You're going to have to explain yourself on that one
Sure thing.
When you were quoting me, you left out this part : Whatever you want to say about them (partisan-wise, intelligence-wise, etc.)
I said that because I know a lot of the people that would be reading my comment would not find ANY of the Republican candidates acceptable, for ideological reasons or whatever. That is, I suspect that very few Slashdot regulars are Republicans.
However, you can still evaluate a candidate's suitability in the Republican primary, at least I hope you can if you use your imagination. By that criteria, surely you could see the appeal of various candidates to Republican voters, right? Nevertheless, Trump trounced them all pretty handily.
Most trump "supporters" would immediately switch if an actually good candidate appeared, but trump is all they got.
They had 15 people (more?) to start with. It ended up Trump anyway. Whatever you want to say about them (partisan-wise, intelligence-wise, etc.) you probably would agree that early on, most would seem to be better candidates than Trump. But it turned out Republican primary voters weren't interested in traditional candidates.
Slashdot Mirror
Nature occasionally killed nearly every living thing on the planet.
Occasionally? It happens all the time. It's happening right now.
:)
But it's dry heat.
Knock it off, Hudson!
... Nintendo is in danger of dying! /sarcasm
Should I say "duh", or should I say "so?"
We may have cured multiple sclerosis earlier this year
I thought I read something about a possible breakthrough, but now I can't find anything - do you have a link, etc.?
Most inherit it.
Not even close. Maybe 20% tops, depending on how you ask the question. http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/real-1-percent
Monster Gold HDMI cables, naturally. It adds up.
Blackhat people wouldn't tolerate working at a KFC, not even for a little bit.
Roll 1d4.
You're going to have to explain yourself on that one
Sure thing.
When you were quoting me, you left out this part : Whatever you want to say about them (partisan-wise, intelligence-wise, etc.)
I said that because I know a lot of the people that would be reading my comment would not find ANY of the Republican candidates acceptable, for ideological reasons or whatever. That is, I suspect that very few Slashdot regulars are Republicans.
However, you can still evaluate a candidate's suitability in the Republican primary, at least I hope you can if you use your imagination. By that criteria, surely you could see the appeal of various candidates to Republican voters, right? Nevertheless, Trump trounced them all pretty handily.
From the summary, I could have guessed their opposition tactics in my sleep. "Dur, dur, he's a racist! Dur, dur, he's a homophobe and a misogynist!"
Most trump "supporters" would immediately switch if an actually good candidate appeared, but trump is all they got.
They had 15 people (more?) to start with. It ended up Trump anyway. Whatever you want to say about them (partisan-wise, intelligence-wise, etc.) you probably would agree that early on, most would seem to be better candidates than Trump. But it turned out Republican primary voters weren't interested in traditional candidates.
I thought that's a requirement now to be eligible for election?
The requirement has been reduced to skulls from any person regardless of age. I don't necessarily agree with it, but times change, you know.
(insert Soviet Russia meme here)
Opposition research trumps you?
captcha "re-arrest". seriously wtf?
Slashdot is racist.
It's hilarious that this comment gets a "Flamebait" moderation! :)
Julian Assange, right wing paranoid.
The new rule is, they CAN reject his advertising, but they have to bake him a cake that says "Make America Great Again."
In all seriousness, I wonder about this too. I am not up on these rules.
T-Mobile : "I like you. Hell, you can come home and fuck my sister."
The RIAA should have this guy on the payroll.
"Adidas to Sell German-Made Shoes to Robots" - now THERE'S a story!
New Facebook motto : "No Fat Chicks"
even better park the domain with a robots.txt User-agent: * Disallow: /
and archive.org will promptly nuke the site from its archive. :(
It will respect that retroactively?!
According to the Bible: "A fool and his money soon departs."
Citation, please. I don't think the Bible says this.
I think the actual text is "A fool and his money will soon party."
The science is settled.