Slashdot Mirror


Trump is Launching a New Tech Group To 'Transform and Modernize' the US Govt (recode.net)

President Donald Trump announced on Monday he has signed an executive order creating a new technology council to "transfer and modernize" the U.S. government's IT systems. From a report: The gathering is part of a new effort, called the American Technology Council, commissioned by Trump in an executive order signed this morning. The effort seeks to bring leading government officials together with Silicon Valley's top minds in order to "transform and modernize" the aging federal bureaucracy "and how it uses and delivers information." Trump isn't the first sitting U.S. president to look to Silicon Valley in an attempt to bring government into the digital age. His predecessor, former President Barack Obama, similarly launched efforts like the U.S. Digital Service, which the administration billed at the time as a "startup at the White House" that sought to pair tech experts with federal agencies that needed help. Over 20 technology chief executives will attend meetings at the White House in early June to talk about improving government information technology, the report adds.

192 comments

  1. Nerd Harder! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This will be where they implement the backdoors that aren't....

  2. Jared? by DogDude · · Score: 2

    What happened to Jared (his son-in-law)? I thought he was supposed to be modernizing the government.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re:Jared? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Got et by a swamp gator.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Jared? by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yep. The problem isn't that the government isn't "digital" enough, the problem is that it's run by people who wouldn't recognize the scientific method if it was served to them on a plate with a sprig of parsley on top.

      If he goes to Silicon Valley all he'll find is a bunch of people who want to sell him a lot of useless new computers+software under a lucrative government contract.

      --
      No sig today...
    3. Re:Jared? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What happened to Jared (his son-in-law)? I thought he was supposed to be modernizing the government.

      He's too busy losing weight eating sandwiches from Subway.

    4. Re:Jared? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The subway sammich guy?! Isn't he in jail?!

    5. Re:Jared? by bobbied · · Score: 2

      THAT Jared, Jared Fogel (sp?) IS in jail..... The Jared being discussed is Trump's son-in-law, who is not (at least at this point) in jail.....

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    6. Re:Jared? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoosh (and marked insightful too. :/ )

    7. Re:Jared? by TrumpShaker · · Score: 1

      I thought so too, but I think he read the order as "transfer and monetize"

    8. Re:Jared? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      What happened to Jared (his son-in-law)? I thought he was supposed to be modernizing the government.

      He was the spokesman for Subway, but he got into some trouble I heard.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    9. Re:Jared? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      THAT Jared, Jared Fogel (sp?) IS in jail..... The Jared being discussed is Trump's son-in-law, who is not (at least at this point) in jail..

      I'm pretty sure they're the same guy. You ever see them together?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    10. Re:Jared? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      First you need to understand how government operates...

      And before y'all get the snide jokes rolling, recognize that our government is largely more effective than most on the planet AND that solutions intended for private sector fail horribly in this space (look up Mcnamara how his business-like management of the Vietnam War failed)

      http://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/09/world/mcnamara-recalls-and-regrets-vietnam.html

    11. Re:Jared? by Joce640k · · Score: 0

      If the US Gov. is "more effective than most" it's mostly because it has more money to burn.

      --
      No sig today...
    12. Re:Jared? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      And then the Trump Tweet claiming "Oracle sold me the best deal ever for routers!"

    13. Re: Jared? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      are you smoking something?

    14. Re:Jared? by Etcetera · · Score: 1

      Yep. The problem isn't that the government isn't "digital" enough, the problem is that it's run by people who wouldn't recognize the scientific method if it was served to them on a plate with a sprig of parsley on top.

      If he goes to Silicon Valley all he'll find is a bunch of people who want to sell him a lot of useless new computers+software under a lucrative government contract.

      If he goes to Silicon Valley all he'll find is a bunch of people who fetishize 'data' and algorithmic analysis over critical thinking, reasoning, reliability engineering, or domain knowledge skills. We tried this in 2008 and a bunch of the data experts failed then too, because this shit is actually hard and usually doesn't get solved by the creative destruction of a new image recognition app to replace bureaucrats.

    15. Re:Jared? by ProfBooty · · Score: 1

      nah we just have less visible corruption. Interactions with federal civil servants don't require you to provide a bribe to get them to do their job.

      --
      Bring back the old version of slashdot.
    16. Re:Jared? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nono you got it wrong, they are monetizing not modernizing.

    17. Re:Jared? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well the real kink is even the most logical person cares about a whole lot of garbage that has zero data driven support. They'll argue until they are blue in the face for a data driven government because they care a whole lot about things where their position is well supported by science. As soon as it means their GMO food doesn't need to be labeled, or a nuclear plant is going in around the corner, or their neighbor can have a firearm then they lose their #($@ in emotional arguments.

    18. Re:Jared? by Z80a · · Score: 1

      At least it's not D-Link.

  3. Please don't move to public cloud. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I worry about government use of modified public cloud services. We should ban government from using pure cloud solutions because the companies can hold the government hostage with the "big off switch". The gov needs to control the DataCenters that run the operations that citizens rely on.

    1. Re:Please don't move to public cloud. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I worry about government use of modified public cloud services. We should ban government from using pure cloud solutions because the companies can hold the government hostage with the "big off switch". The gov needs to control the DataCenters that run the operations that citizens rely on.

      And so we should continue to host internally on IIS servers using Access and Visual Basic front ends?

      Next, you'll be advocating we keep COBOL.

      Or Lotus Notes.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re: Please don't move to public cloud. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Get real. I mean modernize but keep control. For os and database systems we have enough good people in government to form a Linux distribution and an open source database platform and come up with a total open fips compliant workflow that can run anywhere there's a hyypvisor.

      Then throw a team at forking open stack as the base and adding all the things gov needs, then have darpa build a standardized hardware platform and then manufacture the damn things by the container full.

    3. Re: Please don't move to public cloud. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't even need your own distro. RHEL 7 is govt approved and can be easily configured to work in compliance with FIPS mandates.

    4. Re:Please don't move to public cloud. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lovely strawmen you have there. Did you make them yourself?

    5. Re: Please don't move to public cloud. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How's that a straw man?

    6. Re:Please don't move to public cloud. by bleh-of-the-huns · · Score: 1

      This is less of a concern. The cloud infrastructure used by the gov is for the most part, a completely separate infrastructure from the regular cloud setup the rest of us use. They have already gone through the FISMA compliance process, and their are agreements in place to try to mitigate your concerns.

      As for being held hostage, well that happens in gov owned and operated datacenters too. Most government entities use contractors still to manage or build/maintain applications. I can say from personal experience that some are assholes. We had one, when we decided to not continue the contract and move to a different application, log into the application server, change the passwords to lock us out of the database to prevent us from migrating the data. They were stupid since the DB password was stored in the config files (this was in 2004 time frame) unencrypted. So I was easily able to access the data because we had physical access to the servers. Sometimes, even physical access does not help. Some contracts stipulate that you do not have admin or root accounts on the servers (even though they are in the federal datacenter). As the security engineer at the time, I had that provision removed from the contract if they wanted to move forward, we were not about to allow any equipment into our datacenter that the security team did not at least have access to, even if the server group did not.

      --
      I came, I conquered, I coredumped
    7. Re: Please don't move to public cloud. by networkBoy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Um...
      I believe the NSA is rather good at this. (I'm being serious)
      Maybe they can redeem themselves and put some of that internal cloud capability they have up for general government usage?
      They have the following skills/assets already in-house:
      * Security
      * Archiving
      * Indexing
      * Infrastructure
      * Scalability
      * Tons of other crap.

      I'll give bonus points for re-using the existing equipment and drop table-ing the meta data they have on US citizens.

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    8. Re:Please don't move to public cloud. by Q-Hack! · · Score: 2

      Well, much of our nuclear systems are still using PDP-11s

      --
      Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
    9. Re:Please don't move to public cloud. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Proposal:

      (Sorry for the mess, ASCII art is verboten on /.)

      | Politician | ----- | Some guy with a bunch of advertiser's email addresses |
      | Government Terminal | ------------- | Gov Data, Processes, military / political strategies, research, Up to the second personnel locations, Launch codes, etc. |

      Yeah, remind me why removing the government's day to day operations and knowledge from the government and placing into the hands of someone with nothing but profit motive is a good thing for the citizenry???? Especially when that government is (supposedly) a government that represents the will of the people, and you're giving all of it to what may as well be a dictator???? How's that any better than a bunch of unpatched and misconfigured IIS servers or VB frontends that the runtime won't install for? Seems like both would be bad for the citizenry that depended on them. What with everything just being given to them and all....

    10. Re:Please don't move to public cloud. by zlives · · Score: 1

      are those the only 2 options? you argue bigly!!!

    11. Re:Please don't move to public cloud. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I worry about government use of modified public cloud services. We should ban government from using pure cloud solutions because the companies can hold the government hostage with the "big off switch". The gov needs to control the DataCenters that run the operations that citizens rely on.

      And so we should continue to host internally on IIS servers using Access and Visual Basic front ends?

      Next, you'll be advocating we keep COBOL.

      Or Lotus Notes.

      So if you were a CIO and were managing a new implementation that had the restriction "keep the servers in house", you would implement it on IIS using Access and VB front ends, COBOL, and/or Lotus Notes?
      Do you actually have such a limited an understanding of available technologies that for you it's either "public cloud" or 1990's technology?

    12. Re:Please don't move to public cloud. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, remind me why removing the government's day to day operations and knowledge from the government and placing into the hands of someone with nothing but profit motive is a good thing for the citizenry????

      Obviously keeping these systems in the hands of people with nothing but the power motive is a sounder solution.

    13. Re: Please don't move to public cloud. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the NSA won't share its data centers.
      Plus, the DoD systems still use Netware, Banyan Vines, NT 3/3.51, etc., and couldn't run on them.
      That leaves the IRS, SSA (Social Security Admin) etc. out too, since their systems are all still running on IBM 14-series, CDC 6600s, Burroughs A-series, etc., hardware.

    14. Re:Please don't move to public cloud. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      False choice fallacy. Not using 'cloud' != using outdated tech.

      Obvious troll is obvious.

    15. Re: Please don't move to public cloud. by Major+Blud · · Score: 1

      They have the following skills/assets already in-house:
      * Security

      Are you kidding? They couldn't prevent one of their sysadmin contractors from walking out with all of their sensitive info:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
    16. Re:Please don't move to public cloud. by jsepeta · · Score: 1

      IIS? Hell I'd love to run it from the ISS!

      --
      Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
    17. Re:Please don't move to public cloud. by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1
      If you read Trump's order, what it says is:

      The new tech group will give it the most serious and urgent consideration, and insist on a thorough and rigorous examination of all the proposals, allied to a detailed feasibility study and budget analysis before producing a consultative document for consideration by all interested bodies and seeking comments and recommendations to be included in a brief for a series of working parties who will produce individual studies which will provide the background for a more wide-ranging document considering whether or not the proposal should be taken forward to the next stage.

      Just like every other time this has been proposed, except this time with Trump running things it'll be even more dysfunctional.

    18. Re:Please don't move to public cloud. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who contracts for the government, we are required to periodically provide a third-party escrow LLC with the means to run and/or export our systems. I imagine any "cloud provider" would be required to do the same.

    19. Re: Please don't move to public cloud. by TexNex · · Score: 1

      Between NIST & NSA published standards (available on both web sites, more with gov/mil access) every MS product and many of the *NIX flavors have been secured (for the most part). The problem is the bureaucracy -- the documentation, paperwork, politics, more paperwork, studies, dick sucking, etc... required to get an agency (hell, a sub-department) to change anything is so mind numbing it is just not worth the effort for the most part. If you climb the ladder high enough to actually be able to change something, your efforts are usually stalled by infighting because you stepped into someone else's office empire and there will be blood.

  4. Let the filling of the Feeding Trough begin by gtall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Said the CEO of Oracle: what ya need there is a collection of giant databases...and cloud, let there be cloud
    Said the CEO of Microsoft: what ya need there is a PC or MS compatible computing thing on every desk...and cloud, let there be cloud
    Said the CEO of Apple: what ya need there is a collection of iThings for instant communication...errr..with the cloud, let there be cloud
    Said the CEO of IBM: what ya need there is a Watson AI Cloudy Thingy in every agency...more cloud for every one
    etc.
    etc.
    etc.

    1. Re:Let the filling of the Feeding Trough begin by the_other_one · · Score: 2

      So it just could be that Trump has cloudy judgement.

      --
      134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
    2. Re:Let the filling of the Feeding Trough begin by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      Said the CEO of Oracle: what ya need there is a collection of giant databases...
      Said the CEO of Microsoft: what ya need there is a PC or MS compatible computing thing on every desk...
      Said the CEO of Apple: what ya need there is a collection of iThings for instant communication...
      Said the CEO of IBM: what ya need there is a Watson AI Cloudy Thingy in every agency...
      etc...

      That's what happens when you get a bunch of blind men and an elephant.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    3. Re:Let the filling of the Feeding Trough begin by bobbied · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Said the CEO of Oracle: what ya need there is a collection of giant databases...and cloud, let there be cloud Said the CEO of Microsoft: what ya need there is a PC or MS compatible computing thing on every desk...and cloud, let there be cloud Said the CEO of Apple: what ya need there is a collection of iThings for instant communication...errr..with the cloud, let there be cloud Said the CEO of IBM: what ya need there is a Watson AI Cloudy Thingy in every agency...more cloud for every one etc. etc. etc.

      Hey, to be fair here, that Obama Care website filled up a bunch of pigs too, much like the stimulus plan of 2008 that Sherriff Joe was supposed to keep track of every dollar.....

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    4. Re:Let the filling of the Feeding Trough begin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See, there is a market for maybe five computers in this world after all! Thomas J. Watson was right all along. Lets see what digital transformation can do for Trump instead of Trump doing for the digital transformation.

    5. Re:Let the filling of the Feeding Trough begin by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If he listens to any of those particular assholes, I hope it's IBM and not any of the other BMs on your list. At least they might deliver working solutions.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Let the filling of the Feeding Trough begin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like you haven't worked with IBM over the last 10 years then. Oracle and IBM I would say are on par for actually delivering a product over budget and way late.

      IBM makes me sad, I grew up near an IBM plant, it was once a great company. That times has long passed though.

    7. Re:Let the filling of the Feeding Trough begin by barrygrommit · · Score: 1

      Yes! At last, someone has solved the problem: we clearly need thingies everywhere, connected, talking to each other, exchanging data about everything, everywhere, every time. And selling all that information. With pictures.

      Of course, we will all be encouraged to remove those TVs, phones, lamps, heaters, and any other electronic device from our bedrooms and bathrooms, because, you know...those things talk to each other.

    8. Re:Let the filling of the Feeding Trough begin by StevenMaurer · · Score: 1

      ... much like the stimulus plan of 2008 that Sherriff Joe was supposed to keep track of every dollar.....

      The stimulus plan was mostly targeted tax breaks, except for direct bailouts that were given to auto companies and a few major banks (those who had been pressured by the Bush administration to buy toxic assets, thereby jeopardizing their own solvency). Of that latter, every single penny was paid back to the US taxpayer, with interest, and actually made a tidy profit.

      So if you're trying to compare "that Obama Care website" (there were actually dozens, and still are) to the 2008 stimulus plan, you're saying something completely different than you think you are.

      Honestly, you sound like you fully drank the Alex Jones/Rush Limbaugh kool-aid, given how non-specific and fact-free your attack is. Try again when you don't sound like an equally clueless anti-free-trade leftist.

    9. Re:Let the filling of the Feeding Trough begin by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Comon... Really you don't see how these things where the products of intense lobbying efforts and designed to line specific pockets? Are you blind or is there lots of sand between your eyes and daylight?

      In the spirit of bipartisanship, can we not agree that BOTH sides engage in this mutual back scratching behavior to varying degrees? I won't quibble about which side is worse at such behavior as long as you admit it's happening no matter who's in power...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  5. Coincidence? Probably not. by OmniGeek · · Score: 5, Funny

    The story immediately preceding this one is titled "There's No Good Way To Kill a Bad Idea." I see a theme emerging here, and feel like running for cover. Very fast.

    --

    "My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
    1. Re:Coincidence? Probably not. by the_skywise · · Score: 1

      Well it obviously worked so well when Obama did it that we need to do it again.

      Frankly this just sounds more like both political parties have figured out how to get silicon valley onboard to justify taking their lobbying dollars.

    2. Re:Coincidence? Probably not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And no one takes the right seriously anymore because they can't be bothered to read the parent post that they are replying to

    3. Re:Coincidence? Probably not. by Cyberpunk+Reality · · Score: 2

      I assure you, if Trump left office right now, just like Obama did four months ago, he would get nothing but praise from the left.

      --
      Rule 35 of the internet: "If it can be hacked, it will be". - Charles Stross
    4. Re:Coincidence? Probably not. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Actually, I understand why the pervious poster was on a rant.... He did read the post... AND The fine article attached....

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    5. Re:Coincidence? Probably not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Were you triggered? Poor snowflake

      You Trumpanzees are dumber than cattle

    6. Re:Coincidence? Probably not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, that whole healthcare thing was clearly just the left chanting "racist, sexist, misogyny."

      Ditto for pulling the US economy out of the real estate crash. And repealing "don't ask, don't tell." And banning enhanced interrogation. And opening diplomatic relations with Cuba after 50 years. And the Opening Doors program that reduced homelessness among veterans by almost 50%. And putting ITT out of business and ending decades of exploitation of students. And improving school food nutrition standards.

      Yes, the left spends a lot of time chanting about racism, sexism and misogyny. Perhaps if the right stopped being a bunch of racist, sexist, misogynists, the left would have time to tackle other issues. Until then, we aren't going to shut up and we will keep calling you out and exposing your behavior.

    7. Re:Coincidence? Probably not. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because I didn't vote for Trump or Clinton, I must be a Trump supporter. more wonderful binary logic ... yawn

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    8. Re:Coincidence? Probably not. by Gr8Apes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      TBH, this is another "Trump is evil" post

      Nah, nothing of the sort. I see no use of polarizing terms, even.

      This is why 1/2 of America doesn't take the whiny left seriously any more. The left has no ideas left, and all they have is "RACIST, SEXIST, MISOGYNY" chants and rioting.

      I think this is why more than 1/2 of america strongly dislikes Trump (and his blind supporters) Being divisive and using polarizing terms and assigning imaginary actions to those not marching to the cliff with you does not make for a conversation starter. You might want to check your meds.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    9. Re:Coincidence? Probably not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you high uid and doting praise of AAMichael (who is as blindly right wing as they come) make you look more like his sock puppet than anything

    10. Re:Coincidence? Probably not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it makes you feel any better, nobody gives a fuck what you think.

    11. Re:Coincidence? Probably not. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      You didn't vote for Trump? Is he too left wing for you?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    12. Re:Coincidence? Probably not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because I didn't vote for Trump or Clinton, I must be a Trump supporter.

      Yes, we know you are a Trump supporter who is unwilling to take responsibility, that you either couldn't vote, or decided to lie about it, rather than admit your own clear and unambiguous support for Trump, is your own vanity showing.

      It's like you think nobody can recognize the smell of your farts. Your rancid and putrid farts, that reflect exactly what you've been consuming.

      Much like Trump. Garbage in, Garbage out.

    13. Re:Coincidence? Probably not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're so insightful why don't you step up and become involved instead? Otherwise you're just a bunch of talk.

    14. Re:Coincidence? Probably not. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      By "too far left" you mean "lots of government" ... then probably. Because the alternative is always more government as a solution to everything, right?

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    15. Re:Coincidence? Probably not. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 0

      Perhaps if the right stopped being a bunch of racist, sexist, misogynists, the left would have time to tackle other issues

      Yeah, there it is, you can't help it can you. It is actually funny at this point. Go join your local Blackbloc rioters to show your tolerance. That's all you got. Keep it up, and never win another election (except in PDR of California)

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    16. Re:Coincidence? Probably not. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      ooooh sad AC is so mean ... Waaaa.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    17. Re: Coincidence? Probably not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I am his sock puppet. I am also APK. We are all sock puppets... And we are all APK. And app guy, not that I think of it.

    18. Re:Coincidence? Probably not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pulling the US out of the crash? The economy just stagnated miserably for years. Plus putting the credit/blame for the economy on the president is silly anyway. Congress, unelected bureucrats, the Federal Reserve (which is really just private bankers), etc really have much bigger roles in the economy than the president.

    19. Re:Coincidence? Probably not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure man, we'll turn in our Blackbloc rioters badge and stop chanting as soon as you give up your white hood and robes.

    20. Re:Coincidence? Probably not. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The biggest irony is that if I had said that, the right would have called me an anti-white racist misandrist.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    21. Re:Coincidence? Probably not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The left did very little to pull anyone out of a real estate crash. Recall by then congress was already controlled by a republican majority. Congrats for repealing "don't ask, don't tell" that your poster boy, Clinton, created in the first place. Great work there. You remind me of the idiots I see on the helpdesk who would intentionally break stuff so they could look like a hero when they come in to "fix" it. Congrats for the Cuba relations too (that the left did a large amount of contributing to as well). You sure fixed that, while gaining nothing in return.

      Continue insulting and labeling the conservatives. While you ignore the truth, and choose to accuse, the right will casually stroll into another term and majority in congress. Your type of politics needs to end. The ridiculous insults, the blaming, the rioting, the accusations, the painting with the broad brush... all of it will have to go if you expect anyone to respect your views.

    22. Re:Coincidence? Probably not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you will be unpleasantly surprised to find out the majority is not with you. Liberals love to say "Reality has a liberal bias, teehee". If that is what you people really think, then it is no wonder you were so shocked to find out that Trump won, despite highly unprecedented acts... like a sitting president making extremely disparaging remarks about a candidate in ANOTHER PARTY'S PRIMARY. Further, it was despite a mostly unified media attempting to bar him from the presidency and anoint Clinton. If he managed to make it through all of that garbage and STILL get elected, that is a pretty good sign that it's more than "a few rednecks" voting for him from the bayou like so many of you love to believe. Take the time to cradle yourself, I know it's jarring to realize your world is a lie.

    23. Re:Coincidence? Probably not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you will be unpleasantly surprised to find out the majority is not with you.

      I think you'll be shocked to realize that the majority of the American people really don't like Trump.

      Liberals love to say "Reality has a liberal bias, teehee". If that is what you people really think, then it is no wonder you were so shocked to find out that Trump won, despite highly unprecedented acts...

      Shocked that Trump slinked his way into office due to the arcane rules of the Electoral College? No, nobody is shocked that he would need that.

      like a sitting president making extremely disparaging remarks about a candidate in ANOTHER PARTY'S PRIMARY.

      Yeah, how dare anybody speak out against Trump. That's just wrong.

      Further, it was despite a mostly unified media attempting to bar him from the presidency and anoint Clinton. If he managed to make it through all of that garbage and STILL get elected, that is a pretty good sign that it's more than "a few rednecks" voting for him from the bayou like so many of you love to believe. Take the time to cradle yourself, I know it's jarring to realize your world is a lie.

      Actually, the person who needs to realize their world of fantasies is a lie includes you, and Donald Trump, who still went around claiming he won in a landslide.

      The real sign is that...he lost the popular vote. He lost votes in dozens of states. He cratered as low as he could get. Too many people held their noses and voted for him, he was not beloved outside of his own garbage-loving masses.

      Fortunately for him, and unfortunately for the rest of us, the Electoral College wasn't made to ensure victory and support, but to allow any idiot to be President.

      But you, like him, don't want to live in that reality.

    24. Re:Coincidence? Probably not. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Why don't you go and live on a desert island like Robinson Crusoe? No government there, until Man Friday turned up.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  6. Appald Trump wants apps that app other apps! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Appy Appald Trump knows that only apps can app apps, so he wants the United Apps of Apperica to app apps that app other apps, NOT LUDDITE software!

    Apps!

    1. Re:Appald Trump wants apps that app other apps! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moooooo! We are all cows!

      App-using cows!

      Apps! Moo.

    2. Re:Appald Trump wants apps that app other apps! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      On Soviet Russia, rug sits on YOU!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:Appald Trump wants apps that app other apps! by zlives · · Score: 1

      appropriate use... finally

  7. We need to build a yuge fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Wall

    1. Re:We need to build a yuge fire by zlives · · Score: 1

      just like china... because governing is not easy!!

    2. Re:We need to build a yuge fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And... China never built a border wall

      They built a series of garrisons for troops to live in along their border regions

      But hey, keep sticking to your third grade reader

    3. Re:We need to build a yuge fire by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Very long, thin garrisons.

      https://s-media-cache-ak0.pini...

      If you get a bad room it's a hell of a walk to the toilet.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  8. A "royal" regime by evolutionary · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Trump's idea of a "modern government" is medieval: put all your family and friends into key positions as much as possible and hope you can run it like a monarchy. problem is the family has no real qualifications in national or international politics. So this will be fun, fun, fun.

    --
    "Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
    1. Re:A "royal" regime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Some of Trump's other ways to "modernize" government, based on recent statements and actions:

      1. Libel laws should be adjusted making it illegal to mock or contradict the US President.

      2. Laws on disclosure, conflicts of interest, or dealings with foreign powers should be repealed.

      3. Any news organization determined to be promulgating Fake News as determined by the Chief Executive or the Ministry of Truth should be shut down. In the spirit of item #1, this includes annoying venues such as the Onion or Saturday Night Live.

      4. Any scientifically-measured data that does not uphold the statements of the President or his duly appointed relatives/cronies should be tagged as Fake News and treated as outlined in item #3.

      5. Any laws of nature deemed inconvenient to the President or his duly appointed relatives/cronies should be summarily repealed.

    2. Re: A "royal" regime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Insightful. If we know of two, there could be thousands or millions more.

    3. Re:A "royal" regime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the President of the US is only 1 out of 5 million positions, see that's only 0.00002% of the executive branch, not important at all, might as well not even vote.

    4. Re:A "royal" regime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And

      6. Congress and the courts should do what the President tells them to do. Checks and Balances is an outdated concept inappropriate to the modern world.

    5. Re:A "royal" regime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're whining about two positions, his daughter and son-in-law, that could be questionable out of five million? It's really hard to take you people seriously.

      Um, you do realize that Trump's DAUGHTER and HER HUSBAND are the most powerful 2 people out of those 4,999,998 people, right? Your logic is what makes the other "you people" so hard to take seriously.

    6. Re:A "royal" regime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're whining about two positions, ...

      Really?

      So, Son. You have a choice: janitor in the Whitehouse or direct advisor me and sway policy. Which do you want?

      Unbelievable. I have come to the conclusion that our Republic is doomed. And its the People's fault.

      Democratically elected governments do not work. Now, if _I_ were only in charge, then it would be all good.

    7. Re:A "royal" regime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to help stop Trump, check out It Starts Today. If 1% of the people that voted for Hillary donate $50/month, then every democrat running for congress or the senate in 2018 will get about $1 million. Given that many people running for those offices in the past didn't even spend 100 thousand, it could be a game changer.

    8. Re:A "royal" regime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How did such a nonsensical and obviously false comment get modded up to +4, Insightful?!

      I don't support Trump, but if you're going to attack him at least do it based on actual facts, not just this leftist hate-mongering that you're spewing.

      put all your family and friends into key positions as much as possible

      Let's look at his cabinet.

      I don't see any that are obviously family members listed there.

      The people who are listed have long careers in a variety of fields that are very relevant to their cabinet positions.

      It's difficult to consider them all "friends". I wouldn't be surprised if most of them hadn't even met him personally in any meaningful way before he became president.

      If there's any complaint to be made about his cabinet choices, it's that he picked too many establishment players, when much of his campaigning suggested he would do the opposite.

      So now we have to start looking at a far more general list of Trump's other political appointments.

      Jared Kushner is just an advisor. Ivanka is an assistant. Even if they didn't hold such titles, do you really think a president wouldn't consult with close family members, or that he wouldn't take advice from them?

      Are you suggesting that something is improper with his wife being First Lady?!

      And somehow you neglect to consider how some of Trump's sons are busy running his former businesses, and are intentionally insulated from President Trump's political dealings. Heck, one of his sons is still a child!

      It's pathetic that a comment as silly and detached from reality as yours would get modded up here. Your comment is nothing but bullshit.

    9. Re:A "royal" regime by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So you're whining about two positions, his daughter and son-in-law, that could be questionable out of five million? It's really hard to take you people seriously.

      Congress passed an anti-nepotism law after JFK appointed his brother to attorney general to prevent future administrations from appointing family members to positions in the government. Just like most reform laws from the last 50 years, Trump is ignoring that one too.

      http://time.com/4574971/donald-trump-transition-jared-kushner-legal-anti-nepotism-law/

      It's really hard to take you people seriously.

      If Hillary was POTUS and she appointed Chelsea as a special adviser, the Republicans would be screaming for impeachment.

    10. Re:A "royal" regime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha, you're funny. "Actual facts."

      I don't see any that are obviously family members listed there.

      "Obvious" family members? Well, are they are not? You seem unsure.

      I wouldn't be surprised if most of them hadn't even met him personally in any meaningful way before he became president.

      This isn't a fact. It's your opinion.

      Jared Kushner is just an advisor. Ivanka is an assistant. Even if they didn't hold such titles, do you really think a president wouldn't consult with close family members, or that he wouldn't take advice from them?

      Don't know. This is your implied opinion and not a fact.

      ...some of Trump's sons...are intentionally insulated from President Trump's political dealings.

      This is an "alternative fact." Trump never "insulated" himself from his businesses to the satisfaction of the Office of Government Ethics: http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/313864-government-ethics-chief-blasts-trump-business-plan.

      Your comment is nothing but bullshit.

      And so is your reply!

    11. Re:A "royal" regime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, he won. And he'll win again because the democrats suck.

    12. Re: A "royal" regime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Name some names. Do it. We're waiting. You'd better name more than just Jared and Ivanka, too. Hurry up. We're waiting.

    13. Re:A "royal" regime by stabiesoft · · Score: 2

      He really would like to be a dictator I think. He admires Putin, embraced China, embraced Turkey's update to a dictatorship, just invited the guy from the philipines, just complained that those archaic rules in the senate(those rules that let opposing voices stop a dictator) were stopping progress, hates the press for their constantly going off topic... The guy is used to running a corp with one shareholder, he ran a small dictatorship, found it efficient (and dictatorships are efficient) and would like to bring it to government. I don't even think he realizes how a democracy is supposed to work. They are not efficient. I do worry that we could like Turkey fall into the trap. Never say never. Turkey was a democracy for around 100 years.

    14. Re:A "royal" regime by evolutionary · · Score: 1

      Good Point! I wasn't aware of that.

      --
      "Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
    15. Re:A "royal" regime by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      So you're whining about two positions, his daughter and son-in-law, that could be questionable out of five million? It's really hard to take you people seriously.

      You honestly fail to grasp that the nearer to the top a position is, the more impact it has?

      No wonder you can't take them seriously. Honestly, it's amazing you remember to breathe.

    16. Re:A "royal" regime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Different AC than the one you replied to.

      All I can say to you're statement "this isn't a fact. It's your opinion" is, well, duh. That's why he put "I wouldn't be surprised...".

      And then to his statement that with his daughter and son in law being advisers simply by being close to him, are you seriously arguing that? Two people he's closer to than any others on earth and you don't think they're defacto advisers?

      You accuse him of alternative facts and then quote an article published before Trump even took office and I'm not sure if it's even still accurate.

      I'm honestly trying to figure out if your reply is in jest or if it's serious.

    17. Re:A "royal" regime by evolutionary · · Score: 1

      To be fair, Trump dictatorships were not that effective. His businesses were mostly lacklustre at best or bankrupt at worse. He may owe 300 mil (possibly to a russian bank by proxy). Trump university was hoot (total scam). And his buildings are not exactly great quality when they are built (a few problems with falling glass panels in Toronto, Canada as I recall. I'm not sure he "embraced "China either. Remember, he was telling President Xi Jinping that he wouldn't recognize the "One China" policy. A few days later he's publically declaring he recognizes it. quite the reversal. (wonder what words took place..) It seems true that Trump doesn't care of democracy or rule of law and you are correct that we could get into the situation Turkey is now. Cool bit of insight. It's amazing how much we COULD learn from our neighbours....but don't.

      --
      "Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
    18. Re:A "royal" regime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Golly he should be impeached by now right?

      Oh wait.. he's NOT ignoring that law.

      http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/21/...
      "The Justice Department concluded Friday that Jared Kushner serving in his father-in-law's administration would not be a violation of federal anti-nepotism laws.
      "In choosing his personal staff, the President enjoys an unusual degree of freedom, which Congress found suitable to the demands of his office," wrote Daniel Koffsky, deputy assistant attorney general in the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel, which serves as interpreter of federal law for the White House.
      In essence, Koffsky reasoned that the anti-nepotism law covers only appointments in an "executive" agency and that the White House Office is not an executive agency within the law. He cited a separate law that gives the President broad powers to hire his staff.

      That law authorizes the president to appoint "employees in the White House office without regard to any other provision of law regulating the employment or compensation of persons in the government service."

    19. Re:A "royal" regime by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Golly he should be impeached by now right?

      It's not a question of if, it's when Trump will get impeached. Nixon resigned after he lost support of 75% of the Republicans in Congress.

    20. Re:A "royal" regime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh-huh... and I believe that as much as I believe your assertion that Trump is ignoring the anti-nepotism law.

      You're wrong.

    21. Re:A "royal" regime by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      You're wrong.

      I got the 2016 election wrong. So what?

    22. Re:A "royal" regime by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      And 5 million who need leadership. Trump administration is behind in filling the key positions that always change when the power structure changes, and this is further behind than other modern administrations. Chris Christie was supposed to be leading this transition team before he got dumped, and after that it hasn't gathered much steam. The result is that a lot of people that the work should be delegated aren't there. The high level governing via daily press-report disguised as executive order isn't getting things done.

    23. Re:A "royal" regime by davros74 · · Score: 1

      And then follow up with a feel-good "Two Minutes of Hate".

    24. Re:A "royal" regime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Hillary was POTUS the Republicans would be screaming for impeachment.

      FTFY

    25. Re:A "royal" regime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, they'd already be screaming for impeachment on principle.

      So it would have to be Double Secret Impeachment.

  9. It's like . . . by DickBreath · · Score: 4, Funny

    It is as if millions of COBOL programmers suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced.

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    1. Re:It's like . . . by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      You mean laughing out loud....it ain't never going to happen. Just look at the armed forces.

    2. Re:It's like . . . by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      In another topic on Slashdot this morning I wrote:

      As part of my retirement plan, I will seriously brush up on COBOL in the year 9995. In about the year 9997 everyone will start getting worried about the Y10K problem. People will think Y10K will be the end of civilization as we switch over to five digit years. There will be lots of COBOL work available.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  10. The problem is ... by thadtheman · · Score: 1

    Silicon Valley , osftware version, is more about hype and less about production.

    1. Re:The problem is ... by thadtheman · · Score: 0

      *software version*

  11. Start with the EPA! by mspohr · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    We don't need no stinking EPA website. It just confuses people. Too much information.
    Let's simplify government!
    https://www.washingtonpost.com...

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  12. Kleptocracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, you're saying that Trump is creating a Kleptocracy for those who are politically connected?

    Business as usual. If anyone works for those companies, start up an employee stock purchase plan - you can buy at a discount.

    My father worked in defense contracting all his life since the 60s and left me and my siblings seven figures when he died - and he worked as nothing more than an engineer. But he was always enrolled in the employee stock purchase plan.

  13. Yeeeaaaahhh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Going by his previous appointments, I'm going to guess some of their recommendations:

    1. All government websites and services will now feature prominent advertising. This advertising will feed income to a fund controlled by the Trump family of companies, and will obviously be specially earmarked for the betterment of further government improvements.

    2. $100,000 can buy you one vote of your choice in a house floor vote. $250,000 can buy you a vote in any Senate floor vote. Funds controlled by the same established process above. Common citizens are encouraged to use these methods to participate, and are encouraged to use Trump bank for competitive loan rates and terms. The president can specially veto these votes separate from elected official votes.

    3. A national privatized emergency fire services will replace traditional 'fireman' services. This will consist of an army of high-quality drones capable of dropping foam, at only $25,000 per drone used, per event. You can be sure of the quality, with the Trump logo on each drone.

    I'm sure the real ones will make these look tame.

  14. Monetize by MatiasKiviniemi · · Score: 1

    First read that "transform and monetize", maybe that's how the tax cuts get balanced and they'll get a healthcare reform agreement. Make America Freemium Again

  15. It should be easy by Rastl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just like fixing healthcare and the tax code revising the entire IT infrastructure for the federal government should be easy right?

    1. Re:It should be easy by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      The Orange Guy: "It looks so simple when they do it in the movies."

    2. Re:It should be easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He probably does not yet realize, that Silicon Valley won't solve his perceived problems, but cater a product tailored to his exact specifications.

      Who knew, doing things could be so complicated

  16. Dismissed out of hand for lack of evidence. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trumps announcements are devoid of meaning. Do you have another source for this?

    1. Re:Dismissed out of hand for lack of evidence. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trumps announcements are devoid of meaning. Do you have another source for this?

      I know. Trump hasn't even closed Gitmo yet.

  17. Great! by wjcofkc · · Score: 1

    I'll just go dust off my Windows 2000 Server book and send them my resume.

    --
    Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
    1. Re:Great! by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      NT4.0sp6a might be more accurate :/

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    2. Re:Great! by wjcofkc · · Score: 1

      If I could moderate that comment I am not sure if it would be Funny or Insightful.

      --
      Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
  18. How will that help by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If 1% of the people that voted for Hillary donate $50/month, then every democrat running for congress or the senate in 2018 will get about $1 million.

    Hillary outspent Trump about 10-1 and still lost.

    So plainly the notion that money is the absolute determinant in politics is false.

    Given the Democrats penchant for blowing money or horrifically inept candidates, why would you continue to be such an enabler? What makes you think Democrats will change for the better if you keep funding the corrupt organization of the past, the kind that hand-picked Hilary over Sanders?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:How will that help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      So plainly the notion that money is the absolute determinant in politics is false.

      Oh no, the Republican gerrymandering is also a significant factor.

      North Carolina, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Virginia, Texas, Alabama, Florida, and Georgia all demonstrate the effectiveness of that manipulation.

      Of course, they already lost in Arizona, so it won't be long before the people start taking back the power. Then what will they do?

    2. Re:How will that help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the very real voter fraud those fucksticks should be investigating.

    3. Re:How will that help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're referring to the presidency, there was no gerrymandering as state lines haven't been redrawn in quite some time. And if you're talking about in congress, can I recommend you not cite an opinion piece. It might be what people call "fake news". It is after all a piece that ignores that dems held both house and senate in 2008 and managed to lose them to the republicans in 2010, or do they mean that the GOP gerrymandered when they didn't hold power?

    4. Re:How will that help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're referring to the presidency, there was no gerrymandering as state lines haven't been redrawn in quite some time. And if you're talking about in congress, can I recommend you not cite an opinion piece.

      Somebody who read the links would notice they include references to court cases (decisions of which are often termed "options" I might add) and were not limited to just the presidency. Not that the Electoral College isn't an example of the ability to distort an election through an arcane system of manipulation, influenced by the malapportionment of the House.

      It might be what people call "fake news".

      Yes, your assertion that it was simply citing an "opinion piece" would constitute "fake news" in my book, as you're simply not being honest or forthright.

      It is after all a piece that ignores that dems held both house and senate in 2008 and managed to lose them to the republicans in 2010, or do they mean that the GOP gerrymandered when they didn't hold power?

      What, you mean you're relying on some focus on the 2010 election, to ignore the impact of the gerrymandering in subsequent elections? But a look at the state-by-state results can still show gerrymandering. Not to mention how it was an election driven mostly by the GOP's lie-driven hysteria over the Affordable Care Act which they desperately tried to repeal for 6 years, failing continually, and when they were forced to admit they couldn't just repeal it by waving their magic wand, they ended up failing with Trumpcare?

      Yeah, that's about as good as Donald Trump's analysis of Andrew Jackson. Except I might just be able to give Trump credit for simply being too dumb to realize how wrong what he was saying was.

      Or should I give you the benefit of the doubt, and believe that instead of trying to slyly avoid the problem with a lot of bloviation, you just couldn't bother to read what's been easily shown?

      Just tell me, are you dumb, or are you a bullshitter?

    5. Re:How will that help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given the Democrats penchant for blowing money or horrifically inept candidates, why would you continue to be such an enabler?

      That is some horribly inept analysis. Hillary won the popular vote and lost the electoral college by a rounding error. She still lost, but this "horribly inept" hyperbole is silly.

    6. Re:How will that help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because all that gerrymandering worked so well in 2008 and 2012.

      And the people already took back the power 7 months ago. Oh wait, that wasn't "the people" that was gerrymandering. When your side "takes back the power" that'll be legitimate right?

      BS.

    7. Re:How will that help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You betcha. That's how Progressives operate. They'll do or say anything to get to their utopia - except for themselves, everyone shall lead dreary identical lives.

    8. Re:How will that help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump gained a lot of free advertising from various sources. That was his genius, in a nutshell. All the idiot shit he said? - every time a journalist talks about how dumb he is, that's free publicity right there. And it also pushes the story that the press is against him (where in fact he's playing them like a virtuoso cellist).

      And then there was Wikileaks. And Comey. I don't think Trump paid for either of those, I think Putin did.

    9. Re:How will that help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because all that gerrymandering worked so well in 2008 and 2012.

      2008? Yes, though not entirely, since they were down far enough it wasn't quite all they needed, but you can certainly see some effects. Still, George W. Bush's incredible plunge in popularity was massive. He failed, egregiously, and caused a nosedive off his coattails. This is what caused the GOP to get even more desperate with their gerrymandering and voter law manipulation.

      2012? Absolutely. You may not have heard, since you were distracted by Obama winning, but the legislative districts were HEAVILY gerrymandered. It was quite obvious.

      Frankly, the Democrats made a mistake in not taking advantage of the situation they had in 2008, they could have immediately added 100 seats, and thrown the GOP for a loop. They could have even put in the Jungle Primary nationwide. Actual proportional voting would be more difficult to institute, but not impossible.

      And the people already took back the power 7 months ago.

      Nope, the people got denied. And even worse than in 2000, or 1876, or 1824.

      Oh wait, that wasn't "the people" that was gerrymandering.

      Exactly, gerrymandering, in Michigan, in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and the other states mentioned, as well as some others.

      And also notice how the the turnout was down. Of course, Trump had to egregiously lie about that, and claim otherwise, but the fact is, he himself underperformed. He wasn't popular, and he didn't get much in the way of additional support.

      When your side "takes back the power" that'll be legitimate right?

      BS.

      Well, yes, you don't want some other side to take back the power, anything they do, is a stolen election, a fraud, or corruption. Much like how Trump called for a revolution in 2012, because, well, it couldn't be fair that the black man was elected twice.

      He's still bitter about Obama, BTW, making up claims about wiretapping and deep government to reflect his despite.

      Meanwhile, of course, you can't admit to the perfidity of the side you do support, because even if you are aware it exists, you deny it, or even better declare it necessary to combat the other side, who you despise.

      Really, that's the most obvious reason why the GOP and its adherents lack integrity, even ignoring their blind devotion to Trump, they can't even see what they've done wrong, not ever. They're still trying to tell us John Wilkes Booth and Charles Guiteau were Democrats, and griping about Byrd as if none of us remember his contemporary, Strom Thurmond.

      Now it has culminated in a wretched man who shows the regard of toilet paper for everything and everyone else. I hope you enjoy the consequences of that.

      By which I mean, I will revel in the lamentations you express when you realize how you've operated.

    10. Re:How will that help by Major+Blud · · Score: 1

      the kind that hand-picked Hilary over Sanders?

      No one wants to seem to admit that they did this because she had a better shot at it than Bernie:
      https://www.theguardian.com/co...
      http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ber...

      The Democrats have always been comfortable with their minority block....if they picked Bernie, they probably would have been crushed in November.

      --
      If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
    11. Re:How will that help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... Sanders would still fail to talk about race and racism ...

      That must be why Donald won, he spoke about racism.

      ... would have been crushed in November.

      Damming Bernie for not pandering to ethnic minorities was shitty behaviour; the US government has had equality policies for 45 years and they stopped making a difference a long time ago. Another politician bleating about long-suffering ethnic inequality isn't the answer, something else needs to change. Bernie thought it was giving more political power to the people. In hindsight, Donald basically proved that people feel disenfranchised by the current system and when Bernie stopped championing reform early in the race, it was obvious those people wouldn't choose "business as usual" because it was the "lesser evil". Hilary's commitment to the moneyed extended to attacking voters who didn't approve of her "business as usual" mantra. That turned away the progressives and liberals, it turned away those exhausted by war since Hilary was a confirmed war-monger, plus those who doubted Hilary's credibility, for various reasons. That unassuming yet total support of a hidden plutocracy destroyed her future more than Donald's attack adverts and sudden ability to keep his mouth shut.

    12. Re:How will that help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bernie, or any non-Clinton candidate would have crushed Trump. Being able to win in the primaries where they have to pander to the base and the parties can exert influence (especially the Democrats with the superdelegates) isn't the same as winning the general election. Trump and Hillary are the two most disliked candidates in the history of the general election. The only chance either of those disasters had was going up against the other disaster.

    13. Re:How will that help by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Oh no, the Republican gerrymandering is also a significant factor.

      Yep, sure is, like I was saying money doesn't matter much.

      Of course, they already lost in Arizona, so it won't be long before the people start taking back the power.

      Trump *was* the people taking back the power. Sorry if you are too blind to see that. Voting for Trump was Voting Truth to Power - the ultimate political power embodied by Hillary Clinton. Voting for Sanders would have worked just as well, but the DNC chose to take away the will of the people and put forth Hillary. I wonder will the DNC put further a candidate of the people going forward or more corrupt agents of decay and greed? From the looks of the new chairman, decay and greed it is.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    14. Re:How will that help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump *was* the people taking back the power

      If by people you mean the people from Wall Street. Trump is a classic Trojan Horse, promising to be there for you, but every action he sets is either incompetent or to give his investors more power.

    15. Re:How will that help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh no, the Republican gerrymandering is also a significant factor.

      Yep, sure is, like I was saying money doesn't matter much.

      Nope, like you were saying is:

      So plainly the notion that money is the absolute determinant in politics is false.

      But no, nobody thought that there was an absolute determinant, they also recognized the manipulation of the very election process.

      Sorry you were misinformed. Money is merely an effective means, as witnessed by the massive amounts spent in many electoral campaigns.

      Of course, they already lost in Arizona, so it won't be long before the people start taking back the power.

      Trump *was* the people taking back the power. Sorry if you are too blind to see that.

      Trump is an egotistical oligarch who ranted and raved to get a slim number of people solidly behind him, that continually pretends to espouse the views they want to hear, no matter how inane (both what they want and what he says), and who didn't even manage to get the support of the people, despite his claims of doing so.

      Sorry you're too blind to see that.

      Voting for Trump was Voting Truth to Power - the ultimate political power embodied by Hillary Clinton.

      Nope, voting for Trump was Voting LIES back into power. And he's shown it.

      Voting for Sanders would have worked just as well, but the DNC chose to take away the will of the people and put forth Hillary.

      Nope, Sanders didn't get the number of votes, though in fact, he did get more than Trump. However, since the primary process was separated by partisan, obviously he couldn't win.

      But truly, Trump would not have won a competitive process, however, the RNC allowed a massive amount of Winner-Take-All primaries rather than require the will of the people to be expressed.

      I wonder will the DNC put further a candidate of the people going forward or more corrupt agents of decay and greed? From the looks of the new chairman, decay and greed it is.

      No, that's the looks of the occupant in the Oval Office. He's rotting away as we speak.

      And you know what Trump is most afraid of? Another woman being his opponent.

  19. Everything old is new again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obama had one of these committees. So did George W. And Clinton had Gore head one up.

  20. Re:Maybe, but more than most by evolutionary · · Score: 2

    Actually, I didn't believe in either candidate. (Clinton, more experienced, but not sure it's effective experience) But let's see...Ivaka's qualifications as an "advisor". I can't really find any. Jared? What are his qualifications besides being in the family. Trump himself isn't even a great business person by all accounts. To be clear, I didn't favor either candidate. But this isn't about personal opinion on candidates. Generally I prefer a president to have some experience in international or national politics before being president. Trump was never an elected official. But okay, let's give an untried politician the benefit of the doubt. Academic qualifications, Not really stellar from what I can see. Obama wasn't the best president in history by any stretch of the imagination, but no one can say he wasn't a good speaker or at least moderately educated at the very least. Certainly he refrained from phrases like "very, very badly". Okay, maybe it's Trump speech writers (or maybe he's ignoring his speech writers entirely). He has already violated the constitution in his immigration act, and that is an absolutely historical first in US history. Trump is direct, no question, but subtlety is not his strong suit or knowledge of basic government topics like, say, the constitution, which one generally needs to "Uphold and defend the Constitution of the United states of America. (as per his required oath...which unfortunately he has technically broken. ) I don't think you necessarily need a degree ( Lincoln didn't have one, but he understood the dynamics of government and the people in it ). The understanding of the system into which he's inserted himself is not showing at the moment in my view.

    --
    "Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
  21. Right idea... wrong company... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Oracle and Apple aren't even in the top 100 technology contractors. IBM and Microsoft are dwarfed by companies a lot of people have never even heard of, CSRA, CACI, SAIC, Harris, etc. Public sector contracting is it's own unique beast and succeeding in Federal contracting requires a unique combination of political prowess and tolerance for bureaucracy and, at times, sheer stupidity that many companies just won't tolerate... or even understand.

    These companies are masters at gaming the system and competing against them is very, very tough. I came into Federal contracting through the company I worked for being bought out. I did it for a few years thinking it would be interesting and I could make some sort of a difference. I finally told them to move me to a different office or I was quitting because I couldn't stand it anymore.

    Anyway, it doesn't matter whose in office. They've already been doing this and they will continue to do it long after Trump is out of office. Eisenhower warned of the dangers of letting industry get this tightly in bed with the government (specifically the military) in his farewell address and it proved to be very prescient.

    1. Re:Right idea... wrong company... by zlives · · Score: 1

      Eisenhower was speaking from experience after helping create the actual complex. In today's politics, the less experience the better...

    2. Re:Right idea... wrong company... by k6mfw · · Score: 2

      Also a lot of these companies and the people that work for them always chanting "Hoo rah for private enterprise! Down with gubmint socialism!" But yet they have just one customer: The Government.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
  22. Re:Coincidence? Probably not. -OT- by orgelspieler · · Score: 2

    Why is everybody's response to a perceived Trump criticism: "something something OBAMA something something!"? It's silly. OmniGeek never said Obama would have done it better. Frankly, I'm not sure OmniGeek even has a problem with Trump's proposal, he just found the juxtaposition humorous.

    For the record, I also had the same problem with criticisms of Obama being met with "At least he's not Bush!" That's just lazy rhetoric.

  23. Re:Maybe, but more than most by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

    Can you name and quote any "credentialed and qualified" person who has stated that Syria has moderate rebels who are positioned to turn Syria into anything remotely like Switzerland?

    Because if there's one thing I've noticed about the alt-right, it's that it's really easy for them to make up straw men to ridicule the viewpoints of their political opponents than it is to actually address what their opponents are actually saying.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  24. The gov't should create its own Linux distro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    like China does and standardize all .gov, .mil, etc. machines on it. Of course the Republicans would blast that as socialism and instead give $billions to MSFT to standardize on Windows 10.

  25. Well, I see plusses and minuses. by hey! · · Score: 1

    "Transforming" the government is something a bunch of Silicon Valley executives could no doubt accomplish. The problem is that "transformed" isn't necessary "better".

    Facebook has transformed peoples' lives, to the point it's regarded indispensable for many. It hasn't really made their lives better.

    "Transformation" is a goal without a point of view; and blank screen on which anyone is free to imagine whatever colors he likes. Not like "cheaper". Cheaper is quite concrete. "More responsive" would be harder to measure than cheaper, but at least it represents something.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:Well, I see plusses and minuses. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure about that. Despite all the evils of facebook (and there are many, mostly to do with how they use our information), they have transformed how we communicate efficiently. My kids school has a program with facebook where the teachers post homework, notes and updates. Remember how bad this was when we were kids (at least speaking for myself) after a sick day? or setting up a tech meetup which takes about 30 mins of someone's time rather than the half a day it used to take one of our admins. or starting a revolution in Egypt (just saying!). people forget how efficient communicating has become (and yes, we have the farce where a bunch of people track which kardashian poops the most!). i would literally spend a day in the library looking for where the books related to my subject were, find the one that was closest to my problem, read it up, change my mind and repeat. If silicon valley just changes the way information is accessed and available to any of us (if you ever tried going to the social security office or any of our wonderful banks with their archaic crapware that they call support; or even government agencies that make a business out of employing hundreds of folks to "manage" contracts and write tenders) this maybe worth it. But so far, everything the guy at the top has done seems to turn into shit. He's got the midas touch for producing shit both in spirit and verbally

  26. The Cyber by Arkham · · Score: 5, Interesting
    And I quote:

    So we have to get very, very tough on cyber and cyber warfare. It is a, it is a huge problem. I have a son.

    He's 10 years old. He has computers. He is so good with these computers, it's unbelievable. The security aspect of cyber is very, very tough. And maybe it's hardly do-able. But I will say, we are not doing the job we should be doing, but that's true throughout our whole governmental society.

    What a fucking moron.

    --
    - Vincit qui patitur.
    1. Re:The Cyber by TrumpShaker · · Score: 1

      Hey, don't bash him too hard! He obviously knows the cyber and cyber warfare huge, hugely even. He is stating a fact, it is tough to secure cyber! And lastly, he takes the blame, "WE are not doing the job WE should be doing".... ;-) If he could cyber good like the good cyber people do, we would do better cyber!

      Another thing, "He's 10 years old. He has computers. He is so good with these computers, it's unbelievable." -
      I can't count how many times I've heard parents dote on their kids on how great they are with computers. Mostly it's something like they can find where that document went the parent downloaded or they can transfer files to a flash drive. Rarely it's "my kid wrote their own Minecraft server in Forth" or something.

      So which of these two does the youngest Trump son fall into?

    2. Re:The Cyber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, it's called "Cyber Warfare" (and shortened to "Cyber", because suits love quick, pithy-sounding phrases) because "Electronic Warfare" has been around since at least the 1950's and refers to signal jamming and counter-jamming (and counter-counter-*-jamming) techniques.

      It's not shortened to C-War because that sounds like "Sea War", which would be confusing. It's not "Computer Warfare" because that sounds like video games.

      Naming things is hard.

      > The security aspect of cyber is very, very tough.

      This is true. Everyone who's even vaguely respected in the computer security field agrees. Attackers get a _huge_ advantage, and computers (both the hardware and the software that runs on it) are currently not designed with security in mind.

      > But I will say, we are not doing the job we should be doing, but that's true throughout our whole governmental society.

      Again, that's true.

      Other than the irrelevant digression about that son, I'm not sure why you're calling the guy a fucking moron. All of the other statements are correct and are corroborated by people who do computer security for a living.

    3. Re:The Cyber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      powers of expression != capability

  27. Hipster coders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ohh Great,, more Java..

  28. Re:Maybe, but more than most by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There are moderate rebels in Syria. Or at least, there were. There was a sizable Syrian rebel force that was fighting to create a secular state and thought ISIS and AQ were both backwards rednecks. Unfortunately, there were more AQ and ISIS guys with more guns and support and basically executed the leaders and outspoken proponents of that ideology. The remainder are still out there, but in a much more reduced role.

    Source: I have lots of Syrian Moderate Muslims friends who were sending much material and monetary support to these groups before they were destroyed.

  29. Misread that by AdamThor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Uh, "Transform and Modernize", or "Transfer and Monetize"?

    --
    -- "Oh. This guy again."
    1. Re:Misread that by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      I think you could pay for all of the IT upgrades needed by the US Federal government if only we could monetize the continuing butt-hurt over Trump's victory in the election.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  30. Re:Maybe, but more than most by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By any reasonable measure, Trump is showing far more discernment so far in foreign policy.

    OK, so how does one measure "discernment" in regard to US foreign policy? Is there some sort of device, perhaps available from the scientologists, that can quantify "discernment"?

    Perhaps you mean "has a correct understanding" (of the world outside the USA). Now, if we were to take the Middle East, my assessment is that the fundamental issue is oil. Specifically, various rich and powerful people around the world are trying to make themselves even more rich and powerful by getting access to this oil by tricking people who are less rich and powerful to fight each other in the Middle East - with religion being a powerful tool trick people into fighting even when they people doing the fighting are unlikely to benefit significantly themselves.

    Is that Trump's view? Or do you perhaps believe that another narrative of what is happening in the Middle East is more correct.

    Your argument sounds like most liberals who puff themselves up on their perception of their own intelligence, particularly the sort that thought that Clinton had foreign policy expertise.

    I imagine that most liberals weren't all that impressed with Hillary's foreign policy - thinking that the Iraq war was a good idea, turning a blind eye to the Saudi oppression of women, etc.

  31. Good luck with that by MAXOMENOS · · Score: 1

    To modernize Federal IT, one must first find money to modernize Federal IT, then one must make broad, sweeping changes to Federal procurement rules.

    I don't see either of those happening. If they do, I don't see the second ending at all well.

  32. Shuffling paper in a cave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't there a small army of workers in a cave north of Pittsburgh, doing nothing but moving paper around in the name of government bureaucracy?

  33. Fact: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    45 > 44

  34. Re:Coincidence? Probably not. -OT- by OmniGeek · · Score: 1

    To be clear, most "transform" or "modernize" efforts, regardless of the political faction that launched them, and regardless of their innate merit, seem to run aground somewhere around halfway through when they start impinging on the interests of powerful political or institutional constituencies. Those that get through to the point of concrete proposals or final reports tend to be sent off to die of neglect in a legislative subcommittee.

    In the case of Trump's proposals, I think this will be a good thing, as the guiding principle of this administration (inasmuch as there can be said to be ANY principles at work there) seems to be to turn everything upside down, regardless of its actual merit, and break it all into the smallest bits imaginable, doing as much damage as humanly possible along the way. There's no other reasonable way (aside from simple corruption and self-serving pillaging) to interpret such actions as putting a climate-change denier in charge of the EPA and an enemy of public education in charge of the Department of Education.

    I've said it before, I'll say it again: Trump and his friends will do enormous damage to the country while failing to bring back the promised Golden Age.

    Yes, I do find the juxtaposition humorous; in dark times, we look for humor where we can find it.

    --

    "My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
  35. Elephant by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Trump will modernize government the same way his sons have modernized African wildlife.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  36. I believe slashdot put up a story by WillRobinson · · Score: 1

    That should have been a comment to https://slashdot.org/story/17/...

  37. Wrong..just wrong. by riley · · Score: 1

    You don't get actual solutions by relying on "experts" that want to sell you something. Especially billions of dollars of something. You hire experts to assess the solutions put forward by vendors.

  38. Wrong People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The White House doesn't need a bunch of CEOs with MBAs to talk about technology. It needs a bunch of engineers.

    As long as the White House is relying on Trump's billionaire golfing buddies to "improve government technology," no such improvements will happen.

  39. He wants it both ways... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump wants to destroy the scientific establishment, yet he wants the benefits of its fruits. You can't have it both ways.

  40. Has this ever worked? by DidgetMaster · · Score: 1

    Did anything good come out of the committee organized by Obama? or Bush? or Clinton?

  41. Transform the truth by aglider · · Score: 1

    And modernize the ignorance! Cool initiative, indeed.

    --
    Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
  42. Re: Coincidence? Probably not. -OT- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in a way, trump is like a tomcat walking around the neighborhood. He makes a lot of yowling noises. Reacts at anything he perceives to be against him "bad hombres!". Can't help pissing "markers" where he perceives his rivals to have been. looking for everyone's gardens, planters, etc. to poop in. Quick to pass blame - "everyone else is doing it, and worse". Making America Grate.

  43. Signing an executive order means nothing. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    Congress has to fund it.

    The president has to ACTUALLY staff it. Mr. Trump still has THOUSANDS of jobs STILL unstaffed. He can't implement policy. It's like walmart can't restock produce shelves because they cut staffing levels too low.

    It's like Mr. Trump is talking to empty chairs (sort of like Clint Eastwood), giving them orders, smiling and looking proud. But empty chairs can't implement his policies.

    His incompetence is the only thing making his presidency remotely bearable.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  44. Re:We need a full constitutional review. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you were to say this about a presidency during the Obama years you would have +5 Informative moderation.

  45. Re: Maybe, but more than most by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    GPY, Kurds.

  46. Re:Maybe, but more than most by HornWumpus · · Score: 0

    Sunni/Shia war is about 1200 years old. Syria/Iraq is just it flaring up again. Ignore this fact and you _can't_ understand the situation.

    What nobody dares say: It's a _good_ war. Our enemies fighting each other. We need to hang back and manipulate the weapons supply (via our 'friends' the Saudis for Sunni, letting Iran think they are getting away with something for Shia) to maintain a stalemate. Iran/Iraq war style.

    Let them kick the fight out of each other. They will be out of oil soon enough. Then we can get back to seriously ignoring them.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  47. This group should be outside the government itself by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    If POTUS were to set up such a group within the government, the Democrats would be able to forum-shop for some municipal night court judge to kill it in its crib.

  48. Arkham - Super Genius? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    And I quote:

      So we have to get very, very tough on cyber and cyber warfare. It is a, it is a huge problem. I have a son.

    He's 10 years old. He has computers. He is so good with these computers, it's unbelievable. The security aspect of cyber is very, very tough. And maybe it's hardly do-able. But I will say, we are not doing the job we should be doing, but that's true throughout our whole governmental society.

    What a fucking moron.

    Now you've got me curious ..... what does Trump have wrong there, specifically? Are you claiming that the Federal government does it right? (Despite the repeated break-ins and theft of government documents from multiple agencies regularly covered on Slashdot?)

    Or don't you like his wording?

    Or is this just an expression of your anger and rejection of Trump as president for beating the entitled candidate that "should have" won?

    Do you just prefer the redundant failure modes that Hillary and her campaign created for their IT because that is the "smart" thing to do and the obvious model to use for the Federal government?

    +5 "insightful" in this case ~= "shared spite" - You have lots of company.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    1. Re:Arkham - Super Genius? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump makes a few statements, we must be tough on cyber, and we must be tough on cyber warfare. For the sake of sympathy, let's just say he meant "tough on cyber warfare" and the first statement was one of his many "pause and restate before finishing the sentence" speech patterns.

      To be tough of cyber warfare would require the USA from withdrawing in cyber warfare. It would also require other nations to withdraw from cyber warfare, perhaps under treaty, trade threat, or physical threat. Trump is certainly not going to "get tough" by withdrawing US cyber warfare resources, and he's not presenting any kind of cooperative solution to cyber warfare (or anything else). He's promoting the destruction of cyber warfare by ramping up US cyber warfare resources. It's as sensible as saying you'll end warfare by sending the military to all the major war zones.

      Trump then dotes on his son, let's be very generous and re-frame his words as "perhaps the next generation will have a solution." But that is problematic too, because it indicates a defeatist stance: this generation doesn't have a solution.

      I think this defeatist stance is what drove the rest of the statements: "security ... is very tough. Maybe it is hardly do-able. ... we ... are not doing the job..." and then to paraphrase "just like the government never does the job".

      In short, I see a bunch of complaints. Sure, there is plenty to complain about; but, without providing options, the complaints are without value.

      Trump has a pattern. It goes like this: there is a problem, it is a very tough problem, they've failed to fix it before, the solution is me. This pattern sounds great, but we can't literally chop up bits of Trump and rub them on the problem to make the problem go away. Trump needs solutions that involve plans, and plans with a chance of working. Such plans require understanding of the issues, and such understanding typically prevents a person from making brash statements about how to reverse a long-standing social issue.

      We can see that Trump lacks an understanding of some of the most basic issues. This lack of understanding can be observed by the ineffective executive orders (overturned due to illegality, or too vague to be followed). This lack of understanding can also be observed by Trump's new mantra "Who knew that was hard?

      The government isn't a business. Trump thinks it is, where he can just say "do it" and someone else figures out how to do it. I expect him to sign an executive order to reduce unemployment any day now, fully expecting the unemployed to find jobs because Trump can sign his name on Presidential letterhead.

      And this message was written without spite, in part because you claimed the other posting had it. I think you're upset for a number of reasons, and there are plenty of upsetting things going on these days. Taking a second look at the core arguments may help you see what I'm complaining about, and what many are complaining about (but getting too caught up in a poor speech delivery to state without taking the extra, unnecessary jab).

  49. She never had a better shot by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I voted for Trump, but would have voted for Sanders had he been running.

    What could the press possibly put up on Sanders than was worse than they put up about Trump? Not that they would have anyway, Sanders would have been untouched by the press.

    But on top of that Sanders had no stench or corporations, of dishonesty, or just downright inhumanity that the Clintons have worked hard to obtain over decades. Sanders would have been the rational sane choice compared to Trump, but as it was you had Trump and the even more insane and corrupt choice of Hillary. Literally ANY other Democrat would have won over Trump (certainly Biden would have).

    The Democrats are screwed now though because Trump will be normalized over four years, and the DNC shows no sign of moving towards any kind of sanity or popularity. The next election Trump will win by quite a large margin, even if they do manage to convince Biden to run (I don't think Sanders would be able to beat an already president Trump).

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  50. New Math - 304 - 232 = "Rounding Error" by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    That is some horribly inept analysis. Hillary won the popular vote and lost the electoral college by a rounding error.

    That is some horribly inept math. Clinton had 232 electoral votes, Trump had 304. 304 - 232 = 72, that is a pretty large round number and pretty far from a "rounding error". That is a massive electoral victory that showed how screwed Clinton was, a few more states could have swung her way and she still would have lost.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:New Math - 304 - 232 = "Rounding Error" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is some horribly inept analysis. Hillary won the popular vote and lost the electoral college by a rounding error.

      That is some horribly inept math. Clinton had 232 electoral votes, Trump had 304. 304 - 232 = 72, that is a pretty large round number and pretty far from a "rounding error".

      That's because you're not looking at the state voting numbers, which is no surprise, since that is where the tightness shows up. You were really hoping that nobody would call you on your bullshit. I'll give you credit though, unlike Bartles, you didn't try to make up the electoral total as 438 instead of the proper 538, but you still tried to bullshit us.

      But you see, some of us checked the margins, and we saw that states like Wisconsin where the margin was less than 25,000, Michigan where it was barely over 10,000, and Pennsylvania where it was a bit over 50,000.

      That's the level of votes that could be changed by a rainstorm.

      That is a massive electoral victory that showed how screwed Clinton was, a few more states could have swung her way and she still would have lost.

      Nope. It's actually a pretty pathetic electoral victory, compounded by Trump's insistent lying about it. It was no landslide. It was not the biggest margin since Reagan, it was not even especially a surprise. He actually performed rather poorly, and contrary to your claims, a single state would have put it in the House, two states could have changed the outcome, and three absolutely would have, with margins as stated above, less than 100,000 votes in total.

      If Trump had been honest, and admitted that he won by a very tiny margin in an arcane and technical process, I'd give him credit for that. If you had been honest, and not tried to portray it a massive electoral victory, I'd give you credit for that.

      That you both choose to try to portray it otherwise, well, that discredits you both, and since you're going along with his egregious lies, that tars you as well.

  51. Re:Maybe, but more than most by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    It's true. Facts _are_ flamebait to liberals.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  52. Re:Coincidence? Probably not. -OT- by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

    I can't decide if he's a bull in a china shop, unwittingly making a mess of things, or the kids in that short story, The Destructors.

  53. Not a bad idea except by colonel+spalding · · Score: 1

    When the oversight is from, by a mentally disturbed human that can barely read and speak above a 6th grade level. How could that possibly work to the American peoples benefit.

  54. Don't Want to Be Called Deplorable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You could, you know, try not being deplorable. But that would take some personal accountability, introspection, and self-awareness.

    Says every racist, sexist, misogynist person ever. "My best friend is a black woman, so I can't be any of those things! Well, not my best friend. They were someone I used to work with. And it wasn't me, it was a friend of mine. I haven't seen either of them in 20 years."