That most SJWs are women and are mostly targeting men has a lot to do with the vitriol that is spewed about SJWs. A lot of guys are just too old fashioned to want to here criticism from a woman. I don't care what gender someone is, as long as the criticism is valid and constructive. Usual response to SJWs is: I don't like what you're saying, so I'll mock you to take that power away from you. But that funny thing is you can't win that way (well at least *I* find it funny)
This.
A few years back, all those who complained about SJW's never used the word SJW, instead they would constantly bleat about Political Correctness. The problem is, they bleated so hard and so often that everyone started ignoring PC complains for the same reason people are starting to ignore SJW complaints... They're all bullshit.
SJW simply means "you've said something I dont like but cant rationally argue against it" and the vast majority of people now realise that. So much like PC, SJW now has little power.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
And it's this sort of glib avoidance of just how bad the problem really is that explains why Democrats have been on such a losing streak lately.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Calling Trump a libertarian is probably the funniest thing I've seen all week, so thanks for that.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
Gary Johnson was a reasonably well-liked governor who got bipartisan support and could reach across the aisle. He was weak on foreign policy, and wasn't all that charismatic, but I really don't think he was worse than either Hillary or Donald.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
No, that's just silly. He's clearly an authoritarian; he wants power to do what he wants with the government. That's decidedly not libertarianism, and the fact that you don't understand that just means that you aren't paying attention.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
No, she didn't. She won the popular vote. However, our constitutional republic is deliberately set up in a way that gives smaller states a disproportionately large vote to ensure that candidates can't just focus on the needs of the big states, and as a result, Trump won the election because of his claim—ridiculous as it might be—that he would bring back manufacturing jobs to those smaller states.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Bannon is Trump's Ernst Röhm, and Bannon should ponder Röhm's fate if he is determined to keep his foot in the White House. Sooner or later the Kushners are going to push for their own Night of the Long Knives, and Bannon's exit might be rather ugly.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Look at any pictures from a leftist rally, and there are always communist groups marching with them. Most if not all receive funding from Russia. This has been happening since forever
What part of "US Communist Party suffered a crippling blow with the collapse of the Soviet Union" do you not comprehend?
I find it highly amusing to see leftist marching with groups that supposedly helped Trump get elected. HGHLY amusing.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Really? Explain to me how a successful businessman and former governor who smokes a little recreational weed and has a wacky sense of humor is worse than a corrupt politician who destroys evidence and a reality television star that spouts continual lies and attacks on anyone who questions him?
Because neither of them have any clue what the President does, or had opinions that sounded thought out on any of the major issues. Any time Gary Johnson or Jill Stein were interviewed, they hung themselves and demonstrated so very clearly that they were incapable of the job. Yeah, I hated Hillary and Trump too (and didn't vote for either), and I REALLY wanted to like Johnson or Stein, either one, anything other than those other two, but they were clueless. Utterly clueless.
he realized just how bad of a policy his campaign bashing Bush's war had been
Eh? He was always right to bash the Iraq War and to demand that it come to an end. That's one of the few things I'll really credit him for.
The second Iraq War was the US's greatest foreign policy blunder since the Vietnam War, if not earlier.
You nicely glossed over what I said and instead focused on what you wanted which in this case seems to be "political issue".
To elaborate on what I actually said before and tie it in with you are getting at (and some added emphases to help you notice the key component you missed before), did Syria get its start in online news? Did its president? Are either of them major players in what is currently a very influential online political movement?
Now dont get me wrong, a case could be made that slashdot should have an article about Syria. I might even agree with said case, I dont know. My point I've just reiterated here is that the online tie-in Bannon has makes him relevant news on slashdot. The Alt-right is big news in the context of internet culture right now. Syria, one way or another, is really irrelevant to whether Bannon should be reported on or not.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Because national security policy drives information security policy.
...and because rumor has it that Bannon wanted all government systems converted back to COBOL. He said he was really fond of those COBOL subroutine names...always so long and descriptive.
The people didn't want Hillary though she won the popular vote?! Every time some idiot brings up the results of the Electoral college when discussing popularity it is a smoke screen. This is no exception.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
I think you confuse Iraq and Syria... Iraq actually had a reasonable point and wasn't anyone's patsy, plus they were not fighting amongst themselves... North Vietnam was a China/Russian patsy fighting with South Vietnam.. Syria is a Russian Patsy in the middle of a civil war..
Obama and Clinton got is square in the middle of Syria's civil war.... Vietnam was a Civil war too.. Both where/are proxy wars. Iraq was none of this.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Trump was by far the most utterly incompetent person and somehow he is managing the job. Gary Johnson may not have been able to articulate his positions well, but that hardly makes him incapable. He WAS the governor of a state for two terms. It's not the same as being President, but it is executive decision making experience and he did quite well. How much of your view of Johnson's capabilities was formed by the way the media portrayed him vs his actual business and government experience and record?
Stein by the way isn't even in the same category. Her experience was in being a protest organizer which is practically worthless experience, but it seemed to serve Obama well...
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
If you exclude the corrupt liberal magnet sanctuary cities, Trump is widely supported.
That's why Hillary lost.
If you exclude the people that did not vote for "A", then "A" is widely supported. This is not very insightful, even if you label those people as "corrupt", or insinuate that the places where people live somehow makes their opinions less valid.