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.

200 of 347 comments (clear)

  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 ubermiester · · Score: 2

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

    6. 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.

    7. 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.
    8. Re:So... by ausekilis · · Score: 2, Funny

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

    9. 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...

    10. 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.
    11. 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.

    12. 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

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

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

    14. 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.

    15. 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.
    16. 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.

    17. 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.

    18. 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.

    19. 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.
    20. 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.

    21. 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.

    22. 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
    23. 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.

    24. 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).

    25. 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).

    26. 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.
    27. 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.

    28. 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.

    29. 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.
    30. Re: So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

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

    31. 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.

    32. 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.

    33. 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=-
    34. 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.

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

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

    36. 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.

    37. 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
    38. 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.

    39. 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.

    40. 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.

    41. 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.

    42. 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.

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

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

    44. 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.

    45. 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.

    46. 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?

    47. 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
    48. 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
    49. 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.

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

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

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

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

    52. 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

    53. 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. 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 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.

    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.

    14. 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.

    15. 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
    16. 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
    17. 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
    18. Re:Anyone surprised? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      My swamper can beat up your swamper

    19. 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
    20. 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
    21. 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.
    22. 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.
    23. 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::

    24. 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.

    25. 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.

    26. 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...

    27. 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
    28. 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.

    29. 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.

    30. 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.

    31. 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.

    32. 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).

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

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

    34. 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...

    35. 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.

    36. 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.

    37. 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
    38. 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.
    39. 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.
    40. 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.
    41. 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.

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

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

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

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

    44. 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.

    45. 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.

    46. 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.

    47. 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.

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

      Indubitably.

    49. 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.

    50. 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.

    51. 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.

    52. 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.

    53. 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.

    54. 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.

  3. 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

  4. 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!”
  5. 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.

  6. 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 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.

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

    Get me that egghead Bill Gates on the line.

  8. 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 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.

    2. 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!”
  9. I think he's got tiger blood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    #winning

  10. 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.

  11. 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
  12. Ya don't say by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Trump? Plan? Surely you jest.

  13. 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

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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.
  18. 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.

  19. 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

  20. 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 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.

  21. 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...
  22. 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.

  23. 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
  24. 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?

  25. 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! --
  26. 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/
  27. 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/
  28. 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?
  29. 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.

  30. 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: 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).

    2. 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.

  31. 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.

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

    Democrats aren't going to persecute themselves genius.

    Did you just call Chaffetz a democrat?

  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. 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.

  36. 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.

  37. 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."
  38. 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.

  39. 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 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?"

    2. 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.

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

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

    i.e. they don't

  41. 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!

  42. 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.
  43. Still waiting by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

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

  44. 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.
  45. 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.

  46. 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.

  47. 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?
  48. 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".

  49. 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.

  50. 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

  51. 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...
  52. 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.

  53. 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.
  54. 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.
  55. 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.

  56. 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.

  57. 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.

  58. 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.

  59. "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 . . .)

  60. 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.

  61. 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.

  62. Re: series of tubes by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

    Stevens said "it's like a series of tubes". That is exactly what an analogy is.

  63. 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.
  64. 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.