Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Friday August 11 2017, @04:49AM   Printer-friendly
from the glass-half-full-or-half-empty dept.

According to a poll conducted by two academic authors and published by The Washington Post, 52 percent of Republicans said they would back a postponement of the next election if Trump called for it.

If Trump and congressional Republicans proposed postponing the election to ensure only eligible citizens could vote, support from Republicans rises to 56 percent.

Pollsters found 47 percent of Republicans think Trump won the popular vote.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/346000-poll-about-half-of-republicans-would-back-postponing-2020-election-if-trump


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 11 2017, @05:27AM (58 children)

    Agreed again, mostly. Twice in a week, whodathunkit?

    The mostly part is that Tricky Dick may have opened the gate but Slick Willie was the one who drug us all through and into the mud. The Lewinski shenanigans and lies thereafter pretty much destroyed any vain hopes of dignity or truthfulness from the office when they were forgiven by first the media then the voters. Nobody but Ford forgave Dick. Over half the country forgave Clinton and that made the flagrant flaunting of the law by Bush, Obama, and now Trump possible. People genuinely don't give even half a shit anymore as long as their side is in power.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Whoever on Friday August 11 2017, @05:37AM (28 children)

    by Whoever (4524) on Friday August 11 2017, @05:37AM (#552136) Journal

    Exactly what law did Clinton break?

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by Snotnose on Friday August 11 2017, @05:40AM (27 children)

      by Snotnose (1623) on Friday August 11 2017, @05:40AM (#552137)

      He lied under oath.

      --
      Why shouldn't we judge a book by it's cover? It's got the author, title, and a summary of what the book's about.
      • (Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @06:40AM (9 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @06:40AM (#552164)

        It is not a crime to lie under oath when the bastards who are trying to bring you down are trying to force you to lie under oath. Basic principle of the fifth Amendment to the Constitution of of the not Republican contards who seem to not understand what America is, what it stands for, and why it could have been an example to the world. But, you had to go and elect Berlusconi, didn't you? Trump cannot lie under oath, because he is incapable of knowing what an oath is. He cannot lie under oath, or any where else, because he has no idea what truth is. Trump is so dumb, that if the leader of North Korea trolled him, Trump would fall for it, and has fallen for it. So take your "Clinton" stuff and stuff it up your ass, because the sheer weight of the fake newsiness of it might just protect you from a nuclear blast. Although, I doubt it.

        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @07:00AM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @07:00AM (#552174)

          >It is not a crime to lie under oath when the bastards who are trying to bring you down are trying to force you to lie under oath.

          Fuck, is that just some of the most stupid logic I've ever seen in my entire life. Just fucking shut up, you incredible idiot. You don't deserve to speak considering how dumb your opinions are.

          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday August 11 2017, @02:00PM

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11 2017, @02:00PM (#552274) Journal

            Now, now, now - don't try to censor the poor unfortunate learning impaired bobble head. Let him talk. Maybe we can lure him down the road to the hog farm, and he can sweet talk the old sows with his free speech. Hell, we can promise him tons of bacon, if he'll just jump into the back of the pickup. I don't suppose he'll ever find his way home. Besides, why would he leave? All those conversational partners, all on his level!

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 12 2017, @12:46AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 12 2017, @12:46AM (#552663)

            Fuck, is that just some of the most stupid logic I've ever seen in my entire life. Just fucking shut up, you incredible idiot. You don't deserve to speak considering how dumb your opinions are.

            How could you possibly know this? Evidently sarcasm and satire fly right by you undetected. Any call me stupid? And if this really is the "most stupid logic" you've ever seen, you must be rather young, and stupid. And I am in South Carolina, there is a law now that says you cannot tell me to shut up. So you shut up, you polymorphously perverse endocrinite!

        • (Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Friday August 11 2017, @10:33AM (5 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11 2017, @10:33AM (#552226) Journal

          It is not a crime to lie under oath when the bastards who are trying to bring you down are trying to force you to lie under oath.

          No, perjury remains a felony. There is no legal exemption for people who have enemies.

          • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday August 11 2017, @03:56PM (4 children)

            by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday August 11 2017, @03:56PM (#552380) Journal

            No, perjury remains a felony. There is no legal exemption for people who have enemies.

            Unless you consider being found not-guilty an exemption...

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 11 2017, @08:00PM (3 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11 2017, @08:00PM (#552542) Journal

              Unless you consider being found not-guilty an exemption...

              I do not. Just because Clinton's allies in Congress were sufficiently numerous to prevent Clinton's conviction of the crime by Congress doesn't mean that he didn't commit the crime. As it turns, he had to pay a $90,000 fine and lost his Arkansas law license for five years for committing perjury in court (but agreeing to a lesser civil penalty).

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @08:39PM (2 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @08:39PM (#552563)

                So you'll 100% support Trump's impeachment whether he's found guilty or not? I mean he's got all his allies in Congress ready to keep this crazy train rolling.

                What's good for the goose amirite?

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 11 2017, @11:19PM (1 child)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11 2017, @11:19PM (#552631) Journal

                  So you'll 100% support Trump's impeachment whether he's found guilty or not?

                  For what?

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 12 2017, @12:32AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 12 2017, @12:32AM (#552661)

                    High Crimes and Misdemeanors? That is what the Constitution says. Why do you hate the Constitution, khallow?

      • (Score: 2) by Whoever on Friday August 11 2017, @02:59PM (11 children)

        by Whoever (4524) on Friday August 11 2017, @02:59PM (#552320) Journal

        Did he? Or were Starr and his team simply incompetent and didn't ask the right question?

        Let's face it: Republicans never cared about any possible perjury: they were too busy getting upset about the sex in the Oval Office to care about anything else.

        • (Score: 1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 11 2017, @03:35PM (10 children)

          Yes, he did.

          I can't speak for everyone who was a Republican back then but what pissed me off back then was that we had a douchebag that would cheat on his wife occupying the highest office in the nation. Lying under oath was pretty much expected of anyone with character that disgraceful. It had absolutely nothing to do with "sex". He could have fucked Hillary up the butt while the Secret Service watched and jerked off and I wouldn't have cared but if he'd betray his own wife he'd damned sure betray me.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @04:08PM (3 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @04:08PM (#552392)

            How many wives has Trump cheated on?

            • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 11 2017, @04:29PM (2 children)

              Doesn't matter now. All standards of character and decency were thrown right the fuck out the window the instant Clinton was allowed to get away with behavior like that.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
              • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday August 11 2017, @04:51PM

                by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday August 11 2017, @04:51PM (#552420) Journal

                Clinton was the Democrats' Nixon. I remember being maybe 11 or 12 when that all went down (96? 97?) and hating him for it.

                The fact remains, however, that Nixon's corruption and Ford's subsequent pardon are what lead to all this. This is not a matter of partisan politics; this is an attack, sustained for the last 41 years, on the very base of the country's institutions. Ford made the wrong call and plunged us all down the wrong leg of the trousers of time. Our timeline is badly damaged and there is no recovery in sight.

                --
                I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 12 2017, @12:34AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 12 2017, @12:34AM (#552662)

                Doesn't matter now.

                What The Murgatroid Booznado is trying to say, in answer to the question of how many of his wives had Trump cheated on, is: "All of them." Let's not even get started on the Pee-pee tape.

          • (Score: 2) by Whoever on Saturday August 12 2017, @02:05AM (5 children)

            by Whoever (4524) on Saturday August 12 2017, @02:05AM (#552695) Journal

            I can't speak for everyone who was a Republican back then but what pissed me off back then was that we had a douchebag that would cheat on his wife

            You are the douchebag. Unless cheating on his wife actually affected his performance as President, then it was his private business. And just because you and a bunch of other narrow minded farts were upset about the sex doesn't mean that the cheating affected his performance as President.

            As for the lying: let me suggest that you get a dictionary out and look up the word "is".

      • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday August 11 2017, @03:54PM (4 children)

        by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday August 11 2017, @03:54PM (#552374) Journal

        He lied under oath.

        Nope, he was acquitted of those charges. [washingtonpost.com]

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @06:03PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @06:03PM (#552467)

          Nothing in that article disputes the claim that he actually did lie under oath; it only says that he was acquitted, which is unsurprising because of course his political party would stand up for him. That's how things work, but it's obvious that he did lie.

        • (Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Friday August 11 2017, @08:16PM (2 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11 2017, @08:16PM (#552552) Journal

          He lied under oath.

          Nope, he was acquitted of those charges.

          That's an interesting state of mind you have there where "acquittal" means "didn't do it". There are plenty of examples where one can be acquitted of something and yet still have done the crime (for example, insufficient evidence, or based on evidence that was obtained illegally). Here, due to lying under oath, Clinton lost his law license for five years and had to pay a fine of $90,000. So I guess it did happen after all.

          • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday August 11 2017, @08:48PM (1 child)

            by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday August 11 2017, @08:48PM (#552567) Journal

            That's an interesting state of mind you have there where "acquittal" means "didn't do it". There are plenty of examples where one can be acquitted of something and yet still have done the crime (for example, insufficient evidence, or based on evidence that was obtained illegally)

            It's called being innocent until proven guilty...

            • (Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Friday August 11 2017, @11:21PM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11 2017, @11:21PM (#552632) Journal

              It's called being innocent until proven guilty...

              He was proven guilty to the point of paying a fine and losing his law license. He just didn't get convicted by the Senate.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday August 11 2017, @01:50PM (11 children)

    by Thexalon (636) on Friday August 11 2017, @01:50PM (#552263)

    I do find it interesting that "politician lying about sex" = "OMG! Impeach him already!", while "politician lying about weapons of mass destruction, torture, and mass surveillance of Americans" = "Meh, whatever, let's not start a political witchhunt."

    The fact is that most of America's presidents have had mistresses. What changed with Bill Clinton was that suddenly everybody cared.

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday August 11 2017, @02:01PM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11 2017, @02:01PM (#552275) Journal

      "let's not start a political witchhunt"

      But, I LIKE the smell of roasting politician in the morning!!

    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 11 2017, @02:55PM (4 children)

      You've made the classical progtard mistake of confusing lying with being wrong. The two are barely even superficially similar and not remotely the same to any sentient being.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @06:06PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @06:06PM (#552470)

        Bush was not just wrong, but a massive liar who supported egregious violations of the highest law of the land. I don't see how anyone can claim that Bush was not a liar. Obama was also a massive liar and violated the Constitution on numerous occasions. It's clear that violating the Constitution should be a felony, but I doubt that will happen.

      • (Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Friday August 11 2017, @07:43PM

        by Thexalon (636) on Friday August 11 2017, @07:43PM (#552530)

        None of what I mentioned among George W Bush's behaviors were honest mistakes.

        * The intel on Iraq wasn't just wrong, it was demonstrably wrong. It was so wrong that when Joe Wilson demonstrated it was wrong, one of the top people in the administration (we don't know exactly who, but we do know that the VP's chief of staff took the fall for them, which means probably the VP, but possibly Bush himself) illegally leaked classified information to end the career of his wife. The stuff the Bush administration was putting out bore no resemblance at all to what UN inspectors were finding. Colin Powell called it "bullshit". There was substantial doubt in Congress from folks like Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul. The foreign diplomats at the UN who heard Powell's speech thought it about as accurate as the kinds of things spouted off by the likes of Kim Jong Un and Mahmoud Ahmadinajad. The reason why the Bush administration went to war had absolutely nothing to do with WMDs, 9/11, Al Qaida, or anything else the Bush administration was talking about, and we know this because the pro-war faction of his administration (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz) were calling for attacking Iraq back in 1998, and not once mentioned those motivations.

        * As for torture, I'm not sure what you're claiming Bush was mistaken about. He has admitted, on camera and in writing, to ordering it done. He has admitted that he knew it was illegal under international law, but claims he thought it would save lives. It was not a mistake - he did it very much on purpose.

        * As for the mass surveillance, again I have no idea how you think Bush might have done that by mistake. If you want to feel better about it, it's something that was and still is done with bipartisan support: Bill Clinton's administration started down that road, then Bush brought in John Poindexter to run what was called at the time "Total Information Awareness", then Obama quietly allowed it to continue throughout his 2 terms. I mean, are you trying to seriously argue "Whoopsie, I hired a bunch of people and had Congress budget a bunch of money for a project that took several years, and then when Congress defunded it I just renamed it and allowed it to continue"?

        --
        The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @08:42PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @08:42PM (#552564)

        You are so cute when you display your naivety! Oh wait, I meant ugly. Like poop.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @11:07PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @11:07PM (#552630)

        You've made the classic neoconvict mistake of confusing being wrong with not lying. The two are barely even superficially similar and not remotely the same to any sentient being. In other words, the Bush administration's flimsy WMD evidence wasn't just "being wrong", it was a deliberate misrepresentation of reality far more tortured than Clinton's convolutions over the definition of "is".

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 11 2017, @09:10PM (4 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11 2017, @09:10PM (#552588) Journal

      I do find it interesting that "politician lying about sex" = "OMG! Impeach him already!", while "politician lying about weapons of mass destruction, torture, and mass surveillance of Americans" = "Meh, whatever, let's not start a political witchhunt."

      My view is that both Bush and Clinton lied. The key difference is that Clinton's lies were felony crimes because he lied under oath while Bush's lies to the public and to the world are quite legal. In addition, most of those lies were committed by plausibly deniable proxy through his subordinates. Clinton's adultery was not committed by subordinates so he didn't have access to that rhetorical dodge.

      The fact is that most of America's presidents have had mistresses. What changed with Bill Clinton was that suddenly everybody cared.

      And how many of those mistresses were known at the time to the voting public? A key difference between Clinton and Kennedy, another notorious womanizer, is that Clinton got sloppy and got caught while still in office. It's real easy to claim hypocrisy. But you have to consider what the public knew then, not what we know now. Further, US presidents have always been held to have a higher moral standard than the average person. Just because the average person might betray their wives doesn't mean that the public would agree that it is similarly fine for a US president to do so.

      Finally, consider the promiscuity of Clinton's adultery. We really only have one president, Kennedy who did something of similar degree. In each case, that shows a profound poor judgment on the part of the president that wasn't present in other presidents with mistresses.

      • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Saturday August 12 2017, @12:12AM (2 children)

        by Thexalon (636) on Saturday August 12 2017, @12:12AM (#552653)

        Clinton's lies were felony crimes because he lied under oath while Bush's lies to the public and to the world are quite legal.

        So Clinton engaged in illegal lies about legal activities, while Bush engaged in legal lies about activities so illegal that any signatory to the Geneva Conventions could put him on trial for them. I'll make a deal here: You get to throw Bill Clinton in jail for 5 years (the maximum federal penalty for perjury) while I get to send Bush to prison for life for his underlying crimes.

        And how many of those mistresses were known at the time to the voting public?

        Let's see: James Buchanan's relationship with William King (yes, a guy, he might well have been gay) was the subject of insults from Congressmen. James Garfield had lots of rumors (true) about him and at least 3 women. Woodrow Wilson was caught with both Mary Peck and Edith Galt to the point where it was cause for jokes during the campaign. Warren Harding had about 5 come forward during his presidency. Franklin Roosevelt's affairs were known to at least people in Washington. A lot of people suspected Dwight Eisenhower's secretary Kay Summersby - correctly as it turned out. JFK's dalliances with Marilyn Monroe and many others were well-known at the time. Lyndon Johnson bragged about his affairs. George H.W. Bush's relationship with Jennifer Fitzgerald was the subject of a news story in 1988 and remained at least rumor until it was confirmed in 2004.

        And that's just some of the better-known ones. Part of what was in play was that there was some degree of convention that reporters just wouldn't write about that kind of thing, just like they didn't report at all on FDR's polio.

        We really only have one president, Kennedy who did something of similar degree.

        I mentioned several others above: LBJ, Harding, and Garfield.

        --
        The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday August 12 2017, @01:51AM (1 child)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 12 2017, @01:51AM (#552687) Journal

          while Bush engaged in legal lies about activities so illegal that any signatory to the Geneva Conventions could put him on trial for them

          And those illegal actions were? Only one I can think of is torture and mistreatment of prisoners of war. Which apparently is still going on.

          Let's see: James Buchanan's relationship with William King (yes, a guy, he might well have been gay) was the subject of insults from Congressmen. James Garfield had lots of rumors (true) about him and at least 3 women. Woodrow Wilson was caught with both Mary Peck and Edith Galt to the point where it was cause for jokes during the campaign. Warren Harding had about 5 come forward during his presidency. Franklin Roosevelt's affairs were known to at least people in Washington. A lot of people suspected Dwight Eisenhower's secretary Kay Summersby - correctly as it turned out. JFK's dalliances with Marilyn Monroe and many others were well-known at the time. Lyndon Johnson bragged about his affairs. George H.W. Bush's relationship with Jennifer Fitzgerald was the subject of a news story in 1988 and remained at least rumor until it was confirmed in 2004.

          So in other words, Clinton's exposure was much more public than previous presidents as I mentioned earlier.

          • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Saturday August 12 2017, @02:51AM

            by Thexalon (636) on Saturday August 12 2017, @02:51AM (#552708)

            And those illegal actions were? Only one I can think of is torture and mistreatment of prisoners of war. Which apparently is still going on.

            1. Torture and mistreatment of POWs, as you mention right there. Specifically, waterboarding, which is a crime against humanity as defined by the International War Crimes Tribunal for the Far East. This one would be easy to prove in a court because George W Bush, Dick Cheney, and several other members of the Bush administration have freely admitted their involvement in uncoerced statements in books and TV appearances.

            2. Aggression against Iraq, which is a crime against the peace, first defined at the Nuremburg Trials. Iraq never presented any kind of real threat to the US, the US knew that, and attacked anyways, basically because we could and we wanted their oil at a discount price. This one is harder to prove, but still a war crime.

            Either one could very well put Bush in jail for life if he were ever tried for his actions. I doubt he will face trial, but that has more to do with the fact that he was protected by Obama than anything else.

            --
            The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
      • (Score: 2) by Whoever on Sunday August 13 2017, @04:31AM

        by Whoever (4524) on Sunday August 13 2017, @04:31AM (#553115) Journal

        My view is that both Bush and Clinton lied. The key difference is that Clinton's lies were felony crimes because he lied under oath while Bush's lies to the public and to the world are quite legal.

        No, the key difference is that Bush's lies got the USA into an unnecessary war, which has cost the USA trillions of dollars, the lives of thousands of US soldiers and the enmity of millions of people, not to mention the lives of millions of people in the middle east. But heck, his friends made lots of money from the war, so, who cares, right?

        If Clinton lied, then his lies had no consequences for the country. The fact that you are so concerned about them says volumes about you.

  • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday August 11 2017, @02:24PM (15 children)

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11 2017, @02:24PM (#552290) Journal

    Your sig:

    Socialist: Someone who wants everything that you have. Except your job.

    Republican: Someone who wants to prevent you from ever obtaining the things your parents had, including your job, a living wage, and health care.

    --
    People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 11 2017, @02:56PM

      S'fine, I'm neither.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday August 11 2017, @05:07PM (2 children)

      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday August 11 2017, @05:07PM (#552433) Journal

      Yeah he's a libertarian with reactionary politics. Someone, I forgot who, told me a libertarian is a Republican who likes weed and/or buttsex, which got a laugh if nothing else... I don't think his reactionary politics are even all that principled; they're a natural outgrowth of his all-encompassing "FYGM" attitude, with little or no deep thought put into them.

      --
      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @07:35PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @07:35PM (#552525)

        Yeah, you'll notice his outrage only really crops up when conservative types are being oppressed and he stays silent when any liberal type is oppressed. Disingenuous in the extreme, but at least his narcissism is currently pro-freedom.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday August 12 2017, @09:41PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 12 2017, @09:41PM (#552981) Journal

          Yeah, you'll notice his outrage only really crops up when conservative types are being oppressed and he stays silent when any liberal type is oppressed.

          It's supposed to be the other way around, amirite? It's normal human nature to identify with and care more about certain people than others. I certainly consider it overrated as a character flaw.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by TheRaven on Friday August 11 2017, @07:44PM (2 children)

      by TheRaven (270) on Friday August 11 2017, @07:44PM (#552532) Journal
      He's not a Republican, he's a Libertarian. They're the ones who think that oppression is being inefficiently handled by government and should be the responsibility of the private sector.
      --
      sudo mod me up
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @08:45PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @08:45PM (#552565)

        I don't have sudo access on the server :(

      • (Score: 2) by Whoever on Sunday August 13 2017, @04:37AM

        by Whoever (4524) on Sunday August 13 2017, @04:37AM (#553116) Journal

        He is also ignorant.

        Has he never seen or heard all the socialist songs and publications that praise the value of labor (work)? The idea that socialists are afraid of work shows a remarkable lack of awareness of political views. It's the Republicans who aspire to not work.

        But then, it's so much easier to be an Internet blowhard if you really don't know what you are talking about, because then, facts don't get in the way of your arguments.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 11 2017, @11:37PM (7 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11 2017, @11:37PM (#552637) Journal

      Republican: Someone who wants to prevent you from ever obtaining the things your parents had, including your job, a living wage, and health care.

      So what are you doing to deserve the things your parents had?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 12 2017, @04:53PM (4 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 12 2017, @04:53PM (#552895)

        Working more difficult jobs, or even the same ones, and getting jack shit for it.

        Khallow you're a moron. I know we tell you it pretty often, maybe one day it'll sink in and you'll take a long hard look at yourself.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday August 12 2017, @06:26PM (3 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 12 2017, @06:26PM (#552923) Journal

          Khallow you're a moron. I know we tell you it pretty often, maybe one day it'll sink in and you'll take a long hard look at yourself.

          I listen to people I respect. I don't respect anonymous accusers by default.

          • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday August 12 2017, @08:27PM (2 children)

            by aristarchus (2645) on Saturday August 12 2017, @08:27PM (#552951) Journal

            Khallow you're a moron. I know we tell you it pretty often, maybe one day it'll sink in and you'll take a long hard look at yourself.

            I listen to people I respect. I don't respect anonymous accusers by default.

            We are trying to help, khallow. We know you do not respect anyone, this much is obviously not rebutted by your posts. But you are a moron. Ask for help. We are all here for you.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday August 12 2017, @08:47PM (1 child)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 12 2017, @08:47PM (#552962) Journal

              We are trying to help, khallow.

              I don't buy that anyone believes that.

              We know you do not respect anyone

              It is true that I don't respect several people here - you among them, but there's quite a few people I do respect. The people who put together SN and make it work every day earned my respect and my continued subscription. And there's a fair number of posters that I've come to respect because of their thoughtfulness, courtesy, or effort.

      • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday August 14 2017, @01:36PM (1 child)

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 14 2017, @01:36PM (#553641) Journal

        I've worked my whole life as a software developer. I have a better than decent living. As good or better than my parents. I have little to complain about personally. I have a lot of average or somewhat nice "Keeping Up with the Joneses" things. I have two older but good condition autos. A mostly paid for house. Etc. I have lots of credit cards. I use them regularly for everything. Have no credit card debt at all. (eg, we pay them off, but earn tons of rewards)

        But I see many others who work their whole lives to struggle to get by with even the basics. Some have huge credit card debt. My perception is that Republican policies are constantly trying to attack these people and take away what little they have, or deny them from ever getting ahead. And it appears to be a consistent pattern, not an anomaly.

        --
        People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 15 2017, @03:16AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday August 15 2017, @03:16AM (#554060) Journal

          My perception is that Republican policies are constantly trying to attack these people and take away what little they have, or deny them from ever getting ahead.

          I see plenty of policies from all over that do that. Republicans aren't special. My view is that the problem will go away on its own in 30 or so years (once most of the developing world reaches developed world status) and there just isn't much productive to be done about it right now except adapt to the present and wait the time. Maybe develop policies that encourage local business creation.

  • (Score: 2) by dry on Sunday August 13 2017, @02:47AM

    by dry (223) on Sunday August 13 2017, @02:47AM (#553074) Journal

    What about Reagan illegally dealing arms with the Iranians right after they'd kidnapped American diplomats?