Slashdot Mirror


President Trump Misses 90-Day Deadline To Appoint a Cybersecurity Team After Alleged Russian Hacking (politico.com)

From a report: President-elect Donald Trump was very clear: "I will appoint a team to give me a plan within 90 days of taking office," he said in January, after getting a U.S. intelligence assessment of Russian interference in last year's elections and promising to address cybersecurity. Thursday, Trump hits his 90-day mark. There is no team, there is no plan, and there is no clear answer from the White House on who would even be working on what. It's the latest deadline Trump's set and missed -- from the press conference he said his wife would hold last fall to answer questions about her original immigration process to the plan to defeat ISIS that he'd said would come within his first 30 days in office. Since his inauguration, Trump's issued a few tweets and promises to get to the bottom of Russian hacking -- and accusations of surveillance of Americans, himself included, by the Obama administration.

347 comments

  1. So... by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I guess "the Cyber" is actually hard, huh? Kind of like Health Care, or North Korea?

    Who knew?

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

      It is more sad that slashdot is bothering with headlines like this. Trump sucks, but does anyone actually care that he hasn't released a document about holding meetings?

    2. Re:So... by D00MSlayer · · Score: 1, Funny

      Nobody on his staff realized just how complicated "The Cyber" really was, I suppose.

    3. Re:So... by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I think anyone who doesn't care, is uninterested in maintaining a rePUBLIC based on trust between the elites and the drones
      Under the Russian interventions, every drone is aware his/her awareness was twisted by coordinated lies and "fake news" to create a 'scandal' that handed America to the elites
      Don't believe me?
      Find the Cabinet members who aren't 1%

    4. Re:So... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

      Or filling 500+ government positions with anyone who haven't said a negative thing about Trump since the dawn of time.

    5. Re:So... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Trump sucks, but does anyone actually care that he hasn't released a document about holding meetings?

      I care even less about his wife's immigration status. As for ISIS, he does have a plan: American airpower + Kurdish and Shia ground forces. It is working well. Mosul has been taken, and Raqqa is likely to be taken within a few months.

    6. Re:So... by ubermiester · · Score: 2

      If the headline was "President Doesn't Give a Shit About Cybersecurity or Russian Hacking", would that pass your test?

    7. Re:So... by Obfuscant · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think anyone who doesn't care, is uninterested in maintaining a rePUBLIC based on trust between the elites and the drones

      That's funny. Anyone who cared about "day one" promises from the last president was racist. Now it is good to care about promises.

      God, I wish /. could get back to the topics it was created for and stop being this political discussion hellhole.

    8. Re:So... by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      What I don't get is why he hasn't done anything on infrastructure that he promised. This would more or less get bipartisan acceptance, generally it was one of his most popular promises. And for a real estate guy who like to build things, this should had been up his alley, to get his feet wet being a president. I am by no means a Trump supporter, but I live in the Trump Rust belt area, and I see in these areas that had voted for him, a rotting infrastructure, with post industrial cities that time had forgotten, because the states often have big modern cities a few hundred miles away propping up the economy numbers.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    9. Re:So... by ausekilis · · Score: 2, Funny

      If only someone could explain to them it's a series of tubes...

    10. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Generally the broken promises from obama were things he needed congress to participate on. Yes he had a lot of failure to deliver promises. The promises from trump people complain about are mostly ones he has direct power to perform (i'll give you the healthcare one though he def needed congress for that and he did try to get congress to do it.). He doesn't need congress to appoint a cyberscurity team. He's just not doing it.

    11. Re:So... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1, Troll

      Republicans only care about money. Can you do the job? Good. Get to work.

      Except I'm a Never Trumper. I also turned down an IT job with the Meg Whitman for CA Governor campaign because I voted for the moderate conservative, Tom Campbell, in the Republican Primary in 2010 . And then there's the fact I switched my political registration before the 2016 election and voted for Hillary. And those ~8,000 comments on Slashdot...

    12. Re:So... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's funny. Anyone who cared about "day one" promises from the last president was racist.

      No they really weren't. Sure you could find a few loudmouths who say stupid shit on the internet and sometimes in print. So what? I can find literal Nazis who support Trump but that doesn't make all Trump voters literal Nazis.

      There was no general zeitgeist about expecting Obama to keep policies being racist. I remember considerable criticism here from back in the day when he didn't do anything about the PATRIOT act for example. You know what? People manage to use strong language without engaging in racial slurs and no one called them racist.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    13. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have been spending too much time in California. Only radical left people think that way. They are the only ones blackballing people in the modern day for their political views.

      If that's true then wouldn't that necessarily make you part of the radical left?

    14. Re: So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Obama had both houses of congress with a supermajority in the senate. So no, he lied.
      However, for some reason, no politician who is not a pathological liar seems to be successful in the US above the local level, so I guess we really do have the government we deserve.

    15. Re: So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Maybe because it's proven that he is a habitual liar. That might have something to do with it. The guy is a fraud and liar. Full stop.

      xD

    16. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does that have to do with your original point that Republicans wont hire people that have the slightest criticism of their party?

      You made a choice. That does not mean everyone is like you.

    17. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe all of the technophobic sycophants already had committee positions? He'll be able to spawn more followers at the next full moon, check back for committee status.

    18. Re:So... by WrongMonkey · · Score: 2
      Find the Presidential candidate who wasn't 1%.

      There wasn't a non-elite option on the ballot.

    19. Re:So... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      What does that have to do with your original point that Republicans wont hire people that have the slightest criticism of their party?

      The Trump Administration are turning away Republicans who criticized Trump in the past, leaving 500+ government positions open. Before the Trump Administration, every Democratic and Republican administrations had these positions filled by the 100th day.

      That does not mean everyone is like you.

      I certainly hope. We got enough fuck ups around here as it is.

    20. Re:So... by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      The cyber may be hard for the people who do it, but it is not hard for the president to appoint a team to do it. At least it shouldn't be hard to appoint a team.

      Q. What is difficult then for Trump?

      A. Trying to find anyone with technical skills that is willing to work with Trump.



      (also: risking their reputation, career, and possibly life if some kind of "accident" occurs when they look into the wrong thing too deeply.)

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    21. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No president so far in the USA, that is fer sure. Its good to see a president that does more than just give gala luncheons for once though.

    22. Re:So... by Orgasmatron · · Score: 0

      Woosh! Right over your head.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    23. Re: So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Obama had both houses of congress with a supermajority in the senate. So no, he lied.

      And during that time he got things like healthcare done. He does still need cooperation from congress, just because they're dem doesn't mean they'll do whatever he says. See trump and his healthcare boondoggle.

    24. Re:So... by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Donald Trump, unfortunately, satisfies a common desire among the populance to right things by means that won't actually right them. It's a desire to rid Washington of inaction by cleaning it out of the current folks who don't seem to get anything done: and then you find that the things they were working on are harder than you understood. It's the feeling that you can get things going right by having a manager who lights a fire under the responsible people: just the way that bank managers pressured employees to increase revenue or be fired until those employees started opening accounts fraudulently for customers who hadn't asked for them.

      What I am having a hard time with is how our country gets back out of this. I fear Humpty has had such a great fall that there is no peaceful recovery.

    25. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That wasn't 'his' plan though, so much as the plan that the military has been taking all along, even under Obama. Trump promised that he knew a better way, and yet nothing has really changed except that there's been more bombing of civilians. I'm not terribly inclined to give him any serious credit there.

    26. Re:So... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Since when does "whoosh" mean "wow you just skewered me".

      The fact you could find some idiots who would yell "racist" over any criticism about Obama is about as relevant as finding flat-earthers who voted for Trump. That didn't mean that was ever a thing in any kind of general sense.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    27. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Woosh! Right over your head.

      Your problem, Orgasmatron, is too many ACTUAL racists, including Donald Trump (famed birther extraordinaire), whined that their perfidious racism was criticized when they harangued us about Obama, to the point where your claims about being unfairly called racist are just as ineffectual as their protests.

      You see, you are known by the company you keep, and since you won't disown the actual racists whose criticisms you've adopted, you're pretty much stuck with others thinking that you're just pretending to be a victim.

    28. Re:So... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Since when does "whoosh" mean "wow you just skewered me".

      In this use, "whoosh" meant "not only did you fail to correctly identify the relevant point of the comment you replied to, you proved the point that was being made." Thank you.

    29. Re: So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Non uber powerful rich don't have the resources to counteract all the dirt digging and slinging that goes on in politics. And most people prefer not to have every single life choice they've ever made publicly criticized and ridiculed, let alone their social opinions on benign topics.

    30. Re: So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here we go with that anti California nattering again. Did your wife leave you and move out there?

    31. Re: So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like we're saving money then. I'm good.

    32. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nope, in fact, it's you who completely missed the point of the rebuttal, and have instead proved your own point to be a vacuous self-serving bit of tediousness.

      You see, every single time a critic of Obama is challenged, they play the "Race Card" Card, even when they are in fact, making a racist remark, or when the rebuttal to their criticism has nothing to do with race.

      You'd be better off ceasing the attempts, you've just cried wolf too many times. Sell the sheep to the butcher, and get a new job, perhaps as a muckraker.

    33. Re:So... by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Doesn't help when the head of Cyber is trying to make deals with the FBI to stay out of jail.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    34. Re:So... by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 2

      Don't count on things getting fixed. Trump always wanted to change the tax code and to enter public-private partnership projects. So that means new toll roads and bridges are going to be built but old ones won't be fixed, lead water pipes won't be replaced, leaking pipes won't be sealed and anything else that doesn't make money won't get done.

      The Democrats won't vote for any spending package because they don't want Trump to have any wins that might help the GOP before the next round of voting. The environment is so toxic in Washington you could probably call it a Superfund site.

    35. Re: So... by tipo159 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Obama had both houses of congress with a supermajority in the senate. So no, he lied.

      Obama had a supermajority for a month or so around July-August, 2009 (when Al Franken finally got confirmed to his seat) from Sep 2009 (when Ted Kennedy's replacement was sworn in) until Feb 2010 (when Scott Brown was sworn in to replace Kennedy's replacement).

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

      Find the Presidential candidate who wasn't 1%. There wasn't a non-elite option on the ballot.

      This election yes, but amazingly, when Bill Clinton was elected, he and Hillary were only about 1/3 of what it takes to be in the 1%. Of course when she ran, they clearly were 1%ers.

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

      Donald, is that you?

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

      The Trump Administration is turning away Republicans

      And, as usual, you are lying. With that quality of writing, you have probably lied about your education as well. Does your employer know?

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

      Prove Trump's racism.

      I'll wait.

    40. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Um, bullshit? Even taking their raw income in 1991 compared to today's standard to be a 1% they made well over 1/3. By today's standards it only takes 521k to be a 1%er. in 1991 the Clintons made just over 235k (which is about 424k in today's dollars strictly based on inflation).

    41. Re:So... by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Not according to Chris Matthews of MSNBC, basically in his view anyone who disagreed with Obama was racist, that was their primary motivation for disagreement. He was not the only one to subscribe to this narrative, but probably had the highest profile and outreach.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    42. Re: So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      let's be clear Mosul is not fully under Irak control

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

      Prove Trump's racism.

      I'll wait.

      Put Trump on the stand, and make him comply with the discovery, and you'll get it.

      Or you know, you could read his own statements and his own testimony about his behavior. They're not hidden.

    44. Re:So... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      And, as usual, you are lying.

      Nope. This is the Internet. Everything is true.

      With that quality of writing, you have probably lied about your education as well.

      I spent eight years in Special Ed classes due to an undiagnosed hearing loss, skipped high school, went to community college to get an A.A. degree in General Education (1994), got kicked out of the university in my first year after playing too many games of Magic: The Gathering into the wee hours, and later went back to community college to get an A.S. degree in Computer Programming (20070 on a $3,000 tax return that George W. signed into law after 9/11.

      Does your employer know?

      The two-hour background interview for my security clearance took four hours. The Chinese also has a copy of my background investigative case file.

    45. Re: So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You've never dealt with local government, have you?

      In my - admittedly limited, and gratefully so - experience, it's local government that is not only the most corrupt, but the most openly corrupt. They are usually beholden to no-one (often running unopposed!) and there is disturbingly little oversight. They also have more direct influence on the day-to-day lives of their constituents than any Federal official. The Senators and Representatives in Washington may have more overall authority (although because it is filtered through so many levels of bureaucracy its arguable how much actual power they have) but they are also being watched far, far more than the local mayors, judges, town councils and sheriffs - both by the press and their opponents. There's no such spotlight on the local officials, who pass ordinances and laws without much comment from the people they (supposedly) represent, far too often for their own benefit.

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

      All one has to do is point to the two major right wing news sources: bb and fox. Remember, if you don't say merry christmas, you're declaring war on christmas. Remember, Obama's agains Christmas because he no longer calls them Christmas Trees... Except they do still. There's even pictures. =P Oh yeah, don't forget the "99% blacks cause all crimes" and "skittles" memes that were used by the DT campaign. I remember seeing those prior on my spam Facebook account, and I'm not even American. The 99% crime one's supposed source as noted on the image doesn't exist...

      One could argue CNN and others is left wing for skewing and focusing on anti-right events, but I haven't seen articles that straight up say things that a 5 second Google image search can't debunk.

      Ultimately, the right wingers feel trapped because they feel the Democrats have all the power even though it's not even remotely close to true.

    47. Re:So... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Riiight.

      If I was wrong, you wouldn't be so reluctant to clarify your point.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    48. Re: So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He also had to deal with Joe Lieberman and the blue dogs

    49. Re: So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Skittles and tea and robitussin = "poor trash" version of purple dranq. The little thug probably had the robitussin waiting in his apartment.

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

      Fuck you. The dripping goo from your slippery definition of racism has stained those nice pants your mom dressed you in. You're a fucking idiot crapflooding slashdot. Go back to your political blog and leave us alone.

    51. Re:So... by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      I think he just doesn't remember and everyone on his staff is concentrating on making it look like there's nothing wrong with him. It's clear to me that his mind is deteriorating.

    52. Re: So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the plan that mompants wasn't going to implement, nor his assistant if she was elected. Hillary's kind of folks (the neocons) want Assad out so they can build the gas pipeline. Everything else, even support of ISIS, is secondary to that goal.

    53. Re: So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We keep finding out way the fuck more about you than we care to. Who are you? The new Jon Katz, risen from the grave?

      In any case, don't post a response. Spare us, please.

    54. Re: So... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      In any case, don't post a response. Spare us, please.

      If you don't want a response, don't respond to my comments. But most trolls can't exercise self-restraint.

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

      If you want no lies, ask no questions.

    56. Re: So... by Calydor · · Score: 1

      Maybe you can clarify something for me about US politics:

      If you are from the same party as the President, must you always vote FOR him, and if you're from the opposite party must you always vote AGAINST him?

      If so, why vote at all? Just have a cheat sheet of how many places are held by either side and pass/kill anything the President does based on that.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    57. Re:So... by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      The part that I'm taking personally is his lack of respect the American anthem. It appears that it requires the ol' ball and chain to body slam the orange racoon to salute; that is very telling.

    58. Re: So... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      "God is cruel. Sometimes he makes you live." — Stephen King

    59. Re:So... by Altrag · · Score: 1

      The trouble with your argument is Hanlon's razor.. "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

      Trump's entire rise to power, from his nomination to the RNC all the way up to his election as president was basically one giant gong show of ignorance, racism and general dislike of the (prior) status quo.

      The Russian hacking certainly didn't help Hillary's cause, but I have some doubts as to how much it actually influenced the election results -- Hillary was pretty disliked before the email scandal and other BS. Maybe it would have been enough to swing the EC.. we'll never know.. but I wouldn't say its exactly clear cause-and-effect trail given everything else that was going on during both the campaign and the primaries before it.

    60. Re:So... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Why is the US government doing nothing about infrastructure. Here is how it works, the are many infrastructure corporations, they compete and they are way smaller than the war industrial complex corporations. So in the buy up of power, the war industrial complex, simply buys up more power and distorts government policy in their favour. The war industrial complex, wants you to die in the most expensive and profitable way possible, on a battlefield of their choosing, to steal other peoples resources and you don't need better roads or bridges or dams back home to do that, well, at least for this quarters returns. The US is being run by insane psychopaths do not look for sane logic, want to understand what the US government is up to and way, de-construct the visible actions based upon psychopathic logic ie feed the lusts and greed of those in power, first, last and everything in-between.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    61. Re:So... by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Don't re-elect Trump.

      Its not like all of the people who know what they're doing simply vanished, or that there aren't more people who are capable out there but just don't happen to bow to the Trump line and thus are ignored under the current administration.

      Trump's been a bumbling idiot as expected, but he so far hasn't done anything irreversible.

      Of course that could change at any time -- renegotiating NAFTA is likely to be one of those "who knew international treaties were so hard" moments.

      All of the recent military activity may or may not also lead to something more serious. Russia may take exception if the US tries to get too involved in Syria at this point since they're sill (for some reason) backing Asaad.

      The same situation applies to North Korea having China's backing, except somewhat scarier since Kim Jong-un is possibly crazy enough to start something they can't finish. It would almost certainly be the end of North Korea either way, but if it escalated into a conflict between China and the US things could get ugly fast and we may well see something akin to the start of WWI where some almost-forgotten-to-history event sparks disastrous consequences for not just the people or countries involved, but the entire world.

    62. Re: So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair "partisan train wreck" also describes the health care system before Obama care. It's pretty much the tag line for Congress.

    63. Re: So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. It doesn't work that way. The recent affordable Care act was a Trump bill that was defeated by a combination of the opposition party and opponents from the same party as the president.

    64. Re: So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They saved up money by eating all that pizza.

    65. Re:So... by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      so far hasn't done anything irreversible.

      I think the first victims have been farmers who can't bring in their crops. Just the people who voted for him in California's central valley and wherever else we depend on guest workers. I don't see citizens lining up to pick those crops. The small family farmers, what's left of them, will feel this worse, the large corporate ones have the lawyers necessary to help them break the rules and truck people in from South of the border.

      The second group of victims will be the ones who need health care that doesn't come from a big company. It's a lot more difficult to start a small business when there is no affordable way to get health care. And that is the case for my own small business - I'd be in bad shape if my wife left the University. I think that's the real goal - to keep people from leaving employment in larger companies and going off on their own.

    66. Re: So... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Obama had a supermajority for a month or so around July-August, 2009

      Two months, as Franken was sworn in at the end of June. But that's still a non sequitur, given Obama's drowning of the public option long before Congress could vote against it, his continuing to hold prisoners in Gitmo that had been cleared for release by Bush, why he proposed austerity through the "sequester" or placed Social Security and Medicare cuts into his budget, or why we are still working under the last minimum wage increase signed into law. By Bush, when there were a mere 51 Democrats in the Senate, as opposed to 58.60.

    67. Re: So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't have to vote for your party leader. But if you do not support whatever crazy idea he has today, it means maybe you might have backed someone who isn't divinely inspired, and your excuse for picking him despite everything he said in his own words is wrong. Admitting you are wrong is the cardinal sin in American politics.

      That's why erectilely defective people say things like "who knew it would be this hard?". When everyone else knew, and then you go play a $3m round of golf to make your hands seem bigger.

    68. Re:So... by Altrag · · Score: 1

      I didn't say it wasn't bad. I said it wasn't irreversible.

      That is, you can suffer for 4 years or you can suffer for 8 (if Trump gets re-elected,) but whether its in 2020 or 2024, the following president will at least have the power to change the screwups Trump has made up to this point.

      Whether the next president will actually want to undo Trump's decisions, or whether Trump between now and then does something that's truly irreversible, are both open questions and there's no way to answer them except wait and see.

    69. Re:So... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      What I don't get is why he hasn't done anything on infrastructure that he promised

      The others (except maybe Sanders) didn't promise it because they didn't intend to do anything about it. That left a gap for a lair who was prepared to say he would do "something" but not make any specific promises about specific projects.
      "Trust me" from someone even the banks won't touch is kind of worthless.
      Maybe in a few months, or a year, or maybe four (Trump's not leaving unless he's carried out no matter what happens, he has nowhere near the morality of even Nixon) a lot of people will work out how naive they were about Trump. He is not working for the USA - he's working for Trump. He does not care about infrastructure unless it gets in the way of him getting to Florida on the weekend.

    70. Re:So... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      No, he's been like that his entire adult life - if you can call that manbaby an adult.

    71. Re:So... by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      The part I'm having a problem with is the little folks who won't get a second chance. What's reversible for the country may not be for them. Health care is that sort of issue.

    72. Re: So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What inspired dialogue, you sure showed that you have much to learn.

    73. Re:So... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

      Trump clearly assumed being president would be like being the head of a very large company. I'm particular, he thought he could just order stuff to happen and it would. Of course it doesn't work like that.

      He also didn't seem to realise that you need qualifications and experience to do this job. If he had those things it wouldn't be such a surprise every time something turns out to be hard.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    74. Re:So... by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      It's not true, you can find interviews with him from the 90s when he was able to form complete thoughts. Look at some early Letterman appearances on youtube.

    75. Re:So... by Gussington · · Score: 1

      That's funny. Anyone who cared about "day one" promises from the last president was racist. Now it is good to care about promises.

      This is odd logic. Assuming you are correct, your position is that because of something that happened with the last president, no-one should ever care about anything this president does?

    76. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. Just wow.

      NO, anybody that "cared" about Trump's first day promises wasn't anything or anybody. It wasn't about "caring" and "caring" as you are attempting to use it is completely meaningless. It's more a matter of anyone who bought Trump's bloviations hook line and sinker was a complete fool where many were blinded by their frustrations into accepting the red cape of racism that Trump waved to draw the charge.

      The current writing is to just attempt to point out that Trump has not met his stated goals.

      It is pertinent to Slashdot. Suppose Trump had appointed a commission and there were details from an investigation of Russian internet hacking in order to affect the election. It would most certainly be of interest to computer techs then. It is no different now when there has been a failure to investigate.

    77. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, there was, if you would consider 3rd party or write-in options. I wish people would forget this "Red vs Blue" BS and realize we have other options.

    78. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus Christ. Obama is gone. He is out of office. He will never again be a thorn in your side! Can you now please stop excusing the current leader of the Republican party for all his faults just because Obama also was flawed?

    79. Re: So... by PlaynBass · · Score: 1

      This thread forgets that the Office of President and Congress are pitted against each other by the Constitution: Party politics does not make the party in power automatically play nice with a controversial President, no matter what the party affiliations may be. Gives me some hope that we can still exercise some leverage over our local politicians, no matter what their party. Politicians do not lie, they make non-deliverable promises, and the voters choose to fall for them. But since the Citizens United SCOTUS verdict, only people with money to spend have any influence on our elected mis-representers.

      --
      PlaynBass
    80. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sorry I meant to mod this insightful, +1

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

      That's funny. Anyone who cared about "day one" promises from the last president was racist.
      Something to remember He is half White!
      Maybe what has made him a lying asshole is his white side.
      No self respecting Black man would ever act like him

    82. Re:So... by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      I guess that President Trump never heard of overtime, or focused attention span. A lot of good his tweating is doing for the country.
      He has delegated away all his responsibility and new, its only empty words.

      Well, you got what you wished for. Santa Claus with blond dyed hair.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    83. Re:So... by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Obamacare. Check
      Jobs recovery? Check
      Housing recovery? Check
      O.K., I grant he let the republican'ts rule the war business.
      That is a NOT check
      That said
      No new wars? Check
      Seems he did a reasonably decent job for a guy with enemies holding all the reins of power.

    84. Re:So... by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Hillary
      NOT a billionaire
      The 1% are defined as annual incomes over 420,000 year.

    85. Re:So... by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      No.
      it takes 420,000 PER YEAR and the Clinton's are not currently in that class

    86. Re:So... by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      No you don't.
      As long as Florida, Virginia, Ohio and Michigan are winner take all, no you do not have another choice.
      You are just choosing the worst of the opposition

    87. Re:So... by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Since she won the vote, and needed just 22,000 votes in each of 3 states.....yeah, Comey turned the tide of victory
      go back and check the polls.

  2. Fake President by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    He's gotten so much done... Filling his pockets from Federal coffers and his fooled foolish followers.

    1. Re:Fake President by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Filling his pockets from Federal coffers and his fooled foolish followers.

      I didn't get anything. What are you going on about?

  3. Anyone surprised? by Weaselmancer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Trump got into power by nothing but bluster. He isn't going to be able to deliver on more than 5% of what he promised on the campaign trail. With a Republican majority in the Senate and the House of Representatives he STILL couldn't repeal Obamacare. With the deck stacked entirely in his favor he still can't deliver.

    America, you've been had.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:Anyone surprised? by mi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      With the deck stacked entirely in his favor he still can't deliver.

      About half of Congressional Republicans hate him with passion — and would rather collude with the opposition than with him.

      As to the original point about being "surprised" — no. After Obama's failing to close Guantanamo for eight years (two of them with that deck really stacked in his favor), Presidents failing to deliver on their core promises does not surprise me one bit...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    2. Re:Anyone surprised? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Funny

      With the deck stacked entirely in his favor he still can't deliver.

      I imagine many of his casino investors had the very same thought.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    3. Re:Anyone surprised? by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      After 8 years of promising to balance the Budget while tripling the national debt, REAGAN proved failing to deliver on core promises is irrelevant

    4. Re:Anyone surprised? by damn_registrars · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Trump got in to office by being lucky enough to run against Hillary Clinton. A huge part of the GOP electorate would vote for a ticket of Kim Jong-Un with Mahmood Ahmedinejad just to keep someone named Clinton out of the white house. Any republican other than Trump would have wiped the floor with her; he was just such an atrociously awful example of a human being that there were people who had second thoughts or just simply stayed home.

      Now that said, any democrat who wasn't named Clinton would have wiped the floor with Trump. Sanders would have annihilated him - indeed he polls better with self-identified conservatives than does Trump - as would any of a number of other people. Hell Jimmy Carter could have beaten him if he could have been talked into running.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    5. Re:Anyone surprised? by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      With the deck stacked entirely in his favor he still can't deliver.

      About half of Congressional Republicans hate him with passion — and would rather collude with the opposition than with him.

      And why is that such a bad thing? In a responsible, reasonable government there should be collaboration between the ruling and opposition parties. How else do you expect to actually get things done that can actually last instead of just getting scrapped as soon as the next party comes into power? Sadly, in US politics these days if you are seen even eating in the same restaurant as someone from the other party you are vilified and torn down the next time you come up for re-election as a traitor to the party. It's pretty sad, really, how much American political parties operate like the Soviet Communist party did, where loyalty to the party supersedes everything else.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    6. Re:Anyone surprised? by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hell Jimmy Carter could have beaten him if he could have been talked into running.

      Jimmy Carter's brain cancer would probably have beaten Trump

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    7. Re:Anyone surprised? by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      The only reason Trump was nominated was the R establishment saw this as a losing year.

      If anyone but Hillary had been running, they would have just put up an establishment candidate, and almost certainly lost in the general.

      Of course the Ds will take the exact WRONG lesson from this and pivot left. Giving Trump eight years.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    8. Re:Anyone surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      The only reason Trump was nominated was the R establishment saw this as a losing year.

      If anyone but Hillary had been running, they would have just put up an establishment candidate, and almost certainly lost in the general.

      Of course the Ds will take the exact WRONG lesson from this and pivot left. Giving Trump eight years.

      So the Democrats can only win if they pivot right, essentially becoming establishment Republicans, which were trounced by Trump in the primary and who even you say would lose in the general to anyone but Hillary?

      Good thinkin'!

    9. Re:Anyone surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still better than the likely alternative. Trump actually got into power because Hillary represents a terrible side of politics. No doubt most people held their nose when they voted for Trump. But the Republicans didn't win (Trump's no Republican to begin with), Hillary lost.

    10. Re:Anyone surprised? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      [compare to] Obama's failing to close Guantanamo for eight years

      That's arguably different because enough Democrats also apposed him, often on the grounds of NIMBY per custody facilities. All Republicans want ACA replaced, they just don't agree on what the replacement should look like*.

      And O did pass ACA and the stimulus package. T has signed no bill of significance so far except telecom URL snooping. Granted, it's still early in T's term, but GOP is divided on his other plans also.

      * Actually, there's no free HC lunch: GOP will have to throw some demographics under the bus to make HC cheaper for others.

    11. Re:Anyone surprised? by mi · · Score: 0

      After 8 years of promising to balance the Budget while tripling the national debt, REAGAN proved failing to deliver on core promises is irrelevant

      I'm too young to remember those — and I lived in another country back then — so I went for the more recent example.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    12. Re:Anyone surprised? by damn_registrars · · Score: 2

      Eight years? Yeah, right. Trump will be lucky to make two. If he doesn't force congress to impeach him, or resign on his own, his "incredible" health will certainly fail him. He makes Newt Gingrich look like Richard Simmons.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    13. Re:Anyone surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can't win by nominating a Casto loving red who has never worked an honest job in his life (Sanders).

      I agree that Sanders is a non-starter.

      I also agree that a candidate who echoed the idealism of Communism can not win in American. I was surprised that a candidate who echoed the totalitarianism and kleptocracy of real-world "Communism" was elected.

    14. Re:Anyone surprised? by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sanders has done orders of magnitude more volume of honest work than Trump. Trump was born with more than a silver spoon in his mouth, he had the whole fucking dining set. He didn't only benefit from the enormous loan that his father gave him, but also from his father's connections to the dodgiest lawyers in all of NYC - who were happy to defend him to the end for the right price.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    15. Re:Anyone surprised? by mi · · Score: 1

      And why is that such a bad thing?

      I passed no judgment, actually. I just pointed out, the deck is not stacked in Trump's favor — certainly not "entirely".

      Sadly, in US politics these days if you are seen even eating in the same restaurant as someone from the other party you are vilified and torn down the next time you come up for re-election as a traitor to the party.

      Apparently, people are periodically shifting in their opinion on whether or not party-loyalty (and consequent predictability) are a good thing. For every time you blast one's sticking to the party line, I can counter, that it is good thing, that a politician not doing that is not fulfilling the promise his party-affiliation made to the electorate.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    16. Re:Anyone surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The pattern is clear - Candidates make big promises but once they get in to office they quickly realize that the temporary insanity known as election season doesn't jive with reality. The President gets access to a whole lot of eye-opening cold hard reality and quickly finds that what they talked up on the trail is usually either impossible, a really terrible idea, or both.

      Juggling reality with pleasing your constituents is the Presidents job and it's a tough one. The average American believes some fantastically stupid shit. Even the most well educated still hold badly informed opinions on a whole swath of topics. (Slashdotters, for example, have an astonishingly poor grasp on even the basics of economics and regularly fall for pop-econ hacks)

      Trump differentiates himself from those that came before him Bush, Clinton, Bush Jr, Obama in that he's doing an astonishingly poor job at leadership. The administration is a barely functioning mess. There are essential positions left unfilled for.. Well, we don't know why because there's no stated reason. Trump doesn't lead. He simply cheerleads and shitposts on twitter and occasionally repeats things his advisers tell him.

      If anything, it's a credit to our system of government. We're essentially operating on 2 branches out of 3. How long we'll coast with a massive power vacuum in the executive is yet to be seen. Our counterparts across the globe have taken notice and will exploit the situation.

    17. Re:Anyone surprised? by D00MSlayer · · Score: 5, Informative

      About half of Congressional Republicans hate him with passion — and would rather collude with the opposition than with him.

      If this were the case the House Intelligence Committee Republicans wouldn't be dragging their feet on the Russia investigation.

      They may not like Trump, but they hate the Democrats more, and if they were to start working with Democrats, they'd upset a good number of their voting base.

      After Obama's failing to close Guantanamo for eight years (two of them with that deck really stacked in his favor)

      He actually WAS working on closing it down, by transferring detainees out of Guantanamo. He was making pretty good progress until Republicans took over congress under his watch. The Republican congress refused to produce a bill for Obama to sign that didn't restrict funds being used to continue the shut-down of Guantanamo. He had vetoed a number of bills that included language that restricted his ability to close Guantanamo, but they continued to push it on nearly every spending bill that came his way. He either had to sign the bills reluctantly, or go without funding for our military or our government in general.

    18. Re:Anyone surprised? by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      And why is that such a bad thing?

      I passed no judgment, actually. I just pointed out, the deck is not stacked in Trump's favor — certainly not "entirely".

      Sadly, in US politics these days if you are seen even eating in the same restaurant as someone from the other party you are vilified and torn down the next time you come up for re-election as a traitor to the party.

      Apparently, people are periodically shifting in their opinion on whether or not party-loyalty (and consequent predictability) are a good thing. For every time you blast one's sticking to the party line, I can counter, that it is good thing, that a politician not doing that is not fulfilling the promise his party-affiliation made to the electorate.

      The best example I can think of it that damn loyalty and support pledge the Republicans were demanding all Presidential candidates take, promising that they would support the nominee no matter who it was. How can you stand there one day and tell people that someone is incompetent, wrong, and unfit to rule, and then turn around and declare your full and unconditional support to them the next? Either you lied to the electorate or you are giving up on your principles, both in the name of party loyalty.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    19. Re:Anyone surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A huge part of the GOP electorate would vote for a ticket of Kim Jong-Un with Mahmood Ahmedinejad just to keep someone named Clinton out of the white house.

      OK, I'll bite: why?

      The Clinton Administration was prosperous, had a great economy, and was relatively war-free.

      Bill Clinton himself was the second president impeached but under what reality was the George W. Bush administration considered better? A disregard of intelligence that arguably allowed 9/11 to happen. A pair of wars which took a decade or more to leave and created a vacuum that allowed ISIS to form (which, granted, happened on Obama's watch), and a crippling recession which took years to pull out of.

      Don't get me wrong, right now I'd gladly take GWB back over the dangerous psychopath we have in office right now but why on earth is the Clinton name so tarnished? Yes he got fellatio from an intern but does anyone really think Hillary would have had more of the same scandals?

      The way I see it, there are a number of companies out there that are profitable, run well, and have an effective CEO at their helm. A CEO which may not be a very likable or charismatic person but one who does well at their job. And a CEO that, if CEO was an elected-by-the-public position, might never become CEO to begin with. To me, Hillary Clinton is like that. She would have given us 4-8 more years of Obama Administration policies but seeing as how Obama's tenure is looking better every day we have this new guy in charge, why on earth would more of that be considered a bad thing? Especially when you consider that Obamacare, his legacy, is so popular not even the GOP leading two of the three branches could overturn it.

    20. Re:Anyone surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sanders has done orders of magnitude more volume of honest work than Trump.

      The less you think of Trump's accomplishments, the more this statement is true!

    21. Re:Anyone surprised? by ArhcAngel · · Score: 2

      * Actually, there's no free HC lunch

      You're right! She charges $200,000 a plate.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    22. Re:Anyone surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The loyalty pledge was a just a ploy to have hammer to beat Trump with when he lost the Republican Primary and tried to run Third part. At the time they were trotting the oath out, the Party was certain Trump had no chance. The party could have cared less about any of the other candidates taking the oath.

    23. Re:Anyone surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can't win by nominating a Casto loving red who has never worked an honest job in his life (Sanders).

      Sanders was never a Democrat anyway, so IMHO, they should have kept him out of the primaries. Maybe I'd allow him as a VP pick, but he had no business jumping into the party. Of course, neither did Trump, but oh well, I'm not in charge of either.

      That said, Hillary should have picked a Cuban (or other Hispanic) as her VP. That'd have given her Florida, and possibly another state or two. Just give some nod to "Oh, don't worry, Castro is dying, we will bring the island into the fabric" and it'd be voter city.

    24. Re:Anyone surprised? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      All presidents break a sizable portion of their campaign promises. Some of them are promises they couldn't fulfill. Others are promises that they changed their mind on, or never had any will to fulfill.

      Trump was amusing, in that he broke a lot of his promises before he even took office (such as prosecuting Hillary). They're all the same though in one regards: Presidential candidates of all parties say what they think will get them elected moreso than they say what they really intend to do.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    25. Re:Anyone surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh they hate him, but more importantly they're scared shitless. Conservative media has them all by the balls and all it takes is is a few shitposts on twitter from the POTUS to tank their next election. Paul fucking Ryan himself watched his numbers dive 30 points in the poles while he was publicly opposing Trump.

      It's not cooperation, or reverence, or even aligned goals. It's pure sweating-palms fear and it's not a healthy situation. They don't hate the Dems more than they hate Trump. They're simply afraid of of losing their jobs to the fickle political insanity machine they made a faustian bargian with in 2016.

      When this all goes south it's gonna be UGLY. Grab your popcorn and watch the shit fly.

    26. Re:Anyone surprised? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      My swamper can beat up your swamper

    27. Re:Anyone surprised? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      About half of Congressional Republicans hate him with passion — and would rather collude with the opposition than with him.

      If this were the case the House Intelligence Committee Republicans wouldn't be dragging their feet on the Russia investigation.

      They may not like Trump, but they hate the Democrats more, and if they were to start working with Democrats, they'd upset a good number of their voting base.

      Many republicans may not like Trump, but they realize that they have to be careful in how they handle anything that might bring Trump down. Mid term elections and next general election will be impacted by Trump's approval ratings.

      High approval ratings for Trump will mean Republicans will have an advantage going into elections. Low approval ratings for Trump could mean many Republicans lose their seats.

      Right or wrong many people view the parties based upon how/what the president is doing. Trump may not be a traditional Republican (in fact he's more liberal than Hillary by some measures), but the people are going to judge the republican party based on what Trump does. If Trump gets solidly tied to Russia, many republicans will lose their seats, even if they are republicans that don't like Trump.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    28. Re:Anyone surprised? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Eight years? Yeah, right. Trump will be lucky to make two. If he doesn't force congress to impeach him, or resign on his own, his "incredible" health will certainly fail him. He makes Newt Gingrich look like Richard Simmons.

      I would almost prefer Trump to Pence to be honest.

      Pence is not quite so obviously bat insane. Pence is probably more conservative than Trump, he's also more liked by his own party than Trump, so will be able to get more passed.

      Sure, Pence won't do the ludicrous racist and xenophobic things that Trump is trying (and failing for the most part) to pass but he could potentially be more damaging to our economy long term.

      If Trump doesn't get us into a ridiculous war, he can't get as much done as Pence could. Pence would be more diplomatically capable of getting stuff passed.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    29. Re:Anyone surprised? by sootman · · Score: 1

      > Trump got in to office by being lucky enough to run against Hillary Clinton...
      > Now that said, any democrat who wasn't named Clinton would have wiped the floor with Trump.

      Imagine if we had two qualified, likable candidates in the same election. I wonder what that would be like?

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    30. Re:Anyone surprised? by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      Personally I'm hoping that when Trump gets impeached or resigns, we find that Pence is tied in to the machine substantially enough to warrant his resignation as well. Just because we almost never see them in the same room doesn't mean Pence doesn't know what's going on; he is vastly more informed on how DC works than is Trump (although the same could be said for the couch in the Oval Office).

      Hopefully it will trigger a crisis substantial enough to trigger a special federal election, otherwise the next in line is Paul Ryan which would not be good for the country either.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    31. Re:Anyone surprised? by HornWumpus · · Score: 0

      Smoke that crack.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    32. Re:Anyone surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He couldn't close Guantanamo because congress refused to give him money to move the prisoners to a supermax prison. The president can't do everything alone, and Obama had a very hostile congress working against him for most of his term. Apparently, these prisoners are so dangerous even a supermax prison can't hold their evil! These are not ordinary men, who've probably been waterboarded, but rather extraordinary men that only the Middle East can generate. Instead, we need to have The Avengers or S.H.I.E.L.D facilities to properly hold them. ::eye roll::

    33. Re:Anyone surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Found the guy who only learned "facts" about Sanders from their preferred news sources.

      From Wikipedia: After graduating from college, Sanders returned to New York City, where he initially worked at a variety of jobs, including Head Start teacher, psychiatric aide, and carpenter.[35] In 1968, Sanders moved to Vermont because he had been "captivated by rural life." After his arrival there he worked as a carpenter,[36] filmmaker, and writer[51] who created and sold "radical film strips" and other educational materials to schools.[52] He also wrote several articles for the alternative publication The Vermont Freeman

      There's a reason Vermonters go into the open primaries and ask to register for whatever party Bernie is running for - the man has a 30 year track record of decent, honest work.

      You make the political environment in this country worse with your ignorance.

    34. Re:Anyone surprised? by mi · · Score: 0

      House Intelligence Committee Republicans wouldn't be dragging their feet on the Russia investigation.

      Phlease, there is nothing to "investigate" there. I'm yet to hear even a coherent accusation — much less any evidence, however circumstantial or otherwise unreliable.

      He actually WAS working on closing it down, by transferring detainees out of Guantanamo

      He-he... Much comfort that is — from the loving care of MPs to the gentle mercies of civilian wardens. More importantly, perhaps, Obama also changed the entire doctrine from capturing suspected terrorists to outright killing them. That's actually bona-fide evil, but with media airbrushing it, he was given a pass — even the unwarranted killing of Osama bin Laden was celebrated with only a few people asking, why he was ordered killed, not captured.

      To recap, the folks, who roasted Bush alive for detaining suspected terrorists, were perfectly fine with Obama murdering same. And still he has not fulfilled his promise to drain Guantanamo...

      until Republicans took over congress under his watch

      Two years... Two years was not enough for him to disperse a few hundred prisoners... Trump's been in office for less than 100 days and you are already trumpeting his "failures"...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    35. Re:Anyone surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio - it doesn't get anymore "establishment" than that. You're off your nut, HornWumpus.

    36. Re:Anyone surprised? by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      "there is nothing to "investigate" there"

      If there was nothing to investigate, the why did Devin Nunes as chair of the House Intelligence committee call a hearing on the subject? If he wanted to talk about leaks, he could have called hearings on leaks. If he didn't want to talk about Russians, he could have just not scheduled a hearing on Russians.

    37. Re:Anyone surprised? by WrongMonkey · · Score: 1

      That's pretty wishful thinking. As long as Republicans control at least one house of Congress, he will not be impeached. He is too egotistical to resign. And based on actuarial data, he can expect to live about 15 more years. Keep in mind: he's never smoked, he doesn't drink and he has the best healthcare money can buy. https://www.washingtonpost.com...

    38. Re:Anyone surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He'd have to have massive balls to stand up to half the country --and 90% of the media-- raving mad about Trump- Russia collusion.

      I am not a young man and am honest enough with myself to admit: in Nunes' position I would absolutely do the same even though I know that Trump-Russia story is a crock of shit.

      Hell, under so much pressure, I would have launched an investigation into whether Trump conspired with the force of gravity to bring Hillary down... I wouldn't rush forward with it, either. Anything to appease the delusional libs long enough for them to sober up. You take away their last hope too fast, and you get riots/mass shootings/suicides all over.

      Incidentally, did you ever see the beatings in California? Do you think Trump would have the balls to federalize the National Guard to put a stop to the riots?

    39. Re:Anyone surprised? by igny · · Score: 1

      Yeah, this election demonstrated what could happen when both parties tried their best to lose. I guess Republicans lost in the end.

      --
      In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
    40. Re: Anyone surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is so much smoke from that fire that it may perhaps reverse man made climate change by blocking out the sun for ten years.

      Also, where the tax returns?

    41. Re:Anyone surprised? by Uberbah · · Score: 0

      The Clinton Administration was prosperous, had a great economy

      For the rich. Workers got the shaft, hard, when Clinton picked up the Reagan/Bush free trade law and ran with it. And then Democrats wonder why Mrs. Nafta couldn't win the Rust Belt. The new jobs created in the Clinton years where 1) shitty service jobs paying a fraction of what a good unionized factory worker would make 2) part of the dotcom bubble. The Clinton's also set the stage for the 2008 housing collapse with their financial deregulation, which has seen ~10 million people and counting lose their homes.

      but why on earth is the Clinton name so tarnished?

      Because they've done enormous harm to working people, passing free trade laws and welfare-gutting laws that Reagan could have only dreamed of. They're also pretty fucking racist (Superpredators) and grind the poorest of the poor under the boot heel of capitalism (blocking Haiti raising the minimum wage to 66 cents an hour).

      Trump is an ugly face on an ugly system. The Clintons (and Obama after them) were pretty faces on an ugly system.

    42. Re:Anyone surprised? by Uberbah · · Score: 0

      Of course the Ds will take the exact WRONG lesson from this and pivot left. Giving Trump eight years.

      Sarcasm? Hillary Clinton lost because she was an incompetent right wing freakshow. Sanders would have wiped the floor with Trump - just watch his town hall meetings where he gets Trump supporters to cheer for free-to-use college and health care minutes after talking to them.

    43. Re:Anyone surprised? by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Sanders was never a Democrat anyway, so IMHO, they should have kept him out of the primaries.

      That dead horse......Sanders has always caucused with the Democrats, registered as a Democrat for the 2016 race, and has a (token) leadership position with the Democratic Party. More importantly - he cast a crucial vote for Harry Reid as Majority Leader after the 2006 elections, giving Democrats control of Congress for the last two years of the Bush presidency.

      All the right wing asshole Dems who keep whining about Sanders being an independent should come out and say they would rather have had Mitch McConnell as Majority Leader during the last two years of the Bush Administration.

    44. Re:Anyone surprised? by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      If there was nothing to investigate, the why did Devin Nunes as chair of the House Intelligence committee call a hearing on the subject?

      That's the same "where there's smoker, there's fire" logic right-wingers have been using on the Clintons since before Vince Foster turned up dead in a park.

    45. Re:Anyone surprised? by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      If this were the case the House Intelligence Committee Republicans wouldn't be dragging their feet on the Russia investigation.

      Because there's no there there. There as much evidence to support the conspiracy theory that the moon landings were faked as the one of Russia having Jack or shit to do with election tampering. Which, even if they did, would only be a case of chickens coming home to roost. The United States has overthrown dozens of democracies since WWII and interferes with other countries elections (Ukraine, Venezuela for a mere two examples) constantly. Don't make me go look up that cover of Time in the 90's that boasts of the U.S. picking Boris Yelstin to lead Russia. Actually, fuck it, I had to Google it to spell Yeltsin correctly so here you go.

      He actually WAS working on closing it down, by transferring detainees out of Guantanamo.

      To a Supermax in Illinois, where they would still have no right to an attorney or trial. Seriously, this Obamabot talking point was debunked 18 ways till Sunday waaaay back in 2009. The problem with Gitmo was not that it was in Cuba, the problem with Gitmo is that it was an unconstitutional suspension of basic civil rights. One that Obama wanted to move, not end.

    46. Re:Anyone surprised? by Altrag · · Score: 1

      not fulfilling the promise his party-affiliation made to the electorate

      Trouble with that line of reasoning is that when there's only two parties to choose from, its extremely common for any one person's interests to not coincide exactly with the party line.

      Your representative is there to represent you (well OK, they're there to represent the companies who paid for the campaign that convinced you to vote for them..), not whatever arbitrary ideals their limited choice of party affiliation gives them.

    47. Re: Anyone surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That dead horse......Sanders has always caucused with the Democrats, registered as a Democrat for the 2016 race, and has a (token) leadership position with the Democratic Party. More importantly - he cast a crucial vote for Harry Reid as Majority Leader after the 2006 elections, giving Democrats control of Congress for the last two years of the Bush presidency.

      He spent 30+ years as an independent. So let him remain that.

      Frankly, I would have respected him more if he had run as one, rather than let himself be Hillary's jousting victim.

      Unlike the divided GOP, he had no chance to take it. Hillary might have let Obama sandbag her the first time, but not anymore.

      If he wants to be a Democrat, his next Senate election is coming up. Let him run then.

      All the right wing asshole Dems who keep whining about Sanders being an independent should come out and say they would rather have had Mitch McConnell as Majority Leader during the last two years of the Bush Administration.

      Got nothing to do with me, but hey, somebody other than Harry Reid would have been fine, and if it made the GOP own some of the healthcare reform and stimulus, so much the better.

      But what you didn'tâ notice, Uberbah, in your rush to blathe on about Sanders, is that I felt the same way about Trump. Sorry, but I think a political party should not be taking any and all comers. A little discretion goes a long way.

      If you don't agree fine, but try to leave the hysterical recriminations aside.

      They just make me contemptuous of your short-sightednessâ.

    48. Re:Anyone surprised? by Mitreya · · Score: 1

      The President gets access to a whole lot of eye-opening cold hard reality and quickly finds that what they talked up on the trail is usually either impossible, a really terrible idea, or both.

      Sorry, no. Do Presidents have a custom-made reality?
      More accurately, the President promised lots of impossible things during campaign and never has any intention of delivering on said promises. (That one is not limited to Trump at all).

    49. Re:Anyone surprised? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I think he also doesn't really want to deliver as well.

    50. Re:Anyone surprised? by GNious · · Score: 1

      About half of Congressional Republicans hate him with passion — and would rather collude with the opposition than with him.

      If this were the case the House Intelligence Committee Republicans wouldn't be dragging their feet on the Russia investigation.

      I'd suspect at least some of them worry that getting rid of Trumpy results in President Pence - lesser of two evils and all that...

    51. Re:Anyone surprised? by GESUS · · Score: 1

      The way America is run is childish, not the system per se, but the people doing the governing. Also, it should be illegal to mix political points in the same bill, as it is easy to shadow core issues with popular ones for political points.

      For example, over here it is illegal to have sales deals that give you totally unrelated things for free if you buy an item. Examples being, buy a car - get a frozen half pig. If your selling a car you can only offer car related or monetary deals.

    52. Re:Anyone surprised? by Gussington · · Score: 1

      All presidents break a sizable portion of their campaign promises. Some of them are promises they couldn't fulfill. Others are promises that they changed their mind on, or never had any will to fulfill.

      The difference is that Trump rode on the ticket of being an outsider, drain the swamp etc.

    53. Re:Anyone surprised? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Claiming to be an outsider is a common insider trick!

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    54. Re:Anyone surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "America, you've been had."

      Yeah, for a very long time. It's not just Trump, but many many many of the previous presidents. Trump was right about one thing, the system is rigged. Problem is he is part of it.

    55. Re:Anyone surprised? by damn_registrars · · Score: 1
      I'm not sure why some coward tagged your post overrated. I happen to disagree with several parts of what you said, but the overrated tag is unwarranted here (as it is in most cases).

      The Clinton Administration was prosperous, had a great economy

      For the rich. Workers got the shaft, hard, when Clinton picked up the Reagan/Bush free trade law and ran with it.

      While the rich saw their wealth accelerate greatly under the Clinton Administration, the poor made better gains under the Clinton Administration than under almost any other of the past several decades. I can tell you that during that time my own wage was the furthest it had ever been from the federal or state minimum wage prior to when I completed graduate school. For some time I had a retail job where I was pulling about twice the minimum wage; now around 20 years later people in that same retail job are working it for about the same wage I made back then.

      shitty service jobs paying a fraction of what a good unionized factory worker would make

      You're absolutely right that the unions lost ground under Clinton. However they lost less ground under Clinton than under Reagan, either Bush, or Obama. Is that weak tea? Absolutely. It's easy to get the unions to yield when things are prosperous, and easy to strong-arm them into yielding when things are not. We've also had an overwhelming message of how terrible organized labor is (after all, who wants a 5 day work week, paid vacation, sick leave, or worker safety?) that makes it easy for the government to help big business disarm the unions.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    56. Re:Anyone surprised? by mi · · Score: 1

      why did Devin Nunes as chair of the House Intelligence committee call a hearing on the subject?

      Because millions of people, believe there is — there must be! — something to investigate, even if they can not come up with a coherent accusation when responding to a post obviously requesting one.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    57. Re:Anyone surprised? by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      And based on actuarial data, he can expect to live about 15 more years.

      Not at his weight. We don't know his actual height but we do know he's obese. Obesity at his age is just as detrimental - if not more so - as obesity at a younger age.

      Keep in mind: he's never smoked, he doesn't drink and he has the best healthcare money can buy

      So he won't die of lung cancer or liver cirrhosis. That doesn't mean much. We know that the rest of his health report is full of lies - and that as he signed a form claiming it to be truthful he blatantly lied under oath to the American people - so it's impossible to know what else is wrong with him. He's coming on 71 years old, which is up there. The current life expectancy in the US is around 76.6 for males, but he was born in 1946 when the number was 64.4 for men.

      As for healthcare, it is not clear he is actually making good use of it. Just like in business he clearly likes to surround himself with people who will tell him what he wants to hear, rather than what he should hear. The comments from his physician on his evaluation are quite possibly enough to warrant a malpractice suit. His doctor should tell him to lose at least 50 pounds, if not more. Ever see footage of Trump exercising or eating something healthy? Me neither.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    58. Re:Anyone surprised? by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      The President gets access to a whole lot of eye-opening cold hard reality and quickly finds that what they talked up on the trail is usually either impossible, a really terrible idea, or both.

      Except this President declines to avail himself of that information and instead watches Fox and Friends for his news.

      We're essentially operating on 2 branches out of 3. How long we'll coast with a massive power vacuum in the executive is yet to be seen.

      We were. We aren't any longer. Ivanka Trump now has an office in the White House and a security clearance. As of about an hour ago, it was officially announced that she's hired a chief of staff to go with it. Guess who is going to be reading all those briefing books that Donald Trump literally doesn't have the patience or reading comprehension skills to read? That's right, his daughter. She will read them, and tell her daddy what he should do, and her daddy will do it, because he doesn't trust anyone who isn't related to him.

      Feminists don't know it yet, but the US has its first woman President. Her name is Ivanka Trump. They could do worse.

    59. Re:Anyone surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hes fat as fuck so maybe we can hope he chokes on his overcooked steak or the chocolate fucking cake

    60. Re:Anyone surprised? by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      Like Bill Clinton v.s. G.H.W. Bush?

    61. Re:Anyone surprised? by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Worse than a failed jewelry designer?
      How?!!!!

    62. Re:Anyone surprised? by D00MSlayer · · Score: 1

      It's incredible how childish our congressmen are allowed to act. I'm glad to hear that there has been a rise in town halls where constituents are calling out their representatives for their unacceptable behavior. Unfortunately, the representatives evade the town halls and cower in fear of the retribution they deserve.

    63. Re:Anyone surprised? by D00MSlayer · · Score: 1

      I figured they would rather have Pence. At least with him you have a more stable lunatic than with Trump.

    64. Re:Anyone surprised? by GNious · · Score: 1

      More stable/predictable perhaps, but also further out on the kill-all-humans-not-like-me scale - his actions and statements are outright scary.

    65. Re:Anyone surprised? by D00MSlayer · · Score: 1

      Which, even if they did, would only be a case of chickens coming home to roost. The United States has overthrown dozens of democracies since WWII and interferes with other countries elections (Ukraine, Venezuela for a mere two examples) constantly.

      Oh I agree completely. We have been fucking around with other countries' elections for decades. It really is karma coming to bite the CIA and the US Gov't in the ass.

      To a Supermax in Illinois, where they would still have no right to an attorney or trial. Seriously, this Obamabot talking point was debunked 18 ways till Sunday waaaay back in 2009. The problem with Gitmo was not that it was in Cuba, the problem with Gitmo is that it was an unconstitutional suspension of basic civil rights. One that Obama wanted to move, not end.

      Moving them to Thomson was supposed to at least clear out Gitmo for it's full shutdown. Dealing with their legal status was likely going to be played out after the move. In 2011, Obama started military trials for the remaining detainees in Guantanamo, but wanted to have them face trial in the States instead with military trials or civilian trials, but Republicans blocked him every time on this through budget bills.

      Unfortunately, now that Trump's in charge, he's come out saying that he wants to keep Gitmo open to send the "Bad Dudes" from ISIS there. He's fully condoned outright torture of Gitmo prisoners, too.

    66. Re:Anyone surprised? by D00MSlayer · · Score: 1

      Indubitably.

    67. Re:Anyone surprised? by D00MSlayer · · Score: 1

      Well a fucking miracle is going to need to happen because his 100-day approval rating is one of the worst any president has had in modern times.

    68. Re:Anyone surprised? by D00MSlayer · · Score: 1

      Phlease, there is nothing to "investigate" there. I'm yet to hear even a coherent accusation — much less any evidence, however circumstantial or otherwise unreliable.

      http://www.politico.com/magazi...

      He-he... Much comfort that is — from the loving care of MPs to the gentle mercies of civilian wardens.

      A good majority of the detainees were released and their charges were acquitted in their respective countries after they were re-located.

      More importantly, perhaps, Obama also changed the entire doctrine from capturing suspected terrorists to outright killing them [theguardian.com]. That's actually bona-fide evil, but with media airbrushing it, he was given a pass

      Did I ever say that this was acceptable? No. I was talking about him clearing out Guantanamo. Let's stay on topic here, buddy.

      even the unwarranted killing of Osama bin Laden was celebrated with only a few people asking [creators.com], why he was ordered killed, not captured [theatlantic.com].

      Osama Bin Laden declared war on the US. He was wanted dead or alive. There was no requirement to bring him in alive.

      Two years... Two years was not enough for him to disperse a few hundred prisoners... Trump's been in office for less than 100 days and you are already trumpeting his "failures"

      There were over 200 prisoners at Gitmo when Obama became President. That was cut in half by 2012, from there, the release of prisoners slowed down due to restrictions placed by the republican-led congress in budget bills. Now there's about 60 left with about 20 eligible for being released.

      I never said anything about Trump, but since you brought him up. He has fully supported the idea of keeping Gitmo running, and encouraging torture and illegal interrogation methods on those detained at Gitmo. He also talked up placing even MORE people in Gitmo. So there's that.

      Trump made so many grandiose promises while on the campaign trail(e.g. Eliminating/replacing Obamacare, defeating ISIS, term limits, lobbying ban, label China as currency manipulator, remove federal funding from 'Sanctuary Cities', travel bans, tax relief legislation, etc.), spouting off all of the things he was going to do in the first 100 days of his presidency. He has nobody to blame but himself for others pointing out his failures.

    69. Re:Anyone surprised? by D00MSlayer · · Score: 1

      I never said anything about Trump, but since you brought him up.

      I'll add that I meant this in the context of his 100 days of failure. I only mentioned him in how Republican Congressmen don't particularly care for him aside from him having an R next to his name, but they dislike Dems more.

    70. Re:Anyone surprised? by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Moving them to Thomson was supposed to at least clear out Gitmo for it's full shutdown.

      C&P since this point was already addressed: The problem with Gitmo was not that it was in Cuba, the problem with Gitmo is that it was an unconstitutional suspension of basic civil rights. One that Obama wanted to move, not end.

      Obama started military trials for the remaining detainees in Guantanamo, but wanted to have them face trial in the States instead with military trials or civilian trials, but Republicans blocked him every time on this through budget bills.

      Deja vu: this Obamabot talking point was debunked 18 ways till Sunday waaaay back in 2009. Republicans were utterly irrelevant as they had 40 votes in the Senate, and Obama no more needed a separate bill to move detainees out Gitmo than Bush needed a bill to bring them in. Furthermore, nothing stopped Obama from sending an Article III judge to Gitmo to hold civilian trials there.

      Why people keep complaining that Obama was "obstructed" when he himself said he would have been considered a Republican in the 80's is anyone's guess.

    71. Re:Anyone surprised? by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      While the rich saw their wealth accelerate greatly under the Clinton Administration, the poor made better gains under the Clinton Administration than under almost any other of the past several decades

      Due to the aforementioned Dot Com bubble, which evaporated. And poor people used to be able to get into a low-skill industry that was nevertheless unionized and paid a living wage with decent benefits....not so much after NAFTA.

      You're absolutely right that the unions lost ground under Clinton. However they lost less ground under Clinton than under Reagan, either Bush, or Obama.

      The biggest shaft to unions was probably the passage of Taft-Hartley, done by Republicans, but that was waaay back in the 50's. Reagan fired a union that endorsed him, and Scott Walker has been a "wonderful" union-buster in Wisconsin. But nothing in modern history comes close to NAFTA - sure Republicans will try to undercut unions with right-to-be-fired laws, but NAFTA made unions obsolete in entire sectors of the economy. And even if the factories don't move to Mexico, NAFTA allowed employers to walk into a room and tell the union, "Yes, we have all time high profits, but you're going to take massive cuts to your pay and benefits, else this plant is moving to Mexico".

      We've also had an overwhelming message of how terrible organized labor is (after all, who wants a 5 day work week, paid vacation, sick leave, or worker safety?)

      The killer idea has been the notion that unions work to protect incompetent, lazy or criminal workers, which is nonsense as it's predicated on the idea that Bob is just dying to do his own work plus Steve's, if Steve starts slacking off and not doing his job. People simply are not built that way, unless it's in an abusive Biff Tannen/George McFly situation, which can just as easily happen at a non-union shop.

    72. Re: Anyone surprised? by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Yes or no, AC?

      All the right wing asshole Dems who keep whining about Sanders being an independent should come out and say they would rather have had Mitch McConnell as Majority Leader during the last two years of the Bush Administration.

      Would you or would you not have rather had the Senate in Republican control during the last two years of the Bush Administration.

  4. ISIL, not ISIS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ffs

    1. Re:ISIL, not ISIS by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Daesh, not ISIL. Should always use Daesh since they hate being called that.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    2. Re:ISIL, not ISIS by DaHat · · Score: 1

      Nothing says taking the fight to the enemy like calling them a term they don't like being called.

      I can only imagine how the Germany & Japan took to being called 'Jerries' & 'Japs', probably won the wore more than anything else.

    3. Re:ISIL, not ISIS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An eye-opening moment long time ago when I was younger (and angrier) was when I actually spoke to a Japanese person, asking them "don't you get offended when people yell 'Jap' in your face?"

      The person's response? (and I'm paraphrasing/translating from the Japanese) "Why should I? It's not in my native language, so being called Japanese or Jap means about the same thing, in other words not much at all"

      So it might make the less enlightened of us happy to call foreigners derogatory terms, but often it doesnt mean much. Daesh is actually in a foreign language so you might get a reaction, but it still feels childish to me, like name-calling in a playground. But given our current president that is exactly what counts as foreign policy these days I guess.

    4. Re:ISIL, not ISIS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about "Daesh Bags"?

  5. News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did some actually think he would?

  6. Can we stop? by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 1

    There is not a single person, anywhere, who actually expected him to even begin to deliver on this promise. He says whatever the hell he feels like saying in the moment and has absolutely no interest whatsoever in actually doing the work of running a country--then or now.

    Please stop pretending otherwise. Things are bad enough without this layer of affectation.

    --

    Obliteracy: Words with explosions

  7. I feel for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You should all get a " I'm with Stupid" T-shirt.

  8. He's been too busy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    “No administration has accomplished more in the first 90 days.”

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/04/18/remarks-president-trump-buy-american-hire-american-executive-order

  9. This is funny as hell! by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You really expected these people to keep their promises? Does everybody vote for them just so they can have something to complain about? Don't expect to be taken seriously when you consistently reelect over 95% of them. You reward them for lying, so I hope you don't expect them to stop doing so.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:This is funny as hell! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really expected these people to keep their promises? Does everybody vote for them just so they can have something to complain about? Don't expect to be taken seriously when you consistently reelect over 95% of them.

      That's the difference between local and national politics. It's like saying, "how could Trump have won; nobody I know likes him."

      Imagine you live in a district in which everybody really likes the color green and thinks the US Flag should be changed to have that color. Your Congressional Representative champions that every single day, and does his very best to try to make the flag green. He of course fails. So voila, you have people who hate Congress (the flag is still Red-White-Blue, no green), but they love their local Representative (who is fighting the good fight, and earnestly trying to change the flag).

      No lying is needed to explain this (although to be clear in real-life there is a non-trivial amount of lying going on).

  10. You mean Trump didn't keep his word?! by D00MSlayer · · Score: 1, Troll

    Continuous behaviors of ineptitude in the highest office of this land. With precedents like this being put in place, all of our future POTUS' don't even need to worry about lifting a finger in Washington.. You can just work on your golf game for four years on the taxpayer dime.

  11. I knew it! by ShipIt · · Score: 5, Funny

    At last, we finally have undeniable proof that Donald J. Trump is a deep cover Russian agent sent here decades ago to hand the U.S. over to Russia! And to think, they called us all delusional, hysterical crackpots, with zero critical thinking skills, all throwing childish temper tantrums because our candidate lost a close election. The fools! Vindication is now ours!

    1. Re:I knew it! by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      What "Lost"?
      2.9 million MORE votes is not lost, unless you think the 14th Amendment does not apply to the right to vote!!!

    2. Re:I knew it! by InfrequentCommenter · · Score: 1

      At last, we finally have undeniable proof that Donald J. Trump is a deep cover Russian agent sent here decades ago to hand the U.S. over to Russia! And to think, they called us all delusional, hysterical crackpots, with zero critical thinking skills, all throwing childish temper tantrums because our candidate lost a close election. The fools! Vindication is now ours!

      Haha. Love it.

    3. Re: I knew it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh good! Looks like everyone was the winner then! Since you only cared about your candidate winning the popular vote and Trump supporters only cared about winning the election everybody wins! Guess Trump was right about winning so much you'd get tired of winning. Sounds like you are already tired and salty since you know, you won.

    4. Re:I knew it! by grasshoppa · · Score: 1

      Ok, I'm curious; how does the 14th make it so Clinton won?

      --
      Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    5. Re:I knew it! by bit+trollent · · Score: 2

      Considering that many Trump advisers are under FBI investigation for collusion, that Trump owes tons of money to Russian banks, and that Donald Trump still can't speak a hurtful word about his puppet master Vladimir Putin, maybe you should examine your own critical thinking skills.

      The FBI considers the Pee-Tape dossier to be a credible document, as they have corroborated several parts of that document.

      Also attorney general Jeff Sessions lied under oath about his collusion with Russia.

      But sure.. it's funny to pretend that your government isn't controlled by a hostile foreign adversary. It's not accurate, but it's funny.

    6. Re:I knew it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 14th amendment didn't abolish the electoral college.

    7. Re:I knew it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the more realistic scenario is that he's simply accepted either bribe money, some other form of compensation, or the Russian intelligence apparatus has some means of blackmail on him.

      I don't think his interest in Russia is any more than pure business.

    8. Re:I knew it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering that many Trump advisers are under FBI investigation for collusion, that Trump owes tons of money to Russian banks, and that Donald Trump still can't speak a hurtful word about his puppet master Vladimir Putin, maybe you should examine your own critical thinking skills.

      The FBI considers the Pee-Tape dossier to be a credible document, as they have corroborated several parts of that document.

      Also attorney general Jeff Sessions lied under oath about his collusion with Russia.

      But sure.. it's funny to pretend that your government isn't controlled by a hostile foreign adversary. It's not accurate, but it's funny.

      To be fair 'controlled' is a strong word to use while referring to the US.

      As a nation we're kind of like Sigfred and Roy's Tiger. best case for trying to control us is someday we're going to break your neck because we think we're helping instead of because we mean to kill you.

    9. Re:I knew it! by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Electoral college makes the weight of voter/elector ratios different from one state and party to another
      14th Guarantees "equal rights, privileges and immunities" to all
      As the 14th is a later amendment, it holds precedent, and she with more votes MUST be holder of the office
      I know, the SCOTUS will NEVER agree as long as Republican'ts rule. But the 14th says the winner is she who gets more EQUAL votes.

  12. He has missed all of them. by malditaenvidia · · Score: 1

    Get me that egghead Bill Gates on the line.

  13. if you're gonna miss, miss bigly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is best miss, it's stupendous

  14. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    This Russian stuff is a complete waste of time. We already know they phished email account passwords from dems...what else is there to know? How much money should we spend on this?

  15. Posted by a Mike Pence shadow account? by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    We don't ordinarily allow criticism of a republican on the front page here; could this be from someone who is trying to get us to like Mike Pence in case he ascends to POTUS after Trump resigns?

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Posted by a Mike Pence shadow account? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We don't ordinarily allow criticism of a republican on the front page here;

      I think you posted this to the wrong forum.

    2. Re:Posted by a Mike Pence shadow account? by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      We just haven't had a Republican in the spot light to criticize. Don't worry we will alienate all parties equally.

    3. Re:Posted by a Mike Pence shadow account? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      They don't care as long as you keep reelecting them.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  16. If he really cared about cyber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He would have appointed Rudy Giuliani, who doesnt own a personal computer save his phone, to be cybersecurity czar, That way, like all of his other appointments, nothing would get accomplished.

    Oh wait, he did.

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/national-security/article126417814.html

  17. Your literal voting machines are being hacked by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 0

    In case you thought it went away after November, the Russian teams (which operate all over, not just in Russia) are still hacking physical machines and networks in US elections.

    This past week.

    Still going on.

    Machines don't just "happen" to "break" in precincts with black and brown voters in a massively higher percentage by "accident".

    But, hey, not like this is important. If you don't mind living in a police state.

    The only thing that works is paper ballots mailed in and counted on non-networked optical scanners (humans are ok too, but not as accurate, and yes, I've participated in multiple human recounts).

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re: Your literal voting machines are being hacked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mhmmmm sure .... Just be glad those chem trails haven't gotten you yet. This does prove what I've suspected all along though. Putin loves Americans but hates black people! Just like George Bush and his manufactured Katrina hurricane produced by the CIA's super secret huricaner conflagulation device.

    2. Re: Your literal voting machines are being hacked by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Mhmmmm sure .... Just be glad those chem trails haven't gotten you yet. This does prove what I've suspected all along though. Putin loves Americans but hates black people! Just like George Bush and his manufactured Katrina hurricane produced by the CIA's super secret huricaner conflagulation device.

      Not a single thing you said makes any sense.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  18. I think he's got tiger blood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    #winning

  19. Why should we? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was once called "Taxation without representation."

    Now I'm paying to enrich a "billionaire" playboy narcissist pretend to be religious or care about anything but himself.

    I'll care because - and this is not an affectation - We the People once fought for things we believed in. Now we're fighting to believe in anything as we're being suffocated by bullies trying to suck up all the oxygen on the planet with their vapidity while their backroom oligarch orchestrators ensure that the masses will forever remain struggling and at each others' throats instead of sharing the wealth of spoils that they're stealing from under our noses.

    1. Re:Why should we? by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'm not saying stop -fighting-. I'm saying "stop pretending that his policy suggestions are serious, because they never came from a serious place in the first place."

      --

      Obliteracy: Words with explosions

    2. Re:Why should we? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well normally I'd agree with you, but here's the problem:

      He's the President. Actually, literally the president of the most powerful nation on earth.

      You sort of have to take what the President says seriously because there's a big pile of law and precedent behind it. Our system is sort of built around having a competent bureaucracy going in the executive branch and the man himself is sort of just spewing bullshit 24/7.

      If you read a lot of law blogs you'll understand our Judicial system is in a bit of a crisis mode at the moment. They're having to consider new things like "How do we consider executive actions if a Judge believes the President is not upholding his oath of office?" - Those early executive actions were pretty scary (and poorly written for pieces of law). The Judicial branch has been gearing up to deal with a dysfunctional presidency that Congress refuses to deal with.

      Trump kind of proves that the Peter principal has no upper bound. You can fail all the way to the VERY top.

    3. Re:Why should we? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are saying this because you are intelligent but the average Trump supporter really believed his promises or at least believed the promises that would be helpful to them. For instance, coal miners believed he would bring coal jobs back and ignored his other promises, Hillary haters believed he would prosecute her, illegal immigrant haters believed building a wall would help and that Mexico instead of the tax payers would fund it, etc.

  20. It's not his fault by ITRambo · · Score: 1

    No one sent him a tweet reminding him of his promise. Not that he'd read it, or care.

  21. Mr. Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is very very sorry...

  22. Ya don't say by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Trump? Plan? Surely you jest.

  23. Re: Why waste money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I say you're probably a troll.

    For every dollar spent investigating a corrupt oligarch-led culture that has successfully compromised the integrity of the world's most powerful nation we buy a small semblance of continuity with the ideals to which we should adhere whether a con-man usurper has taken the highest seat in the land or someone who merely sent emails.

  24. 640 pages oughtta be enough for any bill by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When T proclaimed, "Nobody knew healthcare could be so complicated", I could hear the sound of 100-million face-palms. Foreheads all over had finger marks the next day.

  25. This has been outsourced... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to Russia. We're in good hands, comrade! :)

  26. Re: Why waste money... by LiENUS · · Score: 5, Funny

    I say for every dollar wasted on this whole Russia BS, two dollars get used for obummer and Hitlery investigation of corruption.

    So considering all the money spent investigating Hillary (Benghazi, email, et. al) We should only need to spend another 2 billion or so by your math investigating trump.

  27. Okay... by Kierthos · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Show of hands, who's actually shocked by this news?

    Trump is full of all talk, little action, and most of that is misguided. He doesn't seem to have the first clue as to what he's doing, and his administration is either following that lead, or following Trump's only other plan, which is loot as much as possible before leaving office.

    --
    Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    1. Re:Okay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has anybody else gone bankrupt in the fucking casino business? That's like losing money selling illegal drugs. There's no competency there.

  28. Re: Fake President is gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did you forget to log in?

  29. I get the feeling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There is no team, there is no plan, and there is no clear answer from the White House on who would even be working on what.

    I get the feeling that we're going to hear this alot over the next four years

  30. The Obama administration? by mark-t · · Score: 2

    The guy is no longer president, what administration are they talking about? To the best of my knowledge, since leaving office, Barack Obama seems to be taking a bit of a breather from politics for at least the time being. Sounds like baseless finger-pointing, if you ask me.

    1. Re:The Obama administration? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We'll never see obama again.
      He's hiding in a non-extradition country since the day after trump called him out on the wiretapping.

    2. Re:The Obama administration? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Actually, the Obamas went on vacation over a week *before* Trump made that accusation.

      I'm not saying Trump wasn't wiretapped in 2016, but the notion that the Obama administration or the former president, in particular, had anything to do with it rests on pretty shaky ground, if you ask me.

  31. All He Had To Do Was Appoint People by WheezyJoe · · Score: 2

    Trump wouldn't have needed Congressional approval, Senate confirmation, even a budget hearing. Just ask his Chief of Staff to hire some people. That's it. Done. Simple, promise kept, cross it off the list (uhh, is there a list?) Instead, he tweeted a lot of nonesense, rubber-stamped a bunch of stuff from Ryan and the Generals, and played golf at his estate on weekends at taxpayer expense.

    Ok, I get it that some people just hate Dems, foam at the mouth and all. But this guy is doing a lot of nothing, all the while his hotels and other properties mop up the bucks (STAY at the "official" Hotel of the Prez-Z-Dent!!! Sweet Deal! Get a Free Hat if you book the PrezeeDential Suite!) while he gives his entourage free miles on Air Force One (plus secret service details). I guess none of that counts, as long as you keep hating Dems?

    --
    Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
    1. Re:All He Had To Do Was Appoint People by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 2

      He's making tons of money off of all this. I kind of wonder if that wasn't the entire idea (plus some ego-stroking) to begin with.

      For instance, we, the taxpayers, are paying for things like the Secret Service to use space at the Trump properties he's spending time at (not to mention his wife and son). His kids are using the status and access to improve their business dealings (which also benefit him). He never divested any of his holdings - he just handed direct control of the operations to his son, while retaining full ownership. He put it in a trust, but it's entirely revocable, meaning that he can take the whole thing back at any time he feels like it.

      And yet we've gotten to a point where politics is so ridiculously polarized that none of the Republicans care about him looting the public treasury and taking bribes from anyone and everyone, as long as he's not a Democrat.

    2. Re:All He Had To Do Was Appoint People by WheezyJoe · · Score: 1

      And yet we've gotten to a point where politics is so ridiculously polarized that none of the Republicans care about him looting the public treasury and taking bribes from anyone and everyone, as long as he's not a Democrat.

      We've also gotten to the point that it doesn't matter if he reverses himself (aka "flip-flops") on his campaign promises. Used to mean hot death for a politician from his... base. But now...

      China? No longer a hated job-killing currency manipulator. Iran? Yeah, they're ok. Ban the Muslims? Hasn't stuck, blocked in court, oh well, probably the fault of Dems, move on, move on... what happened to that wall, anyway? and Russia? Liked Russia, g'head and spy on crooked-Hillary, no, don't like 'em anymore, but that has nothing to do with the cyber-spying during the election. NATO? Yeah, maybe they're ok after all. Clean Coal? well yeah, about that, energy prices, invisible hand of the econo-*yawn*. Bridges and roads? headin' off to my golf resort call me later. and Obamacare? That biggest disaster in the history of all mankind ever? Ehhhh, let's keep it... for me to poop on for the next four years.

      Nope, nobody seems to care, as long as he's not a Democrat.

      --
      Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
  32. Re: Why waste money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You're using words that no one outside of extremist websites use in real life. That leads us to a couple possible conclusions, neither of which speak very highly of your character.

  33. News for nerds? by hey! · · Score: 4, Interesting

    More like news for people who aren't paying attention.

    The administration is way behind on filling much more important positions than this. Last month suddenly reversed themselves on the US attorneys staying on until there are replacements... fine, but as of today there aren't any nominees for any of the 93 prosecutor positions, because they haven't filled the undersecretary level positions that do that. Justice is also missing a number of key appointees for national security positions.

    There's the same story at state, where over half of the high level appointees have yet to be named, including officials to oversee the Middle East or nuclear anti-proliferation.

    The confusing situation with the USS Vinson might well have something to do with the fact that a number of important second and third tier DoD positions haven't been filled, and the same at the Executive Office of the President. A lot of what those people a teir or two below the top do is make sure the right hand knows what the left is doing.

    Cybersecurity is an important issue, but the administration doesn't have the people in place to set up and run such a team yet.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:News for nerds? by jittles · · Score: 1

      More like news for people who aren't paying attention.

      The administration is way behind on filling much more important positions than this. Last month suddenly reversed themselves on the US attorneys staying on until there are replacements... fine, but as of today there aren't any nominees for any of the 93 prosecutor positions, because they haven't filled the undersecretary level positions that do that. Justice is also missing a number of key appointees for national security positions.

      There's the same story at state, where over half of the high level appointees have yet to be named, including officials to oversee the Middle East or nuclear anti-proliferation.

      The confusing situation with the USS Vinson might well have something to do with the fact that a number of important second and third tier DoD positions haven't been filled, and the same at the Executive Office of the President. A lot of what those people a teir or two below the top do is make sure the right hand knows what the left is doing.

      Cybersecurity is an important issue, but the administration doesn't have the people in place to set up and run such a team yet.

      He could probably get appointments made if he actually took the job seriously. I'd liken his choices with the Pope saying to all of the cardinals that he'd like the freaking Anti-Christ to be the Papal Nuncio or something like that. All of his sensible appointments went through rather quickly. The rest have been delayed as long as humanly possible.

    2. Re:News for nerds? by lactose99 · · Score: 1

      He's too busy playing golf to be bothered with that.

      --
      Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
    3. Re:News for nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the bright side - that lots of positions we aren't paying salaries on right now!

    4. Re:News for nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is still a lack of a quorum at the FERC, Trump hasn't nominated anyone for the openings yet. Once he does the vetting process could take a month or more, so it's going to be a while before any meaningful work can get done.
      Soon the Nuclear Regulatory Commission may be without a quorum, which seems even more problematic:

      "Absent a nomination and confirmation of additional commissioners, the Commission will lack a quorum on July 1 when Chairman Svinicki's current term expires. This situation could severely inhibit the NRC's ability to execute its vital responsibility and hamper the nuclear industry," they wrote. "We urge you to nominate commissioners to the NRC so the confirmation process may be completed as soon as possible and provide the NRC a full contingent of commissioners to fulfill its critical mission in overseeing and regulating the civilian use of radioactive material."

    5. Re:News for nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think this is a deliberate attempt to make government look bad so that these positions can be filled with for profit private entities working as consultants.

  34. Just hand the conservatives over to Turkey/Russia. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They seem to share the same pro-nationalist, religious, homophobic values.

    Mind you they each share them for a different religious team, but watching that war take place should be good for plenty of popcorn munching moments :)

    - Society to Ship All Republicans to Russia or Turkey.

  35. PLEASE! KEEP _ALL_ POLITICS OFF SLASHDOT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is one of the last places we can read technology without the empty vessels making noise about their political views. They don't belong here. There are plenty of places to voice political opinions - slashdot is not one of those. @slashdot - political vitriol should not be allowed.

    1. Re:PLEASE! KEEP _ALL_ POLITICS OFF SLASHDOT! by whipslash · · Score: 2

      This is technology news. It's not vitriol.

    2. Re:PLEASE! KEEP _ALL_ POLITICS OFF SLASHDOT! by narcc · · Score: 2

      I thought the relentless negativity had chased you off!

      Any word on unicode support?

  36. He gave his answer by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    when he bombed Syria & Afghanistan. "Look the other way everyone" was the answer. Now stop asking questions. We've always been at war with Eurasia.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  37. You had me by rsilvergun · · Score: 2, Funny

    right up until "Deep Cover". Nobody in Deep Cover would be this obvious about it. My 4 year old could hide stolen cookies better than Trump hides his Russian ties.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:You had me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Proof of him taking Russian bribes right here.

      Not sure why more people haven't been talking about the multimillion dollar bribes he took for setting Federal policy. I would think something like that would be a bigger story and disqualify him as president, don't you think so?

    2. Re:You had me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Four-year-olds shouldn't have cookies. Wait another decade or so; then you can have them together as a family to celebrate her first abortion.

    3. Re:You had me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You had me right up until "Deep Cover". Nobody in Deep Cover would be this obvious about it. My 4 year old could hide stolen cookies better than Trump hides his Russian ties.

      So you're saying you fully believe we "have undeniable proof that Donald J. Trump is a"?

  38. all hail our glorious leader by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    always wondered what it would be like under a dictatorship.

  39. Signaling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It allows us all to signal our virtue. Hooray.

    1. Re: Signaling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is virtue signaling? Calling something that's racist racist? Shouldn't you just say speaking plainly?

  40. Re: series of tubes by presidenteloco · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That (a series or network of tubes) was actually a pretty good analogy to describe internet and its data flow to lay people.

    Bandwidth, latency etc can be well understood with this analogy.

    I think the people who laughed at this description of the Internet are severely imagination-deficient. And no, I have no idea what political side the guy who described the net thus is on, so I have no axe to grind either way.

    Explaining by good analogy is actually an intellectual skill and a gift. Kind of like a box of chocolates...

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
  41. can you do the job? by epine · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Republicans only care about money. Can you do the job? Good. Get to work.

    Cutting red tape to ribbons is an intrinsically easier job than building up effective layers of regulation that prevent the public interest being bent over a barrel, while the longest of all possible rubber gloves rummages around for the better part of a trillion dollars.

    Evidently, no money was harmed in the operation.

    The job, as I see it, is a little harder to accomplish, once you concede that there is such a thing as effective regulation, though it's yet far from a science; science also being a discipline where time after time ones best efforts fall short, and yet one perseveres.

    In the best case scenario, even after regulation becomes more of science, it will still be double hard: hard to do and hard on the ego.

    Kind of makes a guy want to double down on only caring about money, setting oneself up on a lavish private beach, and watching the glorious Egos soar.

  42. Re: Fake President is gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you, America; way to take one for the team. With Brexit the world was looking to the UK as the dumbest nation on the planet. With Trump as President, the rest of the world sees the US as a bunch of dribbling simpletons, easy marks whose opinions are created out of whole cloth by a couple of Russian hacking cells.

  43. Perhaps smoke and mirrors? by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Maybe he hasn't appointed a task force to look into Russian hacking because he can't find anyone who can lie convincingly about the subject to actually fool anyone?
    Meanwhile there's an ongoing independent investigation into possible Russian tampering with the November election. Oh, and by the way: Russian has also been tampering with elections in other countries, too, and Russia appears to be where much of the cyber-hacking in the world originates from. Not like this idea came out of nowhere.

    Worst case scenario: Trump and/or his staff are discovered to have been complicit in tampering with the election, and the election is declared null-and-void, Trump is removed from office. Where, then, do we go from there? Is Pence then installed as President, or is he tossed out on his ear, along with the rest of the Trump Cabinet? If this were a TV show, that'd be damned interesting to watch, but here in the Real World, I can't see it as anything other than a complete disaster for the United States. The last thing we need in this country right now, considering the socio-political climate of the entire planet, is a power-vacuum. However if that's what the conclusion of the investigation revealed, what else could we do?

    It's just bad all around. None of this should have happened. Trump never had any business being elected President. Hillary Clinton should never have been the Democratic candidate. Vladimir Putin should never have been allowed to rise to power in Russia. North Korea. China. Islamic State. It's just bad all over, none of it is funny, not before, not now, and in the end everybody loses in one way or another. Many Conservatives who voted for Trump are now regretting it, seeing what it is they've bought into. There is now a greater chance of getting into an armed conflict with North Korea, and Kim Jong Un is batshit-insane and would use a nuke if you poked him enough. The world is painting itself into a corner and I don't know how or if we'll manage to fix all this.

    1. Re:Perhaps smoke and mirrors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound like a baseless optimist.
      Putin shouldn't have risen in Russia? NK shouldn't have become "the evil state"? IS and China? None of those are real threats to stability, except perhaps China on an economic scale.
      No one is risking nuclear war, least of all North Korea who's Kim is anything but batshit-insane. He's perfectly well in control of his situation and all his stick rattling amounts to is internal propaganda and giving him the option of "backing off" to get more gibsmedat from NATO.
      Kim is under no delusion his missiles are a full 50 years behind anything else anyone has world wide and couldn't reach the states even if they had a hundred working ones. Meanwhile, Trump wastes 50 tomahawks on a low priority airstrip in Syria. Kim knows if he actually launched a single nuke towards the US, Pyongyang would be a glassed car park before his missile failed and blew up midway.

      But you're right. Trump would never have had a single chance against anything but Clinton. Same applies for Clinton. The worse two president elects in history and they both faced the only possible candidate they had a chance to win against. The situation wouldn't be any different if Clinton had become president. Sure, there'd be less incompetence but there would be just as many scandals, corruption and backdoor deal makings as Clinton is famous for. Trump would go wild and keep tweeting as well.

      However you're wrong about the funny part. It's all hilarious.
      We're circling down the drain and the leader of the first world is tweeting insults at random and realized recently he has no fucking clue how to run a country, least of all one of the most important global superpowers. IS and the liberals are the joke that just keep on giving, and the recent rise of Russia and China leave little doubt America is going to lose the race this time. I can't wait for the next plot twist that's sure to come soon this year. Maybe Trump DOES get impeached? How about another secession? Or a repeat of LA's racial riots but country wide? Stay tuned!

    2. Re:Perhaps smoke and mirrors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'd like to know where all of this magical evidence is that proves 1. Russia "hacked the election" and 2. Trump colluded with them. So far I've only seen proof that Trump's camp really was spied on, and results WERE tampered with but not by Trump, by Clinton supporters (See the recount and Detroit).

    3. Re:Perhaps smoke and mirrors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to be confined to a mental health facility and heavily medicated. Preferably forever. Either that or you're 12 years old and have no grasp of anything actually going on in the world, because you're still a dumb kid. Does your mom know you're on the Internets, annoying the adults? I'd tell you to go outside and play with your little friends except I don't think you have any.

    4. Re:Perhaps smoke and mirrors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only fair thing to do is hold another election. The republicans are going to get fucked though because I think most of them are in on the Russian thing. Colluding with a foreign power, that too one we've been at odds with for 3 generations. Two of which have been spent dickering with various countries around the world to cage the country. Now they are Republican's best friends? Crazy.

      The entire party is geared towards winning elections. They really don't know how to run a country anymore. The people they produce are ideological to the extreme and unwilling to compromise. They will destroy this country and the 24 hour news like CNN will film the whole thing and cheer the money they get.

    5. Re:Perhaps smoke and mirrors? by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      "the election is declared null-and-void"

      There is no provision in law to declare the election null and void. The House certified the results of the Electoral College, therefore Trump is the actual president. There must be an impeachment and a conviction to remove him. Then the Presidency passes down the order of succession as defined in The 25th Amendment and the Presidential Succession Act.

      "The last thing we need in this country right now, considering the socio-political climate of the entire planet, is a power-vacuum."

      That is why the law already defines the order of succession. You may not like who is in that lineup, but you can know for sure who is in it, since it more important to achieve consensus in the results than to satisfy anyone's desire for a particular result. This is not only because it ensures peaceful transfers of power, but also because it devalues future attempts to game the system.

  44. 90 working days? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well there were a few holidays, weekends and trips to Mar-a-lago in there, so maybe it was 90 working days.

  45. To be clear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's the losers who want this. Obviously an insult to the intelligence of those who voted against Hillary. The people who voted for Trump are not asking for this. It wasn't the damn Russians who voted for him after all.

    1. Re:To be clear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously an insult to the intelligence of those who voted against Hillary.

      This entire statement is an oxymoron.

  46. Re: series of tubes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the original context, it's quite clear that the "series of tubes" guy had no idea WTF he was talking about.

    Original poster gets +1 imaginary point for being snarky, and you get -1 for being tiresomely pedantic.

  47. Re: Why waste money... by LiENUS · · Score: 1

    Democrats aren't going to persecute themselves genius.

    Did you just call Chaffetz a democrat?

  48. Re: series of tubes by GameboyRMH · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yeah, "series of tubes" wasn't a a bad analogy in itself, but there were many terrible analogies and hilarious falsehoods in the rest of the infamous rant surrounding it.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  49. Are you kidding? by HangingChad · · Score: 1

    Interrupt his golf game for something as nebulous as cybersecurity? You must be joking.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  50. Re: Why waste money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    ... They had moles in the FBI, DoJ as well as the White House. Hence the meet between Clinton & Lynch on the airport tarmac when the two don't even know each other. Coincidence? Not likely. Rigging/payoff...

    I think Comey's sudden announcement of more Emails to investigate nearly on the eve of the election, on a Friday Afternoon, seems way more influential and suspicious than the crap fake news you quoted. You could see a 10 point swing in the polling numbers after that.

  51. Obviously the only one qualified by tdillo · · Score: 1

    to head that team is Jared Kushner.

    It's not like he has anything better to do.

  52. Re:Just hand the conservatives over to Turkey/Russ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Should be the the Society to Hand All Republicans to Russia or Turkey:

    S.H.A.R.T.

  53. Re: Why waste money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, that'd be a compliment to him. He's a waste of space.

  54. I had him doing abt 10%... by jpellino · · Score: 1

    but the more I think about it, I believe you're closer.

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  55. Re: Why waste money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait, what? A mole? I don't think that word means what you think it does.

  56. Everyone knows it was CIA's work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And the result of Mable program, perhaps?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4367746/WikiLeaks-says-CIA-disguised-hacking-Russian-activity.html

  57. So what? by kenh · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Show of hands, who was sitting on their hands, waiting for the incoming administration to ramp up a cyber security team to help democrats secure their private, non-government email servers? In providing guidance to geniuses like Jpn Podesta to NOT use 'password' as the password on your work GMAIL account?

    Seriously, Democrats ignored warnings from FBI that they were being targeted by hackers, the Republicans heeded the warning, with predictable results in both cases.

    --
    Ken
    1. Re:So what? by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      And if the Democrats were so concerned about "hacking" when didn't they turn the DNC email servers over to the FBI....they refused to let the FBI have access to them. Nice.

    2. Re:So what? by bussdriver · · Score: 1

      What makes you think the Republicans haven't been hacked? It is up to the hackers.

      Podesta probably wouldn't be known by most readers here if his email had not been hacked. Somebody had to target an operative with poor security.

      Russia probably was into many systems, as were other groups. Could be a Bernie supporter who was more anti-establishment did nothing and now fears getting involved.

    3. Re:So what? by CapS · · Score: 1

      This is a little bit of "blame the victim". If the Russians were involved with this, we need to know and prevent election manipulation in the future.

    4. Re: So what? by kenh · · Score: 1

      There has always been, and always will be 'election tampering' by other governments.

      In only one recent incident I'm aware of the federal government under President Obama used federal funds to support political groups in Israel in a bid to influence their elections - where's the outrage?

      Democrats have a 'claim' regarding Russian involvement, proof has been very, very scant so far.

      --
      Ken
    5. Re: So what? by CapS · · Score: 1

      So the reason we don't need to investigate major election tampering is because everyone does it? That doesn't sound like good policy. It also doesn't help prevent it in the future.

      BTW, it's not just the Democrats who have said there is strong evidence that the Russian government was involved, the Republicans have stated this as well.

  58. Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So he does [something] and people complain.

    Now they're complaining because he didn't do [something].

    Poor guy can't catch a break!

  59. Watergate repeat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You do realize the Russia thing was an attempt by Obama to cover up his spying on a political opponent's campaign? While attempting to prove it they couldn't find anything.

    Susan Rice unmasked all conversations between Trump people and any foreigners they talked to. It was even mentioned she told spy agencies to spy specifically on Trump known associates to help her out.
    They requested a FISA warrant on Trump in June before the election, so blatant it was the 11th ever turned down in the 27 years of the FISA court.
    They GOT a FISA warrant on Carter Page, a Trump advisor, just before the election on evidence that failed to produce any kind of prosecution, showing that they lied to get it or found a corrupt judge.

    No, the Russia thing is an EMBARRASMENT for Obama and showed his spying on campaigns. You are supposed to drop the issue, in case you haven't noticed all the news agencies dropped the issue like a hot potato once it was obvious Obama's administration was breaking the law by spying on US citizens, specifically political campaigns.

    Now tell me again, what did Nixon do that people didn't like? I can't seem to find a liberal that can answer that one any more.

    1. Re:Watergate repeat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Spying on the Trump campaign' is just another way of saying 'Investigating the Trump campaign because there's strong suspicion that there's inappropriate contact/involvement with the campaign from Russia'. Someone who voted for Trump and still is in denial about what a mistake that was would say something like that, just in the same way you sit there and call Rick a liberal when he's clearly in as many words saying that neither Trump OR CLINTON should have been candidates in the first place.

    2. Re:Watergate repeat by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's just another way of saying "investigating Russian agents because of course we do and hey who are all of these Americans calling Sergei Kislyak?"

    3. Re:Watergate repeat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, its spying on Trump.
      What you are telling me is all Nixon had to say was "It was an investigation" and Watergate controversy would have never happened?

      I generally don't debate liberals anymore. Their comments are so completely stupid, as yours was, that attempting to debate detracts from the idiocy they spout.

      You want to talk about Trump's Russia ties? Let me help you out with that from a NYT article that shows ABSOLUTE proof of the presidential candidate getting bribes from Russia and then setting foreign policy to favor Russia for those bribes.

      Story here

      Whoops, I forgot to mention... It shows Clinton took FUCKING BRIBES FROM RUSSIA, not Trump. My bad. I guess you really don't care about ties with Russia now that I showed your hero was the corrupt one.

    4. Re:Watergate repeat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you are telling me is all Nixon had to say was "It was an investigation" and Watergate controversy would have never happened?

      Well, it kinda hurts that The plumbers were a group of private individuals not even in law enforcement.

      So no, it wouldn't have helped Nixon. Maybe asking the FBI to do it MIGHT have worked.

      I generally don't debate liberals anymore. Their comments are so completely stupid, as yours was, that attempting to debate detracts from the idiocy they spout.

      I generally mock faux conservatives, their defensiveness is so completely stupid, that ones like you show off your own idiocy.

      You want to talk about Trump's Russia ties? Let me help you out with that from a NYT article that shows ABSOLUTE proof of the presidential candidate getting bribes from Russia and then setting foreign policy to favor Russia for those bribes.

      Yeah, it doesn't. Sorry.

      Whoops, I forgot to mention... It shows Clinton took FUCKING BRIBES FROM RUSSIA, not Trump. My bad. I guess you really don't care about ties with Russia now that I showed your hero was the corrupt one.

      You've got about as much traction as when you were claiming it was Uranium she was selling, when that didn't exactly happen the way you claimed anyway.

    5. Re:Watergate repeat by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      You do realize the Russia thing was an attempt by Obama to cover up his spying on a political opponent's campaign?

      No, but I do realize that you are batshit crazy.

      Now tell me again, what did Nixon do that people didn't like? I can't seem to find a liberal that can answer that one any more

      Lied, cheated, extorted; and was foolish enough to record himself doing so.

  60. Heh by JWW · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well the team and the evidence exist in the same state.

    i.e. they don't

  61. Illiterate much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is your pencil broken or are you too illiterate to write 'Vermin Supreme'

  62. Re: Why waste money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You're right about the SoS. But the current head of Exxon is asking the former head of Exxon for a waiver of sanctions so they can make money with Russian oil companies.

    But I'm sure you don't think that is corruption. Unless it was Hillary, then ITS THE WORST!

  63. And people took him at his word because? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

    He's been a Democrat before he was a Republican?

    He promised to pay back loans and contractors and then didn't?

    He was for virtually everything until he was against it?

    I mean, he's been sooo consistant and open throughout his life that this New Trump must be some sort of aberration.

    The one thing that has never wavered is Trump does what is best for Trump and screw the rest of you.

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  64. Still waiting by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

    to know what all this influence was. Do they mean something like Radio Free Europe...

  65. I know who he can hire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A 400 pound teenager in his Mom's basement!

  66. Re: Why waste money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's because it's Ctrl-Left, not Alt-left. Deserved it for trying to tie those nutters to the Alt-Right master race.

  67. Buzzword Bingo by coastwalker · · Score: 1

    As of this posting I cannot find
    Globalist, Soros, NWO, MSM, Islam, Cuck, Antifa, MAGA, Zionist, Jews, ((())), kek, Pepe, gay frog, Bankster, WWIII, Feminazi
    I can find
    Elites, Trump, Obummer. Liberal, Policy, Banks

    On the basis of this information I conclude that there are more intelligent people on Slashdot than on most internet forums. Though if I had wanted a floating box docked to the top right of the screen obscuring what I was reading I would have fcuking asked for it.

    --
    Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
  68. 90 days isn't up yet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Trump meant 90 _working_ days. Once you take off weekends, Mar-a-largo holidays, golf days and campaigning for 2020 days he is up to about day 12 now.

    You will see that in his first 100 days (working days) he will have done more than any President has done in their whole term. Of course he may never get to 100 days if he isn't re-elected in 2020.

    1. Re:90 days isn't up yet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funnily enough, he already started to deliver on most of his promises. I am still in shock that you actually "can" trust a politician...

    2. Re:90 days isn't up yet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > he already started to deliver on most of his promises.

      He promised that in the first 100 days he wouldn't take holidays or play golf.

    3. Re:90 days isn't up yet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's not doing enough to normalize relations with Russia either, or to fight Radical Islamic Terrorism. I guess you can't have it all.
      If he got to it before his second term, I'd be truly shocked.

  69. Re: Why waste money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BENGHAZI!!!!11!!1!!11!

  70. There was no Russian hacking... by m_number4 · · Score: 1

    At least no more than usual, certainly none that had any direct influence in the US election. No evidence has been found, the narrative is being pushed by the Hillary camp and MSM.

    1. Re:There was no Russian hacking... by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure the DNC emails didn't release themselves. That there was hacking involved is basically beyond question (well unless you take an extremely strict definition of "hacking" that conveniently excludes whatever was done to obtain those emails.)

      There was question in the beginning about the source with Russia just being a rumor, but the FBI has since fairly confidently determined that Russia was indeed the culprits. Unless of course you want to start a new conspiracy theory about the FBI working for Iran and implicating Russia just to throw us off the real trail or something goofy like that.

    2. Re: There was no Russian hacking... by m_number4 · · Score: 1

      âShatteredâ(TM) Revelation: Clinton Campaign Hatched Russian Hacking Narrative 24 Hours After Hillaryâ(TM)s Loss: http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...

    3. Re: There was no Russian hacking... by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      And you would seriously quote from breitbart?

    4. Re: There was no Russian hacking... by m_number4 · · Score: 1

      You apparently have no argument against Breitbart's story.

  71. Re: Why waste money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And this, folks, is the perfect illustration of why conspiracy theorists are morons.

    Is there no evidence that the theory is true? That just proves the conspiracy is Even Bigger! The coverup goes to another level!

    There is no end to this logic, and no way of disproving it. Anyone who believes it - is completely unequipped to understand science, or anything else for that matter.

  72. I mean come on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not a fan of the guy, but it's not like he's been unencumbered. He's had literally everyone and everything against him/fighting him/doing everything they can to slow him down.

    At least call it what it really is.

    1. Re:I mean come on by bussdriver · · Score: 1

      All presidents are encumbered; our system is designed to do that. Trump has had it easier than previous presidents with his party in control of just about everything; including strong support from police and won thanks to the FBI (and just about anything else given how thin the victory was.) Before you say the Supreme Court does not count realize that the court rarely responds to anything quickly and by the time most anything reaches them he already has appointed his party control over it.

      Trumps problems largely have been of his own creation; not a result of the opposition. He has had less trouble picking people and they hype what they can but he's not even picked people to even be attacked at a normal pace. So that too his his fault.

      Trumps "slow down" is completely his own fault. He isn't a black man who actually was blocked at every turn and filibustered more than anybody in history.

    2. Re:I mean come on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All presidents are encumbered; our system is designed to do that. Trump has had it easier than previous presidents with his party in control of just about everything; including strong support from police and won thanks to the FBI (and just about anything else given how thin the victory was.) Before you say the Supreme Court does not count realize that the court rarely responds to anything quickly and by the time most anything reaches them he already has appointed his party control over it.

      Trumps problems largely have been of his own creation; not a result of the opposition. He has had less trouble picking people and they hype what they can but he's not even picked people to even be attacked at a normal pace. So that too his his fault.

      Trumps "slow down" is completely his own fault. He isn't a black man who actually was blocked at every turn and filibustered more than anybody in history.

      I guess the Dems controlling the house and senate for the "Black man's" first two years is something we're going to overlook?

      Yikes, might wanna think before you post next time.

  73. Meditation aids by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

    Privilege theory and the concept of systemic racism dealt the death blow to the détente. In embracing these theories, minorities and progressives broke their essential rule, which was to not run around calling everyone a racist. As these theories took hold, every white person became a racist who must confess that racism and actively make amends. Yet if the white woman who teaches gender studies at Barnard with the Ben Shahn drawings in her office is a racist, what chance do the rest of have?

    Within the past few years, as privilege theory took hold, many whites began to think that no matter what they did they would be called racist, because, in fact, that was happening. Previously there were rules. They shifted at times, but if adhered to they largely protected one from the charge of racism. Itâ(TM)s like the Morrissey lyric: âoeis evil just something you are, or something you do.â Under the détente, racism was something you did; under privilege theory it is something you are.

    That shift, from carefully directed accusations of racism for direct actions to more general charges of unconscious racism, took away the carrot for whites. Worse, it led to a defensiveness and feeling of victimization that make todayâ(TM)s whites in many ways much more tribal than they were 30 years ago. White people are constantly told to examine their whiteness, not to think of themselves as racially neutral. That they did, but the result was not introspection that led to reconciliation, it was a decision that white people have just as much right to think of themselves as a special interest group as anyone else.

    http://thefederalist.com/2016/11/14/election-marks-end-americas-racial-detente/

    You will not prevent this development by screaming âoeracism!â. Hereâ(TM)s a hot tip: people you dismiss as retrograde scum will not, in general, vote for you. In fact, one of the things you Democrats most urgently need to do is banish âoeracismâ and âoesexismâ from your political vocabulary.

    While these words point at some real problems, they are also a trap. They lead you to organize your political pitch around virtue-signaling, exclusion and demonization. That, in turn, can be successful (though repulsive) politics when itâ(TM)s used against a minority to mobilize a majority or plurality. But youâ(TM)re in the opposite situation now. You were trapped by your own privilege theory. You demonized a plurality of American voters, and in return they gave you Trump.

    http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=7268

    (Apologies for the mangled characters. I just don't care enough to fix them today. Click the links if they bother you.)

    --
    See that "Preview" button?
    1. Re: Meditation aids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh please, Orgasmatron, you could find the same aghast attitudes in the 1960s, 1940s, 1920s, 1880s, 1870s, 1860s and before, and not even limited to the one focus of ire that seems to be your obsession.

      That is right, Abe Lincoln went around insisting he wasn't a n****** lover, he just opposed slavery is all.

      That the party of Cliven Bundy, David Duke, Kathy Miller, Roy Moore, Strom Thurmond, and now Frank Artiles is still practicing that tired old bit of recrimination is no surprise, the GOP embraced them for the votes, and the price has been an infectious destruction of legitimacy.

      Same reason the tendency to mansplaining blows up on them from time to time. They got the people who really don't want women voting.

      As they say, in thine own eye, find the log, not the neighbors mote.

  74. the Presidential candidate who wasn't 1% by mah! · · Score: 1

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/p...

    Jill Stein and husband together: 302,258

    http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/0...

    It takes "at least $389,000 to make the club".

  75. Re: Why waste money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's funny to think that in 50 years trolls are still going to be shouting that while their eyes whirl around in their heads.

  76. Re: Why waste money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You think Republicans don't have moles in those origanizations?

    Republicans-in-power tend to be less for-the-people and more pro-company / pro-money. They tend to be fine with companies throwing shit into the water (see coal mining regulations, trying to throw out FDA's report due to chemical company lobbying) and letting companies get away with it.

    I would expect MORE Republicans to be in higher positions since they're usually the ones with the money, and have less scruples as long as it makes them rich and powerful.

    The fact that nothing has come about from "leaks" by replublican aligned agents indicates there's nothing here.

    Unless, of course, you're saying republicans are shit at this political stuff, because the democrats have all the power for some reason =P

  77. Honestly,... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As long as there isn't a "cyber plan," there probably isn't much of anything else (other than panic) in that department. And as long as it continues in parallel with Wikileaks and other whistle blowers, everyone will benefit. This is because intelligence agencies hate encryption and love backdoors, which that attitude puts us all at risk. If the U.S. has the hacking tools, then so does RU. Ergo, the weaknesses and negligence at a gov level in conjunction with leaks are actually allowing security improvements at the more basic levels for all of us, or at least for now. Heaven forbid anyone takes the time to be more self-involved with their privacy practices.

  78. Dipstick by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    "President Trump Misses 90-Day Deadline To Appoint a Cybersecurity Team After Alleged Russian Hacking"

    That's because he's an imbecile, and because he doesn't want anyone looking into Russian hacking connections, because who knows what they might find.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  79. Re: Why waste money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The polling numbers didn't tell the election. The Democrats were using the polling numbers up until the very end to assume they would win. So why do these wide polling number swings you reference have anything to do with the additional emails found on Tony Wanker's laptop?

  80. Read In Trump's Voice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "You know, I'm going to appoint a Russian commission to investigate the Russian hacking. Which just so you know, didn't happen! This will be the Best, Bigliest, Most Awesome commission, you won't believe! It will be 100% independent and impartial, and as long as they agree with me that no Russian hacking occurred, will be successful like you wouldn't believe.

    We have a general I know, a great guy. We have a businessman, the best. I know them. I don't know Putin but I assume he is a great guy.

    The commission is on hold since, as you know, I am under audit by the IRS. I have the best legal advice and I am told I can do anything I want. Therefore I am putting the commission on hold because I am under audit. As soon as the audit is over I will hold the commission.

    Some of you know that I am a successful businessman, the Best. The Most Awesome. As a result I am always under audit by the IRS. It's nothing and I will win.

    Once the never-ending audits end, this Russian investigation will begin. It is my highest priority, believe me. I am Bigly. Giggity!"

  81. Re: Why waste money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It goes hand in hand with evangelical Christianity which employs/features the same sort of thought trap: "people who don't believe what I say are wrong, therefore they can't be right"

  82. Re: Why waste money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But how can we trust anyone in the FBI, CIA, NSA, DoJ? They're all corrupt. There's only one man with the insight, intellect and forensic skills to get to the bottom of this swamp, that fearless investigator, the Man with the Golden Tan, Agent Trump!

  83. Good grief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not actually crack a history book before yapping nonsense, or at least use your noggin. Here is a question for you: When someone gets fired at your company do you immediately hire the first hobo walking down the street to fill the job, or do you find candidates and follow an interview process?

    You do realize that when Obama took office, ALL of the attorneys from Bush were fired? Right? You do realize that it took months to fill all those positions right? How about when Clinton fired all 93 Republican appointees in a single day, remember that? Those were not immediately filled either.

    Fuck you liberals are stupid.

    1. Re:Good grief by hey! · · Score: 1

      Yes, but he had all the undersecretary positions filled at Justice by early March, and these are the people who do the legwork in finding and vetting the US attorney candidates. They're not going to find themselves.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  84. Re: Why waste money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I find your theory both believable and very likely true. How do chemtrails and cuthulu tie into this again?

  85. Unless you hadn't noticed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump is too busy being re-tailored by his new masters (who got bored with the "my little hillary" goll they were going to use). Once they are sure that he is benign and properly trained these appointments will be made. War is peace and long live the oligarchy.

  86. FTFY by s.petry · · Score: 1

    Trump got in to office by being lucky enough to run against Hillary Clinton. A huge part of the FULL electorate (Dems and Republicans) would vote for a ticket of Kim Jong-Un with Mahmood Ahmedinejad just to keep someone named Clinton out of the white house..

    Democrats voted in overwhelming numbers for a full out Socialist over Clinton.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:FTFY by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      Democrats voted in overwhelming numbers for a full out Socialist over Clinton.

      No, they did not. First of all, it is an oversimplification to call Sanders a "full out Socialist". He has many significant socialist leanings but he diverges from the common platform in several ways. More significantly though, the primaries and caucuses were won by Hillary. Even if the superdelegates didn't exist, even if we ignore the state lines and just take the straight votes, even if we stand on our head when we count the ballots, she still won the nomination in the vote tally. Was it close? Yes, it was really quite close. Arguably it was close enough that it forced her to change some parts of her platform to bring the Sanders supporters in to support her, but that wasn't enough to win the election in November.

      Were democrats trying to keep her out of the white house, as you claim? I have yet to meet anyone who voted in a democratic primary or caucus who went there to vote against someone. By comparison there were huge numbers of people - on both sides - who went out on election day and primarily cast a ballot against someone.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  87. Re: series of tubes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I also liked being told the internet was "not a big truck". And it took over 4 hours to send "an internet" to his secretary.

    He is not mocked for the analogy but his obvious hallucinogenic drug use.

  88. Re: Why waste money... by Uberbah · · Score: 0

    I think Comey's sudden announcement of more Emails to investigate nearly on the eve of the election, on a Friday Afternoon, seems way more influential and suspicious than the crap fake news you quoted.

    You wanna talk influence and suspicion, explain why a sailor was being prosecuted by the DOJ for taking unauthorized photos of a submarine on his cell phone at the same time it was letting Hillary off for her unauthorized email server, which stored a vastly larger amount of classified information.

    Democrats, far from hating on Comey, should be giving him free blow jobs for the rest of his life for not charging their Dear Leader with mishandling classified evidence and obstruction of justice, when she deleted 30,000 pieces of evidence, again without authorization.

    Buy your knee pads and get busy.

  89. Re: series of tubes by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    That (a series or network of tubes) was actually a pretty good analogy to describe internet and its data flow to lay people.

    Except he wasn't making an analogy. Thus the mocking.

  90. Re: Why waste money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whoa whoa whoa!

    Democrats aren't going to persecute themselves genius.
    Did you just call Chaffetz a democrat?

    He ain't a democrat until he's been accused of pedophilia! Then the (R) mysteriously becomes (D) on the Fox TV crawler. Not before.

  91. Re: Why waste money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Broadly, I'm guessing because the sailor was still in active duty at the time and subject to more regulations thank former DoD staffer. It be her lizard queen mind powers too though, based on the web sites making that shit up.

    BHENGHAZZZZZZIIIIIIIIII!

    Also, what's the super critical intel we got for the active duty American soldier that died? I don't give a fuck about military contractor mercenaries that were in it for the money.

  92. Re: Why waste money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The former is a zionist conspiracy to cover up their worship of the latter. Duh. You can read all about it in my web manifesto, "Tin foil hats and Electroshock: Better Together!"

  93. Trump lied? by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Trump lied?
    Really?
    Isn't that something that you people said was the reason to never vote for Hillary?

    It's amazing how partisan this place became last year.

  94. Re: Why waste money... by dbIII · · Score: 1

    The same reason Powell, Rice and all the others were not prosecuted.
    Different rules for people in the office versus people in the field.
    It sucks, but it's been entrenched for a long time and it's kind of funny how it was blown up into a massive thing by the same people who suggested that it was OK for Petraeus to swap secrets for sex.

  95. Re: Why waste money... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    Broadly, I'm guessing because the sailor was still in active duty at the time and subject to more regulations thank former DoD staffer.

    Nope. Mishandling classified evidence is mishandling classified evidence - just ask any whistleblower prosecuted for it, or former high level officials like Sandy Berger or David Petraeus.

    BHENGHAZZZZZZIIIIIIIIII!

    You going to give Trump a free pass on everything, because there's even less to the Russian conspiracy theory than there is for anything on Benghazi (aside from a CIA black site, of course) using the same reasoning? The story that Russia hacked power companies fell apart within a day, so Trump didn't really say he liked grabbing women by their private parts. Because....reasons.

  96. Cyber Team? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Make sure that the Cyber Team consists of 81% Linux Professionals with a combination of BSD Professionals.
    Linux Professionals helped build the Internet ie. there is lots of Linux Servers. There! 10 points added to your I.Q.

  97. Re: Why waste money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More trolls critiquing you.

    Alternatively, maybe just the new version of nazis we've bred through faux news.

  98. Re: Why waste money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NM comments chains are just terrible on mobile.

  99. "I won the election; what else do you want?" by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

    Oh, wait, there's MORE work to do? Work, work, work, work, work, work, work, work, work. (Hey, come to think of it, Governor LePetomane would probably do as good a job . . .)

  100. Re: Why waste money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Agreed that comey fucker should rot in jail until he dies

  101. What hacking? by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    News for nerds or news for really dumb shits? There was no hacking, if anyone would know, that's nerds. Breaking into Podesta's account using the password of password isn't hacking. There is nothing to show anything was done with any election process in any state to help Trump. We know thanks to Stein that Trump is very likely missing votes because when she did a recount he ended up with a lot more. We know from Obama's own best help he had that there was no Russian connection. In fact we know his people didn't take that bait. On the other hand we know Hillary received money from Russia, gave them around 1/3 of our Uranium while she was Scty of state and Podesta receive hundreds of thousands of bucks from them, as an illegal unregistered foreign agent. Lots of ties from Russia to the Democrats.

    Again - what hacking?

    Not even a talking point, it's just outright lies.

  102. It's a show by dbIII · · Score: 1

    So you actually think Trump in showmanship mode is "proof" that he is not able to form complete thoughts?
    Where I am we had a politician up until the late 1980s who spoke like Trump. It was a tactic of speaking utter nonsense (eg. "you can't walk on both sides of a barbed wire fence") for long enough to confuse a journalist and at that time keep it up until a film change was needed (only a few minutes with the small portable cameras used for TV news) and the journalist needed to start again. Others use tricks along those lines.
    He's a creature of "reality TV" these days. Postures and sound bites instead of anything concrete. I don't think he ever had his mind in a better state so I don't think you have Trump being declared non compos mentis and a President Pence to look forward to.

  103. Re: series of tubes by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

    Stevens said "it's like a series of tubes". That is exactly what an analogy is.

  104. Re: Why waste money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As I remember it, Comey didn't "announce" that, he wrote a letter to clarify/update his testimony under oath. This is something an extremely honest person would do, to avoid being accused of hiding information.

    It was Chaffetz who decided to go public with that letter.

  105. Okay. I'm sold... by martinfb · · Score: 1

    Okay. I am convinced now. Impeach Trump.

    --


    Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
  106. Re: Why waste money... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    The same reason Powell, Rice and all the others were not prosecuted.

    Yes,because Obama was also a warmongering neoliberal freakshow, and didn't want to prosecute the previous administration least he be prosecuted himself for his own war crimes and criminality.

    it's kind of funny how it was blown up into a massive thing by the same people who suggested that it was OK for Petraeus to swap secrets for sex

    Who was actually prosecuted for mishandling classified evidence - which just reinforced the point that Comey should be thanked by Hillbots for being her BFF, not thrown under the bus.