Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Breaking News
posted by cmn32480 on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:18AM   Printer-friendly
from the get-your-popcorn dept.

After losing the Indiana primary, Ted Cruz suspended his presidential bid, saying that "the path has been foreclosed".

Donald Trump will likely succeed on the initial ballot at the Republican National Convention, avoiding a contested convention. Bernie Sanders won a 5-6 point victory in Indiana, prolonging the Democratic side of the race.


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This discussion has been archived.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, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:25AM

    by hemocyanin (186) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:25AM (#341199) Journal

    There are only two candidates that scare(d) me. One was Cruz. The other is Hillary. It's been a good day, one party's establishment severly chastened. Now it's time burn down the DNC establishment too.

    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:33AM

      by frojack (1554) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:33AM (#341205) Journal

      Bernie did ok too, did he not?

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:53AM

        by hemocyanin (186) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:53AM (#341231) Journal

        Bernie did great in Indiana -- I'm celebrating 100% positive news tonight.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by vux984 on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:36AM

      by vux984 (5045) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:36AM (#341207)

      Why scared of Hillary? I don't like her, and I don't think she'd be a good president, but i'd merely be disappointed if she won as opposed to scared. Trump and Cruz both scare me. Both would take the country down. Hillary is 'status quo' which certainly isn't good, but its not the end of the world, or something to be scared of. I kind of like Sanders, but he's not going to be the nominee.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:49AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:49AM (#341223)

        "We came; we saw; he died" is reason enough for me.

        https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%22we+came+we+saw+he+died%22 [youtube.com]

      • (Score: 5, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:01AM

        by hemocyanin (186) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:01AM (#341235) Journal

        Here is the canonical list of why a liberal like me could never vote for HRC: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/russ-belville/the-problem-with-hillary-clinton_b_9349590.html [huffingtonpost.com]

        The reason I fear HRC is that she will ossify as standard practice, the neocon / pro-wallstreet / pro-unfair-freetrade wing of the DNC for YEARS to come. Dems don't do primary challengers so if HRC wins, we will have to follow that up with a GOP president before we can run a liberal again. HRC one term: 8 years, two terms: 12 years. If Trump wins, we can run a liberal in four short years.

        Secondly, if Trump wins and he turns out to be as bad as everyone says (which honestly I doubt -- he's more a blowhard than anything), consider the positives that came out of Nixon's reign. The Church Committee put the surveillance state on the defensive for decades (recall how hard the Clipper Chip died). The War Powers Act helped us to avoid another Vietnam scale conflict for 25 years. Those reactions were awesome, and no matter how much Nixon sucked, have probably meant fewer deaths and greater freedom in that quarter century in which they held sway, than if Nixon hadn't been such an ass to begin with.

        So no, Trump doesn't scare me in the least. He'll could be mediocre and nothing changes, he might be great (super low probability), or he might be awful and the reaction to him will be great. No matter what though, he's way less risky than Clinton.

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:35AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:35AM (#341255)

          I really can't see any people of conscience voting for any of the top candidates (Sanders possibly excluded). The whole lesser of two evils got tricky when the level of evil grew exponentially across the board. It's not even voting for someone as much as voting against. That's just piss-poor.

          My suspicion is that Trump will get the nod as he is essentially the "none of the above" vote, and in a political season of voting against, that takes the prize.

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:41AM

          by edIII (791) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:41AM (#341257)

          The reason I fear HRC is that she will ossify as standard practice, the neocon / pro-wallstreet / pro-unfair-freetrade wing of the DNC for YEARS to come.

          Yep. That's why I'll vote for Trump before Hillary. Let's face it, too many more years of this 1% bullshit, or continual increases in inequality and we could be risking mass riots, strikes, and pretty ugly shit in general. Hillary is a guarantee that the establishment is firmly and tightly in control, and that means no meaningful reforms or changes. At the same time, we would see no progress in justice being obtained for past financial misconduct. Hillary is the premier Wall Street Whore.

          Trump... could burn the whole son of a bitch of a down. Quite frankly, I would rather see us on fire than see the 1% get 1-inch more. Like you said, it could mean that in 4 years we could really elect a reform president. Trump, for all his bluster, seems like a radical reform president in the making already. If only he weren't so bigoted and lacking in empathy.

          I really hope Bernie cleans up and takes the nomination, even with a contested convention. We need sane, and preferably not corrupt, options.

          --
          Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
          • (Score: 5, Insightful) by julian on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:56AM

            by julian (6003) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:56AM (#341262)

            I think you're making a huge mistake in categorizing Trump. He *is* the 1%. He's really good at saying things that alienated working-class GOP rank and file want to hear, but I don't think he cares about those issues or would follow through on those promises. Take the wall for example. There's not going to be a wall, even if he gets elected. It's colossally stupid to build a literal wall, thousands of miles long, much of it through depopulated desert, when you can just tweak some tax/employment law to accomplish the same thing. If you think we need more physical security then we have helicopters and drones and seismic sensors and men in SUVs that can do a better job than any wall you could reasonably build even with an unreasonable amount of money. Walls are ancient technology and didn't even work for the Chinese back then.

            POTUS also can't unilaterally change the terms of international treaties. Other countries have citizens too who will hold their own governments accountable. Many do a better job than we do. He can't bully these people like he does his employees.

            The military will NOT torture people or kill the innocent children and families of terrorists if ordered to. Even in Vietnam that wasn't tolerated systemically.

            He makes a lot of promises that he simply CANNOT deliver on.

            • (Score: 3, Interesting) by jmorris on Wednesday May 04 2016, @05:05AM

              by jmorris (4844) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @05:05AM (#341266)

              There is one advantage of a wall you are pointedly mot seeing. It is a physical reality and not a policy decision subject to reversal with a change of administration.

              The illegal immigration problem is trivial to solve, given a political will to actually do it. The problem is the bipartisan establishment do not want to solve it, each half for different reasons. Once a wall exists it would require a obvious and very unpopular act to unbuild it, not just a return to the current policy of feigned incompetence.

              Walls are ancient technology and didn't even work for the Chinese back then.

              Ask the Israelis how their wall is working out. Or ask why there is such urgency in building them in Europe.

              • (Score: 2) by julian on Wednesday May 04 2016, @05:10AM

                by julian (6003) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 04 2016, @05:10AM (#341268)

                Ask the Israelis how their wall is working out. Or ask why there is such urgency in building them in Europe.

                Totally different geographic and political situations; not at all applicable except speciously which makes them a go-to argument for the simpleminded or the disingenuous.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @05:18AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @05:18AM (#341272)

                It worked for East Germany, didn't it? And they built their wall from ordinary concrete. When Donald Trump is president, I'm going to suggest that the "wall" be a fence made from America's spent nuclear fuel rods. Kill two birds with one stone, so to speak.

                • (Score: 3, Interesting) by julian on Wednesday May 04 2016, @05:59AM

                  by julian (6003) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 04 2016, @05:59AM (#341287)

                  No, it didn't work for East Germany, and that was a completely different political situation. The motivations of the parties were reversed. The side that built the wall was trying to keep their population IN. They also didn't shy away from outright murdering their own citizens who tried to cross. The most famous section was also built through an urban area with excellent infrastructure, and it was much shorter than any USA/Mexico border wall would have to be.

                  Even then, it still didn't work. People got in/out all the time. I'm only a 3rd generation American, here because my grandfather managed the crossing as a young boy.

                  • (Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Wednesday May 04 2016, @06:40AM

                    by fido_dogstoyevsky (131) <axehandleNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday May 04 2016, @06:40AM (#341303)

                    No, it didn't work for East Germany ... The side that built the wall was trying to keep their population IN. They also didn't shy away from outright murdering their own citizens who tried to cross.

                    And Trump's wall wouldn't work in both directions?

                    --
                    It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
                    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by julian on Wednesday May 04 2016, @07:08AM

                      by julian (6003) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 04 2016, @07:08AM (#341317)

                      It wouldn't work either direction, but most people would be crossing South to North. Not much demand to sneak *into* Mexico. The point was, the Mexican side is doing virtually nothing to stop their people heading North--which is the opposite situation with the Berlin Wall.

                      Look, if you want to stop immigration by physical force a literal wall is just about the least efficient way to go about it. What you want are drones, helicopters, infrared cameras, and seismic sensors. You'd also want the Coast Guard involved with more funding. You want more scrutiny at the border checkpoints. The real impact however would be to drop the hammer on employers who hire illegal immigrants. You can't do this without violating the rights of our own citizens but if you've got that big a boner for cracking down on illegal immigrants you probably don't care about silly things like Constitutional Rights.

                      In a lot of ways we should be thankful. The immigrants we get, modulo those involved in the drug trade (which is OUR FAULT), are very similar culturally to the rest of America. They are the same religion, Christian. They are very family oriented. They work hard. They speak a latin-alphabet based language with many English cognates. They share a European ancestry both biologically(partial) and culturally.

                      These are the people we want. They assimilate well when given the chance. The drug trade introduces gang violence which gives them the negative image, but again, we cause the drug trade problems with our own bad policies. Make pot legal. Decriminalize hard drugs. Give addicts treatment and support instead of jail time. Watch the cartels dry up. Anyone in favor of the War on Drugs is essentially supporting Welfare payments to the Mexican drug cartels because they would rather be morally pure. Funny, I thought the GOP was against welfare :^)

                      • (Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Wednesday May 04 2016, @08:37AM

                        by fido_dogstoyevsky (131) <axehandleNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday May 04 2016, @08:37AM (#341349)

                        [stopping illegal immigrants]...The real impact however would be to drop the hammer on employers who hire illegal immigrants. You can't do this without violating the rights of our own citizens but if you've got that big a boner for cracking down on illegal immigrants you probably don't care about silly things like Constitutional Rights.

                        Not in the US so I don't know, but how would this violate US citizens' rights?

                        And a wall isn't really needed, the easy way to stop illegal immigration is to simply cut down all reporting of it and keep telling everyone that "we've stopped the boats^w illegal immigrants!"

                        ...we cause the drug trade problems with our own bad policies...

                        Unfortunately we're doing the same thing on our side of the pond as well.

                        --
                        It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @02:40PM

                          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @02:40PM (#341472)

                          Laws in the US are complicated. For one thing you cannot assume a person is guilty until proven innocent, or guilty of a crime just because of ethnicity, so you can't look at Pablo and say "he looks like a wetback, let's round him up and find out" as he could actually be a US born citizen, Police require "probable cause" that is not related to the person's ethnicity. What do you suppose the police use as probable cause for a person being in the US illegally? Waiving a Mexican flag around is protected by freedom of expression, speaking Spanish is protected by freedom of speech. And acting on either one could also be seen discriminatory.

                          US born citizens are not required to carry an ID on their person either, thou many authoritarians would love it if they did, so they could be endlessly harassed to provide identification. So there is no way for police to prove that the person is in the country illegally unless they arrest them. Though your employer is usually required to verify you are in the country legally, so if you target the employer and tell him to prove all the workers here are authorized to work, that is usually the only way to crack down on illegals right now. So assuming he didn't get a tip off about the inspection and sent his illegals home for the day, you can catch him red-handed.

                          Also most Police departments lack jurisdiction and training in matters of employment and immigration status, you would have to use Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and Department of Labor to conduct any substantive actions against illegals and their employers.

                      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by bornagainpenguin on Wednesday May 04 2016, @12:40PM

                        by bornagainpenguin (3538) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @12:40PM (#341409)

                        >>Look, if you want to stop immigration by physical force a literal wall is just about the least efficient way to go about it.

                        Seemed to have worked pretty good for Hungary, once their wall was up the illegal immigration issue they had dropped tremendously.

                      • (Score: 2) by gman003 on Wednesday May 04 2016, @12:51PM

                        by gman003 (4155) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @12:51PM (#341413)

                        You seem to be misinformed about the realities of illegal immigration. Fortunately, the facts actually support your anti-wall position even better.

                        There actually is a substantial amount of people who, having illegally immigrated from Mexico in the 90s/00s, are now emigrating back to Mexico. Because, fundamentally, Mexico now has a stable, functional economy and is climbing out of the third world. Even counting illegals, the net flow of people between the US and Mexico is towards Mexico. (Net flow across the border is still towards the US, because of thru-immigration from Central/South America, but even that isn't substantial)

                        And the US-Mexico border isn't even where most of our illegal immigrants cross now, anyways. China and India now send us more illegal immigrants - and what are we going to do, build a wall across the Pacific Ocean?

                        Also, the US-Mexico border *already* has drones, IR cameras and so on. It's one of the most actively patrolled and monitored borders on the planet - and *the* most defended border between two countries that have not fought any wars in living memory. The only things left for us to add are land mines and automatic sentry turrets, like the Korean DMZ.

                      • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Thursday May 05 2016, @02:48AM

                        by Reziac (2489) on Thursday May 05 2016, @02:48AM (#341883) Homepage

                        "if you want to stop immigration by physical force a literal wall is just about the least efficient way to go about it. What you want are drones, helicopters, infrared cameras, and seismic sensors. "

                        Which is all dandy if at the border you magically tag everyone crossing it, so you can find them with your drones, copters, cameras, and sensors, and then have a police force handily deployed right where they're needed WHEN they're needed. Because otherwise by the time they arrive, the border crossers will be long gone and it won't matter how many drones and cameras and helicopters you have. The border area is as big as the whole state of Texas. Patrolling it is an expensive proposition.

                        No, a wall won't keep out everyone. But if it discourages a substantial majority, simply by being a lot more trouble to circumvent than a border you can now just walk across whenever you please, it will have done its job.

                        I also submit that a wall can be used to weed out the criminals and losers that Mexico currently loves to dump on us: make entry into the US contingent on spending a year of your life as unpaid labor, helping build, maintain, and patrol that wall. Demonstrate commitment to America and that you're a worthy and desirable future citizen, not just a dope dealer or a welfare cheat.

                        --
                        And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
              • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:10PM

                by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:10PM (#341481) Homepage Journal

                Have they covered the Berlin wall in history class, youngster? Walls do come down.

                --
                mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
            • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @05:47AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @05:47AM (#341283)

              Trump is wrong. We are not wall builders. Consider the Korean DMZ. We use land mines. They work very nicely, don't mar the view, and don't cause storm drainage problems.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @02:02PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @02:02PM (#341447)

                And the occasional fireworks, followed by a "clean-off-the-person-parts-from-your-windows"-day...

              • (Score: 3, Funny) by Fnord666 on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:46PM

                by Fnord666 (652) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:46PM (#341496) Homepage

                Trump is wrong. We are not wall builders. Consider the Korean DMZ. We use land mines. They work very nicely, don't mar the view, and don't cause storm drainage problems.

                It plays hell with your golf game though.

                • (Score: 2) by MostCynical on Thursday May 05 2016, @01:52AM

                  by MostCynical (2589) on Thursday May 05 2016, @01:52AM (#341871) Journal

                  Good motivation for fixing your hook or slice, though.

                  --
                  "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
            • (Score: 4, Interesting) by edIII on Wednesday May 04 2016, @05:17PM

              by edIII (791) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @05:17PM (#341555)

              Hillary is worse. Trump has at least the possibility of disrupting the Establishment, while Hillary has only the possibilities of serving it. Therefore, I vote for Trump, and possibly the self-immolation of the US.

              Yes, Trump's positions are fairly stupid. However, you're wrong about the wall. We actually need very strong and high walls, including Canada. You don't need a wall for the Pacific, but just a policy that will sink any ship coming with 2 miles of shore not at a port. It's not impossible to inspect every ship and container, just expensive and requiring labor. Take 1% off the top of military funding to do it. Done. Take 15% off the top and allocate it towards infrastructure, including the wall. Which by the way, would more likely be a 20 lane mega highway from San Diego to Houston.

              All of that being said, the most powerful part about the wall isn't going to be the wall. It will be the "holes of convenience". Why attempt to circumvent the wall, when there is a nice immigration building where you can walk/drive thru and simply declare yourself? That's the part that Republicans will refuse, where will get rid of the quotas and just let people in that demonstrate they can work. Path of least resistance is always very effective.

              The only thing more effective than those immigration buildings will be a mandated living wage in the US, even for illegal immigrants. Meaning, we will fine you for both having an illegal immigrant, and paying that illegal immigrant less.

              There are smart ways to accomplish these things, but we need a government not fully captured by monied interests. Trump is a way forward, if only through fire. Hillary is a paved road further into hell.

              #NeverClinton

              --
              Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
          • (Score: 2) by gidds on Wednesday May 04 2016, @12:47PM

            by gidds (589) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @12:47PM (#341410)

            Quite frankly, I would rather see us on fire than [...]

            I see this sentiment expressed a lot; but I wonder if people really understand what they're saying.  Either you mean that far more metaphorically than it sounds, or you really can't imagine what a failed government would actually be like.

            And it doesn't take much imagination; for example, look at what's happening in Syria right now...

            it could mean that in 4 years we could really elect a reform president.

            If Trump is as bad as I fear, then in 4 years there might not be elections at all.  (There might not even be a US government to elect...)

            --
            [sig redacted]
            • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday May 04 2016, @01:55PM

              by tangomargarine (667) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @01:55PM (#341443)

              If Trump is as bad as I fear, then in 4 years there might not be elections at all.

              Oh come on, let's not get carried away. If Trump declared himself Grand Emperor, do you really think everybody in the military even would just go along with it? And you know they'd be relying on them for when the police and SWAT teams can't handle the rioting.

              --
              "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @02:08PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @02:08PM (#341453)

                Show me where the military or the police have disobeyed an illegal order in the past. They'll just be happy that they get to pew-pew some civies without consequences. Gotta give that equipment some use, it'd be a shame if it were sitting there unused. After all these 'unrest'-causing civies are terrorists, they hate our freedoms and do not support our republic/representative democracy/plutocracy/oligarchy/... They are justified targets now!

                I find the argument of "the military would be on the side of the citizens" to be vacuous and empty. I have never seen any compelling evidence for it, quite the contrary.
                If you really think about it, anyone serving in the military is a tool (in all senses of the word): they literally submit to the "don't think or question orders, the military thinks for you"-doctrine. I mean, that's what the discipline is about: so you go over that hill knowing full well you will die and yet you do it. You literally submit yourself to be a tool for the furthering of the aims of the rulers. And if they say jump, you reply "how high?". When they say "shoot the civies", you say "which caliber?"

                • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday May 04 2016, @02:49PM

                  by tangomargarine (667) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @02:49PM (#341477)

                  Jettisoning free elections is a pretty goddamn bigger illegal order than has happened in the history of our country.

                  I find the argument of "the military would be on the side of the citizens"

                  Well, that wasn't exactly what I meant. I imagine some of them would have problems with the orders; certainly not all. Maybe not even most, sadly.

                  If you really think about it, anyone serving in the military is a tool (in all senses of the word):

                  Sad if true. I would expect more in this day and age.

                  --
                  "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:14PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:14PM (#341508)

                    Jettisoning free elections is a pretty goddamn bigger illegal order than has happened in the history of our country.

                    But slowly, ever so slowly, we've been eroding our resistance against illegality. I think you're giving 'people too much credit.

                    I would be interested in seeing where this particular 'illegal order' stacks up against others, here are two simple examples: the murdering an American citizen without trial and by unilateral order or the executive (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki [wikipedia.org]), because after all, you can't vote if you're dead; or mass-surveillance of US persons and citizens leading to self-censorship in society and thus a subtle but detectable change in behavior of the whole nation.

                    I would argue that jettisoning elections (what makes you think they are free in this country?) in this country isn't that much higher - if it is at all - than any of the ones I list. Sure, it's more 'in your face' but I don't think the impact of it is higher. If anything, the second one has the greatest impact of them all. If you control the news/flow of information/language, you control the plebs^W people (cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak [wikipedia.org]).

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:53PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:53PM (#341535)
                    You just have to come up with some excuse for martial law. Like war or civil war.
              • (Score: 3, Insightful) by gidds on Wednesday May 04 2016, @02:15PM

                by gidds (589) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @02:15PM (#341458)

                And since when is military control conducive to free and fair elections?

                Besides, if jobs are being destroyed, if houses are being destroyed, if the economy is being destroyed, if personal safety is being destroyed, then who would care about elections anyway?  (And what sort of candidates would emerge to fill that power vacuum?)

                As I said, I think some people have no conception of what real anarchy would be like to live through, or they wouldn't be advocating it.

                --
                [sig redacted]
                • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:53PM

                  by tangomargarine (667) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:53PM (#341499)

                  And since when is military control conducive to free and fair elections?

                  What? That's not what I said. In the scenario, elections get the boot, mass riots, then when they send in the military to enforce order the troops aren't as enthusiastic as they'd assumed.

                  As I said, I think some people have no conception of what real anarchy would be like to live through, or they wouldn't be advocating it.

                  I'm not...

                  --
                  "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:22PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:22PM (#341511)

                    What? That's not what I said. In the scenario, elections get the boot, mass riots, then when they send in the military to enforce order the troops aren't as enthusiastic as they'd assumed.

                    I think you give the troops more credit than they deserve. They will be told that these are enemies of the state, bent on destroying civilization and given other reasons to rationalize the murder of the 'rioters'. If that doesn't convince them, they'll look around, figure that those with 'moral reservations' are a minority and that the future likely belongs to the ones /with/ the guns so they'll fall in line pretty quickly,. After all, self-preservation is something that is hard-wired in our brains and you wouldn't want to be on the side of the losers, now would you? And that's excluding the dumb ones who have been successfully indoctrinated by the military to just blindly follow orders.
                    The 'troops' will be given the order to fire and they will execute it. Those who don't will be court-martial'ed and - when rest and stability has returned - summarily shot as traitors of the nation.

                    If you think cops are arrogant pricks because they've got a hand gun, cuffs and pepper spray, wait until you've got a combat soldier holding an M16 giving you orders and mentally ticking off the "rules of engagement" in his mind while eagerly anticipating all of them being checked, so he can pull that trigger 'legally'. After all, he's just doing his job, that 'brave' patriot and 'protector of the nation'!

                    • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday May 04 2016, @05:46PM

                      by tangomargarine (667) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @05:46PM (#341567)

                      For counterpoint: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock_Nine#Armed_escort [wikipedia.org]

                      Which from accounts, they were in a crowd of screaming angry white dudes which they probably sympathized with anyway.

                      --
                      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @06:38PM

                        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @06:38PM (#341608)

                        Which from accounts, they were in a crowd of screaming angry white dudes which they probably sympathized with anyway.

                        Case in point: The 'people' did not agree with what the government/judicial had decided was going to happen. The troops went with the government of the day. Even though the troops sympathized with the people, they did the rulers' bidding and not the people's.

                        • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday May 04 2016, @06:44PM

                          by tangomargarine (667) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @06:44PM (#341611)

                          Now who's moving the goalposts

                          --
                          "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
                          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @06:52PM

                            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @06:52PM (#341619)

                            Why are the goal-posts being moved, and how?

                            • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday May 04 2016, @06:56PM

                              by tangomargarine (667) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @06:56PM (#341623)

                              First you're explaining that the troops will panic and/or get hard-ons from hosing down civilians, then you say that them not doing so was an example of blindly following government orders.

                              Register an account already, My Anonymous Archnemesis.

                              --
                              "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
                              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @07:04PM

                                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @07:04PM (#341628)

                                The latter case (their 'superior restraint') is a case of the troops following orders even though they personally do not think they are right (as claimed by the counterpoint).
                                I think that supports the original claim that the troops are there to follow orders and will execute them, regardless of what they are, as long as they come from those in charge and regardless of if those orders are "kill the civilians" or "help these kids get to school without getting lynched". Befehl ist Befehl and will be executed.

                                And no, I shan't make an account. No-one has any business piecing together all the different things that were posted by an individual. But thanks for suggesting.

                      • (Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @06:41PM

                        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @06:41PM (#341609)

                        Which from accounts, they were in a crowd of screaming angry white dudes which they probably sympathized with anyway.

                        Case in point: The 'people' did not agree with what the government/judicial had decided was going to happen. The troops went with the government of the day. Even though the troops sympathized with the people, they did the rulers' bidding and not the people's.
                        (posted this as a child of the wrong parent initially)

              • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:14PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:14PM (#341483)

                If Trump declared himself Grand Emperor, do you really think everybody in the military even would just go along with it? And you know they'd be relying on them for when the police and SWAT teams can't handle the rioting.

                So, here's how it goes down. Economy takes its nose dive after Trump is elected (currently being propped up artificially, hence Obama having an unannounced emergency meeting with The Fed recently). Then riots break out and swat teams are deployed. Martial law is declared and banks start doing a "bail in", on top of charging interest on your Savings ("negative interest rate"). Trump wrote a book on Crippled America. Right now it's a preemptive plan to recover the economy, but it can become a prescriptive plan after the securities bubble MK2 pops (again). Trump's wall is a jobs program, similar to "new deal" public works. Trump will also bolster employment by hiring more military servicemen. He'll also do away with the oppressive and ridiculous POGs pushing the Uber Politically Correct garbage down the Grunt's throats (Obama replaced everyone above captian with extreme leftist sympathizers, they're basically closeted SJWs who repremand solders for saying off color jokes -- that's right, trained killers can't have crude jokes in Obama's military [not in front of the POGs]). So, the guys with rifles (Grunts) will rejoice that they're actually getting the training and manpower they need while the speech police are shitcanned. The economy will actually start doing better. In the end it'll be just like the "German Miracle" prior to WWII.

                After the financial collapse Trump can ninja this into calling the Fed on the carpet and auditing them as well as the Treasury (which we'll find out has only a fraction of the Gold we said it did). This will demonstrate rampant theft and corruption at the of the United States. It will be a national security risk to reveal, but one that can't be kept secret once the Fed audit begins. At this point Trump could begin his run for God Emperor of the Universe (get it right, pleb). The Clintons get implicated in shady crap (finally, someone wonders why after that earthquake Clinton's brother wound up with exclusive mineral rights for all of Haiti's gold). Then bigger scandals are revealed, starting with releasing the 28 censored pages of the 9/11 commission report which will show Saudi and possible US involvement in the attack (and they should show Israeli Mossad too, but the 28 pages have always been propaganda, and always will be). Now the corruption snowball is well on its way downhill. The citizens are incensed and faith in the "old crony government" is falling world wide. Crazy shit comes to light about our Weather Manipulation program, but it's silenced as the whole world is doing that already (engineering mild climate change, but better weather overall, and manufacturing public consent for whatever we want via scaremongering). A massive Zersetsung (psychological warfare) COINTELPRO campaign is revealed against a huge swath of US citizens, but CIA and NSA are powerful enough to muddy the waters and cover up their use of directed energy weapons against political activists / dissidents as a "crazy tinfoil hat conspiracy theory". Even crazier shit will come out about genetically modifying the populace through vaccines and Alien hybrids in Area 51, as disinformation campaigns go full tilt. Trump and other important people will take notice and be able to better filter the truth from the BS. The French and English and Saudis and everyone who has USD which was supposed to have been backed by gold begrudgingly have to cut new deals with Trump (like debt collectors do when they realize you can't pay).

                A military coup can then occur under the guise of a witch hunt to route out the "corrupt crony" loyalists who "Crippled America" and sold nation down the river. There will be (more) infighting between DHS, FBI, DoD, CIA and NSA (than normal), esp. against the DHS since they'll be loyal to the cronies. The news will run stories about "traitors to the homeland" who work in said agencies as an underground railroad for elites. Having replaced key positions in government across the board with Trump supporters a reformation plan is ram rodded through the corpse of US Congress, granting the President powers to appoint based on merit a hierarchical oversight committee to end corruption once and for all.

                The entire world will cheer as the last vestiges of the corrupt republic are finally replaced by a 4th Reich. Finally: SJWism is banned.

                Now, what you should be asking yourself is if that sounds worse than what's been bouncing around Obama's camp. Namely, a socialist overthrow of the USA, with all the right wingers rounded up and put in box cars with shackles on the walls, then detained in those massive FEMA camps, after martial law is declared to squelch a massive distributed terrorist attack largely by "lone wolf" (false flag) cells (meaning anyone they want is now a "terrorist"). In true socialst form, millions of "privileged" Americans will be sent to reeducation camps and slaughtered as the Marxist / feminists and minorities cheer the end of the "oppressive bourgeois elites" (while they replace one set of rulers with an even worse set).

                Nationalist outsider destroys the establishment vs Globalist elites cement a stranglehold on the populace via communism. Personally, I find the latter more terrifying.

                • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:57PM

                  by tangomargarine (667) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:57PM (#341501)

                  Obama replaced everyone above captian with extreme leftist sympathizers, they're basically closeted SJWs

                  Aaaand here we go, off the deep end.

                  You damn kids toss around absolutes way too freely.

                  --
                  "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
                • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:59PM

                  by tangomargarine (667) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:59PM (#341504)

                  Crazy shit comes to light about our Weather Manipulation program

                  This whole thing is a joke? The grownups are trying to have a conversation here.

                  --
                  "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:11PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:11PM (#341506)

                  This is an equally compelling narrative to what I've been predicting will happen if Clinton is elected.

                  Perhaps there's no way to avoid the coming storm no matter who's elected. The walk to the gas station will be for our own good.

            • (Score: 2) by edIII on Thursday May 05 2016, @06:54AM

              by edIII (791) on Thursday May 05 2016, @06:54AM (#341943)

              I see this sentiment expressed a lot; but I wonder if people really understand what they're saying. Either you mean that far more metaphorically than it sounds, or you really can't imagine what a failed government would actually be like.

              And it doesn't take much imagination; for example, look at what's happening in Syria right now...

              I understand *exactly* what I'm saying. I mean it in almost the literal sense, especially with fire departments vastly underfunded. We lost an entire fucking city in Northern California because of chronic underfunding that all but precluded any kind of preventative fire management. The fire fighters were warning and screaming at us that it was only a matter of time. Where did the money go? Cocksucking Nestle, that's where. They literally take the water, and then through financial corruption, deny us the financial proceeds of it that would help the forest with the water it lost. We're literally that stupid and corrupt over here.

              Imagine what a failed government is? You can't be serious. I LIVE WITH A FAILED GOVERNMENT NOW. That's a fact.

              What's happening in Syria? How about Flint? Detroit? Richmond? New Orleans during Katrina. I don't need to leave the U.S to see what can happen. You're far too absorbed with rockets, gun fire, and explosions. What has happened over here slowly is far worse. Considering our past, where workers were shot in the backs by Chicago police, and the considering our present with cops killing people routinely I'm not seeing much of a difference. Ask the average minority in Baltimore if they feel safe walking down the street in the presence of government.

              1/4 of our children are malnourished and underfed in this country. That is a national security concern with critical implications for our continued survival at any level of standard of living. It means that 25% of our population in the next 15-20 years will be provably mentally deficient and unable to operate to the levels of their ancestors, and at older ages, suffering from diseases related to poor nutrition as children. We expect them to both operate on, and improve, the physical infrastructure we're designing, as well as our information systems. I had a brain dead teenage girl hand me back over $150 in change for a transaction. I only handed her a hundred dollar bill. She will be the rule and not the exception if we continue to neglect our children in both nutrition and education.

              Only in 3rd world shit holes would you expect 99% of the wealth to be with 1% of the people, but in our case it's just 62 people out of 300+ million people. The myth of a trickle down economy has been proven to be just that; A myth. Combine that with Citizens United and a corrupt government, and we have all of the wealth and control in the hands of sparingly few elites. Most of our current issues can be solved by money. Specifically, the taxes that are being withheld, the taxes uncollected (corrupt, unnecessary, and harmful tax breaks), and living wages replacing government subsidized slave wages. The near complete breakdown in social services can be reversed, and let's not even start at the ridiculously pathetic state of our dangerously dilapidated infrastructures.

              We're irrational addicts to the tools of war with a military 10 times that of the rest of the world. Almost as if we believe we need to defend ourselves from the entirety of the rest of the planet. Half our budget is spent on this, and it's exactly like the gambling addicted parent coming home telling their kids no food tonight because daddy had to roll the dice. We could fund most of our social programs, infrastructure repairs and improvements, and an entire program just to feed the kids.... without making a noticeable dent in military spending.

              It sounds terrible, it sounds crazy, but outright civil war and this country being on fire may be the only thing that can save it. Forests actually do better when there are fires to clear it out, and far worse when we eliminate the fires, but fail to tend to the underlying realities of forest management. Meaning, that forest will be on fire one day whether you like or not. Your only option is to properly take care of the forest. Following that analogy, we have abject failure at managing, implementing, or choosing our government. Fire may be the only tool left in the toolbox to fix government. Voting sure as fuck isn't doing it.

              I would prefer a mild controlled fire that we could call Bernie Sanders, but I will take the wild inferno that is Trump before I choose to defer the nuclear explosion that is Hillary (really just The Establishment finally hitting the wall) till I can leave the country and watch safely from afar.

              #NeverClinton

          • (Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Wednesday May 04 2016, @02:36PM

            by TheGratefulNet (659) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @02:36PM (#341469)

            trump COULD burn the whole place down.

            he acts like a loose cannon.

            I think its an act. once in office, if he gets it, I doubt his personality will be ALLOWED to show thru at the rate it does now; his new handlers will make that abundantly clear.

            I see your point; lets really show the country that we WANT to hit bottom; since there is only UP to go, from there.

            but all kinds of problems with that theory. in practice, we could end up being 2nd world or even 3rd world tracked.

            in short, there is on one other than bernie who would do the right thing. what we have is: person A who would trash a-prime and person B who would trash b-prime. not a single one who would win will do anything to help the middle class get back on its feet again.

            one thing, though, is clear: the republicans have not given up on their religous leanings.

            since both parties suck and since neither will bring about good change, the best we could really do is to avoid BAD change. sorry republicans, but you're too much in bed with the jesus folks and you have made that all too clear. voting for any of you means a vote for MORE christian-based laws and norms. sorry, can't do that. just can't.

            --
            "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
            • (Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday May 04 2016, @05:27PM

              by edIII (791) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @05:27PM (#341559)

              I see your point; lets really show the country that we WANT to hit bottom; since there is only UP to go, from there.

              NO. The opposite. I don't want us to hit rock bottom, and Hillary is a paved road into the depths of hell. Trump could go either way, but he will do it in a way that we end up hating government at the end with the possibility for real change. Hillary runs the risk of being able to blame it on something other than her and her cronies, and a new person coming in promising false hope and change.

              In many ways, we only have UP to go to now.

              but all kinds of problems with that theory. in practice, we could end up being 2nd world or even 3rd world tracked.

              Too late. Time flies, and the U.S *is* a 3rd world country. By every meaningful measure, we are already behind most 3rd world countries. 70c on our medical dollar goes to something other than our health care. That puts us firmly in 3rd world territory. 1 out of 5 children go hungry in the US, with exceptionally dire consequences when those malnourished children come into the workforce with poor intellects and low education. I could go on, but would probably be best in my upcoming pop-up book: 3rd World or United States of America?

              We are a super power in name only, our money is going down the tubes, soon to be replaced on the world stage, and all we really have left is the world's largest military force. That's it.

              --
              Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
            • (Score: 2) by darnkitten on Friday May 06 2016, @04:10AM

              by darnkitten (1912) on Friday May 06 2016, @04:10AM (#342403)

              once in office, if [Trump] gets it, I doubt his personality will be ALLOWED to show thru at the rate it does now; his new handlers will make that abundantly clear.

              in short, there is [no] one other than bernie who would do the right thing.

              --You think, perhaps, that Bernie's handlers (or the other party in congress, for that matter) would actually allow him to reform the system? That ain't the way the system is rigged, my friend...

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:49PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:49PM (#341532)

            Donald Trump is a bigger liar than Hillary Clinton.

            http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/ [politifact.com]
            http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/ [politifact.com]

            He may be different, but different isn't always better. Trump is one of the 1% too.

            Maybe if enough people vote for Sanders, even if he doesn't win the Two Parties may change some policies to be similar.

        • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @05:09AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @05:09AM (#341267)

          I'm praying that Ms. Clinton will choose Mr. Trump as her running mate. 🙏

          • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @10:51AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @10:51AM (#341390)

            Trump/Sanders 2016

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @05:15AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @05:15AM (#341270)

          I think you are downplaying Trump's establishment ties. For all practical purposes he is the 0.1% who have pulled the strings from the shadows. If he becomes president he will just do it out in the open. His despite his rhetoric, his published tax plan is a GOP establishment wet dream. He recently replaced his campaign manager with the walking embodiment of all the worst stereotypes of GOP political operatives [telegraph.co.uk] - fully plugged in to the american political establishment while moonlighting for the worst of the worst like Ferdinand Marcos, african dictators and the Ukrainian president whose policies instigated first the orange revolution and then Euromaidan revolution.

          I think you are pretty sanguine about what is likely to happen. The best possible outcome is that he's incompetent and accomplishes nothing, but he'll be a baby swimming in a sea of sharks who will run circles around the guy. Look how he's struggled with (and whined about) procedural issues with the GOP delegate process. That's nothing compared to the complexity of being a sitting president. Even if he gets hopeless tangled up and completely ineffective, everybody else in DC will take advantage to effect their own agendas, all of which will be establishment agendas. Clinton might be a shark, but she is no light weight, nobody will be running circles around her.

          And then there is the problem that so much of his popularity is due to white identity politics. Even just the symbolic effect of his whining the presidency will embolden all of the racists both in congress and on main streets around the country. The country probably won't got full hitler, but the chance to set back everybody by decades is pretty high.

          • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @05:38AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @05:38AM (#341279)

            Trump has reached a point in life where it is believable that he is thinking more about his legacy and the limited number of years he has left. He has made his money; there is nothing more to prove financially. Think of the other guys who get rich, grow old, and then start doing weird things like funding education or trying to cure diseases. I think Trump is falling into the pattern in his own way.

            Hillary is 0.1% too, but just regular rich, mere pocket change next to Trump. She hasn't satisfied her desire for money and especially power. There is something deeply corrupt about her. It's not just one bit of evidence... it's lots of things, going back decades and continuing right up to the present. There are even literal bodies, like the left-handed person who was going to testify against her but was found dead with a gun in his right hand. There are the banking S+L scandals. There is the disregard for securing our nation's secrets while carefully securing herself against the Freedom of Information Act and the Presidential Records Act. She seems to be counting on the corruption coming so thick and fast that most people won't believe it. If she wins, her example will set the tone for America. Corruption spreads when high-profile people get away with it.

            • (Score: 3, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Wednesday May 04 2016, @06:23AM

              by hemocyanin (186) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @06:23AM (#341298) Journal

              Add to that people who Bill pardoned being donors, some of them big donors. Birds of feather and all that.

              The pardon papers contain only a few direct mentions of the former first lady. One persistent advocate for early release of drug convicts, Jason Flom of Lava Records, mentions having attended fundraisers for Hillary Clinton’s 2000 Senate campaign.
              * * *
              The top federal prosecutor in Manhattan, U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White, opened an investigation in 2001 into whether Clinton's pardons to Rich and Green were linked to donations Rich's former wife, Denise, made to the Clinton Foundation's fundraising drive to build the Clinton Library. The probe also looked into the possibility that pardons for some Hasidic Jews were linked to donations to Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign.

              http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/hillary-clinton-pardon-record-218331 [politico.com]

            • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:13PM

              by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:13PM (#341482) Homepage Journal

              He's made his money?? He was born rich, fool! Trump has accomplished absolutely NOTHING that matters to anyone but Trump and idiots. He has in no way ever made the world a better place.

              --
              mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @09:11PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @09:11PM (#341729)

                He was only born rich by normal standards. Going up by a factor of 1000 is no small matter. By his current standards, he was born poor.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @07:04AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @07:04AM (#341314)

          um... you do realize that trump will simply keep insulting anyone and everyone, so everyone under him will just continue with things as they are?
          Not only is Trump one of the 1%, but he is also an annoying idiot to everyone, so all the people under him will just ignore what he says, so there's no difference between Hillary and Trump.

          What you guys need to do is to go to the democratic convention, in mass, and tell them to pick bernie over hillary. if 300000 were able to mobilize for woodstock, more than 40 years ago, can't you mobilize 1 million people? If you really believe it's important to change your government, you should not be satisfied either with the established people, or with the noisy idiots that are basically there just to hide what's happening behind them; you should go with the person who makes sense when they talk. if it looks like they can't win, you should TRY HARDER. otherwise it just means this is not important for you (which is fine, but don't lie to yourself saying that the noisy idiot will help).

          • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday May 04 2016, @08:13PM

            by Phoenix666 (552) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @08:13PM (#341681) Journal

            3.5 million people in Manhattan protested the Invasion of Iraq. i was there and saw it with my own eyes. the media reported "tens of thousands," and the protest didnt make a damn bit of difference. 300,000 people at the DNC? yeah, i'm sure that'll do the trick as they wave their signs in "free speech zones" 5 miles away from the convention center.

            the best thing they could do is chain the doors shut and reroute a sewer main into the sprinkler system.

            --
            Washington DC delenda est.
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Capt. Obvious on Wednesday May 04 2016, @08:47AM

          by Capt. Obvious (6089) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @08:47AM (#341354)

          The reason I fear HRC is that she will ossify as standard practice, the neocon / pro-wallstreet / pro-unfair-freetrade wing of the DNC for YEARS to come.

          Ossify it? She won't break the ossification, but every Democratic presidential nominee since, and including, her husband fit that mold.

          Dems don't do primary challengers

          Umm.... LBJ lost to a primary challenge. Ford survived Regean's challenge in '76. Since then, neither party's candidate faced a primary challenge when running for re-election. Both party's have had challengers when the VP wants to run for president.

          Look, I really don't like Hillary. But Trump has been at the bottom of the list of candidates from either party I would support. You think Hillary maintaining the status quo for a short while is bad? What about Trump's "facts don't matter" becoming standard?

          Also, I wouldn't put much faith in the War Powers Act. It's of sufficiently questionable constitutionality that the first time Congress tries to use it, it'll have to wind its way through the courts, ineffective the entire time. Now, the second time, sure, it may restrain the President. But after Trump gets us into a shooting war with China or something equally retarded...

          • (Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday May 04 2016, @02:28PM

            by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 04 2016, @02:28PM (#341465)

            Umm.... LBJ lost to a primary challenge. Ford survived Regean's challenge in '76.

            Just pointing out that an 18 year old kid (who probably was too young to pay attention to politics) in '76 would be 58 today. We'll round that to 65 because why not. I found via google some world bank demographic page that 14% of the USA population is currently above 65. So that's not going to resonate with at least 86% of the voting public, or not resonate any better than discussions about the american civil war or whatever. For all intents and purposes in the USA for generations they just don't do primary challenges.

            I'm a little younger than that but not hugely so, and in my generation maybe we heard our parents talking about it, at most. Maybe millenials heard their g-grandparents talking about it. Maybe.

            Another interesting comparison is the last time there was a challenger was considerably closer to WW2 than to today, by a factor of 30 vs 40, which is crazy to think about. Closer to Roosevelt than to Obama. A somewhat controversial cultural comparison is that was closer to "Jim Crow" south, than to the era of home computers, depending on what number games you'd like to play.

            • (Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Wednesday May 04 2016, @07:56PM

              by Capt. Obvious (6089) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @07:56PM (#341666)

              Yeah, the LBJ example was really old, but he actually lost. I forgot that Carter also faced a primary challenge in 1980. But he won that and his opponent stayed in the Senate, so I forgot. So... more recent than the Republicans. The problem is the statement "Democrats don't do primary challengers" is that the most certainly do, you just have to go back kinda far. Because for all presidental elections, they're rare and you have to go back kinda far to find a pattern. Like, there was Carter, Clinton and Obama after LBJ. So it was a long time ago, but only 4 presidents.

              Although both Bush Sr. and Clinton (in '92 and '96, respectively) also technically faced challengers, their challenger did not get a single vote.

              So, technically, I suppose the only Democrat running for re-election was Obama, and before that.... well, you get back to the pre-primary days.

              The Republicans were unchallenged in their re-election of Bush Jr. and Reagan (although Nixon and Bush Sr. both swept.)

              I'm just saying, "Democrats don't challenege the primary,[but Republicans do]" is a demonstrably false statement. And, if recency matters, Democrats have the most recent challenge (Clinton '96), most recent challenge that wasn't a blowout (Carter '80) and most recent challenge that was a loss (LBJ).

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by jmorris on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:37AM

      by jmorris (4844) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:37AM (#341209)

      I would have been mostly happy had Cruz somehow prevailed, but this works too.

      Now if Hillary could only be indicted we could see a real throwdown. Trump vs Sanders would have been compelling viewing, with some suspense as to teh outcome. As is we will watch Trump grind her bones for his soup as mercilessly as he has worked through the sixteen Republican pretenders to the throne.

      • (Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:54AM

        by frojack (1554) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:54AM (#341232) Journal

        Pretty sure Trump Sanders would have been a bone grind as well.

        Had the recession ended when we were told it was over, or the next time we were told, or the time after that, Sanders wouldn't even be running. Its a sad commentary on how long the economy has been bad that a socialist with unfunded promises hold such sway over so many young people.

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by jmorris on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:45AM

          by jmorris (4844) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:45AM (#341258)

          I would like to think so. In a sane world a Democratic Socialist would have zero chance. But we ain't in one of those. I'd bet Trump could beat Bernie after a few months of roughing him up but I wouldn't give much in the way of odds. 2:1 would be the best I'd go.

          I hope the Progs don't realize this in time and indict Hillary to get her out of the way. If they brought in Biden / Warren at the Convention it could get to 1:1 odds, meaning I ain't got clue how that would shake out.

          The only way I see Hillary winning vs Trump is if she has him shot. Not impossible so 4:1 odds.

          • (Score: 4, Insightful) by mcgrew on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:23PM

            by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:23PM (#341484) Homepage Journal

            I suspect you're as old as me or possibly even older because of your fear of socialism. Either that or you're rich. Just because the Nazis and Soviets had "socialist" in their names didn't make either one socialist.

            Look to Denmark or Sweden [cnn.com] if you want to see what socialism really is. Guess what? They have the world's happiest populations.

            "Socialist" means "not being a selfish, narcissistic dick." It means you don't have to choose between bankruptcy and death, between food and drugs, It's an embarrassment that the US, the richest country in the world, has hungry people. NOBODY in the US should be hungry or do without medical care.

            --
            mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
            • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:11PM

              by jmorris (4844) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:11PM (#341505)

              Lemme guess, you are "Feelin' the Bern." Well guess what cupcake, Denmark and Sweden made it work a while for a couple of reasons. One, they were small, very socially and racially uniform with lots of social cohesion. Two they could safely shelter behind the strong shield of NATO without contributing much. Three they were willing to settle for less.

              All three preconditions are changing and guess what? They are moving away from Socialism to a more market oriented economy. Bernie is holding up examples that would have been really good ones.... twenty years ago.

              It means you don't have to choose between bankruptcy and death, between food and drugs, It's an embarrassment that the US, the richest country in the world, has hungry people.

              So we have debtors prisons again? Who knew? We do not have hungry people in this country due to lack of access food. We have drug users who we can't institutionalize and properly care for because you guys say that is inhumane. We have hungry children because mom traded the EBT for crack. Because having homeless on the street is more politically useful to use as a weapon. But I'm the cold heartless bastard.

              • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Thursday May 05 2016, @05:33PM

                by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Thursday May 05 2016, @05:33PM (#342128) Homepage Journal

                Well guess what cupcake

                I see you're a Trump supporter. And yes, I voted for Sanders. He's the only one of all the candidates who ran that I agreed with everything he says.

                One, they were small

                It seems to me that being small would be a disadvantage rather than being an advantage.

                very socially and racially uniform with lots of social cohesion.

                We're all Americans.

                Two they could safely shelter behind the strong shield of NATO without contributing much.

                Meanwhile, we spend more on defense than the next five largest armies combined. So you're willing to pay for the Danes to have free health care and Higher education, but not Americans? That's not logical, Spock, nor is it reasonable.

                So we have debtors prisons again?

                Try buying a new refrigerator when you have no credit and a small paycheck. My old friend Jim Dawson couldn't afford insurance, and the debt from an appendectomy ruined his life for years. Mind you, he was gainfully employed. When he had a heart attack, he laid down and died rather than put his family through that again. He was two weeks short of being 40, this was 1992.

                Yes, lack of affordable health care does kill people.

                We do not have hungry people in this country due to lack of access food.

                Again, my own personal experience: I've personally helped out a young family with food when they couldn't afford it. No, they weren't druggies but I've known plenty of druggies, see them in bars when they're trying to sell their LINK cards so I know how little they get.

                We have drug users who we can't institutionalize and properly care for because you guys say that is inhumane.

                Unless my memory is faulty it was Reagan who let all the crazies out of the nut houses. I'd like to see M.D.s get more psychology in med school so they can more easily diagnose mental illness and get them care. It's yet another reason for a single-payer system.

                We have hungry children because mom traded the EBT for crack

                Those kids all wind up in foster care. The hungry kids are the ones whose moms work at McDonalds part time and Wal Mart full time who still must struggle with the bare necessities. In 1970 the Federal minimum wage was $1.40. Prices have all gone up tenfold, so today it should be $14.00. Higher in places like New York or California where prices are stupidly high.

                Because having homeless on the street is more politically useful to use as a weapon.

                Most of the homeless here in Springfield are mentally ill. Many are also addicts. I don't know about other places.

                --
                mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
            • (Score: 5, Insightful) by GlennC on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:45PM

              by GlennC (3656) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:45PM (#341526)

              "Socialist" means "not being a selfish, narcissistic dick."

              This right here is why the United States will never experience true Socialism.

              --
              Sorry folks...the world is bigger and more varied than you want it to be. Deal with it.
        • (Score: 2) by moondrake on Wednesday May 04 2016, @01:09PM

          by moondrake (2658) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @01:09PM (#341419)

          Bone grinds are fine.

          What I find interesting though is that somehow the perception (true or not) that he is "socialist" works against someone. It seems to be a typical thing in Americans above a certain age to equate social with evil. I always find this amusing. Its like a permit to now stop making judgments based on available data.

          Lets just stop giving tags to people. Look at his promises and whether or not he kept them in the past or is likely to keep them in the future?

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Wednesday May 04 2016, @01:27PM

            by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 04 2016, @01:27PM (#341432)

            It seems to be a typical thing in Americans above a certain age to equate social with evil.

            Over about 40 and you were brought up with constant propaganda that the Russians might almost keep up with us, but we have huge houses in the burbs living the Brady Bunch life with supermarkets full of food and high paying union jobs for everyone and cities full of profitable factories, while the Russians stand in lines in the snow in the dark for endless hours for the chance to buy a bottle of rotgut vodka or a rotten potato and none of them can afford blue jeans. Some of that propaganda was even true! Moving to Russia would kinda suck, and the usa WAS awesome, so yeah, hate those socialist commies.

            Under 40 and you were brought up with constant propaganda that the red guard has infiltrated our colleges and media so we've got freedom of speech as bad as Russia in the old days and the government exists solely to transfer all wealth to the wealthy unlike socialist paradises like Sweden. The purpose of capitalism is to make you die in poverty without health care to some 1%er can add his 15th Ferrari to his collection and if you don't like it you should pull yourself up by your bootstraps like that billionaire over there who hit a home run (who was born on 3rd base because his dad was a mere multi-millionaire). And god help you if you're a minority because those are just moving target practice for our "war on everything" police.

            So yeah you can see how attitudes might differ a bit by age.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by julian on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:08AM

        by julian (6003) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:08AM (#341240)

        Trump loses to Sanders by a huge margin in all the polls. Trump BARELY ties with Hillary, and only in some polls. Most show her winning. Now, polls aren't perfect and they can change a lot, but it's not going to be a blowout if Trump wins and it's very unlikely that he does. He's maxed out his support among people who can stand him. From here on he's got to win over people who he has spent the last several months systematically alienating and insulting. He'd have to become a totally different person to win them over, if he even could pull that off, and if he did that then he'd lose his core fan base! He's stuck.

        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:15AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:15AM (#341244) Journal
          While I'm sure a lot of people have made up their minds by now, there's still undecideds and there's still the fact that a poor performance by Trump's opposition can result in people staying away from the voting booth. And to be honest, there might be some room for serious electoral fraud too. What I see happening here is some serious burnt earth, negative campaigning. And that's likely to work to Clinton's disadvantage who I think has a longer trail of shenanigans than Trump does.
          • (Score: 2) by julian on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:30AM

            by julian (6003) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:30AM (#341252)

            And that's likely to work to Clinton's disadvantage who I think has a longer trail of shenanigans than Trump does.

            Wow, something we can actually agree on! If there's anyone who can give Trump a run for his money on the horrifying closeted-skeletons front it's the Clintons. The dirt on Trump is likely all shady business and accounting practices that are hard to understand. The Clintons almost definitely murder people.

          • (Score: 3, Informative) by edIII on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:47AM

            by edIII (791) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:47AM (#341259)

            And to be honest, there might be some room for serious electoral fraud too.

            Hanging Chad: The Sequel

            --
            Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
            • (Score: 3, Funny) by tangomargarine on Wednesday May 04 2016, @02:02PM

              by tangomargarine (667) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @02:02PM (#341445)

              Who's Chad and why do we want to hang him? ;)

              --
              "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
        • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by jmorris on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:31AM

          by jmorris (4844) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:31AM (#341253)

          Forget those polls. Trump hasn't started on Crooked Hillary yet. Remember how all the smart people told us Trump was a joke? A novelty candidate who wouldn't make it past the first debate? Then couldn't make it once the field thinned a bit, certainly couldn't win a one on one since over half the Republican Party hated him? But one by one they all fell and unless somebody seriously thinks Katshit has a chance (math says no), then Trump is the last one standing and the general election starts now. Don't expect Trump to dawdle until after the convention to start in on her. Day by day she will be ground down.

          Hillary is also hated, as much by her own Party as everyone else. Remember how quickly she went from inevitable, unstoppable juggernaught to hopeless in a fight against a first term half black Senator? And that was when her major sin (in D eyes) was running "Bimbo Eruptions Detail" for Bill. Now she is a corrupt tool of the big banks, rolling in Clinton Foundation money and as big a warmonger as Darth Cheney. Add in the independents who will be open to influence by her more recent criminality while Secretary of State and she won't be too hard to demolish. Remember, Trump isn't a pathetic cuck who will be afraid to 'go there' with her. Zero. F*cks. Given.

          It isn't going to be very suspenseful but damn is it going to be fun watching that bitch get her comeuppance at long last.

          • (Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:52AM

            by edIII (791) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:52AM (#341261)

            Exactly. Hillary has skeletons... So much ammo for Trump, he may not have time to do everything he wants with the media before the election.

            It isn't going to be very suspenseful but damn is it going to be fun watching that bitch get her comeuppance at long last.

            Yes. Yes, it is.

            --
            Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
          • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by tangomargarine on Wednesday May 04 2016, @02:04PM

            by tangomargarine (667) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @02:04PM (#341450)

            Why is this modded Flamebait?

            jmorris might go off on tears sometimes but he's just observing trends here.

            --
            "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
          • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:30PM

            by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:30PM (#341487) Homepage Journal

            Remember how all the smart people told us Trump was a joke?

            Ask any late night comedian, he's still a sick joke.

            --
            mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @07:12PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @07:12PM (#341632)

            Trump is a joke. The smart people are right, but there are a hell of a lot of stupid people in America, just like you. You selfish, ignorant idiots bring the whole human race down. If that fascist pig Trump wins, the world will become a much more uncomfortable place for everyone. It might take a while for you idiots to realise it, and at first you'll keep blaming pinko-commie-socialists (Democrats) and people who aren't Red White & Blue enough, you'll become ever more extreme to the point of implosion and then it'll all be over. America will descend into chaos, mass unemployment, civil unrest, looting, marshal law with its economy bankrupt. But not until after the global economy has been well and truly gutted by the greed of the American corporations.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @05:54AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @05:54AM (#341286)

          I'm reasonably certain that Trump will beat Clinton. I think that he would lose to Sanders. I have something riding on the outcome of the former.

          Honestly, I'd rather see Sanders win it, though I don't think he will. Ironically, my job is related to Wall Street/MSM, so he would probably be the worst outcome for me personally, but the best for the nation. I don't think I'm the only one in my position to feel that way.

          All things considered, the best possible outcome to all of this on all sides is the division of both parties into the creation of at least one viable third party option. That changes everything and, on a meta level, appears to be the one thing both sides are universally most terrified of. Look at all the "keep the party united" talk that's going around. They're scared. That's not something I've seen in my entire life.

        • (Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday May 04 2016, @01:35PM

          by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 04 2016, @01:35PM (#341437)

          Whats changed? Because that's been the consistent establishment analysis of his campaign since day one. Since before day one.

          So at some point repeatedly predicting the same thing that turns out wrong every single time, might imply the prediction is faulty. Or that something has fundamentally changed such that the broken clock is finally correct.

          5% support, he will never make it to 6%. Oh well this time around he's never making it to 7%. Well sure that was wrong but I'm serious now, never gonna make it to 8%. Ignore the past predictions this time he's never gonna make it to...

          Its somewhat apocalypse prediction ish. "Well sure, the world didn't end and Jesus didn't come back last weekend. or the weekend before, or the one before that, or last winter, or that time a couple years back, oh and that other time. But now, this time we got it right and its all over next weekend, yup, may as well get yer praying done and kiss your metallica cd collection goodbye, because next weekend clear your calendar cause jesus is coming back and the worlds endin"

          • (Score: 2) by julian on Wednesday May 04 2016, @06:47PM

            by julian (6003) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 04 2016, @06:47PM (#341616)

            My position has always been that he'd win the nomination and lose in the general. Everything has gone exactly as I thought it would so far. I don't know who you're addressing with all that.

      • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday May 04 2016, @06:16AM

        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @06:16AM (#341295) Journal

        For someone who claims to be an agnostic you sure like to suck Cruz's Dominionist lizard-cock. I am really beginning to wonder if the problem is that you simply don't understand what Theonomy is, or if you actually want that. And I'm also very tempted to call steaming bullpuckey on your claim of agnosticism. You're acting like a classic Christian triumphalist here.

        --
        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by gman003 on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:48AM

      by gman003 (4155) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:48AM (#341221)

      There were only two candidates that scared *me*. One was Cruz, who seemed to be a genuine religious fanatic, someone who would currently be wearing a C4 undershirt had he been born in Kirkuk instead of Calgary. The other is Trump, who is a wholly incompetent, irrational and irresponsible person. If he makes it to the general election and has even a 5% chance of winning, my vote will go for anyone - ANYONE - who has the best odds of beating him. He is that dangerous.

      Hillary is disagreeable but ultimately sane, and has proven able to not destroy the country. Even when she was SecState, we were moving to a better position than we used to be. She would certainly be in the bottom 50% of Presidents but she wouldn't be the end of the office. And with a Republican Congress, she'd be very limited in her ability to damage anything. (If you want to phrase it cynically, the corporate overlords don't want to destroy the country because that would be bad for business, so they wouldn't back a candidate that risks their money)

      Kasich is fairly moderate, as far as Republicans go. He's got some absurd party-line sticking points like abortion but he breaks for the better on some important issues like climate change. I honestly haven't looked into him enough but he does not seem like a fatal choice. I expect he's about as dirty as Hillary underneath but I haven't actually seen proof either way.

      Bernie would be a risk. His primary policies are strong, probably the best of anyone, but I disagree with a lot of his secondary positions (eg. gun control), and it's uncertain whether he'd be able to accomplish any of the good ideas. And he's definitely weaker on foreign policy, but he's also been a senator for a very successful state, so even his worst-case is not all that bad.

      As for the other parties, I voted for Gary Johnson in the last presidential election, but if I go third-party this time, I think I'd go Jill Stein. I unfairly discarded the Greens as a single-issue party when they actually have a lot of good liberal ideas as core platforms.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:04AM

        by hemocyanin (186) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:04AM (#341237) Journal

        Hillary is not in the least bit sane. "We came, we saw, he died *laughter*" is the sign of serious mental health issues of one kind or another.

        I'm only scared of HRC or Cruz, and half my fears dropped off the map today. One more to go, one way or the other, but hopefully the Bernie way.

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by gman003 on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:16AM

          by gman003 (4155) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:16AM (#341245)

          If laughing at the death of an enemy makes you insane - and I remind you, Gaddafi was a pretty heavy sponsor of terrorism - then I myself probably need to be locked up and straitjacketed. I'm not going to write her off as crazy because of one weird interview, when there's substantially more evidence of her making reasonable (but not necessarily optimal) decisions.

          • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:28AM

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:28AM (#341250) Journal

            If laughing at the death of an enemy makes you insane - ... - then I myself probably need to be locked up and straitjacketed.

            Are you also gloating about killing or helping the kill of your enemies too?
            (maybe, indeed, we shouldn't discount the idea of using that straight jacket?)

            Yes, I'm able to feel a sense of relief seeing a danger gone... but I'd rather prefer this not to be as the result of a kill, much less as something to be proud of.

            --
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @05:21AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @05:21AM (#341274)

            Bill, is that you?

          • (Score: 1) by tftp on Wednesday May 04 2016, @06:17AM

            by tftp (806) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @06:17AM (#341296) Homepage

            I remind you, Gaddafi was a pretty heavy sponsor of terrorism

            He stopped doing that one or two decades before he was killed by terrorists that were sent in by "the civilized world." Libya was always a 3rd world country among 3rd world countries. Unfortunately, it has oil...

            • (Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Wednesday May 04 2016, @06:54AM

              by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 04 2016, @06:54AM (#341310) Journal

              Unfortunately, it has oil...

              Oil that he started to consider selling it for gold [rt.com], showing a total disrespect for the petrodollar.

              --
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:34PM

        by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:34PM (#341490) Homepage Journal

        All Republicans are religious fanatics. Not the Christian religion, they worship the ancient Greek god Plutus. Nothing any Republican says is backed up by the Christian bible and almost all of it the bible speaks against.

        --
        mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
        • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Thursday May 05 2016, @02:52AM

          by Reziac (2489) on Thursday May 05 2016, @02:52AM (#341884) Homepage

          Well, I guess that's fair, since Democrats worship Janus.

          --
          And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
    • (Score: 2) by jdavidb on Wednesday May 04 2016, @12:54PM

      by jdavidb (5690) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @12:54PM (#341414) Homepage Journal

      We are deciding to whom to give the power of the draft. We are deciding to whom to give the power of launching nuclear weapons. I'm scared to give anybody those powers.

      --
      ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @07:15PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @07:15PM (#341636)

        But you'll help make sure the worst one gets in with your ignorance and libertarian delusions. By the way, have you managed to out-breed the Muslims yet, or have you discovered contraception? You can save a lot of money and feed the children you have better if you limit the number you have.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @07:24PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @07:24PM (#341644)

          That was a really horrible thing to post. I wish I hadn't done it now. Sorry.

        • (Score: 2) by jdavidb on Wednesday May 04 2016, @07:53PM

          by jdavidb (5690) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @07:53PM (#341664) Homepage Journal

          But you'll help make sure the worst one gets in with your ignorance and libertarian delusions

          Dude, I didn't start the fire.... Don't blame me - my idea is to not have a Presidency.

          --
          ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
    • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:07PM

      by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:07PM (#341480) Homepage Journal

      The only two of the last five in the race that scared me were Trump and Cruz. I'd have chosen any of the three original Democrat candidates over any of the Republicans. But I have to wonder why all the hate on Hillary? Her husband did a good job, I don't expect a Hillary Presidency to be much different than a Bill Presidency. I do understand, though, my mom voted against Johnson because she hated his accent, it may be similar for Hillary haters.

      And Trump? The very least qualified of ANY candidate who has run this election. "But he's made BILLION$!!!" So what? Bruce Rauner is a billionaire and since he became Governor after two crooks and an incompetent held office he made Illinois' government even worse - the fiscal year starts in July and they don't even have a budget for this year and are only paying bills the courts force them to. Hell, even the crooks and incompetent did better jobs! You can no more run a government like a business than you can run a business like a government, and one skill doesn't translate to a different one. Trump was born rich and "earned" his billions on the backs of the poor and middle class. Despite being born rich he declared bankruptcy four times. He tried (thankfully unsuccessfully) to have a widow evicted from her paid-for home so he could build a parking lot. He's vilified blacks, Mexicans, Muslims, women, called others' Christianity into question. He's a braggart and a bully. He has the backing of the KKK for God's sake! The man is evil. I'd vote for George Bush before I voted for Trump, and I consider Bush the very worst President in my lifetime and possibly history.

      I'm rooting for and voted for Bernie, but if Hillary beats him she'll get my vote.

      --
      mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @07:03PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @07:03PM (#341627)

      That loony brain surgeon was very scary. In fact, I can't think of one Republican candidate who wasn't. Sanders on the other side is the only remotely sane one.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @09:15PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @09:15PM (#341735)

        That loony brain surgeon was very scary. In fact, I can't think of one Republican candidate who wasn't. Sanders on the other side is the only remotely sane one.

        Well, Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio weren't exactly insane. Deeply flawed, yes, but not quite insane. Just the same, I couldn't see myself voting for either one of them in the general election. But, yeah, pretty much the rest of the field on the Republican side was certifiably loony. I really wish this would compel the party leadership to do some deep soul searching in the months and years ahead, but I don't even have much hope for that.

  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:27AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:27AM (#341201)

    Republican Party self-destruction countdown starts now. 10, 9, 8, ...

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by anubi on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:38AM

    by anubi (2828) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:38AM (#341210) Journal

    I sure hope you can steer this beast you are about to inherit.

    No one else in my lifetime seems to have been able to do so.

    --
    "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
  • (Score: 2) by devlux on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:38AM

    by devlux (6151) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:38AM (#341211)

    Ok I hate Trump as much as the next sane person, but really the things this man is going to do for the prices of crypto currency and Mexican real estate is just awesome.

    Please USA elect this man by a wide margin!

    Those of you feel disenfranchised by it, feel free to contact me.
    I know of some great ocean front developments that are springing up, mostly populated by like minded expats fleeing before the wall goes up and the flames start.

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:50AM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:50AM (#341225) Journal

      Ok I hate Trump as much as the next sane person, but really the things this man is going to do for the prices of crypto currency and Mexican real estate is just awesome.

      "May you live in interesting times"... rings any bell?

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 2) by devlux on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:58AM

        by devlux (6151) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:58AM (#341233)

        Yep it's an ancient Chinese quasi-curse.
        I've never not lived in interesting times though, so no worries.

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:12AM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:12AM (#341243) Journal

          <pedantic_mode>it's an quasi-ancient quasi-Chinese curse [wikipedia.org].</pedantic_mode>

          Otherwise, I tend to feel the same... maybe a bit tired lately, I certainly prefer some more boring time.

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 2) by Knowledge Troll on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:23AM

          by Knowledge Troll (5948) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:23AM (#341247) Homepage Journal

          I've never not lived in interesting times though

          Interesting to who? Interesting to you? No offense but who will remain to care in 100 years? Interesting to a history book 300 years from now? That won't be because, as an extreme understatement here, things are going well for us if the interesting originates from the election. I'm going to pass on the kind of interesting that happens because of a political nightmare. Can we stick to interesting stuff like the Higgs Boson, Gravity Waves, and I don't know, making sure rights and privileges many take for granted exist for populations and cultures that have historically been oppressed so much they had to hide their true nature just to exist in society? That sounds like a good type of interesting for the history books.

          Burn the world down because I don't like the way things are going never made sense to me. It is the glass parking lot solution to the problems we face.

          Though perhaps you have lived through events such as the Cuban Missile Crisis or a world terrified of nuclear annihilation and your cavalier attitude was forged under actual frightening conditions. In that case I've got a question I've been asking people about that: how in the hell did the world make it through the 60s to the 80s with out everyone having heart attacks or permanent psychological trauma? I didn't live through it in a capacity where I could understand what was going on but now I find it quite interesting.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by devlux on Wednesday May 04 2016, @05:25AM

            by devlux (6151) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @05:25AM (#341275)

            We live in a time where very soon there won't be history books. Everything recorded all the time and stored permanently and digitally.
            That is until the next carrington event or DRM failure sends us into a digital dark age (again???). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_dark_age [wikipedia.org]

            In the meantime, I've lived through a lot of things, including seeing war first hand, but have always ensured my life is never boring.

            We're all born with a disease that has no known cure and a 100% mortality rate thus far.
            I figure as a human I'll probably see 36,500 days from cradle to grave if I'm lucky enough to live that long, but not lucky enough to find a cure in time.

            Once I do pass, the only things I get to take with me are my experiences, so I figure, why do the same thing often enough to get bored?

            • (Score: 2) by Knowledge Troll on Wednesday May 04 2016, @07:35AM

              by Knowledge Troll (5948) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @07:35AM (#341328) Homepage Journal

              Once I do pass, the only things I get to take with me are my experiences, so I figure, why do the same thing often enough to get bored?

              Damn thank you, that's pretty good. I'm not that comfortable with dying. Hopefully its yet since that shit is coming if I want it or not.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:20AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:20AM (#341246)

      Mexican real estate

      I thought everyone was threatening to move to Canada?

      • (Score: 3, Funny) by c0lo on Wednesday May 04 2016, @05:03AM

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 04 2016, @05:03AM (#341264) Journal

        Quick, the wall wasn't fully pledged yet [brickingitforcanada.com].

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by devlux on Wednesday May 04 2016, @06:00AM

        by devlux (6151) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @06:00AM (#341288)

        Folks don't want to freeze just to move to America Jr. :D
        Mexico is warm, sunny, cheap and has a different, more relaxed life style.

        If you're an American IT worker who can telecommute, living in the USA or Canada is just kinda wasting your time for nostalgia purposes.
        I literally just landed a contract with IMSS today to implement an eRecords system for this country starting with a small pilot test in BCN.. Pay is about 2x in dollar terms what my last job in the USA paid (hint it was 6 figures). Cost of living varies around here from 1/2 to 1/10th of what it does in the USA, even suburban midwest.

        Been here a couple of years now, my Spanish still sucks. Probably from all the expats moving in and forcing me to keep speaking English :D
        Point is the culture shock wears off after the first 90 days or so, then it just starts to feel like home.

  • (Score: 5, Funny) by takyon on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:50AM

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:50AM (#341229) Journal

    Tired of political articles? We have a great systemd article coming up next!

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:09AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:09AM (#341241)

      systemd? what is that?

      sent from netsurf on openbsd. yeah, i'm fancy. should have posted from my tmux'ed links on C-M-2

      • (Score: 3, Funny) by chromas on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:24AM

        by chromas (34) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:24AM (#341248) Journal

        systemd is the intersectional feminism of Free Software. ;)

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday May 04 2016, @06:23AM

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @06:23AM (#341297) Journal

          Jesus fuck no it isn't. SystemD is the embrace/extend/extinguish of F/OSS. You would not know a feminist if she slapped you across your fat idiot head and left a big red handprint on your face.

          Here's a free hint: some of us campaign for mens' issues. This lesbian feminist does. 100% against male circumcision and all for making sure mens' grievances regarding domestic violence get properly aired; the amount of abuse guys take from women is staggering. IMO most gendered violence is a proxy for economic violence anyway.

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
          • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @07:27AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @07:27AM (#341326)

            You would not know a feminist if she slapped you across your fat idiot head and left a big red handprint on your face.

            Ooh, is she single? What is she doing Friday night 'cuz I'm available.

            • (Score: 1, Redundant) by aristarchus on Wednesday May 04 2016, @08:44AM

              by aristarchus (2645) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @08:44AM (#341352) Journal

              That went downhill really fast! See, Takyon, you really shouldn't titillate like this, it just makes the locals get all riled up.

          • (Score: 2) by chromas on Wednesday May 04 2016, @11:12PM

            by chromas (34) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 04 2016, @11:12PM (#341820) Journal

            I think you missed the "intersectional" part. That's the part where they want to bring everything under the sun under one umbrella; racism, homophobia, atheism, twitter and disagreement are all feminist issues according to intersectional...ists.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:48PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:48PM (#341530)

        1. He told Pat Robertson to run for President but didn't tell anyone to vote for him.
        2. Ted Cruz
        3. Systemd

    • (Score: 2) by jdavidb on Wednesday May 04 2016, @01:27PM

      by jdavidb (5690) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @01:27PM (#341434) Homepage Journal
      It's like you're running a cockfighting ring here. Do you enjoy watching us tear each other to shreds? :)
      --
      ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by mendax on Wednesday May 04 2016, @05:35AM

    by mendax (2840) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @05:35AM (#341277)

    Donald Trump scares the living shit out of me, but not because of his political positions. Build a wall along the Mexican border? Yeah, right. Go ahead and try it. See how popular it is when a person can't get fresh vegetables in season in the US because there are no Mexicans, etc. to pick them. Who's going to mop the floors in Trump's buildings? It's unrealistic and if he doesn't realize it he's a fool, and I think he is a fool, politically naive anyway.

    But what really scares me is his demagoguery. He repeats the same nonsense over and over, appealing to the masses of unenlightened, generally uneducated white people, who have discovered that the American economy has made some fundamental shifts that have rendered many of their former occupations mostly obsolete. There is someone I know of from history [wikipedia.org] who used similar tactics, he succeeded wildly, and look what happened because of it [wikipedia.org]. This fellow, fortunately, had better hair [wikipedia.org].

    --
    It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by mattTheOne on Wednesday May 04 2016, @06:47AM

      by mattTheOne (1788) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @06:47AM (#341306)

      Why is it that when Donald says crazy stuff, you call him out on it but not Hillary? She voted for the Iraq war and directly contributed to the deaths of Americans in Iraq. She does whats popular, even if its not right. You're making the comparison to Hitler, but really, who panders more to whats popular rather than what's right, Donald or Hilary?

      His solution to illegal immigration (getting them LEGAL work permits) is far better than Obama's (which is hiding in the shadows and saying Federal cops will ignore them but it wont help them get anything better than their crappy illegal jobs).

      Don't believe the mass media, see the real issues on the ground and in the streets before jumping onto the bandwagon of public opinion. I'm a strong Bernie supporter, but Donald is the only other candidate I can support with a clean conscious because he doesn't have a history of getting Americans killed for her personal benefit (the lawsuits being an entirely different matter).

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Capt. Obvious on Wednesday May 04 2016, @09:06AM

        by Capt. Obvious (6089) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @09:06AM (#341359)

        Why is it that when Donald says crazy stuff, you call him out on it but not Hillary? She voted for the Iraq war and directly contributed to the deaths of Americans in Iraq.

        And Donald supported it back in 2002/2003 as well. He just did it in the media and verbally, he didn't cast a vote for it. Which I guess, combined with the fact that no one factchecks him, makes him able to deny it now and be believed.

        And I don't blame people for being misled. A bunch of smart people I know thought there was a legitimate case to vote for the invasion. Like, really thought it made sense.

        His solution to illegal immigration (getting them LEGAL work permits) is far better than Obama's (which is hiding in the shadows and saying Federal cops will ignore them but it wont help them get anything better than their crappy illegal jobs).

        Obama has deported about 15% of the illegal immigrants in the US. But, yah, don't pay attention to what happens.

        • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday May 04 2016, @09:22AM

          by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @09:22AM (#341365)

          And I don't blame people for being misled.

          If people think that a sovereign country merely possessing WMDs is a justifiable reason for invasion, they are probably hypocrites, support preemptive warfare, or both. Hypocrites because they wouldn't use the same logic to justify an invasion of the US or other similar countries, which possess many WMDs. They likely support preemptive warfare because they support acting against a country that has yet to actually attack or try to attack other countries with said WMDs.

          If they supported the war because they thought Iraq supported terrorists, wasting trillions hunting down barbarians in third world hellholes is still a terrible idea.

          It's unlikely that many smart people supported the Iraq war, but even in the event that they were smart, they supported unjust foreign policies. So not only do I blame people for being misled, but I blame people for supporting the war even if we assume that everything that was said about Iraq at the time was true.

          • (Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Wednesday May 04 2016, @08:11PM

            by Capt. Obvious (6089) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @08:11PM (#341677)

            Iraq in fact at one point had WMDs and there are many undeniable cases of them using WMDs. They also, uniquely of the country's with WMDs, lost a war (a war they started) and agreed to disarm.

            Look, it's obvious now that it was a mistake. It was not obvious at the time.

            But you're shifting the issue. Hillary and Trump both supported the war in 2002/2003. So it should be a wash. The fact that Trump is getting away with claiming he did not publically support the war is a failure of journalism.

            • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday May 05 2016, @04:15AM

              by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Thursday May 05 2016, @04:15AM (#341908)

              Iraq in fact at one point had WMDs and there are many undeniable cases of them using WMDs. They also, uniquely of the country's with WMDs, lost a war (a war they started) and agreed to disarm.

              They didn't attack the US with WMDs.

              Look, it's obvious now that it was a mistake. It was not obvious at the time.

              I think it has been 100% obvious for decades that military adventures lead to disaster. Even Sanders predicted this at the time, I believe.

              But you're shifting the issue.

              I'm not shifting the issue. I'm responding to something you said. I don't care what Hillary or Trump said.

              • (Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Thursday May 05 2016, @06:42AM

                by Capt. Obvious (6089) on Thursday May 05 2016, @06:42AM (#341939)

                They didn't attack the US with WMDs.

                No, just a bunch of his neighbors (including while US troopers were closeby). And he used the WMDs in a war, then he lost a war. So he loses his WMDs. I know a lot of people didn't think we should invade Iraw for a lot of reasons, but "Saddam should have been allowed to keep his WMDs" is one I've never heard befor.

                I think it has been 100% obvious for decades that military adventures lead to disaster

                WWII and its aftermath and the Korean War both were successes. The first Gulf War was a huge success. The second Gulf War could have been done very well. It was not.

                Look, it was iffy at the time. And it certainly was bad in retrospect. And Obama is president now in some part because he spoke up against it. But, you know, that's with hindsight.

                I'm not shifting the issue. I'm responding to something you said. I don't care what Hillary or Trump said

                Sorry abotu that. I thoguth you were the original poster, who was talking about how great Trump was for "originally opposing the war". And I thought you were attacking the war as a disraction cause Trump totally, totally supported the war back then.

                • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday May 05 2016, @09:19AM

                  by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Thursday May 05 2016, @09:19AM (#341968)

                  but "Saddam should have been allowed to keep his WMDs" is one I've never heard befor.

                  You talk to a lot of warmongers. Try talking to people who don't want to play world police.

                  WWII

                  In WWII, we were actually attacked by a clearly-identifiable enemy. Not the same.

                  Also, how are you defining "success""? I consider it is a success for us to mind our own business. Even if there were some practical gains, that doesn't justify violating this principle. Self-defense is valid, but that is about it.

                  Look, it was iffy at the time.

                  There was nothing iffy about it. It was absolutely clear that it was an unjust war, even at the time.

                  I don't consider just the aftermath of the war, but whether the war was justified in the first place. I don't think it's our responsibility to install democracies around the world. So if you talk about wars which "could have been done very well" or wars which were 'successes', all I'll do is give you a blank stare, because I simply take a principled stance on this issue. The supposed practical benefits of the war mean little to me.

                  • (Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Thursday May 05 2016, @08:38PM

                    by Capt. Obvious (6089) on Thursday May 05 2016, @08:38PM (#342232)

                    Also, how are you defining "success""?

                    Excellent question. I tend to focus on success in the post-war peace, but I think there are a couple of requirements: (a) Peaceful transition from occupation to independence. (b) Friendly relationship between former occupier and former occupied. (c) Installation of a government that protects human rights.

                    For actually going into a war, I consider legitimate reasons as (a) Self-defense, or defense of an ally (b) Preventing a genocide (c) Aligning against anyone breaking the rules of war, (e.g. the Geneva Conventions). I could be convinced that preventing other human rights abuses justify war.

                    By my metric, the Korean War was justified (we were allied with ROK), WWII was justified (seems easy enough), the Gulf War was justified (the world rallied to Kuwait's aid as allies), and the second Gulf War was... questionable. Iraq definitely violated the Geneva Conventions against using WMDs (the only country to do so), but was should really have been a last resort to get them to disarm. And other threats seem to have already worked.

                    WWII and the Korean War are successes because Germany, Japan and South Korea are all buddies with the US now, making up 3 of its top 6 trading partners.

                    • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday May 06 2016, @11:09AM

                      by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Friday May 06 2016, @11:09AM (#342503)

                      I don't consider it our job to stop bad guys all over the world. Defense of an ally may be legitimate. But other than that, those excuses are flimsy and anyone who wants wars like that should really fund it themselves instead of making all taxpayers pay for it. Maybe they should even join the army and go themselves.

                      I also consider all of our smaller military adventures, which the government often refuses to call wars, to be wars. When you only focus on a few of our adventures, you're going to get a skewed picture. The majority of our wars have been unjust and have been disastrous for the countries we went to war with/in.

                      • (Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Friday May 06 2016, @08:56PM

                        by Capt. Obvious (6089) on Friday May 06 2016, @08:56PM (#342704)

                        The majority of our wars have been unjust and have been disastrous for the countries we went to war with/in.

                        Can I get some evidence of that? Ignore Vietnam and Iraq. Which country we went to war with is worse off? The Barbary pirates who were attacking us? The Hapsburg led Austro-Hungarian empire?

                        Unless you count all the wars against native peoples. Those were fucked up and we're in total agreement that they were wrong.

                        • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday May 07 2016, @10:30AM

                          by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Saturday May 07 2016, @10:30AM (#342859)

                          Can I get some evidence of that?

                          Why would I ignore Iraq and Vietnam? Syria and Libya are other examples.

                          It's also worth mentioning all the rebellions the US has sparked in secret, or the assassinations of democratically-elected leaders, oftentimes in the middle east. Or all the weapons we give to random sides in a rebellion. We meddle in countless ways.

                          But with your definition of "success", it's likely that anything I say won't matter because you don't take a principled stance against war in the first place. You seem to think it's our job to stop Bad Guys even if they haven't attacked us or even allies we've said we would protect. For instance, I take a principled stance against mass surveillance by saying I would oppose it even if it were effective at stopping terrorists. Just because something gives you some practical benefits doesn't mean it's morally good.

                          Unless you count all the wars against native peoples. Those were fucked up and we're in total agreement that they were wrong.

                          I would count those.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2016, @09:11PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2016, @09:11PM (#342706)

              I was obvious to me and most people I know at the time that the war was a mistake. Don't make excuses for yourself being wrong.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday May 04 2016, @09:14AM

        by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @09:14AM (#341363)

        I have to agree. Trump - who has come out in support of the government stealing people's property to give to private entities numerous times, supports censorship and casually mocks first amendment supporters [soylentnews.org], seems to believe that our military budget is too small, has insulted Snowden and supported mass surveillance, and came out against Apple and encryption in their fight with the FBI [soylentnews.org] - is the only candidate I can support with a clean conscious. A good candidate, that one.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @11:13AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @11:13AM (#341395)

      Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both voted to build a wall on the Mexican border with the Senate Fence Act of 2006.

      The Obama campaign is currently funding a wall between Libya and Tunisia.

      Only when it is politically advantageous will the Democrats distance themselves from border security.

    • (Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Wednesday May 04 2016, @12:35PM

      by wisnoskij (5149) <{jonathonwisnoski} {at} {gmail.com}> on Wednesday May 04 2016, @12:35PM (#341408)

      You are are not willing to pay wages that legally shipped in foreigners will accept, like the rest of the world. If your business model collapses when you do not have absolute control over your slave workers, that you can export without a trial, and just one short call to border control, then you deserve to fail. America is powerful and rich, it can afford to pay for non-slave workers, it can afford to insist upon basic human rights within its borders; Like two parties coming to a fair agreement on wages without one party having the power to imprison and export the second on a whim.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:26PM

      by GungnirSniper (1671) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:26PM (#341513) Journal

      You sound like Kelly Osborne: "If you kick every Latino out of this country, then who is going to be cleaning your toilet, Donald Trump?" [dailymail.co.uk] Until the massive manpower call-up of World War 2, it was native-born Americans doing the planting and harvesting. Since those jobs will still need to be done, the pay for them will rise to hire native-born workers, legal immigrant workers, even legal temporary workers from outside the US. Hiring illegal workers is similar to Walmart's tactics, in that it minimizes the taxes paid while socializing the costs (health care, etc). Is that the sort of exploitative profiteering you support?

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by fleg on Wednesday May 04 2016, @05:47AM

    by fleg (128) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 04 2016, @05:47AM (#341284)

    ok i give in, why is it that the republican establishment dont like trump? to me (not an american) he seems to be saying all the things that republicans usually say and many of the things they only usually hint at, so what gives?

    • (Score: 2) by devlux on Wednesday May 04 2016, @06:07AM

      by devlux (6151) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @06:07AM (#341290)

      It's the hair. Also he's actually Evil Bif Tannen from Back to the Future part 2.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @06:07AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @06:07AM (#341291)

      The Republican establishment is scared to death of Trump because he isn't owned by the usual donors. Everything will be turned upside down if we get a president whose strings can't be pulled like a puppet. Such a president might actually change something and deprive the 0.1% of their usual opportunities to milk the rest of us dry. We might actually get a president who tries to fix things instead of just playing tug-of-war with the other side over the same old issues with no new thinking. Likewise, Bernie Sanders takes positions that would seem more appealing to Democrats than Clinton's, yet the Democratic establishment is bending over backwards to keep him down (super delegates that go for Clinton in states where Sanders has far more votes). Why? Same reason. Trump and Sanders are both talking about campaign finance reform, which would permanently wreck the power that the parties (and their donors) currently enjoy.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Capt. Obvious on Wednesday May 04 2016, @09:00AM

      by Capt. Obvious (6089) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @09:00AM (#341356)

      There are a lot of reasons. First, where he disagrees with the stated Republican areas:

      Republicans are clannish. Rule #1 is you do not say bad things about other Republicans. He, well, does.

      Republicans only dog-whistle (use oblique racist rhetoric). It's unacceptable to be openly racist in a corporate boardroom.

      He's pro-life, or was, and abortion is a hot button issue.

      He wants to start trade wars with China, and opposes free trade.

      Then where he is in agreement with things they say to appease their base, but don't believe. An excellent example is the anti-immigrant rhetoric. Republicans know they need the cheap labor. They just sometimes mouth anti-immigrant beliefs to get votes. But the Chamber of Commerce (very Republican) knows it needs them, and so do farmers, etc.

      And then there are the reasons that all good-hearted people hate Trump. I mean, holy shit, whether you like his politics or not...

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by snufu on Wednesday May 04 2016, @09:07AM

      by snufu (5855) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @09:07AM (#341360)

      You answered your own question. The Republican establishment is terrified of Trump because he states explicitly what the party is supposed to only imply. Republicans are supposed to court the bigot/fascist vote through hints and coded language. Trump does it out loud, which negates plausible deniability.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @01:04PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @01:04PM (#341416)

        I'm scared of Trump because, at the root, he is a real estate developer. I grew up in a nice, quiet town outside a small city. Developers decided that our town was ripe for the picking and now the place is filled with strip malls, drugstores and stupid, huge cookie-cutter fake-colonial houses. The pleasant atmosphere that my parent's generation built (one house at a time) is gone. Instead of local employment and kids bicycling to school, the streets are filled with angry commuters at rush hour.

        As someone else noted, under Trump, eminent domain will be common -- if you happen to live in a neighborhood where a developer wants in, you are screwed. Same for so-called "industrial development agencies" (IDAs), tax giveaways to business with little restraint.

    • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:38PM

      by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:38PM (#341492) Homepage Journal

      They don't trust newbies, and he's only been a Republican for a few years.

      --
      mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @09:05AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @09:05AM (#341358)

    Thousands are fleeing Calgary as fire descends on the city. Coincidence? http://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-wildfire-fortmcmurray-idUSKCN0XU2D8 [reuters.com]

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @10:26AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @10:26AM (#341382)

      Yes, it seems that the Zodiac killer went to a whole new level.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @01:11PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @01:11PM (#341421)

    1. Marco Rubio. Top choice, but unlikely to accept. He thinks he's a frontrunner for 2020, and the "Little Marco" taunts rankled.

    2. John Kasich. Would've thought this unlikely, but who knows.

    3. Rick Scott. Trump needs to win Florida. Scott just said he wasn't interested, but things could change.

    4. Ted Cruz. This would've been a logical choice as of a few weeks ago, but now there's no way. Cruz is furious at that alleged Cuban photo of his dad.

    5. Scott Walker. Word is he hates Trump, and he endorsed Cruz before the Wisconsin primary. Still, you never know.

    6. Nikki Haley. There's no chance. She laid it out plainly in the SOTU response and she hasn't deviated since then.

    7. Chris Christie. Trump's fallback choice. He won't add much to the ticket (besides 260 lbs) but won't detract either. And he would say yes. He's no longer popular in NJ.

    8. Ben Carson. An interesting choice that might help with conservatives, but he would also turn off some moderates worried about him being President. He would accept.

    9. Scott Brown. Was Republican Senator from Mass. for two years, a good looking guy who might appeal to the ladies. A Dan Quayle sort whom Dems would treat as such. Actually they'd compare him to Palin, but Quayle would be more accurate.

    10. Rudy Guiliani. A Trump advisor who might help in Florida, and possibly in Pennsylvania and NJ. I don't see him being interested in being VP though.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:32PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:32PM (#341516)

      My bet is Joe Scar borough . Trump does what he wants and those two are good friends and it gives him at least a sizable in for good press from msnbc and Fox News.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:55PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:55PM (#341537)

      You forgot Bernie Madoff.

  • (Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Wednesday May 04 2016, @01:22PM

    by Kromagv0 (1825) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @01:22PM (#341429) Homepage

    So it sounds like it is now time for Republican voters to screw with Hillary and go and vote in mass for Sanders. One party is burning time to set the other ablaze. and this way at least the people would have a choice.

    --
    T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by VLM on Wednesday May 04 2016, @02:12PM

    by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 04 2016, @02:12PM (#341455)

    Most of the complaining about Hillary and Trump relies on not understanding they come from different cultures and what makes sense to them probably looks insane to other cultures.

    So Hillary is a rich elitist life long politician. Nothing but pandering, signalling, backstabbing, and most importantly ruling. All that matters is gaining more power over more people (including not just subordinates but "we the people"). The only opinion that matters is her current little clique of politicians, if she needs to make a deal with senators A, B, and C, which she thinks will help her gain power, why would she care about the effect of the deal on the public or whatever else all that matters is at the end of the deal they have less power and she has more. When you're in a meeting with other elites in a room, there is no world outside that room, to her. Basic political psychopath / sociopath behavior. Once a deal is done, once someone is beat, the ends justifies the means power is a goal in and of itself. Obviously this screws over the country. Some of the country doesn't care because they're sexist and she's a woman so its all good even if she was hitler reincarnated (and she is near that bad...) , or their family unthinkingly voted for her party for eons and will continue to do so, or they just like trolling. But the rest of the world is horrified by her behavior. She's kind of America's Nero if you know Roman history. Remember she's a sociopath, if the entire population of a state has to die for her to gain 1% more power, well, better write your will because all that matters to her is increasing her power. She lives in a world of devotion and signalling to abstract ideas. She'd make a great human sacrifice priest. After all, America is and has been her human sacrifice and she can't wait for more bloodletting to her god of absolute power for the purpose of power. She's not insane, she's just evil.

    The Trump has spent his whole life portraying himself as the master businessman deal maker. His books, his PR, his TV shows. He's spent his whole life getting some "thing" like a piece of real estate, making it more valuable as per the shared opinion of the entire world's free market, and selling it for more than he paid. Like all wheeler dealers he hasn't always won but on average he's done quite well compared to the average joe, he really is quite talented. People like that idolize Tom Sawyer and love presenting a first offer like "whitewash my fence and also pay me to do it" or "how about you pay me and build me a wall along the border?" and stuff like that. If someone takes your first negotiation offer you totally Fed up and he pretty much doesn't F up. Also unlike an ideologue he has to pay attention to reality not LARP or he loses in his deals. So the R party cucks have lived in neocon la la fantasy land for a couple decades so trump signals a bit to the alt right people living in the real world, and unsurprisingly, because he rarely takes risks that won't pay off, it worked and somehow he's going to be the nominee of a party currently (temporarily?) run by neocon cucks who hate everything he stands for. The cathedral types in the media and the sjw red guard in the campuses hate him because he walks into a negotiation meeting with a ridiculous first offer that none the less is vaguely appealing to the common man kind of like cracking a joke but it does set the base of the negotiations, whereas in the cathedral social circle you'd supposed to start meetings like the cultural revolution in China with the first two minutes being a declaration of devotion to whoever is dear leader today and a shared recitation of our commie values and some self criticism. Each side thinks the other is insane. I think he's the safest most conservative of the people running because he's spent a whole lifetime trying to pass along something with a higher finishing value than the price he paid to purchase ... he's not going to tolerate an economy thats worse in four years, or stuck in pointless wars or whatever other idiocy... he wants that "profit" which is having a better country that when he got here. Like all business leaders, what makes the company better in the future might not be enjoyed by all the employees... If Mexico hates him, well Mexico can go F itself as long as the USA is better off in total across the board. He's not really "make america great again" but more realistically based on his entire life experience "make america greater in four years than today" but that doesn't flow as well so...

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @02:16PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @02:16PM (#341459)

      To summarize:

      Trump good, Hillary no.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Bobs on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:38PM

    by Bobs (1462) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:38PM (#341519)

    From the perspective of a US citizen,

    • He opposed to core principles of the USA. I think he might fit in as President of Somalia. USA, not so much.
      • He is against the First amendment - wants to sue news organizations that print things about him he does not like
      • He wants the government to discriminate based upon religion.
      • He supports / advocates torture.
      • He encourages the use of violence / threat of violence against those who disagree with his views.
    • He is literally racist and misogynistic.
    • He is vengeful.
    • He is greedy.
    • He is a liar.
    • He is a bully.
    • He is chaotic:
      • He says one thing one day, changes his mind later that same day.
      • He says aggressive, offensive things to people, countries without considering the consequences.
      • He says things that indicate that he does not understand how they work, and he does not care that he doesn't know what he is talking about. (He doesn't know what he doesn't know, and doesn't care to know.)
    • We want someone wise, not random. Random starts wars / trade wars.
      • Little Wars can accidentally turn into Big wars.
      • The President is in charge of a nuclear arsenal capable of depopulating the planet.
    • He admires / likes Vladimr Putin - a totalitarian autocrat running a kleptocratic state.
    • He has made his money by using inheritance, public subsidies, bankruptcy and selling shoddy products.
    • He acts like a demagogue and fascist.

    I have to go but I and others can provide links to many examples of the above later.

    Personally, I am looking for a leader that appeals to our better natures and will strengthen the people of the US (and our friends and allies, and others), our institutions in the short and longer terms. He will be destructive to our democracy and the people in it.

    See also: For the US, Tump is an extinction level event. [nymag.com]

    • (Score: 2) by GlennC on Wednesday May 04 2016, @05:08PM

      by GlennC (3656) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @05:08PM (#341548)

      You make it sound like a bad thing.

      If the choice is between that and Hilary taking us down a slow path to a second Civil War, let's burn this fucker down...our grand experiment with representative democracy will have failed.

      --
      Sorry folks...the world is bigger and more varied than you want it to be. Deal with it.
      • (Score: 2) by Bobs on Wednesday May 04 2016, @08:44PM

        by Bobs (1462) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @08:44PM (#341703)

        “...let's burn this fucker down...our grand experiment with representative democracy will have failed.”

        For those of us who want preserve and improve the USA, Trump is a poor choice.

        As you say, for those who want to blow-up the USA, Trump fits.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @09:59PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @09:59PM (#341773)

        If the choice is between that and Hilary taking us down a slow path to a second Civil War, let's burn this fucker down...our grand experiment with representative democracy will have failed.

        So, your only suggestion is to burn the country down to the ground? Nihilism? Really?!? I'm tempted to say "Fine, have it your way." My only consolation would be that you would have to suffer the consequences right along with the rest of us.

    • (Score: 2) by turgid on Wednesday May 04 2016, @07:20PM

      by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 04 2016, @07:20PM (#341642) Journal

      "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." -- Napoleon III.

  • (Score: 2) by fritsd on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:55PM

    by fritsd (4586) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:55PM (#341536) Journal

    The Hanford site [tri-cityherald.com].

    “There is no indication of waste leaking into the environment or risk to the public at this time,” the state confirmed in a statement Monday.

    What would Trump do about the Hanford site?
    What would Clinton do about the Hanford site?
    What would Sanders do about the Hanford site?
    What would Stein do about the Hanford site?

    a foreigner.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @06:08PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @06:08PM (#341585)

      Under Trump, the plant would be moved across the border into British Columbia. The Canadians would pay for it.

  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday May 04 2016, @09:01PM

    by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Wednesday May 04 2016, @09:01PM (#341714) Journal

    Ok, I said that I was going to prepare to flee flyover country if Trump was the Republican nominee and possibly the USA (or at least definitely flyover country) if he won the general election. The first half of that hasn't changed. I believe I also said that it wasn't Trump that necessarily had me scared but his supporters.

    As they are wont to do, things always change. The one thing I did not have on my mentat radar was Lyin' Ted dropping out after getting his ass handed to him by a bunch of Hoosiers, especially after he hopped on the Apache attack copter bandwagon (as usual, lying his ass off by doing so, this time about trans folks).

    Lyin Ted's lies about trans folks are bog standard. I've been very disappointed both on the green site and here to see how many people consider these outright lies to be truth:

    1. Trans women are men who want to enter the women's restroom for the sole purpose of molesting children and raping women. Listen to yourselves! You just bought into feminism hook, line, and sinker!
    2. Trans men don't exist. Fucking hell! Again, you've all converted to feminism I hope you realize!
    3. Legislation is the only thing that can stop little girls from being sexually abused in the women's room. Do I need to repeat myself?!
    4. A trans woman is a person who, in the instant of the moment, has decided to identify as a woman. This one I can't blame squarely on feminism; I'd have to go back to where feminism got its wacky ideas about trans folks in the first place, but we're not here to discuss the detailed history of transphobia straight back to its Jewish invention.

    Ok, that aside, I figured that Lyin' Ted would have a good showing with the Hoosiers, but it looks like I sold them short. It's been a while since I've been in the Hoosier state, really not since my last blood relatives down there kicked the bucket.

    So, now I'm left without much of anything for bearings. I've even forgotten my sunstone, and I don't have an octant on me!

    What's next, Apache attack copters? I honestly don't know what to expect out of you right now. All I know is that you are utterly irrational and immune to reason and logic.

    Am I being utterly irrational and immune to reason and logic about feminism? I don't know. At one point, Azuma here along with AmiMoJo and BarbaraHudson on the old site and others I knew in real life almost had me convinced that I had been wrong about feminism this whole time. I will at least admit that maybe the group I want to attack are not "real" feminists. But I have no idea what a "real" feminist is and whether or not I should attempt to locate a true Scotswoman to find out.

    So here's the rest of what I wanted to post. Trump has made a believer out of me... for now. Inviting Caitlyn Jenner to use the women's restroom in Trump Tower was a powerful gesture by the Donald. (It was also a bit silly to be honest, but the Apache attack copters have transformed something that should just be a Monty Python gag into something that is very dangerous and very real.) I mean, he's a big guy (financially speaking anyway) and he took Lyin' Ted's death throes claiming he was no different from Clinton in easy stride.

    So, that means I'm sticking around for the November election while keeping an eye on things. Afterwards I can move wherever I'm headed. There are some very specific things that need to happen before I would consider voting for Clinton:

    1. Clinton needs to distance herself from feminism or the TERFs or whoever has been causing me headaches IRL. It could be as simple as identifying these people. Are they not feminists at all, but anti-feminist cisfemales who want traditional gender roles for women? I don't know. However, this will mean throwing a few cisgendered women under the bus. They've been standing in that bus' headlights too long, and it's time that a powerful woman with a national voice throw them under it.

    2. Clinton needs to make me believe that she really has had a change of heart on TPP/TTIP/TISA. Why did she support it in the first place? What changed her mind? Did the Sanders campaign open her eyes to something she'd never seen before? Is she a changed woman? And by changed, I mean did she have a change of heart as though she were Xena being shown the light by Hercules and realizing the error of her sinful ways? If she hasn't really changed, then she is a dangerous woman, not just to me because of my demographic, but to every liberty-loving person in the Western world.

    3. Finally, and I realizing I'm moving the goalposts farther for Clinton than I am for Trump here, just because as one Youtube video noted that "we always have to drag her by her feet," can Clinton assure me that she will support the growing cannabis industry out west? Can Clinton assure me she will respect the 10th Amendment and allow the several states to do their own experimentation with ending cannabis prohibition? Finally, can Clinton assure me that when the time is right, she will put her resources and connections into play to finally reschedule cannabis flower or deschedule it entirely at the federal level?

    • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday May 05 2016, @12:23AM

      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday May 05 2016, @12:23AM (#341845) Journal

      God damn it, Kurenai, single-issue voters are the death of this country.

      You *are* wrong about feminism, in the same way that someone who sees Westboro Baptist Church and generalizes all Christians as hateful greedy opportunists would be. Nearly all of us, and certainly the only ones *I* have any association with, are completely trans-friendly. I even campaign for certain mens' issues, like being anti-circumcision and trying to get mens' DV programs opened.

      What you're not getting is that Trump himself is not the real threat here; he's a clown, a useless, egonamiacal moron like Dubya was. The problem is his handlers. Arguably, the real president from 2001-2009 was Darth Cheney, not Chimpy McBushface. THAT is what you're up against if Trump wins. He'll be a rubber stamp for the real looney birds, the Dominionists like Cruz's buddies.

      Do you really want to risk a GOP presidency AND Congress being able to place Supreme Court justices? The very rich white TERFs you rail against may be your salvation in the sense that Clinton is massively beholden to them and will appoint SCOTUS judges who are good on womens' rights, which by and large also includes LGBT rights.

      Step back and think about the big picture here, PLEASE.

      --
      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05 2016, @04:14AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05 2016, @04:14AM (#341907)

        Kurenai, Chigau, yo!

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2016, @03:02AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2016, @03:02AM (#342384)

          Nein. Nicht so schnell. Morgen früh will ich eine antwort geben. Ich muß ein traumexperiment betrieben, wenn ich kann.

      • (Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Thursday May 05 2016, @01:47PM

        by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Thursday May 05 2016, @01:47PM (#342022) Journal

        Well, if I may ask a multi-pronged question with sidenotes. Where would I find flesh and blood feminists who

        - Condemn male genital mutilation? Last I checked, I was being told how much of a monster I was if I didn't sign a petition against clitoral pin-pricks and how much I would never be able to understand what living with mutilated genitals is like. Needless to say, I am very angry about that since I did not know at the time that my genitals had been mutilated. But that was before I was all growed up [sic]. In 2010 I think it was, cisfemales across the nation railed against the American Academy of Pediatrics for even suggesting that mothers who wished to have their daughter's clitoris pricked with a pin should be able to do so in a sterile, modern hospital. In 2012, I was frankly gobsmacked when cisfemales across the nation rallied against HPV vaccination and in favor of male genital mutilation as a cervical cancer preventative measure. That hypocrisy is what I hope the term I've been using, "cisfemale hunnies," can capture.

        - Are interested at all in male survivors of domestic violence? Last I checked, the only concern was making damn sure that everybody with a woman suit like me understood that we were not to even think about reaching out for help in the event of domestic violence. I really have no dog in this fight.

        - Are more interested in liberty and repealing cannabis prohibition and ending the stigma against mothers with children who wish to enjoy cannabis flower the same way they'd enjoy a glass of wine after a stressful day instead of trying to control what trans women and homosexual men (along with all my cis+het friends) do in their free time in their own houses? When will those of us not lucky enough to be assigned the female gender at birth get a Room of our Own?

        I guess where is the operative word. Will I find them in Seattle or Portland? What if I keep Denver in my sights? Do I need to go to Los Angeles? Salt Lake? Chicago? New York? Are these people only found in San Francisco? Please help me out here.

        At the moment, I think the fact that Trump has been labeled a misogynist for, as far as I can tell, being guilty of the same thing I've been guilty of--having the temerity (well, the word temerity is difficult to apply to Trump, so perhaps he deserves audacity instead) to dare tell a cisfemale she's wrong--is a feature, not a bug.

        The very rich white TERFs you rail against may be your salvation in the sense that Clinton is massively beholden to them and will appoint SCOTUS judges who are good on womens' rights, which by and large also includes LGBT rights.

        I'm not sure how you're trying to advise me here. In fact, it is one of my fears about Clinton that she will be beholden to TERFs. Women's rights are not GBT rights. They may be L rights, but I have yet to experience any way in which women's rights helps trans women or homosexual men.

        Additionally, the link between the temperance movement, the suffragettes, and alcohol prohibition is undeniable. When the war against alcohol was lost, am I to believe that the suffragettes and early feminists didn't ram cannabis prohibition through and instead simply threw in their hats?

        What will Clinton do? Will she respect the 10th amendment and allow me to move to a state that has declared cannabis prohibition over? Will she bring the full force of the DEA banhammer down, a month after I get to Denver, on honest dispensaries like the one I visited after Colorado had decided to lead the repeal of cannabis prohibition.

        Perhaps if you can confirm for me if it's Portland or Denver or wherever I might find feminists who aren't enemies. As I noted months ago, I do happen to live a bit close to ground zero of the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival's implosion. I can confirm that there are definitely womyn-born-womyn who are very angry about that festival shutting down. I have never once participated in Camp Trans, but yet I have had a womyn-born-womyn who happened to be homosexual (and proud of it apparently) explode on somebody living in my house while in my driveway with a barrage of transphobia that would have made Lyin' Ted proud. So obviously I need to go somewhere else. The person on the receiving end of that tirade will likely end up in San Francisco.

        So please help me out before I make a major mistake in every area that isn't trans and homosexual rights or ending cannabis prohibition (have a feeling Trump simply hasn't come out in favor of it the way he has with putting a stop to this bathroom silliness) and pull the lever for Trump. Where will I find more of your kind of feminist and less of the kind I'm currently surrounded by?

        • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday May 05 2016, @05:09PM

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday May 05 2016, @05:09PM (#342116) Journal

          Well, if I may ask a multi-pronged question with sidenotes. Where would I find flesh and blood feminists who - Condemn male genital mutilation? Last I checked, I was being told how much of a monster I was if I didn't sign a petition against clitoral pin-pricks and how much I would never be able to understand what living with mutilated genitals is like. Needless to say, I am very angry about that since I did not know at the time that my genitals had been mutilated. But that was before I was all growed up [sic]. In 2010 I think it was, cisfemales across the nation railed against the American Academy of Pediatrics for even suggesting that mothers who wished to have their daughter's clitoris pricked with a pin should be able to do so in a sterile, modern hospital. In 2012, I was frankly gobsmacked when cisfemales across the nation rallied against HPV vaccination and in favor of male genital mutilation as a cervical cancer preventative measure. That hypocrisy is what I hope the term I've been using, "cisfemale hunnies," can capture. - Are interested at all in male survivors of domestic violence? Last I checked, the only concern was making damn sure that everybody with a woman suit like me understood that we were not to even think about reaching out for help in the event of domestic violence. I really have no dog in this fight. - Are more interested in liberty and repealing cannabis prohibition and ending the stigma against mothers with children who wish to enjoy cannabis flower the same way they'd enjoy a glass of wine after a stressful day instead of trying to control what trans women and homosexual men (along with all my cis+het friends) do in their free time in their own houses? When will those of us not lucky enough to be assigned the female gender at birth get a Room of our Own?

          For the love of little green onions! Me! And I can guarantee you most feminists are like this; the ones you're complaining about are roughly in proportion to (and ideological extremism of) feminism in general as the Theonimists are to the entire US Christian population. They're loud, evil, vile, and well-connected, but their actual numbers are tiny. My sister is the same way; she's one of those "cisgendered hunnies" you insist on dumping on, and she was raped, at 14 fucking years old, and she is still for equality and making sure gendered violence against men gets addressed too.

          Frankly, Kurenai, I think you're letting your own trauma get in the way of making the right decision here.

          Let me say this again: the president is a figurehead. If you vote for Trump, you're not voting just for Trump; you're voting for an entire GOP administration, one which will very likely place atleast 2 SCOTUS justices. You think things are bad for trans* people now? Just fucking wait and see what happens when the Theonomist machine appoints not only Scalia's replacement but someone even worse than him in place of R. B. Ginsburg.

          I'm not sure how you're trying to advise me here. In fact, it is one of my fears about Clinton that she will be beholden to TERFs. Women's rights are not GBT rights. They may be L rights, but I have yet to experience any way in which women's rights helps trans women or homosexual men. Additionally, the link between the temperance movement, the suffragettes, and alcohol prohibition is undeniable. When the war against alcohol was lost, am I to believe that the suffragettes and early feminists didn't ram cannabis prohibition through and instead simply threw in their hats?

          Historically-speaking, LGBT rights followed on the heels of the 1960s Civil Rights Act, which itself was catalyzed by womens' suffrage in 1920. I know, it sucks to say "wait for the tail of the movement." It sucks to be told you have to eat the breadcrumbs of progress. And I know I'm very lucky, as a lesbian, not to have been born even 50 years ago. Trans* rights are getting there. Keep your head down and your will strong; if nothing else you have an ally in me.

          As far as weed goes, look, this country was colonized by a bunch of Calvinist whackadoos who got kicked out of 17th-century England for being too hardcore-religious. Think about that a moment. Puritanism, perverted Calvinism, underlies the culture of the US. Just look at that complete fucking sociopath JMorris; he claims agnosticism, but he acts like a classic dual-predestination Calvinist. This country has a bad habit of trying to legislate morality, and doing it while not even half understanding what it's actually trying to accomplish or how it works.

          Personally, I do see weed becoming legal nationwide within the next 5-10 years unless something goes really wrong. Now I'm just about straight-edge, the exception being a few drinks a year, so I have no dog in this fight, but I support its legalization. It's far less harmful than alcohol, seems to have some beneficial effects in the right doses, and if nothing else the genesis of marijuana prohibition was about racism and corporate greed more than anything actually in our interests. If nothing else, to stop the insane incarceration rate and the privatized prison system (why the actual fuck is this a thing?!) I'm in favor of legalization.

          You have to separate today's feminists from the ones of over a century ago. Taking my sister as an example again, that woman smokes more pot than Bob Marley; it's been an extremely effective antidepressant for her, she says. So, again, most feminists are not temperance-league members. And, in context, do you understand why so many were? There is a reason they called it "demon rum;" do the research on alcoholism among late 19th/early20th-century workers. It really was a massive plague.

          What will Clinton do? Will she respect the 10th amendment and allow me to move to a state that has declared cannabis prohibition over? Will she bring the full force of the DEA banhammer down, a month after I get to Denver, on honest dispensaries like the one I visited after Colorado had decided to lead the repeal of cannabis prohibition. Perhaps if you can confirm for me if it's Portland or Denver or wherever I might find feminists who aren't enemies. As I noted months ago, I do happen to live a bit close to ground zero of the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival's implosion. I can confirm that there are definitely womyn-born-womyn who are very angry about that festival shutting down. I have never once participated in Camp Trans, but yet I have had a womyn-born-womyn who happened to be homosexual (and proud of it apparently) explode on somebody living in my house while in my driveway with a barrage of transphobia that would have made Lyin' Ted proud. So obviously I need to go somewhere else. The person on the receiving end of that tirade will likely end up in San Francisco. So please help me out before I make a major mistake in every area that isn't trans and homosexual rights or ending cannabis prohibition (have a feeling Trump simply hasn't come out in favor of it the way he has with putting a stop to this bathroom silliness) and pull the lever for Trump. Where will I find more of your kind of feminist and less of the kind I'm currently surrounded by?

          Well, I spent the first 27 years of my life in NYC and just moved to Madison in November of 2012, so I can't say anything about Portland or Denver as these are the only two places I've ever lived.

          What I can say, and you're not going to like this but suck it up, is this: don't throw the entire country under the bus for your own personal reasons. While you're not guaranteed what you want with Clinton in office, you are absofuckinglutely guaranteed not to get any of it if Trump wins, because as I said, it's going to be his neocon and Dominionist handlers who call the shots, not him.

          See, your problem is you are acting exactly like that horrible TERF you described before, but in the other direction. You're going to vote to burn the entire nation down because of your own pain and fear. Don't. Do it. Voting Trump will make you as ignorant and as self-destructive and as dumb as that horrible shrieking bitch who got all up in your friend's grill on your driveway. You are better than that.

          Step back, calm down, and look at the big picture here. Are you on IRC at all? I have a good trans*-friendly space on Rizon you can hang out on if you want.

          • (Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday May 06 2016, @11:04AM

            by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Friday May 06 2016, @11:04AM (#342502) Journal

            Well, here we are [reuters.com].

            Yeah, fine, I'll suck it up, because my voice doesn't matter anyway. I'd head over to IRC, but it's only a matter of time before I get K-lined from that network as well. I have a habit of tearing people's heads off and shitting down their necks when somebody suggests that what I suffered because of infant male genital mutilation wasn't really all that bad (especially compared to a pin-prick) and is merely a matter between me and my family. What family?

            Do not fuck with the states where recreational cannabis is legal. Maybe there's some cisfemale only network under the full protection of feminism (meaning the thinly veiled threat that if it ever gets raided, rape accusations will fly) that gets your sister what she needs, but there is nothing like that for me. The narrative that cannabis causes depression and is only used by men who are failures at being good little sexual objects to cisfemales is what I get to eat.

            Do I have a medical need? I honestly don't fucking care. If I do, nobody is fucking helping me make that case. Your sister gets to claim PTSD, and powerful interests will make sure she has what she needs. I don't get to claim fucking shit. The few times I've raised it to test the waters, I get completely dismissed. I just get to suck it up.

            Eh, I guess I'll pull the lever for the Libertarian party once again. I want powerful interests to stop fucking with the things I need like cannabis flower, estrogen, and especially either an anti-androgen or a fair fucking chance to save up for orchiectomy. This world is so dominated by cisfemales that my spell checker thought I meant hysterectomy there. Health issues that pertain to assigned males do not matter. I know now I will never have enough to actually get a sex change. And yeah, you'd better bet the first thing I'd do if that were an option for me would be to fuck some guy's brains out! But I suppose that's another thing to hold against me when building the case that I'm not a "real" woman.

            No! I'll never be able to convince anyone that I need those things! I don't have any fucking victim privilege! I have no fucking voice! Force the issue and I will take what I need by force! I have no particular attachment to this life! I just want the pain to fucking end! I don't need to be alive!

            All I get is that hopefully, somehow, some way, there will always be somebody who will at least shut up and take my money. Never for cannabis, though. It's green, so it must be toxic waste. But the science says it might work with PTSD and that being raped is at least five times as bad as being in a war. I've technically been raped once if I use the same criteria that says 1 out of 4 women will be raped, but that was something nice and not rape at all. Genital mutilation, on the other hand... I'd rather be rape raped. Too bad I never got a choice. Oh well, claiming rape wouldn't get me a PTSD diagnosis anyway, since they'd just put me in the deranged homosexual box and recommend inpatient therapy, probably for "sex addiction" or some bullshit--or even better "cannabis addiction" even though I have no way to get it and have not had any in years--just because they can't actually commit me for being homosexual anymore. Legalese may change, but hearts and minds won't.

            Yeah, I can take my woman-hating computer skills and see which spell checker Chromium is linking against and swap out its dictionary, but what's the point? I was in the hospital recently, and after I became upset because they could not explain why they needed to keep me for as long as they wanted, the cisfemale RN suggested that I was becoming irrational because I was taking estrogen. That one blew my socks off. They had only relented in giving me the meds that had been prescribed by my doctor after a friend had to bring me the actual prescription bottles. They were shocked, shocked! I tell you, that yes, I had been taking your precious estrogen, just like I'd claimed while barely being able to talk when I checked in!

            Speaking of spell checkers, do you even know what it's like to be blamed for sexism and misogyny because a fucking proprietary software company out of Madison can't fucking spell Amoxicillin. Everybody called me a fucking liar when I said I couldn't edit the fucking misspelling that shipped with their dictionary of medical terms. As usual, the vendor refused to fix the problem when I reported it. Just another bug submitted by a worthless dork who doesn't have a good enough score with women to count as a person.

            (I mean, hell, yeah, I probably could have hacked it. That software is so fucking bug-ridden that I also very well could have triggered a catastrophic meltdown of its server component by accident, costing the business days of downtime, just because I hadn't correctly reverse-engineered the dictionary. I'm still not even sure whether the dictionary even exists client-side. It's just my hunch. What would the vendor have said after all the times they tried to throw me under the bus for doing magickal fucking voodoo like using MS SQL data types?)

            Which is it? Do I need to score with women? Or is that rape? Feminism needs to make up its mind. If sex is rape, then it should be good that I have no desire to score with women. It seems with the recent "misogynerd" thing that feminism has been telling me that because I haven't done enough raping, that there too I hate women! Well, ok, at this point maybe I do!

            At least you recognize that you're lucky. I doubt it will ever be real to you how much privilege you enjoy.

            When we shuffle the mortal coil, what dreams may come? Do all suicides go to hell? Does giving up and dying in a gutter with a fat blunt constitute suicide?

            Cannabis flower helps me go somewhere that feminism and Apache attack copters cannot harm me any more. I go far away, somewhere that rape victims cannot take it out on me, somewhere I do not need to be accountable for the career choices of cisfemales, somewhere that I am a person rather than a thing. No, not everybody that wants it can get it. For an hour or two, it's really as if I had finally found a magical hotsprings [wikipedia.org]. Well, that's just one daydream of many.

            These bodies rot and disappear. If it's the case that something survives them, I wonder how feminists will continue asserting cisfemale superiority based on the functions of a body that's worm's meat. I don't know if I care to know. After my body is gone, I know for certain that I will want nothing to do with anybody who was cisfemale. I don't give a crap for sophistry like reincarnation. As long as feminists are immune to the idea that they might have been a man in a previous life or may be a man in the next one, I'm immune to any further thought on the subject. If there are dreams that may come, trespass into my dreams merely to beat me up once over matters of decaying, forgotten bodies will be forbidden.

            You'd probably just write this off as yet another one of my hateful screeds, which is fine. I'm not really expecting anything else. There is no help for me. I have no allies. I have no voice.

            I don't even know why I asked or what I was expecting.

            • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday May 06 2016, @05:23PM

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday May 06 2016, @05:23PM (#342628) Journal

              If you would calm the fuck down and stop alienating people like me, you would have more allies.

              You owe me an apology for what you just said about my sister. She lives in New York City; weed is NOT legal there and she is NOT getting it through any official channel. She's using it precisely BECAUSE she cannot get any effective treatment.

              Now me, I take a more biochemical and scientific approach; I'm treating my issues with magnesium citrate, lots of green tea, and short intervals of sun exposure between 10:00-15:00. I'm trying to convince her to do the same but she seems to really like her C. sativa.

              Suicides do not "go to Hell" as the Abrahamic religions use the phrase, as there is no such place or state the way they recognize it. It's ill-advised and you *will* end up in a very unpleasant state though; worse, you'll be forced to reincarnate in a similar or worse situation. Don't do it; it's the equivalent of flipping over the chess board when you're losing, and all that happens is you have to start from zero.

              Once more: ignore the extremists and the loonies and the Trigglypuffs in feminism; they are a small cohort, just very loud, and the majority of us hate them for the same reason, AGAIN, most Christians hate Westboro Baptist Church. Those people have become twisted, funhouse-mirror parodies of what they claim to hate. Ignore them; they are not worthy of your CPU cycles.

              I'm usually on Rizon between 8 PM and 1 AM Central time; look for an AzumaHazuki (no space) and PM me, and I'll tell you which room it is. It's very quiet, mostly just me and my girlfriend and a few other friends who play Warframe with her, but it's peaceful and friendly.

              --
              I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...