Slashdot Mirror


Trump's Website Is Coded With a Broken Server Error Message That Blames Obama (techcrunch.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: If you're a fan of Easter eggs hidden in source code, this is a pretty good one. Apparently, as Washington Post data reporter Christopher Ingraham observed on Twitter, some Trump administration and GOP websites have a portion of code with a joke that throws shade at Obama's golf habits, the irony nowhere to be found. We checked the source code and sure enough the line "Oops! Something went wrong. Unlike Obama, we are working to fix the problem and not on the golf course" appears on action.donaldjtrump.com sites, like the one hosting this surely statistically sound, Obama-obsessed "Inaugural Year Approval Poll," but not on donaldjtrump.com pages. As Ingraham pointed out, it's also present on some official GOP sites, including the GOP.com homepage. In both instances, the Obama dig is paired with a 404 error message that states "What do Hillary Clinton and this link have in common? They're both dead broke." To top it off, the code itself is apparently itself broken, swapping a single equal sign where there should be two. An honest mistake? Or perhaps the world was never meant to be gifted with these very good jokes at all?

74 of 168 comments (clear)

  1. First rule of Rove style politics by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    is always be accusing your opponent of whatever it is you do.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:First rule of Rove style politics by arth1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Good thing Hilldog only got to sell Uranium to Russia and not the entire country.

      I'm astonished how many redneck Trump voters who believe this even after it's been debunked, even by republicans. It must be fun living in a fairy tale universe where saying something three times makes it true.

      https://www.snopes.com/hillary...
      https://www.factcheck.org/2015...

      Meanwhile, in the real world, I'd be far more worried about a president who lies so much. I''m not saying that Hillary Rodham Clinton is a honest person, but Donald John Trump has taken outright fabrication to a whole new level.

      http://www.politifact.com/pers...

    2. Re:First rule of Rove style politics by Freischutz · · Score: 4, Informative

      but then, you are not an infantile narcissist who is looking to sell the US to the highest bidder

      Good thing Hilldog only got to sell Uranium to Russia and not the entire country. Now we just have to wait for the Rove style politics to fade away so people can come to reality and see that Trump is not involved with Russia, that the leftists are just gaslighting the country.

      She never sold any Uranium to Russia, she was one of numerous people whose government agency approved a deal where Russian investors were allowed to buy a company that controls 20% of the US uranium manufacturing capacity. If Trump ever decides that this Russian owned company's US based Uranium manufacturing operation is up to any kind of shenanigans he can send in the FBI, HLS, CIA, National Guard, Army, Navy, Air Force, Police and anybody else the thinks best qualified to put a stop to it. Not that I expect that Trump will need to or want to do that in view of what good terms he is with his bestest friend Vladimir. (Fun fact: The Uranium One deal was unanimously approved by no less than nine US government agencies and Hillary only had control over one of them, the State Department).

    3. Re:First rule of Rove style politics by slack_justyb · · Score: 1

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 29, 2017 @02:34PM

      You honestly shouldn't read AC posts. Slashdot has become absolute garbage with the AC dumping. I would dare say that 50%+ of the comments on Slashdot at this point are AC dumps of just random shit to stir pots. It's gotten out of hand how bad the AC shit is Swiss cheesing threads. I guess one day Slashdot will get its head out its ass and do something about it.

      Just remember, if an AC posts something like that, 99.9999999% chance they don't care what you have to say and are posting it just to get you to say something back to them. So while you've given all that information to prove your point, you've proved it to one who cared in the first place.

    4. Re:First rule of Rove style politics by arth1 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      It's comment like "redneck Trump voters" that helped get Trump elected.

      Yes, apparently some people take pride in being associated with ignorance, faith and greed.

    5. Re:First rule of Rove style politics by Freischutz · · Score: 2

      It's comment like "redneck Trump voters" that helped get Trump elected. Stereotyping and insulting anyone who wouldn't bend the knee to the burgeoning Clinton empire actually attracted Trump voters or turn people off voting for anyone which also hurt Clinton more than Trump.

      Post election research has shown that getting Trump elected is one thing that rednecks (as in poor rural white people) are actually pretty innocent of. The bulk of Trump voters were relatively well educated and affluent people in the upper income brackets so blaming rednecks and working class whites rather unfair. Most Trump voters were relatively well to do white suburbanites, evangelicals and conservative Latinos. As for bending the knee to the Clinton empire, you guys bent the knee for the Bush dynasty twice (although I suppose that does not count with them being right thinking Republicans) and then when confronted with the choice of normal corruption under the Clintons and complete incompetence, utter debauchery and national humiliation under Trump you guys chose Trump.

    6. Re:First rule of Rove style politics by david_thornley · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's comment like "redneck Trump voters" that helped get Trump elected.

      No, actually, since Trump was much freer with the insults. If "deplorables" had had a significant effect, Trump's denouncing of ex-POWs and other groups would have gotten him canned where he belonged Trump voters didn't give a crap about insults, they just followed their Fuehrer. (Note: Trump is not a good comparison to Hitler, but Trump followers are a good comparison to Hitler followers.)

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    7. Re:First rule of Rove style politics by elwinc · · Score: 2

      > You slobbered so much corrupt Clinton knob with that
      > post that you need to change your name to Monica.

      Observation: Anon Conservative cannot contest the facts so Anon Conservative shifts to personal attacks.

      Translation: Anon Conservative is admitting defeat.

      --
      --- Often in error; never in doubt!
    8. Re:First rule of Rove style politics by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      It's a bubble. People listen only to the news they want to hear. They deliberately block out information that is contrary to their expectations. Ie, my mom immediately switches on Fox as her news (despite it being 50% editorializing), reads World Net Daily, etc. I know others that gobble up every word of Huffington Post as if it were genuine.

      Just like your financial portfolio, it's good to have some news diversity as well.

    9. Re: First rule of Rove style politics by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

      Must be all those affluent coal miners and auto factory workers.

    10. Re:First rule of Rove style politics by geekoid · · Score: 1

      They are not shills, every fucking think you say has been debunks or taken out of context.

      You are a poor excuse for a limp wristed cum stain. please jump off a pier and die.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    11. Re:First rule of Rove style politics by werepants · · Score: 1

      What evidence would be sufficient to convince you that you have fallen victim to a series of fabricated conspiracy theories?

    12. Re:First rule of Rove style politics by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      I'm sure if you posted a bunch poorly written articles by cat ladies at Gawker, HuffPo, Buzzfeed, Politifact, Snopes all telling me that Hillary Clinton is not corrupt and that their fellow cat ladies were not biased, that would do it!

      What would it take to convince you that the Russians didn't 'hack the 2016 election'?

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    13. Re:First rule of Rove style politics by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      I guess this Clinton supporter is admitting defeat too then

      https://slashdot.org/comments....

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    14. Re:First rule of Rove style politics by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Wow. Partisan political abuse. Not a single citation, a two misspellings (it's 'thing' and 'debunked') and then you reference the Dunning Kruger effect.

      Sort yourself out, bucko! Clean your room!

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    15. Re:First rule of Rove style politics by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      "leftists are just gaslighting" as in Two guilty pleas and cooperating witnesses and Jr. confession to using Russian sources of hacked attack info?
      Hmm, gaslighting, pretty much describes the lot of you
      Full of gas and emitting only darkness

    16. Re:First rule of Rove style politics by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      FREEREPUBLIC?
      DAILYCALLER?
      Could you be a more delusional liar?

    17. Re:First rule of Rove style politics by werepants · · Score: 1

      I'm sure if you posted a bunch poorly written articles by cat ladies at Gawker, HuffPo, Buzzfeed, Politifact, Snopes all telling me that Hillary Clinton is not corrupt and that their fellow cat ladies were not biased, that would do it!

      What would it take to convince you that the Russians didn't 'hack the 2016 election'?

      I have a pretty basic standard of evidence for the Russia hack - if intelligence agencies and reputable news sources presented evidence of someone else being responsible, and explained why their previous assessment of Russian responsibility was wrong, I would be happy to revise my opinions. Alternatively, if someone else could offer a parsimonious and credible explanation for why ALL major intelligence agencies and news sources would collude on the subject, and HOW they would execute such a widespread and consistent collusion despite a general lack of inter-agency cohesion and organization, I would be happy to listen.

      Since you offer only facetious examples of evidence that would change your mind, it seems that there is no realistic standard of evidence that could impact your beliefs. Therefore, your opinions are not evidence-based, and not worthy of consideration.

  2. Hah! I get it... by Kenja · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's funny because Trump has spent one day in four on a golf course. Or is it not supposed to be irony?

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    1. Re: Hah! I get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Current golf count since inauguration: 85. Source: http://trumpgolfcount.com/

    2. Re: Hah! I get it... by Dragonslicer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Did you just pull that stat out your ass?

      Hm, let's see...

      Nope, one in four is just about right.

    3. Re: Hah! I get it... by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 2

      No, they pulled it from Trump’s own schedule. Truth hurts doesn’t it?

    4. Re: Hah! I get it... by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

      You must mean fake news. That is always what Trump says about the truth.

    5. Re: Hah! I get it... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Did you just pull that stat out your ass?

      No, he's exactly right about Donald Trump spending 1 in 4 days of his presidency on the golf course. As of the time I'm writing this, Donald Trump has been in office 343 days, 3 hours, and 59 minutes (not that I'm counting). During that time, he has golfed or visited a golf course (to eat in the club) 85 days. We know this because we have a comprehensive list of the presidential visits to golf courses. Notice that of the 85 golf course visits, all but one have been to Trump-branded properties, meaning he gets to wet his beak in some of the expense of that travel.

      http://trumpgolfcount.com/disp...

      Now, 85 goes into 343 approximately 4.035294117647059 times, which means that Trump has been to a golf course a little over 1 in 4 days, which makes him the golfingest president since William Howard Taft, who coincidentally was also a big, fat SOB.

      This is especially interesting considering Trump's many (23) promises during the campaign that "I'm going to be working for you, I'm not going to have time to go play golf,"

      https://www.salon.com/2017/12/...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re: Hah! I get it... by Freischutz · · Score: 4, Informative

      Does this count the number of times he golfed? Or just the number of times he went to a golf course? He owns a bunch of them, you know...

      If the former, then he gets an amazing amount of work done while golfing. If the latter, well - fake news is fake, ya know?

      Hmmm... Let's click the nifty complete data table link and find out shall we...

      40 confirmed golfing trips.
      28 probable golfing trips.
      17 probably non-golfing related trips to a Golf course.

      So even if we discard everything except Trump's confirmed golf trips he's been golfing every eight days at a cost of at least $42,510,956 to the tax payer. I'm sure you'll consider that a good investment of your taxes.

    7. Re:Hah! I get it... by dj245 · · Score: 1

      It's funny because Trump has spent one day in four on a golf course. Or is it not supposed to be irony?

      I'm not a Trump supporter but that information isn't very useful unless you consider who is on the course with him. It could plausibly be the equivalent of a treadmill desk if he is meeting with people and discussing official business. But we will probably never know since the Mar-a-Lago visitor records haven't been released.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    8. Re:Hah! I get it... by sky_khan72 · · Score: 1

      Do we know who was on the course with Obama ?

    9. Re: Hah! I get it... by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      Interesting that Obama only seems to have been up to 25 at this point in his presidency.

    10. Re:Hah! I get it... by Altrag · · Score: 1

      http://ftw.usatoday.com/2017/02/donald-trump-rory-mcilroy-golf-florida
      There's a few. Of course that's a sports page so they only list sports people they know about, but its not a great start if you're trying to suggest that he's doing business while golfing.

      But even if he was conducting presidential business.. he's supposed to be the "smart money guy" type.. who apparently thinks its great to spend literally millions of taxpayer dollars every week to go golfing. You would think he could hold a few of those meetings in his office, wouldn't you?

      Then again I suppose its good business to spend other peoples' money while you can..

  3. All You Need to Know by PGaries · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm gonna be working for you; I'm not going to have time to go play golf. Believe me."

    —Donald Trump (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBqB_3j4Qts)

    Next someone'll tell me that Mexico is paying for a wall.

    1. Re:All You Need to Know by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Except that was neither what Trump actually said or meant when he said they’d pay for it. Nice try, though.

    2. Re:All You Need to Know by arth1 · · Score: 1

      When you deal with psychopaths, keep in mind that reality isn't the truth, what they think is the truth. I'm sure that in his mind, he's not been playing golf, but working - it just have happened to be at golf courses.

      Personally, I think the world would be better off if he played more golf. I just feel very sorry for the caddie.

    3. Re:All You Need to Know by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      I'm gonna be working for you; I'm not going to have time to go play golf. Believe me."

      —Donald Trump (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBqB_3j4Qts)

      The key to understanding Trump is that whenever he says, "believe me" or "trust me" - don't. It's that simple.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    4. Re:All You Need to Know by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      "Believe me" is New York/New Jersey code for "I'm lying"

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:All You Need to Know by slack_justyb · · Score: 1

      Mexico are paying for the wall, just not with cold hard cash. I hope you finally understand the actual plan here.

      That's not how that even remotely works. Simple example for you. Say the US produces a toothbrush, they sell it to Mexico for $x. There's a tariff on that toothbrush that increases it to $x+$y. The US government only gets $y, the company that made it get $x. When you talk about balance of trade you are looking at $x, which is the company's, not the US government's. When you build something, unless Colgate is doing the building and buying, you look at $y.

      So saying the trade deficit can pay for the wall only works if the intent is to extract that money from US companies, which is done via tariffs and taxes. You cannot turn money that is rightfully Colgate's into money that is used to build a wall. Trade is done by companies and regulated by government, not the other way around. Remove government and you still have trade because it's mostly done by companies. So when you say the word "trade" you should consider that money not available to the public for public works unless you are willing to start taxing that. Taxes, tariffs, bonds, etc are means to convert money that is a private company's into money that is the US government's.

      Finally, when you talk about "trade" in general you have to remember that it is never a 1:1 conversion. Increasing tariffs on a product that's imported into Mexico would cause Mexico to raise tariffs on something they export to some other country. In turn that country increases tariffs on a product the export to the US which basically nullifies the entire increase to begin with. Chicken exports to China, Japanese made pickup trucks, European steel, and Russian natural gas is a good example of how complicated some of these intertwined contracts can get. Change a variable in anyone of those and you'll change the market dynamic in the others. There's not really a good way to predict how markets would react to any change in any of that (otherwise I wouldn't be shitposting on Slashdot but instead living it up on my yacht). So it really is a guessing game and anyone trying to tell you otherwise is just selling snake oil. But messing around with trade without a well thought out plan is like taking all the chips and placing it on 15-black and hoping for the best.

      Point here is twofold. One, trade deficits don't work how you think they work. Two, when you actually apply how they do work it is risky business and the current POTUS hasn't had a lot of luck in casinos and hotel building, so I'm not so sure about his luck. Anything short of Mexico actually cutting a check to the US and taking the hit on their GDP is just a round about way of saying the US citizens will be paying for the wall. It's that simple. Folks keep trying to make this some complex chess game of trade and tariffs but really without direct funding from Mexico, US citizens are floating the bill. Those that want the wall built will come up with all kinds of snazzy ways of mystically making the money appear from Mexico, but when you peel all of those magic ways back down to their core, it usually falls on the US taxpayer at the heart of the plan. It really is not that complex.

      Mexico. Must. Send. The. Money. Directly. To. The. United. States. Everything. Else. Is. The. United. States. Taxpayer. Paying. For. The. Wall.

    6. Re:All You Need to Know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The difference is that Obama and Hillary were already politicians when they were running for the presidency... they're expected to lie.

      Trump claimed that he was going to be different, he was going to "drain the swamp" of all the political bull$hit.

      I know that Trumpy was spouting a load of crap and was never going to build a wall.

      A lot of voters (what morons) believed him, and believed in him.

    7. Re:All You Need to Know by pseudofrog · · Score: 1

      This is incredibly stupid reasoning. You cannot honestly argue that this is what Trump meant when he said Mexico was going to pay for the wall. You can do better than this.

    8. Re: All You Need to Know by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      The only weaknesses needed to penetrate any border:

      1) Money
      2) A human being that can be bribed

      Our "war on drugs" provides an infinite flow of cash to people who are only allowed to reinvest that money in illegal activities.

      It won't matter what kind of wall we put up unless we legalize drugs.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    9. Re:All You Need to Know by david_thornley · · Score: 2

      Obama tried to close Gitmo, but Congress didn't cooperate, which isn't so much a lie as an overoptimistic campaign promise. Clinton said she'd win, just like every other politician in the history of the world. Closing Gitmo was something the President could do with Congressional cooperation, while making Mexico pay for a wall isn't.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    10. Re:All You Need to Know by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Increasing tariffs on a product that's imported into Mexico would cause Mexico to raise tariffs on something they export to some other country.

      Or simply stop importing that thing from the US and buy it from some other country. If US toothbrushes go up in cost that much, maybe they'll buy them from Brazil or China. (Shipping from China to the Americas is amazingly cheap.)

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    11. Re: All You Need to Know by geekoid · · Score: 1

      alternatively:

      1)A gun
      2) Knowledge of where the correct human beings family is at.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    12. Re:All You Need to Know by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      You know that your link shows that the USA paid $63.2b to Mexico in 2016, not the other way around?

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    13. Re:All You Need to Know by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      Countries don't, as a rule, put tariffs on things they export to other countries, they put tariffs on things they import from other countries. Furthermore, the USA has a trade deficit with Mexico. Dollars are flowing into Mexico from the USA as a result of trade.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    14. Re: All You Need to Know by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      Well, when your only option as a business is to invest in illegal activities, extortion is certainly on the menu. I imagine it is a little of both, "Here's your cash for helping us out. By the way, if you ever say anything or try to buck the yoke we kill your family in front of you, slowly." Carrot and stick.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
  4. Triggered Liberals... by RedK · · Score: 1, Troll

    ... taking the bait each time. Go on, write a dozen articles about this little innocuous detail. Blame Trump personally. Make it sound like the end of the world. Meanwhile, your media empires are crumbling as you spend all your remaining credibility feeding your Trump Derangement Syndrome and exposing your true biased selves to the people.

    --
    "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
    Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
    1. Re:Triggered Liberals... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      oh... wow...

      >>First rule of Rove style politics is always be accusing your opponent of whatever it is you do.

      it's true!

    2. Re:Triggered Liberals... by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Boring troll is boring...

    3. Re:Triggered Liberals... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      A) It's childish, everyone should be angry at this behaviors from any administration.

      B) There was no 'liberal media' until people created far right media. Now center is consider liberal, so now the media is liberal.

      C) You should actual get information from somewhere besides twitter.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  5. Re:Vladimir Putin will fix this and the next elect by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 4, Funny

    Including an intimate evening with Kellyanne Conway.

    I think I threw up a little in my mouth. Does she cosplay as Skeletor for you at the same time?

  6. Good grief by Shotgun · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It was on WHAT website? donaldjrtrump.com? Who the fsck would ever go there except people that would find that funny? Is it any worse than the officialized jokes that the Dems have against Trump? The Liberals have against the Tories? (Did I spell those correctly, my British brethren?) Blacks against whites? Whites against blacks? Labor against management? (Management doesn't really joke about labor. The love us. :-)

    Seriously, Ingraham needs to get a job.

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  7. Pathetic by tsa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My deity what a pathetic bunch of losers rule the US.

    --

    -- Cheers!

    1. Re:Pathetic by Baron_Yam · · Score: 2

      Pathetic winners, even worse. Incapable of leading because their worldview is based in being oppressed.

      That's why Trump does as well as he does blaming Hillary and Obama so long after the election.

  8. Re:creimer has a gnarled tootsie roll dick by NuMessiah · · Score: 1

    Actually the var in question was errorMessage which was supposed to be used in the digitalData (sic!) object to be feed to Adobe Analytics. Alas, none of it was done, so a big chunk of code (all of it?) could be just discarded.

    --
    we-go-we-fly
  9. Disgusting by DaMattster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Trump's behavior is disgusting, unprofessional, and unbecoming of a sitting president of the leader of the free world. The lack of respect that he shows for the office is deplorable. Typically once an election ends, so does the name calling and blaming. Once an election ends, the elected official assumes a much more civil and responsible position. I erroneously thought Trump would do so when I heard him say, "President Obama is a good guy." and this is a direct quote during their pre-inaugural meeting. It turned out that Trump simply continues his campaign as if he is still in an election.

    The power invested in the President of the United States is not one to be taken lightly: it is not reality television. A stroke of the pen that enacts a law can cause some people to suffer while others are helped. Shifting policies can cause people real and palpable hardships. The War Powers Act allows a sitting president to wage conventional warfare for a period of 90 days without congressional authority. This is serious business. Sending soldiers to a battlefield where they could be killed or maimed is a heavy responsibility and one that Trump is incapable of appreciating.

    1. Re:Disgusting by quantaman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Trump's behavior is disgusting, unprofessional, and unbecoming of a sitting president of the leader of the free world. The lack of respect that he shows for the office is deplorable. Typically once an election ends, so does the name calling and blaming. Once an election ends, the elected official assumes a much more civil and responsible position. I erroneously thought Trump would do so when I heard him say, "President Obama is a good guy." and this is a direct quote during their pre-inaugural meeting. It turned out that Trump simply continues his campaign as if he is still in an election.

      I have a way of trying to model people I disagree with.

      When they say or do something I don't like I find there's usually two interpretations. First is the cartoon caricature where they're really evil/stupid/dishonest and performed the action for those reasons. Second, is they're a fundamentally rational well intentioned person, and while I disagree with their objectives I can't say their action was totally out of line.

      Historically I've done really well assuming the second, assuming the best of my opponents usually gives me the best understanding and I'm rarely surprised by the media... until Trump.

      Ever since he started his campaign I kept looking for evidence of the smart rational person underneath the mask and I've never found it. He can't understand complicated concepts, he's extremely susceptible to manipulation and flattery, he has temper tantrums, he'll say ridiculous lies if it makes his current social interaction easier, he has an extremely limited attention span, just look at any event where he's supposed to stand still, he fidgets!

      I don't know if it's cognitive decline, decades of being at the centre of his own universe, or if he's always been that way. But the most reliable way to model Trump is to imagine a very spoiled child between the ages of 8 and 12.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    2. Re:Disgusting by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      "I erroneously thought Trump would do so when I heard him say, "President Obama is a good guy.""

      *facepalm*

      What in the fucking world would make ANYONE think that EVER! Trump has been a major asshole ever since he got his name in the paper. He was an asshole before I was born. He's been an asshole for the 40+ years after I was born. And...wait for it...HE'S STILL AN ASSHOLE!

      He didn't just become an asshole. He wasn't just "acting" the part during the campaign. He's been recorded in papers as an asshole. He's been recorded on radio being an asshole. He's been recorded on TV being an asshole. All of this literally spans decades. From throwing African Americans of his properties back in the 70's for "lowering their value" to the "grab 'em by the pussy" of today, he has been a narcissistic sociopathic asshole most likely since he was born. There's even a story in his "book" about him punching his second grade teacher in the eye.

      Pro-tip: Next time research the person you're voting for. If you find your candidate was on the Howard Stern Show bragging about walking in on teenage girls undressing, that's a pretty good sign that you're supporting an asshole. You don't have to vote for the democrat, but for $DIETY's sake vote for someone that isn't a fucking asshole.

      --
      ~X~
  10. Mentally unstable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:Mentally unstable by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      How do you know when Trump is lying? His thumbs are moving.

      --
      ~X~
    2. Re:Mentally unstable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because nobody is more fact worthy and unbiased as the Washington post.

      Check them. Then post.

      Gimme a break.

      No.

  11. Developer's sarcasm? by No+Longer+an+AC · · Score: 1

    I usually try to avoid politics on /, because it would destroy all my karma, but this error message - especially with the bit about Obama golfing almost seems like it's not so much "throwing shade" on his administration but rather mocking Trump's since we're all aware of how hypocritical Trump has been about golfing.

    If there's one stone Trump shouldn't throw in his glass house it's accusing Obama of golfing too much - but he's been doing that so long it's an unquestioned meme for his supporters.

    Does Trump even play golf at all? Well he sure tries hard to hide it when he does. He's even hiring trucks to block photographer's views of Mar-a-Lago's golf course.

    I remember when Trump and others criticized Obama and Bush for playing too much golf. "Now watch this drive!" Trump was one of those who criticized Obama at least. Trump claimed he would work so hard he would never have time to golf, didn't he? And now the only thing he does more often than golf is tweet or watch TV.

    That error message reminds me of a former co-worker who named a couple of servers "ecoli" and "salmonella" when we worked for a beef company. Upper level management was not pleased when word got around. They didn't fire him for that though and I suspect they actually laughed about it privately.

    The sysadmin who named those servers thought it was funny and so did I because in a meat producing company that large, recalls for ecoli and salmonella are common. Most consumers never even hear about them. In his defense, those were not public servers.

    If only senses of humor grew as prolifically as such bacteria.

  12. Can't even write good code by Ayano · · Score: 1

    Jesus... Reliant on 'plugin' frameworks with little actual work, such that the few parts they can do they f'up. Error messages are usually the parts you want fail safe

    --
    I don't read AC
  13. Re:Vladimir Putin will fix this and the next elect by Freischutz · · Score: 1

    Including an intimate evening with Kellyanne Conway.

    I think I threw up a little in my mouth. Does she cosplay as Skeletor for you at the same time?

    Skeletor? I always thought of Kellyanne as more of a cursed mummy.

  14. Middle School Politics by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    I observed just about ever middle school kid knew or had just learned how to blame others for their transgressions.... Remember back when every kid knew when they farted to blame somebody else 1st... and most realized the 1st to blame likely were guilty.

    Seems that the greater lesson is rarely learned by a great many people; however, if Trump farted and blamed Obama sitting next to him, somehow I think most people would get it and yet still not translate it to anything else.

  15. It's more subtle than that by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    you're _not_ blaming others for your transgressions. You're saying someone else did the same thing in order to divert attention away from you. It's a straw man argument but it goes unnoticed because of the way human brains work. You're building an association between what you're guilty of by accusing your opponent of it. That association gives people who want to believe you an out. Karl Rove rather famously got a draft dodger elected over a war vet who'd lost their legs with these tactics. By itself it's not enough to win elections, but combined with voter suppression, gerrymandering and other unethical tactics it works.

    Remember, the fundamental goal is to get middle class and poor people to vote against their own economic interests and instead vote for the interests of the extreme rich. Making that happen requires all sorts of crazy things.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:It's more subtle than that by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      "Remember, the fundamental goal is to get middle class and poor people to vote against their own economic interests and instead vote for the interests of the extreme rich. Making that happen requires all sorts of crazy things."

      When the only choices you have are Democrat and Republican, every option is a vote against your own economic interests and for the extreme rich.

      My suggestion, which no one seems to support, is to STOP FUCKING ELECTING MILLIONAIRES!

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    2. Re:It's more subtle than that by ArtemaOne · · Score: 1

      Elect them as millionaires or not, they all leave as millionaires beyond what their salaries provide.

  16. Since they already changed it.. by kfsone · · Score: 1

    web.archive.org/web/20171220115909/https://www.gop.com/

    --
    -- A change is as good as a reboot.
  17. Wow by quantaman · · Score: 1

    I actually had to check the root URL because I thought the poll site was a satirical site making fun of Trump.

    I honestly don't understand how you can create an organization so incompetent that something like that could be created and published.

    --
    I stole this Sig
  18. Re:"russian investors" by Freischutz · · Score: 1

    By "russian investors" you mean KG&B Inc. ? "no less than nine US government agencies" -- so if everybody else does it then all good. Not to pick on anybody specifically but w.t.f...

    Generally I'm against allowing the Russians to invest in anything of any strategic or military value. However, I also feel compelled to ask why, if the deal was approved by nine different US government agencies, are you cherrypicking Hillary Clinton and the State department to be the focus of your fury instead of venting your righteous outrage equally on the leaders of all nine agency heads? Also I was under the impression that Trump and Vladimir are besties now. According to surveys, Big Vlad is enjoying great popularity and an all time high approval rating among Trump supporters. So why exactly is it such a source of blind rage for you right-wingers that a Russian company owns a Canadian company that in turn owns 20% of your uranium production capacity even if it is true that it has ties to the FSB and Big Vlad? ...especially since none of the uranium they produce can leave the United States without the express permission of the Trump administration.

  19. Re:What a bunch of losers by HiThere · · Score: 1

    The problem is, the Democrats, while not quite as blatantly awful, are nothing to cheer. I support my Representative, and I don't consider one of my Senators better dead. They are all Democrats, and I only feel moderately represented by one of them. That the Republican choices would have been worse is scant reason for liking the situation...and in the case of one of the Senators I'm not sure even that's true.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  20. he just has you spinning and spinning ... by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    He's got all the right people foaming at the mouth, spinning around uselessly and obsessing over his every word.

  21. But wait. There's more. by mnemotronic · · Score: 1

    Here's the responses I got to various whitehouse and congress URLs:

    http://TrumpStyle.whitehouse.gov
    409 Conflict

    http://Talk-to-your-congressman.congress.gov
    402 Payment Required
    ...then...
    503 Service Unavailable

    http://Help-Joe-Plumber-not-Joe-Billionaire.whitehouse.gov
    421 Misdirected Request

    http://women-are-people-too.whitehouse.gov
    406 Not Acceptable

    http://Melania.Trump.whitehouse.gov
    416 Not Satisfiable

    http://Leadership-By-Example.whitehouse.gov
    301 Moved Permanently - See http://www.maralagoclub.com/

    --
    The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
  22. Re:"russian investors" by Altrag · · Score: 1

    Smoke and mirrors. Trump & friends want the American people (and more importantly, the media) to pay attention to absolutely anything aside from the Russian meddling scandal and investigation.

    Uranium One is an especially good target because it not only involves Hillary Clinton (to rile folks up,) the Russians (to scare folks) and Robert Muller (to defame him,) so its a triple whammy. And even though absolutely nobody has found any actual evidence of wrongdoing in that deal, Trump zealotry is so bloody high that he immediately gets 20-30% of the population calling for inquests and calling for Muller's head based on nothing more than a few tweets and the odd Hannity insanity rant.

  23. Re:Vladimir Putin will fix this and the next elect by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

    Oh, now you've done it.
    BLECH!!!!
    Well, there goes the leftover turkey