Slashdot Mirror


Sean Spicer Resigns as White House Press Secretary After Objecting To Scaramucci Hire (cnbc.com)

CNBC reports: White House press secretary Sean Spicer abruptly resigned Friday after opposing President Donald Trump's appointment of Anthony Scaramucci as communications director. The president asked Spicer to stay in his role, but Spicer said appointing Scaramucci was a major mistake, The New York Times, citing a person with direct knowledge of the conversation. NBC News confirmed the resignation with two people familiar with the matter. Spicer tweeted later that he will continue to serve through August. White House chief of staff Reince Priebus was said to have advocated naming Spicer as press secretary. The two worked at the Republican National Committee before joining the administration. Following Spicer's resignation, Priebus said he supports Scaramucci "100 percent," according to news reports.

543 comments

  1. Checked... by XXongo · · Score: 5, Funny

    I had to check to make sure this wasn't fake news, but seems to be true; it's reported elsewhere: http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/21/...

    1. Re:Checked... by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I got the impression that it was a matter of when, not if. I'm assuming Priebus won't be far behind. At this point, and with the way Trump is treating Sessions, I can't imagine many people will want to even work for the Administration.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Checked... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I can't imagine many people will want to even work for the Administration.

      The Administration can't even fill 500+ top-level positions because job candidates are automatically disqualified if they have ever said anything negative about Trump.

    3. Re:Checked... by Baron_Yam · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh come on, what qualified individual wouldn't jump at the chance to work for someone who is impossible to please and will blame you (in public, shouting to basically the entire English-speaking world and reaching well beyond that) for failing to do the impossible?

      The pay must be great.

    4. Re:Checked... by BKDotCom · · Score: 3, Interesting

      He's not going to like what Scaramucci said about him in 2015
      “a hack anti-American bullies association don’t like the way he talks about women”
      https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy...

    5. Re:Checked... by Dunbal · · Score: 0, Troll

      Uhhh, using CNN as a reference to rule out fake news is.... well, next you'll confirm the existence of UFO's by checking this website.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    6. Re:Checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well you could always see if its on brietbart, if it is theres a good chance its a full fledged lie.

    7. Re:Checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be a shoo-in! You're always saying everyone confuses you with Trump the fatheaded narcissist.

    8. Re:Checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I got a Black Amazon Dot, which matches my vintage 2006 Black Macbook.

    9. Re:Checked... by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      Don't worry more than half that number will still available when Trump is voted out of office. Who want's to work for such a dickhead?

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

      what a shitfest

      It's amazing this jackass managed to stay wealthy (I have my doubts about 'billionaire') given his complete lack of people skills, organization, and impulse control.

    11. Re:Checked... by rahvin112 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not just that, but to fail to illegally stomp out an investigation. He's angry as Sessions for not stopping the Russia investigation. He wants to reorganize the FBI and put them under direct control of the president so he can politicize law enforcement.

      Just remember Trump supporters. The same things you let Trump do will be available to the next Democratic president.

    12. Re:Checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where are my cock eggs?

    13. Re:Checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Everyone sing it:

      Scaramucci Scaramucci can you do the fandango

    14. Re:Checked... by OzPeter · · Score: 2

      Oh come on, what qualified individual wouldn't jump at the chance to work for someone who is impossible to please

      It's more than impossible to please. Apparently Sessions should either have been clairvoyant or used a time machine to predict that he would have to recuse himself prior to the actions that caused the need for that recusal.

      That's some wacky Trump level BS in just that.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    15. Re:Checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At this point, and with the way Trump is treating Sessions, I can't imagine many people will want to even work for the Administration.

      They're just in it for the health coverage, no?

      That and the blanket "Get Out of Jail Free" card that will eventually be granted to everyone for everything so stop looking into it already and asking so many goddamn questions.

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

      Absolutely. +1. Demos got pissed at "unconstitutional" crap Bush did. Repos got pissed at "unconstitutional" crap Obama did...some of the very stuff that Bush did. And of course, Bush was also *mostly* following precedent. But each new precedent makes it easier for the next president.

      sr

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

      The pay must be great.

      Or the health package.

    18. Re:Checked... by davester666 · · Score: 2

      The pay is better if you are a guy...

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    19. Re:Checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You cite CNN to prove that something is NOT fake news?!? Might as well cite the Onion...

    20. Re:Checked... by dszd0g · · Score: 4, Informative

      You would think it would be fake with what Scaramucci has said about Trump in the past. Someone must not have shown Trump videos of what he's said about him. Trump isn't usually one to let go of past insults.

      Scaramucci has called Trump a "big mouth", "anti-American", and a "hack." "You’re an inherited money dude from Queens County." That Trump should be "president of" "the Queens County Bullies Association." He said Trump should "cut it out now and stop all this crazy rhetoric spinning everybody’s heads around.”

      https://thinkprogress.org/anth...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      This message is encrypted with Quad ROT-13 to protect the author's copyright under the DMCA.
    21. Re:Checked... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Are these posts open to people who aren't US citizens? The rate things are going he's going to run out before he makes it halfway through his term.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    22. Re:Checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > fake news

      > CNN

      At least you went straight to the source of fake news to "verify".

    23. Re:Checked... by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Does anyone actually believe he runs his companies? He's the brand name, the wrapper on the chocolate bar.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    24. Re: Checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the "chocolate" is actually...

    25. Re:Checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Absolutely. +1. Demos got pissed at "unconstitutional" crap Bush did. Repos got pissed at "unconstitutional" crap Obama did...some of the very stuff that Bush did. And of course, Bush was also *mostly* following precedent. But each new precedent makes it easier for the next president.

      sr

      Not that Obama was perfect by any means, but he did try to get Congress to remove some of the crazy powers the President now has but the GOP wanted those powers if it won so they refused. Or maybe it was just because Obama was black. Honestly, I can't even tell anymore why the GOP hated him so much there is video of it's leaders publicly stating they will oppose anything Obama does, no matter what it is. They weren't banking on Trump winning, though, and now the most unstable, thin-skinned, easily manipulated, foolish, childish, moron on the planet has scary, relatively unchecked power.

    26. Re:Checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think it's straightforward - Trump expected him to lie.

    27. Re:Checked... by Freischutz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I can't imagine many people will want to even work for the Administration.

      The Administration can't even fill 500+ top-level positions because job candidates are automatically disqualified if they have ever said anything negative about Trump.

      Automatically disqualified? Some of these people seem to think that if it ever got out that they had been even so much as considered for a position by the Trump administration it would be damaging to their careers so they are calling in and preemptively asking to be removed from all lists of people under consideration by the Trump admin.

    28. Re:Checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the Russian money, don't forget the hundreds of billions that is essentially locked up due to US sanctions

    29. Re:Checked... by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Interesting

      At this point, and with the way Trump is treating Sessions,

      I'm not convinced that's a real thing. Sessions is part of Trump's core appeal to people who still think law and order are on the brink of breaking down, with drug-addled black lives matters activists plotting to murder us all.

      The part of the right wing that hasn't completely abandoned reality recognizes crime is at a 50 year low., but there's a big contingent that doesn't believe evidence is important when dealing with crime.

      Without Sessions focusing the right wing's fear onto the usual target of black men who use drugs, it might be tough to keep them distracted from questions about crimes inside the white house. Trump could easily be dumb enough to not realize that, but I have to think whoever of his allies he listens to realize it. That line in the interview was just part of the usual stream of consciousness coming out of the POTUS' mouth. He likely forgot he said it a minute later.

      Furthermore, I'm skeptical how much Sessions actually recused himself. I have no proof he was or is meddling with the investigation, but why would we just assume anyone in the administration has done behind closed doors what they said they would? For that matter, even a more respectable administration, why would we just take their word for it?

      Until Trump gets impeached and Sessions carries out whatever role he is supposed to play in the process, I'm going to remain convinced this whole "Trump and sessions breakup!?!?" is just another plan to distract attention from Russia, tax cuts for the wealthy, and the health care repeal.

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

      Rules of engagement

    31. Re:Checked... by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      Well, fellowships and internships are open only to US citizens who do not hold dual citizenship with another nation. (I just checked the Whitehouse web site)

      Also, Trump got elected on fear of immigrants and outsourcing so even if there's no written policy, I'd bet they're not hiring non-Americans (except at Trump family private businesses, of course).

      As a Canadian I have to say... I'd probably seriously consider working for Trump just to work in the White House if the opportunity presented itself, though I would have to be in some position where I didn't feel directly complicit in advancing his agenda. Then again, since I'm an IT guy I doubt that condition would be a problem.

    32. Re:Checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't go around confusing things by invoking actual facts.

    33. Re:Checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, those tweets will be deleted soon

    34. Re:Checked... by smooth+wombat · · Score: 0

      Then again, since I'm an IT guy I doubt that condition would be a problem.

      You don't think being told to not provide truthful information about a government web site going down falls under that condition?

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    35. Re:Checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I can't imagine many people will want to even work for the Administration.

      The Administration can't even fill 500+ top-level positions because job candidates are automatically disqualified if they have ever said anything negative about Trump.

      Automatically disqualified? Some of these people seem to think that if it ever got out that they had been even so much as considered for a position by the Trump administration it would be damaging to their careers so they are calling in and preemptively asking to be removed from all lists of people under consideration by the Trump admin.

      So goes liberal influence. Be progressive or be left behind.

    36. Re:Checked... by rrohbeck · · Score: 0

      That makes perfect sense. OTOH having been fired by Trump may be a sign of qualification in the future.

    37. Re:Checked... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Not only that but hard work doesn't seem like something Trump actually does. He promised he'd work hard if elected yet seems to spend almost every weekend golfing.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    38. Re: Checked... by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      Aw come on, with all the sugarcoating it must be delicious!

    39. Re:Checked... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      What's the mechanism for voting the President out of office, exactly?
      Do you mean voting someone else in? It's gonna be a while before you even have the chance.

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

      wrong

    41. Re:Checked... by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      Who want's to work for such a dickhead?

      A whore.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    42. Re:Checked... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      I'd jump at the chance. I'd get a decent paycheck for the period I stuck it out, and I'd get 15 minutes of fame when I bailed. I'd also get $$$ for writing a book, giving an exclusive interview, whatever.

    43. Re: Checked... by sexconker · · Score: 2, Funny

      Excellent. We have excellent chocolate, the best. Trust me, I know chocolate. We'll have the top chocolate people in our administration and we're going to make chocolate great again.

    44. Re:Checked... by painandgreed · · Score: 2

      Does anyone actually believe he runs his companies?

      I bet he does.

    45. Re:Checked... by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

      Does anyone actually believe he runs his companies? He's the brand name, the wrapper on the chocolate bar.

      Runs them personally? No. Makes decisions that cause them to fail spectacularly? Why not?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    46. Re:Checked... by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      Until Trump gets impeached and Sessions carries out whatever role he is supposed to play in the process, I'm going to remain convinced this whole "Trump and sessions breakup!?!?" is just another plan to distract attention from Russia, tax cuts for the wealthy, and the health care repeal.

      Maybe if it was the plan of Sessions or Pence, but I feel if Trump was capable of coming up with, putting into action, or even just not blowing the cover on such a plan, he wouldn't be in half the trouble he is now.

    47. Re:Checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd jump at the chance. I'd get a decent paycheck for the period I stuck it out, and I'd get 15 minutes of fame when I bailed. I'd also get $$$ for writing a book, giving an exclusive interview, whatever.

      This only works if you're already rich enough to afford a bodyguard.
      When you're told you're fired [not "when I bailed"], and Our Dear Leader tweets nasty things about you, his idiot peasant followers from the village will come after you with social media attacks, pitchforks, handguns, and pit bulls.

    48. Re:Checked... by swillden · · Score: 1

      That makes perfect sense. OTOH having been fired by Trump may be a sign of qualification in the future.

      Well... it also means you got hired by Trump, which may be a sign of disqualification. i suspect that the best option is never to have been associated with Trump in any way.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    49. Re:Checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Thank you for your persuasive and detailed argument. I can clearly see GP's error now.

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

      Does anyone actually believe he runs his companies? He's the brand name, the wrapper on the chocolate bar.

      Exactly. And it's only ever been a brand for ignorant people who think that real rich people all have no taste.

    51. Re:Checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      -1 for trolling

    52. Re:Checked... by mydots · · Score: 1

      I like to joke about saying Trump go home so I can fly my drone, since I live within that entirety of North Jersey, and even part of surrounding states, no fly zone cloud you see on the US air map every time he comes here to golf which does seem to be a lot of weekends lately. Now if he can only help drain the NJ swamp while I suffer from No Drone Flying Syndrome.

    53. Re:Checked... by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      Oh come on, what qualified individual wouldn't jump at the chance to work for someone who is impossible to please and will blame you (in public, shouting to basically the entire English-speaking world and reaching well beyond that) for failing to do the impossible?

      The pay must be great.

      Well, Trump did say he was going to run the country like a business. Is he giving out golden handshakes and parachutes? Big enough signing bonus, and I'll be the next Press Secretary.

    54. Re:Checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't imagine many people will want to even work for the Administration.

      The Administration can't even fill 500+ top-level positions because job candidates are automatically disqualified if they have ever said anything negative about Trump.

      Automatically disqualified? Some of these people seem to think that if it ever got out that they had been even so much as considered for a position by the Trump administration it would be damaging to their careers so they are calling in and preemptively asking to be removed from all lists of people under consideration by the Trump admin.

      Because the vetting process would reveal why Trump likes them, i.e. they are crooks.

      Trump won! Republicans control every branch of the federal government and wield plenty of power at the state level. Serving the President at the top of this pyramid of power should be a no-brainier. Pathetic that anyone would pretend they fear "consequences" of being associated.

      You know, unless we are talking about sleazebags who don't want to attract too much attention to themselves.

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

      Where are my cock eggs?

      packed right next to Rocky Mountain oysters.

    56. Re:Checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The pay is better if you are a guy...

      women will be subjected to full body cavity search by the commander in chief.

    57. Re:Checked... by AlanObject · · Score: 1

      What's the mechanism for voting the President out of office, exactly?

      There is no mechanism for that in the Constitution.

    58. Re:Checked... by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

      Bet he doesn't I saw a story where on the apprentice, the phone was actually a teleprompter. He was told who to fire by the directors. Like most reality tv, the people are just puppets.

    59. Re:Checked... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What's the mechanism for voting the President out of office, exactly?

      There is no mechanism for that in the Constitution.

      Sure there is - it's right in the constitution under impeachment. A simple majority of the house and a 2/3 majority of the senate can vote him out of office. If he becomes toxic enough to the incumbents, they'll vote to impeach to keep their own seats in a future election. Nothing personal, just business (or self-interest, which politicians are really good at when it comes to voting on legislation, etc.)

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    60. Re:Checked... by quantaman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I can't imagine many people will want to even work for the Administration.

      The Administration can't even fill 500+ top-level positions because job candidates are automatically disqualified if they have ever said anything negative about Trump.

      Automatically disqualified? Some of these people seem to think that if it ever got out that they had been even so much as considered for a position by the Trump administration it would be damaging to their careers so they are calling in and preemptively asking to be removed from all lists of people under consideration by the Trump admin.

      So goes liberal influence. Be progressive or be left behind.

      It's about integrity, if you're a Trump appointee you're going to be put in a position where you have to publicly contradict your boss or lie your ass off. If you choose the first you'll have a really crappy job and you probably won't last long, if you choose the second you've destroyed your reputation and will have trouble finding reputable work afterwards.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    61. Re:Checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes there is. It just can't happen until Nov 2020.

    62. Re:Checked... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      People have withdrawn their names after Trump nominated them.

      Accepting a Trump position could turn out to be a career-ending move. Rejecting one could be seen as a positive.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    63. Re:Checked... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      stating they will oppose anything Obama does, no matter what it is

      There should be something in the constitution that allows such people to instantly be dismissed and disqualified from ever holding public office again. Mind you if politicians actually had to assess laws on their merits it would require them to read. I'm not sure many of them know how to read.

    64. Re: Checked... by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      No he doesn't. Even if he did the constitution mentions misdemeanors, which could include jaywalking. You don't think they could find him indictable for a misdemeanor? I suggest you read the following as obviously this has never happened no one knows for sure what the actual requirements are.

      http://litigation.findlaw.com/...

    65. Re: Checked... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Exactly what constitutes an impeachment offense is left vague by the Constitution, and is largely a political matter. I think Trump's probably violated enough laws in his time so Congress could find something. It looks to me like Trump's business holdings are not careful to avoid accepting money from domestic or foreign governments, so it'll probably be possible to get him on one of the emoluments clauses.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    66. Re:Checked... by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Does he arrive on Friday and go home on Monday?

      --
      No sig today...
    67. Re:Checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Constitution constischmution, when was the last time a president or the congress cared about that one?

    68. Re:Checked... by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      wrong

      Right!

      --
      No sig today...
    69. Re:Checked... by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      You may been in the job when the administration changed.

    70. Re: Checked... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Excellent. We have excellent chocolate, the best. Trust me, I know chocolate. We'll have the top chocolate people in our administration and we're going to make chocolate great again.

      Look at his cabinet. Not a single chocolate person there. He only likes white chocolate. He's even banned the importation of various degrees of darker chocolate from other countries and is trying to build a wall to keep out light milk chocolate. tl;dr - he's STILL a racist. The fines for excluding black renters haven't changed his views.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    71. Re:Checked... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1, Funny

      I got the impression that it was a matter of when, not if. I'm assuming Priebus won't be far behind. At this point, and with the way Trump is treating Sessions, I can't imagine many people will want to even work for the Administration.

      Only winners, my good man. Working for Trump is the ultimate achievement in anyone's life, and if you can make it through his demands of perfection - nothing he doesn't demand of himeself, you will be among the leaders in a new world shaped by Trump and the Republican party - as confirmed by th erecord number of votes for both, a sign that Amereica has had it with the liberals. This train is headed for glory, got on board or get left behind!

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    72. Re:Checked... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Does anyone actually believe he runs his companies?

      I bet he does.

      Well, he did manage to go bankrupt 6 times. Obviously he has at least some influence :-)

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    73. Re:Checked... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 0

      As a Canadian I have to say... I'd probably seriously consider working for Trump just to work in the White House if the opportunity presented itself

      As another Canadian I have to say ... shame on you.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    74. Re:Checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's two. First is the Impeachment process that Barbara Hudson mentioned, second is the even simpler 25th Amendment's section (4):

      Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

    75. Re:Checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why in the world did Scaramucci take the job then, for a boss that he's unfond of? Then again, this job is all about spin, so if he's "qualified" he'll simply apply the spin and all will be right with his job and with the administration.

    76. Re:Checked... by swillden · · Score: 1

      You may been in the job when the administration changed.

      And stayed... demonstrating extreme lack of foresight.

      :P

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    77. Re:Checked... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

      You be the judge.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    78. Re: Checked... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 3, Informative

      What's the mechanism for voting the President out of office, exactly? There is no mechanism for that in the Constitution.

      he has to commit a crime. ping!

      Whether he has committed a crime is irrelevant to the quote I replied to, which claimed that the was no mechanism for voting him out of office in the constitution, when the simple fact is that the constitution specifies that a simple majority vote of the house and a 2/3 majority vote in the senate is exactly that mechanism the poster said doesn't exist.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    79. Re:Checked... by sexconker · · Score: 0

      He's not eligible for impeachment. Even if he were to be impeached, that would not remove him from office. See Billy Boy.

    80. Re:Checked... by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      If it were a plot, it would probably be Bannon coming up with it. And Trump doesn't need to do anything except mention he's super duper upset with sessions in an interview. This doesn't require much skill on the part of the puppet.

      Against my theory, what would the motive be? There's little point to such distractions. Republicans might not come right out and say "We will not impeach Trump no matter what he said to the Russians" but he's clearly above the law with the current religious zealot support of the far right and congress. If the media isn't distracted by it and focuses on Russia... so what? Until tapes reveal he kissed a dude while in the oval office, he's not going anywhere.

    81. Re:Checked... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 0

      Unrelated question: how would you respond to a tax cut on businesses and the wealthy if it also came with a remediation of the welfare system, strengthening of the middle-class, and a complete elimination of homelessness and hunger through a powerful social safety net? Assume the math works out (it does).

      No healthcare repeal or other bullshit; there are things you don't solve by fixing the tax system up. You can't just give people flat cash and say, "Here, this will pay for your doctor bills!" You need risk adjustment systems (= insurance).

    82. Re: Checked... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Exactly what constitutes an impeachment offense is left vague by the Constitution, and is largely a political matter. I think Trump's probably violated enough laws in his time so Congress could find something. It looks to me like Trump's business holdings are not careful to avoid accepting money from domestic or foreign governments, so it'll probably be possible to get him on one of the emoluments clauses.

      He's not being gifted money or titles by any foreign prince (or head of state), is he?

      Holding foreign business interests does not violate any emoluments clause, nor does profiting off of them. It would have to be shown that foreign moneys received or foreign titles held received were gifts, bribes, etc., conditional upon or predicated upon certain actions or policies while holding US office. Further, Congress could vote to except any such violation.

    83. Re:Checked... by sexconker · · Score: 0

      Impeachment isn't possible unless there's some evidence of something, and impeachment won't actually remove him from office. Bill Clinton was impeached.
      And declaring him unfit for duty isn't going to fly just because you don't like what he's doing. Further, this isn't "voting" him out of office, which is what rahvin112 referred to.

    84. Re:Checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wrong

      Trump, is that you?

    85. Re:Checked... by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1

      Trump isn't usually one to let go of past insults.

      I am convinced that a REALLY WELL CHOREOGRAPHED session of platitudes, complements, and offers of "winning" would cause Trump to ignore past grievances. Case in point: China used to be evil. Then Xi Jinping spent several days making nice with Trump, including seemingly agreeing to help with North Korea. (opportunity for "winning") Then China was not evil. Said Trump: "Why would I criticize China? They are helping us with our North Korean problem."

    86. Re:Checked... by swillden · · Score: 0

      Unrelated question: how would you respond to a tax cut on businesses and the wealthy if it also came with a remediation of the welfare system, strengthening of the middle-class, and a complete elimination of homelessness and hunger through a powerful social safety net? Assume the math works out (it does).

      Do I also get a pony? And elimination of the federal debt?

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    87. Re: Checked... by Boronx · · Score: 1

      "He's not being gifted money or titles by any foreign prince (or head of state), is he?"

      You're going to have to assume that nobody ever does Donald's holdings any favors on behalf of their government. At this point, that beggars belief. Heck, someone with connections to a foreign government buying a membership at Mar a Lago would qualify. Has that happened?

      And no, the emoluments clause has no requirement to prove a quid-pro-quo.

    88. Re:Checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He would have to commit an actual crime for impeachment, not just be unpopular with the establishment and some of the voters. Such crimes require evidence of guilt, not just hard feelings from the opposition party. Otherwise, every President would be impeached. Despite all the fake news and rumormongering and neo-Macarthy red scares, Trump does not seem to have committed any crimes.

    89. Re: Checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's true that Congress can impeach for basically whatever reason it likes because the Constitution is vague about what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors". A high misdemeanor could comprise something as trivial as poor record-keeping.

      But here's the problem: if Trump is not actually accused of a *crime*, he is likely to take his impeachment to the Supreme Court. Which already leans conservative, but is likely to become much more conservative over the next couple of years.

    90. Re:Checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Watch out. The knives and guns you leave lying around could be used by pacifists!!!

    91. Re: Checked... by John.Banister · · Score: 4, Informative

      And, "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" includes "conduct unbecoming the office." 30 Republican Representatives & 20 Republican Senators are what it would take (assuming all non-Republicans favored impeachment).

    92. Re: Checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly what constitutes an impeachment offense is left vague by the Constitution, and is largely a political matter. I think Trump's probably violated enough laws in his time so Congress could find something. It looks to me like Trump's business holdings are not careful to avoid accepting money from domestic or foreign governments, so it'll probably be possible to get him on one of the emoluments clauses.

      He's not being gifted money or titles by any foreign prince (or head of state), is he?

      Frankly, we just don't know. Remember that Donald has been rather cagey about disclosing his finances for public scrutiny. And we don't really know what was discussed in the meeting between Trump Jr and that Russian delegation back in June 2016, other than what Donald Jr and the Russians say they discussed. Do you really expect them to be entirely honest about what they were discussing? How naive of you!

    93. Re:Checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly, I think the GOP knew what they were getting into, and decided they'd put up with it anyway, just so they'd (theoretically) get their way with things. Ironically, I'm left hoping that things get even worse than they already are, so that even the GOP won't be able to hold their noses anymore, decide enough is enough, and run Trump out of office on a rail.

    94. Re:Checked... by dszd0g · · Score: 1

      Ya, apparently he's apologized "50" times to Trump for the above comments and his opposition to Trump was because he "was an unexperienced [sic] person in the world of politics." Scaramucci has apparently been throwing lots of praise at Trump to make up for his earlier comments, as you suggested.

      http://thehill.com/homenews/ad...

      https://www.theguardian.com/us...

      --
      This message is encrypted with Quad ROT-13 to protect the author's copyright under the DMCA.
    95. Re:Checked... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      I would consider both impeachment/conviction and losing a reelection to be "voted out of office" (albeit by different entities).

    96. Re:Checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd jump at the chance. I'd get a decent paycheck for the period I stuck it out, and I'd get 15 minutes of fame when I bailed. I'd also get $$$ for writing a book, giving an exclusive interview, whatever.

      Yeah, I was thinking there is going to be one doozy of a tell-all book to come out of this. In fact, I anticipate a bunch of salacious tell-all books to be written from the debacle of this administration. It will make for some really fascinating reading!

    97. Re:Checked... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Sure he's eligible. The only eligibility requirement is to be president.

    98. Re:Checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I imagine you'd have a lot of juicy material to feed the press if you wanted to undermine him also.

    99. Re: Checked... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      You don't have to show any of that stuff. You just need 2/3 of the senate to be willing to vote him out in exchange for a president Pence.

    100. Re:Checked... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Unable to discharge yada yada. Is this meant to be like a Caine Mutiny scenario? That they think he's as fruity as a nutcake?

      Or is it that other movie where he's captured by the Russians? That's just silly!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    101. Re:Checked... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      You need to learn about impeachment. It's political not legal. Evidence is only required for criminal prosecution.

      Impeachment is the vote to remove the president from office and conviction is one potential outcome of that vote. Bill Clinton didn't receive that particular outcome, but the general consensus is that Nixon would have, which is why he resigned.

    102. Re:Checked... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Those 2 things are not mutually exclusive.

    103. Re:Checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot to put a sarcasm tag on this one. No need to thank me and you're welcome.

    104. Re:Checked... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      We may find that the people that stayed are the unsung heroes leaking the terrible things they did, and providing a check against the administration from from doing even more terrible things, than they would otherwise.

    105. Re:Checked... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Me too. I think he's a horse's arse, but I can bullshit with the best of them and I while I really don't enjoy insulting people I'd be prepared to do it if it's tasteful and artistically necessary.

      I'd also chuck in a few subtle jibes that go over most of the crowd's heads. I've got quite a bit of experience in that.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    106. Re:Checked... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Even though he golfs a lot, this doesn't prevent him from doing his job (i.e. tweeting).

    107. Re:Checked... by lgw · · Score: 1

      If he becomes toxic enough to the incumbents, they'll vote to impeach to keep their own seats

      The only way that would ever happen is if a president were actually fixing the corruption in DC. While I think Trump has done a small amount of that (or at least hes handed 0 $trillions to banks thus far, unlike the last couple guys), it's small enough that he's at no risk.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    108. Re:Checked... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Ah. That's why they're letting OJ out.

      There's nobody else left.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    109. Re:Checked... by lgw · · Score: 2, Troll

      is idiot peasant followers from the village will come after you with social media attacks, pitchforks, handguns, and pit bulls.

      Wait, so progressives support Trump now? Or have you missed the fact that 100% of political violence since November was initiated by the progressives, and social media hate mobs are entirely a progressive phenomenon?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    110. Re:Checked... by lgw · · Score: 1

      You do realize that most CEOs are salesman-in-chief, right? And rarely have much to do with the day-to-day operations of the corporation? The exceptions are rare enough to be noteworthy.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    111. Re:Checked... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      No. Clinton was impeached on some flimsy pretext. What he lied about is not serious enough for impeachment. They can find something similar about Trump, if they want to.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    112. Re:Checked... by King_TJ · · Score: 1

      A whole lot of people took jobs at Apple under Steve Jobs ....

    113. Re:Checked... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      You forgot to put a sarcasm tag on this one. No need to thank me and you're welcome.

      Just Poe-ing about. The dwindling pool of sycophants still believe what I wrote.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    114. Re:Checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In 2 months, Trump will resign. So predicted -TM

    115. Re: Checked... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      No, the people trying to get him into trouble over such a thing are going to have to prove it and get the Republican-controlled Congress to not grant him an exception (which is within their power to do).

      The emoluments clauses absolutely have a requirement to prove that it's a title or an emolument. Having a business and making a profit is not an emolument.

    116. Re: Checked... by sexconker · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Frankly, we just don't know that you're not raping frogs on a daily basis. How many talking heads and university professors should be calling for your head?

      If anyone has evidence, put up or shut up. We nearing a full year of NOTHING since the initial cries of Trump & Russia "hacking" the election.

    117. Re: Checked... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Uh, they need an impeachable offense or a declaration that he's unfit. Being an ass and a moron doesn't make him unfit, and we have no evidence for anything that could get him impeached. (And as I've stated, being impeached doesn't mean he gets kicked out.)

    118. Re: Checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or have you missed the fact that 100% of political violence since November was initiated by the progressives, and social media hate mobs are entirely a progressive phenomenon?

      Both easily disproven, with the Montana assault by a now Congressman and the various "militia" protests that were guided by Social media.

      Sorry, but the right-wing has got its share of shits. Denying that is probably the stupidest hubris that you possess. What's the point? You think pretending your hands are clean is anything but laughable?

    119. Re: Checked... by sexconker · · Score: 0

      Congress cannot simply vote the President out of office without cause, you moron.
      He has to be declared unfit (he isn't) or be found guilty of some impeachable offense (he hasn't been) and then subsequently recalled.

      I get that you want to see him tossed to the curb, but let's not enter make believe bullshit land to try to make it happen.

    120. Re:Checked... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Lying to Congress under oath is a big no-no, and was serious enough for impeachment. See the fact that it happened.
      Apparently, they CAN'T find anything to nail Trump with.

    121. Re:Checked... by Baron_Yam · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why are you Trumping? (Telling an easily falsified lie)

      The meeting has been confirmed by the participants (with documentation), its legality is questionable enough it should end up a court case, and the Trump team has only revealed details one at a time as the press forced them to do so.

      They conspired to violate American law by attempting to meet with agents of a foreign power to meddle in a domestic election. They covered their tracks. Now That they are exposed they're actually claiming it's OK because they failed at it.

      If you're defending that with the official "nothingburger" line, you're so partisan as to be brain damaged.

    122. Re:Checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > he did try to get Congress to remove some of the crazy powers the President now has but the GOP wanted those powers if it won so they refused

      Which powers? I somehow missed that news.

    123. Re: Checked... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 0

      Seriously? He isn't unfit to be President? When will his behavior start reflecting that?

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    124. Re:Checked... by lgw · · Score: 0

      Cool story, bro.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    125. Re: Checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, hasn't given them money they'd have to pay back to save millions of jobs. He's just deregulating them to make sure the next guy has to do it again.

    126. Re: Checked... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      What is an impeachable offense? It turns out it's anything that enough people in the house and senate think is impeachable. The senate vote for conviction in an impeachment is also a vote. The fact that the term impeachment technically means "the trial" and not "the conviction" does not meaningfully change any arguments. All you need to do is substitute the word "impeachment" with the word "conviction" and it becomes a little bit clearer if everyone already knows we are referring to a conviction as a result of an impeachment. It is not a mystery why "impeachment" became an informal substitute for "conviction as the result of an impeachment".

    127. Re: Checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bu bu bubu bhengazi! Emails!

      Buckle up, it's a long ride. Watergate took two years to break.

    128. Re: Checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whores don't do work to get dickheads. They take dickheads to get money.

      Male homosexual sluts work for dickheads.

    129. Re: Checked... by bidule · · Score: 1

      Excellent. We have excellent chocolate, the best. Trust me, I know chocolate. We'll have the top chocolate people in our administration and we're going to make chocolate great again.

      Your chocolate is so good that our 20% chocolate is as good as the others 70% ones.

      --
      ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
    130. Re:Checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama trying to removed the Presidency's powers?
      WTF are you smoking? It can't be legal, not even in Colorado.

      Obama took everything Bush did, and doubled down on it. He expanded DoJ overview of states, he expanded DoEd rules over schools, he expanded IRS powers, he expanded DHS powers, he forced ICE to stop doing its Congressionally mandated job, he expanded the President's War Powers beyond anyone before, he expanded the targetted killing programs, he expanded the NSA cyber surveillance programs against Americans, he even expanded the President's foreign relations powers to explicitly violate laws passed by Congress.

      Bush was bad. Obama was way worse - he had a pen and a phone and fuck the law.

    131. Re:Checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Further, this isn't "voting" him out of office, which is what rahvin112 referred to.

      There are votes in both cases.

      I can't say that rahvin wasn't asking for either.

    132. Re:Checked... by skids · · Score: 1

      If I thought this White House was smart enough to play 3D chess, I'd say the converse: an attempt to use the Russia kerfluffle to keep the scent off appointing one of the dissenting rightist senators as AG and have a Republican governor appoint a yes vote on the repeal of health care.

      But I don't.

    133. Re: Checked... by dougdonovan · · Score: 1

      see what happens when you piss trump off.

    134. Re: Checked... by murdocj · · Score: 1

      Is there a mechanism in the Constitution for the Supremes have the final word? If Congress follows the impeachment process laid out in the Constitution I don't see that the Supreme Court would have any power to alter the outcome. It's not like they would need to decide that part of the Constitution is unconstitutional.

    135. Re: Checked... by narcc · · Score: 1

      That's fun. In my imagination, the president is a talking marigold.

      Playing pretend can be fun, but this probably isn't the right forum for those sorts of discussions.

    136. Re: Checked... by narcc · · Score: 1

      If you have the means, try watching a television news program. You'll be very surprised by what you find.

    137. Re: Checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He expanded DoJ overview of states,

      Yeah, those terrible reports on civil rights violations.

       

      he expanded DoEd rules over schools,

      By agreeing to their Common Core setup?

       

      he expanded IRS powers,

      By letting the GOP have a fake hissy fit?

      he expanded DHS powers, he forced ICE to stop doing its Congressionally mandated job,

      By deporting 2.5 million people?

      he expanded the President's War Powers beyond anyone before,

      Except Bush, Reagan, Nixon, Roosevelt, Lincoln, or Jackson.

      he expanded the targetted killing programs,

      Oh noes, he should have stuck to indiscriminate killing programs!

      he expanded the NSA cyber surveillance programs against Americans, ,

      Yeah, by stopping them from the surveillance they started under Bush.

      he even expanded the President's foreign relations powers to explicitly violate laws passed by Congress.

      A bunch of Senators writing a letter to Iran just spite Obama is not a law.

      It is debased childishness by wannabe Warhawks.

    138. Re: Checked... by murdocj · · Score: 1

      Ok, we have a few things:

      1) US intelligence services UNANIMOUSLY agree that Russia was behind the email hacks and worked hard to get Trump into office.
      2) In the process of monitoring Russian agents US intelligence also detected a disturbingly high level of contact between the Trump campaign and Russia.
      3) Over time, there have a been a bunch of denials, followed by "oh yeah, we had these meetings that we didn't bother to disclose" events.

      Is there enough evidence to connect the dots? Not so far. But the "there's no evidence" story is out the window... just aint true. There's plenty of evidence, just not enough to convict... yet.

    139. Re: Checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the republican representatives that would have to vote to impeach trump are still beholden to the dumbasses who elected him. That's the only reason it hasn't happened yet

    140. Re:Checked... by murdocj · · Score: 0

      That's not going to happen. The Republicans have tucked their consciences away in glass jars (those that had such). Any Republican who hasn't denounced trump by now just isn't going to.

    141. Re:Checked... by murdocj · · Score: 0

      You aren't serious about trump "fixing corruption" are you? Trump's agenda is
      1) tax cuts for himself
      2) using the presidency to advance the business interests of his family.
      3) power

      He has ZERO interest in "fixing corruption". In fact, anyone who tries to "fix corruption" is going to find themselves out of a job.

    142. Re: Checked... by murdocj · · Score: 1

      Whenever I hear that I can't help but think of the comic on Seinfeld who was Jerry's nemesis. He's always be going on about "it's the BEST, Jerry, the BEST!".

    143. Re: Checked... by Darinbob · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I suspect the court gets to step in and decide if the crime really rises to the level necessary for impeachement. The constitution does not say "for any reason" and so any legal dispute here goes to the supreme court. This is not at all the same thing as a recall election.

      One would hope of course that any honest and sane representatives would refuse to vote to have the impeachment proceedings in the first place, and then vote against impeachment during the hearings, if there was no actual crime. Assuming that there are honest and sane representatives to be found.

    144. Re: Checked... by Enigma2175 · · Score: 3, Informative

      But the constitution doesn't go into detail on what those impeachable offenses are, just "treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors". High crimes are crimes against the state by a person in a position of power, like bribery or corruption. If 1/2 House decides that firing Comey was obstruction of justice (another "high crime") and 2/3 of the Senate agrees, then what he did is an impeachable offense whether or not it rises to the level of a criminal offense.

      --

      Enigma

    145. Re: Checked... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I hope the court never decides this on a political basis. They sometimes are political but almost always they give sound legal reasons in the decisions (whether or not someone agrees with the reasonings). Thus even those on the court who hate Trump would be extremely unlikely that they would uphold an impeachment that was not based upon an actual crime. Otherwise this opens a nasty can of worms that would allow any popular vote in the house to remove a president at any time in the future, and no one on the court is so stupid as to allow that.

    146. Re: Checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read these infamous words:

      "No reasonable prosecutor would take the case."

      Hillary was untouchable merely being a candidate for president. Do you really think the actual president, with full control over the Department of Justice is less immune? Prosecutorial discretion means that your wishes, just like the wishes of those that wanted Hillary behind bars for those 110 counts the FBI found, will never come true.

    147. Re:Checked... by dbIII · · Score: 0

      It's a vote, well two votes really, just not one you can take part in.
      It probably won't happen given how partisan things are. If Trump pulled off a rubber mask and it was really Charles Manson underneath they'd say at least he's a Republican and still wouldn't vote him out.

    148. Re: Checked... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      It's not up to you (or me) to decide what an impeachable offense is. If most of Congress and Senate decide that they want him gone then something will be defined as the impeachable offense to vote on.

    149. Re: Checked... by Darinbob · · Score: 0

      The constitutional requirement is to be more sane than Mad King George.

    150. Re: Checked... by dogvomit · · Score: 1

      Well, you might be right. But it should be that your numbers are inverted, since it would be incredibly stupid for any non-republican to favor a President Pence to a President Trump. President Trump is impeding the republican agenda. President Pence would do far more damage to the democrats.

      I'll bet enough democrats realize this to eliminate any chance of impeachment.

      All bets are off if the democrats can take control at midterm, which is incredibly unlikely. Just imagine it though: first impeach and convict Trump, then impeach and convict Pence. Who would be president? You got it: Nancy Pelosi. This would result in armed rebellion throughout Jesusland.

      —George

    151. Re: Checked... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Um, I'm pretty sure the Constitution does say that the President can also be impeached if he fails to perform the duties of his office. He won't be tried for a crime in that case, but he can be removed.

    152. Re: Checked... by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Utter bullshit! George Washington owned a plantation and sold goods to England while he was President. Do you want me to go through the list of every other President of the US who has had International business on numerous levels? Hell, former President Obama sold books to people overseas and cashed in money from those "damn dirty Ruskies" and everyone else who bought his books!

      While I am not saying that we have no bias in the courts (because that would be a lie) Justice is supposed to be blind. If Obama sold books to foreigners for profit and that was fine, Trump can rent a hotel room or collect golf fees from foreigners and be fine too.

      The point of the emoluments clause is to protect against bribery. Not to prevent successful business people from entering the political sphere. Believe it or not, the Founders knew about both International business and Bribery. People need to stop pretending that they are so much smarter than the Founders. We have history to show you how wrong that position is.

      Prosecute Trump for violating the emoluments clause, and I have a list of Congress critters and Senators with foreign holdings that will come next.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    153. Re: Checked... by dbIII · · Score: 2

      You called the other poster a moron unfairly. If the President has so little of the confidence of both houses that they are voted out then they are unfit by definition.
      The only "cause" required is that enough representatives want them gone. It makes perfect sense and avoid loopholes.
      You seem to think this is about the rule of law, it's not, it's just politics. An "innocent" President who has almost no support in Congress and Senate can be removed just as easily as a guilty one with the same lack of support.

    154. Re:Checked... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      To make it a lie they had to split hairs over definitions over intended meanings (eg. sex=intercourse vs sex=kissing in various places etc), which is one of the reasons it was so weak an attempt at removing Clinton from office and doomed to fail. I'm sure enough has come out in the years since that you could find a better reason. Maybe look at things involving banks.

    155. Re:Checked... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Good point.
      As an example, what's Colin Powell doing these days? Obvious lies to the UN on behalf of Baby Bush got him where exactly?

    156. Re:Checked... by Grishnakh · · Score: 0

      I think you're misunderstanding. Trump isn't interested in fixing *all* corruption, as he wants to serve his own particular corrupt interests. But that doesn't mean that he'll be friendly to other corrupt interests.

    157. Re:Checked... by dbIII · · Score: 0

      Like that "progressive" guy who hit a reporter so hard it broke his glasses?
      Maybe come out from under that rock and you'll notice things are not as you suggest.

    158. Re: Checked... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I suspect you're thinking of what to do if the president is impaired, which allows the vice president to assume the roles of office. That's the 25th amendment. It's not impeachment as impeachment is a trial.

      "Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

      Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session." (and so forth)

      So yes, I presume there could be a coup of sorts here if the president is not actually incapacitated.

    159. Re: Checked... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      Again, read the original statement, which was the claim that there was no provision in the constitution to vote out the president. I pointed out that this was simply not true, that the constitution in fact allows for it. If you're too lazy to look a few posts up, here's the link.

      I was addressing ONLY the question of the constitution, not about whether Trump has actually done anything to be voted out. Learn to read before you call other people morons, moron. Why are you continuing to criticize me for something I never said or even implied? Practicing for when Scaramucci is thrown under the bus?

      I did say that if it came to that, both houses may decide at some point that it's more advantageous to vote him out, but that is not the same as saying that he may have done anything (specific or non-specific) to justify it.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    160. Re: Checked... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      The only court that has jurisdiction over what constitutes an offense is the court composed of the two houses. The constitution doesn't have any provisions for judicial review by other courts, not even the supreme court.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    161. Re: Checked... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Where in the constitution does it say that decisions on impeachment can be reviewed by the judiciary? If that were the case, republicans could have appealed the failed attempt to impeach Clinton to the courts. Simply not possible without a constitutional amendment.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    162. Re:Checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know what the problem Repubs had with Obama, but I'm not convinced it's because he was black. The last Dem was Clinton, and he got fucking impeached! The one before that was Carter, and he left office in 1980.

      I believe that it was Reagan that started turning Repubs against Dems. Prior to that the parties were very different -- the South was solidly Dem (the "Solid South") because the Republican party was founded by Northern abolitionists -- but 100 years later Dem LBJ started enforcing civil rights and Southern Whites started switching parties. Nixon took advantage of this (the "Southern Strategy") and was able to win reelection by getting not just the Repub vote but also the Southern Dem vote.

      After Nixon's second term ended (the last 2.5 years carried out by Ford), Carter could only survive 4 years, and by then I believe the Dem/Repub switch was complete. The Repubs have been assholes ever since.

      When Hillary talked about a vast right-wing conspiracy, she wasn't joking. "But her emails" and Seth Rich are but two of the most recent examples. How many millions of dollars have been spent on Federal investigations of Clintons, only to come up with nothing?

      So looking at things in that context, it seems like Obama got off easy. I mean, the Birther thing is pretty ridiculous, but that's nothing compared to Pizzagate!

      dom

    163. Re:Checked... by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      I don't think he believes it, but he is perfectly happy to promote that perception to others. PR and branding are his bread and butter. You can be intelligent and still be a total piece of shit. That is, in fact, the most dangerous type of shithead.

      What I think he believes deep down inside: "Although I don't actually run these companies, my greatness is such that I am owed the fruits of those who labor under my gilded logo." This is the attitude you will hear over and over again, more or less thinly veiled, when you ingest "conservative" media, or converse with anarcho-capitalists. Trump has tapped into a sort of feedback loop, or self-fulfilling prophecy with these ideas. He is absolutely steeped in them; he spends a good chunk of his evenings watching Fox News, even after winning the presidency. But, he also made regular appearances on Fox News going back 5 or 6 years at least. Since I don't watch reality TV, that's actually the first time I heard him speak - on Fox, claiming that Obama is a secret Muslim or something. The media created the monster. Then he got out of control and actually seized power, instead of the normal, predictable stooges they usually run.

      Basically, ideas that were conceived simply as excuses for shitty behavior, have taken on a life of their own and are actually encouraging additional shitty behavior. Even when Trump is gone, there will still be people promoting this garbage, and there will still be tons of people who eat it up, in the face of their own self-interest. The long-haul battle against these ideas will be fought person-to-person as much as it is in the media.

    164. Re: Checked... by mnemotronic · · Score: 1

      ... job candidates are automatically disqualified if they have ever said anything negative about Trump

      I think candidates are disqualified if they haven't said how tremendously fabulous Donald is. Really the greatest president ever in the entire history of presidenty guys. Or unless they, like Putin, have proof of the secret off-shore accounts.

      --
      The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
    165. Re:Checked... by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      how would you respond to a tax cut on businesses and the wealthy if it also came with a remediation of the welfare system, strengthening of the middle-class

      Gonna cut you off there.

      No.

      You're formulating a response. Before you get too far into it, lemme cut you off again.

      NO.

    166. Re: Checked... by John.Banister · · Score: 1

      I think you're mistaken. You're conflating criminal penalties for a criminal act with not getting to be president anymore. One is a legal - criminal sort of thing, and the other is a political sort of thing. Congress doesn't get to decide if someone committed a crime (other than, perhaps, contempt of Congress). The courts don't get to decide if someone ought to be impeached. Members of Congress would vote in the manner that they consider best for their future with the public. I don't think Trump has done anything that would motivate impeachment yet, but if he uses the power of the pardon to allow friends and family to be above the law, that would do it. I think the public would vote out people who let a president get away with that.

    167. Re: Checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, aside from Don Jr. getting an email offering information as "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump" and his response being "I love it especially later in the summer".

      I'm curious what people like you would actually accept as evidence. What, exactly, is the bar? Can you think of a single thing short of Trump explicitly and publicly stating that his campaign coordinated with the Russian government that you'd accept?

      I'm betting there's not. I'm not even sure THAT would convince you.. You'd still somehow rationalize it away and be back on the internet telling people to put up or shut up.

    168. Re:Checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, how else would have have racked up so many failed businesses.

    169. Re: Checked... by John.Banister · · Score: 1

      I don't think it would work that way. The country might be polarized enough that it could, but I think actual impeachment won't happen until Trump has done something so improper that voters wouldn't support members of Congress who let him get away with it. Contrariwise, voters won't support members of Congress who abuse the power to impeach, either. If impeachment happens, it'll have to be for behavior strong enough so that the Congresspeople can convincingly say that he invalidated his own placement in the office of president, not that they are overriding the will of the voters because "Congress knows best." So, I don't think impeachment will be about a political calculation as to who they'd prefer to hold the office of president, but rather about him doing something that the public wouldn't allow. Also, the Senate is so nearly even now that even if the Democrats pull ahead in the midterm they'd still need almost the same number of Republican Senators for an impeachment, so impeaching Pence is likely off the table. Also, unless Trump and Pence were impeached for the same thing at the same time while Pelosi was speaker, she wouldn't become president. With sequential impeachment, each Vice President picks (subject to Congressional approval) another Vice President after he assumes the office of President, and you'd have the same sort of rebellion if Congress didn't let him pick from his own party.

    170. Re: Checked... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      But the constitution gives reasons for impeachment. This gives opportunity to complain and say you were impeached for reasons not in the constitution. If the supreme court is asked, then they will be required to decide and what they decide will be precedent there.

      Most legal discussions on this issue indicate that the founders did not want to have a way to remove a president that was merely unpopular, but they listed reasons for having an impeachment. If congress just hated the president and wanted to impeach for political retaliation reasons and presented zero evidence of any high crimes or misdemeanors, it would leave the door wide open to challenge a successful impeachment.

      For instance, Andrew Johnson was extremely unpopular after the civil war because he was a southerner and favored reconciliation with the south. Congress did not just vote him out of office with a trumped up impeachment, they first arranged a bogus law and waited for the president to ignore it. They seemingly had more than 2/3rds who would have preferred he leave, but they did not get 2/3rds to impeach.

      Yes, the constitution does not say the supreme court gets to decide here, but they are the only arbitors left if there is a dispute if the president refuses to leave office.

    171. Re:Checked... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      What if the VP is also a raving theocratic nutbag kleptocrat? Purely a hypothetical question, of co\/ .'@'#
      no carrier

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    172. Re: Checked... by migmog · · Score: 1

      You wouldn't catch him jaywalking. He doesn't even get out of his golf cart on the putting green

    173. Re:Checked... by sudon't · · Score: 1

      I'd jump at the chance. I'd get a decent paycheck for the period I stuck it out, and I'd get 15 minutes of fame when I bailed. I'd also get $$$ for writing a book, giving an exclusive interview, whatever.

      Oh yeah, I do it in a heartbeat. Excellent salary, healthcare and pension. I’d be set for life, no matter how short my tenure. But, I’m a nobody who has none of the things a job like that offers, and have no reputation to worry about. But, as Trump explicitly stated, he ain’t gonna hire no poor people, and I’m nowhere near being a billionaire. You?

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

    174. Re:Checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you mean by "they failed at it"?

      Yes, that's what Trump Sr and Jr tell us. And Ivanka tells us she's a positive influence on her father. Who the fuck knows? All we've got is the absolutely most optimistically positive take on events.

      A hard fact: Hilary was thrashed by drip leaks supplied via wikileaks. Sounds pretty much exactly what was promised. Trump won the electoral count.

      If that's failure, tell me, what would success look like?

    175. Re: Checked... by VikingNation · · Score: 1

      Andrew Johnson was impeached by the House and came one vote away from impeachment by the Senate. Johnson's crime was telling his secretary of war "Your fired!" Congress had passed the Tenure of Office act which stated that the President could not dismiss appointed officials from the Cabnit unless he had consent from the Congress. Trump is fortunate that the FBI director is not part of the cabnit. He is also fortunate that the Tenure of Office act was deemed invalid by the Supreme Court in 1924.

    176. Re: Checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citation needed.

    177. Re: Checked... by Jesus+H+Rolle · · Score: 1

      As a non-Canadian I have to say ... shame on both of you.

    178. Re: Checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please cite actual news sources.

    179. Re: Checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can not explain to fanatics that they are fanatics. The greatest witch hunt in US history continues unabated. The left will keep abusing the system until the system breaks.

    180. Re: Checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So therefore the definition of unfit is a large enough mass hysteria.

      He may well be unfit in that case.

      This mass hysteria makes McCarthyism look benign. We've gone from accusations of being "Communist" to accusations of an entirely legal 20-minute meeting with a lawyer who has "ties" to people in the Russian government.

      This from the party that took donations from a monocultural regime that executes homosexuals and journalists. Irony.

    181. Re:Checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great defense of your comment, spoken like a 12 year old. You should be proud.

    182. Re:Checked... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Well put. Net net, it's less corruption. Does that make Trump a good guy? Who the fuck cares, it's about what's best for the country.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    183. Re:Checked... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Maybe I didn't put it that well actually. I didn't mean to imply that this will result in less net corruption at all. It might, or it might not. I'm just pointing out that it's quite possible that some corrupt interests might have a hard time under Trump which were doing well under previous administrations. But different corruption, and different corrupt interests, doesn't necessarily mean less corruption, or a better result. It might, or it might not. It's really too soon to tell.

      To reiterate, just because Trump is obviously corrupt in some ways doesn't mean he'll support corrupt interest X. It's not much different from how various industries benefited under previous Rep and Dem dominated governments: when the Reps are in power, the energy and defense industries benefit, whereas when the Dems are in power, the copyright cartels and banks benefit. With Trump, I guess we'll see who benefits.

    184. Re: Checked... by Boronx · · Score: 1

      Is there any evidence that anyone benefited Washington's businesses on behalf of a foreign nation? A cursory reading shows there was much argument about this at the time, and that Washington himself was conflicted (is Trump I wonder?) . I think Washington has set a bad precedent.

      I'm sure that if a foreign government had deliberately dumped money into Washington's business, that Washington would have shut it down. Would Trump? If I read his character correctly he would welcome the bribes, which would invite more bribes.

      If any government has pumped money into Trump, he's duty bound to declare it, and either return it or hand it over to the United States. Has he done this?

    185. Re: Checked... by John.Banister · · Score: 1

      No, if he was impeached and didn't accept it, the question would be whether the people who work for the executive branch accept it. He could sue, but if the security guards in the building were convinced that he wasn't the president anymore, they would escort him to the door. I agree with you that impeachment based on policy decisions won't happen, even if they're really unpopular. However, it doesn't have to be just criminal misconduct for him to be forced out of office. If he chose to do the next hundred days wearing nothing but a thong, it wouldn't be illegal, but it would be sufficiently defamatory to the office that he'd be impeached, and if it went to the courts, I strongly feel that they would say that it's Congress who get to decide how defamatory is too defamatory.

    186. Re: Checked... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Why? Would you work for the Trump Whitehouse? It's looking more and more like a short-term job with long-term pain. When 6 months in the President is twittering about how he has the power to pardon anyone, including himself (that last is a subject of much debate) Trump is forgetting that you only give pardons to crooks. Even hinting that he is thinking of pardoning himself is a freudian slip - an admission that he is a crook. Reminiscent of this guy, who said he did not profit from public service, did not obstruct justice, and was not a crook.

      Will it prove that history repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce?

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    187. Re:Checked... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Well, any "establishment" politician has hundreds of companies he owes regular rewards to. If Trump only is corrupt in favor of family and friends, that will be a major improvement IMO.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    188. Re: Checked... by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      Yep, that's the one.

      It's definitely an interesting legal question I think. It was clearly put there to handle cases of the President becoming incapacitated somehow (sickness usually, injury that doesn't kill him, like a coma), but "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office" could also be argued to apply in cases in sheer incompetence or total lack of support (i.e., the President can't get anyone to work for him), which is what we're seeing now. But doing so can also be argued to be a method of carrying out a bloodless coup, just because Congress doesn't like the President.

      However, I would argue that this is just what's needed, even if it really does constitute a "coup". In countries with better governmental systems (which is pretty much all of them that are democratic republics), they don't have the problem where the legislature can't get along with the executive. They have parliaments, and the executive is chosen by parliament, not by the people in a popular election. Some of our own founders even promoted this idea, and it's unfortunate it didn't get adopted. When you can a country where the voters choose some people for the legislature, and then some other person for the executive (in a different party than the majority of the legislature), you get gridlock and a government brought to a complete standstill, just as we saw during the Clinton years during his impeachment. That's a really stupid way to run a country, and a stupid way to design its system of government. Every advanced nation on the planet, like Germany, Japan, the Scandinavian countries, etc. all have parliamentary systems. In the wake of WWII when the US was helping its defeated and occupied nations (Germany and Japan) set up new governments to its liking, did it have them model their new governments on our Constitution? Nope; they were made to resemble France's government instead. The only countries that resemble ours governmentally are a few Latin American countries like El Salvador, and they're a complete mess. If our constitution is so great, then why would we not make Germany and Japan copy it? Because it's a lousy system of government, that's why.

    189. Re: Checked... by John.Banister · · Score: 1

      I think you're right.

    190. Re: Checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      10 Muh Rush-uh
      20 Muh Tackses
      30 Muh Emo-Luments
      40 GOTO 10

    191. Re: Checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FAKENEWS.BAS

    192. Re:Checked... by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      Priebus said he supports Scaramucci "100 percent," according to news reports.

      Is he lying, just like all the others? I bet he is clandestinely searching for his new job.

      Best wishes Mr Spicer. It was hard work to keep a straight face while reporting what Trump insisted he present. Report the propaganda, rather than the facts.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    193. Re: Checked... by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      If Trump is allowed to excuse himself before charges are laid, he can theoretically remain in office. He can do that for his family.,

      By excusing his "dirty crap", on himself and his family, they can walk away free as the poluted air Trump wants you to breathe

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    194. Re:Checked... by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      Exactly right. You have two issues to contend with. First, you could be come ensnared in a prosecution that continues to fling mud without evidence. Two, neither party is directly beholden to Trump, as he is an outsider to the political party's indentured servitude to entrenched interests. Taking his nomination would alienate said individual from both parties and from potential corporate backers in any future campaign.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    195. Re:Checked... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      No, no pony, and no impact either way on the Federal debt. That's kind of a harder problem.

      You sure you want to do this?

      Okay then.

      Producing a universal social security benefit is relatively-easy, sort of a couple hours's weekend diversion. You need a system with stable funding; it needs to provide an economically-stable benefit; it needs to not disrupt the stability of those reliant on welfare services; and it needs to not add additional risks to the welfare system. In large part, this means you have to leave Medicare/medicaid, education benefits, OASDI (retirement, disability), and childcare welfare in place.

      So let's take a look at Federal welfare spending. Particularly, let's look at OASDI (retirement, survivors, disability), income stability programs (TANF), food and nutrition programs (WIC, SNAP), Federal unemployment, and HUD housing assistance. We can quantify these programs as a percentage of income taxes taken including taxes collected for OASDI (payroll, income, FICA), individual income taxes, and the 35% income tax on business profits. From 2011 to 2016, these programs represented 67.91%, 63.30%, 56.06%, 52.34%, 49.45% (2015!), and 50.69% of Federal spending.

      Generally, these services carry a price tag together equivalent to half of Federal spending, although their cost inflates during high welfare load. 2015 is the only recent year in which that spending level has fallen below 50%, and only by roughly half a percent.

      Do note that these services aren't all collected as income tax: OASDI and Unemployment are payroll taxes. We can create a rough model ignoring these logistics as a viability test; the CBO can work out how to resolve the logistics. The most-notable logistics issues are a middle-class tax bracket peak and an orphaned payroll tax (Unemployment stays as a payroll tax, but Unemployment goes away--essentially, we convert Unemployment Insurance to a general-fund tax taken from payroll). A rough model demonstrates that the system still works even if you just ignore these issues; adjustment can produce more-optimal results.

      So, first, let's take a look at funding. I propose a funding source via splitting off this Universal Social Security from the general tax brackets and levying a flat-tax exclusive funding source, similar to FICA 12.4% (or the split OASDI 6.2%/6.2%). This tax levies against both business income and personal income.

      Note that OASDI levies against unadjusted income: when you make $10,000, you report $10,000 - $6,000 standard deduction, and pay taxes on your AGI of $4,000; OASDI charges 6.2% on your full $10,000 in addition to your IRS income tax brackets on your AGI. OASDI excludes income placed into tax-advantaged IRA or 401(k): if you make $50k, put $10k in 401(k), and take $6,000 standard deduction, you pay IRS taxes on $34,000 and OASDI on $40,000. This Universal Social Security will levy tax in the same way.

      In 2016, the total reported personal income, minus income from welfare services (e.g. we collect income tax from OASDI; I don't factor that into my taxable base), minus personal savings (which can be tax-advantaged IRA or 401(k)), amounts to $12,465.90 billion. The total reported Corporate Profits amounts to $2,085.80 billion. This totals $14,551.70 billion.

      OASDI collected on up to the first $118.5k in 2016, taxing the bottom 92%. The top 10% income earners take roughly 48% of the total income, and my proposed Universal Social Security tax is 15% instead of 12.4%. With $810.20 OASDI taxes collected in 2016, my USS should collect roughly $1884 billion, plus 15% of the corporate profits or $2198 billion in total.

      My taxable base is $14,551.70 billion. 15% of this is $2,182.755 billion, or 99.3% of the estimate of an uncapped 15% benefit. With a U.S. census population of 323,127,513 and a U.S. census population under age 18 of 73,700,000, we're looking at 249,427,513 adults, each receiving $8,751.06/year or $729.25/month benefit.

      Okay,

    196. Re:Checked... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Sigh. Class warfare is real. Here I had hoped it was a republican pundit talking point.

    197. Re:Checked... by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the links. From that first one: "I grew up in the middle class, and so there's a struggle out there. The president saw that before I did. I wish I could tell you I saw it before him, but he taught it to me."

      Phew. The brown-nosing is heavy.

    198. Re: Checked... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I'm excusing nothing. I'm saying that if you want to get rid of Trump you have to vote him out. The constitution does not allow an "impeachment" for the reason of "we don't like him."

    199. Re: Checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, his family and friends are actually worse, they're dumb enough o associate with him.

      It's Capricorn One all over again.

    200. Re: Checked... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      The only "hysteria" is everyone laughing, because Trump IS hysterical. I've heard of sore losers, but sore winners? He's already channeling Nixon, who said "I have never profited from public service, I did not obstruct justice, and I am not a crook." And he's already saying he can pardon himself, a step even Nixon never dared take.

      There's a reason why it only took Trump 6 months to drop to the same level of popularity as it took 6 years for Nixon.

      Since neither party cared for the average citizen, they both deserve what's coming to them. Trump is like the Titanic - a warning to those who follow. Hopefully it will be heeded. If not, well, either way, the voters will get the government they deserve because they voted for it, and it was the voters who allowed 40 years of trickle-down politics and economics.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    201. Re:Checked... by murdocj · · Score: 1

      Why? You think the consolidation of power around one particularly psychopathic individual is a good thing? How did it work out for Nazi Germany? Or North Korea?

    202. Re: Checked... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      So therefore the definition of unfit is a large enough mass hysteria

      So the people are unfit to rule themselves and need a King to do it for them?

    203. Re:Checked... by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, I think we may have misunderstood each other. I think tax cuts are the last thing the US needs right now, tax cuts are a national security threat given how they've worked to increase the power of the wealthy and threaten to destabilize the middle class.

      I thought you were going to try to tell me if we cut taxes, all those other things you mentioned would magically happen. That's what I was saying no to. Tax cuts solve the "problem" of the government being able to fund vital services and also the "problem" of social mobility and that's about it.

      I think now you were assuming I was in favor of tax cuts. I was saying Trump and republicans want attention drawn away from the tax cuts they're trying to pass because everyone outside a few wealthy people should be protesting the tax cuts about as much as they're protesting the heathcare cuts.

    204. Re:Checked... by EmptyHead · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. +1. Demos got pissed at "unconstitutional" crap Bush did. Repos got pissed at "unconstitutional" crap Obama did...some of the very stuff that Bush did. And of course, Bush was also *mostly* following precedent. But each new precedent makes it easier for the next president.

      sr

      Not that Obama was perfect by any means, but he did try to get Congress to remove some of the crazy powers the President now has but the GOP wanted those powers if it won so they refused. Or maybe it was just because Obama was black. Honestly, I can't even tell anymore why the GOP hated him so much there is video of it's leaders publicly stating they will oppose anything Obama does, no matter what it is. They weren't banking on Trump winning, though, and now the most unstable, thin-skinned, easily manipulated, foolish, childish, moron on the planet has scary, relatively unchecked power.

      His mother was 100 percent white. He called himself black http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04... to race-bait and pander. Probably the most racist thing he accomplished during his presidency was to deny his white ancestry. So how the heck is his blackness part of why could couldn't achieve his goals?!?

    205. Re:Checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His mother was 100 percent white.

      Nope.

      He called himself black http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04... to race-bait and pander.

      Yes, yes, blame the black man for being black. He should have told us he was as white as a lily.

      Probably the most racist thing he accomplished during his presidency was to deny his white ancestry.

      But he didn't. In fact, he accepted a certificate of them.

      So how the heck is his blackness part of why could couldn't achieve his goals?!?

      Ask the people who resisted anything and everything he did, including the Birther in Chief. You do realize that it was not about Obama, but about them.

    206. Re:Checked... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      I thought you were going to try to tell me if we cut taxes, all those other things you mentioned would magically happen

      Oh, no, there were conditions attached because the explanations are long and irritating. It's kind of a hobby for me, but nobody wants to hear that much noise out of nowhere.

      Tax cuts aren't a cause of magical solutions to poverty, recessions, and a lack of social security; they're a consequence I have no reason to reverse. Problem I've been having: people I've encountered have lately been prone to viciously oppose any system that cuts taxes, even when they agree that the proposed system also has a powerful stabilizing effect on the middle-class and a consequence of completely-eliminating homelessness and hunger. It's like they don't want solutions, but vengeance--or, really, like nobody actually gives a shit about the poor.

    207. Re:Checked... by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Who want's to work for such a dickhead?

      One of the thousands/hundreds of thousands/millions of dickheads who love the vacuous twat, that's who.

      Scaramucci thinks the world is 5,500 years old. lol.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    208. Re:Checked... by Maritz · · Score: 1

      You'd think it would matter that most of what he says is demonstrably false. But nope, apparently not. That's a bit part of why you're fucked, to be honest.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    209. Re: Checked... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      You're missing what the emoluments clauses actually say. Dealing with foreigners is fine. Dealing with foreign governments for profit is not fine for any officeholder, Dealing with domestic governments for profit is not fine for the President.

      It's perfectly legal for Trump to rent rooms and suites to private foreign citizens. It was perfectly legal for George Washington and Barack Obama to deal with private foreign citizens. If Trump rented to an official Russian delegation, or charged the Secret Service for facilities at one of his businesses, he's violated the Constitution.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    210. Re:Checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does it matter? The sheer number of trips alone at estimated 1-3 million a piece of taxpayer money is staggering.

    211. Re:Checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the second time I have seen a comment about the Russian connection being a "nothingburger". The word really isn't as clever as you think, and repeating it in the same context over and over makes you look even more like a fool. Not to mention that it's actually a somethingburger, just not sure if it's a collusionburger or not.

    212. Re:Checked... by strikethree · · Score: 1

      At this point, and with the way Trump is treating Sessions

      I have no idea how Trump is treating Sessions because I do not care about the minutiae of day to day White House dealings.

      I do most sincerely hope that Sessions is being treated absolutely terribly. I hope he resigns as soon as possible. His mental makeup and "philosophical architecture" is not appropriate for the future. He exists solely on the thoughts and zeitgeists of the past.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    213. Re:Checked... by strikethree · · Score: 1

      He wants to reorganize the FBI and put them under direct control of the president so he can politicize law enforcement.

      Um... the last I checked, the FBI is under the Executive. Either your words make no sense or you will need to clarify further for those words to actually have any meaning.

      A little clarification is on order here: The Department of Justice is an Executive Agency. The Federal Bureau of Investigation exists under the Department of Justice; therefore, The Federal Bureau of Investigation is de facto an Executive department.

      To be generous, I will offer the possibility that what you are speaking of is The Executive trying to remove the Department of Justice from within the Chain of Command for more direct control over the FBI; however, I do not think it can be that simple. There are many rules and regulations and purchasing processes and such that will require modifying to get very little gain.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    214. Re: Checked... by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Is there any evidence that anyone benefited Washington's businesses on behalf of a foreign nation? A cursory reading shows there was much argument about this at the time, and that Washington himself was conflicted (is Trump I wonder?) .

      The fact that Washington was conflicted should make it obvious to even the most casual observer that Washington did to business with England, because the Monarchy ran the nobles who ran the businesses.

      I think Washington has set a bad precedent.

      No, Washington did exactly what a moral person would do. He maintained his farm, personal estate and wealth, and was concerned that he was infallible.

      I'm sure that if a foreign government had deliberately dumped money into Washington's business, that Washington would have shut it down.

      So you have ESP, alien voices, or take loads of hallucinogenics? Big problem with progressives, leftists, and communists. Despite a lack of evidence, you think you know everything. The truth of the matter is, you don't know and we never had to deal with this for numerous reasons. In fact, you can't even say how you would behave in a similar situation because you have never been in the position to be taken advantage of.

      Would Trump? If I read his character correctly he would welcome the bribes, which would invite more bribes.

      If any government has pumped money into Trump, he's duty bound to declare it, and either return it or hand it over to the United States. Has he done this?

      Ahh, more ESP, aliens talking to you, or hallucinogenic drugs. There is no such evidence, and President Trump is in a position of power. We _know_ that the Clintons took massive amounts of cash from Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, China, etc... How about you address your moral outrage at an actual event with actual facts that we could investigate. If Trump does something wrong we can join in and make sure it's addressed properly. You, and all of the other leftists are demanding action on non-facts and ignoring actual facts because it's harmful to your team. Marxism at it's finest.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    215. Re:Checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously, you don't know where it comes from. It was CNN reporter and "journalist" that said Russia hacking elections was a nothinburger but CNN push it for views.

    216. Re:Checked... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Your comment isn't related to mine, as far as I can tell. Or are you saying "fewer people bribing an elected official" == "concentration of power"? That would be a very odd thing to say.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    217. Re: Checked... by Boronx · · Score: 1

      Trademarks granted by China to Trump fall under the emoluments clause. Any regulatory decision in his favor by a foreign government does, even if justly given.

      Beyond the constitutional question, there's the ethical question. If Trump were a judge, he would have to recuse himself from any decision regarding the governments of China, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Kingdom etc to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.

      There is no ethical way for a businessman of Trump's global scope to be President without first walking away from his businesses. We should never have a president whose personal wealth is in the hands of foreign governments. This is one of the purposes of the emoluments clause.

      The difference between Trump and Washington is that Washington's wealth was in US property, and his income came from selling commodities. His business was not at the mercy of the British Monarchy. They could have bribed him as they could bribe anyone, but not through the normal operation of his business.

      Because Washington was troubled by retaining Mount Vernon it's does not take any magical thinking to guess that he would have drawn the line at Trump's much greater conflicts of interest.

    218. Re: Checked... by s.petry · · Score: 1

      I already said that History is not on your side, and you are simply attempting to deny facts to support your political leanings/agenda.

      The Founders had among themselves International business people. If the concern was as you are attempting to claim, they would have forbade people like Ben Franklin from running because of their International businesses and connections. They would have forbade people, and their families, in office from selling to foreigners anything they produced.

      There are no such bans on people running for office or having a family business or holdings. There is a birth requirement and protection to stop people from gaining foreign titles of Nobility and personal gains that could subvert "The People" and their right to self-govern. This is why there are laws prohibiting foreign campaign donations.

      http://www.heritage.org/constitution/articles/1/essays/68/emoluments-clause

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  2. SNL... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Melissa McCarthy is signing up for unemployment benefits. So much for the Trump economy.

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

      Just because she is making movies, doesn't mean we want to see her.

    2. Re:SNL... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you sound bitter, bro

    3. Re:SNL... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lighten up Francis. It's a joke.

    4. Re:SNL... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because she makes movies we want to see doesn't mean we'll pay to see them.

    5. Re:SNL... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) No kidding. You have an MBA, though. Master of Being Annoying. And I'm being polite.
      2) They've been selling Two Buck Chuck for much longer. So what?
      3) I wish I could stuff your fat face and both your nostrils with that.

    6. Re:SNL... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you sound bitter, sis

    7. Re:SNL... by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

      That was a joke, calm down.

    8. Re:SNL... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool story, bro!

    9. Re:SNL... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Incest is best.

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

      Unlike your stupid books, people actually want to see Melissa McCarthy act.

      It's true, his books probably don't care for Melissa McCarthy.

    11. Re:SNL... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlike your stupid books, people actually want to see Melissa McCarthy act. She's got three movies coming out next year. You even sell three of your crappy attempts at "literature" yet?

      Wow, you're a bigger asshole than creimer. I didn't think that was possible.

    12. Re:SNL... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AC creimer defends himself, like an asshole.

    13. Re:SNL... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want to see skits with her playing Spicer, and someone playing Baghdad Bob, sitting around a table talking about all the ridiculous things they had to try to sell the press on. Add Conway in whenever she finally gets kicked to the curb... As quick as the Trump WH is turning people over they should be able to keep running the skit for years.

    14. Re:SNL... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      I don't post AC and I wouldn't be working in IT if I wasn't an asshole.

    15. Re:SNL... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Learn to quote, retard.

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

      I got asshole. Where are my cock eggs?

    17. Re:SNL... by sexconker · · Score: 3, Informative

      That Amazon link (when unshortened) contains an affiliate tag (&tag=cdr-slashdot), meaning creimer gets a cut if you buy that product within a certain amount of time of clicking the link, or if you buy some other product.

      No thanks, creimer.

    18. Re:SNL... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      It's called wincest.

    19. Re:SNL... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you sound bitter, honeybunny

    20. Re:SNL... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 0

      That's why he wrote "Have some Spam with Cheese" as the link text. Nothing like a bit of truth in advertising ... :-)

      (from the "it's funny - laugh" dept)

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    21. Re:SNL... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bit the head off Mr Honeybunny.

    22. Re: SNL... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh kay... you new to this marketing thing?
      The Amazon cookies stay with you unless you clear them...

      You could shop and buy something different much later, he syill gets his cut as long as you looked at it some time from his link....

      The Internet is not about technology,
      it is all about the money...
      (and national security, just not your 'nation'.)

    23. Re: SNL... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      That's exactly what I said.
      The credit for buying something only goes to him if you buy an eligible item within a certain amount of time after clicking the link and if you do not click any other affiliate link after clicking his.

    24. Re:SNL... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      That's why he wrote "Have some Spam with Cheese" as the link text. Nothing like a bit of truth in advertising ... :-)

      I love spamming my critics. ;)

    25. Re:SNL... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can a honeybunny be bitter? You're making less and less sense... what is wrong with you? You sound insane.

    26. Re:SNL... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since you're posting publicly, you're saying all of Slashdot is criticizing you.

    27. Re:SNL... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As opposed to the mentally balanced loon who wrote " I don't have an M.F.A. degree in underwear sniffing."

      Who are you? creimer's Scaramucci?

    28. Re:SNL... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the affiliate code is SLASHDOT, duh. you have a problem with THIS SITE making a buck or two off impulse purchases of "cheese" filled spam?

    29. Re:SNL... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Logic fail. He didn't say he was exclusively spamming his critics. What is up with /. users nowadays not being able to make coherent arguments? You're showing the same level of smarts as Alexandre Cazes.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    30. Re: SNL... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But creimer did just publicly confess to spamming. Which violates ToS and is thus a willful violation of the CFAA and easy conviction.

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

      ROLLTIDE

    32. Re: SNL... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      He didn't violate the ToS. Search it. The term spam doesn't occur anywhere therein. What IS covered is disrupting the service (such as posting lots of spammy content). However, that is not what happened here.

      In other words, he didn't access a computer system without authorization, or exceed the authorized level of access. So much for the CFAA. You might actually want to read it some time.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    33. Re:SNL... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Now Spicer has time to spoof Melissa McCarthy

    34. Re:SNL... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      That Amazon link (when unshortened) contains an affiliate tag (&tag=cdr-slashdot), meaning creimer gets a cut if you buy that product within a certain amount of time of clicking the link, or if you buy some other product.

      Can you remind me why on earth I'm supposed to care?

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

      You know what else isn't against the ToS? Registering a nickname. Somehow this porcine failure managed to cow management to his wishes.

    36. Re:SNL... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Since you're posting publicly, you're saying all of Slashdot is criticizing you.

      That's the problem with critics. They think they represent everyone on the platform. A half-dozen critics don't represent all of Slashdot.

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

      Then stop spamming all of Slashdot with your spam affiliate links. See how easy that is??

      But you won't, because you're a troll.

    38. Re: SNL... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Somehow this porcine failure managed to cow management to his wishes.

      I complained to management and got results. Most people would rather bitch than do something about a problem.

    39. Re:SNL... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Then stop spamming all of Slashdot with your spam affiliate links.

      If I was spamming "all of Slashdot," every topic would have a comment and every comment would have a link. Since I'm the target of a four-month-old harassment campaign by trolls, I've been commenting significantly less to reduce the number of troll comments that I get overnight.

      But you won't, because you're a troll.

      If I was a troll, the trolls wouldn't be coming after me.

    40. Re: SNL... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      You're wrong. If the government registers a nickname, it's legal. Trademark law supercedes* the ToS. since a ToS cannot relieve you of your statutory rights. That's the law. Same as any other provision of any ToS that goes against the law or public order. Same as any clause saying you'll give them your first-born is invalid. If you don't like it, you're free to put your money where your mouth is by going to court to contest it. Anything less is kind of pointless.

      Here's my question - what is the big deal with everyone going nuts over this guy? What do you get out of it? I know that when I beat up on the trolls who attack me that I enjoy the mental exercise, and it sometimes gives me a better insight into the minds of transmisogynists, plus it shows we're not going to take sh*t-shaming from anyone. But what are you all looking for? What are you hoping to achieve? Because I keep seeing these pointless tirades, and I just don't get it. It appears to have a lot in common with the people who attack me just for being me. It's also counter-productive, because after a while you're only generating sympathy for the target of your attacks. Nobody respects a bully.

      * no, "supercedes" is not a spelling mistake - it's a legit alternate spelling. Most of the world doesn't use American English.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    41. Re: SNL... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      BTW - case in point. I friended criemer as a reaction to all this bs. Your attacks generated sympathy for your target.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    42. Re: SNL... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Because I keep seeing these pointless tirades, and I just don't get it.

      I think nerd culture (computers) is being undermined by jock culture (locker rooms) in the US. Now that everyone uses computers at work (not just nerds anymore), the jocks are reasserting themselves in the workplace. All the sexual harassment nonsense at Uber comes from jocks.

      My chief antagonist on Slashdot thinks he's better than me because makes $200K per year in IT (I don't), has a wife and children (I don't), owns a home (I don't), and vacations throughout Europe and Israel (I've been to Idaho), and that gives him the right to post dick pics my with name, email address, website URLS and/or an image of my head superimposed. I haven't heard from him since I recently announced on GitHub that I was making a YouTube video about taking down dick pics from Russian image websites (still a work in progress). Supposedly the Russian image websites were beyond my reach since I'm not fluent in the Cyrillic alphabet, but Google Chrome does an excellent job in translating Cyrillic into English and the Russian admins who have responded to my DMCA takedown notice emails have done so in English. A majority of those dick pic links on Slashdot are broken.

      https://github.com/cdreimer/how_to_takedown_dick_pics_from_russian_image_websites

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

      creimer had no trademark on cdreimer, there are hundreds of people called cdreimer. You can't trademark or copyright a name.

      Bottom line: you can't trust Slashdot, they are arbitrary. They let thousands of AC spam and hate messages through but cancelled cdreimer.

    44. Re: SNL... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      There are some who post links to pics claiming they're of me, but anyone who wants to do a search can find video of me being interviewed on the news, and it's SO not me, so I don't care. It's juvenile behaviour from bullies who act that way because "the best defense is a good offense", and if they can get people to be afraid of them, they won't get attacked, because underneath the "bro culture" veneer, they're insecure immature idiots.

      I've been very tempted to up-mod some of the worst attacks from logged-in users to give them higher visibility, because there's a lot of denial of the pervasiveness of both misogyny and transmisogyny, and such posts are evidence that's hard to deny. Unfortunately, that's too subtle for them, so I just reply once in a while, knowing that will also make the parent post more visible.

      That's usually good enough for others to down-mod the user, while still keeping their stupidity in the public eye.

      One thing most of them fail to realize is that their posts, once on the Internet, are there forever. They're being slurped up by government and industry, and posts that are currently not traceable will be retroactively. At some point even a VPN won't protect you. Companies like Netflix are actively working to subvert such anonymity because there's enough money on the table to make it a worthwhile endeavour. Good luck getting a date when a simple search reveals how you really feel about women :-) Or a job when you're a risk for a sexual harassment lawsuit. Or when the cops pick you up for harassment.

      These "brogrammers" are really stupid. Like Alexandre Casez, what they can get away with in 2014 can be unmasked in 2017, and it's only a matter of time before it becomes completely automated.

      Also, I suspect many of them never actually worked in the industry - they're just wankers.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    45. Re: SNL... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      creimer had no trademark on cdreimer, there are hundreds of people called cdreimer. You can't trademark or copyright a name.

      Bottom line: you can't trust Slashdot, they are arbitrary. They let thousands of AC spam and hate messages through but cancelled cdreimer.

      What is it with all this non-factual legal nonsense that is easily contradicted by a simple search? You most certainly CAN trademark a name, pretty much all over the world

      A trademark is a word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination of them, that identifies and distinguishes the source of a trademark. Names of people and companies, business logos and symbols, and particular sounds can all be trademarked. Everything from Julia Roberts' name, the Nike "swoosh," and the NBC chimes are registered with the US Patent and Trademark Office. Trademarks identify a product, service, person, or thing from others in the same field, and trademark infringement has, and always will be, a serious offense.

      Designer Ralph Lauren has had his name trademarked since 1972 for added protection. Fashion designer Donna Karan found her trademark useful when she fell victim to a dispute over her name.

      Seriously, don't you know how to use the internet? Or haven't you even followed the news, how both Russia and China have granted trademarks on the Trump name?

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    46. Re: SNL... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's "creimer". You can't even spell it right, you fraud.

    47. Re: SNL... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      It's still spelled correctly in my friends list - go look it up, you fraud. Oh, wait, can anonymous cowards even see my friends list? I know they can't see my sig. Tsk tsk, you really need to get an account to play along properly.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    48. Re: SNL... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      there are hundreds of people called cdreimer

      How many of these other cdreimer's show up in a Google search result? Nearly every item on the first five pages or so belong to C.D. Reimer The Author, who has been on the Internet for nine years.

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

      None of this has anything to do with copyright law. That's not how it works, no matter how many times you repeat it. It's a good thing you're virtually non-existent as far as the real world is concerned.
      We are just messing with you, Slashdot is our fishbowl.

    50. Re: SNL... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      It's a good thing you're virtually non-existent as far as the real world is concerned.

      If that was true, no one would bother to post dick pics.

    51. Re: SNL... by ls671 · · Score: 1

      They do that because they are jealous of you and because they wish they could be like you.

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    52. Re: SNL... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do it to laugh at you, not because they think the rest of the world will notice, creimer. You're a shitstain on the toilet of life; no one notices an extra one.

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

      It's cute that you think Slashdot matters in the real world.

  3. So they won't quote anonymous sources... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    when it's a a positive for Trump, but they always will when it's a negative. I'm glad as hell I quit MSNBC in 2007.

    1. Re:So they won't quote anonymous sources... by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, poor poor Donald Trump. What's a man to do?

      Oh, that's right, try to find ways to fire the special prosecutor and indemnify himself and his close cohorts by pardoning the whole bloody lot.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re: So they won't quote anonymous sources... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Got a source for that pardon claim?

    3. Re:So they won't quote anonymous sources... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The documents were fake. The "lie" is true.

    4. Re: So they won't quote anonymous sources... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you tried google, you lazy retard? Here, let me spare you the trouble:

      http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-pardon-robert-s-mueller-special-counsel-russia-a7852181.html

      (No, I'm not going to make it clickable for your, mouth breather. What goes around, comes around.)

    5. Re: So they won't quote anonymous sources... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you have no proof. Thanks for admitting that.

    6. Re:So they won't quote anonymous sources... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      The documents were fake. The "lie" is true.

      I know that the "lie is true" even though there's no evidence for it, 'cause I'm psychic!

    7. Re:So they won't quote anonymous sources... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The documents may have been a fake which doesn't change the fact that the key details were in fact true (in many cases verified by W's own words)...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_military_service_controversy

      W was in fact grounded past April 1972 due to failure to receive a valid physical. He has acknowledged it and has admitted he was indeed working on political campaigns after the grounding. The other major implication from the documents was pressure from on high from his daddy. No evidence about that specifically but does anyone seriously doubt H.W. was protective of his children and used his power for his families gain?

      So the crux of the story here is that W was indeed using the Texas Air National guard as cover for draft dodging.

    8. Re: So they won't quote anonymous sources... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1
      Actually, reuters is reporting that there are two sources for the claim that Trump is asking questions about pardons.

      According to the Post, Trump has asked his advisers about his power to pardon aides, family members and even himself in connection with the Russia probe. Trump's lawyers have been discussing the president’s pardoning powers, a second person told the newspaper.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    9. Re:So they won't quote anonymous sources... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      In orther words, you got a whole lotta nothin', but you just *know* there had to be something going on.

    10. Re: So they won't quote anonymous sources... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More anonymous sources
      Just like the ones Dan Rather cited

    11. Re: So they won't quote anonymous sources... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Reuters has a pretty good rep for getting it right. If that's the only argument you've got, you've got nothing.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    12. Re: So they won't quote anonymous sources... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except those anonymous sources go against what all thinking people know to be true unlike the Bush ones that confirmed what all thinking people know to be true. That is why we should believe Dan Rather's claims and also believe the media's claims even though neither have proof. We all know them to be true.

    13. Re:So they won't quote anonymous sources... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any evidence he is trying to fire the special prosecutor? Thanks for admitting that is a lie.

    14. Re: So they won't quote anonymous sources... by MightyMartian · · Score: 0

      An anonymous source brought down another POTUS.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    15. Re: So they won't quote anonymous sources... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      So your defense is a logical fallacy.

      And I'll just add; Deep Throat. That is all.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    16. Re:So they won't quote anonymous sources... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      At worst it is speculation. I remember when your type were declaring any collusion with Russia to be a lie, until Jr. himself admitted he had tried to do just that.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    17. Re:So they won't quote anonymous sources... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In orther words, you got a whole lotta nothin'

      Yeah, just like with your Russian thing. The Bush story is every bit as true. We don't need nothin' to convict...

    18. Re:So they won't quote anonymous sources... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's really a brilliant piece of work, probably from Karl Rove himself. Create some documents that are easily shown as a modern fabrication, but the actual content is basically true. After they have been published, expose them as fakes. Now you can stifle any future discussions of W's military service with cries of "but... but... those documents were faked!".

  4. Perhaps he can recover some dignity... by Baron_Yam · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Now that he doesn't have to spin (which is a really, really generous way to put it since it was more like bald-faced lying) to cover the outburst of five minutes ago knowing he'll be undermined by the ill-considered revelation of five minutes hence.

    I also find it difficult to believe Spicer will find a less respectful, less loyal boss wherever he goes next, given how often he got thrown under the bus.

    1. Re:Perhaps he can recover some dignity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that shit doesn't wash off

    2. Re:Perhaps he can recover some dignity... by Drewdad · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Perhaps he can recovery some dignity..." ... but he'll never recover his integrity.

      Why anyone reported on what he said baffles me; he has to rank up there with Baghdad Bob.

    3. Re:Perhaps he can recover some dignity... by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 5, Funny

      I mean sure and maybe the Nazgûl can give their rings back to Sauron and become human again

      --

      Obliteracy: Words with explosions

    4. Re:Perhaps he can recover some dignity... by sinij · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Spicer works in communications in politics. Integrity is not part of the job description.

    5. Re:Perhaps he can recover some dignity... by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      Integrity in communications is defined as reliably covering your boss or client's ass with 'spin'.

      There are people out there who will respect Spicer for essentially shredding his own credibility and being willing to look like a fool in service to Trump.

      It'd take a mix of balls and stupidity to put him in front of a camera again, but I can see him getting any number of good offers for work 'behind the curtain'.

    6. Re:Perhaps he can recover some dignity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with the other replies that he might not recover his dignity. It is likely that his stress levels will go down, which is something.

    7. Re:Perhaps he can recover some dignity... by sinij · · Score: 1

      If I was looking for someone to lie through his teeth in front of a camera, basically if I was in need of communications director, Spicer would be very top of my list.

      Basically, ideal fit for finance, oil and gas, telecommunications, social media, airlines sectors.

    8. Re:Perhaps he can recover some dignity... by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Traditionally, the White House Press Secretary doesn't want to know the truth. So nothing he or she says can technically be called a lie.

      Worst informed person in any whitehouse.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    9. Re:Perhaps he can recover some dignity... by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 4, Informative

      Nazgûl

      All right, what were you trying to write and why are you too stupid to use the Preview button?

      Exactly what I wrote: Nazgûl. If there's an issue with special characters displaying fine in my browser but getting munged across browsers/platforms, that's hardly my fault, yeah?

      Also, Slashdot doesn't let people post without previewing, but I suspect you knew that.

      --

      Obliteracy: Words with explosions

    10. Re:Perhaps he can recover some dignity... by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid the only one looking stupid here is you. How do you have a 5 digit ID and not know who the Nazgûl are?

    11. Re: Perhaps he can recover some dignity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot doesn't let people post without previewing

      There's no Preview on mobile, and there's no CAPTCHA on mobile either.

    12. Re: Perhaps he can recover some dignity... by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 1

      Slashdot doesn't let people post without previewing

      There's no Preview on mobile, and there's no CAPTCHA on mobile either.

      Huh--I didn't [know|remember] that!

      --

      Obliteracy: Words with explosions

    13. Re:Perhaps he can recover some dignity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now that he doesn't have to spin (which is a really, really generous way to put it since it was more like bald-faced lying) to cover the outburst of five minutes ago knowing he'll be undermined by the ill-considered revelation of five minutes hence.

      I also find it difficult to believe Spicer will find a less respectful, less loyal boss wherever he goes next, given how often he got thrown under the bus.

      I'm sorry but no one from the Trump administration will ever be seen in a positive light again. That's not just something that will happen, it's something that we as Americans should MAKE happen. Everyone knew what Trump was going in. He was in multiple "career ending" scandals before the election. NOTHING happening now should be a surprise to anyone and we need to start holding people in politics accountable for their actions. McConnell, Ryan, Cruz, Pence and many others all need to be removed from office. Stop re-electing these people. It's obvious they have no interest in what's best for America. Trump's not draining the swamp, he's pumping in toxic waste.

    14. Re:Perhaps he can recover some dignity... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      IBM lawyers...

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    15. Re:Perhaps he can recover some dignity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're like Hollywood and making sure a conservative never works in the industry and if they do they get run out of town. Pretty pathetic if you ask me.

    16. Re:Perhaps he can recover some dignity... by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      Spicer might recover his integrity. But he'll never recover the people's trust. There is a difference. He might do some soul searching. But that doesn't mean people will take him seriously any more. Crowd size? Please. If he can lie about that with a straight face and double down on it, he's an accomplished liar.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    17. Re:Perhaps he can recover some dignity... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I'm shocked that there are still people out there who think Trump is a conservative.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    18. Re:Perhaps he can recover some dignity... by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      Integrity isn't the issue. Trustworthy is the issue. Can I believe what I'm hearing? Even if the devil herself from hell says it, I may still believe what she says. Someone with no integrity may promise to stab you in the back -- and be believable. The question is, do I believe what the White House is saying. Even if I dislike the clown occupying the office. Can I believe what they say?

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    19. Re:Perhaps he can recover some dignity... by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 2

      I think a couple of things might happen.

      1. He'll simply slip into obscurity as that guy who was the first press secretary in a long line of press secretaries for Trump. Pitted by forgotten.

      2. He'll come out strong as being a voice of reason in the white house who finally left in disgust when he realized Trump is surrounded by sycophants and ultimately Trump is a shitweasel. His reputation will be salvaged as the guy who left.

      If option 2 becomes true maybe he becomes some kind of spokesman for/against the administration? Who knows!

      Remember. None of this is normal.

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    20. Re: Perhaps he can recover some dignity... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I don't have to preview before posting in the classic view, either.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    21. Re:Perhaps he can recover some dignity... by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

      The problem is his "brand" - if you put Spicer in front of a camera now the gut reaction of half the audeince would be to assume he's spouting foolishness. Baron_Yam is right, he'd be good behind the camera, but he can't be in front of it.

    22. Re:Perhaps he can recover some dignity... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      The Constanza Doctrine: It's not a lie if you believe it to be true.

      Come to think of it - George Costanza would be a perfect press secretary for this administration.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    23. Re:Perhaps he can recover some dignity... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Nazgûl

      All right, what were you trying to write and why are you too stupid to use the Preview button?

      Turn in your geek card now, please.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    24. Re:Perhaps he can recover some dignity... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      They probably ignored the whole SCO vs Novell thing. May have also never heard of groklaw or PJ. Brings back memories of a better time, a better /.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    25. Re:Perhaps he can recover some dignity... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      The way Trump is handling his appointments, it's probable that the next one will be so bad as to make Spicer look good in comparison. Same as Trump makes people nostalgic for the days of GWB. Or even Nixon's 1st term.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    26. Re:Perhaps he can recover some dignity... by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      He has clearly shown that he has no decency. Option 2 isn't going to happen.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    27. Re:Perhaps he can recover some dignity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump is whatever is best for Trump.

    28. Re:Perhaps he can recover some dignity... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You say that like it hasn't been true for all press secretaries back to the invention of radio, likely before that.

      All great liars believe their own bullshit, at least at the moment they are slinging it. Bill believed his own bullshit, Hillary didn't. You could see and hear the difference...maybe not 'you', but that was just you believing your own bullshit.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    29. Re:Perhaps he can recover some dignity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He has clearly shown that he has no decency. Option 2 isn't going to happen.

      Yeah, I was thinking that there is all but zero probability of Option 2 happening. More likely is that Spicer will write a tell-all book detailing all the salacious details about what really happened behind the scenes while he was press secretary.

    30. Re:Perhaps he can recover some dignity... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      By the looks of it, that's not even true. He seems hell bent on committing political suicide.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    31. Re:Perhaps he can recover some dignity... by lgw · · Score: 1

      You're pretty much done with politics after the presidency, so "political suicide" doesn't amount to much. I've never been a big Trump fan, but I'll give him this: he does what he thinks is right without regard to any political fallout. I like that. I could wish he'd put more emphasis on the thinks in that sentence, but, hey, it's an imperfect world.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    32. Re:Perhaps he can recover some dignity... by skids · · Score: 1

      I'm betting he'll end up making it from week to week mowing John Boehner's lawn.

    33. Re:Perhaps he can recover some dignity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can kill yourself, your reputation, and your legacy in the Oval Office as well as anywhere else.

      See: Buchanan, James Jr., Harding Warren G., Hoover, Herbert C., Nixon, Richard M., and Bush, George W., as well as Harrison, William H., Taylor, Zachary, and Garfield, James A.

      And no, Trump does not do what he thinks is right, he does whatever he feels like doing at the moment(no thinking is involved), screams something about it the next(also without thinking), then has a tantrum over something else five minutes later(thinking still not present), and whatever is right, is entirely unpresent.

      Frankly, I suspect Trump couldn't manage to do the right thing if we spotted him three left turns and a NASCAR pace car to lead the way.

    34. Re:Perhaps he can recover some dignity... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Leaving the office, even with electoral defeat, is hardly political suicide. Going out of your to repeat mistakes that brought down a previous president, that is political suicide. Nixon was a good enough POTUS that some of his legacy still remained intact. The way Trump is going, there will be no legislative achievements, no domestic achievements beyond small-minded travel bans, a foreign policy that could best be described as chaotic, and of course, proof or no proof, the collusion story will haunt his presidency.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    35. Re:Perhaps he can recover some dignity... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      IBM lawyers were known as the Nazgul in the 1960s. It's not new.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    36. Re:Perhaps he can recover some dignity... by strikethree · · Score: 1

      I saw your original post and understood it immediately. Even if the "special" character did not render correctly (it did) any Tolkien reader would have INSTANTLY recognized it for it was. Rather than defend your words against someone who is unfamiliar with Tolkien, I would just recommend ignoring the comment entirely since they will not understand it regardless of proper rendering of special characters.

      Nazgul is the pure ASCII for the term. I can not even re-create the special character.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  5. Not SPICY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, not SPICY!! Oh the humanity.

    On a serious note, if Spicy is out the door, that kind of says how mad the administration is doing. Another one bites the dust, dun dun dun, another one bites the dust...

    1. Re: Not SPICY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two Queen songs in this thread.

    2. Re: Not SPICY! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Two Queen songs in this thread.

      Don't stop me now!

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re: Not SPICY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Three

  6. why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is this related to technology? Seriously tired of hearing about politics on here.

    1. Re: why by alvinrod · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's here because it will get gobs of page views. This really is in no way related to technology at all though and is particularly egregious even by modern /. standards. I can see big political or world events getting reported on, or finding the tech connection, but tying this to technology or nerdy things requires the kind of stretch found only in advanced yoga.

    2. Re: why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sean Spicer is a robot from the future, sent back in time to put right what once went wrong and find the life out there that began here, and you wouldn't like him when he gets angry.

    3. Re:why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did someone hold a gun to your head and force you to click through? No? Then STFU.

    4. Re: why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tying this to technology or nerdy things requires the kind of stretch found only in advanced yoga.

      entrepreneurs all across the US are holding back their startups, trumpcare uncertainty means that they won't be able to get heath coverage for their employees

      they need guidance from the white house before they can commit resources

      a few good words in the right place can make a big difference

    5. Re:why by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

      Politics on Slashdot goes back to Al Gore inventing the Intertubes.

    6. Re:why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a reason they created the politics subdomain.

    7. Re: why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Found the Trump supporter.

    8. Re:why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is this related to technology?

      We're seeing more political stories on Slashdot because there's a growing mob of SJWs sweeping across society. They've taken over the universities, and they're working on taking over the media, Slashdot included. To the SJWs, everything has to be about their politics. And if something isn't about SJW politics, then that thing is their enemy.

      For example, look at how MightyMartian responds to somebody who questions why this story is on Slashdot:

      Because that's the most serious thing happening in US politics going on right now.

      If you don't like these kinds of stories, why do you bother to open them and comment? I think the answer is obvious; you do care, it makes you angry, and you feel compelled to open such stories, comment on how they don't matter and yet still try to throw out some red herring about the other team.

      He asserts the importance of his politics, and he accuses anyone who disagrees with him of reacting out of anger.

      (By the way, I'm not a conservative and I didn't vote for Trump. I voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012.)

    9. Re:why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I respectfully ask the individual who down-modded my post (currently at -1) to explain why it was down-modded.

      My post makes several claims. I am willing to provide evidence in support of any claim that you dispute.

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

      Obvious troll was obvious. As soon as you wrote SJW, you marked yourself troll.

    11. Re:why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, I see. I was down-modded for politically incorrect terminology. The content of my argument was completely irrelevant to the moderator.

      Regardless, somebody has reversed the down-modding of my original post. I consider this to be a small victory for rationality. If you disagree with a post, I hope that you will engage in rational debate rather than misusing the moderation system to silence your opponent.

  7. One word... by Kergan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Finally.

    Seriously... Biggest crowd ever on day one? "It's not a travel ban" when Trump was calling it just that on Twitter? “Not even Hitler” employed the use of chemical weapons? Has there ever been a US press secretary so ill informed and/or prone to lying?

    1. Re:One word... by Baron_Yam · · Score: 2

      I don't respect him for lying - he should have resigned as soon as given orders about the mall crowd crap - but you can't lay the ultimate blame for the lies themselves at his feet.

      Well, probably for the Hitler one, that sounds like a really, really stupid ad lib.

    2. Re:One word... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Of all the things Spicer said, that's the one where I really don't hold it against him. He was trying to be clever, and said something stupid. People say stupid things all the time, so really, if that were the extent of insanity of this administration, I'd give him a pass.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:One word... by MiniMike · · Score: 1

      Has there ever been a US press secretary so ill informed and/or prone to lying?

      Not yet. I'm guessing whomever they get to replace Spinny Spice will make him seem wise and reputable by comparison.

    4. Re:One word... by apoc.famine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Press secretaries generally don't say stupid things all the time. They are chosen because they're eloquent, intelligent, well informed, and thoughtful. I.E. not the way Trump's are.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    5. Re:One word... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with what you said. Also, to Spicer's credit, after he did that, he owned up to his mistake and made what I believe was a sincere apology. He didn't hide behind Fox News, but went on CNN to apologize. He didn't make excuses to Wolf Blitzer, but said he accepted full responsibility and it was a really bad thing to say. It's the only time I can think of that someone in the Trump regime (yes, I used that word intentionally) took responsibility and acted with a bit of integrity.

      As I understand it, Trump wanted Spicer to stay on but be subordinate to Scaramucci. A lot of people have said they believe Spicer is a good man with the impossible job of working for this president. Anyone who goes out on a limb to defend this president has the branch sawed off behind them. It seems like whenever someone defends Trump, he proceeds to contradict them on Twitter. I'd love to see Spicer get a job as a commentator on CNN so he can say what he really thinks of Trump. It's interesting hearing what people from the Bush administration, such as Alberto Gonzales, have to say about the Trump regime. As bad as the Bush administration was, they sound very reasonable and rational compared to what's coming out of the White House now. I hope Spicer goes to CNN or MSNBC and gets to sound off on Trump.

    6. Re:One word... by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      >I'd love to see Spicer get a job as a commentator on CNN so he can say what he really thinks of Trump.

        His job was to cover for Trump, and he can't undermine his past work or nobody will ever trust him. Unless there's a massive change in the wind and the entire US population turns on Trump, he's got to keep his mouth shut unless compelled to testify under oath.

    7. Re:One word... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hitler didn't use chemical weapons in warfare. You could argue he used them to execute people, sure. But then again, so does the justice department. While inaccurate, its not nearly as absurd and offensive a statement as everyone bent over backwards to make it.

    8. Re:One word... by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

      Press secretaries generally don't say stupid things all the time. They are chosen because they're eloquent, intelligent, well informed, and thoughtful. I.E. not the way Trump's are.

      Spicer was between a rock and a hard place, though. The official message coming out of the White House was very often up against hard facts directly disputing the official line. In the face of clear contradictory evidence, the only option he had was to keep pounding out the line. They have to know most of the statements they make are pure bullshit, but it's their job. It's how Trump operates and how he expects his administration to operate. Look at Kelly Ann Conway for another example.

      Personally, I think SNL should do one last Spicey skit, it could be his last press conference, and have the actual Sean Spicer play a reporter and ask Spicey a question. He's seemed to at least publicly have a decent sense of humor around the Spicey sketches and it would be a good way for him to say "no hard feelings".

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    9. Re:One word... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at Kelly Ann Conway for another example.

      Good idea, the one who fucked up by praising Ivanka's costume jewelry line.

    10. Re:One word... by apoc.famine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I absolutely agree that he was fucked in his job. Press Secretaries are supposed to help drive the president's agenda, and when yours doesn't have one, that is really hard. Press Secretaries are supposed to work with the president to stay on message, and when the President can't do that, how can he? Super tough job, for sure. But Spicer wasn't anywhere near good enough to even make a half-assed attempt at it.
       
      But just because you're between a rock and a hard place doesn't mean you have to stay stupid shit, or every press secretary ever would be getting the same level of treatment that Spicer got. Hell, he gets Baghdad Bob comparisons! If you're between a rock and a hard place, you don't have to say that Hitler didn't use chemical weapons.
       
      Plenty of competent press secretaries have done this job, and have turned "no comment" into an art form. It's notable when one is unable to do that. Notable enough that their antics get into pop culture. The average joe couldn't name more than 1 other former press secretary. The average joe knows this one.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    11. Re:One word... by swillden · · Score: 1

      I hope Spicer goes to CNN or MSNBC and gets to sound off on Trump.

      That would be awesome, but Spicer would have to be a complete idiot to do it while Trump is still in office, and maybe even after. Trump has a vindictive streak a mile wide and the sort of "disloyalty" that would constitute in his eyes would provoke a really dangerous reaction.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    12. Re:One word... by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Plenty of competent press secretaries have done this job, and have turned "no comment" into an art form. It's notable when one is unable to do that. Notable enough that their antics get into pop culture. The average joe couldn't name more than 1 other former press secretary. The average joe knows this one.

      The problem is, if he went out there and said nothing but "No Comment", in Trump's mind that would come across at the very least as not defending him, if not outright criticism of Trump.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    13. Re:One word... by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Hitler didn't use chemical weapons in warfare

      The Germans did actually use chemical weapons in a handful of cases in combat. From Wikipedia:

      The Nazis did use chemical weapons in combat on several occasions along the Black Sea, notably in Sevastopol, where they used toxic smoke to force Russian resistance fighters out of caverns below the city, in violation of the 1925 Geneva Protocol.[61] The Nazis also used asphyxiating gas in the catacombs of Odessa in November 1941, following their capture of the city, and in late May 1942 during the Battle of the Kerch Peninsula in eastern Crimea.[61] Victor Israelyan, a Soviet ambassador, reported that the latter incident was perpetrated by the Wehrmacht's Chemical Forces and organized by a special detail of SS troops with the help of a field engineer battalion. Chemical Forces General Ochsner reported to German command in June 1942 that a chemical unit had taken part in the battle.[62] After the battle in mid-May 1942, roughly 3,000 Red Army soldiers and Soviet civilians not evacuated by sea were besieged in a series of caves and tunnels in the nearby Adzhimuskai quarry. After holding out for approximately three months, "poison gas was released into the tunnels, killing all but a few score of the Soviet defenders."[63] Thousands of those killed around Adzhimushk were documented to have been killed by asphyxiation from gas.[62]

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    14. Re:One word... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally, I think SNL should do one last Spicey skit, it could be his last press conference, and have the actual Sean Spicer play a reporter and ask Spicey a question.

      OMG that would be awesome. +1. Sadly with all the politics I don't think it would happen.

    15. Re:One word... by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      Yes. That's why I called it turning that into an art form. Spicer was really inept at doing this. Other press secretaries have really shone while doing that. Obviously you can't say "No comment" to everything, but you can come up with dozens of other ways to say that. "The president is finalizing that decision. We'll let you know when he has made it." "The brevity of Twitter sometimes leads people to take linguistic shortcuts which can cause what they say to become misinterpreted. I believe you have misinterpreted the President's Tweet." "With how complex the Trump business is, it's not uncommon for members of the President's family to have dozens of meetings per day. I'm sure many thousands more are barely remembered."
       
      Instead we got rants and shouting, and someone blatantly contradicting what the president said. You've got to do better than that!

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    16. Re:One word... by mingot · · Score: 1

      The average joe knows this one.

      Ari Fleischer.

      No idea if I spelled that right. I am a pretty average joe.

    17. Re:One word... by Kergan · · Score: 1

      Per the other reply that you got they actually did.

      What they didn't use was nerve gas, chiefly out of fear of the allies reciprocating:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    18. Re:One word... by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      The average joe couldn't name more than 1 other former press secretary.

      You got one, which nicely demonstrates my point. Had more press secretaries been this bad, you'd have given me a much longer list.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    19. Re:One word... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Specifically, they didn't use chemical weapons where they feared retaliation. The West had large stockpiles of chemical weapons, which would have made strategic bombing much more deadly. Also, the Western armies didn't rely on horses, and while there are gas masks and protective clothing for horses you can't get any work out of a horse wearing them. You'll notice that most of the chemical attacks listed in Wikipedia were in places where the Germans were pretty sure they could kill or capture every enemy involved.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    20. Re:One word... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Spicer should play Trump on SNL. A dead orange cat and some makeup should do it.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    21. Re: One word... by bestweasel · · Score: 1

      "When you're a star you can do anything, grab the pussy, stick it on your head."

    22. Re:One word... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > or nobody will ever trust him.

      i rather think that ship has sailed, my friend.

    23. Re:One word... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      He could hire Dick Morris's security. Morris is still alive, his security has to be the world's most badassed.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    24. Re:One word... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IDK, but I expect Slashdotters to be accurate. "calling for a total and complete shutdown on Muslims entering the US. " https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2015/dec/08/donald-trump-calls-for-complete-ban-on-muslims-entering-the-us-video

    25. Re:One word... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Spicer was between a rock and a hard place, though."

      So? That was the job, right from Day 1! This is the nature of working for Trump, you kiss Trump's ass and then flip him over and give him a blowjob. Then you thank him for the privilege of doing so. In TrumpWorld everyone can be wrong except Trump; anything that contradicts Trump is by definition wrong.

      Anyone who doesn't know this just isn't paying attention.

    26. Re:One word... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump might decide to emulate his hero, Vlad Putin, and do as he does: actually call out a hit on Spicey.

  8. Scaramucci Scaramucci by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will you do the fandango?

  9. Hot Sauce? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't Scaramucci that hot sauce everyone splashes on their food? From what I heard, it's the latest craze, right up there with that fidgety spinning thing all the kids are playing with.

    1. Re:Hot Sauce? by PPH · · Score: 1

      He was the villain in a James Bond movie.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Hot Sauce? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was the villain in a James Bond movie.

      So, that means the new communications director also has a third nipple?

    3. Re:Hot Sauce? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Everybody has two rows of vestigial nipples. The first one looks like a tiny mole, the lower ones look like freckles.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    4. Re:Hot Sauce? by PPH · · Score: 1

      Yes. But Fox News is permanently attached to it.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    5. Re:Hot Sauce? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was Scaramanga, in /The Man with the Golden Gun/.

    6. Re:Hot Sauce? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is he the man with the hot sauce?

  10. "a person" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess gossip is a good as it get nowadays.

  11. Not so fast Re:SNL... by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Cousin Gert may give his opinion on Spicey's departure when the new season starts.

    Here's hoping.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  12. Scaramucci's main qualifications by presidenteloco · · Score: 2

    He's got well-developed shoulder and bicep muscles, which will be useful for shovelling the shit.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    1. Re:Scaramucci's main qualifications by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      Now that sleeveless is an acceptable business attire...

    2. Re:Scaramucci's main qualifications by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      He's got well-developed shoulder and bicep muscles, which will be useful for shovelling the shit.

      And he knows exactly when to stick his pinky in Trump's asshole.

      https://youtu.be/DAtM8Hodw7c

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  13. Re:8===D ~ Had Sex With Marty's Mom AGAIN! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You really don't last long I guess

  14. Rather and the lack of skepticism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I think it's a little silly to think that Rather knew the Killian documents were fakes-- believing that the documents were real killed all respect for him in his chosen profession. and made the capstone to his long career in television the fact that he was a dupe. The exposure of fake documents very plausibly led to George W. Bush's election, so if he ran with the story because he "hated George W. Bush", he did exactly the opposite of what was intended.

    A more real interpretation, however, is that since the faked documents confirmed the worst of exactly what he already believed, he failed to use his journalistic skepticism and just ran with it.

    The take-away lesson is to continue to be skeptical even when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe-- in fact, to be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe.

    Or, in the words of scam-busters: "if it's too good to be true... it probably isn't."

    1. Re:Rather and the lack of skepticism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He thought his staff were competent enough to do a decent job faking, he was wrong. His staff forger was _blithering_ incompetent. She had one job, type a fake document, she used word.

      Where was it reported that the documents were forged by Rather's staff? All news reports I see said they came from a named retired service member.

    2. Re:Rather and the lack of skepticism by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      That was their first story. Later they formed a finger pointing circle.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:Rather and the lack of skepticism by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Insightful

      be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe.

      Oh yeah, that's a quote worth remembering.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:Rather and the lack of skepticism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are making that up.

    5. Re:Rather and the lack of skepticism by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      They investigated where it came from. The initial story fell apart when they asked they guy they supposedly got it from, he denied everything. Then they all pointed fingers at each other.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    6. Re: Rather and the lack of skepticism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rather knew that paperwork was a lie, but knew in general it was true. He was on the right.

    7. Re:Rather and the lack of skepticism by skids · · Score: 2
    8. Re:Rather and the lack of skepticism by TheReaperD · · Score: 1

      I'm also stealing that quote as it is really good. Too bad I can only attribute it to AC.

      --
      "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
  15. Can't be trusted! by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 3, Funny

    You can't trust anything Reince Priebus says when you don't even know his real identity! Reince Priebus is just an anagram for his secret luddite society: Beeps Incur Ire! ;)

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:Can't be trusted! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what is that society's position on apps?

    2. Re:Can't be trusted! by hyades1 · · Score: 5, Funny

      The conspiracy is even deeper than you think, and yet it is there for all to see, when you know where to look.

      If you take all the vowels out of his name, "Reince Priebus" becomes "RNC PR BS".

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    3. Re:Can't be trusted! by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      If this revelation isn't stolen by a late-night show, the world will be a sadder place.

    4. Re:Can't be trusted! by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

      My kingdom for mod points.

      --
      Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    5. Re:Can't be trusted! by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1

      hyades1 wins the internet.

    6. Re:Can't be trusted! by elistan · · Score: 1

      Nice. I always reflexively read his name as Prince Riebus.

    7. Re:Can't be trusted! by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      Thank you, my friend. I suspect, though, that other people might also notice this. I certainly got a good belly laugh out of it.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  16. Even Spicer has limits? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I didn't think it was possible, but Spicer has some shred of morals and limits. Apparently anyways.

    1. Re:Even Spicer has limits? by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Or Spicer's ego was hurt.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    2. Re:Even Spicer has limits? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So are you saying Spicer is human and actually has an ego? I'm even more confused now. I thought he was a cyborg or something :(

    3. Re:Even Spicer has limits? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sounds like it was some of both. Spicer is one of many people in the White House who have gotten tired of the chaos and defending Trump only to have Trump contradict them on Twitter. No doubt he got tired of Trump sending him out to lie to the media, and this has been in the works for awhile. However, being made subordinate to Scaramucci, who Spicer and others see as unqualified, was the last straw. In that sense, yes, there was a bit of ego involved. But he also had enough of Trump sending him out to lie, then contradicting him on Twitter.

  17. Why not answer the real question? by EmagGeek · · Score: 5, Funny

    Can Scaramucci do the fandango???

    1. Re:Why not answer the real question? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thunderbolts and Lightning! Verry Verry Frightening !

    2. Re:Why not answer the real question? by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      --ROFL, I brought this up and nobody got the reference... +1!

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
    3. Re:Why not answer the real question? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump's reply on Twitter:

      "Thunderbolt and lightning. Very, very frightening me. Sad."

    4. Re:Why not answer the real question? by dfsmith · · Score: 1

      I feel like I need an interconnect discussion on the relative merits of Thunderbolt and Lightning.

    5. Re:Why not answer the real question? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's less a question of whether or not he can and more of whether he will.

    6. Re:Why not answer the real question? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thunderbolts and lightning. Trump is very very frightening.

    7. Re:Why not answer the real question? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thunderbolts and lightning?

    8. Re:Why not answer the real question? by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      A-10's and P-38's? Yes. Very very frightening indeed. :p

    9. Re:Why not answer the real question? by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1

      "Sean's just a poor boy, nobody loves him."

  18. quote from Sean Spicer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "If you want to serve in a Trump administration, you're going to serve this country, not yourself."

  19. "Spicer said..." by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    "...citing a person with direct knowledge of the conversation."

    Uh huh... And who is this *fly on the wall*?

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re: "Spicer said..." by bestweasel · · Score: 1

      Well it's either Spicer, Trump or one of the eight currently anonymous Russians who were in the room.

    2. Re: "Spicer said..." by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Or it could be nobody at all. Without knowing who, it's impossible to verify anything, pretty much the history of the entire story line.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  20. Re:And who the fuck cares exactly? by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because that's the most serious thing happening in US politics going on right now.

    If you don't like these kinds of stories, why do you bother to open them and comment? I think the answer is obvious; you do care, it makes you angry, and you feel compelled to open such stories, comment on how they don't matter and yet still try to throw out some red herring about the other team.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  21. Re: And who the fuck cares exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Because political campaign slogans are SO very important that your whining over them doesn't make YOU look tone deaf.

    We get it, you don't want to hear or talk about the fuckups in the White House that Trump is stinking up, but trying to distract us with a pointless complaint? Whatever.

    Go check out some other slogans:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_slogans

  22. Scratching head here by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    What does this have to do about technology?

    1. Re:Scratching head here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The technology industry merged with the media industry while you were playing with your tech toys.

  23. ho hum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    more drama from #crazytown.

    Wake me up when The Donald sets the Whitehouse on fire in a raving dementia paranoia attack.

    1. Re:ho hum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair it would probably be worth it juts for the trivia:

      Q: What two political political have burnt the White House:
      A: The British Empire, and President Trump.

    2. Re:ho hum by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Political political political political political?

    3. Re:ho hum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This all seems really political to me.

    4. Re:ho hum by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Funny
      Scarramuci, Scarrumuci...will you do the Fandango??

      Thunderbolts and lightening, very very frightening ME!!!

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    5. Re:ho hum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SCALAMOOSH YOU SCALADOUCHE

    6. Re:ho hum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your a doosh yoor a doosh oh where did that meringue go

    7. Re:ho hum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Beelzebub has a devil put aside for *him*.

    8. Re:ho hum by gman003 · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm sure Beelzebub is setting aside a whole lotta devils for a certain someone.

    9. Re:ho hum by skids · · Score: 1

      It's Scaramouche baaaayybeee!

    10. Re:ho hum by colinwb · · Score: 1

      more drama from #crazytown. - Wake me up when The Donald sets the Whitehouse on fire in a raving dementia paranoia attack.

      Not going to happen: for starters, The Donald doesn't play the lyre! http://www.phrases.org.uk/mean...

    11. Re:ho hum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Benghazi...
      Will not let it GO!

    12. Re:ho hum by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      Badger, badger. badger, badger badger, badger. badger, badger badger, Donald!

    13. Re:ho hum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo

  24. Not News For News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop with the political shit, please. This has no news for nerds content.

    1. Re:Not News For News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're a nerd who doesn't do politics yet, there's no hope for you. Tech nerd purists have no future.

  25. Objecting To Scaramucci Hire by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

    Well, of course; he was demoted to Aku's number three assassin, after all.

  26. Damn... Not funny anymore... by d3vi1 · · Score: 1

    (As seen from Bucharest) At least with Sean Spicer the Trump presidency was humorous. Dark humor, but humor nevertheless. Now it's just plain sad.

    --
    UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever ones.
    1. Re:Damn... Not funny anymore... by shanen · · Score: 1

      If I ever got mod points I'd have to give you both funny and insight for that brief one.

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  27. choose your poison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Putting a talk radio show host in as the nation's top agricultural scientist? Perfectly OK.

    But this guy Scaramucci? OVER THE LINE! I'm outa here!

    trump is doing the exact opposite of what he swore he would do on 20-Jan: Protect and defend the constitution of the United States. Sad.

  28. Who signed off on this ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 0

    ... story?

    "News for nerds, stuff that matters."

    This is a political issue.

    Leave that shit to the press.

    tyvm

    So, anyway, Trump says he's for jobs and then shortens SNL's Melissa McCarthy's set list.

    A lot of people write, produce and direct that skit.

    This will mess up the pussy grabber's cred with women.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    1. Re:Who signed off on this ... by khandom08 · · Score: 1

      Trump says he's for jobs and then shortens SNL's Melissa McCarthy's set list

      Oh you gonna take me home tonight

      Oh down beside that red fire light

      Oh you gonna let it all hang out

      Fat-bottomed girls you make the rocking world go round

  29. Re:And who the fuck cares exactly? by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Informative

    There have been political stories on /. since I was started posting here (circa 2003). In other words, if you don't like the story in question, then don't open it up. It's really simple, and doesn't make you sound like an arse.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  30. Re:And who the fuck cares exactly? by Baron_Yam · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Try to stop being butthurt that this is news that makes Dems happy instead of news that makes Republicans happy. Maybe if you hadn't elected Trump the news would go your way more frequently.

    Anyway, continuing to stand solidly behind Trump as he constantly shows himself to be inept and corrupt is just going to hurt your party in the next election cycle. At some point, you're going to have to admit you were wrong.

    Which, by the way, doesn't mean you're turning into a Democrat, or that you're calling for the destruction of the Republican party or its fundamental policies. It means you recognize you screwed up and put the wrong figurehead on your organization.

    Kind of like the Democrats screwed up by trying to build a Clinton dynasty with Hillary and condescendingly brushed off the disenfranchised voters who ultimately flocked to Trump.

    Every second you dig in your heels instead of correcting your mistake is hurting your party AND your country further.

  31. A little too far by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I was pretty happy when Trump was elected, because finally the press would be paying attention to things the president did...

    However they have dialed it WAY TOO FAR towards over-coverage when on my technical news site I am getting stories about a press secretary resigning.

    At this point any real news is going to get lost in the seas of mundanity, which rather defeats the point of covering actions.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:A little too far by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      technical news site

      Slashdot is not a technical news site. It's news for nerds. Things of interest to the general nerd group. Based on the amount of comments and discussion the reason you're getting these stories is because this is the kind of news that appeals a lot to nerds. And America flushing itself down the shitter is definitely in the "stuff that matters" category.

    2. Re:A little too far by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats why trump should start rounding up the liberals and shipping them to russia to be killed.

      Nobody would believe it when it was reported.

    3. Re: A little too far by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was pretty happy when Trump was elected, because finally the press would be paying attention to things the president did...

      Ah, the poor little conservative wants to believe the media was that Darn Obama's lapdog. Maybe if you hadn't demanded they look in Operation Jade Falcon for evidence of a secret Kenyan Birth Certificate on Tukkayid.

      However they have dialed it WAY TOO FAR towards over-coverage when on my technical news site I am getting stories about a press secretary resigning.

      Somebody thinks he owns the site, eh? Don't remember you winning a Trial of Possession.

      At this point any real news is going to get lost in the seas of mundanity, which rather defeats the point of covering actions.

      Oh, you mean the Gish Gallop? Yeah, that is why Trump tweets three crazy things a day. It's the Kerensky Method.

    4. Re:A little too far by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Slashdot is not a technical news site. It's news for nerds.

      And I refer you back to my original observation about Slashdot covering a press secretary resigning, which in no way is "news for nerds" much less technical news for nerds. There is no angle on this which is nerdy, in any one of the innumerable senses of the term.

      This about it this way; would this news be whispered about in the halls of ComiCon? No.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    5. Re:A little too far by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      And I refer you back to my original observation about Slashdot covering a press secretary resigning, which in no way is "news for nerds" much less technical news for nerds.

      And yet with 465 comments (the highest currently on the first two pages) it is all us nerds want to discuss. So maybe your view of what nerds are interested in is simply outdated.

  32. Re:And who the fuck cares exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rent free, my friend, rent free.

  33. Dirty politics. Real dirty. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dirty politics. Real dirty.

  34. Re:And who the fuck cares exactly? by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 1

    I don't mind truly important non-tech news being here so I can keep away from regular news outlets and still learn everything I need to know about the world events from fellow nerds but this doesn't cross the threshold of importance for me either.

  35. Re:And who the fuck cares exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bless, you really are upset that your team is struggling aren't you?

    That's right, bunked down and collapse with the regime you're supporting, then spend the following 8 years getting laughed at and even more pissed off.

    Or grow up, become a normal human being, and understand why trouble is a terrible fucking president and why any negative news about him is both deserved, and factual.

  36. Re:And who the fuck cares exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shouldn't be on Slashdot

  37. Re:And who the fuck cares exactly? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

    1. If some intramural staffing change is now "the most serious thing" then it's amusing that you just admitted all the B.S. about Trump being a robot built by Putin actually is a lie.

    Well I would disagree that a WH Press Secretary resigning 182 days after taking the job is "some intramural staffing change". The last person to last less than a year was Jake Siewart who lost his job after 112 days because Bush was elected and Clinton left office. Before that George Stephanopoulos left after 138 days but stayed with the administration in other roles. It appears that Sean Spicer will not only leave the position but the administration as well. So how do you call it "some intramural staffing change"?

    How is Sean Spicer quitting a job prove or disprove that Trump is in the pocket of Putin? It doesn't say anything about Trump; it just says Spicer has had enough.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  38. The Man with the Golden Gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Spicer obviously knows James Bond is going to show up one of these days.

  39. Rats.. by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    ..fleeing the sinking ship that is the Trump 'administration'. Any bets on how many of them decide to take a 'vacation' to a country that doesn't have an extradition treaty with the U.S.? xD

  40. I see a little silhouetto of a man... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Scaramucci Scaramucci will you do the Fandango?

  41. Spicer is in the Naval Reserve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So Trump is still in his chain of command. Spicey won't be able to say much of anything, to say nothing of spin.

  42. Re:And who the fuck cares exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And since I started posting here in 1999 we had simple announcements like "This guy is now POTUS" that somehow devolved into this nonsense of arguing about the sources of the sources of the sources of the story.

  43. Press secretary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What has happenned to /.? Why all this political crap? What does this have to do with tech?

  44. Comedian on SNL by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Think about the future Sean Spicer has on SNL. Who better to play Trump? Who would be more motivated to lampoon the guy?

    Or cable TV political commentator (they let anyone do that nowadays).

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    1. Re:Comedian on SNL by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 2

      I don't know if Spicer can be funny on purpose.

  45. Re: Checked... For Fake News On CNN ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lol...

    Can't
    No
    Nuttin'

  46. Scaramucci... Scaramucci? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can he do the fandango?

  47. Scara.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Scaramucci? Scaramucci! What a fucking fandango!

    (deepest apologies to Queen)

  48. Who's next? by volodymyrbiryuk · · Score: 1

    Kelly Ann? Unfortunately, for every bulshitter that quits there are three waiting in the wings

    --
    sudo rm -r -f --no-preserve-root /
  49. Re:And who the fuck cares exactly? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

    Look at the url - it's politics.slashdot.org. You can avoid it by (do I dare say it? Sure, why not, it's Friday evening) using your HOSTS file to block the subdomain.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  50. Re:And who the fuck cares exactly? by shanen · · Score: 1

    Okay, I give up. Why was this moderated funny? Lack of a "stupid troll" moderation?

    Really getting desperate for something actually funny on Slashdot. If this topic isn't a target-rich environment for humor, nothing is.

    If I wanted to pretend to have a discussion with Putin's troll, then the obvious tech link is the struggle between direct IT use by #PresidentTweety versus an actual and rational "communications strategy". In this battle, it looks like the tweeter-in-chief thinks he won, but he thinks a lot of BS.

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  51. SNL Indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    C'mon, who wouldn't love to see Spicey and Melissa McCarthy on together SNL tomorrow night?

  52. "This Guy is Now POTUS" was not simple in 2000 by Pollux · · Score: 1

    I also started posting here in '99. And in the year 2000, the conversation was a whole lot more complicated than just "This guy is now POTUS." Bush v Gore, remember? Slashdot had three postings just that evening, with a stream of follow-ups before we finally got a "This guy is now POTUS" announcement three weeks later.

    But the whole while, I found the ongoing discussions very diverse and informative.

  53. Take the money and run! by shanen · · Score: 0, Troll

    Brief, but I guess it's an earned moderation. Not sure I agree. As I understand the story (but mostly from other sources), it seems that Spicer suddenly grew a backbone and insisted on resigning. Hard to believe, but even #PresidentTweety realized it would look better if Spicer hung around and just did nothing except for taking the money. Or perhaps Trump was merely afraid of another kiss-and-tell book? Will Spicer's be the first from the inside of the Donald's White House? I'm sure the publishers are lining up with YUGE advances.

    Regarding Preibus, there is NO trace of a backbone, so Trump will keep him around for the sake of appearance. A FAKE chief of staff looks better than none at all, though a REAL chief of staff could actually be useful if getting things done were a factor to Trump. Priebus has already pledged his undying loyalty to the Mooch.

    Don't forget that #PresidentTweety wants government of the Donald, by the Donald, for the Donald. Trump thinks useless Priebus is GREAT as a bone-toss [boner-toss?] to the GOP, even though the so-called Republicans are dedicated to government of the corporations, by the lawyers, for the richest 0.1% of the population. The YUGE corporations obviously prefer the GOP, but I think the REAL joke is that Trump is NOT even in the 0.1%. The hilarious secret of Trump's tax returns is that his so-called assets are just laundry fees for Putin's dirty rubles.

    Remember ol' Honest Abe? That "government of the people, by the people, for the people" stuff? Today there ain't NO major player on that side. Ain't no one worrying about the country or Constitution these days. Especially on the GOP side, the priorities are just party politics, private profits, and personal power.

    So you want to invoke the congress-critters oaths to defend and protect the Constitution? You think they're going to impeach Trump for attacking the First Amendment?

    ROFLMAO

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    1. Re:Take the money and run! by shanen · · Score: 1

      Oh, and a tip of the hat to the anonymous troll with the negative mods. Even allowing for the fundamental brokenness of the Slashdot moderation system, the feedback on what really cut your gut is sort of helpful. Mostly by proving you lack any other stronger response.

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    2. Re:Take the money and run! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a troll (a whiny little bitch). You contribute nothing. I'm sure you flag every post that doesn't affirm your narrative. The moderation system works fine and is very accurate. Lucky for you they ignore most of your shit. Count your blessings

  54. The rats... by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

    ....are leaving the sinking ship.

  55. Re:And who the fuck cares exactly? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    Well it is, so I guess you'll have to suffer it. One possible remedy at your disposal is not to open such stories.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  56. Re:And who the fuck cares exactly? by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1

    I would think this would be news that would make everyone happy, actually. Spicer has been one of the most cringe-worthy press secretaries to grace the podium in a long time. He won't be missed, except perhaps by masochists.

  57. Don't Really Know About the Pay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...but you have to admit, "served in a Presidential Administration as a Person of Importance" does look good in the resume. Partisan politics aside. And if you are truly a person who wishes to give something to their country and believe you can make a difference, that is a great reason to serve.

    The problem is that Trump burns everyone near him. Eventually Trump will burn you too, whether deliberately, or by accident, or indirectly, you get burnt. The only exceptions are Trump's family.

    Lots of otherwise smart people think they can "handle" Trump, can "manage" him. They believe they can stroke his ego, manage his Tweets, keep his attention on important matters. They are all wrong. Oh well, if getting burned is the price of experience, let them pay that price. They were dumb enough to support the man and need a lesson in Realpolitik.

    Spicer has learned that lesson, Bannon learned that lesson, Comey learned that lesson, Lewandowski learned that lesson, Dubke learned that lesson, Woolsey learned that lesson, Page learned that lesson, Flynn learned that lesson, Stone learned that lesson, McCaughy learned that lesson, Caputo learned that lesson, Stone learned that lesson, Manafort learned that lesson, ...

    Yes, I know that not all these people had the exact same relationship with Trump or were Trump supporters. Some left under their own steam. However even leaving under ideal circumstances, you associated yourself with Trump. Trump is going to be viewed as some kind of historic anomaly or mistake. People will slap their heads in coming decades and say, "What were we (or they) thinking??"

    The only possible defense is to become known as a Trump opponent and get fired by Trump. In that respect Comey will probably come out of this the best.

    Next I predict that Conway will be ditched. Although she is appropriately bootlicking for Trump's ego that won't be enough to save her. She has made too many mistakes and will be dismissed as the Weakest Link!

  58. Not surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Haven't seen him do his job in a while, it's all Sanders.

  59. Black Smart Poor Honest Obama Unicorn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Billions of USD in support of "moderate" terrorists in Libya/Syria
    Hundreds of thousands of dead Yazidisand middle east Christians (thanks, Obama/Killary/McCain*)
    Warrantless spying on AMERICANS
    Doubling national debt
    IRS Louis Lerner (Tea Party persecution)

    I can go on, but will be casting pearls before democrats...

    * I am not saying that that glioblastoma is Karma... we can only hope it is

    1. Re: Black Smart Poor Honest Obama Unicorn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Billions of USD in support of "moderate" terrorists in Libya/Syria

      Dictators in El Salvador, Panama, Chile, Nicaragua, Cuba, Iran, the Philippines, South Vietnam, Iraq, Saudi Arabia were such peaceful rules then?

      Hundreds of thousands of dead Yazidisand middle east Christians (thanks, Obama/Killary/McCain*)

      You're thirty years too late to pretend to care about the Dead of Iraq.

      Warrantless spying on AMERICANS

      J. Edgar laughs at you.

      Doubling national debt

      Sorry that Obama put Bush's expenses back on the books, but they were GW's wars.

      IRS Louis Lerner (Tea Party persecution)

      Oh no they had pay their taxes on their tea. How terrible!

      I can go on, but will be casting pearls before democrats...

      No, no, proceed Mr. Gubernor.

    2. Re: Black Smart Poor Honest Obama Unicorn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice to see a liberal with a brain, mate.

      Dictators in El Salvador, Panama, Chile, Nicaragua, Cuba, Iran, the Philippines, South Vietnam, Iraq, Saudi Arabia were such peaceful rules then?

      Hundreds of thousands of dead Yazidisand middle east Christians (thanks, Obama/Killary/McCain*)

      You're thirty years too late to pretend to care about the Dead of Iraq.

      Yes, I hope Ronnie RayGun gives Obama a warm welcome, together with the n00b primer on how to please satan best.

      Warrantless spying on AMERICANS

      J. Edgar laughs at you.

      Yeah, I hear that he wasn't as bad as Van Buren or some other dudes in the past either. Regardless, Obama needs to be imprisoned and tried today

      IRS Louis Lerner (Tea Party persecution)

      Oh no they had pay their taxes on their tea. How terrible!

      Good thing Obama's Black Panthers didn't have to pay their taxes, but got to intimidate Republican voters in Philly.

      I can go on, but will be casting pearls before democrats...

      No, no, proceed Mr. Gubernor.

      since you ask:
      DNC stealing the election from Bernie Sanders/CNN questions leak to Killary/Debbie Washerwoman coverup
      Obama voter suppression (Black Panther/Eric Holder)
      Obama embargo of Israel arms sales
      DNC/Donna Brazile interference with the murder investigation of Seth Rich
      Planned Parenthood abortion funding (see O'Keefe videos)
      Keeping Guantanamo Bay open
      Persecution of Assange and Snowden
      Obama funding the coup in Ukraine and NATO "training exercises" (we now lost Russia for a generation)
      Sale of Guns to Mexican Cartels by Obama
      Obama sending 30 billion in cash payment to Iran (2016)
      Islamic terror support ("Arab Spring" financing in Egypt and Yemen)
      Iran "deal" over nukes
      Susan Rice: did she lie x7 herself, or did Obama order it
      cyberweapons stockpiles

  60. Re:And who the fuck cares exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look we realize you get your information from Rush Limbaugh and his squad of goons and copycats, but you must realize that a press secretary leaving so quickly is usually a sign of trouble, or you haven't paid much attention to American politics in the last 40 years. Or maybe you just don't care very much.

    You can get into all kinds of logic pretzels trying to defend the indefensible Donald Trump, but his presidency is going to go down in flames and it will be because of him, not in spite of him. I guarantee it will be hard to find a Trump voter in the next few years. Few will want to admit they ever voted for him.

    Pathetic you're still stumping for him, but I suppose everyone doubles down on a bad hand from time to time. Let's hope it doesn't bankrupt the rest of us.

  61. They'll do it in a heartbeat by rsilvergun · · Score: 0

    if they think they can get away with it. They'd love to have Pence. He's everything they want. They don't give a rat's behind about his religious agenda. They just want those sweet, sweet tax cuts for their wealthy donors, and end to all those burdensome regulations (like the one about dumping oil into streams and of course good 'ole Net Neutrality) and to keep wage growth down (again, for their big donors). And yes, that goes for most of the Dems too. God Damned blue dogs...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:They'll do it in a heartbeat by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      The GOP loves Pence maybe, but the Dems don't, and the GOP doesn't have *that* large of a majority in Congress IIRC. What if the Senate Democrats refuse to vote to impeach Trump, knowing that Pence will take over? I get your comment about blue dogs, but I'm quite so cynical there yet.

  62. That's not the problem by rsilvergun · · Score: 2, Insightful

    the problem is Comey proved that even if you hand Trump victory on a platter he'll drop you like a bad habit at the first sign of trouble. I mean, Comey basically gave the election to Trump with that Oct surprise of his and Trump couldn't even understand that he had nothing to fear from him. Trump's dangerously unpredictable for all involved.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  63. If they get their way by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    there won't be a next Democratic president. Remember, the hardliners voted for him because they like Authoritarianism...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  64. Not true by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    Trump's core appeal is socialist style populism. The mistake Hilary and the Blue Dog Dems made was not listening to him. He promised Health Care for all, Jobs for all, education for all and a return to American greatness. Basically all the things Bernie was promising but without any specifics. But the fact is the majority of Americans _want_ the government to take a larger role in improving their lives. Trump played to that and the media played along and let him talk out of both sides of his mouth.

    Make no mistake, the Dems lost because they tried to have their cake (big money donations) and eat it to (populist left). It didn't work. They had to keep their mouths shut about any left wing policies and just pray Trump imploded. He didn't.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Not true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also the Russians ran an extraordinarily effective social media marketing campaign with micro-targeted information. There was also that.

      So much winning!

    2. Re:Not true by interkin3tic · · Score: 3, Informative

      But the fact is the majority of Americans _want_ the government to take a larger role in improving their lives. Trump played to that and the media played along and let him talk out of both sides of his mouth. Make no mistake, the Dems lost because they tried to have their cake (big money donations) and eat it to (populist left)

      Those are good points, but I'd say you're missing the glue that holds it together is that the voters were stupid. Hillary came up with concrete, detailed plans that would help the populace. The voters ignored such boring things and voted for vague unrealistic one-line promises, first in the form of Obama, then almost in the form of Sanders, finally in the form of Trump.

      I didn't hear much about big money donations, though maybe that was just because of the sheer volume of Trump related nonsense.

    3. Re:Not true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd rather vote for someone with half-baked ideas but a solid moral compass than someone with concrete plans and a Lawful Evil alignment.

    4. Re:Not true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mr. Chaotic Evil has a solid moral compass too.

  65. Oh, Trump has an agenda by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    they just don't talk about it because, well, it's awful. It's basically shutting down medicare, funneling the money into tax cuts for the .1% while slashing regulations that keep food, air and water safe and clean. You can't exactly get in front of national TV and talk about that stuff. Hell, he can't even claim he saved jobs. They gave Carrier $14 mil in tax breaks and the jobs are still on their way to Mexico.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  66. LOL: "Satan turns to Christ"... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Look at the url - it's politics.slashdot.org. You can avoid it by (do I dare say it? Sure, why not, it's Friday evening) using your HOSTS file to block the subdomain." - by BarbaraHudson ( 3785311 ) on Friday July 21, 2017 @05:53PM (#54855249)

    See subject & you KNOW this makes history (in my bookmarks/favorites @ least)... lol!

    * :)

    (How's life Barb?)

    APK

    P.S.=> When Barb (one of my biggest hosts files detractors initially @ least) suggests their usage? I've done well... apk

    1. Re:LOL: "Satan turns to Christ"... apk by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      I just knew that if I said the magic incantation, you'd pop up. It's magic! :-)

      How's life? Thanks for asking. I like volunteering, but it's not a replacement for a job or a career.

      I'm in the midst of sessions with the same therapist who helped me with PTSD, in the hope of putting my life back together, taking into account that my vision is always going to be an issue (currently legally blind in one eye, but it *will* be fixed up as much as possible at some future date, until the next time and/or the other eye again).

      When she asked me what I wanted to do if I had a choice, I said I would like to code again. Unfortunately, tried again today, it's just not coming back even though I know what I have to do, remember everything, but just can't put it all together into something meaningful when behind the keyboard. I find I don't want to. I guess the events of the last 6-7 years had too much of an impact, especially when combined with how crappy the whole tech industry has become since the turn of the century. I got to see first-hand how women are treated, and that is something I really don't want to expose myself to again. 20 years ago I sat in a meeting and watched the guys engage in pissing contests. Afterwards, I asked the only woman present why she didn't speak up, because I knew that she could wipe the floor with them in terms of capability, and that the guys were heading off into the wrong direction. Now I know why she kept silent. And it's become worse. It's just not worth the hassles, so I guess part of it is the instinct for self-preservation finally kicking in. Deleted the linux vm about an hour ago. Not happy about it, but ç'est la vie.

      In the meantime she suggested that I contact the Montreal Association for the Blind. They have experience with job options for people with deteriorating vision, so I'm waiting for them to get back to me. It feels like good advice. I've tried to learn how to use a screen reader on my own, and it is not easy. And the linux screen reader is absolute crap, so there is no real reason to keep a linux vm around. Maybe it will be there in another decade.

      As long as I can walk the dog and ride my bicycle (surprisingly, I can even with only my bad eye, which is now 20/400, so who cares, right?) I'm good. So time to knuckle down and get back to writing to see what I've got left in the gas tank.

      You?

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  67. Scaramucci Scaramucci by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

    Do you hear the fandango?
     

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
  68. On his best day Sean Spicer was a shiny object by shanen · · Score: 1

    Though on many of his days Spicer looked like a really dull object, I think #PresidentTweety's only use for Spicer was as a distraction to confuse the REAL news.

    Alternative Subject: How to collaborate with the Russians without even trying!

    Think about it. Trump obviously has no real communications strategy and his supporters could care less about White House press briefings.

    Trump only has a FAKE communications strategy based on Twitter. Now if you were a clever and cunning Russian spy, and you noticed this, how would you take advantage of it?

    I think Mueller's investigation should be extended to Twitter. Specifically, I think he should investigate Russian tampering with the election via Twitter. I even have a few ideas how it could be done. Putin's hackers would have begun by analyzing Twitter to find the most influential retweeters for election-related topics. Just focusing on one side of it, they would try to help the pro-Trump tweeters. For example, if a reliable pro-Trump tweeter was sleeping when Trump tweeted a juicy one, they would keep tabs and make sure the tweet was called to his attention when he came back to Twitter. You can actually extend that even farther to put more thumbs on the scales. Break the influencers down by specific interests and constituencies. If a particular Trump tweet will appeal to that specific tweeter's audience, then make sure he gets it, but if it would offend some of his target demographic, then you give it a pass. These sorts of activities should leave traces in the Twitter records, but I'm betting no one has looked for them. Yet.

    Sean Spicer? Just a distracting clown. The only surprise was that the clown actually grew a backbone at the last minute. Or maybe not. Maybe Spicer wasn't standing on his principles but just pragmatically decided he wants to sell the first kiss-and-tell book from the inside?

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    1. Re:On his best day Sean Spicer was a shiny object by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      Your cynicism does you great credit.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  69. Funny episodes of AGT: Singing Trump by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    See The Singing Trump on America's Got Talent with 4 men dressed as Secret Service Agents. The Singing Trump says who he loves.

    Be sure to watch the 2nd song of that performance. Look at the laughing when he says, "Am I sexual?"

    Comment from one viewer: "This is most original act I've seen on AGT and it's also best comedy act on AGT in [a] long time."

    Watch the 1st audition.

  70. Re:8===D ~ Had Sex With Marty's Mom AGAIN! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Drumpf, go home, you're drunk.

  71. Who is the replacement? by Walter+White · · Score: 1
  72. Hahahahahahaha... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Don't down-mod him. He's entertainment. the more visible he is, the more people get to enjoy the show" - by BarbaraHudson ( 3785311 ) on Tuesday July 18, 2017 @09:42PM (#54836425)

    They surely do & YOU did this well "FRANK"?

    I'm going to continue using the Host File Engine. Your software is well written, functional. The Host File Engine performs exactly as promised by mmell

    his hosts program is actually pretty good by xenotransplant

    his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources by alexgieg

    (APK's) work, I've flat out said it's good by BronsCon

    I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works by bmo

    APK your posts hosts file and more have never been in error and/or bad advice by BlueStrat

    * My code's recommended/hosted by Malwarebytes' hpHosts!

    APK

    P.S.=> "FRANK" (lol) https://thegenealogyofstyle.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/rhps2.jpg/ now THAT's entertainment... apk

    1. Re:Hahahahahahaha... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will somebody please throw this fat fuck back in the cunt farm and close the gate!

  73. Spiderman 3 Game Download by malikb2017 · · Score: 0
  74. The heap isn't big enough? by s.petry · · Score: 1

    If Trump had business dealings, loans, etc.. from Russia the Federal Government would know. He does not need to release his long form to the public for the Government to know whether or not his business dealings are clean, and who they are with. The business registry and financial disclosure forms give information to not just the IRS, but DHS, FBI, State Department, CIA, DOJ, and a few other agencies as well.

    I have no idea how all of you people can live under the same rock. I can suggest you come out for air on occasion, because the smothering suffocation is making you all brain dead.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:The heap isn't big enough? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      They're subpoenaing Deutsch Bank because they DON'T have all his records. They want to know (a) why Deutsch Bank gave Trump loans when other banks wouldn't lend to him after being burned too many times, and (b) who, if anyone, is guaranteeing repayment of the loans or otherwise backstopping them.

      Ditto Jared Kushner's loans with Deutsch Bank.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    2. Re:The heap isn't big enough? by s.petry · · Score: 1

      And they know about these Deutsch Bank loans because of their filings right? Are the Germans now colluding with Russia too?

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    3. Re:The heap isn't big enough? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Just because they know something about the dealings with Deutsch Bank doesn't mean that they know everything. And yes, it's already been reported that they suspect that the people at Deutsch Bank dealing with Trump have received some form of assurance from someone, most likely Russian, that the loans will be backstopped. Why else would Deutsch Bank lend to Trump when so many other banks won't because he's burned them?

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  75. It is not easy to go out there on TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And try to convince the world that batshit crazy is normal and there is nothing to see here.

  76. Wrong Guy for the Job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Spicey might be good at backroom strategy, but he was an absolutely horrific choice for a front man. He's not very articulate, he's unable to think on his feet, and he's way too thin-skinned. He never, ever should have been put in front of the press.

  77. Yet, when... by martinfb · · Score: 1

    When will Trump realize his damage and incompetence, and resign himself?!

    --


    Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
  78. Re:And who the fuck cares exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stephanopoulos was the Director of Communications, so he was never really the Press Secretary even though he gave press briefings. The only shorter-serving Press Secretary (excluding those who lost their jobs at the end of an administration) is Jerald terHorst, who resigned in protest after only 31 days when Ford pardoned Nixon. After that is James Brady, who effectively stopped being Secretary after 69 days due to being shot in the Reagan assassination attempt.

    dom

  79. I'm not your object of ridicule Barb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject & this https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10894385&cid=54855909/ & if anyone is fit to be an object of ridicule, it's YOU "FrAnK" to be blunt about it (you obviously have serious issues that go way mentally beyond your way odd transsexual change).

    I started that reply nicely (one you just replied to) but the one in the link above, due to what's quoted from YOU in it there? I couldn't believe you did that.

    See subject.

    * It seems you still attempt to give me guff & BEHIND MY BACK w/ other losers from what I quote from you in the link above!

    UNBELIEVABLE!

    (... & Zontar is a HUGE loser who ADMITS downmodbombing me where I quoted that from, good - I can use that against him, effete whimp that he is from a NATION of whimps that let their women be RAPED no less - he can BLOW MODPOINTS ALL DAY unjustifiably on my posts - I just repost & he blows them ALL dry in the end, lol... I win as always, no matter what)

    APK

    P.S.=> In the end, I've determined that you can't be dealt with like a normal human being & I tried. You can't be trusted!

    NOW - Whatever is bugging you it appears you're taking it out on me (or trying to)!

    Well, ok then - All I have to do in RETURN, is toss what's in the link above @ you & see you RUN "Forrest" - that's ridicule you MUST endure from ME & there's NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT! Why? You HAVEN'T managed that from our /. peers & I have...

    (All that bragging about coding you've done? We're all YET to see a SHRED of PROOF of it (does it even exist? I doubt it @ this point))... apk

    1. Re:I'm not your object of ridicule Barb by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      NOW - Whatever is bugging you it appears you're taking it out on me (or trying to)!

      Nothing in this thread warrants such a reply, sooooo - that's one of the reasons I am against net anonymity - it's hard to prove that any particular post is from who they claim it is. Or even from the same user/account. So I'm going to ignore this outburst

      It'ss ridiculous on its' face. Either it's some troll pretending to be apk or it's not, but either way it's a troll, so what do I care? (except to make note of it for those following along trying to figure wtf is going on).

      What a waste of oxygen.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  80. Oh, it's REALLY me Barb... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject & my quoting your attempt @ making ME an object of ridicule shoots you down for it here https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10894385&cid=54855909/ as you were colluding w/ ZontarTheMindlessOne who downmodbombs me (which he can't win on, I just run him dry of downmodpoints, as I have no posting limits like other ACs do) - that's all & no doubting it.

    ANYONE CAN READ THAT LINK & DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES...

    * I do TRY to be civil w/ you & I thought that was all done - guess it's not... you obviously can't get over it.

    APK

    P.S.=> You can't be trusted... apk

    1. Re:Oh, it's REALLY me Barb... apk by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1
      Do you really want to go back to being entertainment for the masses? Seriously, how is writing this:

      Look at the url - it's politics.slashdot.org. You can avoid it by (do I dare say it? Sure, why not, it's Friday evening) using your HOSTS file to block the subdomain.

      ... such a terrible thing? If you're that touchy, you're touched. And I don't see Zontar anywhere above or below, so really, if that's what you want to do, knock yourself out. I really don't care - you're just making a fool of yourself.

      But if you want to be known as yet another transmisogynist, you're entirely free to do so. After all that's what brogrammers are known for. I guess next time people claim gender discrimination is not an issue, I'll use you as yet another example of how sick and warped the IT culture is in its treatment of women, or for that matter, anyone who isn't white and male.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  81. WHAAATS THAT YOU SAY???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OMG!!! AN OLD TRANNY DID A "CYBER-FRIENDING"

    TO A MIDDLEAGE FAT VIRGIN RETARD !!

    ON THE NERD CHATFORUM ???!?!!!

    WHAT A TOTAL VICTORY FOR YOU BOTH

    asdjaksjdh kajwdh wkja alkwjdh awdkj kajhwd kjwahdkjawdh kjhawdkhhdljwakhdklwjadhwkajhdawkdh akwjdhkjwhsa jkhd ff!
    asdjaksjdh kajwdh wkja alkwjdh awdkj kajhwd kjwahdkjawdh kjhawdkhhdljwakhdklwjadhwkajhdawkdh akwjdhkjwhsa jkhd ff!
    asdjaksjdh kajwdh wkja alkwjdh awdkj kajhwd kjwahdkjawdh kjhawdkhhdljwakhdklwjadhwkajhdawkdh akwjdhkjwhsa jkhd ff!

    1. Re:WHAAATS THAT YOU SAY???? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Gotta just love the way I get under your skin just by existing. When I post, you jump. Awesome. Or sad. Whatever ...

      I would love to get a bunch of you into a proper study to find out just what damaged you in such a strange way that you became a transmisogynist. It's most likely part of a generalized misogyny but you feel it's safer to express it at targets you feel have been traitors to your gender. Considering the lack of equivalent levels of transmisandry, I'm more likely right than wrong. Deep down, you think women shouldn't be seen as equals to men. No wonder I'm such a threat.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  82. Poor tactic Barb: Not that quote, this one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject & what's quoted from you here instead-> https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10894385&cid=54855909/

    *... & as far as entertainment, there's nothing like a "freak show" (you).

    Calling ME 'touched'? That's a laugh!

    (You're the one who's 'touched' doing what you did to yourself - & yes, you're the one seeing "councilors" & shrinks, not I...)

    APK

    P.S.=> Call me name? Hey, you are the one that's FAR from natural & normal, no questions asked... apk

    1. Re:Poor tactic Barb: Not that quote, this one by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      So you admit that what I wrote in this thread didn't justify your attacks. Thanks for making that clear to everyone.

      Seeing someone for help in career decisions because I can't see well enough to code any more doesn't make me "touched." It just makes me a reasonable person doing what anyone in a similar situation should do. That you think otherwise shows just how out of touch with reality you are.

      As for "normal" - who wants to be "normal?" I'd rather be exceptional.

      Also, keep in mind that "what I did to myself" will add at least a decade to my lifetime. The benefits include (and have been backed up in my case with extensive testing over the last 6 months) an abnormally great level of good cholesterol, a level of bad cholesterol so low that there's more good than bad, blood cells that live longer than the normal range, 3d radioisotope and ct scans done before and after stress testing that show my cardiovascular system is great. Now lets throw in the increased protection against both heart attack and stroke, more flexible blood vessels, and protection against dementia, and no history of lifestyle diseases, and I'm quite happy with the consequences.

      I have a half-decent shot of making it into the triple digits. That's pretty extraordinary. You don't.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  83. I'm confronting you on this Barb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Don't down-mod him. He's entertainment. the more visible he is, the more people get to enjoy the show" - by BarbaraHudson ( 3785311 ) on Tuesday July 18, 2017 @09:42PM (#54836425)

    "Exceptional"? You call a freakshow that "FrAnK" https://www.google.com/#q=Frank+N.+Furter/ ? Please.

    THIS is exceptional:

    I'm going to continue using the Host File Engine. Your software is well written, functional by mmell

    his hosts program is actually pretty good by xenotransplant

    his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources by alexgieg

    (APK's) work, I've flat out said it's good by BronsCon

    I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works by bmo

    APK your posts on this and the hosts file posts, and more, have never been in error by BlueStrat

    * My code's recommended+ hosted by Malwarebytes' hpHosts!

    APK

    P.S.=> You can't demonstrate it, I do (& I've dozens more like those - you can't)... apk

    1. Re:I'm confronting you on this Barb by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      You aren't "confronting" me. You're just making a public fool of yourself again. You don't get it - you have zero credibility.

      The only positive value you bring here is (1) entertainment, and (2) target practice.

      Speaking of which, Bombs Away!

      You sound like Trump, attacking someone over a physical handicap because I'm seeing someone to help me with it. BOOM!

      It must really piss you off that I can legally pee in every woman's washroom in every state that has passed a bathroom bill. As a matter of fact, I'm required to. They all say I have to go into the bathroom which belongs to the sex on my birth certificate, which says I was born female. So even the crazy states have to treat me as a woman. And nobody can object because that's the law. :-)

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  84. Frankenfurter you're running, lol... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject & show us you've done more, better & earlier than: I'm going to continue using the Host File Engine. Your software is well written, functional by mmell

    his hosts program is actually pretty good by xenotransplant

    his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources by alexgieg

    (APK's) work, I've flat out said it's good by BronsCon

    I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works by bmo

    APK your posts on... hosts file posts, and more, have never been in error by BlueStrat

    * My code's recommended+ by Malwarebytes' hpHosts!

    APK

    P.S.=> I have DOZENS more & you have zero (who has "no credibility"? YOU "FrAnK" - you're an object of ridicule DELUDING YOURSELF you're a woman)... apk

  85. Missing synapses? by s.petry · · Score: 1

    I'll start simple, just to show how full of shit you are. No members of a foreign Government purchased Obama's books? Prove it! You can't! If you truly believe such a foolish notion, your outrage needs to be at every single President who has ever served in the office. Once again, the point is to protect the US from a coup, not prevent business people from entering politics.

    It is illegal for a President to take money or titles from a foreign Government due to the unique position of the President to turn over our Military to that foreign Government. A valid fear at the time the clause was written was that a President would take a princely title and turn over the US to England. The founders were as infallible as every other human who walked the Earth (depending on your Religious views there may have been 1 infallible person in history). There is a history around the emoluments clause, despite your ignorance (feigned or otherwise).

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.