SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
President Trump will sign an executive order to allow local police departments to receive or purchase military surplus equipment:
Police departments will now have access to military surplus equipment typically used in warfare, including grenade launchers, armored vehicles and bayonets, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced on Monday, describing it as "lifesaving gear."
The move rescinds limits on the Pentagon handouts that were put in place by President Barack Obama in 2015 amid a national debate over policing touched off by a spate of high-profile deaths of black men at the hands of the police, including the shooting death in 2014 of 18-year-old Michael Brown, in Ferguson, Mo., by a white officer. Some local residents viewed police use of military equipment during the ensuing protests as an unnecessary show of force and intimidation.
In a speech to the Fraternal Order of Police in Nashville, Mr. Sessions said Mr. Obama had made it harder for the police to protect themselves and their neighborhoods. "Those restrictions went too far," Mr. Sessions said. "We will not put superficial concerns above public safety."
Mr. Sessions said that President Trump would sign an executive order on Monday fully restoring the military program, called 1033, and that the president was doing "all he can to restore law and order and support our police across the country." [...] The program was started in the 1990s as a way for the military to transfer surplus equipment to federal, state and local police agencies fighting the drug war. More than $5 billion in surplus gear has been funneled to law enforcement agencies.
Organized gangs get to play soldier.
Also at The Hill and USA Today.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Snotnose on Tuesday August 29 2017, @06:56PM (137 children)
No, brought to you by a bunch of people that didn't want a corrupt woman with bad judgement running things, and crossed their fingers hoping for the best.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 4, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:02PM (61 children)
And what a great idea that was! The corrupt, old billionaire with a long history of narcissism and screwing people over is making everything way better!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:11PM (60 children)
We had a neo-con candidate who essentially promised she'd start a war with Russia over Syria and a dickweed who might have done the same. Rationality would suggest you hope you get the dickweed because a bad possibility is better than a bad certainty.
I personally wasn't able to actively vote for Trump, but I did vote for Stein in hopes of being a spoiler and while that didn't really work out, i.e., more Democrats voted for _Trump_ than for Stein, I'm stoked Clinton lost. Had she won, she would have solidified with certainty the surveillance state, endless war, Wall St/Bankster coddling, prison-state policies for a decade at minimum. As it is, Clintonism (aka Pro-abortion Republicans) is dead. Now maybe Democrats can go back to NOT being Republicans, but as we've seen since the election, that hope is dwindling. It seems the cold dead skeletal hands of the Clintons still have a stranglehold on the party. I will root for their loss till the whole Clinton cabal is history because it is not a lesser evil -- it is a more effective evil.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Snow on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:24PM (1 child)
Remember when Sarah Palin was the worst Candidate the US had?
Those were the days...
(Score: 4, Funny) by looorg on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:57PM
... Pepperidge Farm Remembers.
(Score: 5, Touché) by NewNic on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:38PM (47 children)
You will have to help me here. Which of those policies are we not getting under Trump?
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 5, Informative) by Sulla on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:45PM (28 children)
So far only two real differences. TTP is dead and we took a step back on Syria instead of diving in. So far so good.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @08:21PM (20 children)
It's not an awful start, but things should have been better. For instance, construction should already have started on the border wall, and healthcare should have been dealt with long ago. Of course, we can't blame President Trump for this slow start. Republicans, and to a lesser extent Democrats, are responsible for the obstruction he's faced in accomplishing these important tasks.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @08:39PM (16 children)
Things would have been better had the DNC not rigged the primaries in favor of that stupid bitch. The voters had a right to choose the better candidate and we've more than adequately established that the DNC did everything within their power to screw him over. Even then, he put on a shockingly strong showing.
It should have been a huge sign that things were going wrong that they had to rig the primary to get her nominated. If she couldn't even win against Democratic candidates, what made them think that she could win against any of the GOP ones?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @08:55PM (15 children)
Sanders would not have beaten President Trump. Even among the political left, Sanders had very little support. He had essentially no support among moderates and the political right.
If Americans had to choose between him and President Trump, President Trump would probably have gotten over 460 electoral votes. It likely would have only been California, and perhaps New York, that would have supported Sanders.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:13PM
Someone's been sucking on an orange cock just a weeee bit too much.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @10:34PM (7 children)
Wrong! Literally anyone else with a D nomination would have gotten 300 electoral votes on Trump. De La Fuente, Webb. O'Malley, Chafee, Sanders, Warren, Biden, etc., they all would have trounced Trump. Only the damaged goods and 25-years-vilified that was Hillary Rodham Clinton could have lost to him. Congrats, neo-liberal, third-way, GOP-lite Democrats, you definitely showed all of us.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @12:09AM (6 children)
Will you still be making that claim in 2020 after President Trump wins against some other non-Clinton candidate?
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Wednesday August 30 2017, @12:13AM (4 children)
I very much doubt that Trump will run for 2020. Either he'll already have been impeached, or will frankly be sick of how hard it is to get what you want when you have a pesky congress and judiciary in the way all the time.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @03:57AM
Will you still be making that claim in 2020 after President Trump wins?
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday August 30 2017, @01:35PM
Trump won't have to run for 2020. Campaigns will be unnecessary. Voting will be a mere formality that we go through. Like other countries that have a single candidate which the entire population joyfully votes for in mandatory elections.
Meanwhile, expect Trump to step up and learn how to be somewhat more presidential. I believe he will have it down pat after about his 5th term in office.
Putin can mentor Trump.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday August 30 2017, @01:40PM
In the 2020 inauguration, and every inauguration after that, Trump will have the biggest crowd size EVAR!!!! And the biggest election turnout. And the biggest electoral college vote margin EVAR!!! And forever after.
And that is what the most important thing. Very bigly. Believe me.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday August 30 2017, @01:44PM
Just curious. What makes you think we'll have a pesky congress or judiciary by 2020?
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:19AM
I'm sure there are other bad candidates the democrats could pick to give Trump another four years. And I wouldn't be surprised if they do, it seems that their current policy is to deliberately lose to some racist asshole and then blame people for being racists for picking the second-worst candidate.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @03:26AM (4 children)
According to polls, Sanders is the most popular politician in the country and is able to get crowds in deep red counties to cheer for him. I'm not sure where you're getting this nonsense from.
(Score: 2) by Sulla on Thursday August 31 2017, @05:28AM (1 child)
Even with how much I didn't agree with Sander's policies (second comming of William J Brian) I might have considered him an okay choice. I thought he was okay based on character alone until he bent the knee to the Clintons. He should have refused to participate and not given support (and money, the money he promised not to give to Clinton). Some of his staunch supporters I work with have said he had to, but he could have refused and gone down as a true maverick like Ron Paul.
Instead of having someone imaculate who despite his crazy ideals was still honest and clean, we have just another politican who made an assload of money in exchange for sucking the party dick. Sports car and a vacation home was enough to sell his soul. Not saying he is worse than Trump, just saying he is no better than anyone else.
I hope Webb gets the nomination just based on the comment he made at the debates about meeting the guy he killed in Nam to kill him again.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 02 2017, @09:12AM
Demonstrably false. Have you looked at his policy record? It's much better than that of the vast majority of other politicians, with him consistently supporting policies such as single-payer. That does not mean he is perfect, but good luck getting a perfect candidate.
(Score: 1) by AssCork on Thursday August 31 2017, @12:12PM (1 child)
Big woop. Everyone cheered when Hilary left, too.
Just popped-out of a tight spot. Came out mostly clean, too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 02 2017, @09:10AM
They cheered in favor of liberal policies like single-payer health care?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:11AM
Spoken like a true Trump-fan. Trump would have beaten the best candidate the democrats had, even though he only barely beat the worst.
Even many republican voters think that Trump was a bad candidate, and only able to win because the democrats went with the one that was even worse than Trump.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:52PM (2 children)
????? In case you hadn't noticed Republicans have majorities in both houses of Congress. What more could Trump ask for to ram through his agenda? Super majorities in both houses? Somehow, I suspect that even if the Republicans did have super majorities in both houses, Trump still wouldn't be able to move his agenda forward. I think you and all of your Trump-supporting buddies will soon have to face an uncomfortable reality: both Trump and the Republican party are irreparably broken.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Wednesday August 30 2017, @03:41AM (1 child)
He has Republicans who are basically Democrats just as the Democrats are basically Republicans. The difference between the two major parties can basically be summed up in two wedge issues (abortion/gay rights) but when it comes everything else, the bipartisan consensus rules. Trump may actually be more hated by his own party than Democrats.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by urza9814 on Wednesday August 30 2017, @06:51PM
I'm absolutely certain of that. The Dems couldn't care less about the damage he causes -- they're rich enough that it doesn't hurt them at all. But he makes the "other team" look bad, and get them instant support no matter what THEY do, so they love it. While the Republicans hate him for...pretty much the same reasons. Only the truly insane actually support him for policy reasons...and only the not entirely corrupt (so about three people in all of D.C.) actually oppose him for policy reasons.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @08:38PM (4 children)
As is the US's participation in Paris Agreement, which combined with all the other ways Trump keeps pissing off all of the US allies really hurt US's standing in the world for absolutely no gain at all.
Replaced by teetering on the brink of a nuclear war with North Korea and doubling (tripling?) down on Afghanistan, while pissing off the NATO allies.
I'd call it a wash at best :/
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @08:56PM
N. Kor saber rattling is a joke and a distraction.
Any actual effective hostility will be dealt with is short order.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @08:57PM
Nobody but a very small number of extreme leftists and an even smaller number of bureaucrats take any of those environmental agreements/protocols/accords/whatever seriously. That's why they all fail. They have no widespread support, and actually have widespread opposition.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:00AM
We aren't playing a popularity contest here. The US isn't trying to be a prom queen.
Our true standing in the world is more about the degree to which we dominate. When you pay all the bills (Paris, UN, NATO) and generally let others walk all over you, you aren't getting any respect. That would be low standing. In terms of standing, it is better to be a bully.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:25AM
You don't seriously think that anyone in the US is afraid of Kims tiny country and his four missiles?
It's China they worry about. China is standing in the middle, not quite willing to pick a side. If the US attacks North Korea, they just might get pissed off about US soldiers right outside their borders.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the US administration hopes that Kim will be crazy enough to attack the US, because that will force China to deal with the problem. In which case we will probably see the Chinese invading from the north and the US invading from the south, splitting North Korea between them like Germany after WW2.
(Score: 1) by Alias on Friday September 01 2017, @12:53AM (1 child)
Does anyone know if the TPP has been reincarnated secretly under another name yet?
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Friday September 01 2017, @02:31PM
Not that I have yet heard, but with bannon gone I would be surprised if it did not come up again. Although trump has a long history of hating nafta.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:46PM (17 children)
That's so precious that you thought there was an ideological difference between the two. Same shit different asshole.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:58PM (16 children)
That was true during the past few elections, but there's an obvious difference between President Trump and other candidates in recent elections. It's pretty much impossible to consider him "Republican establishment" in any sense, and it's clear that his policies are very different from what the Democrats want.
Just look at a major issue like border control as an example. Democrats and their supporters appear to want the borders to be wide open, allowing all sorts of third-worlders to flow into America unchecked. President Trump has proposed the exact opposite of this, which has of course angered many on the political left.
President Trump's policies are significant different from those of the Democrats, and even sometimes different from what the establishment Republicans want.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday August 29 2017, @08:06PM (11 children)
> Just look at a major issue like border control as an example.
Shall we?
> Democrats and their supporters appear to want the borders to be wide open, allowing all sorts of third-worlders to flow into America unchecked.
Total bullshit, thanks for spewing Fox rhetoric.
Remember the part where Obama's tenure had the most deportations of any president?
Sure, he was evil enough to not reject refugees, or offer protection to people who were brought in as kids, or prioritize criminals for ejection, or build the border fence that Congress voted, or call for immigration reform, or raise the number of border patrols... Oh wait, I lost my point ...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @08:18PM (6 children)
Deportations, regardless of who's doing them, is a sure sign that there are significant border control issues. If somebody needs to be deported for being in a country illegally, that inherently means that they violated the border in some way.
Ideally it would get to the point where no deportations are necessary, because border security would be properly enforced. This enforcement would include physical barriers that would prevent border violations, or at least make them much harder to accomplish.
If Obama had been serious about border control, then there would not be the current problem that President Trump is trying to deal with. Why is that? Because during his 8 years of power, Obama would have ensured that all illegal aliens would have already been deported, and a border wall would already have been built.
(Score: 4, Informative) by bob_super on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:09PM (3 children)
So, besides proposing to deport 11 million people in 8 years (without funding, I'm sure), despite the opposition of Rep-loving employers who love to pay poverty wages, you also think that a 2000-mile wall through a huge variety of difficult landscapes could be build in under 8 years (also without extra funding, I'm sure), by a country which was at the bottom of the deepest recession in 8 years while engaged in 2+ wars?
Can't tell if troll or total idiot.
Additional question: Do you know what's the ratio of illegals who just overstay a legal visa, rather than run through Arizona? You might want to educated yourself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:13AM (1 child)
The highest cost estimates for the wall are comparable to the amount we spend each year to deal with illegal aliens. Even if a wall has to be replaced every two years, it's still financially beneficial.
Another comparable number is the cost of a government shutdown. The last one was actually a bit more than the wall cost. Anybody willing to cause a government shutdown to avoid the cost of a wall is thus full of shit.
Walls are dirt cheap compared to interstate highways. Take a look at a road map of the USA. Yes, we can build this.
The visa issue is a red herring. Some criminals break windows, and others rush in when you step outside, so maybe there is no point having a lock on your door? No, that makes no sense. Each security failure should be dealt with. In the case of visas, that obviously means issuing fewer of them. It also means tracking people down, checking to make sure they leave, and putting out rewards for finding those that slip away. It is the same as tracking any other type of criminal really.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @08:48AM
That assumes, of course, that a wall would actually be effective; it probably wouldn't. They have tunnels, would climb over the wall using various means, and often just fly into the country anyway. This is not an army of primitive barbarians that you can slow down with a simple wall.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @03:14PM
Not to mention the amount of visa overstays that are due to the fact that they can't get their visas renewed because there isn't funding for the department that renews the visas?
Basically, those people are made criminals by a bureaucracy that can't do its job.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:10PM
Not while there's any way to legally enter the country without acquiring permanent resident status, dumbass. Any temporary or conditional visa can be overstayed or violated, and the person who entered legally then needs deported.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @10:22PM
Since you appear to have not been paying attention the last few decades (at least!) I am going to pour some cold water on your little screed. Fact: illegal aliens have been in this country far longer than since 2008. Hell, there have been illegals in this country far longer than Obama has been alive. Fact: Obama did deport many illegals out of the country; I'm not going to bother to look it up for you but I seem to recall that he has in the past been referred to as the "Deporter in Chief". And a border wall is an expensive boondoggle; it will do little to nothing to stop the flow of illegals into the country.
Next time: Read. Think. (optionally) Post. Do not change this order.
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Wednesday August 30 2017, @02:55AM (3 children)
No. Turns out he didn't have [migrationpolicy.org] the most deportations of any president, both Clinton and Bush had a lot more. Obama had 5.3 million deportations over his two terms while Bush had 10.3 million and Clinton had 12.3 million deportations. Where Obama policy differed [aljazeera.com] was in the harshness of the deportations ("removal" versus "return" with the former having much nastier legal repercussions, including prison, for those who illegally immigrate repeatedly).
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 30 2017, @11:17AM
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Justin Case on Thursday August 31 2017, @09:56AM (1 child)
You say that like it's a bad thing.
What's the point of having laws if there are no consequences?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 01 2017, @01:13AM
Status signaling for law makers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:01PM (3 children)
Yes, this is exactly what we Democrats want! And we want these non-white immigrants to rape your horses and ride off on your women! Hahahaha! Would you say we Democrats have a plethora of Piñatas? [amazon.com]
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:21PM (2 children)
I'm pretty sure I vote Democrat so that the South Americans get to rip the Hearts out of the white men's chests, give them to the Chinese Organ traffickers, who will use an app coded by Indians to sell them to Muslims, while the Blacks burn the rest of the bodies on crosses to warm up the Natives.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @03:59AM (1 child)
The parent comment should be modded -1, Psychotic.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @05:42AM
Time to recalibrate your sarcasm detector. I don't think bob_super is correct about much, but even so I can read the parent, bob's reply, and see the obvious and sane mockery bob makes of the post he replied to.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:54PM (4 children)
> We had a neo-con candidate who essentially promised she'd start a war with Russia over Syria and a dickweed who might have done the same.
Because you believe campaign promises? Especially the ones who imply going to war with a nuclear-armed dictator?
I'm sure you would have called her a weak girl if she hadn't used tough rhetoric, too...
> Rationality would suggest you hope you get the dickweed because a bad possibility is better than a bad certainty.
Since the certainty wasn't certain, and the dickweed was obviously less competent for the job (he's proving it) than the fakely certain death provider, can you explain to me which part of that reasoning is "rational" ?
> It seems the cold dead skeletal hands of the Clintons still have a stranglehold on the party.
Citation needed. The federal-level democrats currently only exist as powerless people pointing out the sheer insanity of the republicans. Where are the Clintons in any of this?
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday August 29 2017, @08:18PM (2 children)
When HRC promises war -- you're fucking right I believe it. Let us recall that HRC's only beef w/ GWB about the Iraq war, was that he was cutting taxes at the same time which would reduce the funds available for national security "at home and abroad" -- meaning she wanted MORE money for war and domestic surveillance. So yeah, I totally believed she was a warpig.
HRC in 2003 repeating every lie to push for war in Iraq -- her own words: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtK9AzcU42g [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:04PM (1 child)
But when DJT promises war, you jump for joy? Did HRC want war with the wrong people? What's wrong with you?
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday August 30 2017, @03:34AM
Don't be a retard. Trump complained about useless foreign wars leading one to think he's either lying or not lying. In other words, he was marginally better than HRC. As I mentioned previously, I didn't vote for either POS, but when comparing craps, HRC was the bigger stinkier one.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:29AM
While we can agree that politicians always lie, you fail to see that politicians lie to make themselves look BETTER. No politician lies about being worse than they really are.
When a politician promises ONE war, expect TWO.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Tuesday August 29 2017, @08:33PM (2 children)
If you were hoping to be a spoiler you should have voted for Johnson; he had about three times more support than Stein.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:03PM
But Johnson was a libertarian! And a former Republican! And he has been in TMB's sig! Eewwwww!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Wednesday August 30 2017, @03:37AM
When I protest vote, I vote for who I want. I'm saying to the DNC -- here I am, if you want my vote, earn it by being less Republican. If I voted Johnson, the message would be fuzzy.
(I realize that Greens aren't confused Democrats and Libertarians aren't confused Republicans -- there are times where I will choose a lesser evil though, Bernie Sanders for instance so it is not totally without reason to think a sufficiently decent Democrat could garner my vote).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @10:43PM
Saddam was a more effective evil too. I'll bet most of iraq would gladly have him back by now.
I want you to go outside and sleep on the sidewalk in a dangerous neighborhood because you have little perspective and need to join the rest of us in reality. You sound like the kind of turd who would kill for the right to install a free as in speech bootloader on a bluetooth dildo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @08:52AM
He was also calling Snowden a traitor, speaking out against free speech, and talking about taking out the families of terrorists. Please. There was almost no chance he'd be decent.
Also, how about not voting for either of them if you hate them that much? That's an option.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:06PM (43 children)
Please follow up with a statement of condemnation for how things have turned out. That does not imply you would have preferred HRC or voted differently given the two choices, but it would be nice to hear some supporters condemn Trump for his absolute betrayal of every silver lining you believed in.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:10PM (42 children)
They're not, they're backing him up at every step. Anything that makes him look bad is "lies" from the "liberal media".
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:24PM (35 children)
No, only most of it is lies from the liberal media. The rest they more or less expected but voted him in anyway because he was still a better alternative than Hillary.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:44PM (34 children)
Oh come on. The craziness in his cabinet (e.g., Scaramucchi out after less than a week on the job) isn't lies. They don't make that stuff up.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 29 2017, @08:01PM (13 children)
Nothing wrong with that though. If someone is refusing to do, or incapable of doing, the work the way you want them to, you fire them and get someone who can and will. That's how you're supposed to boss.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:14PM (3 children)
But if the boss consistently hires people who can't or won't do the job right, and keeps having to fire them, then hires replacements who also can't or won't... none of that reflects badly on the boss?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:35PM (1 child)
Like was explained in another comment, as circumstances change the employee hired earlier may not be the best employee to have around today. Different skill sets work better in different situations. An organization needs to adapt to changing circumstances. Sometimes this involves people being replaced. It's a perfectly natural process, and it's good when it happens. Severe inefficiencies can creep in when such change doesn't happen. See the US auto industry. Unions prevented this natural ebb and flow of employees, and it ruined some of the largest organizations in the country.
It's the same for a presidency. The people who were the best fit before and during the transition of power may not be the best fit once firmly in power. Often it's because such people can be providing more value elsewhere, in some other role. Trying to prevent this change can be totally disastrous.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @10:44PM
Wow! That sure is some extra-powerful cognitive dissonance you got going there!
Many of his staff have already been purged and we are not yet one year into this administration. Scaramucci lasted barely a week and a half! Are you seriously suggesting that Scaramucci had already outlasted his usefulness after just ten days? Do you really think that is good long-term planning by the Clown in the Oval Office when he can't even hold onto a Communications Director for more than ten days? Look, I'm all for rearranging and changing up the staff, as needed, but this is quite a bit more churn in the White House than I can ever recall in my life time. In fact, I'm pretty sure this is unprecedented. And we haven't even touched on the issue of Trump not yet even nominating many sub-Cabinet level positions. What about those people? Are they adding better value outside the administration?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 30 2017, @02:32AM
Oh sure it does. And once the Washington insiders that he only took in as a handjob to the Republican party are all gone I expect you'll see a lot less turnover.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by vux984 on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:38PM (5 children)
If it was just Scaramucci sure, one firing in isolation is nothing to worry about, and may even show strong leadership. But its been a revolving door over there and it's not just changing of the guard from Obama era to Trump era which you would expect -- its a revolving door of his OWN picks and that's a reflection of toxic management or incompetent management or both.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 30 2017, @02:40AM (4 children)
Yeah, that does kinda make him look less on top of things than most folks would prefer. I'm not most folks though. Him fucking up gives me a happy. It's going to give me an even bigger happy when Hillary tries again in 2020 and fails again despite every shortcoming of his. Maybe then the DNC will get it through their thick skulls that we're sick to fucking death of being lied to on the campaign trail and then ass fucked once they get in office. A hell of a lot of the American people will not stand for more of the same old bullshit anymore.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Wednesday August 30 2017, @05:39PM (2 children)
Really? That "hell of a lot" of them stood and delivered for more lies and bullshit, just from a different source that happened to have the correct letter following their name on the ballot.
Whether these particular lies and bullshit were any better is up for debate.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 30 2017, @10:57PM (1 child)
Kind of my point. Half the country would rather knowingly vote for someone they have a pretty good idea is going to screw them over as opposed to more of the same.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Thursday August 31 2017, @03:41PM
Meh, I don't buy it. Most Americans are gullible as hell, and a large portion of them vote purely on the basis that there is an 'R' (or a 'D') following the candidate's name on the ballot (which is the stupidest reason of all). Tribalism trumps thinking every time.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Wednesday August 30 2017, @06:05PM
I'm not in the US, but even on the media here it was obvious HRC was being propped up by 'medical' treatments. I think the chances of her being fit and healthy enough to survive another campaign in four years are pretty damn low.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:59PM (2 children)
And there is nothing wrong with you being a total moron. I wish I had a TMB app that could spew shitty wisdom, would make for a fun ice-breaker at parties. Maybe a gameshow jeopardy type thing, "I'll take 5th grade reasoning for $500."
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 30 2017, @02:42AM (1 child)
If your reasoning needs two pages to explain, it's because you lack the intelligence to state a complex thought simply.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:39AM
Ooh another one! Solid gold today!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @08:02PM (9 children)
If a boss feels that an employee isn't a good fit for a particular job, why should this boss keep this employee in that position for longer than necessary?
What lefties like you see as "craziness", people who have experience with business and running large-scale operations see as "being responsible".
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:03PM (7 children)
If you're constantly hiring, and then and firing people after a very short time, that shows that you suck as a boss and aren't very good at picking competent people in the first place.
Trump doesn't have any real experience running a real business, and has never turned any serious profit. He would have been better off sticking his inheritance into an S&P500 index fund.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:16PM (6 children)
You fail to understand that business, including the business of running a country, is very dynamic.
People who are the right employees today could very well be the wrong employees tomorrow. And it's not because they're bad employees, or because whoever hired them was bad at hiring. It's actually the opposite: the context that an organization is operating within changes over time, and the organization itself must adapt to these new circumstances.
New circumstances sometimes call for new employees, and sometimes new circumstances also mean that existing employees are no longer needed.
It's idiotic to try to fight against these dynamics. Change is sometimes necessary.
That's what President Trump excels at. He isn't afraid of positive change.
That's why he comes into so much conflict with the Democratic and Republican party establishments. They want the status quo, regardless of the cost.
President Trump, on the other hand, wants real progress. He doesn't want a regression to communism or socialism like many of the so-called leftist "progressives" want. He wants real, forward-moving, beneficial progress. In many ways he's one of the few truly progressive politicians in the USA today.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:35PM (4 children)
Wow, those are some serious mental gymnastics there. If you ran a company that way, hiring people and firing them a week later, you'd be out of business very quickly.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:39PM (3 children)
You couldn't be any more wrong. My business success proves you wrong, and the success of the billionaire president of the most powerful nation on Earth proves you wrong, too. We'll take our flexible, dynamic, real-world business operating techniques over your inflexible and failed methods any day. We'll succeed. You will fail.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @10:10PM (1 child)
Uzzy if you're gonna post shitty trollcrap please do it with your own name.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 30 2017, @10:58PM
I haven't posted AC since I came on staff, darlin. Everything I do is right there in your face.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @03:21PM
Because people are so good at learning and then executing a new job within a week?
You seriously think that?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by curril on Tuesday August 29 2017, @10:16PM
Oooh, an old-school adequacy-style troll. Great job, moving from a semi-plausible business statement to the conclusion that Trump is a true progressive. Maybe you should have thrown in there a claim that Scaramucci's short stint was a brilliant ploy to make Spicer's and Priebus' sad, but necessary, departures more palatable to the Republican establishment but once they left Scaramucci's skill set was no longer a good fit for the office so he had to be replaced as well. Or that his pardoning of Arpaio is a signal that progressive sheriffs no longer have to be concerned about following regressive, burdensome court orders. Nevermind, scratch that. Any description of Trump's actual choices as being insightful would clearly look idiotic and reveal your hand.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:12PM
If they are such a bad fit, how in the hell did they get hired in the first place? The Donald knows how to find the best, smartest people? Not? You can fire all you want, but if you are relying on luck, after you run out of family and sycophants, you will never have a competent team, in business or in government. Fraud. Trump is a fraud, a loser fraud.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by takyon on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:18PM (7 children)
The chaos in the cabinet is just political circus intrigue. But there is a benefit.
We're seeing some Clinton vs. Trump comparisons here, but let's switch to Cruz vs. Trump.
Trump's cabinet is in disarray with competing factions jostling to push each other away from the President's ear. Trump can't coordinate with Congress well at all and has attacked many Republicans in Congress. The relationship between Trump and McConnell is so bad that we've heard reporting along the lines of them not talking for weeks and shouting at each other over the phone when they have spoken. It could get worse [talkingpointsmemo.com], with a government shutdown being threatened. Trump and Paul Ryan have a lot of bad blood too.
Compare to a hypothetical President Ted Cruz. Even though some of his Senate colleagues hate Cruz for being a snake (Trump is a lion), the guy would not have had the same unprecedented strained relationship between a Republican President and Republican Congress. Cruz would be pushing through more evangelical bullshit, whereas with Trump we get lip service here, a military trans ban there.
The dysfunction in the Republican party right now is incredible. They can't get a proper repeal of the Affordable Care Act through despite that being an obvious #1 priority throughout the entirety of the Obama presidency. Liberals have come together as never before to oppose Trump, and Hillary's loss could lead to the mainstream faction being replaced by something much more leftist in 2020.
The biggest blow is the Supreme Court. Trump will have no problem picking justices as conservative as any other Republican would pick. He may get the opportunity to pick 3 of them. Especially if he gets a second term. But overall, Democrats/liberals couldn't ask for a better Republican President to have in office than Trump, and that's even after discounting the possibility of impeachment.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:32PM (5 children)
Hillary's loss could lead to the mainstream faction being replaced by something much more leftist in 2020.
I do agree that if Cruz had been elected, things would probably be even worse, with him pushing through a lot of evangelical bullshit, and in fact that's why I hope nothing happens to Trump because if Pence takes over, it'll be just like that. Pence is also a religious loony, but he's politically competent and will get a lot of shit pushed through.
However, I'm not really seeing what you're talking about here with the DNC. It seems like the DNC is still controlled by the Clinton faction and has continually doubled-down on its BS claims about "Russian hackers!" and steadfastly refused to admit that they were the ones who lost the election due to their own (and Hillary's) actions.
But overall, Democrats/liberals couldn't ask for a better Republican President to have in office than Trump, and that's even after discounting the possibility of impeachment.
Yeah, as I said before, I hope this doesn't happen. Pence will be much worse than Trump. Even if somehow, both Trump and Pence got taken out (double impeachment?) at the same time, it'd suck because then we'd have President Ryan, though I'm honestly not sure if that would be better or worse than our current predicament. However, a long, drawn-out impeachment process that never actually succeeds in getting rid of Trump would probably be a good thing, esp. if it's led by the Republicans in Congress: it'd make the GOP look bad, and it'd shut down the government for years potentially so nothing would get passed.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:53PM (4 children)
Sanders got within striking distance of Clinton despite opposition to him within the DNC and Clinton being considered the anointed one by the media. It was supposed to be a done deal that Clinton would get the nomination, and that the loony-looking Sanders would get a token 2-10% of the primary votes.
Now we're going into 2020 with a Presidential candidate vacuum in the Democratic Party. It's inconceivable that Clinton would run again. She failed against the candidate that was supposed to be easy to beat. A lot of shady stuff [theintercept.com] happened to tank Sanders and push Clinton through, and it pissed off the left wing of the party.
Who is the best person to challenge Trump in 2020? Cory Booker? Who knows.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday August 29 2017, @10:19PM (1 child)
Now we're going into 2020 with a Presidential candidate vacuum in the Democratic Party. It's inconceivable that Clinton would run again. She failed against the candidate that was supposed to be easy to beat.
Really? With the way the DNC has behaved all along, and also considering their historical record of running lousy candidates (Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, Mondale), I honestly wouldn't be surprised to see them run Hillary yet again in 2020, and lose yet again. They really do seem to be clueless.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @02:34AM
Seriously, you couldn't have gone back to Humphrey? The Dems have been running anointed ones instead of candidates actually able to engender excitement my whole life.
I highly recommend people take the time to listen to Woody Guthrie and Phil Ochs. List to their songs and you'll very quickly realize how long this shit's been going on.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday August 30 2017, @03:47AM (1 child)
Please no -- Cory Booker is just a pharma whore. He's exactly like Clinton, but with different plumbing and skin tone. If the DNC goes the Clinton way again, I might actually have to vote for whoever the GOP challenger is, though I'd prefer to vote for someone like Sanders or barring that, a 3d party.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday August 30 2017, @03:41PM
What are you talking about? Booker at least has done a couple of genuinely progressive things, such as publicly opposing the Drug War. He's no Sanders, but I wouldn't say he's exactly like Hillary; that's just ridiculous.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:34AM
The republicans in congress never wanted to repeal the Affordable Care Act. They voted to do so, knowing they could depend on Obama to veto the repeal.
Things are now... awkward.
Promises were made, and now Trump makes it obvious that the republicans in congress never wanted to repeal the Affordable Care Act. The vote to repeal will now always fall 1 or 2 votes short. The republicans voting to keep the mess are probably instructed to do so by the congressional leadership. Somebody is picked to do the job of voting "no", keeping up the lie.
Note that the senate leadership could easily get the job done. They only need 50 votes according to our constitution, but they are operating under different rules that were self-imposed a few decades ago. It wouldn't take more than a few minutes to blow away those rules, but they don't. They like being able to pretend that they simply can't find the votes.
This is what we call the "uniparty". On most issues, the democrats and republicans cooperate to screw over the country. They pretend to battle, much like WWE wrestlers, over a few social issues (abortion, LGBT, guns...) that are easy for voters to understand. Meanwhile, complicated banking and tax and IP law gets passed with no outrage.
(Score: 3, Informative) by khallow on Wednesday August 30 2017, @03:54AM (1 child)
That's his management style and it is rather typical behavior of populist politicians. High turnover in appointed positions displays who's in charge. It may appear (and be) crazy, but it can be effective theater to the low level supporters. Also, the White House Communications Director is not a cabinet level post (in particular, no approval by Congress required). There's a lot less overhead and risk to firing such a person.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @04:38PM
No Trump is a beta cuck who can't stand that his wife gets pleasure from every member of his staff. She even chose Huckabee over touching Trump's "tiny hands" again.
Like a true duck he fires everybody instead of being a real man.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:43PM
It's more like they're backing him into a corner at every step.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Gaaark on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:48PM (4 children)
Whoa!
Like the lies that came from HRC?
Like the theft of the leadership from Sanders?
Like the sticky, slimy snail trail of corruption she left behind her everywhere she went?
Like the lack of leadership she has shown since losing (and the leadership that Sanders picked up with her failure to come forward)?
I'm not backing him: I'm hating her sliminess!
If she hadn't stolen it from Sanders, the President might BE Sanders.
Instead, there was a big backlash against her, and you have Trump.
Blame HRC for Trump, not the "liberal media". It is all in the lap of HRC.
Hate the player, not the result that she forced to the surface.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by GlennC on Tuesday August 29 2017, @08:18PM
Very well put, and please accept a virtual +1 from me.
We were going to be screwed either way.
Sorry folks...the world is bigger and more varied than you want it to be. Deal with it.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:21PM
DJT lies more in one sentence than HRC did her entire pollical career. Why aren't you beating the liar drum for him?
As apposed to the swamp of corruption that DJT jumped right into and donated large amounts of his own excrement to replace what had splashed out because of his jump? He lied when he said he was going to do something about it.
Hey, DJT is the president, not HRC or BHO. It's not their responsibility to lead from the sidelines. This shit show is all on the Orange One and his supporters who refuse to stop him or at least take him aside like a spoiled child and set him straight.
About the only thing one can agree with from that line of snail excrement. HRC and the DNC screwed Sanders, yes. *golf clap* But if we're afraid of libruls we're afraid of socialists even more aren't we?
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Wednesday August 30 2017, @06:56PM (1 child)
"Like the lies that came from HRC?"
"Like the sticky, slimy snail trail of corruption she left behind her everywhere she went?"
vs Trump? Really? HRC stank, that's hardly a reason to pick Trump. If there's a pile of dogsit in your path, do you step in a bigger pile of dogshit to avoid it?
"Like the lack of leadership she has shown since losing (and the leadership that Sanders picked up with her failure to come forward)?"
WTF?? Seriously. WHAT THE FUCK? Who cares what Hillary did after she lost the election. She can be a retired grandmother and make cookies all day for all I care. She wasn't elected president, its not her job to lead.
"If she hadn't stolen it from Sanders, the President might BE Sanders.
Instead, there was a big backlash against her, and you have Trump."
That's big bucket of maybe. What if Sanders had won the nomination and Trump still beat him? What if HRC and the DNC hadn't played dirty, and HRC still won the nomination and then still lost against Trump. Hell, maybe there is nothing the democrats could have done to win 2016; 8 years of democrats and lot of people didn't want a continuation of that no matter what democrat was running. There is no evidence to really support that Sanders would have definitely beaten Trump.
You want us to "Blame HRC for Trump", but what about the RNC that put him up as a candidate in the first place? Blame the democrats for a shitty candidate with a shitty campaign on the democrats --yes they should own that. But blame the republicans for putting Trump on the ticket as their guy. That wasn't HRC. That wasn't the democrats. That was all on the republicans, and they need to own that. I get why the democrats lost.
Either of the RNCs past two picks -- John McCain and Romney would likely also have HANDILY beaten HRC had they been on the ticket this time around; and I think a number of the people who did put their name in for president in 2016 would have beaten HRC. So no, I don't blame HRC for Trump. Blame republicans for putting him on the ticket. The dems were a mess and HRC was pretty thoroughly unlikeable -- for her to lose against Trump means she'd have lost against almost anybody this round, so its on the RNC and the republican party that that 'anybody' was Trump.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday August 30 2017, @09:35PM
Okay, one at a time (rolls up sleeves):
1. Hillary is/was? the leader of her party. THE LEADER OF HER PARTY.
What kind of leadership did she show to her party to rally them after the defeat? What kind of leadership did she show when it was Sanders out there taking all the shots about why they lost?
***When you are LEADER, you lead. You get out there and you explain what happened, where you went wrong, what could have been done differently, you take responsibility. YOU LEAD.***
But no, it was left to Sanders to pick up the pieces and lead, cause HRC disappeared into her wine and long walks.
A LEADER LEADS: A LOSER LIKE HRC JUST DOESN'T. She should have shown her party some leadership.
2. It does not matter about what the RNC did: they could have put Hitler up for running and it doesn't matter.
They picked Trump to run.
What matters is WHO WON.
3. So, why did he win? He ran a better campaign than she did. He got his message out better (which is odd because he can barely talk, let alone tweet etc.)
He showed more leadership (He got out there, met people, led.)(She wouldn't talk to reporters, appeared wooden and 'sick'/old.)
He convinced some people that he would be the better person: THE OTHERS, people who didn't want to vote for him (and WOULD HAVE voted Sanders) but couldn't stomach voting for HRC were stuck with a decision.
-can't vote Sanders: bitch took that away.
-can't vote HRC: bitch is too slimy.
-what's left? (or should i say -what's left if you don't want bitch to get in?)
I put the blame on HRC because she/the people around her (DWS...) stole the leadership from the person who was leading and who WOULD HAVE WON if you believe the exit polls.
I put the blame on her for being such a douche ("what do you mean, wiping the computer...like with a cloth?" Fuck off!!!)
I put the blame on her douche husband with his tarmac meeting.
I put the blame on people like you who voted for her and didn't say "What the fuck! Give us Sanders".
Trump won because she was such a fuck up leader and people saw it.
I do not support Trump (I'm not even AMERICAN for fuuuuucks sake!), I just can't take a loser like HRC.
He won because she was sooooo repellant to the people.
Yes, Trump is a douche, but she lost because she is so corrupt she couldn't even let Sanders win the leadership election: she had to STEAL it from him.
Douche is douche: bitch is bitch.
You want to keep going? I can do this allllllllll night. She lost because she sucks as a leader.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 3, Insightful) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:14PM (23 children)
This is what the united states has come to. Hope. Where have I heard that before?
I realize that Hillary was a big bag of crap but you have to admit that something is very wrong when the country is willing to cut off the nose to spite the face. Anyone with half a brain could see that Trump was not fit for office. With two giant turds on either side we finally had a good chance to vote 3rd pary, vote in the underdog, or some other form of voter protest en mass. Instead we got more party line bullshit right down the rep/dem divide. Business as usual.
On second thought, I think I'll join you guys. Sticking your head in the sand with fingers crossed sounds pretty good.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:26PM (5 children)
This face has been asking for some spite for quite a while. Until you're willing to show the establishment you're ready to burn the whole place to the ground if they keep fucking around, they're not going to give you a single inch.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday August 29 2017, @10:32PM (2 children)
The only lesson learned by the establishment is that people are easily manipulated by social media and fake news. Expect worse in 2020.
(Score: 2, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 30 2017, @02:43AM (1 child)
Expect Trump to win again in 2020 then.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday August 30 2017, @11:42AM
Like I said....
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @02:57AM (1 child)
I saw the vote for Trump as an expression of willingness to do just such burning - anything but the established families, no matter how many pussies grabbed.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 30 2017, @10:27AM
Congrats. You're smarter than the vast majority of Democrats then.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:43PM
I disagree with your assertion that Trump is unfit for the office. So far he has proven himself more than capable of handling everything, plus the kitchen sink the scum like yourself throw at him.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Gaaark on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:54PM (15 children)
Again, put all the blame on HRC: she corrupted the leadership election process, stole funds etc from Sanders and stole the election from him.
If she hadn't done that; if she hadn't been such a criminal, scum person, you'd probably NOT have Trump in power.
The blame is entirely on HRC.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @08:32PM (13 children)
I find it hard to believe that there would be a "President Sanders" in power today had he been President Trump's opponent.
Sanders was only taken seriously by a small, fringe, far-left element within the Democratic Party. Pretty much everybody else rejected him.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:05PM (4 children)
That's a load of crap right there. The polling was quite clear that Sanders would have trounced Trump in the general election. Even that terrible candidate HRC barely lost the election and she was specifically promising no change and to do nothing to help the struggling underclass.
Sanders himself wasn't a far left candidate by any reasonable definition of far left. The things that he was promising were things that in any other part of the world would be considered moderate. Most of the developed world has universal health care and policies to ensure that people aren't starving while oligarchs have no shortage of favors from the government. Sanders was far, far more popular with independents and Republicans than HRC was and you think that he wouldn't have won? Those independents were and Democratic defectors were the reason that HRC ultimately lost. Or, more to the point, HRC's inability to connect or offer anything of value to them was the reason she lost.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @10:53PM
Hahahah not even close! Sanders was moderate left at best, it is just that the Democrats have become so authoritarian that you're baseline is outta whack.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 30 2017, @02:44AM (2 children)
The polling also had Hillary winning.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday August 30 2017, @03:54AM (1 child)
All of the polling was done in such a way as to make HRC seem inevitable - comparing that to Bernie's numbers which were certainly squashed as much as possible (and yet he still looked a winner) is an apples/oranges deal.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 30 2017, @10:37AM
Eh, it really is apples and oranges when you're comparing a Bernie/Hillary vs a Bernie/Trump poll, yup. The vested interest there is to show your favored candidate winning in any individual comparison. Which is exactly what was done in both cases.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:08PM (7 children)
If you really think Sanders would have lost to Trump, you're an idiot. Sanders was polling significantly higher than both Hillary and Trump when the polls looked at the overall electorate (i.e., not looking at only Dem voters or party-affiliated voters).
This election was lost by the DNC because of 1) swing voters and 2) people either not voting or voting 3rd-party. Sanders would have won a majority of those votes, plus all the people who voted for Hillary (who sure as hell weren't going to vote for Trump). A lot of Trump voters were even disgruntled Sanders voters who switched sides to thumb their noses at the DNC.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:42PM (6 children)
LOL! You're actually putting faith in the findings of the same pollsters who repeatedly predicted (wrongly) that Clinton would win! LOL!
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @11:10PM (5 children)
Don't let the fact that she won the popular vote ruin your narrative.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 30 2017, @02:45AM (2 children)
Butthurt much? We don't do popular vote round these parts. Google Tyranny of the Majority if you want to know why.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @04:41PM (1 child)
Instead we get dictatorship, color me unimpressed.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 30 2017, @11:01PM
I think you might need to look up that word. You haven't a clue what it means.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday August 30 2017, @03:55AM (1 child)
Where's the "moron" mod when you need it!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 30 2017, @10:41AM
Commented out on the grounds that it'd get used more often than a millennial's cellphone.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:05PM
No, it's not all on HRC. The rest of the DNC shares a portion of the blame, especially her buddy DWS. If it weren't for all her sycophants and helpers in the DNC, HRC wouldn't have gotten anywhere.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by stormreaver on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:01PM (1 child)
So to avoid voting in a corrupt woman with bad judgment, they instead voted in a corrupt man with bad judgment. Good thinking.
(Score: 3, Informative) by hemocyanin on Wednesday August 30 2017, @03:57AM
Let me fix that:
"So instead of voting in a corrupt proven warmongering woman responsible for countless deaths and great destruction, they instead voted in a corrupt man with bad judgment who had done any of that yet and hoped he wouldn't."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Snotnose on Wednesday August 30 2017, @12:21AM (1 child)
Troll? Really? For the record I voted for Gary Johnson, there was no way I could hold my nose and vote for either of the major party candidates.
Given what Trump has given us in the last 6-7 months, I have no regrets. The guy is an asshole, Hillary would have been much more an established institution asshole.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 30 2017, @02:50AM
You n me both. I didn't particularly like Gary's positions on everything but he was at least trying not to be an authoritarian douche.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday August 30 2017, @12:35AM (2 children)
More like, brought to you by a population whose "best" includes corrupt assholes, idiots, evil bitches, and worshippers of the Almighty Dollar.
There is so much truth in the saying that people get the governments that they deserve. The typical American can't be bothered with keeping up with any issues. And, he sure can't be bothered with taking a day to vote once each year. D's or R's, there isn't much difference. Indies are maybe slightly better, in that they chose to be independent for some reason.
Don't blame the Trump, he's just a product of the system that the Americans seem to love.
How many of you watched that idiot Trump when he had his own television show, and envied him? Any time I saw him on the screen, I wanted to slap the arrogant cocksucker. Despite my opinion of him, he was wildly popular among the population at large.
Go ahead, tell me how much you hated him. Your fellow dems, as well as most republicans, in addition to the vacuous masses loved the son of a bitch!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Wednesday August 30 2017, @04:02AM (1 child)
Maybe, but what is the rational response when it is proven that voters have absolutely zero effect on government policy? http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/civil-rights/214857-who-rules-america [thehill.com] After a while, it makes voters look like nothing but useful idiots used to prop up the pretense that voting matters and that we have a representative government. I still vote in every election, but I have no illusions regarding the value of my vote or my opinion in DC.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday August 30 2017, @01:44PM
Didn't need that study. The people of Tennessee voted NAFTA down, but Gore voted for it all the same. All that was necessary, was one rich bastard line Gore's pockets, and he turned around and told his constituents that he knew better than they did. Had Gore been convicted of accepting bribes, the world would be a different place. If all of those congress critters were convicted of accepting bribes, America might actually be great again.