President Trump Attacks Amazon, Incorrectly Claiming That It Owns The Washington Post For Tax Purposes (recode.net)

The Washington Post, which has been critical of Donald Trump and his administration in its coverage, has become the latest victim in Trump's Twitter tirade. On Wednesday, he accused Amazon of not "paying internet taxes (which they should)," adding that the company is using The Washington Post "in a scheme to dodge" the taxes. Quick fact check: Amazon doesn't own The Washington Post, Jeff Bezos -- in his personal capacity -- does. At any rate, Trump's furious tweets come a day after The Washington Post reported that a fake issue of Time magazine with Trump on the cover was hanging in some of the president's golf clubs. The timing of this is also awkward because just last week the president met with Bezos and other top executives to discuss ways the White House can modernize government and aid the tech industry. But the two have a long history. As Recode reminds: Meanwhile, Amazon is about to embark on what could be a lengthy government antitrust review of its bid to buy Whole Foods. Already looming large over the roughly $14 billion deal are the president's own comments: He has previously attacked Bezos and claimed the Post is a tax-dodging scheme for Amazon. "He thinks I'll go after him for antitrust," Trump said at one point during his campaign. "Because he's got a huge antitrust problem, because he's controlling so much, Amazon is controlling so much of what they are doing." Months later, Trump charged: "Believe me, if I become president, oh, do they have problems, they are going to have such problems." Meanwhile, Bezos isn't one to shy about his anti-Trump views either. At one point during the election, Bezos tweeted that he'd save a seat for Trump on his Blue Origin spacecraft, with the hashtag "sendDonaldtospace."

Comments

Fake News

[Anonymous Coward]

Sad!

It's not true.

[rickb928]

But it's accurate.

Re:It's not true.

[Anonymous Coward]

Smart people don't pay taxes. Just ask the smartest of them all.

Re:It's not true.

[Freischutz]

It's not true ... But it's accurate.

No, .... It's alternatively true.

Re:It's not true.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are there courses for this level of cognitive dissonance?

Re:It's not true.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not true ... But it's accurate.

No, .... It's alternatively true.

No, .... It's alternatively accurate.

Re:It's not true.

[Farmer Tim]

No, but percussive psychosurgery works.

Re: It's not true.

[Anonymous Coward]

Breaking the chains of their misfortune is the role of the poor. Starting with paying taxes.

Re:It's not true.

[Type44Q]

Undocumented truth? :p

Re: It's not true.

[dougdonovan]

ya gotta love the humor.

Re:It's not true.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I took a correspondence course. Don't expect to be able to handle something of this caliber until you get to 500 level classes though.

Re: It's not true.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you need to born rich. Comes as a default addition for rich kids.

Re:It's not true.

[Anonymous Coward]

Illegal alien truth.

BLUE ORIGIN IS FAKE SPACE!

[Anonymous Coward]

BLUE ORIGIN IS FAKE SPACE!

So what if it was for tax purposes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump is wrong (again - big surprise).

But all sorts of companies engage in perfectly legal transactions of tax purposes.

This doesn't even involve foreign companies with weird tax rules (which is also legal).

Re: So what if it was for tax purposes?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's only smart if it's Trump avoiding taxes legally. The rules are different for anyone not lobbying him directly.

Re: So what if it was for tax purposes?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the jab is that the Post's only value is in it's ability to lose money to be written off for tax purposes. It's not a commentary on the practice of writing off money-losing assets to pay fewer taxes on money making assets.

Re:So what if it was for tax purposes?

[MightyMartian]

The tax information we do have on Trump indicates that he has taken advantage of rolling over losses to reduce taxes, so, in reality, even if Amazon were doing what Trump said, Trump's done the same damned thing.

Just another bizarre outburst from the Tweeter-in-Chief

Re:So what if it was for tax purposes?

[jellomizer]

This why we need a businessman as president. Someone in business should be able to comprehend that a person can own many companies and not having each company interact with each other.

But we don't have a businessman as president we have a Son of a businessman who used the wealth and fame to more or less just maintain what he got, vs. Actually growing the business. Because if he just did normal investments with the money his dad gave him, he could be much richer.

Re: So what if it was for tax purposes?

[XxtraLarGe]

I think the jab is that the Post's only value is in it's ability to lose money to be written off for tax purposes. It's not a commentary on the practice of writing off money-losing assets to pay fewer taxes on money making assets.

Stop being reasonable! It came from Trump, so we need to scrutinize it in ways we would never do with other people, and find the most perverse way to misrepresent it!

Re:So what if it was for tax purposes?

[bluefoxlucid]

We need people well-versed in economics to run our public policy machine. Not just people who took economics in college, but people who have pushed the boundaries.

Business isn't economics. What's good for business is good for a business, but not necessarily good for the economy as a whole. That isn't to say we can't accomplish things directly-beneficial to businesses and the economy, rather than things which have an indirect benefit to businesses by strengthening our economy. In reverse reasoning: taxing by revenue or jacking up payroll taxes would be bad for our economy and directly bad for businesses; thus there may be existing situations which, if remediated, are good for businesses and good for the economy.

So here's an economics perspective on one small piece.

Business payroll taxes are essentially an increase in wages without that increase going to the hands of the worker. That is: A business pays $60k to employ you, but you only get $45k, upon which you pay taxes. If you're not involved in making something which generates revenue beyond the cost of that $60k diffused through the time you put into each unit of that something (that includes any involvement in any activity the business requires to continue to function and produce that thing), then you're not drawing in enough money for the business to pay you. That means prices must cover your wages, and it means that prices are adjusted to a $60k wage while you receive a $45k wage.

A payroll tax cut bringing that down to $55k means that any pressure on prices can yield roughly 8% further. If you have sufficient competition, your competitors may then gain an advantage (and profits) undercutting you a further 8%, increasing that pressure. The lower costs reduce risk, because a market dip is not as costly and thus doesn't have as strong a financial impact (it's 8% less severe), which stabilizes the business as well.

Such price reduction means that consumers can purchase more (the difference). This kind of price reduction doesn't involve reducing wage-labor hours, but rather wages, without reducing wages received by the employee. That means no job loss, yet greater demand--jobs gained. Technically, that's active labor force growth (the same kind of economic growth as population growth), although I would argue that finding a way to reduce the payroll tax as such without reducing the effectiveness of government services rendered is a form of technical progress.

So that would be good for business (lower costs) and good for the economy.

That's a particular example. It's relevant to me because I worked out how to improve our social security structure and remediate many of the problems with modern welfare with a sharp reduction in individual retained taxes, a 0.9% marginal reduction in payroll taxes, and a 2.5% marginal reduction in business income (profits) taxes. Tax cuts across the board, while providing broad coverage for the welfare and security of the American people in the lowest and middle classes.

Economics, finance, and business, all at once. Being a polymath kind of helps, I guess.

Re: So what if it was for tax purposes?

[gnick]

...we need to scrutinize it in ways we would never do with other people...

The level of scrutiny is directly proportional to the propensity for conveying inaccurate information.

Re: So what if it was for tax purposes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except if it was Obama. Then we make shit up about how it was going to destroy the US and figure out some under the table way to dismantle it and stop it. Imagine the audacity of a Black person thinking they can make rules in the US for Whitey to follow. Fools.

Re: So what if it was for tax purposes?

[Type44Q]

...the Post's only value is in it's ability to lose money to be written off for tax purposes

I'm sure the ability to spread CIA-approved propaganda doesn't enter into it.

Re:So what if it was for tax purposes?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's relevant to me because I worked out how to improve our social security structure and remediate many of the problems with modern welfare with a sharp reduction in individual retained taxes, a 0.9% marginal reduction in payroll taxes, and a 2.5% marginal reduction in business income (profits) taxes. Tax cuts across the board, while providing broad coverage for the welfare and security of the American people in the lowest and middle classes.

So, your're suggesting cuts to funding social security will improve it?
Cutting treasury revenues will increase the amount of money they have to spend?
Careful, you're beginning to sound like a Republican. At least you're humble.

Re:So what if it was for tax purposes?

[cyberchondriac]

Right. "Normal" investments grow 40 million into 10 billion. Piece of cake. Ask all the people who've hit the PowerBall or MegaMillions.

Re:So what if it was for tax purposes?

[pr0fessor]

Where are the payroll taxes 25%?

Re:So what if it was for tax purposes?

[mysidia]

We need people well-versed in economics to run our public policy machine. Not just people who took economics in college, but people who have pushed the boundaries.

We should be pushing for DIVERSITY in our leadership. And I don't mean the Hijacked description of diversity called ethnic diversity.... I mean Intellectual Diversity and Diversity of Experience is even more important.

We could start by Step 1. discounting political experience as a qualification to run for elected offices, especially discount lawyers --- instead of having lawyers be legislators - appoint them "Legal assistants" -- In other words, lawyers help to understand the laws but shouldn't have the role in decisionmaking.
Step 2. Play up practical domain experience in decisionmaking, Get more scientists and engineers in office.
Step 3. Implement Term limits for all legislator positions. You serve your 6 years house and/or 12 years senate, after leaving office you must take a 6 year break before running again, and that is IT... no more legislating for you.

Re:So what if it was for tax purposes?

[Ravaldy]

Actually what we really need is a president that will try to remain impartial to the party and try to find a fine balance between socialism and capitalism. A good president would know how to surround himself with a strong set of skilled people coming from different backgrounds with a variety opinions that line up with the larger portion of the population. The idea of party over country is getting old and its not helping the little guy. I compare it to when a player on a hockey team intentionally hurts another player on the other team and his team goes on to defend him regardless of how wrong the player was. It's this same sheep mentality that the choke point of many issues in the United States.

Re:So what if it was for tax purposes?

[GameboyRMH]

It's a dead cat he's tossing on the table to distract from the same fake Time magazine cover linked in TFS.

Re:So what if it was for tax purposes?

[GLMDesigns]

Rolling over losses is legitimate. It's not even remotely shady. Do you have any idea about what you're talking about?

Re:So what if it was for tax purposes?

[mysidia]

The word of caution is if you win that (Chances are you don't need to worry); people have very bad misfortunes, and are rarely happy - it can destroy family and relationships, many a lottery winner wound up bankrupt or committed suicide -- you are first of all best to keep your identity secret, because you're bound to have so many desperate people with all manner of sob stories coming to ask for a handout, that if you handed them $100 a piece, you'd be bankrupt.

Take your winning ticket, lock it up securely in your safe: Don't tell a soul, and start contacting advisors to help setup the organizational Trust structure that will allow you to claim your winning ticket within the allowed time and remain anonymous and help you optimize your outcomes and happiness.

By the way 40 Million X 1.09 ^ 65 = 10 Billion

In other words... 9% Annualized returns over 65 years will do it.

Interest rates are low these days, because of Fed and government meddling,
that suppresses interest rates for debt and forces people to the higher-risk equities markets
if you want to generate returns, but there have been times in the past where you
could buy 40 Million worth of bonds and lock in a rate such as 12% - 15% interest.
At 12% it would be 29 years to turn 40 Million into 10 Billion.

Re:So what if it was for tax purposes?

[Captain Splendid]

He's got more of a clue than the president...

Re: So what if it was for tax purposes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep sucking that on orange Cheeto.

Re:So what if it was for tax purposes?

[MightyMartian]

Yes, and if Amazon did buy the Washington Post to take advantage of any losses, that's perfectly legitimate as well, not that that is actually what appears to be happening.

Re:So what if it was for tax purposes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since you worked this all magically out, I'm interested in seeing your Noble Prize for Economics, because if even a bit of your claim is true you'd have one.

Re:So what if it was for tax purposes?

[Cajun Hell]

I would argue that finding a way to reduce the payroll tax as such without reducing the effectiveness of government services rendered is a form of technical progress

So you're saying that if you can eliminate an expense (tax) for free (i.e. without it being a tradeoff that comes with a downside) then it's all upside. I don't think any person would argue against you on that.

I worked out how to improve our social security structure and remediate many of the problems with modern welfare with a sharp reduction in individual retained taxes, a 0.9% marginal reduction in payroll taxes, and a 2.5% marginal reduction in business income (profits) taxes. Tax cuts across the board, while providing broad coverage for the welfare and security of the American people in the lowest and middle classes.

Wow, cool!!

Hey, by the way, were you able to do it while also creating the above huge and extremely difficult condition?

It seems that if we're going to play businessman and economist, it might be more challenging and interesting to talk about the harder problems, instead of the absurdly easy ones, such a proving "a good thing without a bad thing is a net good thing." Still, I suppose it's possible you have presented the proof in a more modern and accessible way, which people might prefer over the ancient Greeks' coverage of the same subject.

Your penultimate paragraph is a lot more interesting (oh, you tease, you!!) than the rest of the post that you wrote about fundamentals of addition and subtraction. It looks like you suddenly switched topics, but I guess the whole point is that you're trying to hint that you were able to provide the no-downsides condition! You solved one of the hardest government policy problems of the modern world? I'd think a polymath would want to expand on that, even if just for the bragging rights.

It's time to stop teasing. Indulge yourself, and let Slashdot be the forum in which you seize your place in the history books. Go on!

Re: So what if it was for tax purposes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama isn't black. Well, I guess for people who subscribe to the old racist "not a single drop" theory he is. But his only immersion in American Black Culture is who he married and some posing he's done. He's a cosmopolitan liberal and he grew up that way, with the silver spoon in his mouth.

Re: So what if it was for tax purposes?

[AutodidactLabrat]

It came from a well known and proud-to-admit-it-liar
res ipsa loquitor, if he said it, it is probably false.
So, representing his "Second amendment people" when he attacks Democrats for "encouraging violence" is honest.
Any "balance" is simply lying

Re: So what if it was for tax purposes?

[AutodidactLabrat]

"Silver spoon in his mouth"?
Unlike Drumpf, he did not inherit hundreds of millions, nor did he get "a small loan, only a million dollars or so" to get to Harvard.
yet another rethuglikkklan liar!

Re:So what if it was for tax purposes?

[DanielRavenNest]

Amazon *didn't* buy the WP. Jeff Bezos did, as an individual. Bezos owns 17% of Amazon, but institutional investors (i.e. Wall Street) own 63%. As usual, Trump gets the details wrong.

Re:So what if it was for tax purposes?

[gtall]

More like a crumple horned snorkack.

Re:So what if it was for tax purposes?

[Hognoxious]

A payroll tax cut bringing that down to $55k means that any pressure on prices can yield roughly 8% further.

Maybe. Alternatively - long shot, I know - the bosses could just trouser it.

Re: So what if it was for tax purposes?

[Pascoea]

That, and "other people" aren't the president of the US. I would expect that the presidents' words will always continue to be heavily dissected and scrutinized, as they should be.

Re: So what if it was for tax purposes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at me. I are smart.

Re: So what if it was for tax purposes?

[Type44Q]

A few percent does not a black man make.

Re:So what if it was for tax purposes?

[Anonymous Coward]

We should be pushing for DIVERSITY in our leadership... I mean Intellectual Diversity and Diversity of Experience is even more important.

Well then, we're off to a great start! Unlike all those prior leaders, this one has low intellect and zero political experience!

Re:So what if it was for tax purposes?

[bluefoxlucid]

Payroll costs include benefits (~39.1%? I hear numbers ranging from 18% to 65%), OASDI (6.2%), Hospital Insurance (0.2%, 2% for higher incomes), and a few other things, plus wages. Barely more than half of the cost of employing a full-time worker is wages.

Re:So what if it was for tax purposes?

[bluefoxlucid]

We handle that by having staff and committees. Politicians tend to become de-facto experts in certain areas of interest by forming committees, to which they attach themselves, to investigate issues. They have staff with knowledge beyond their own to help inform them and explain shit. This gets you diversity in local governments (city council) and in Congress.

The President is a diplomat, and has an enormous impact on what Congress can achieve. He needs to know what efforts to support and what to hinder, and how to speak to the nation about these things. That means he needs to be less of a policymaker and more of the guy who comforts us in times of crisis, tells us why it will be okay, and speaks loudly on important topics so that we pressure Congress to work for our interests. Most of that is economics, because the things that terrify our citizens range largely through high unemployment, financial instability, and poverty. Even war brings little more than the concern of the upheaval of your livelihood--hence why we generally see politicians comfort the nation about the threat of war by waging the war way the hell over there where we don't have to experience it, and why people freaked out about the prospect of a draft when GWBush was in office.

Re:So what if it was for tax purposes?

[bluefoxlucid]

Actually what we really need is a president that will try to remain impartial to the party and try to find a fine balance between socialism and capitalism.

A strong grasp of economics would help with that. If you don't understand the domain at all, how do you deal with people telling you things? Just nod and say, "... so what do I do?"

The United States is a Social Democracy. That means we operate within a capitalist framework, and intervene to promote social justice.

The Universal Social Security I designed fits with this framework: its ultimate, but ultimately tangential, goal is to provide people with no job and no income the means to survive through a mechanism of making them a profits source upon which the supply market can capitalize. They won't live well, and any employment (and attached wage) will greatly increase their standard-of-living, leading to the mechanism of economization: people economize--they seek to maximize their ends while minimizing the expenditure of means.

Rather than a welfare trap (getting a job means losing some of your income while expending labor for replacement income), Americans would have a more-direct causal relationship between expending means (labor) to gain ends (income, which is more means in this case, leading to a greater standard of living i.e. ends). The risk of losing your welfare and then being subsequently denied for new welfare is reduced, as the scope of welfare services replaced by the social security benefit no longer carries said risks.

Again: that reduces the total tax burden on every single American, on every business, entirely.

People with no grasp of economics shout "socialism!" at anything that looks like it involves government and money. You also have failures like the two large blights on the ACA: businesses are mandated only to supply healthcare to full-time employees, and people buy their health insurance with a subsidy on the exchange. That puts two huge breaks in the market, disrupting the effects of market capitalism in destructive ways.

A mandate that all employees must supply healthcare would reduce underemployment by discouraging part-time work; a mandate to supply it to only full-time employees encourages businesses to cut hours and hire more workers. The mandate in place cause a spread of poverty by spreading underemployment, the taproot of unemployment and of poverty itself.

Meanwhile, the exchange system creates breaks in the market. An employer wants to outcompete his competition, and so wants to minimize excess costs so as to avoid inflating his prices. Health insurance providers want to outcompete the competition, and so want to minimize their costs so that employers negotiate large group benefits accounts with them. Healthcare providers are pressured by health insurance providers to negotiate the slimmest margins they'll tolerate, because the insurer represents millions of customers bringing tiny bits of profit that all add up. A single-payer system can benchmark this and use the negotiated rates as a fair standard, piggybacking on the market effect to imitate a market interest which has to compete; whereas the exchange system with subsidies doesn't do this, and so exchange plans aren't put under that kind of pressure, and can get easy taxpayer money.

Single-payer with an absolute employer benefit mandate enforces all the benefits of market capitalism. What we have now starts to amplify the negative effects of socialism. Frequently, when I explain this to raving conservatives, they start to look at the ACA and consider if it could use a little tweaking instead of a solid repeal.

Re:So what if it was for tax purposes?

[bluefoxlucid]

So you're saying that if you can eliminate an expense (tax) for free (i.e. without it being a tradeoff that comes with a downside) then it's all upside. I don't think any person would argue against you on that.

Perhaps not; I was more trying to claim that policy is a form of technology, and policy that's more-efficient is high technology. If you dictate a welfare system that does exactly the same thing but costs less, that's technology. I imagine many people wouldn't like the stretch, although people who understand manufacturing (re: cellular manufacture, assembly lines) would probably think long and hard before opening their mouths to say anything in response because they're used to "technology" involving better processes instead of just better tools.

You solved one of the hardest government policy problems of the modern world? I'd think a polymath would want to expand on that, even if just for the bragging rights.

It wasn't a hard problem. You want to see hard, try working out the politics. I guess I can walk through it instead of just dumping "Do X and it works, trust me," but it's long and boring. Seriously, I don't have a spreadsheet; I have an enormous pile of spreadsheets.

So, let's talk about some current welfare problems.

SNAP and WIC don't always provide for everyone who needs assistance. These are, however, some of our most-successful programs, along with OASDI and Medicare/Medicaid.

TANF and unemployment are basically playing a juggling game. There are fewer jobs than jobseekers, and the time restrictions (6 months unemployment, 2 years TANF) essentially mean we provide the same amount of welfare regardless (in theory) so long as everyone way down at the bottom takes turns having a job. We aren't a Communist state, so we don't pick out the unemployed and dictate whose turn it is; if you're unlucky enough to be in the wrong locale, you might be unemployed for 2-3 years in a recession. It's pretty common to be unemployed for 8 months or so.

75% of qualified HUD housing assistance applicants go on a waiting list and never receive benefits. They become ineligible by some mechanism by the time HUD gets them on the benefits schedule. Some households are on HUD waiting lists as long as seven years with no aid, at all. HUD pays up to the lesser of 1/3 of your monthly rent or 1/3 of your monthly income, so it's worse the worse-off you are.

At the same time, our welfare system has one major success: abuse. Our welfare system shows a significant amount of inappropriate disbursal of benefits, and nearly 100% of that is in the bureaucracy. That is to say: our welfare programs are broken in such a way that many applicants clearly are poor and need aid, but somehow don't technically qualify... and then their caseworker nudges their application a tiny bit over into the "approved" pile. The biggest source of abuse is doctors claiming things in medicaid that the bureaucracy later reviews and suggests were probably not necessary--bean counters disagree with the doctors about necessary medical care. Outright fraud is almost non-existent, thanks to an aggressive and highly-effective office of inspector general.

So, bad at getting benefits out to the needy, good at keeping people from bullshitting their way to benefits.

Welfare models are notoriously ... discretionary. It's pretty easy to make a welfare model say anything you want by picking and choosing your cases. Some of the most-egregious claim that a single mother in Wisconsin can get $35,000/year in benefits. A deep examination of this assertion suggests maybe 200 Wisconsinites are actually getting that; that's not the issue.

Of that $35,000, around $15,000 are state-funded benefits. The analysis includes some $5,000 of Federal tax breaks. Education benefits (Pell Grants) is included. Medicaid actually wasn't included in that claim, last

Re:So what if it was for tax purposes?

[Anonymous Coward]

As usual, Trump gets the details wrong.

And as usual, it doesn't matter. His followers aren't going to read (let alone believe) the rebuttal.

Re:So what if it was for tax purposes?

[david_thornley]

Sure I know what it means. It means Trump is a crappy businessman, because a good one wouldn't have all those losses to roll over.

Re:So what if it was for tax purposes?

[pr0fessor]

social security 6.2%, medicare 1.4%, federal unemployment tax 6%, state unemployment tax variable (2.7% in my state)

I'm not aware of any others that are required but I'm not in payroll so if it's something they pay but doesn't appear on my check stub... My company for example matchs 401k investments up to a certain percentage of your income and $1,000 a year to an HPNA but these aren't required.

Re:So what if it was for tax purposes?

[GLMDesigns]

Does that really make sense to you? There are some very high risk / high reward businesses and real estate development is one of them. There are other businesses that are cyclical (and real estate is one of them).

Having a loss is part of business. (No disrespect intended but I can see that you have never been part of running a business or in making models or dashboards for people that do.)

If you're going to pay taxes on profit it only makes sense that you can carry the loss.

Re:So what if it was for tax purposes?

[bluefoxlucid]

Right. I'm only concerned with moving OASDI (6.2%); Medicare (HI) is also social security, and I'm not going anywhere near state services. Keeping OASDI running requires a 5.3% payroll tax in the short term (this shrinks over time), so it's a 0.9% marginal discount in payroll taxes.

I guess the 0.2% HI is on your paycheck. Unemployment taxes aren't on the paycheck.

And uh. The model I use actually counts total income taxes collecting including OASDI (even the payroll part) and measures Federal welfare et al out of that. I move the OASDI payroll into the paycheck income tax, then cut out the part of income taxes that represent Federal welfare. Unemployment is included in the part I cut out.

That has the odd implication that the 6% Federal unemployment tax stays on payroll, but has to be marked as just ... payroll tax, to the general fund. I never computed it out, anyway, so it doesn't alter my model; in practice, the CBO will need to figure out how to adjust tax brackets and payroll taxes to create a more-level progressive tax instead of the ugly bump we have now (which my rough model inherits because of how it's crudely calculated--it's intended to be correct and deployable, but not necessarily the optimal form).

State unemployment can go away. That's not recommended as part of my model; the simple fact is it's no longer necessary or useful, and can go away. Since I don't touch state taxes at all, any state reaching that conclusion after careful analysis can simply repeal their unemployment tax.

Re:So what if it was for tax purposes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Another variant of the old "my ignorance is just as good as your experience/knowledge/wisdom/practice" theory. Something that stupid people love to say.

Unqualified means unqualified, no matter how different or special someone is.

This just in...

[Anonymous Coward]

President Trump will be taxing the internet. Pay up posters. You are going to pay for that wall!

ISIS will be defeated once we surround them with a wall, it worked for Berlin!

#MAGA!

Really?

[Opportunist]

Why the hell does anyone still care?

Don't get me wrong, the president of the US is a pretty important person and whatever he does has some effect on the world. But do we really have to hear every fart he passes? Who gives a shit about this anymore?

Wake me when he DOES something.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

He's a unrepentant and serial LIAR, he has betrayed the Constitution of the United States (which he swore to protect and defend), and through collusion with the Russians he stole the election....Does ANY OF THAT count?

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like you are tired of WINNING!!

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about you but if the de-facto leader of the US Armed Forces can't get facts straight about trivialities, loses his shit over perceived threats or lives in a world of constant paranoia how in hell can anyone trust him when it comes to bigger, muddier problems.

Its not that there is a lack of stories painting him as an incompetent boob, he IS an incompetent boob. An incompetent, petulant boob with a finger next to The Button.

Perhaps no worse than any other previously elected incompetent boob but man how does he function with both feet inserted in his mouth while his head is up his arse???

SAD

Re:Really?

[The Grim Reefer]

he has betrayed the Constitution of the United States (which he swore to protect and defend),

Any more so than the last 3 or 4 presidents? Many would say that Lincoln betrayed the Constitution by not letting the Confederacy peacefully leave the Union.

and through collusion with the Russians he stole the election....Does ANY OF THAT count?

Yes, the guy's a loud mouth and makes himself look like an idiot on a regular basis. But seriously, do you have any proof of that? I mean actual proof, not just quotes from "anonymous sources" or supposition?

Re:Really?

[Opportunist]

The problem isn't voting an incompetent idiot into a position of power. The problem is doing it too often without electing someone to fix the damage in between.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

>why
>so what
>why

Because it contradicts and, with luck, corrects the illusions millions of people had half a year ago.

That millions of people still have.

That we need to correct over the next three years, if not sooner.

Re: Really?

[MightyMartian]

It took 14 months for Watergate to lead to Nixon's resignation. Why is it you think that this particular investigation should have such a shorter timeline?

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you familiar with the term shooting yourself in the foot? All you're doing is pissing off all the people who don't think exactly like you. Right now all you're doing is making sure he gets re-elected.

I didn't vote for the guy last time, but with how you keep going on and on and on and on and on and on.... I'm really tempted to vote for him next time around just to spite you. You see, I have this unique power of understanding how our government works and I understand that the president doesn't have absolute power and without congress going along with him, he's fairly powerless. So yeah, I'm willing to vote a doofus into the presidency simply to spite you because I understand that it won't be the end of the world.

Re:Really?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

The problem isn't electing more like him, who angers both parties, grinding government to a halt.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. He's the fucking president.

Not some jackass real estate fraudster. Not a shitty reality TV personality. Not an attention whore GOP hack.

Not anymore at least.

The. Fucking. President. Of. The. Fucking. United. Fucking. States. He's supposed to represent our nation and our interests.

On one hand his supporters claim he has the power to unilaterally ban brown people from traveling past our borders. On the other hand he's suposedly not liable for spewing lies and bullshit via twitter whenever it fits him.

Fuck Trump, fuck Trump supporters, and fuck you.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

You just have to prove it to his loyal and distracted supporters and to Congress. He is ... very ... devious.

Re: Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

It will take Mr. Mueller some time to search out, dig up and assemble the real facts

Re:Really?

[Freischutz]

Why the hell does anyone still care?

Don't get me wrong, the president of the US is a pretty important person and whatever he does has some effect on the world. But do we really have to hear every fart he passes? Who gives a shit about this anymore?

Wake me when he DOES something.

Why doesn't everybody in the US care that the United States of America has become the laughing stock of the entire rest of the human race? Trump has actually managed to upstage Robert Mugabe in terms of incompetence and corruption and Turkmenbashi Saparmurat Niyazov in terms of being just plain 'loco'. All that's missing is that pee tape and Trump will have upstaged Berlusconi in being a lecherous pervert. If I was a US American abroad I'd start training myself to end every sentence with 'eh' and tell people I'm Canadian but, mercifully, I'm not American, so instead I can have endless fun asking my American friends to explain why their countrymen voted for Trump. It's kind of fun (if admittedly quite mean) to watch them squirm for a while as they try to explain how the electoral college works and why the electoral college is essential to American democracy until they finally give up an admit they don't understand it either.

Re:Really?

[Opportunist]

The electoral college had its place in the early days of the US republic but it's a completely useless relic by now. It's by no means hard anymore for people to know the presidential candidates and know EXACTLY who they are voting for, there is no need for a trusted middle man who'd go and act on their behalf anymore.

Re:Really?

[thegarbz]

Wake me when he DOES something.

If you would read slashdot instead of just troll posting then you'd realise he's DOING plenty and fucking up not only the USA but international relations around the world as he goes.

Re: Really?

[doconnor]

"Why is it you think that this particular investigation should have such a shorter timeline?"

Trump's complete lack of self control.

Re:Really?

[infolation]

Why the hell does anyone still care?

Because he has a short attention span, a short temper, twitchy thumbs, and a big button connected to approximately 1481 nuclear warheads

Re: Really?

[networkBoy]

^this

Re: Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

26 months. Watergate break-in was 17 June 1972. Nixon's resignation was 9 August 1974.

The evidence against the White House really started to mount in July 1973, so 14 months later, Nixon resigned. But the time from break-in to resignation as 26 months.

Re:Really?

[Freischutz]

The electoral college had its place in the early days of the US republic but it's a completely useless relic by now. It's by no means hard anymore for people to know the presidential candidates and know EXACTLY who they are voting for, there is no need for a trusted middle man who'd go and act on their behalf anymore.

Give the man a cigar... That is exactly the right answer, but most Americans just struggle trying to explain the college's purpose. I have the most fun with Republicans, they are usually the ones who earnestly believe the USA would sink into the seas in a rain of fire, brimstone and liberalism if the electoral college did not guarantee the conservative populations of sparsely populated states a much higher voting power than they'd have in a system where win without gerrymandering by gaining the majority of the popular vote, so it tends to be Republicans who end up to defending the electoral college and gerrymandering to the death.

Re:Really?

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

Wake me when he DOES something.

It doesn't thrill me to say this, but I still think it's going to be true. I'll set that alarm clock to wake you in January 2025 when Trump's successor gets sworn in. By the way, Trump's base is arguing for him that because "everybody" is against him that he hasn't had time do anything yet and it's not his fault. And yes, even if he destroys health care and his tax cuts ruin the US economy, he'll still get re-elected.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

The electoral college had its place in the early days of the US republic but it's a completely useless relic by now. It's by no means hard anymore for people to know the presidential candidates and know EXACTLY who they are voting for, there is no need for a trusted middle man who'd go and act on their behalf anymore.

Likewise, holding congressional and presidential elections on a Tuesday made sense then the farmers had to ride in from the county in their wagons.
Holding it on Tuesdays now only makes sense for Republicans - because retired white folks will come out and vote, whereas the hourly working mother or the day laborer won't be able to without taking a pay hit.

Re:Really?

[Serge_Tomiko]

I'm really amazed anyone believes this Russia stuff. The country has gone mad.

Re:Really?

[Serge_Tomiko]

That's hardly trolling. He hasn't done anything, and you won't be able to claim otherwise.

Re: Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Watergate breaking occurred on June 17, 1972. By March 17, 1973 they had obtained leads which lead to the White House. June 3, 1973 is when Dean admitted to discussing a coverup with Nixon. May 9, 1974 is when impeachment proceedings began. July 27, 1974 is when Articles of Impeachment were passed. August 9, 1974 is when Nixon resigned.

What we see is seven months to obtain any sort of lead to link to the White House and within three months of a link to the White House they had a link to Nixon for a grand total of ten months to get to a point that put Nixon in crosshairs.

We had been seeing calls about Russian collusion the day after the election, November 9, 2016. We're now nearly 8 months past the first accusations and people digging to find evidence. No evidence has thus far turned up the alone any sort of link to Trump and Trump has been in the crosshairs for eight months.

Re:Really?

[Papaspud]

hahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahhahaha..... does your ass still hurt that much because the witch didn't win?

Re: Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably because there's no fucking proof whatsoever.

Keep drinking the ISIS-aide, though.

Re:Really?

[GameboyRMH]

Even if he's still in office for the next round of elections, the Democrats would have to fuck up even more mightily than last time for him to have a chance at getting back in. The people who wouldn't vote for him have seen what happens when they sit home and sulk instead of going out and voting, and I can't see them making that mistake again.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why doesn't everybody in the US care that the United States of America has become the laughing stock of the entire rest of the human race?

Romans aren't interested in the opinions held by the barbarians.

Re: Really?

[MightyMartian]

There's a smoking gun, mate. Whether there's sufficient proof to tie it directly to Trump is something that we'll have to wait and see.

You know, Nixon's supporters were saying the same fucking thing, right up until he got into Airforce One and flew off to California.

Re: Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Nixon was smarter than the average person and Trump is stupider than the average person, And while Nixon had a visible aura of dishonesty about him that he tried to conceal, Trump is proud of his dishonestly and goes around slapping people in the face with it. My bet is that he's only the second most outrageous liar in the world, and he's lying whenever he brags about winning first place. (We will find that first-place winner, just you wait!)

Trump's the kind of guy who gets caught red-handed and brags to the police about how clever he was. If he doesn't get caught, and quickly, then I'll conclude he really and truly didn't do it.

Re: Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a smoking gun, mate.

What is it? Where is it? Link evidence. Not an interpretation of evidence. Not a blogger or journalist claiming there is evidence. The evidence. I will believe you if you do.

Whether there's sufficient proof to tie it directly to Trump is something that we'll have to wait and see.

Without evidence of a crime that requires intent tied to a specific person with a specific intent, there is no evidence of a crime. A "smoking dun" does not mean what you think it means.

Re:Really?

[AF_Cheddar_Head]

The electoral college broke when they decided to limit the total number of Members of the House but still tie the number of electoral college votes to the number of members of Congress each state has. This means that winning one electoral vote in California takes on hell of more votes than winning the same electoral vote in Wyoming or Kansas or Montana.... giving rural states a much larger say in who is elected President of the United States.

Apportionment Act of 1911 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Votes per Electoral College members.
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfr...

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why doesn't everybody in the US care that the United States of America has become the laughing stock of the entire rest of the human race?

For one, it's because we've built a country where we can have someone like Trump be our president and still handily beat most of the world in most metrics. Rather pathetic for the rest of the world if you believe Trump to be entirely incompetent.

For two, by watching political party popularity rise and fall in other countries, it's clear not everyone is laughing.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

So fun is shitting on states rights and pushing that major cities should dictate who wins office? That just sounds like being a dick and claiming it's all the fault of "gerrymandering Republicans". It also sound like crying you lost a game because you didn't know the rules. There is a reason for the electoral college and it's states rights. If it wasn't in place 3 to 4 cities would dictate the vote from mainly 3 states and 47 other states wouldn't matter. That's why it's in place. But yeah, claim those 47 states have "much higher voting power" like it's ok to shit on their citizens then claim the 3 other states are not getting their way. Funny to me is that you seem to be ok with it but would probably support all sorts of socialist programs the government offers, but I guess maybe the word hypocrite isn't in your vocabulary?

Re: Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Nixon was actually quite smart?

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

The only accomplishment that many cared to vote him into office is already done. Neil Gorsuch is a justice of the SCOTUS, and will presumably be so for decades, long after Trump is gone.

This is America; everything is eventually decided in court, and if your pockets are deep enough, and your case is contentious enough, SCOTUS becomes the ultimate say on what the elastically worded laws are supposed to mean.

Only three more justices, and welcome to the Evangelical States of America.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do I suddenly feel the urge to post about the democratic senator who thought that Guam would capsize if we added more people to it...However what do I know -- I'm just a stupid clueless Republican.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you people smoking?

The issue with the electoral college is that they are forced to vote with their party no matter how stupid their candidate is. Thanks states rights!

Re:Really?

[thegarbz]

He hasn't done anything

Yeah, especially not contributed anything meaningful to a discussion on a story.

Re: Really?

[painandgreed]

It took 14 months for Watergate to lead to Nixon's resignation. Why is it you think that this particular investigation should have such a shorter timeline?

Because it seems that very time his staff comes up with some excuse of plausible deniability for him in a scandalous situation, he just tweets that he really did do the thing he is accused of.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the face of Trump's base.

Degenerate losers, trolls, racists, shitposters, anime viewers.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

A state is made up of constituents, who are represented by who they elect. Why does it need a third party (electoral college) to represent it?

The real problem here is you and I both know socially conservative viewpoints are unpopular among the educated and cannot stand to scrutiny. It takes gerrymandering, filibustering, and outright fraud for a backwards-ass government to take hold. You write about rules, but when's the last time Republicans did anything to follow them instead of twisting them to their own ends?

Redraw districts in ways that make sense, such as county lines or jurisdiction. If your problem are "big cities", then maybe it's a sign that conservative views are only valued by rural areas. If they want their backwards views represented or shared by others, they should be willing to explain the merit of those views.

I understand that's hard, because the views are pretty much indefensible. But that's the only way you'll be convincing any educated person.

Another thing to consider is: why are conservative areas so poor? It probably has to do with their politics and how shitty they tend to treat people. They can't even take care of the same people who voted them in. Shameful, sad, and unfit to lead.

Re:Really?

[gtall]

Pulling out of the TPP has just about handed the Pacific Basin to the Chinese. I'd call that something, helping make America small minded again.

Re:Really?

[gtall]

Given the state of the Democrat Party right now, I think there is even chances they'll nominate some left wing-nut and find a way to fuck up the election in a totally new way. There will be no opposition within the Republican Party because they've kicked out anyone with new ideas and no one with any sense wants to roll the pig-sty with el Presidente Tweetie.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

You have been the laughing stock since the 70's. If anything you are LESS of a laughing stock now that you seem to have gotten a president with some brains.

Re: Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you mean "petty and impotent".

Re:Really?

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

You might as well ask why anyone cares about anything on Twitter. Some people just want to be outraged about something, anything, and Twitter gives them that opportunity.

I think President Trump is just trolling people.

Re:Really?

[mbkennel]

> There is a reason for the electoral college and it's states rights. If it wasn't in place 3 to 4 cities would dictate the vote from mainly 3 states and 47 other states wouldn't matter.

No. Why would it work that way? There is no winner-take-all in any level in a direct popular vote. 3 or 4 cities are NYC, 8.1 million, Los Angeles, 3.8 million, Chicago, 2.7 million, Houston, 2.1 million. 16.7 million. Even near doubling that for suburbs (which often vote distinctly opposite from the city), that's about 10%. The population of the USA is about 330 million.

And in those cities, without a winner take all, the minority candidate's votes also accumulate. Think about the 40% of conservatives in California, or the 40% of liberals in Texas. So even if the large cities vote for one candidate by 65 to 35%, a 30% difference (which is very large) that's 16.7 million * 0.3 = about 5 million votes. (I'm equating population to votes, but it should be roughly proportional).

In a direct popular vote, every vote matters, and candidates would campaign and try to appeal everywhere. Conservatives in New York. Liberals in Kansas. Everyone. Why should a few states in the current system (FL, OH, PA, MI) get to matter more than many other states?

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

we DID elect someone to fix "the damage in between".

his name was Obama.

Re:Really?

[iMadeGhostzilla]

Electoral College exists to prevent the Union of individual states from breaking apart. That was its original purpose and it still holds.

"Assume, for example, one state holds the country’s entire reserves of a crucial resource, but has a small population. In a direct democracy, its resources could be distributed to other states and compensation ignored. That would breed hostility and secessionism, perhaps even civil war. In any event, in a nation of united states, where all states are needed for geopolitical reasons, their interests have to be recognized.
[...]
You might charge that this is undemocratic. It is. It was intended to be. The founders did not create a direct democracy for a good reason. It would have prevented the United States from emerging as a stable union. They created a republican form of government based on representation and a federal system based on sovereign states. Because of that, a candidate who ignores or insults the “flyover” states is likely to be writing memoirs instead of governing."

https://geopoliticalfutures.co...

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

don't forget closet homo's and pervs toward children.

but calling them names just unifies and emboldens them.

Re: Really?

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

There's way more evidence that Team Obama obstructed justice and manipulated the election than anything that's been sustained against President Trump or Russia.

Obama did nothing in response to intelligence that Russians were trying to manipulate our elections because Hillary was leading the polls.

Loretta Lynch asked the Director of the FBI to call the investigation into Hillary's mishandling of classified intelligence a "matter" and not an investigation. Lynch was caught on video having a secret meeting with Bill Clinton on the tarmac inside a private jet prior to dropping the case against Hillary. There's even rumored to be an email message from Lynch to head of the DNC detailing all the ways she can help Hillary win the election.

Then you've got the all of the emails that were released. Donna Brazile flat-out lied to the public about the emails being "altered" when she knew damn well they weren't. She also got caught feeding a debate question to Hillary.

The Democrats may regret starting this witch hunt.

Re: Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't you just make Election Day a public holiday ?

Re: Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

And see how that turned out...

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

So fun is shitting on states rights and pushing that major cities should dictate who wins office? That just sounds like being a dick and claiming it's all the fault of "gerrymandering Republicans". It also sound like crying you lost a game because you didn't know the rules. There is a reason for the electoral college and it's states rights. If it wasn't in place 3 to 4 cities would dictate the vote from mainly 3 states and 47 other states wouldn't matter. That's why it's in place. But yeah, claim those 47 states have "much higher voting power" like it's ok to shit on their citizens then claim the 3 other states are not getting their way. Funny to me is that you seem to be ok with it but would probably support all sorts of socialist programs the government offers, but I guess maybe the word hypocrite isn't in your vocabulary?

Oh for fucks sake, Republicans love nothing more than Socialism, If banks or big corporations go bankrupt what do they do? They bail them out with taxpayer money. If the same corporations are making profits what do the damn Republicans do? ... they toss millions of people off of healthcare to give those corporations monstrous tax cuts, and when it comes time to leverage the rotten electoral college to get themselves voted in on a minority of the popular vote they dole out farm subsidies and other pork left right and centre. Do the Democrats do the same? ..why yes they do, but it's the Republicans who constantly rage on about such classic socialist practices like propping up businesses that should be allowed to fail and subsidising hopelessly inefficient and non profitable things like family owne farms to keep people employed, anti-socialist campaigner Michele Bachmann who took tens of thousands of dollars in farm subsidies being one case in point. The states who are net contributors of federal taxes in the US are usually Democrat led, the vast majority of the states that are where the federal government spends more money than it gets in taxes are Republican led.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

trump defenders often say garbage like this to deflect the conversation.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

TIL: Republitards don't know cities exist within a STATE.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump has actually managed to upstage Robert Mugabe in terms of incompetence and corruption

Holy shit, no. Mugabe had thousands of people killed in the first few years of his rule. In the US, thus far, the violent mobs have all been anti-Trump.

Re: Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because he was gonna get more done in 100 days than any president before?

Re: Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

"No evidence has thus far turned up"

"No evidence has thus far turned up in public"

FTFY because of course, various intelligence agencies are still investigating.

Re:Really?

[sit1963nz]

The "position" of POTUS is important and has respect around the world by other world leaders
The current holder of that position though has no respect from any of those world leaders.

The longer we laugh, the louder we laugh, the less respect there will be for the both the person and the position.

Re:Really?

[slack_justyb]

This means that winning one electoral vote in California takes on hell of more votes than winning the same electoral vote in Wyoming or Kansas or Montana

That would be true if every state ran their system like ME and NE. However, the majority is first past the pole. Here's the states that you mentioned if they worked on a distributed EV system.

California: Clinton 34, Trump 18, Johnson 2, Stein 1
Wyoming: Trump 2, Clinton 1
Kansas: Trump 3, Clinton 2, Johnson 1
Montana: Trump 2, Clinton 1

There's nothing wrong with your statement in that it takes more heads to earn a single EV (total population divide by EVs in state), but first past the pole makes that a mute point. WY, KS, and MT are a total of 12 EV which is only 2.2% of the EC. CA is 55 EV which is only 10.2%. Three rural states aren't even a fifth the total power of CA. So while Clinton only commanded ~62% of the state, she gets 10.2% (55/538 EV) of the EC from only 2% (1/50 states) of the total number of states. Trump commanded 70%, 57%, and 57% in WY, KS, MT respectively and received 2.2% (12/538 EV) of the EC out of 6% (3/50 states) of the total number of states.

What I do think is interesting is that Johnson commanded 3.4%, 5.3%, 4.7%, and 5.6% in CA, WY, KS, and MT respectively and received 0 EV, even though that is 3.6% (496,603/13,835,311 votes) of all votes that were cast in those states. I mean not even an unfaithful elector. My two cents, and it is just that, is that we're all so hell bent on trying to fix something for a two party system, that we forget we could be more than a two party system.

I will agree that the limit of 435 members to the house is pretty brain dead. Additionally, while the 1911 Act set the new membership size, The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 set it in stone. Census data in 1920 showed that populations were growing faster in cities than in rural areas and this Act was a stop-gap (oops turned into forever) measure to come up with a new method for determining size of Congress and distribution of seats, the formula has change since then, just not the number of seats. Additionally, I won't go into the formulas but they are posted here for public review. Without boring you to tears, the formulas favor smaller over bigger. You can read this about other methods that have been used and a bit of history on how membership size has ran through the decades.

As far as number of seats go. There's pros and cons to both sides. A smaller Congress would be more apt to get things done and cost less (maybe, unless they gave themselves a raise pursuant to the 27th Amendment), but members would be less personable to their constituents. A larger Congress would most likely cost more and less (I know, hard to think about Congress doing even less) might get done. However, they would be able to get more personable with their constituents. I think larger would be better, but I also think Congress should rethink the way that they operate and going into my opinion on that end would just inflate this comment already bigger than it already is.

Hope any of that drivel was helpful.

Re:Really?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

The electoral college had its place in the early days of the US republic but it's a completely useless relic by now

The electoral college had its place in 2016, by say directly electing Mike Pence, or punting the decision to the House of Reps, or simply doing something to take into account the severe unacceptability of Trump.

Now, it totally failed at that, but I think that the idea of a trusted middleman is definitely not obsolete.

Re: Really?

[Zero__Kelvin]

If Billary was the President right now they might focus on them. At the moment we have a much more dangerous set of clowns with which we must deal. And those who are saying there is no evidence must have heard an announcement from the FBI the rest of us missed.

Re:Really?

[Bender0x7D1]

Okay - I'll bite...

I voted for Trump because I believe he was, and is, better for the United States than Hillary would have been.

I think we should strengthen our borders. There is a huge cost associated with illegal immigration, and someone ends up paying for it. We currently have 11 million illegal immigrants in the US - and will pay for their medical care and for the children to go to school. While some of them pay taxes - with their stolen identifies, many do not - so they aren't paying into the system.

Democrats wanted "free college for everyone". Well, it isn't free - and I don't want to pay part of the bill. I am paying off my own student debt, and don't want to pay for someone else to go through my taxes.

I like the Constitution, and feel the Second Amendment is just as important as any other. I don't care if everyone gets together and changes it; but, until then, it is a right. No, we don't have to be stupid about it - and you can lose your rights - but we can't just water it down because, you know, guns are scary.

There are a bunch of different reasons, but I'm not going to completely rehash what is all over the Internet. You may not agree with all the reasons, but that doesn't mean they aren't valid.

As for the Electoral College - it is actually fairly similar to how Canada, and other parliament-based democracies, selects their Prime Minister. That is based on how many seats you have in Parliament - and not how much you won those seats by. So, we can imagine a party winning 49% of the seats by a margin of 99-1. However, even if the other party (and, yes, I know there is more than 2 parties - but I am keeping things simple) wins the remaining 51% by a margin of 55-45, they form the new government.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ditto. I don't like the EC system. Another reason why I don't vote.

Re:Really?

[Sir Holo]

Wake me when he DOES something.

Time to wake up!

Trump is continuing his attack on the Press. That is bad.

Trump is at the same time incorporating lies into his public statements. That is bad.

Both of these are behaviors of those wishing to become dictators. Read The Atlantic from a couple of months ago, the one with the cover article "How to Build an Autocracy". For your filter-check, know that The Atlantic leans slight right.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be true if every state ran their system like ME and NE.

Not quite. Leaving aside the gerrymandering, even given the current gap in average House sizes, it is still true, given that winning in California takes lots more votes than the entire population of some states.

However, the majority is first past the pole.

Technically you're talking about Winner-take-All.

Here's the states that you mentioned if they worked on a distributed EV system.

If you're talking about how Maine and Nebraska do it, it'd be quite different. like this.

Additionally, while the 1911 Act set the new membership size, The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 set it in stone.

No, it didn't. It's worse. It's set in mud. Nobody can get traction to change it.

However, in practical terms, Congress could vote on a new apportionment act, and set it to change immediately, if they so wanted.

But yeah, what might really help is something to widen the partisan spread. WTA, FPTP, are not good things.

Re:Really?

[RespekMyAthorati]

Trump doesn't have to worry so much about the Democrats as he does the Repubs that he defeated for the nomination.
They will be back in force in 3 years to retake the nomination. Trump will be so bored he probably won't even run.

Re:Really?

[Opportunist]

Trump is a lot like a really dumb school bully. Behind his back, you laugh and mock him, but you won't laugh in his face because he could easily beat you up.

Re:Really?

[Opportunist]

http://www.stuttmann-karikatur...

(Adviser: "On Twitter, someone said Trump's too scared to push the button". Trump: "Too scared? Me? I'm gonna show him!")

Re: Really?

[houghi]

Nixon did 1 thing. It was not very good or nice, but it was basically 1 thing. Trump does 1 thing per day.
But at least it isn't a blowjob and he isn't black, so no problem there.

The one thing he did (most likely by accident) right is that nobody wants number 2 to become number 1.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wake me when he DOES something.

He DOES undermine the credibility of himself and the nation with almost every single thing he does. You wanting to sleep and ignore this is only making the problem worse. You should be very awake already.

Re:Really?

[Opportunist]

Ok. So I'm awake. This changes what exactly?

Reminds me of MASH

HAWKEYE: Colonel, about the sniping
POTTER: We’re doing all we can. I’m working at my desk and Radar’s scared.
B.J.: And that’s all?
POTTER: I can work twice as hard, if you like. Radar, can you be twice as scared?
RADAR: No problem, sir.

Re: Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nixon also undermined US allies and interests in Vietnam before he was elected. The other party didn't bring it up because they thought there was no way he would win the election and didn't want to appear to derive political benefit from Nixon's unethical negotiations.

All you need to do is s/Nixon/Trump/; s/LBJ/Obama/; s/Vietnam/Russia/ and you have this election.

Re:Really?

[david_thornley]

The Electoral College as described in the Federalist Papers would not have elected Trump.

Re:Really?

[david_thornley]

Assume, under the present system, one state has a small population and the entire national reserves of a crucial resource, which is a highly unlikely counterfactual in the first place. That state would have three electoral votes, one Representative, and two Senators. There would be nothing stopping the country from electing a President, Senate, and House determined to plunder the resources, which would breed hostility and secessionism, perhaps even civil war.

You're supporting a system because it would do exactly the same as an improved system in a highly unlikely contingency.

Re:Really?

[iMadeGhostzilla]

You're assuming there would be nothing stopping the country from electing a President determined to plunder the small state but I'm assuming there would be -- other small states would likely band with it in order to avoid a similar fate and reduce the chance of such President being elected.

For that reason I do agree, there's little value in imagining highly unlikely scenarios, so that example I quoted I admit is not really helpful. A more practical way of thinking is small states do like the Electoral College and do feel more empowered with it and that's likely not going to change. Having a system in place that makes small states more comfortable being within the union likely does make the union stronger though.

And if the big states want to switch to proportional distribution of electors rather than winner take all to make the system more democratic, there's nothing to stop them.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

instead I can have endless fun asking my American friends to explain why their countrymen voted for Trump.

not a whole lot of people voted for him here, he got 15% in the county I live and 9% in the county I work in...

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, yeah, so you think that the last 100 days has been just everyone sitting around doing fuck all in the whitehouse and the washington estate.

Because if you DON'T think that, then you have clearly decided to exclude things done because "they're not REAL changes". So you need to define what YOU mean by changes and why they should be the yardstick used.

Re: Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

The tree of offenses from the Trump administration is probably far branchier than the handful of obstruction counts committed by the Nixon administration. This investigation will take longer.

Re:Really?

[david_thornley]

Another more practical way to think is also that larger states feel less empowered with the EC, and that makes the union less strong.

While I favor proportional distribution of electors, that doesn't change the fact that a guy in Wyoming has a lot more voting power than I do.

Re:Really?

[iMadeGhostzilla]

I disagree that way is more practical, in every union larger members have more power just by virtue of their size and wealth. Just look at EU and Germany vs other countries.

Now you as a citizen may feel less empowered than the guy in Wyoming, and it's true he has more voting power than you with respect to voting for President. But I argue that metric is irrelevant, you can meaningfully only compare yourself with others in your state. You and the Wyoming guy live in different democracies for all practical and legal purposes. Your *state* and his state have decided to get into a partnership of states for economic, military and other reasons, and agreed to implement some mutually agreed on laws at the level of your states. But more than just in the presidential voting power, you two are not equal in every political and legal sense like you are with others in your state, and were not meant to be.

Not saying it's the best arrangement, or that it isn't, I don't think it's knowable in principle, but it's an arrangement that's been successful so far. It might evolve in the future though but it would need to be bottom up, grassroots, majority of people in all the states being dissatisfied with the current system for it to change.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

People care because Jeff Bezos is a sworn enemy of Trump and his use of The WaPo is being seen as not only as a tax haven (shelter), but also as an editorial mouthpiece to attack Trump with, which we all know by now that if attacked, Trump fights back, which sets leftists on fire and you can hear their collective autistic screeching. Also, Trump has indicated in the past that maybe Bezos concerns, such as Amazon and it's rates of acquisitions, may be ripe for anti-trust investigations.

Re:Really?

[david_thornley]

Neither Minnesota nor Wyoming were pre-existing states. Both were formed out of federal land. Neither had a choice in whether to be part of the US, and so the EC was imposed on both states. For practical and legal purposes, we live in the same democracy, with lower-level differences.

Fitting

[Anonymous Coward]

He really is the president America deserves, he's an incredibly apt reflection of the population-at-large.

Re:Fitting

[Anonymous Coward]

This is true. Their lack of resistance makes the entire act consensual. It was not a rape. But, hey, denial...

Re:Fitting

[rahvin112]

He is a reflection of the people that elected him, Boomers, the original Me generation that will be the death of this country through their selfishness.

Re:Fitting

[iggymanz]

now that's a laugh, considering the useless parasites who voted Obama because they thought he would give them something

Re:Fitting

[Anonymous Coward]

Meanwhile the boomer generation left scraps to three entire generations after them. This country won't recover from their damage until the boomers are all gone and stop voting for things they'll never see the results of.

Boomers take but never give.

Re:Fitting

[Anonymous Coward]

The sooner everyone over the age of 60 dies, the better off we'll be as a country. Their parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents crawled through hell and back and still busted their asses to make sure the surviving generations wouldn't have to suffer the same. The boomers have squandered every reward and dismantled every safeguard, leaving behind a legacy of poverty, greed, ignorance, hunger, you name it.

Parasites, the lot of them.

Re:Fitting

[Anonymous Coward]

i'm generation X.

yours is the same attitude i had in my twenties.

now in my forties, i realize that old people are just us...the dumb youngsters from yesterday.

tomorrow you won't be a youngster anymore, just remember that.

you'll cringe the first day you hear someone younger than you call you a parasite.

Re:Fitting

[iggymanz]

what nonsense, those who educate themselves and work don't have scraps. get off your ass

Re:Fitting

[david_thornley]

If he's an incredibly apt reflection of the population at large, why did he lose the popular vote? You'd expect such a President to win it decisively.

The real news is CNN and their fake Russia "news"

[Anonymous Coward]

From the very top, the CEO instructed the producers to keep pushing Russia because it fed the anti-Trump lib-left views and generated excellent viewing numbers.

And here we are, Trump sees a cute woman, or Trump thinks this, is making the headlines. How about a former world renowned news source of excellence creating fake news after fakes new to push agendas and pander to their undemocratic viewers?

See any MSM of CNN creating a muslim gathering in London? Nope. How about them throwing stage blood on a wall to create more drama? Fortunately not everyone that works for them sticks to the party line and leaks mobile phone evidence. But you won't see it on the BBC, NBC, or any other viewer obsessed network despite the obvious real news behind this failing company.

It's Obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump is a complete moron.

Re: It's Obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

Half the country knew that last year. Unfortunately they're morons, too, and voted for him anyway.

Re:It's Obvious

[cayenne8]

Trump is a complete moron.

Still better than Hillary.

Next time...give us better choices, maybe someone with a brain AND it moderate.

Re: It's Obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

Next time...give us better choices, maybe someone with a brain AND it moderate.

So you want vote for Hillary again? I admit, she did a great job running the country the first time, but Americans prefer to go further left. And possibly browner.

Re: It's Obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

Half the country knew that last year. Unfortunately they're morons, too, and voted for him anyway.

Unfortunately, alternative was even worse.

Dem's ruined everything by not picking Bernie Sanders.

Re:It's Obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump is a complete moron.

Still better than Hillary.

Next time...give us better choices, maybe someone with a brain AND it moderate.

Agreed. Bernie Sanders ftw.

Re:It's Obvious

[HornWumpus]

That's exactly the wrong lesson. The Ds should nominate a _competent_ centrist next time. Not a leftist.

That's how we'll get more Trump.

That and making Antifa the face of the left, those clowns need to calm down, get jobs and get on with growing up.

Re: It's Obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

Communist Sanders? You want a new Venezuela?

You were warned

[Anonymous Coward]

trump is satan. SAD!!

I don't care if it is true

[rsilvergun]

it would be a trivial tax dodge compared to what we allow with Ireland. Good to see Trump picking up the Democrats strategy to glomping down on issues the working class doesn't care about and ignoring stuff like jobs and health care. I'm sure it'll turn out for him just as well as it did for Hilary.

Re:I don't care if it is true

[ganjadude]

we dont "allow" anything with ireland, they are their own nation with their own laws

Re:I don't care if it is true

[Anonymous Coward]

We allow companies to pretend that income earned elsewhere, say in our own country, can be fed to an artificial Irish entity that does zero work, in order to park money there without paying what is due on the taxes.

So they benefit from all the roads, law enforcement, fire services, environmental controls, public education, and manage to get out of paying for it with a surreptitous act of money laundering.

 

Distinction without difference

[mi]

Quick fact check: Amazon doesn't own The Washington Post, Jeff Bezos -- in his personal capacity -- does.

Distinction without difference... The sentiment expressed is still perfectly plausible:

• Bezos despises Trump and is likely to steer WaPo to criticize the President above and beyond what would be fair
• Bezos is likely to have purchased WaPo with tax-considerations paying at least a partial role — the other big concern, no doubt, was to save money on lobbying, by flat-out owning the biggest loudspeaker in the capital.

Re:Distinction without difference

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this different from the Koch brothers?

Oh...right...it's not.

Re:Distinction without difference

[fustakrakich]

Distinction without difference

That is true, much like the distinction between republicans and democrats that everyone likes to play up but really amount to nothing.

Bezos despises Trump

That is shtick, for ratings...

Re:Distinction without difference

[Anonymous Coward]

because wapo never ever criticized the sitting prez before agent orange was elected. or was the cause for one resigning before impeachment could be enforced.

Re:Distinction without difference

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh?

Amazon didn't buy the Post. That's a pretty big distinction and it makes a big difference.

Re:Distinction without difference

[Gravis Zero]

Bezos is likely to have purchased WaPo with tax-considerations paying at least a partial role — the other big concern, no doubt, was to save money on lobbying, by flat-out owning the biggest loudspeaker in the capital.

Actually, he was testing the Amazon Echo in beta to see if it would subscribe to their newspaper and in the most literal sense Alexa did "buy a copy of The Washington Post." ;)

Re:Distinction without difference

[Anonymous Coward]

So did Trump fake his own Time covers or not? Shouldnt be an alternative fact, it either is or isnt fake. Time confirmed it is fake, and I trust them more than Trump.

So is it "fair" to report that we have a leader so egotistical + insecure he needs to put up fake Time covers in his properties? I think it is.

Re:Distinction without difference

[quantaman]

Quick fact check: Amazon doesn't own The Washington Post, Jeff Bezos -- in his personal capacity -- does.

Distinction without difference...

Actually there is a real difference. Bezos, Chairman and CEO of Amazon, is a different role than Bezos, owner of Amazon. Ethical people generally recognize the differences in these roles and try to avoid overlap. I don't know if Bezos is a particularly ethical person, but if he is he's made sure that the reporting staff feel perfectly clear to criticize Amazon and/or advocate for issues with which he personally disagrees.

The sentiment expressed is still perfectly plausible:

• Bezos despises Trump and is likely to steer WaPo to criticize the President above and beyond what would be fair

Unlikely, if Bezos is ethical he gives the WaPo staff editorial independence (which is very much the standard in the newspaper industry). Now again I don't really know about Bezos's ethics, but I've never heard evidence he was unethical. And frankly, if the WaPo reporters did feel like he was trying to steer coverage they're the kind of reporters who would start complaining in public.

Bezos is likely to have purchased WaPo with tax-considerations paying at least a partial role

Though what mechanism? Did the WaPo change stances to be more anti-internet tax after his purchase?

— the other big concern, no doubt, was to save money on lobbying, by flat-out owning the biggest loudspeaker in the capital.

Does the WaPo align with his personal politics, and did that play a role in his purchase? Definitely.

Is the WaPo being used to lobby to increase Amazon's profits? I haven't seen a shred of evidence and consider the idea absurd.

Re:Distinction without difference

[Anonymous Coward]

"Distinction without difference..."

Well my, yes, to a Trump supporter I'm sure that's true. That's why Trump turned over management of his companies to a family member, in a sham effort to distance himself from those companies and separate the national and his personal interests.

Only in Bizarro Trump World does the ownership of a major asset like a newspaper not make any difference. Tell me, if I sold the Trump company's assets and took the money, would it still not make any difference? And yeah, I know that my relationship to TrumpCo is different than Bezos' relationship to Amazon, but you brought that on yourself with the "distinction without difference" comment.

Re:Distinction without difference

[XxtraLarGe]

How is this different from the Koch brothers?

Oh...right...it's not.

Yeah, the Kochs don't like Trump either.
Koch network slams Trump immigrant ban
Koch network to Trump administration: "You are never going to win the war on drugs. Drugs won."

Re:Distinction without difference

[Anonymous Coward]

You're clearly out of your mind if you think a person can own a media outlet and not use it.

Re:Distinction without difference

[swillden]

Quick fact check: Amazon doesn't own The Washington Post, Jeff Bezos -- in his personal capacity -- does.

Distinction without difference... The sentiment expressed is still perfectly plausible:

• Bezos despises Trump and is likely to steer WaPo to criticize the President above and beyond what would be fair
• Bezos is likely to have purchased WaPo with tax-considerations paying at least a partial role — the other big concern, no doubt, was to save money on lobbying, by flat-out owning the biggest loudspeaker in the capital.

Also, Trump sees no distinction between himself and the businesses that he owns (and, as president, no particular reason to distinguish between himself as president and the businesses that he owns, else he'd have divested or set up a blind trust, as previous presidents have), and he has no problem using one of his businesses to browbeat or reward someone involved in another, so he assumes Bezos is the same.

I don't know about WaPo, but generally newspapers have ownership arrangements structured to ensure that the editorial board is independent and can't be influenced by the owner(s). I'd expect that's true in this case as well, or that some other mechanism is in place to ensure editorial independence. It's important.

Re:Distinction without difference

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice strawman. Bezos' political agenda is completely irrelevant to what Trump tweeted. The "sentiment" is that Amazon is using WaPo in a tax dodging scheme. As usual with Trump's tweets, it's backed up by absolutely nothing.

Re: Distinction without difference

[oobayly]

Which surely means that Amazon can't use the Washington Post losses to reduce their tax liability.

Re:Distinction without difference

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the whole issue with conservatives in general. They think everyone is a greedy cunt like they are.

Re:Distinction without difference

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone with two brain cells to rub together and basic human decency despises Tump. It doesn't take an imagined conspiracy to criticize the Trump administration.

Re:Distinction without difference

[gtall]

Wash. Post shows no influence from Bezos and no one has reliably reported any, stop talking out of your ass.

Re:Distinction without difference

[iMadeGhostzilla]

Plus the pattern is those of Trump's claims which are not technically true but sort of ring true -- which is the majority of his claims -- almost always end up working in his favor as if by magic.

Re:Distinction without difference

[Anonymous Coward]

And how many business enterprises has DT set up and run just for the exact same reasons? Sure his intentions at the start are that we weii all be amazed, that it'll be huge. but as he gets bored with it, and/or he's figured that he's extracted all he can, boom. It's now a tax-loss company, and those years of losses can be banked and used conveniently, and the business gets restructured so as to minimize negative exposure for the trump brand.

In this case he's really not special, except for his craven hypocrisy about it.

Timeline of Treason

[Anonymous Coward]

Donald Turmp hates the Washington Post because it accurately reports on his treasonous crimes.

I'm sorry that the Washington post documented your carelessly executed treason, Moscow Donald.

Before the election

Dec. 10, 2015
Lt. Gen Michael Flynn is part of a panel discussion in Moscow for the 10th anniversary of government-backed Russia Today, for which he receives payment (The Washington Post, Aug. 15, 2016). Officials notice an increase in communication between Flynn and the Russian ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak, following the Russia Today event (CNN, May 19, 2017).

Late 2015
British intelligence agencies detect suspicious interactions between Russia and Trump aides that they pass on to American intelligence agencies (The Guardian, April 13, 2017).

March 19, 2016
Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta is sent an email that encourages him to change his email password, likely precipitating the hack of his account (CBS News, Oct. 28, 2016).

March 21
During an interview with The Post, Trump lists Carter Page as part of his foreign policy team. Page had been recommended by a son-in-law of President Richard Nixon, New York Republican Party Chairman Ed Cox (WP, March 21, 2016).

March 28
Political veteran Paul Manafort is hired to help the Trump campaign manage the delegate process for the Republican National Convention. He is recommended by Trump confidante Roger Stone (New York Times, March 28, 2016). Before joining the campaign, Manafort lobbied on behalf of Oleg Deripaska, an ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin. That deal followed a memo from Manafort in which he offered a plan that could Ãoegreatly benefit the Putin Government.Ã His relationship with Deripaska ended in 2009 (Associated Press, March 22, 2017). Manafort also worked on behalf of the Russia-friendly Party of Regions in Ukraine, helping guide the party's leader, Viktor Yanukovych, to the country's presidency. Yanukovych would later be ousted. (WP, Aug. 19, 2016)

April 27
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) may have met with Kislyak at a reception at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington before a foreign-policy speech given by Trump (CNN, May 31, 2017).

June
At a closed-door meeting of foreign policy experts and the prime minister of India, Page praises Putin effusively (WP, Aug. 5, 2016).

June 15
A hacker calling himself ÃoeGuccifer 2.0Ã releases the Democratic National Committee's research file on Donald Trump (Gawker, June 15, 2016). News reports already link the stolen data to Russian hackers (WP, June 14, 2016).

July
At some point this month, the FBI begins investigating possible links between the Russian government and Trump's campaign (Wired, March 20, 2017).

July 7
Page travels to Moscow to give a lecture (NYT, April 19, 2017). The Trump campaign approved the trip (USA Today, March 7, 2017). This trip was likely the catalyst for the FBI's request for a secret surveillance warrant to track PageÃs communications (WP, May 25, 2017).

July 11 or 12
Trump campaign staffers intervene with the committee developing the Republican Party's national security platform to remove language call arming Ukraine against Russian aggression. (July 18, 2016).

July 18
At an event hosted by the Heritage Foundation as part of the Republican National Convention, Sessions and Kislyak have a brief conversation (WP, March 2, 2017).

Flynn delivers a speech at the Republican convention, joining in the crowd's ÃoeLock her up!à chant. ÃoeIf I, a guy who knows this business, if I did a tenth of what she did,à Flynn said, ÃoeI would be in jail todayà (C-Span, July 18, 2016).

July 22
Wikileaks releases emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee (WP, July 22, 2017).

Jul. 27
During his

Re:Timeline of Treason

[ganjadude]

#fakenews

Re:Timeline of Treason

[coinreturn]

Donald Turmp hates the Washington Post because it accurately reports on his treasonous crimes.

I'm sorry that the Washington post documented your carelessly executed treason, Moscow Donald.

Before the election

Dec. 10, 2015 Lt. Gen Michael Flynn is part of a panel discussion in Moscow for the 10th anniversary of government-backed Russia Today, for which he receives payment (The Washington Post, Aug. 15, 2016). Officials notice an increase in communication between Flynn and the Russian ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak, following the Russia Today event (CNN, May 19, 2017).

Late 2015 British intelligence agencies detect suspicious interactions between Russia and Trump aides that they pass on to American intelligence agencies (The Guardian, April 13, 2017).

March 19, 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta is sent an email that encourages him to change his email password, likely precipitating the hack of his account (CBS News, Oct. 28, 2016).

March 21 During an interview with The Post, Trump lists Carter Page as part of his foreign policy team. Page had been recommended by a son-in-law of President Richard Nixon, New York Republican Party Chairman Ed Cox (WP, March 21, 2016).

March 28 Political veteran Paul Manafort is hired to help the Trump campaign manage the delegate process for the Republican National Convention. He is recommended by Trump confidante Roger Stone (New York Times, March 28, 2016). Before joining the campaign, Manafort lobbied on behalf of Oleg Deripaska, an ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin. That deal followed a memo from Manafort in which he offered a plan that could Ãoegreatly benefit the Putin Government.Ã His relationship with Deripaska ended in 2009 (Associated Press, March 22, 2017). Manafort also worked on behalf of the Russia-friendly Party of Regions in Ukraine, helping guide the party's leader, Viktor Yanukovych, to the country's presidency. Yanukovych would later be ousted. (WP, Aug. 19, 2016)

April 27 Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) may have met with Kislyak at a reception at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington before a foreign-policy speech given by Trump (CNN, May 31, 2017).

June At a closed-door meeting of foreign policy experts and the prime minister of India, Page praises Putin effusively (WP, Aug. 5, 2016).

June 15 A hacker calling himself ÃoeGuccifer 2.0Ã releases the Democratic National Committee's research file on Donald Trump (Gawker, June 15, 2016). News reports already link the stolen data to Russian hackers (WP, June 14, 2016).

July At some point this month, the FBI begins investigating possible links between the Russian government and Trump's campaign (Wired, March 20, 2017).

July 7 Page travels to Moscow to give a lecture (NYT, April 19, 2017). The Trump campaign approved the trip (USA Today, March 7, 2017). This trip was likely the catalyst for the FBI's request for a secret surveillance warrant to track PageÃs communications (WP, May 25, 2017).

July 11 or 12 Trump campaign staffers intervene with the committee developing the Republican Party's national security platform to remove language call arming Ukraine against Russian aggression. (July 18, 2016).

July 18 At an event hosted by the Heritage Foundation as part of the Republican National Convention, Sessions and Kislyak have a brief conversation (WP, March 2, 2017).

Flynn delivers a speech at the Republican convention, joining in the crowd's ÃoeLock her up!à chant. ÃoeIf I, a guy who knows this business, if I did a tenth of what she did,à Flynn said, ÃoeI would be in jail todayà (C-Span, July 18, 2016).

July 22 Wikileaks releases emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee (WP, July 22, 2017).

Jul. 27 During his last news conferen

Re:Timeline of Treason

[coinreturn]

Pro tip: fake news isn't news you don't like.

Re:Timeline of Treason

[ganjadude]

you were right the first time, just making a joke. the hashtag should give that away

Re:Timeline of Treason

[ganjadude]

true, was intended to be a joke. the hashtag should have given it away

Re:Timeline of Treason

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey!

James Hodgkinson posts on Slashdot!

Re: Timeline of Treason

[Anonymous Coward]

David Brock is that you? Trump is an idiot but the left are just as bad as the right. It's just a different kind of bad.

Re:Timeline of Treason

[Anonymous Coward]

In what world does # = joke.

Re:Timeline of Treason

[ganjadude]

anywhere but twitter

Re:Timeline of Treason

[Areyoukiddingme]

In what world does # = joke.

anywhere but twitter

I'm not entirely certain Twitter is an exception...

MAGA

[Anonymous Coward]

Making Amazon Great Again

A tax dodger calling out another tax dodger, gotta love it!

What's next? calling out people for grabbing pussy?

Re:MAGA

[fustakrakich]

A tax dodger calling out another tax dodger, gotta love it!

"What do you call it when the assassins accuse the assassin? A lie. A lie and we have to be merciful"

Jeff Bezos, In His Personal Capacity

[NicknameUnavailable]

lol, no such thing. If someone owns two companies they are effectively the same company, Trump knows this because he owns many companies, and knows how to skirt taxes with them while shifting funds between them as needed. There is no "personal capacity" for Bezos, all his assets are "personal capacity" and he writes off loses on WP to cover gains from Amazon.

Re:Jeff Bezos, In His Personal Capacity

[Anonymous Coward]

So the pot is calling the kettle black?

Re:Jeff Bezos, In His Personal Capacity

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't remotely true. There is simply no tax relationship between the two companies.

Re:Jeff Bezos, In His Personal Capacity

[chill]

No, you're wrong.

Amazon is a public company, with stock traded on NASDAQ. Ownership is over 63% institutional. Jeff Bezos is the Chariman, President, CEO, and a large stockholder, but by no means "owns" Amazon.

The Washington Post is a privately held company, which Jeff Bezos purchased through a holding company (Nash Holdings, LLC) for $250 million in 2013. Yes, he indirectly "owns" The Washington Post.

Your descriptions of writing off of losses from WP to cover gains from Amazon is grossly inaccurate and ignorant of how business structures and taxes work in the United States.

Re:Jeff Bezos, In His Personal Capacity

[Anonymous Coward]

He didn't claim a "tax relationship". He claimed that WaPo is trying to spread propaganda favorable to Amazon's tax interests.

Re:Jeff Bezos, In His Personal Capacity

[NicknameUnavailable]

Bezos FOUNDED Amazon.com, he is the CEO, and he has sold a sizable stake to others, it doesn't make it any less "his." A company is like a child for a founder, that's how they see it. Saying Amazon isn't Bezos' company is like saying Apple wasn't Jobs' company - he effectively has absolute control over and if he left prematurely it would likely flop the same as Apple did before Jobs came back to it.

Likewise, Gawker owning WP and Bezos owning Gawker doesn't mean Bezos "indirectly owns" WP, it means he fucking owns it.

Your descriptions of business structures and taxes in the United States sounds like that of someone who understands the legal definitions, but is grossly ignorant to the reality of how businesses function and conduct their day-to-day activities. Hell, the case could be made on social connections alone, but you don't even have to drop to that level of proof with Amazon-Bezos-WP relationship.

Re:Jeff Bezos, In His Personal Capacity

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the same damn thing he just typed. Propaganda in favor of tax interests isn't a tax relationship? On what planet?

Also keep in mind it's coming from the most hypocritical President to ever disgrace the office. What reason does anyone have to listen to that buffoon about business? How many bankruptcies has he been through again?

This is like taking swimming lessons from a rock.

The king of tax evasion...

[Anonymous Coward]

..screaming about companies evading taxes, while he passes legislature creating more tax dodges for the wealthy elite.

Is there some drug or something i need to take that makes all this somehow make sense?

Re: The king of tax evasion...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes it's called Fox News. If you only get your news from them then this all makes perfect sense.

Re: The king of tax evasion...

[Highdude702]

That's the problem when you only get news from one source that shaves it until it fits your political view. Try not thinking with pure emotions and using right and left wing news sources. Then TRY to peel the bias off of both and see what the news really is. I say TRY because it's not as easy as it sounds. People want to believe something they hear if it agrees with their ideas. But you have to put that to the side and see what's good for everybody not just you. It's hard to do. And it's the main reason I don't pay any attention to tv news sources. And I prefer to get news from left wing sources and then do some due diligence on that information. Helps with the not wanting to believe it just cause I like what they say part.

Re:The king of tax evasion...

[Anonymous Coward]

Tim Cook is screaming about companies evading taxes?

And really, why is this even at a +1? The poster seems to not realize that the executive branch has between little an no say as to what the legislative branch does. If there is legislation being created to create more tax dodges for the wealthy elite, call up your congressman or senator and start complaining. They're the ones doing this after all.

Re:The king of tax evasion...

[Anonymous Coward]

"The poster seems to not realize that the executive branch has between little an no say as to what the legislative branch does."

If thats the case, why is it being referred to (on both sides of the aisle) as "trump care"?? Is there a trump in the legislative branch too?

Oh for crying out loud...

[Solandri]

I agree Trump says a lot of stupid things. But it's pretty obvious here that he means he thinks Amazon is using the Washington Post for its own purposes (i.e. feeding it stories), not that it owns the Washington Post. Here's the tweet in question from TFA:

The #AmazonWashingtonPost, sometimes referred to as the guardian of Amazon not paying internet taxes (which they should) is FAKE NEWS!

I'm not quite sure how you get from that to Amazon owning the Washington Post. If there are multiple possible interpretations of a statement, the one that makes the most sense is likely the correct one, not the one which best reinforces your political biases by making the speaker appear the dumbest.

I've pretty much eliminated the Washington Post from the news sources I'll click through on Google News for this exact reason - they spin nearly every story in the most anti-Trump way they can think of, rather than giving an evenhanded presentation of the facts. (And no, I didn't vote for Trump.) I wouldn't call it fake news, more like news with a double serving of editorializing on the side. I don't need my news source telling me how I should think, thank you. I guess I'll have to add Tony Romm at Recode to the list.

Re:Oh for crying out loud...

[Anonymous Coward]

Mysteriously, you are focusing on an unimportant detail to cover over the fact that Trump has announced a plan to tax the internet.

You voted for him, and no, that you can claim that technically you cast a vote for an elector, does not make that untrue. It just makes you more deceitful and dishonest as well as cowardly since you can't admit to your support.

Now that his secret internet tax plan has been revealed, you are running scared. You know that Trump will use this punitive tax to suppress dissent and crush his opponents. You already have your Silver Shirt ready. Soon you'll be stomping some liberals, wait, I mean Mooslem Terrorists, under your golf cleats.

Re:Oh for crying out loud...

[Anonymous Coward]

how is the Washington Post spinning things to be anti-Trump any different than Fox News spinning things from 2009-2016 as being anti Obama?

Re:Oh for crying out loud...

[Ogive17]

You mean like how Trump used Breitbart "news" to spread mostly false information?

The worst thing about Trump is that he's guilty of everything he complains about on twitter. People affiliated with a political party always ignore the hypocrisy of their representatives...

Re:Oh for crying out loud...

[Anonymous Coward]

You assume that there is some "evenhanded presentation of the facts" that doesn't consistently look bad for Trump. I don't think that can be backed up -- the guy is a joke no matter the political perspective you are watching him from.

At the same time, the Washington Post runs a pretty constant stream of editorial content that is remarkably kind to Trump. Maybe your problem with the Washington Post is actually a problem with Google News.

In fact, there's a Trump-worthy conspiracy theory for you! Google is using its news service to poison the Washington Post's reputation in order to damage Amazon, which competes with multiple Google business initiatives. Sad! (Actually, that is far to complex for Trump to figure out).

Slashdot Hackery

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot should not opine in its headlines. Not surprised this side is dead

Re:Slashdot Hackery

[Anonymous Coward]

Stating a fact is not opining

Re:Slashdot Hackery

[GameboyRMH]

In today's America, facts are leftist propaganda, and need to be "balanced" with alternative facts approved by the Dear (Orange) Leader.

Re:The real news is CNN and their fake Russia "new

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump rarely leaves the Fox News echo chamber.

If you think that's bad...

[__aaclcg7560]

Trump seems unaware that TrumpCare is a giant tax cut for the rich by repealing the taxes that funded ObamaCare.

A senator who supports the bill left the meeting at the White House with a sense that the president did not have a grasp of some basic elements of the Senate plan — and seemed especially confused when a moderate Republican complained that opponents of the bill would cast it as a massive tax break for the wealthy, according to an aide who received a detailed readout of the exchange. Mr. Trump said he planned to tackle tax reform later, ignoring the repeal's tax implications, the staff member added.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/27/us/health-care-bill-trump-pence.html

Re:If you think that's bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

There were taxes that funded obamacare? I thought it was just paid for by jacking up my premium by 3x what it was before obamacare.

Re:If you think that's bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that was just the standard operating procedure of your insurance company. Don't tell us you didn't get rake hikes before Obamacare.

Re:If you think that's bad...

[__aaclcg7560]

There were taxes that funded obamacare?

How else would the rich pay their fair share in helping the less fortunate?

I thought it was just paid for by jacking up my premium by 3x what it was before obamacare.

My policy decreased from $500 per month to $300 per month. Same coverage with a higher deductible. I don't qualify for tax subsidies.

Re:If you think that's bad...

[lamer01]

You are the unicorn policy holder. Everyone else's policy premiums went through the roof,

Re:If you think that's bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

There were taxes that funded obamacare? I thought it was just paid for by jacking up my premium by 3x what it was before obamacare.

Amazing how much more money insurance companies needed after the ACA passed and it was no longer easy to:

1. Drop people who got very ill.
2. Put a cap on payouts, regardless of if you need further treatment or not.
3. Refuse coverage of healthcare issues due to it either being excluded or due to a pre-existing condition.

Re:If you think that's bad...

[DogDude]

Comrade, your trolling needs work.

Re:If you think that's bad...

[jsrjsr]

"Same coverage with a higher deductible" is not the same. You are paying less because you get less. Depending on what you spend towards your deductible, this may or may not be a better deal.

Higher Deductible + Lower Premiums + Healthy Person = Better deal

Higher Deductible + Lower Premiums + Unhealthy Person = Worse deal

YMMV

Re:If you think that's bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are the unicorn policy holder. Everyone else's policy premiums went through the roof,

This is complete and utter bollocks. Insurance rates were skyrocketing for most people BEFORE Obamacare. The ACA slowed the rate of increase dramatically overall, but changed the mix of people whose rates went up; instead of just shafting people who got sick, by dropping them or jacking up their rates, the Insurance Mob... err industry had to spread the increases around on everyone. THAT IS WHY so many people got upset.

Re:If you think that's bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed the "high deductible" portion of his statement. In other words, he pays less per month for the insurance, but will be paying out-of-pocket for most medical expenses.

Re:If you think that's bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, they deductible could go up by anything less than $2400, and it'd be a good deal no matter what, since they're paying $2400 less in premiums a year.

Re:If you think that's bad...

[__aaclcg7560]

In other words, he pays less per month for the insurance, but will be paying out-of-pocket for most medical expenses.

My job provides free flu shots every year. Except for seasonal allergies, I haven't been sick in years. If I do go to the hospital, the deductible will be the least of my concerns.

Re:If you think that's bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

There were taxes that funded obamacare? I thought it was just paid for by jacking up my premium by 3x what it was before obamacare.

Who the fuck has had their premiums go up 3x? Nobody in the entire country, not a single person(OK, maybe the 1% or so) could afford that. They would simply cancel their health insurance. But yet they didn't. What does that tell you? You really think, in this country where the huge majority of people are living so paycheck to paycheck that if their car needed a 100$ repair they would be put out of commission and practically made homeless, that their premiums went up, even 1.5x, and not put on the street?

No, it simply did not happen.

Re:If you think that's bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

I pay the Insurance for the small business I work at and see the bills personally. Our premiums have been on a downward trajectory since 2008, not sure what you're talking about.

Lemme guess, you think Obamacare is a new type of insurance that supercedes everyones' plans? Obamacare is not a product in and of itself and most are not forced to use it or even switch their plan

Re:If you think that's bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, except for the hypertension and cholesterol and high triglycerides...

Re:If you think that's bad...

[__aaclcg7560]

Sure, except for the hypertension and cholesterol and high triglycerides.

Symptoms that I don't have since I take care of myself.

Re:If you think that's bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow I guess I am also a lucky unicorn policy holder. The greatest yearly rate increases I saw were in the 2000 to 2008 time frame.

Re:If you think that's bad...

[nine-times]

Also, it's worth noting that the Republicans have greatly contributed to increased insurance costs. First, they removed some of the subsidies that were part of "Obamacare", and insurance companies had to raise prices to compensate.

Second, Trump announced that he would not enforce the mandate, which lead to a lot of young healthy people dropping insurance. As healthy people leave the market, the price of coverage for the remaining customers will increase.

Essentially, prices would probably have gone up anyway, but they've gone up a lot more than they would have if Obamacare had stayed completely in place.

Re:If you think that's bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the worst? Come on dude, you really gotta sell it! It IS the worst! Worse than the Civil War, WWI, WWII! Worse than slavery! Worse than the Great Depression! Worse than if AIDS and polio had a baby! Worse than if a single bullet from John Wilkes Booth's gun had stayed airborne for 99 years and managed to go through both Lincoln and Kennedy! (I knew there was a second shooter!) Obamacare is so bad it built a time machine and went back and invented inflation just so it could claim 100% responsibility for those premium increases!

Re:If you think that's bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

These aren't "symptoms", nippledick, they're MEASUREMENTS. If you don't get a checkup with a blood test, you'll never KNOW.

It's called the SILENT KILLER for a reason!

Re:If you think that's bad...

[__aaclcg7560]

It's called the SILENT KILLER for a reason!

Oh, that. I haven't had that problem in 30 years.

Re:If you think that's bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

...you only need that problem *once*, you simian.

Get a checkup and tell us again about your wonderful health!

Re:If you think that's bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

So true. Sadly, every time I hear Trump say, "let if fail" so they can blame the Democrats, I know what you said won't be the narrative. Reality and facts seem to have entirely gone out the window with Trump.

Re:If you think that's bad...

[__aaclcg7560]

...you only need that problem *once*, you simian.

A problem that I've beaten "once" 30 years ago.

Get a checkup and tell us again about your wonderful health!

And get called a liar because the numbers aren't worse than your expectations? I'm well familiar with that game.

Re:If you think that's bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry but I couldn't hear properly. Who cares what?

Re:If you think that's bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought Slashdot didn't matter in the real world? Now you're worried about being called a liar (that would be the least insulting thing you've been called on here) on here?

Who cares what people say here? It's for YOU. Get a check up! You're OLD and you're FAT.

Re:If you think that's bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

Lot of unicorns running around then....sure they aren't one-horned goats?

Many people's coverage went up, and many people's premiums went down.

Much of the price hikes in coverage is because of the Tea Party and Republicans in Cingress winning jn 2010 and beyond. They have never allowed adjustment of the law to fix minir flaws that have been exploited by conservatuve governors and law makers to make a political point and screw over their state's populations. Nearly every major marketplace withdrawal is in a conservative state. Republicans have deliberate trashed the law and actively destabilized it, like in Arizona. It's similar to the say a bank perceived as unstable, whether it is or not is besides the point, becomes unstable.

Besides, without any law, your premiums would have gone up. Healthcare percent of GDP was rising fast than currently. Premiums should have gone up with the increase in people from sick populations who were not being cared for hnder HMO schemes, where people flat out were denied care, died re denied cancer treatments, and often went diables so they could not hold jobs are burdened the disability sysrem.

This is like TPP--you have the ability to do well, and you screwed everyone to make a polotocal point. Now you;remlosing, you have a worse solution, and you're pointing fingers at the okd law that was better still than the previous system for the whole.

But you, yiu, you. You're a snowflake who usn't willing to do the right thing for every, only you.

Re:If you think that's bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we get some real stats on this? Saying everyone else premiums went through the roof is not accurate. My premiums DID NOT go through the roof; they went up, but only a little - far smaller increases than I had prior to obamacare. Also we need to consider what's covered. People who did have increases had essentially junk coverage that did very little. Of course new plans that cover a lot more will be more expensive, so it's not an apples to apples comparison in many of these cases - you need to consider what the differences in coverage are.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/feb/28/donald-trump/fact-checking-donald-trumps-claim-about-soaring-ob/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/25/donald-trump/trump-obamacare-health-care-premiums-going-35-45-5/

Re:If you think that's bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

There are multiple paths of funding. A new tax on the rich is just one of them.

What are "internet taxes"

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump apparently doesn't understand how internet businesses work, the relevant Supreme Court ruling on out of state businesses collecting state sales taxes, and the recent changes Amazon has made regarding their operations in different states so that they now collect sales taxes where they have a nexus. Big surprise.

Also he's asking for an increase in taxation, which is specifically a Democratic Party talking point. So he's not a fiscal conservative at all.

Clearly, the Republican Party should not have hitched their wagon to this psychotic rambling idiot. If the donkey party had any brains at all they could destroy this fool in the next election. But they won't because they can't get a grip on why they lost in the first place. And republicrats are in a daze because somehow they won and they keep acting like they lost.

When is it good to dodge taxes?

[Balial]

I'm really confused about the president's position on dodging taxes. If poor people don't pay taxes, that's bad. But if a rich person gets a tax break, that's good. If one of Trump's businesses, or he himself, avoids taxes, that's just his business expertise. But if Jeff Bezos does it, that's bad again.

Help me out here. I'm really confused...

Re:When is it good to dodge taxes?

[nnet]

A sitting president has personal issues he can't keep out of The Office Of The President Of The United States.
HTH.

Re:When is it good to dodge taxes?

[cdrudge]

If poor people don't pay taxes, that's bad.

It's "bad" because they get all the advantages and benefits provided by being a resident in the country while contributing little or none of the costs.

But if a rich person gets a tax break, that's good.

It's "good" because if they get a break, then that means they are contributing. But since they are contributing more than what poor people are, then it's unfair. Rich people could be using the difference to "stimulate the economy" or otherwise let the money "trickle down" to the poor (even though both have been shown to not work nearly as well as proponents claim.

If one of Trump's businesses, or he himself, avoids taxes, that's just his business expertise.

See: Rich person

But if Jeff Bezos does it, that's bad again.

Bezos leans Libertarian/Democrat, not Republican. So that makes him a evil filthy poor person more so than a rich person. See: Poor person

Re:When is it good to dodge taxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know its super fun to hate Trump, but the point he was trying to make about being smart to avoid taxes was that the tax system was screwed up and needs to be fixed. Same thing for lobbying, he doesn't like it but he had to play the game by the established rules.

Re:When is it good to dodge taxes?

[kiviQr]

Poor people pay taxes where they live. Most rich people stimulate their own pockets by outsourcing. "Long tail" and "trickle down" do not work for society. It makes rich people way richer and doesn't do much for the rest - see wealth distribution change in last 50 years.

Re:When is it good to dodge taxes?

[UnknowingFool]

Oh it's not that confusing. Anything that benefits Trump is what Trump proposes. It doesn't matter if it's terrible for other people or the country. Trump is all about himself.

Re:When is it good to dodge taxes?

[thegarbz]

Help me out here. I'm really confused...

No no no. You're really over complicating it. Let me break it down:

Trump not paying taxes = good.
People giving money to Trump in exchange for not paying taxes = good.
Everyone else not paying taxes = damn communist who hates America and should contribute to making the country great again.

Re:When is it good to dodge taxes?

[mean pun]

I know its super fun to hate Trump, but the point he was trying to make about being smart to avoid taxes was that the tax system was screwed up and needs to be fixed. Same thing for lobbying, he doesn't like it but he had to play the game by the established rules.

Absolutely! His entire behaviour suggests that he plays the game of tax dodging and influence peddling with great reluctance. Just look at his entire career. (Rolls eyes.)

Re:When is it good to dodge taxes?

[Balial]

That still doesn't explain why he's not celebrating Jeff Bezos rather than chastising him. I understand the position of "this is all messed up, but I have to play along"... but why doesn't Jeff get to play along, too?

Re:When is it good to dodge taxes?

[ooloorie]

I'm really confused about the president's position on dodging taxes. If poor people don't pay taxes, that's bad. But if a rich person gets a tax break, that's good.

It's actually really simple: he wants a more equal sharing of the tax burden:

https://taxfoundation.org/inco...

Note that poor people don't just not pay taxes, they get money back from the IRS.

If you look at total transfers, it gets even worse: the bottom 60% of income earners get more than they pay in:

https://taxfoundation.org/60-p...

That's not sustainable. No other advanced country works that way.

Re:When is it good to dodge taxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

"trickle down" == "tinkle down"
ftfy

Re:When is it good to dodge taxes?

[GameboyRMH]

It's good for rich people Trump likes (including Trump) to dodge taxes, for anyone else it's bad. Simple.

Re:When is it good to dodge taxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah... I'm going to quit my job right now because being below the poverty line is awesome! said nobody ever.

Re:When is it good to dodge taxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

He's either on drugs or has a physical/mental impairment. He's too irrational to be "normal" in any sense of the word.

Re:When is it good to dodge taxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Same thing for lobbying, he doesn't like it but he had to play the game by the established rules.

So what about 'draining the swamp'? Was he going to drain the swamp but decided instead to live in the swamp because it stinks?

Re:When is it good to dodge taxes?

[Balial]

So if it's just poor people that are a drain on the IRS that are the problem, why is the president butthurt about a billionaire, his company that folks think might have a trillion dollar market cap soon, and a paper he bought?

Re:When is it good to dodge taxes?

[mnemotronic]

If someone wants to pay a lot less in taxes, they can hide their wealth in off-shore accounts. Paying less in taxes makes them smart.

Re:When is it good to dodge taxes?

[ooloorie]

Where did he ever say that it was "just poor people" that are a drain on the IRS?

Washington is a cesspool of special interests and handouts: unsustainable social programs, government support and tax breaks for companies run by big donors, favorable regulation for some people and corporations, and unfavorable for others. Both parties have been buying votes with tax payer money.

And the people being "butthurt" about it should be the people footing the bill: young folks whose future has been stolen, retirees who have gotten a piss poor return on their retirement savings, entrepreneurs with great ideas that are beaten down by Washington DC ("you didn't build that"), etc.

Trump For Life!

[Anonymous Coward]

Us God fearing patriots support all you do, Dear Leader! Thanks for finally speaking for us true Americans! This country gets greater every day with you at the helm, good Sir!

Businesses don't pay as much tax as you think!

[ErichTheRed]

The interesting thing about this is that he's only concerned about tax dodging when it involves a company he doesn't like. I'm sure there are plenty of tax loopholes that is businesses have been able to use over the years.

I think almost everyone knows that businesses don't pay the official tax rates, and the largest ones are able to pay zero or get tax refunds in some cases because they're able to buy loopholes and exploit them. Even small businesses, who are the most vocal about it, structure their transactions to avoid taxes. Wage-earners are about the only taxpayers who don't get these benefits because documented W-2 and 1099 income is directly tracked and taxed at the income tax rate. But, ask any small business owner what entity owns their car, house and personal debt -- I guarantee you the answer is "John Smith Enterprises, Inc." It's way too easy for individuals to just set up a corporation and filter every personal expense they incur through it. It's not technically legal of course, but that doesn't stop it from happening. And then those same people turn around and complain about being taxed and regulated to death...those arguments ring hollow for me.

Re:Businesses don't pay as much tax as you think!

[Anonymous Coward]

But, ask any small business owner what entity owns their car, house and personal debt -- I guarantee you the answer is "John Smith Enterprises, Inc."

Probably only if the small business is not located in Florida. The IRS and State tax officials clearly have way too little resources to do their job. Here, in the other side of the pond, the personal debt and property is what backs up the small business in the non-liability limited entities. If the business falters, everything goes. The accounting for liability-limited companies would reveal such tax arrangements almost immediately, leading to back-taxes, interests, punitive tax raises, or even criminal conviction.

Re:Businesses don't pay as much tax as you think!

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right on the small business. Where I work we pay zero federal taxes and get no refund each and every year. Most people simply don't understand that taxes are on profits and any business large or small gets just about complete say in whether or not the company itself makes a profit in that year.

People also don't understand how private businesses work but it's mostly just Republicans who need something good to say about Trump while wallowing in ignorance. The CEO of private companies don't actually have to work or do anything for the company, it's not a qualification in any way shape or form without corroboration from employees about their involvement

Re:Businesses don't pay as much tax as you think!

[Anonymous Coward]

Observation: Setting up your sole-trader business, or other grouping of interests, as an incorporated body is technically legal in every sense of the word.
Whether one considers it a morally defensible act or not, this is another matter.
The morality of the corporation, and the concept and practice of such entities, are being increasingly questioned in modern social and political thought.
If it were illegal, then the activity would have been shut down a long time ago, my friend.
If everyone is entitled to use the law to manipulate the tax code and legal obligations, why would you think it appropriate to discourage them?
They're only rational actors, like you, aren't they?
Why do you think it "too easy" to follow the inevitable conclusions of examining the nation's regulations and laws?

Re:Businesses don't pay as much tax as you think!

[Anonymous Coward]

They pay a shitload of payroll taxes.

WTF

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

are "Internet Taxes"? There is no over-all Federal-level sales tax. As of April 1st, 2017 (two months ago) Amazon started collecting all sales tax for states that have a sales tax, 45 states in all.

But, honestly, we've come to expect this from Trump. He may actually understand how sales tax is collected, but this type of tweet is aimed at his low-information supporters to stir their rage against various targets Trump picks for them. Whatever it takes to keep the masses angry at anyone who "opposes" him, and to keep everyone confused.

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it obvious? Trump is going to tax the internet.

Good. It deserves it. Nothing but a bunch of welfare layabouts downloading porn all day.

Re:WTF

[DogDude]

He may actually understand how sales tax is collected

That's awfully generous (optimistic? naive?) of you. If I had to bet, I would bet that he has no clue how sales tax is collected or used. I've seen no indication that he has any understanding of anything (I mean that literally).

Re:WTF

[GameboyRMH]

He understands how to put on a show. He's a showman first and foremost. He's a reality TV star, and has a lifetime of experience as mascot for his company.

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, they should be put to work by a corporation and work till they die! It's the American way!

HOW IS THIS 'MAKING AMERICA GREAT AGAIN'?

[Anonymous Coward]

How is attacking one of the largest American corporations 'making America great again'? SPOILER: IT ISN'T.

I can't wait until the investigation is over and Pussy-grabber and his entire cabinet are shuffled off to Leavenworth in shackles.

Re:HOW IS THIS 'MAKING AMERICA GREAT AGAIN'?

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazon should be nationalized

Re:HOW IS THIS 'MAKING AMERICA GREAT AGAIN'?

[sexconker]

How is attacking one of the largest American corporations 'making America great again'? SPOILER: IT ISN'T.

SPOILER: YOU'RE AN IDIOT.

Apple, MS, Google, Amazon, etc. are NOT good for the country.

They make tons of money, pay slave wages to foreigners, and then hide all the profits offshore so they never pay a dime in taxes.
How many fucking people could be given healthcare if those 4 companies paid taxes?
How many US citizens could be given jobs paying a livable wage if those 4 countries had to abide by the rules for H1B visas?

Re:HOW IS THIS 'MAKING AMERICA GREAT AGAIN'?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple, MS, Google are deep state. They belong to "special interest" people. They are founded by military-industrial-complex people.

Re:Get this crap out of here

[SlashDread]

Usually, I moderate, today Ill reply.

Your wrong. -Everything- Chief Bozo says is news. If Chief Bozo disses the largest tech company in the world, that Big News. For me at least, being a cloud architect, and I regard that profession as quite nerdsy.

So far, ignorance has been free

[hyades1]

Bezos tweeted that he'd save a seat for Trump on his Blue Origin spacecraft...

Trump's repeated failure to inform himself even slightly about the topics he involves himself in has so far cost him nothing.

Let's up the ante a little.

Offer Trump a place in history as the first political leader ever to take a trip into space. Offer him the choice of two tickets, both free: one would feature cramped quarters and extremely basic food for an extended trip, the other, the special "QV Laika Ticket", would feature luxurious accommodations for a considerably shorter, hotter trip.

Let him choose whichever one he likes. Since Trump has doubtless heard the term QV before, we can hope he makes the right choice.

Re:So far, ignorance has been free

[DanielRavenNest]

> Offer Trump a place in history as the first political leader ever to take a trip into space

He was beat by Senator John Glenn, who flew on the Space Shuttle many years after his first flight in 1962. Also a Saudi prince flew on one of the Shuttle flights. Given that Saudi Arabia is a kingdom, the royal family counts as political leaders.

Re:So far, ignorance has been free

[hyades1]

I wouldn't call either a leader. There are more Saudi princes rattling around than Washington lobbyists. And John Glen was never president, or even highly ranked in his party.

Um, WaPo is a left wing paper...

[rsilvergun]

they're not going to stop criticizing Trump (who leads the Right wing party) unless Bezos tells them to (like the owner of MSNBC tried to do with Maddow until the ratings spiked).

And WaPo is by no means the biggest loudspeaker. If you think anyone but Bernie and a handful of others in DC listen to WaPo you haven't been paying attention to the makeup of our government. The Right Wing one, hands down. Everything. They own the Senate, House, Judiciary and Executive plus all the State Legislatures. Maybe you think that's a good thing. I hope you do.

And yeah, we get it. You don't like being called Racists. So much so that we can't even have a conversation about race any more. Sheesh, and you call us Snowflakes.

Re:Um, WaPo is a left wing paper...

[penandpaper]

. You don't like being called Racists. So much so that we can't even have a conversation about race any more. Sheesh, and you call us Snowflakes.

When everything is racist having a conversation about race and calling people racist is retarded and a waste of time. Or do I need to go to a progressive university like Evergreen to understand your version of racism?

Re:Um, WaPo is a left wing paper...

[unrtst]

When everything is racist having a conversation about race and calling people racist is retarded and a waste of time.

(emphasis mine) What a perfectly fitting reply! How much longer before we have to open the fourth box of liberty?

Re:Um, WaPo is a left wing paper...

[penandpaper]

The irony of your post. It's astounding. Only one ignorant of history would think that the 4th box hasn't been opened... multiple times, recently and repeatedly throughout history in the US. Black American gun rights is a very rich history and a good example for why the 2nd is very important.

If BLM thinks that the other 3 boxes have been exhausted and that violence is justified, that is their right. Who are they going to direct that violence toward? Remember, everyone is armed and can defend themselves and their institutions if anyone chooses the 4th box, government inaction be damned. Do you think BLM and white guilt liberals think Evergreen ideas of racism are worth dying for?

Re:Um, WaPo is a left wing paper...

[penandpaper]

No, just don't be a racist.

How do I not be a racist if "everything is racist"?

VAT

[Anonymous Coward]

Then get rid of corporate income tax and put the tax on the good itself.

This is how it's done in most of Europe. All those super progressive Scandinavian countries? Most have no corporate income tax. It's all collected via VAT.

Re:VAT

[bluefoxlucid]

VAT is regressive and non-representative.

Re:VAT

[HornWumpus]

Not true. The key number is corporate tax + capital gains. The effective tax rate on investment is a very competitive number in the first world. Has to be, capital seeks returns.

Nations with no corporate tax have high capital gains taxes. VAT is orthogonal.

Re:The real news is CNN and their fake Russia "new

[Anonymous Coward]

It's obvious that CNN's anonymous leaker was a disinformation agent. The Trump administration planted a false, but believable story that could later be exposed as "fake news". Attempts to do this happen constantly, and not just in politics.
Lawyers have been doing it forever, plant false story through an agent in the news that later gets exposed, so that the jury pool in the community "knows" that the other side is a bunch of liars.

CNN's internal rules are in place to prevent that sort of thing (publishing disinformation and then getting exposed), but fired editors ignored the internals controls and published anyway.

The CNN people weren't fired for printing a false story, they were fired for not following procedures.

Re:Slashdot getting too political

[Anonymous Coward]

I made the same essential comment over at Soylent News yesterday (though over there they are in serious danger of a takeover by Alt-Right entryists). Anyway, the point is that the whole internet is just devolving into arguments between ill-informed partisan zealots shouting down everything that the other side says. There are plenty of places for people to discuss these topics, but, unfortunately, by dragging every discussion around to partisan bickering, the amount of useful, on-topic is falling rapidly and large parts of the internet are becoming uncivil hellholes. If we could all put the politics aside I think that we would be able to move towards a place where quality discussion takes place and, provided the posts are on-topic, the personal politics of the posters is irrelevant. To put it another way, think of sitting at a bar and exchanging a few words with a stranger on some topic - probably fairly pleasant, until the discussion moves around to politics and then it becomes uncomfortable.

I understand why sites like /. and SoylentNews post these stories - they generate arguments with creates spikes in page hits, which helps when negotiating with advertisers, etc. However, we don't have to pander to it - if we all just ignored overtly political articles and didn't read or comment on them, and ignored the posts that are trying to start political fights then we might be able to turn this site back into what it was. The short-term gain from hosting these types of discussions doesn't make up for the reduced readership that is starting to happen as people just get sick of the same partisan incivility.

Washington Post is a tool for Bezos

[Anonymous Coward]

Bezos is the CEO of both companies and he uses the Washington Post as a mechanism to attack his enemies. The paper has been at the forefront of attacking Trump, who has not been friendly to Amazon, while it has been extremely mild toward other political dramas.

The fact that Bezos is the CEO of both companies does tie them together. It's not like Bezos shuts off his Amazon thinking-cap while doing anything with the Washington Post and vice versa.

Re:Washington Post is a tool for Bezos

[sexconker]

Yup. They understood it when they were bitching about Rupert Murdoch for years and years. But now they're somehow blind to the obvious.

Re:Washington Post is a tool for Bezos

[Anonymous Coward]

here's alternate fact-ing again. Take stock of the number of 'pants on fire' articles from Fox news and the ones they have owned up to (including absolute ridiculous crap like changing the scale of graph to make Obama look bad). Compare that with the number of times WaPo has gotten something wrong (and even better, look for ones that it has not owned up to). WaPo is a news site of some repute for a reason. Fox is ... well Fox. Now take WJS owned by the same guy. How many people hate WSJ ? Not many because why - editorial freedom. WSJ may have a strong conservative bias in its approach but its journalism is top notch and is as respected as WaPo is in journalistic ethics. Do they make mistakes? sure they do. But they do not deliberately lie and deceive their readers.

FBI Hates Flynn

[Anonymous Coward]

Story explaining that the FBI investigation into Flynn is retaliation for him standing up for a female FBI agent being sexually harassed by McCabe. Don't know McCable? He is the one that took over $500,000 "donation" for his wife's campaign from the DNC for her Congressional run WHILE he was investigating Hillary's email server.

How about that?
Takes bribes from DNC. Check
Obstructs justice and finds Clinton clear (thanks bribes). Check
Sexually harasses subordinates. Check
Retaliates by abusing his power against people who helped people he sexually harassed. Check.

Glad to see you think taking bribes, harassing subordinates, and abusing power for personal revenge is ok.
You are a piece of crap like McCabe.

Do I need to go over the rest of your points? Or is obliterating your first one to this level enough?

Political Hack site.

[Anonymous Coward]

When you see the attack words "Incorrectly claiming" in the TITLE of the article, how can one take seriously the article or the one who created the article?

So tell me, when has Slashdot become a Political Hack site? I thought it was a place to view Tech news? Someone enlighten me on how this is Tech news?

Re:Political Hack site.

[mean pun]

When you see the attack words "Incorrectly claiming" in the TITLE of the article, how can one take seriously the article or the one who created the article?

What's the problem? Somebody claims something, the claim is incorrect, therefore that somebody is incorrectly claiming something. Elementary logic, elementary English. And how do you get from there to Political Hack site?

Careful Trump

[Hadley123456]

Bezos could sue Trump for his 1-click twitter posts. I think I read that the patent is expiring this year.

Re:Get this crap out of here

[Qzukk]

This has nothing to do technology

Trump's new "internet tax", whatever that is, is absolutely something to do with technology, even if it's some fake tax he's dreamed up while drinking his covfefe.

boring

[Anonymous Coward]

why don't you go out and lose another election
fools

Flynn took Russian bribes, colluded with spies

[Anonymous Coward]

Michael Flynn colluded with Russian spies, took Russian bribes, and lied on the security clearance forms designed to identify this type of treasonous behavior.

Michael Flynn and Paul Montfort retroactively registered as foreign agents, because in their time with Trump they were secret foreign agents.

I guess you just don't care about this obvious, well documented treason because your only response is to attempt to change the subject with an article from a right wing fake news and propaganda site.

Re:US Media Out of Control

[Ogive17]

Undisputed facts? Obama directly confronted Putin about the cyber activities and in turn ordered US intelligence to plant "spyware" that could be used in retaliation. It is true he tried to keep it under wraps, though.

Remember, they asked Republican controlled congress to investigate but they refused.

Be careful what you label as "undisputed facts"...

the wrong lizard might get in

[Thud457]

The President is very much a figurehead - he wields no real power whatsoever. He is apparently chosen by the government, but the qualities he is required to display are not those of leadership but those of finely judged outrage. For this reason the President is always a controversial choice, always an infuriating but fascinating character. His job is not to wield power but to draw attention away from it.

Re:the wrong lizard might get in

[colinwb]

It hadn't occurred to me before, but Zaphod Beeblebrox (in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams) is spookily predictive of Trump as US President: ... He was briefly the President of the Galaxy (a role that involves no power whatsoever, and merely requires the incumbent to attract attention so no one wonders who's really in charge, a role for which Zaphod was perfectly suited). ... As a character, Zaphod is hedonistic and irresponsible, narcissistic almost to the point of solipsism, and often extremely insensitive to the feelings of those around him. In the books and radio series, he is nevertheless quite charismatic which causes many characters to ignore his other flaws. ... Throughout the book and radio versions of the story, Zaphod is busy carrying out some grand scheme, has no clue as to what it is and is unable to do anything but follow the path that he laid out for himself. ...

Re:the wrong lizard might get in

[Anonymous Coward]

but Zaphod is somewhat likable

Re:the wrong lizard might get in

[Anonymous Coward]

LOVE your HGTTG reference :D

>...and merely requires the incumbent to attract attention so no one wonders who's really in charge...
And so it is with many command roles. People need a focal point (a chief or hero) to lead them. And heads of state offer this, while policy, national character, and committees run things. Prob with current prez is he really is trying to run things all by himself. Or at least have his theme imprinted on actions done. For better or worse, he's actually being both the focal point and 'the decider'. (which is how dictatorships or kingdoms are run)

Re:Bad Article is Bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's however not let pesky details get in the way of our 15 minutes of Trump hate!

I don't think Trump could get all his hate into 15 minutes, so in reality he spreads it out far more than that. And those pesky details are just more victims of his busy day.

in addition, read the actual tweet

[ooloorie]

And Trump didn't even claim ownership, he simply linked the two:

The #AmazonWashingtonPost, sometimes referred to as the guardian of Amazon not paying internet taxes (which they should) is FAKE NEWS!

It should be obvious that Bezos bought the WaPo to promote his political views and the interests of his corporate empire, just like Carlos Slim bought into the NYT.

All In The Money Flow

[Anonymous Coward]

Legal documents show that Jeff Bezos "The Bedsore" did buy WaPo and does own it!

However, here is were the "legal" becomes "maybe" and the "who's doin' who" comes into play: money.

Need to show that Bezos keeps WaPo funded by shifting money from Amazon to WaPo, likely through a British West Indies Bank. And need to show that WaPo "accounting and payments dept." sends money (through the same or another British West Indies Bank) to Amazon. The interconnection is: Amazon sends money to Bezos who then sends the money (all at once or small increments) to WaPo and WaPo sends money to Bezos who then sends it to Amazon (again using banks in the British West Indies for cover).

Re:US Media Out of Control

[Anonymous Coward]

this media BS of bashing Trump every 3 seconds is getting old,

So the president issues official statements on the official white house communications feed, and we are supposed to ignore them?

Those in glass houses...

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps Mr. Trump should consider not throwing so many stones as he stands in a glass house in a tax haven far, far away.

He should lead by example.

If

[Ol Olsoc]

Trump says somthing it's true. You can take it to the bank.

Re:of course not!

[hyades1]

For every billionaire on the Democratic Party's side, there are a dozen backing the Republicans. Not to mention that the Koch Brothers have contributed more to right wing causes than all three of the people you mention added together. And Fox News, right wing radio and a whole raft of conservative media vastly outnumber the few openly left wing media outlets. For that matter, the right wing bias stays just about the same even if you include hard news media that strive for accuracy. Accuracy, of course, doesn't favour conservatives.

But don't let little things like facts and common sense get in the way of playing the victim card. Conservatives do that so very, very well!

yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

by flat-out owning the biggest loudspeaker in the capital.

hilarious bullshit, trump's twitter account is the world's largest loudspeaker

Even better yet....

[Ellis D. Tripp]

offer him a comfy seat right inside one of the engine nozzles....

Re:Even better yet....

[hyades1]

I Laik it!

Re:US Media Out of Control

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh jesus fucking christ. Trump bashing is getting old, yet here you are trying to blame the Clintons and Obama for Trump's apparent ties to Russia?

You are the worst kind of partisan hack.

Wow!

[nospam007]

While he seems to own Time magazine, because he prints out magazine covers with his stupid face on it to hang in his golf clubs.
Sad.
How low can one sink, he must live in a hole a trillion miles deep.

Re:of course not!

[Ksevio]

[citation needed]

Re:US Media Out of Control

[Anonymous Coward]

Were you asleep the last 8 years? 16 years? ... 300 years? The media bashes whomever's in charge. It's probably their job and certainly their income. Who bashes whom changes from time to time, but the idea's the same. Power has to be held to account.

Splitting hairs

[Anonymous Coward]

... aren't we on the Jeff Bezos thing? He is Amazon.

Re:Bad Article is Bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes,Trump should have said that Bezos personally does those things instead of shooting his mouth off that Amazon, the corporation, does. Facts are, you know, kind of important. Especially for a person with the power that has and what he can decideto do with them - understanding facts should kinda be his job. And he's incompetent at it, isn't he?

It also kinda makes you think he has trouble separating the managers of a company from the corporation themselves.

How his divestment of his assets working, by the way? Because it kind of makes me think that he's probably still actually in charge of all of them. Unethically and immorally so. Maybe when he polishes his own kettles he can start tagging other pots.

He posts talking points

[Anonymous Coward]

MightyMartian does not know what he posts most of the time. He appears to get talking points later than most and frequently posts them word for word obviously not understanding what he is posting.

He is using one that is at least 2 months old, he missed the Maddow "breaking news" when she got Trump's tax returns and looked like an imbicle on TV showing them off. So we can also assume MightyMartian is not a Maddow fan as well.

Re:He posts talking points

[MightyMartian]

So I'm wrong and infantile, as you make clear, but don't explain how I'm wrong.

Trump rolled over losses, a perfectly legitimate way to reduce future taxes. In fact I never saw anything wrong with it and questioned why people were up in arms, since rolling over losses is something a great many people do at different income levels.

By the same token, if a company buys a company that is likely to incur losses going forward, why yes, that company may be able to take advantage of the losses. That to is a perfectly legitimate way to reduce taxes. So, in other words, if it is okay for Trump to take advantage of tax avoidance measures, then it's legitimate for Amazon to do the same, and if Trump has a problem with that, well guess what, he's the POTUS, so he can use his bully pulpit to demand Congress get rid of these tax reduction measures that he now apparently finds so very offensive.

Re:of course not!

[Anonymous Coward]

For every billionaire on the Democratic Party's side, there are a dozen backing the Republicans. Not to mention that the Koch Brothers have contributed more to right wing causes than all three of the people you mention added together. But don't let little things like facts and common sense

You're completely out of touch with reality. Look up campaign donations and see where they are going.

get in the way of playing the victim card.

I'm a political independent, and former Democrat.

The electoral college worked great!

[tacokill]

Here in Oklahoma, we are thankful for the electoral college. It did exactly what it was supposed to do. What is it supposed to do, you ask? Simple: It's there to prevent tyranny of the majority so large population states, like California and New York, don't have an over weighted say vs smaller states like Oklahoma and Wyoming.

If we had a direct population vote as you insinuate, then Los Angeles alone would overwhelm all of the votes of Oklahoma and Wyoming which deprives those states of representation. The electoral college assures their views are represented.

Sorry if you don't like it but it's the law of the land.....and for good reason.

Re:The electoral college worked great!

[prisoner-of-enigma]

If we had a direct population vote as you insinuate, then Los Angeles alone would overwhelm all of the votes of Oklahoma and Wyoming which deprives those states of representation. The electoral college assures their views are represented.

Now now...don't you know you backwards rural folks in flyover country are supposed to submit to your superiors living in the elite coastal cities? You don't need representation. You simply need to be told what's best for you, shut up, pay your taxes, and go along with it. People like Chucky Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, celebrities living in million-dollar mansions in gated communities with their yachts and private jets, they are simply better than you and deserve to rule you. You're just little people. Submit to slavery and be free!

(sarcasm off)

Re:The electoral college worked great!

[Anonymous Coward]

I came here to say this, but obviously you beat me to it. I'll add as a resident of NH, in a state that voted for Clinton (I, myself, did not), that I respect the will of the electoral college, even as I see Trump as an orangutan in a MAGA baseball cap. This cycle the electoral college was not of my state's choosing, but next time it could go our way. Better that than NH's vote never mattering in the slightest, with NY and CA choosing our president ad infinitum. For those who wish to eliminate the electoral college, I'm fine with that as long as when that happens states are given the opportunity to withdraw from the US. Canada is not so far away - we even touch borders!

Re:The electoral college worked great!

[Anonymous Coward]

You already have a measure against tyranny of the majority, it's called the Senate. But I'm pretty sure the vote being actually representative of the wishes of the people isn't tyranny of the majority.

Re:The electoral college worked great!

[Dorianny]

Your vote cast in Oklahoma weights more then my vote cast in NY, all for the notion that artificial jurisdictional areas we call states should have a more weighted say in a post that is supposed to represent all citizens equally.

Re:The electoral college worked great!

[Anonymous Coward]

That has nothing to do with the electoral college. You just described the purpose of the Senate.

Re:The electoral college worked great!

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in Oklahoma, we are thankful for the electoral college. It did exactly what it was supposed to do. What is it supposed to do, you ask? Simple: It's there to prevent tyranny of the majority so large population states, like California and New York, don't have an over weighted say vs smaller states like Oklahoma and Wyoming.

If we had a direct population vote as you insinuate, then Los Angeles alone would overwhelm all of the votes of Oklahoma and Wyoming which deprives those states of representation. The electoral college assures their views are represented.

Sorry if you don't like it but it's the law of the land.....and for good reason.

But yet your out-weighed influence forces your opinions from your so-small-that-a-city-is-bigger area on, well a city of living human beings who have opinions that are neither weighted more or less than yours, but their influence sure is less.

Who cares about regions, it's individual people who matter. You don't like the fact that California has enough people that in can influence the federal government to act in it's favor at your expense? But you think it is fine for an electoral college to do the same to California?

It has more people, therefore it's overall influence should be more important. Otherwise you don't have democracy, you have tyranny of a minority over a majority.

Re:The electoral college worked great!

[khr]

If we had a direct population vote as you insinuate, then Los Angeles alone would overwhelm all of the votes of Oklahoma and Wyoming which deprives those states of representation. The electoral college assures their views are represented.

And then we'd be stuck with a government that represents the people more than the land.

The electoral college allows fewer people in more land to dominate more people in less land. And why should more people have their representation deprived simply because they choose to live geographically closer to one another?

Re:The electoral college worked great!

[tacokill]

You are wrong. It applies to Presidential elections too. Both avenues are there to prevent tyranny of the majority.

Re:The electoral college worked great!

[tacokill]

First, the states aren't just "geographic regions" inside a big national government. They are sovereign states and our national government is a republic of sovereign states. The history on that aspect is well covered and well litigated. (hint: It's the states rights vs federal government argument that you always hear about).

The states are not just "artificial jurisdictional areas we call states". You grossly misrepresent their place in the pecking order.

Thinking of the states from a sovereign perspective, Oklahoma has as much right to be represented in our national government as New York or California. Not more. But not less either. The electoral college and the senate are the most public examples of how we try to achieve that balance. We don't base it on population because NY and CA would always win.

Re:The electoral college worked great!

[slack_justyb]

Simple: It's there to prevent tyranny of the majority so large population states, like California and New York, don't have an over weighted say vs smaller states like Oklahoma and Wyoming.

But using that logic, the Electoral college doesn't do that.

So the average value of electoral votes is 15. So let's say that there abouts is middle ground. Too low and we're talking small states, too high and we're talking large states. Now take the 2016 results. Change Michigan, Indiana, and Arazona. Poof election is changed. I didn't change any large states, didn't change any small states, yet the result is now different. If you're logic held true, that the EC somehow protects small states, that would not have happen. The small states never changed, but now their opinion isn't being represented because some middle of the road states changed.

The reason that does happen is because the number of EV a state gets is related to their size in population so larger states get more EV which means they have more say in the process than smaller states. And that matches up with where candidates spend their money. Safe states like CA for Democrats and TX for Republicans rarely, if ever see a candidate grace their borders. Small states next to never see a candidate because winning the state MT only gets you only 0.6% of the way to the goal. In fact winning every state with 10 or fewer EV nets you 37% of the EC but means you've carried 68% of all the states.

Los Angeles alone would overwhelm all of the votes of Oklahoma and Wyoming

You are literally comparing apples to oranges. Yes LA's population is bigger than those two states, but LA's population isn't 100% one party. Likewise OK and WY aren't 100% a single party either. I'm no proponent of direct vote, but you're totally off your rocker if you can't understand that a direct vote would act in aggregate. Additionally, Los Angles != California. There's a whole lot of the other team in CA who's votes get crushed by winner take all.

And that is the underlying issue here, is the winner take all system we have in place in the majority of states. ME and NE being wonderful examples of trying to come up with a way to more "fairly" distribute the vote given the EC system that we have.

The electoral college assures their views are represented.

It does no such thing. Again, I'm not advocating for direct elections, but I'll not sit here and not say something to someone trying to chalk some sort of attribute to a system that, that system does not posses.

Re:The electoral college worked great!

[Anonymous Coward]

So how do you explain the tyranny going on in the White House right now? Stripping people of access to healthcare, trying to revive dead, destructive industries, making dubious claims and empty promises... Trump's only victory so far as President was backing out of TPP. It's one thing I can say about the man that he did well on.

But what's he done to *improve* this country? Nothing. If anything, he and his cronies are dismantling the government, piece by piece.

Re:The electoral college worked great!

[Dorianny]

How "sovereign" is a state that doesn't have the right to leave the Republic on its own accord, is very much up for debate. At best the sovereignty is shared at worst it was a founding principle of the Republic that went down in flames with the Civil War

Re:The electoral college worked great!

[mnemotronic]

... It did exactly what it was supposed to do ...

We got the government we deserve. Sad. Woo-hoo for the twitter nuclear option! Sic-em donnie!

Re:The electoral college worked great!

[mbkennel]

> If we had a direct population vote as you insinuate, then Los Angeles alone would overwhelm all of the votes of Oklahoma and Wyoming which deprives those states of representation.

No, it gives them representation proportional to the number of people in them. Why should one person in Oklahoma matter so much more than one person in Los Angeles?

Votes matter everywhere, and there are many smaller states which in aggregate have a significant population. And there are plenty of areas of California whose businesses, attitudes, and needs are much more similar to Oklahoma than to Los Angeles, and their needs and their ability to have their votes add up with Oklahoma people's is being suppressed in the current system.

Re:The electoral college worked great!

[Anonymous Coward]

I came here to say this, but obviously you beat me to it.

Then you should be embarrassed for yourself, for what you would have said.

I'll add as a resident of NH, in a state that voted for Clinton (I, myself, did not), that I respect the will of the electoral college, even as I see Trump as an orangutan in a MAGA baseball cap. This cycle the electoral college was not of my state's choosing, but next time it could go our way. Better that than NH's vote never mattering in the slightest, with NY and CA choosing our president ad infinitum.

Or NH's vote could go on not mattering in the slightest way at all, having no purpose and no meaning. You might as well stay home past the primary, and even then, it's mostly a gimmick.

For those who wish to eliminate the electoral college, I'm fine with that as long as when that happens states are given the opportunity to withdraw from the US. Canada is not so far away - we even touch borders!

At least you'd have a chance at a say in Canada's elections, not being constrained by an artificial abomination that serves NO purpose whatsoever. I know, I know, you've been told that it does that, but it doesn't. The Electoral College does nothing except provide a haphazard scattershot system that is prone to abuse, and which you mysteriously believe does something.

Sorry, but you're a fool. Even the secessionists of the Civil War (remember that?) knew it. That's why they proposed a host of reforms. Then, of course, they decided to hell with it, and raised up arms when they lost an election, but that's a separate problem, as is their cause. They weren't wrong to point out the failings of America's system of government in terms of representation.

You may not like it, but it's true. Now go flag your Dixie Maple Flag in the streets of Concord.

Re:The electoral college worked great!

[slack_justyb]

We don't base it on population because NY and CA would always win.

Oh well allow me to retort.

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Article two, section one, clause two US Constitution

That puts a direct limit on the number of electors to never be more than the number of members of the House plus the number of Senators. So like OK as you specified, in OK they have five representatives and two senators. Thus, the state of OK gets seven electoral votes. You can technically have fewer, but never more.
    So that brings up the question, why do you have five representatives? Glad you asked.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

Article one, section two, clause three US Constitution

As you might guess a lot of that has changed but do note the term of ten years. Know what happens every ten years? Yeah, that's right it's called a Census. Guess what it's function is?

The states are not just "artificial jurisdictional areas we call states". You grossly misrepresent their place in the pecking order.

You are grossly under informed about the topic at hand. Might I suggest this?

Re:The electoral college worked great!

[Anonymous Coward]

So, in other words, the vote of a citizen living in Oklahoma has more value than the vote of a citizen living in California.

Explain me again how this is supposed to be democratic.

Re:The electoral college worked great!

[Lisandro]

From what i've understood of your presentation, Oklahoma has more representation than New York. Votes cast by their citizens are effectively more valuable.

Re:The electoral college worked great!

[Anonymous Coward]

Thinking of the states from a sovereign perspective, Oklahoma has as much right to be represented in our national government as New York or California. Not more. But not less either. The electoral college and the senate are the most public examples of how we try to achieve that balance. We don't base it on population because NY and CA would always win.

Why shouldn't they? Their hard work and ingenuity is what puts food on the table for people in Oklahoma. And a lot of people in NY and CA started in places like OK and left to escape the intellectual and literal poverty.

Re:The electoral college worked great!

[Anonymous Coward]

Fine.

You can have Oklahoma as a sovereign state. No more Federal taxes to Washington, but no more aid/grants/federal spending back to Oklahoma.

Protip: if you live in Oklahoma you would be worse off
Oklahoma is one of the many states which gets more from the federal budget than pays in federal taxes.

citation: https://osc.state.ny.us/reports/budget/2015/fed_budget_fy2013.pdf

Re:The electoral college worked great!

[tacokill]

I don't see where there are differences in what you and I posted. You just supplied the Constitutional authority upon which my replies are based.

Re:The electoral college worked great!

[Anonymous Coward]

How is tyranny of the minority better?

Re: The electoral college worked great!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, the tyranny of the minority is just fine with these people.

Re:The electoral college worked great!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes states, are sovereign states on their own, which is why an individual state has the right to declare war on another nati- no they don't?
Well at least they have the ability to control their own borders- no they don't.
Well they have authority over their own trade- nope.

So in what way are they sovereign states?

If oklahoma needs representation there is a place for that, where all states are created equal, and each of them receives two votes, it's called the senate.

And until your passport lists the country as oklahoma please enjoy your stay in the sovereign state of the united states of america, and good luck with your independance campaign (And even more good luck to you in your actual independence should you achieve it, as a land locked sovereign state surrounded by the US... (ask the native americans how well that works out for them.)

Re:The electoral college worked great!

[david_thornley]

So you prefer tyranny of the minority. How nice.

Re:The electoral college worked great!

[david_thornley]

They are sovereign states and our national government is a republic of sovereign states.

Sovereign states can control their borders, conduct foreign policy, and issue money of any type. Most US states have never been sovereign, and none are anymore.

Re:The electoral college worked great!

[Anonymous Coward]

The states are not just "artificial jurisdictional areas we call states". You grossly misrepresent their place in the pecking order.

Yep these days we forget that this is the UNITED STATES of America.
In the beginning states were independent yet united for common causes such as protection from foreign powers. Thus the UNITED part.

The civil war is what was the beginning of the end of this. Now we have states but we are governed and controlled by the Federal Government. Something that was never ment to happen.

We hear people say "I am an American" when talking about being from the US, but America is a set of contients not a country. Canadians are Americans, someone from Panama is an American.

Re:The electoral college worked great!

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in Oklahoma, we are thankful for the electoral college. It did exactly what it was supposed to do. What is it supposed to do, you ask? Simple: It's there to prevent tyranny of the majority so large population states, like California and New York, don't have an over weighted say vs smaller states like Oklahoma and Wyoming.

If we had a direct population vote as you insinuate, then Los Angeles alone would overwhelm all of the votes of Oklahoma and Wyoming which deprives those states of representation. The electoral college assures their views are represented.

Sorry if you don't like it but it's the law of the land.....and for good reason.

I think it is fair to say then that each state ought to pay the same amount of annual taxes, since we have the same representation right? are you okay with that?

Re:The electoral college worked great!

[dryeo]

Sovereignty is actually more complex then that, especially given a federation of sovereign states. I'm Canadian so more familiar with our federation, a federation of 11 sovereign units, 10 Provinces and the Federal government. The Provinces have given up much of their sovereignty to the federal government, including your list, but have retained other parts such as property rights. Right now, the Sovereign of the Province of British Columbia (actually her representative, the Lieutenant-Governor) is sitting in her office making an executive decision, something that is very rare but shows our Sovereignty. The Federal government can't interfere, the Queen, in her Right as the Sovereign of BC could interfere, but tradition says not. To have a Sovereign means being sovereign. The decision is whether to invite the leader of the Loyal Opposition to form government or dissolve the legislature, which would force an election (the Legislature lost confidence in the government forcing them to resign but is basically tied, which is unstable).
America I'm sure is similar with the States having given up some of their Sovereignty to the Federal government but kept other parts. Though America has evolved opposite to Canada, with your Federal government taking more and more Sovereignty for itself, even using arms on her States.
You're real problem is that your Constitution needs updating. Reading the Federalist papers shows why the Electoral Collage was formed, mostly to prevent a Donald Trump funny enough. The President is supposed to be a Statesman (or woman now), there were no parties when the Constitution was written. Shit the runner-up was supposed to be Vice-President. An semi-independent non-political body that decided who the President would be.

Re:The electoral college worked great!

[Anonymous Coward]

The only time I hear "states rights" is when the state wants to do something that the Feds won't let it do. Such as slavery.

Re:The electoral college worked great!

[david_thornley]

You say "given up sovereignty". I live in the state of Minnesota. It was carved out of territory directly controlled by the Federal government, then formed into a territory, and finally given statehood. There never was an independent state of Minnesota to relinquish sovereignty (there were sovereign tribes inside the modern borders, but those were conquered, and there was no transfer of sovereignty). It was granted certain powers when becoming a state.

Re:The electoral college worked great!

[dryeo]

Good point, and the same applies to the Provinces north of you. I guess in those cases, they were given sovereign powers. Strictly speaking, the only independent sovereign powers in N. America (not counting Central America) were Hawaii and Newfoundland, with Newfoundland being an interesting case as they went bankrupt and reverted to being a colony during the depression.
Still the States and Provinces do have some sovereign powers though in the case of the States, the fact that they can't leave the relationship with the other States, at least without the agreement of enough States to amend the Constitution makes their sovereignty sort of moot.

Sorry, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

This article is trash. Every single post about Donald Trump on Slashdot is trash.
Stop it.

The Reason Why

[SuperKendall]

Why doesn't everybody in the US care that the United States of America has become the laughing stock of the entire rest of the human race?

Because we have seen the opinion of the rest of the human race in this regard is about as valuable as spit, being prone to manipulation of opinion by the global elite.

And because most of the people of the U.S. only vaguely care about what the president does, since he has little impact over their lives in the end. It's not like other countries where you have to be scared of what the Glorious Leader thinks of what you say or do lest you be imprisoned or worse.

You can deride him all you want but it's not like your own leaders are any better and in a lot of ways they are vastly worse. There are not many other countries I'd rather be living in currently than the U.S...

Re:The Reason Why

[Lisandro]

Because we have seen the opinion of the rest of the human race in this regard is about as valuable as spit, being prone to manipulation of opinion by the global elite.

I love the "global elite" line of reasoning.

You do know your current president literally lives on a golden tower in Manhattan, right?

Quick Sanity Check

[sexconker]

Quick fact check: Amazon doesn't own The Washington Post, Jeff Bezos -- in his personal capacity -- does.

Quick sanity check: As long as Bezos runs Amazon, Amazon effectively owns The Washington Post.

Re:Quick Sanity Check

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that makes no sense. Amazon is owned by millions of people. It is owned by the shareholders. The Washington Post is owned by one person. Amazon does not send money or control over to WaPo, nor does WaPo send money or control over to Amazon.

Re:Quick Sanity Check

[fafalone]

What a wonderful parallel universe you must live in where nobody is scared to act against the best interest of the owner of their company, even if there's not an official directive, because they'd never be penalized by a hugely coincidental yet officially unrelated action.

Re:Quick Sanity Check

[meglon]

I've often wondered why people who claim to know about business are so fucking stupid when it comes to knowing businesses. As long as Bezos runs Amazon, Amazon doesn't own anything from his personal life that he doesn't sell them. Learn some basic fucking business.

Re:Quick Sanity Check

[sexconker]

Have you ever met a business owner? Or any human being? You're fucking clueless.

The Hidden Punchline

[SuperKendall]

Unlikely, if Bezos is ethical

Ha haha haha hahahahah ah aha hoe hhe hah hoe heh haha haha *gasp*.

Come on, subby.

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump's quote was "The #AmazonWashingtonPost, sometimes referred to as the guardian of Amazon not paying internet taxes (which they should) is FAKE NEWS!"

Does this say anything about Amazon owning the Washington post? Does it even suggest that it does?

The funny thing is that Bezos owns both, is vehemently anti-Trump and does steer the Post to defend Amazon, so Trump's comment is accurate.

This whole thread is based on partisan bullsh#! made from a true comment.

Re:of course not!

[sexconker]

And Fox News, right wing radio and a whole raft of conservative media vastly outnumber the few openly left wing media outlets.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!

For that matter, the right wing bias stays just about the same even if you include hard news media that strive for accuracy.

Haaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaaaaaaaaa! HARD NEWS media! Striving for accuracy! WOOOOOOOOOOOW!

Accuracy, of course, doesn't favour conservatives.

Tell us how you really feel. Actually, don't. Your spelling of "favour" means you don't count.

Re:of course not!

[ooloorie]

Here you go:

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Amazon did buy it according to WIRED magazine

[zifn4b]

https://www.wired.com/2013/08/...

Re:US Media Out of Control

[sexconker]

Were you asleep the last 8 years? 16 years? ... 300 years? The media bashes whomever's in charge. It's probably their job and certainly their income. Who bashes whom changes from time to time, but the idea's the same. Power has to be held to account.

Were YOU asleep the last 8 years? The media gave Obama an 8 year long tug job.
He got a fucking Nobel peace Prize for what? More shitty occupations in the Middle East? Expanding Gitmo? Expanding and abusing the powers "granted" by the Patriot Act to the point where he could murder a US citizen via a drone strike abroad?

Get off your horse and drink your milk

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank the Lord Almighty for the cowboys of America, riding off into the sunset safe in the knowledge that they alone are untainted by the power of the landed gentry and money men. They can bask in the knowledge that they alone carry the torch of freedom which one day will burn the chains that shackle the rest of humanity to the teat of unjust rulers.

Actually, its sad that to defend your country you have to compare it to the worst of the rest.

Martian's stale talking points

[Anonymous Coward]

Once again MightyMartian is posting old outdated talking points that he doesn't understand.

Every member of the intelligence agency has said there is no evidence of Trump Russia collusion, every one of them under oath as well. The only ones with evidence are unnamed sources at NYT and WaPo who can't show the evidence. CNN is on tape saying they are making fake stories on CNN. Your talking points are a joke at this point.

The smoking gun is the entire investigation is based on McCabe wanting revenge on Flynn. Flynn stood up against McCabe when he sexually harassed a female special agent. There is an FBI memo explaining this (which is actual evidence).

So you are parroting a debunked hoax, that pretty much everyone has admitted is false, and are now supporting a sexual harasser.

I'm sure your mother would be proud that you think abusing power to oppress sexual harassment accusers is acceptable.

Kinda Sorta

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's take Sweden for an example.

Nominal corporate income tax in the US is ~35%. In Sweden it's 22%.
That's quite a bit lower.

Nominal capital gains tax in the US is ~25%. In Sweden it's 30%
You could argue that they are about the same, since the top bracket in the US is 28%, and that's where most of the taxable capital gains revenue comes from.

So Sweden lumps a personal income tax in there as well, ON TOP of a VAT.

I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility to replace a corporate income tax with a VAT in the US. It would solve a lot of problems with the games corporations play with income.

Re:The real news is CNN and their fake Russia "new

[netsavior]

Just so you are aware of optics, if you say "mainstream media" you look like an idiot. If you say "MSM" you look like a lunatic.

you probably don't realize it from your Breitbart/Reddit bubble, but the phrase sounds like: "I think eberybuddy is lyin to me, and I cain't trust what annyone who trusts anything but deluxe tinfoil for their hats!"

Re:Bad Article is Bad

[Anonymous Coward]

We shouldn't need a position of "Official Presidential Interpreter" to tell us what the President "means".

If a President is not able to communicate what they mean accurately and precisely, especially in official communications and declarations, then I would argue they are not intelligent enough to be President.

Sure, everyone makes a typo or mistake from time to time, but Trump is the first President I know of that his supporters keep needing to explain that "yes, that's what he said, but this is what he means".

No, CIA "owns" the WP, Bezos is a caretaker

[Anonymous Coward]

CIA controls WP...and basically all of the other networks, but WP is the most obvious. https://squawker.org/analysis/...

Because Nixon at least tried

[rsilvergun]

to cover it up. Anyway I'm praying that Trump is _not_ impeached. The last thing I want is predisent Pence. Right now Trump dampers the worst of his religious quackery...

Sweet baby Jesus

[ColaMan]

Can someone, PLEASE, take MR President's twitter account away from him? Shit's embarrasing, and I don't even live in the US.

Miss Mash - Why all these FUD articles?

[Gay Boner Sex]

Whose payroll are you on? Is BIZX, LLC. funded by the Clintin Foundation or "MoveOn.org" (also an astroturfing corporation)? This isn't news for nerds. This is news by shills. Speak for yourself. Answer for us. We would like to know.

Re:Get this crap out of here

[Anonymous Coward]

With grammar and spelling like that, you should probably stick with moderating.

Blame Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

It's all their fault.

Oh, and Thanks Obama.

I love China. They make my iPhones. And H1B's, they program them.

Thanks Timmy Cook!

Re:Might as well call it the Loser Party

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL, I love how you guys will happily take anonymously sourced rumors from the "news" but videos of CNN admitting it's pure nonsense gets a -1 mod.

Or maybe you just hate the factual description of how the impeachment process works and the fact that you have essentially zero hope of changing that before the next Presidential election? And if he's so unpopular as to have the Republican Congress impeach him by then, someone else will get elected and he won't be in office any more, taking impeachment off the table.

Re:US Media Out of Control

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet he was derided by Fox News and much of the right-centre media throughout the US/World. As I said, things change but the media is a dog that yaps at power. Sometimes it bites, sometimes not.

Re:of course not!

[Ksevio]

Looks like a news site covering news. Do you have evidence that Bezos influences what stories get written?

Re:of course not!

[ooloorie]

Well, if not for any other reason, the fact that it's still in business at all is an "influence", because without his purchase, it would have gone the way of the dodo.

And, of course, from the CEO down, people whose careers and income are on the line know what Bezos's expectations and politics actually are.

demented lying sack of shit.

[meglon]

Trump needs serious psychological help.

In Plain Sight

[SuperKendall]

You do realize most of the people attacking Trump are even richer, right?

Do you a prefer a president who hides his wealth in secret shelters, or is up-front and transparent about how much money he makes?

The thing is the true "elite" are a very snobbish bunch, and you can't be one of them no matter how much money you have - which is why they despise trump.

People like you are just echoes of the real power who have managed to quite successfully brainwash you against a basically mediocre person. What a waste of energy! But it's your life to toss away on someone else's fantasy.

Re:In Plain Sight

[Lisandro]

I don't know Trump's wealth, as he has not been up-front nor transparent about how much money he makes. Still waited for the promised tax returns...

Re:In Plain Sight

[david_thornley]

You do realize most of the people attacking Trump are even richer, right?

What is Trump's net worth? If it's over a million dollars, that's more than us or any of our friends, and most of us are anti-Trump and have attacked him in some way.

So Amazon doesn't own it

[Anonymous Coward]

But the guy that owns Amazon owns The Washington Post. Totally different.

Re:US Media Out of Control

[LeftCoastThinker]

Obama confronted Putin: "Hey Putin, whats up with all the hacking? Please stop doing that..." Pretty sure that's how it went. Obama never had any balls in the first place (remember his red line in Syria; you can bet Putin remembered), he wasn't about to grow balls with 6 months left in his 2nd term.

What retaliation was made? AFAIK there was none. Spyware is not retaliation, a Stuxnet variant that crashed critical Russian military or government systems would be retaliation. All I saw was Russia hacking the NSA and dumping all of the US cyberweapons online for everyone to see under Obamas watch...

                    "Remember, they asked Republican controlled congress to investigate but they refused."

Congress doesn't investigate exigent national security threats, that is what the president, the FBI and the NSA are for (all exist in the EXECUTIVE branch, not congress). Congress can pass a resolution condemning something, or hold hearings after the fact, but their job is to pass laws, funding, have internal oversight and declare war, not defend the nation. Sorry you fell for someones bullshit there.

You may not like the facts, but they still stand.

Re:of course not!

[Ksevio]

Wow so your evidence is that it's still in business and the CEO has "expectations"? Do you approve of NPR because it's funded by listeners?

Re:of course not!

[ooloorie]

Do you approve of NPR because it's funded by listeners?

NPR isn't "funded by listeners", it's majority funded by institutional and corporate sources; that's true even at the level of individual stations.

And I neither approve nor disapprove of NPR, but I certainly consider it strongly politically biased, towards the political preferences of both its donors and its listeners.

Wow so your evidence is that it's still in business and the CEO has "expectations"?

No, the evidence is the bias and inaccuracies in what the WaPo publishes, which happen to align with the interests of the owner.

Bzzzt! Thanks for playing

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Dorianny is right. States are just arbitrary marks on a map. So, why should someone on one side of an arbitrary line on a map be worth more than someone on the other side? Makes no sense at all.

Redraw the state boundaries to equalise the population per unit of whatever you are drawing (circles, rectangles, whatever).

Re:of course not!

[Ksevio]

Institutional and corporate sources make up more combined (not quite majority), but they only make up more when combined.

What inaccuracies have you seen in the WaPo? Have you compared them to other sources like Breitbart which have knowingly posted fake news stories (and aren't a fan of retractions)?

Re:of course not!

[ooloorie]

Institutional and corporate sources make up more combined (not quite majority), but they only make up more when combined.

So, calling it "listener funded" is misleading. And its listener demographics is overwhelmingly intellectuals, with their massive biases and special interests.

What inaccuracies have you seen in the WaPo?

I stopped reading them and I don't keep track. In addition to being often wrong, the WaPo was also just boring, a predictable echo chamber of the educated intellectual "moderate left" and their many delusions.

Have you compared them to other sources like Breitbart which have knowingly posted fake news stories (and aren't a fan of retractions)?

All news source publishes erroneous and fabricated materials, so you always need to fact check yourself. If you think you can trust the WaPo any more than Breitbart, you're a fool.

Re:of course not!

[Ksevio]

I tend to get my news from a variety of sources so it's not hard to check multiple sources. If you think the journalists at WaPo are anything like the people that collect the crap Breitbart puts out, then you're not very discerning in your news sources.

Re:of course not!

[ooloorie]

If you think the journalists at WaPo are anything like the people that collect the crap Breitbart puts out,

I don't think that at all! The difference between WaPo and Breitbart is like the difference between an expensive "escort" and a street hooker, or between Goebbels and some nutty guy on a street corner: the WaPo takes a lot of money for its prostitution, and its propaganda is carefully crafted to serve the interests of the state and to fool people like you. With Breitbart, it's pretty obvious to everybody what it is and isn't.

then you're not very discerning in your news sources.

I am indeed not. I got rid of my "discerning tastes" years ago.

Re:of course not!

[Ksevio]

Sounds like you've fallen for the right-wing "you can't trust any of the media! They all lie" propaganda. That's unfortunate and I hope you're able to think critically and properly check your media sources again some day.

Fake News

[Anonymous Coward]

"No other advanced country works that way."

Actually, every country with a progressive tax code does work that way. Which is nearly all advanced countries! I won't say "all advanced countries" simply because I don't know for a fact they all do. Certainly most do.

You say that 60% of income earners are net recipients from the tax system. That sounds impressive until you realize that the 60% are low earning people. Furthermore the income supports they get are relatively small, compared to average incomes.

This is not to say that tax code reform is necessarily a bad thing, or that changes (even lowering) of income benefits to poor people might be needed. However I get rather pissy when people start making inflated claims about how being poor is somehow good, or that "people aspire to be poor for the tax advantages", or any similar nonsense. This is simply bashing disadvantaged people and kicking them when they are already down.

The Bible talks a lot about poor people. There is not one word in there about how the IRS is too generous to the poor and we need to cut benefits.

Re:of course not!

[ooloorie]

Sounds like you've fallen for the right-wing "you can't trust any of the media! They all lie" propaganda.

Not at all. I reached that conclusion first all by myself, then left the Democratic party, and finally concluded that Republicans, conservatives, and libertarians made a lot of sense after all.

That's unfortunate and I hope you're able to think critically and properly check your media sources again some day.

So you're saying that you're the critical thinker because you trust the WaPo, while I am unable to think critically because I check all my media sources? Well, I think that tells us all we need to know about you, doesn't it?

Re:of course not!

[Ksevio]

I don't trust the WaPo more than sites like Breitbart, but you don't check your media sources, you think they're all bad and can't tell if one is better than the other. If you were checking all your media sources, I imagine you would have noticed a trend in quality by now.