"Were you born with such a smug punchable face or did you pay good money for it being the spoiled worthless poser rich boy that you are?"
"Is your douchebaggery the result of a dismissive neglectful father and lack of attention or did you just grow into it without outside influence?"
"Have you ever had a clinical diagnosis for Antisocial Personality Disorder (sociopathy) or any other interesting cluster B personality disorders?"
"Do you want to buy 4chan because you enjoy the lack of empathy displayed by the user base? Would you hate to lose one of the only communities you can identify with?"
All in all, I hope someone buys 4chan. I find it entertaining from time to time. I'd hate to see it go to this fuckstick though as he'd just drive the trolls toward less insane communities throughout the net when he decides he wants it to actually make money.
There were several attempts at x86 GUI's in the 80's and 90's, but most failed and lost money.
Certainly not because they sucked. Early GEM versions were far better than early versions of Winblows. And GEM saw some modest success on the Atari ST before Tramiel got complacent and let the platform stagnate. Had Kildall not been screwed from all directions it would be a pretty different landscape out there.
I would say non-zero but very remote. There's still no reason to exclude them from the debates. If anything, Johnson in the last debate would have made for a meaningful discussion instead of the shitshow that was advertised like a wrestling match.
The Republican Party is clearly dying. Johnson himself is not really what I'd call a hardcore Libertarian. He's more like a Republican without the Christian Nationalist ideology, warmongering, disdain for minority groups and immigrants, authoritarianism and drug war baggage. He's basically what a modern Republican should be.
While I like the true Libertarian ideals, I can accept that many find such a world scary and I'll happily take a Republican without the aspects that make most Republicans assholes. If the slight watering down of Libertarian ideals causes the party to gain more acceptance and eventually replace the Republicans, it would benefit us all.
Internalize theoretical qualification scenario, deflect on manufactured attack, ad hominem without making a point to just disagree with vitrol. Classic troll.
Of course it was.
In reality, no-one is truly qualified or "experienced" enough to be president. Once you are, your term limit is up and everyone thinks your an asshole unless you get assassinated and/or successfully get a moon shot funded. Johnson/Weld are the ticket with actual experience governing and running a state. Both were re-elected and both were able to gain cooperation on both sides of the isle in a non-partisan manner. IMHO, that makes them far more qualified to be promoted to the national stage than the other leading morons famous for "pivoting" and/or deflecting blame when the shit hits the fan and things don't work out.
It's not like these guys are dumbasses straight out of college, we are talking about experienced multi-term politicians here with a good track record. I can forgive the fact he probably got a C in world geography and had one bong hit too many that morning in high school. At least he doesn't have a huge track record of negative foreign policy failures like Clinton. Or zero governing experience and lots of daddy's money.
Either way, actual progress for a third party and elevating their status can be nothing but a good thing. We have to start somewhere. We'll continue to get increasingly polarizing "scary" douche and turd sandwich candidates from the current mainstream parties whether it's now, 4 years from now, 8 years from now or 20 years from now.
If anything, even if he loses, Johnson has achieved more than just about any recent 3rd party candidate in history. You are screwed no matter who gets elected. Voting with the herd is a wasted vote. Voting against the other tyrant is not how it's supposed to work here. You're supposed to vote FOR a candidate.
Sadly Johnson is a dufus and can't even name one living president he likes. And earlier he didn't even know what Aleppo was.
Had he been asked which US president he admired, you probably would have gotten a decent response. As far as Aleppo, honest screw-up, I can point to much worse from both elected presidents and candidates both now and years ago. He certainly knew who Assad was though. I could care less if he got a C in geography.
I'll take a likeable dufus with integrity who fosters non-partisan cooperation and strives to do the right thing over a tyrant any day. To consider Trump a serious candidate and discount a well-liked multiterm politician with actual experience is pretty silly.
As for comparing him to George Bush, that's such a low bar that it says nothing about his intelligence.
And yet several people you know not only got Dubya elected.... but RE-elected. I don't think Trump could name a single foreign leader he hasn't been prepped for by his team and/or shared coke and prostitutes with yet he isn't held to near as high a standard as Johnson supposedly needs to be. Trump's rants were downright incomprehensible and RETARDED during the debate and it hasn't hurt him any.
I seriously doubt Johnson is genuinely incapable of naming a few foreign leaders. Respectable right-leaning ones in this day and age are a pretty short list and often aren't very noteworthy as they don't make the news very often. He also needed to be careful of naming one someone might think offensive and use against him. That can actually be a pretty loaded question. For example, I respect Gorbachev but to do so on live TV would get me branded as a commie pinko even though Gorbachev tried his best to reform the USSR into something resembling a more open system even if Glasnost/perestroika backfired. If he said the wrong name, it could have backfired and he'd get no chance for rebuttal or explanation. Basically passing on that question was a VERY smart thing to do.
That's also a question I've rarely heard asked to someone running for president.
(which developers do you admire, er uh...). He's unqualified, it's ok, lots of people are. Some of them are running for president anyway.
That's a trick question, the correct answer is myself because everyone else's code is shit. I'm unqualified but that's ok, lots of people are. Most of them get development jobs anyway.
The guy who couldn't name one that HE ADMIRED. Yeah, him. And tell me you've never had a brainfart during an interview. He recovered quickly from that in spite of the guy turning around and being a complete douche to him as soon as the phrase came out of his mouth.
There's many instances of both Clintons, Trump, GW Bush screwing up just as badly on live TV or just spitting out incomprehensible bullshit that "sounded smart" to dodge the question.
He's already apologized for not being as talented a bullshitter on the spot as other candidates..... time to move on.
I can forgive a brainfart on Aleppo. He at least caught on after a few seconds. I doubt you could even point out Syria or Aleppo on an unlabeled map without a quick Google search first. The only reason Clinton can point it out is because is one of many of her foreign policy failures. The only reason Trump can point it out is because it's good ammo against Hillary. The other big "Libertarian blunder" was the fact he couldn't name a leader he admired. I can't name any that have been in power that I look up to either.
For someone that prides himself on being human and doesn't have an army of paid media jockeys to prepare material to spoonfeed people, he's actually doing a pretty admirable job. I actually prefer a candidate who's down to Earth versus paid shills lying through their teeth parroting canned responses prepared by an army of political science graduates and soap opera writers.
So yeah, I still consider Gary Johnson more credible and CERTAINLY more GENUINE than either mainstream candidate running.
We have one, it's called the Libertarian Party. They are polling in the double digits and are on the ballot in all 50 states. Hardly a fringe protest vote this time around when they have more support than Perot did in '92 and far more than Nader ever did. Johnson and Weld are running on a fiscally conservative and socially liberal platform.
It's only an "empty protest candidate" vote when you buy the herd mentality bullshit that voting for a 3rd party is a "wasted vote" and people let the debate commission get away with shunning them and moving the goalposts.
The only difference between an "empty protest candidate" and a serious 3rd party is polling numbers and the financing that brings. If you want another party, STFU and start voting and contributing to one.
Not sure why you think that's so nihilistic. If the citizens on the tracks are a metaphor for the people who will get screwed over by which direction it takes..... I would simply vote to stop the train by whatever means necessary and screw over the people that boarded a train they most likely helped sabotage in the first place. Seems pretty damn logical to me if "fixing the brakes" or SuperMan aren't options.
Whether now or later, stopping the train MUST happen. I'd rather it happened when I was still relatively young and able to recover.
A train is out of control on a track. You have access to a switch that could send it to one track with 2 people on it, or another with 5. Those are the choices my friend. You don't get to say, "I'd fix the brakes", or call Superman. Your vote for Johnson will have the affect of rolling dice to decide which track the train takes - which, I suppose if you really think there's no difference between Clinton or Trump on any issue you care about, is rational.
The lesser of two evils is still evil. I'm all for destroying the tracks ahead of the train and using the fallout from the deadly chaos as a good reason to lay new tracks and build a better and more reliable train. That way the out of control train is destroyed far away from my town where a trainwreck would be more catastrophic.
In the ways most pertinent to me, this is choice of which disgusting tyranny I'd rather endure.... my answer is neither.
But of course the thought that there's no difference is irrational in and of itself.
At best, your point is that we need a different system for electing Presidents - and possibly a large turnout for Johnson might inch that into being. I'd say there are better ways - like electing Johnson (or Sanders, or Stein, or Nader)-like candidates to Congress or State legislatures from districts where they stand a chance of winning. And then changing the election system through a process that can actually do it. Because Presidencies have long-term repercussions, so they're best not used to 'send a message' when there are other, better ways.
There's already around 600 libertarians in public office throughout the US, most of them in local or state government. Many Republicans have switched parties as well since the Republicans gradual shift toward becoming the "Christian Nationalist Party" became ever more apparent.
Yes, presidencies have long term repercussions which is precisely why we need qualified people with actual experience governing in that position. Clinton has experience screwing up foreign policy and Trump has experience being a spoiled rich boy smart enough not to play games with his own money when driving businesses into the dirt. Neither of which are something we need to endure at this critical juncture. Both Johnson and Weld are popular 2-term governors with a track record of actual leaving their respective states FAR better off than when they started. And they are on the ballot in all 50 states. Hardly a fringe protest vote.
If you think forcing a shitty destructive candidate down our throats simply to preserve a corrupt and dying 2 party system is "the better way" you are delusional, simply engaging in wishful thinking or just like to parrot popular views concocted to preserve a screwed up system.
But, hey, if you like the current oligarchy feel free to waste your vote on one of those two weasels.
You might have a point except for the fact that a large chunk of the Nazi's ideology was inspired by what was going on in the US, they just took it to the next logical and more extreme level.
Hatred of the Jews? Hitler really enjoyed Henry Ford's "The International Jew" publications as well as other American anti-Semitic literature.
Treating black folks as sub-human? Yeah, we were great at that. Even when they gained meager rights they were considered 3/5ths of a person.
Medical Experimentation on "untermenschen", Eugenics work, forced sterilization? Yeah, we did that too and many US scientific papers were published on the subject. We even infected whole communities with syphilis.
Mistreatment and sterilization of the mentally ill? Check. We just didn't outright euthanize them.
The only major difference is we didn't gas the untermenschen. We preferred to just hang them from light posts for minor infractions like if they dared whistle at white women. Even their expansion into Russia and killing off the natives was inspired by our conquest of the land and extermination of most native Americans to give ourselves more living space.
The general public opinion in the US of the Nazis for a long time was that they were "firm but fair". Trump actually would resonate well with 1930's/1940's American voters and it's easy to see why many baby boomers adore his stupid ass.
And Gary Johnson, despite his verbal stumbling on Aleppo, is a more experienced and qualified candidate than either one of those losers. Arguing whether the corrupt oligarch NWO tyrant is better than the xenophobic "Christian Nationalist" ignorant rich boy is a laughable concept at best.
BOTH of your candidates are not just unfit but downright dangerous as well as being a very serious threat to liberty and prosperity in this country. So you know what? Fuck you both! If you aren't voting third party at this point you're part of god damn problem and collaborating with the enemy as far as I'm concerned. I'm voting for liberty and keeping the feds out of my damn life in November. You idiots vote for whoever you want to.
The only "wasted vote" is a vote for Clinton or Trump.
Yeah because NASA never ever blew up rockets on the pad and destroyed payloads. Even the Nazis blew up a ton of V2's on the pad before they got it right.
The U.S. State Department is pursuing "a detailed plan for making unrestricted, unmonitored, and inexpensive electronic mass communications available to the people of North Korea." Slashdot reader Greg Jones reports:
Shouldn't they make sure we have that here at home first? Just sayin....
Making semiauto or single-shot firearms for personal use is 100% legal in the US but a plastic gun that will blow up in your face after 20 rounds is teh evilz....
PDF books containing blueprints for real zip guns and submachine guns you can make in your basement like the Sten Mk II are ok.
PDF books containing plans and construction guidelines for submachine guns you can construct from materials at the hardware store are ok.
The Anarchist Cookbook is ok.
There is even court precedent proving that these were all considered free speech. If "duh terrists" and foreign nationals are a concern, then simply block all non-US traffic to download the materials and throw up a disclaimer citing arms export restrictions. If they manipulate a proxy to get it from abroad they've committed an act of cyberwarfare and subverted your security. Not your problem.
But what if you have to use a teletype, 110bps modem or terminal app on your Atari 800 that doesn't do proper cursor control? Not everyone has one of those newfangled VT220's at home to connect to the VAX at the university or work!
In all seriousness I found vi to be a pain in the ass at first but it didn't take long to get comfortable. Pico/nano are pretty good but I find the linewrap behavior annoying as hell and it doesn't do "parenthesis-matching" for LISP code like vi. My first experience with vi was as an 11 yr old kid running MINIX on a cast-off 386 because I wanted to learn UNIX and Linux was a huge download at 14.4kbps, especially when we paid by the hour for shell-account access. I guess I'm getting pretty fucking old.
"The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families."
Kinda like Obama when he killed an American citizen and then targeted his son? Or when we nuked Japan? Or firebombed Dresden? Doesn't sound like "hate speech" to me. Sounds like a demoralizing strategy for less restricted warfare. You know, warfare that actually works. War is ugly. Not that I support military intervention in the middle east but when they kill on American soil, retaliation is the only response. Being nice to them and giving them free room and board is not working in Germany, that's for sure.
“If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. Okay? Just knock the hell — I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees.”
An obvious joke. Besides, what do you think happened to the guy who threw a shoe at Bush? Not a wise thing to say but certainly no worse than things I've heard from folks like Nixon or even LBJ in the past. What about the Dem supporters actually punching people after a Trump rally and following them to their vehicles?
“I’d like to punch him in the face, I’ll tell ya.”
And you've never stated that you'd like to punch someone in the face? I don't know about you but there's plenty of people I'd LIKE to punch in the face, including Trump. Doesn't mean I'll actually do it.
“Maybe he should have been roughed up because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing.”
Again, not a threat. Simply him expressing anger. There's plenty of people that I've thought needed their ass kicked.
Now, I'm certainly not voting for him but making him out to be Hitler is stupid. And I'm sure Hillary says MUCH worse behind closed doors away from the cameras. I'm certainly not voting for her corrupt ass either. The only sane choice in this election is Gary Johnson/Bill Weld. Both have more governing experience than Trump and HRC combined and have a much more sane outlook on where we need to be heading as a nation.
Islam is a bit different because most Muslims don't act that way, or at least most of the ones living in the west. A few do, but the majority, like the majority of Christians, have rejected the violent parts of their religion's dogma. Nazism is primarily about hating and doing harm to others, it serves little other purpose.
Looking down on those who don't share your beliefs and subjugating them is definitely a core part of Islam. The majority of white supremacists aren't running around killing people either. People only "reject" such views as good PR. When things get rough for them they bubble back to the surface and are used as justification for all sorts of evil. And while western Muslims aren't killing Jews en masse, ask a random one how they feel about Jews or homosexuality.
Again, to hold violent opinions or display symbols associated with hatred is not a crime. And personally, I find crosses offensive, it's like me displaying an electric chair. Doesn't mean that I can go around forcing people to take them down.
To be clear though, we absolutely should take a hard line on the aspects of Islam that are incompatible with human rights and our system of law, and our social norms. Banning halal meat would be a good start.
Halal meat has nothing to do with human rights or our system of law in the US. It's a mean practice and people are welcome to speak out about it and refuse to offer it in their restaurants but ultimately, it's up to Muslims to reject the practice. Besides, it gives them good practice for slitting throats and/or beheading infidels.
Slashdot Mirror
"Were you born with such a smug punchable face or did you pay good money for it being the spoiled worthless poser rich boy that you are?"
"Is your douchebaggery the result of a dismissive neglectful father and lack of attention or did you just grow into it without outside influence?"
"Have you ever had a clinical diagnosis for Antisocial Personality Disorder (sociopathy) or any other interesting cluster B personality disorders?"
"Do you want to buy 4chan because you enjoy the lack of empathy displayed by the user base? Would you hate to lose one of the only communities you can identify with?"
All in all, I hope someone buys 4chan. I find it entertaining from time to time. I'd hate to see it go to this fuckstick though as he'd just drive the trolls toward less insane communities throughout the net when he decides he wants it to actually make money.
How dare you criticize crony capitalism and corporate welfare!
There were several attempts at x86 GUI's in the 80's and 90's, but most failed and lost money.
Certainly not because they sucked. Early GEM versions were far better than early versions of Winblows. And GEM saw some modest success on the Atari ST before Tramiel got complacent and let the platform stagnate. Had Kildall not been screwed from all directions it would be a pretty different landscape out there.
Killing each other in space would probably bring some rapid tech advancement.
I would say non-zero but very remote. There's still no reason to exclude them from the debates. If anything, Johnson in the last debate would have made for a meaningful discussion instead of the shitshow that was advertised like a wrestling match.
The Republican Party is clearly dying. Johnson himself is not really what I'd call a hardcore Libertarian. He's more like a Republican without the Christian Nationalist ideology, warmongering, disdain for minority groups and immigrants, authoritarianism and drug war baggage. He's basically what a modern Republican should be.
While I like the true Libertarian ideals, I can accept that many find such a world scary and I'll happily take a Republican without the aspects that make most Republicans assholes. If the slight watering down of Libertarian ideals causes the party to gain more acceptance and eventually replace the Republicans, it would benefit us all.
Internalize theoretical qualification scenario, deflect on manufactured attack, ad hominem without making a point to just disagree with vitrol. Classic troll.
Of course it was.
In reality, no-one is truly qualified or "experienced" enough to be president. Once you are, your term limit is up and everyone thinks your an asshole unless you get assassinated and/or successfully get a moon shot funded. Johnson/Weld are the ticket with actual experience governing and running a state. Both were re-elected and both were able to gain cooperation on both sides of the isle in a non-partisan manner. IMHO, that makes them far more qualified to be promoted to the national stage than the other leading morons famous for "pivoting" and/or deflecting blame when the shit hits the fan and things don't work out.
It's not like these guys are dumbasses straight out of college, we are talking about experienced multi-term politicians here with a good track record. I can forgive the fact he probably got a C in world geography and had one bong hit too many that morning in high school. At least he doesn't have a huge track record of negative foreign policy failures like Clinton. Or zero governing experience and lots of daddy's money.
Either way, actual progress for a third party and elevating their status can be nothing but a good thing. We have to start somewhere. We'll continue to get increasingly polarizing "scary" douche and turd sandwich candidates from the current mainstream parties whether it's now, 4 years from now, 8 years from now or 20 years from now.
If anything, even if he loses, Johnson has achieved more than just about any recent 3rd party candidate in history. You are screwed no matter who gets elected. Voting with the herd is a wasted vote. Voting against the other tyrant is not how it's supposed to work here. You're supposed to vote FOR a candidate.
Sadly Johnson is a dufus and can't even name one living president he likes. And earlier he didn't even know what Aleppo was.
Had he been asked which US president he admired, you probably would have gotten a decent response. As far as Aleppo, honest screw-up, I can point to much worse from both elected presidents and candidates both now and years ago. He certainly knew who Assad was though. I could care less if he got a C in geography.
I'll take a likeable dufus with integrity who fosters non-partisan cooperation and strives to do the right thing over a tyrant any day. To consider Trump a serious candidate and discount a well-liked multiterm politician with actual experience is pretty silly.
As for comparing him to George Bush, that's such a low bar that it says nothing about his intelligence.
And yet several people you know not only got Dubya elected.... but RE-elected. I don't think Trump could name a single foreign leader he hasn't been prepped for by his team and/or shared coke and prostitutes with yet he isn't held to near as high a standard as Johnson supposedly needs to be. Trump's rants were downright incomprehensible and RETARDED during the debate and it hasn't hurt him any.
I seriously doubt Johnson is genuinely incapable of naming a few foreign leaders. Respectable right-leaning ones in this day and age are a pretty short list and often aren't very noteworthy as they don't make the news very often. He also needed to be careful of naming one someone might think offensive and use against him. That can actually be a pretty loaded question. For example, I respect Gorbachev but to do so on live TV would get me branded as a commie pinko even though Gorbachev tried his best to reform the USSR into something resembling a more open system even if Glasnost/perestroika backfired. If he said the wrong name, it could have backfired and he'd get no chance for rebuttal or explanation. Basically passing on that question was a VERY smart thing to do.
That's also a question I've rarely heard asked to someone running for president.
(which developers do you admire, er uh...). He's unqualified, it's ok, lots of people are. Some of them are running for president anyway.
That's a trick question, the correct answer is myself because everyone else's code is shit. I'm unqualified but that's ok, lots of people are. Most of them get development jobs anyway.
Naming a foreign leader wasn't the issue, see some of my other responses. It was naming one he admired. "What is Aleppo" was an honest brainfart.
Gary might not be quick on his feet but compared to some of the bullshit Gee-Dubya Bush was famous for spouting, he's a fucking genius.
The guy who couldn't name one that HE ADMIRED. Yeah, him. And tell me you've never had a brainfart during an interview. He recovered quickly from that in spite of the guy turning around and being a complete douche to him as soon as the phrase came out of his mouth.
There's many instances of both Clintons, Trump, GW Bush screwing up just as badly on live TV or just spitting out incomprehensible bullshit that "sounded smart" to dodge the question.
He's already apologized for not being as talented a bullshitter on the spot as other candidates..... time to move on.
I can forgive a brainfart on Aleppo. He at least caught on after a few seconds. I doubt you could even point out Syria or Aleppo on an unlabeled map without a quick Google search first. The only reason Clinton can point it out is because is one of many of her foreign policy failures. The only reason Trump can point it out is because it's good ammo against Hillary. The other big "Libertarian blunder" was the fact he couldn't name a leader he admired. I can't name any that have been in power that I look up to either.
For someone that prides himself on being human and doesn't have an army of paid media jockeys to prepare material to spoonfeed people, he's actually doing a pretty admirable job. I actually prefer a candidate who's down to Earth versus paid shills lying through their teeth parroting canned responses prepared by an army of political science graduates and soap opera writers.
So yeah, I still consider Gary Johnson more credible and CERTAINLY more GENUINE than either mainstream candidate running.
We have one, it's called the Libertarian Party. They are polling in the double digits and are on the ballot in all 50 states. Hardly a fringe protest vote this time around when they have more support than Perot did in '92 and far more than Nader ever did. Johnson and Weld are running on a fiscally conservative and socially liberal platform.
It's only an "empty protest candidate" vote when you buy the herd mentality bullshit that voting for a 3rd party is a "wasted vote" and people let the debate commission get away with shunning them and moving the goalposts.
The only difference between an "empty protest candidate" and a serious 3rd party is polling numbers and the financing that brings. If you want another party, STFU and start voting and contributing to one.
Not sure why you think that's so nihilistic. If the citizens on the tracks are a metaphor for the people who will get screwed over by which direction it takes..... I would simply vote to stop the train by whatever means necessary and screw over the people that boarded a train they most likely helped sabotage in the first place. Seems pretty damn logical to me if "fixing the brakes" or SuperMan aren't options.
Whether now or later, stopping the train MUST happen. I'd rather it happened when I was still relatively young and able to recover.
What a load of crap.
A train is out of control on a track. You have access to a switch that could send it to one track with 2 people on it, or another with 5. Those are the choices my friend. You don't get to say, "I'd fix the brakes", or call Superman. Your vote for Johnson will have the affect of rolling dice to decide which track the train takes - which, I suppose if you really think there's no difference between Clinton or Trump on any issue you care about, is rational.
The lesser of two evils is still evil. I'm all for destroying the tracks ahead of the train and using the fallout from the deadly chaos as a good reason to lay new tracks and build a better and more reliable train. That way the out of control train is destroyed far away from my town where a trainwreck would be more catastrophic.
In the ways most pertinent to me, this is choice of which disgusting tyranny I'd rather endure.... my answer is neither.
But of course the thought that there's no difference is irrational in and of itself.
At best, your point is that we need a different system for electing Presidents - and possibly a large turnout for Johnson might inch that into being. I'd say there are better ways - like electing Johnson (or Sanders, or Stein, or Nader)-like candidates to Congress or State legislatures from districts where they stand a chance of winning. And then changing the election system through a process that can actually do it. Because Presidencies have long-term repercussions, so they're best not used to 'send a message' when there are other, better ways.
There's already around 600 libertarians in public office throughout the US, most of them in local or state government. Many Republicans have switched parties as well since the Republicans gradual shift toward becoming the "Christian Nationalist Party" became ever more apparent.
Yes, presidencies have long term repercussions which is precisely why we need qualified people with actual experience governing in that position. Clinton has experience screwing up foreign policy and Trump has experience being a spoiled rich boy smart enough not to play games with his own money when driving businesses into the dirt. Neither of which are something we need to endure at this critical juncture. Both Johnson and Weld are popular 2-term governors with a track record of actual leaving their respective states FAR better off than when they started. And they are on the ballot in all 50 states. Hardly a fringe protest vote.
If you think forcing a shitty destructive candidate down our throats simply to preserve a corrupt and dying 2 party system is "the better way" you are delusional, simply engaging in wishful thinking or just like to parrot popular views concocted to preserve a screwed up system.
But, hey, if you like the current oligarchy feel free to waste your vote on one of those two weasels.
You might have a point except for the fact that a large chunk of the Nazi's ideology was inspired by what was going on in the US, they just took it to the next logical and more extreme level.
Hatred of the Jews? Hitler really enjoyed Henry Ford's "The International Jew" publications as well as other American anti-Semitic literature.
Treating black folks as sub-human? Yeah, we were great at that. Even when they gained meager rights they were considered 3/5ths of a person.
Medical Experimentation on "untermenschen", Eugenics work, forced sterilization? Yeah, we did that too and many US scientific papers were published on the subject. We even infected whole communities with syphilis.
Mistreatment and sterilization of the mentally ill? Check. We just didn't outright euthanize them.
The only major difference is we didn't gas the untermenschen. We preferred to just hang them from light posts for minor infractions like if they dared whistle at white women. Even their expansion into Russia and killing off the natives was inspired by our conquest of the land and extermination of most native Americans to give ourselves more living space.
The general public opinion in the US of the Nazis for a long time was that they were "firm but fair". Trump actually would resonate well with 1930's/1940's American voters and it's easy to see why many baby boomers adore his stupid ass.
And Gary Johnson, despite his verbal stumbling on Aleppo, is a more experienced and qualified candidate than either one of those losers. Arguing whether the corrupt oligarch NWO tyrant is better than the xenophobic "Christian Nationalist" ignorant rich boy is a laughable concept at best.
BOTH of your candidates are not just unfit but downright dangerous as well as being a very serious threat to liberty and prosperity in this country. So you know what? Fuck you both! If you aren't voting third party at this point you're part of god damn problem and collaborating with the enemy as far as I'm concerned. I'm voting for liberty and keeping the feds out of my damn life in November. You idiots vote for whoever you want to.
The only "wasted vote" is a vote for Clinton or Trump.
Yeah because NASA never ever blew up rockets on the pad and destroyed payloads. Even the Nazis blew up a ton of V2's on the pad before they got it right.
The U.S. State Department is pursuing "a detailed plan for making unrestricted, unmonitored, and inexpensive electronic mass communications available to the people of North Korea." Slashdot reader Greg Jones reports:
Shouldn't they make sure we have that here at home first? Just sayin....
Making semiauto or single-shot firearms for personal use is 100% legal in the US but a plastic gun that will blow up in your face after 20 rounds is teh evilz....
PDF books containing blueprints for real zip guns and submachine guns you can make in your basement like the Sten Mk II are ok.
PDF books containing plans and construction guidelines for submachine guns you can construct from materials at the hardware store are ok.
The Anarchist Cookbook is ok.
There is even court precedent proving that these were all considered free speech. If "duh terrists" and foreign nationals are a concern, then simply block all non-US traffic to download the materials and throw up a disclaimer citing arms export restrictions. If they manipulate a proxy to get it from abroad they've committed an act of cyberwarfare and subverted your security. Not your problem.
But what if you have to use a teletype, 110bps modem or terminal app on your Atari 800 that doesn't do proper cursor control? Not everyone has one of those newfangled VT220's at home to connect to the VAX at the university or work!
In all seriousness I found vi to be a pain in the ass at first but it didn't take long to get comfortable. Pico/nano are pretty good but I find the linewrap behavior annoying as hell and it doesn't do "parenthesis-matching" for LISP code like vi. My first experience with vi was as an 11 yr old kid running MINIX on a cast-off 386 because I wanted to learn UNIX and Linux was a huge download at 14.4kbps, especially when we paid by the hour for shell-account access. I guess I'm getting pretty fucking old.
Did you autogenerate that comment by holding Ctrl-Alt-LShift-Meta-RShift-Tab-Esc and rolling your forehead on the keyboard from within Emacs?
like:
"The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families."
Kinda like Obama when he killed an American citizen and then targeted his son? Or when we nuked Japan? Or firebombed Dresden? Doesn't sound like "hate speech" to me. Sounds like a demoralizing strategy for less restricted warfare. You know, warfare that actually works. War is ugly. Not that I support military intervention in the middle east but when they kill on American soil, retaliation is the only response. Being nice to them and giving them free room and board is not working in Germany, that's for sure.
“If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. Okay? Just knock the hell — I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees.”
An obvious joke. Besides, what do you think happened to the guy who threw a shoe at Bush? Not a wise thing to say but certainly no worse than things I've heard from folks like Nixon or even LBJ in the past. What about the Dem supporters actually punching people after a Trump rally and following them to their vehicles?
“I’d like to punch him in the face, I’ll tell ya.”
And you've never stated that you'd like to punch someone in the face? I don't know about you but there's plenty of people I'd LIKE to punch in the face, including Trump. Doesn't mean I'll actually do it.
“Maybe he should have been roughed up because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing.”
Again, not a threat. Simply him expressing anger. There's plenty of people that I've thought needed their ass kicked.
Now, I'm certainly not voting for him but making him out to be Hitler is stupid. And I'm sure Hillary says MUCH worse behind closed doors away from the cameras. I'm certainly not voting for her corrupt ass either. The only sane choice in this election is Gary Johnson/Bill Weld. Both have more governing experience than Trump and HRC combined and have a much more sane outlook on where we need to be heading as a nation.
Islam is a bit different because most Muslims don't act that way, or at least most of the ones living in the west. A few do, but the majority, like the majority of Christians, have rejected the violent parts of their religion's dogma. Nazism is primarily about hating and doing harm to others, it serves little other purpose.
Looking down on those who don't share your beliefs and subjugating them is definitely a core part of Islam. The majority of white supremacists aren't running around killing people either. People only "reject" such views as good PR. When things get rough for them they bubble back to the surface and are used as justification for all sorts of evil. And while western Muslims aren't killing Jews en masse, ask a random one how they feel about Jews or homosexuality.
Again, to hold violent opinions or display symbols associated with hatred is not a crime. And personally, I find crosses offensive, it's like me displaying an electric chair. Doesn't mean that I can go around forcing people to take them down.
To be clear though, we absolutely should take a hard line on the aspects of Islam that are incompatible with human rights and our system of law, and our social norms. Banning halal meat would be a good start.
Halal meat has nothing to do with human rights or our system of law in the US. It's a mean practice and people are welcome to speak out about it and refuse to offer it in their restaurants but ultimately, it's up to Muslims to reject the practice. Besides, it gives them good practice for slitting throats and/or beheading infidels.