Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Tuesday August 29 2017, @06:36PM   Printer-friendly
from the the-business-of-war dept.

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.

1033 Program.

Also at The Hill and USA Today.


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This discussion has been archived.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: 5, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:11PM (60 children)

    by hemocyanin (186) on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:11PM (#561029) Journal

    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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=4, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Snow on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:24PM (1 child)

    by Snow (1601) on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:24PM (#561038) Journal

    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

      by looorg (578) on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:57PM (#561074)

      ... Pepperidge Farm Remembers.

  • (Score: 5, Touché) by NewNic on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:38PM (47 children)

    by NewNic (6420) on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:38PM (#561052) Journal

    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.

    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)

      by Sulla (5173) on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:45PM (#561062) Journal

      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)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @08:21PM (#561096)

        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)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @08:39PM (#561108)

          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)

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @08:55PM (#561115)

            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

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:13PM (#561139)

              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)

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @10:34PM (#561198)

              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)

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @12:09AM (#561233)

                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)

                  by Mykl (1112) on Wednesday August 30 2017, @12:13AM (#561234)

                  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

                    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @03:57AM (#561299)

                    Will you still be making that claim in 2020 after President Trump wins?

                  • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday August 30 2017, @01:35PM

                    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 30 2017, @01:35PM (#561483) Journal

                    I very much doubt that Trump will run for 2020.

                    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.

                    --
                    People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
                  • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday August 30 2017, @01:40PM

                    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 30 2017, @01:40PM (#561487) Journal

                    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.

                    --
                    People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
                  • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday August 30 2017, @01:44PM

                    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 30 2017, @01:44PM (#561492) Journal

                    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.

                    Just curious. What makes you think we'll have a pesky congress or judiciary by 2020?

                    --
                    People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:19AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:19AM (#561374)

                  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)

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @03:26AM (#561284)

              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)

                by Sulla (5173) on Thursday August 31 2017, @05:28AM (#561973) Journal

                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

                  by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 02 2017, @09:12AM (#562879)

                  just saying he is no better than anyone else.

                  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)

                by AssCork (6255) on Thursday August 31 2017, @12:12PM (#562076) Journal

                ...and is able to get crowds in deep red counties to cheer for him

                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

                  by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 02 2017, @09:10AM (#562877)

                  They cheered in favor of liberal policies like single-payer health care?

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:11AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:11AM (#561369)

              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)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:52PM (#561176)

          Republicans, and to a lesser extent Democrats, are responsible for the obstruction he's faced in accomplishing these important tasks.

          ????? 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)

            by hemocyanin (186) on Wednesday August 30 2017, @03:41AM (#561291) Journal

            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

              by urza9814 (3954) on Wednesday August 30 2017, @06:51PM (#561642) Journal

              Trump may actually be more hated by his own party than Democrats.

              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)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @08:38PM (#561107)

        TTP is dead

        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.

        and we took a step back on Syria instead of diving in

        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

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @08:56PM (#561116)

          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

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @08:57PM (#561117)

          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

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:00AM (#561365)

          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

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:25AM (#561378)

          Replaced by teetering on the brink of a nuclear war with North Korea

          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)

        by Alias (2825) on Friday September 01 2017, @12:53AM (#562363)

        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

          by Sulla (5173) on Friday September 01 2017, @02:31PM (#562514) Journal

          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)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:46PM (#561064)

      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)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:58PM (#561076)

        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)

          by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday August 29 2017, @08:06PM (#561082)

          > 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)

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @08:18PM (#561092)

            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)

              by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:09PM (#561133)

              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)

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:13AM (#561371)

                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

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @08:48AM (#561396)

                  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.

                  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

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @03:14PM (#561527)

                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

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:10PM (#561134)

              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.

              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

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @10:22PM (#561193)

              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.

              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)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 30 2017, @02:55AM (#561277) Journal

            Remember the part where Obama's tenure had the most deportations of any president?

            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

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 30 2017, @11:17AM (#561430) Journal
              I forgot to mention that Obama does have considerably more of the harsher "removal" deportations than the previous two presidents.
            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Justin Case on Thursday August 31 2017, @09:56AM (1 child)

              by Justin Case (4239) on Thursday August 31 2017, @09:56AM (#562041) Journal

              prison, for those who illegally

              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

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 01 2017, @01:13AM (#562371) Journal

                What's the point of having laws if there are no consequences?

                Status signaling for law makers.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:01PM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:01PM (#561121)

          Democrats and their supporters appear to want the borders to be wide open, allowing all sorts of third-worlders to flow into America unchecked.

          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)

            by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:21PM (#561149)

            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)

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @03:59AM (#561301)

              The parent comment should be modded -1, Psychotic.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @05:42AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @05:42AM (#561335)

                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)

    by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:54PM (#561073)

    > 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)

      by hemocyanin (186) on Tuesday August 29 2017, @08:18PM (#561093) Journal

      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)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:04PM (#561126)

        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

          by hemocyanin (186) on Wednesday August 30 2017, @03:34AM (#561287) Journal

          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

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:29AM (#561379)

      Because you believe campaign promises?

      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)

    by mhajicek (51) on Tuesday August 29 2017, @08:33PM (#561102)

    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

      by aristarchus (2645) on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:03PM (#561124) Journal

      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

      by hemocyanin (186) on Wednesday August 30 2017, @03:37AM (#561288) Journal

      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

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @10:43PM (#561201)

    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

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @08:52AM (#561398)

    Rationality would suggest you hope you get the dickweed because a bad possibility is better than a bad certainty.

    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.