Cybersecurity CEO Gets Fired After Threatening To Kill Trump On Facebook (mashable.com) 497
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Mashable: A San Diego CEO was fired after saying on Facebook that he would get a "sniper rifle" and "kill the president-elect." Matt Harrigan, CEO of the cybersecurity firm PacketSled, posted the comments on his personal Facebook page, but they ended up on Reddit where Trump supporters found the comments and mobilized to contact law enforcement. "I'm going to kill the president. Elect," Harrigan wrote. "Bring it Secret Service." PacketSled said in a statement that it had accepted Harrigan's resignation. "The PacketSled Board of Directors accepted the resignation of President and CEO Matthew Harrigan, effective immediately," the company said. "We want to be very clear, PacketSled does not condone the comments made by Mr. Harrigan, which do not reflect the views or opinions of the company, its employees, investors or partners." In a previous statement, the company said it reported the information to the Secret Service and placed Harrigan on administrative leave. According to The Next Web, Harrigan apologized for his remarks and said the threats were meant to be a joke: "My recent Facebook comment was intended to be a joke, in the context of a larger conversation, and only privately shared as such. Anyone who knows me, knows that I do not engage in this form of rhetoric with any level of seriousness and the comment most certainly does not represent my real personal views in any regard. I apologize if anything that I said was either taken seriously, was offensive, or caused any legitimate concern."
Not very smart (Score:5, Insightful)
Just not very smart of him, whatever your politics. I'm sure he realizes that now, but he seems a little mature to be learning a lesson like: do not threaten head of state with murder in a public forum.
Re:Not very smart (Score:4, Insightful)
"I wish someone would stuff Trump feet first through a woodchipper" = cool
"I am going stuff Trump feet first through a woodchipper" = not cool
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No, but one is a threat and one is not.
Re:Not very smart (Score:4, Informative)
Re: Not very smart (Score:5, Funny)
It's not a threat. Trump could just stick his tiny hands between the wood chipper blades and disassemble it.
Re: (Score:3)
You have no idea what you're talking about. It's a felony...period. Go read the statute.
No, you have no idea what you're talking about. Statute is notwithstanding because case law stipulates that it must be a credible threat:
http://law.justia.com/constitu... [justia.com]
Not very smart analysis (Score:2)
I don't think your analysis is adequate. Your first example is incitement and your second example could be snipped, thus "proving" you made the direct threat.
At least you had the intestinal fortitude to put your name on your comment. Or perhaps you correctly analyzed the lack of privacy on Slashdot?
I'm more interested in analyzing "trumpicide", which I propose as a generic name for a new category of Trump-related crimes. The prior definition is obviously obsolete. Some people thought that the Donald was com
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think your analysis is adequate. Your first example is incitement and your second example could be snipped, thus "proving" you made the direct threat.
No. Incitement is "won't someone please put Trump into a wood chipper? for me? I mean it." and not "I would be happy if someone put Trump into a wood chipper". But yes, "I am going to put Trump into a wood chipper" would be an actual actionable threat, if you took it seriously. If someone has both the motive and the means, you can go ahead and do that.
Re: (Score:2)
And then of course there's the Assassination Market which, if I recall correctly, the CIA had one going at some point...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
"I am going stuff Trump feet first through a woodchipper" = not cool
Would stuffing him head first be cooler?
Re:Not very smart (Score:5, Funny)
"I am going stuff Trump feet first through a woodchipper" = not cool
Would stuffing him head first be cooler?
A.) It wouldn't hurt as much. B.) It's still a direct threat that's hard to write off as just fantasizing.
The first example isn't even really incitement because I'm not attempting to convince a group or individual to do the deed. Just saying I wouldn't be unpleased if it happened. I'm not a cult leader nor am I ordering or provoking anyone to do it. Direct threats of violence are bad. Wishing a violent act would happen to someone isn't a crime. Not saying it can't get you a talking to by some mean-looking SS and FBI agents. By now, I'm pretty sure the NSA knows I'm not actually going to hurt anyone. If they could send me a backup so I can restore some lost e-mails I'd appreciate it though.
Re: Not very smart (Score:4, Insightful)
Is it legal to voice support for "Trump for Woodchipper 2017", like some people supported "Clinton for Prison 2016"?
Not that I support the former, I just want to understand where the line is drawn.
Lots of nebulous threats that aren't technically illegal will still result in a Secret Service visit. Every time the president is in town. For the rest of your life.
These days, with the surveillance panopitcon, I do wonder whether they're saturated and have raised the bar, but maybe it's best not to find out. Sort of like joking about terrorist attacks in an airport. Just a bad plan.
Re: (Score:3)
Is it legal to voice support for "Trump for Woodchipper 2017", like some people supported "Clinton for Prison 2016"?
Not that I support the former, I just want to understand where the line is drawn.
So, you can't see the difference between advocating murder (which is how you get woodchippered) vs criminal sentencing by a court of law (which is how you get thrown in prison)? Because I think that's the oh-so-subtle line right there.
Re: (Score:2)
That one is iffy and also heavily debated. That's more of a "I expect someone to do this and no one has done it yet, what's wrong with you people?".
Re: (Score:3)
That dude was also in a position of power and had the authority and and a respected platform from which to order someone's death.
Re:Not very smart (Score:5, Insightful)
The solution, as always, is to never use Facebook... It gets kind tired to just keep saying that over and over again though, every time a story like this comes up. I'm going to just start shrugging and dismissively saying "Facebook problems" whenever Facebook ruins yet another person's life. There's only so many times you can warn people away from that kind of stuff.
Re:Not very smart (Score:5, Insightful)
The solution isn't really never use facebook. Its remember the advice your mother gave you, "never write something down unless you want others to read it."
It does not matter privacy settings, or if its your private journal. If you put pen to paper or keys to a computer assume someone somewhere sometime you did not intend will read it.
Re: (Score:3)
That's my personal rule. No matter what I'm posting, e-mailing, private messaging, etc. If I wouldn't want my mother, wife, co-workers, boss, neighbors, etc reading it, I won't post it. (Sometimes I include my kids in the listing, but there are some topics I'll post about that aren't really kid-appropriate.) After all, nothing is really private these days. Now many instances of someone's embarrassing "totally private" message being spread across the Internet will it take before people realize that.
Re:Not very smart (Score:4, Funny)
Dance like there's no one watching.
Email like it'll be read on the national news.
Re:Not very smart (Score:4, Interesting)
The solution, as always, is to never use Facebook...
... or if that is too extreme, then do what I do: Treat Facebook as a read-only medium. I occasionally check in on my friends, but I never post anything myself. I do the same on LinkedIn, which is even more ethically challenged than Facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
The solution, as always, is to never use Facebook...
The solution, as always, is to assume anything posted to a website is going to be public.
It gets kind tired to just keep saying that over and over again though, every time a story like this comes up.
Right back at you. Facebook can be used for camo. It's what you post on it that determines its effects.
Tolerance of intolerance (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, it's rather ironic. You see, we're often told about the Paradox of Tolerance formulated by Karl Popper, essentially that intolerance is the one thing one cannot tolerate. However, how does one decide what "intolerance" is and by what right is it suppressed? Well, just look at what Popper wrote [wikiquote.org]:
From this we can see that the moral justification is based on dealing with those who "answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols." So it's ultimately justified by means of the right of self-defense and anyone using Popper to justify going on the attack has it completely backwards. It's a shield, not a sword.
Instead, it should properly be used against the intolerance and criminal behavior of those particular individual people who promote or are involved in things like large riots [oregonlive.com] or attacking and nearly killing an old man in the street (as well as stealing his car) [abc7chicago.com] after a fender-bender when they believed he supported the other political party.
Re: (Score:3)
Idea for bumper sticker "Death to intolerant people".
Re: (Score:3)
"so that it may be ignored and the speaker elected president."
Fixed that for you
He's doubly screwed (Score:2)
Once Trump "opens up the libel laws," if this guy fails to follow through on his threat, Trump will be able to sue him. Damned if you do, damned if you don't!
Re: (Score:3)
It's doubtful that Trump has any power to affect the standards for libel. You can read a full explanation of why here:
https://popehat.com/2016/11/14... [popehat.com]
Re:Not very smart (Score:5, Insightful)
I have been very disappointed in the response of the losing side over this election. This is the kind of behavior I feared that would flare up on the other side when Trump lost the "rigged" election and the faithful rose up in revolt. It's not what I would expect from the allegedly rational side of the fence. They don't even have the excuse that Hillary egged them on.
In fact, the only excuse they could possibly make is that "this is how Trump would do it". So tell us again how you're better than he is?
Re:Not very smart (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not really surprised. These idiots were comparing Trump to Hitler. Everyone's Facebook echo chamber set up a positive feedback loop. It was worse for kids that might be in college where the positive feedback loop is all around them.
They think that he's already burned down the Reichtag, has had 10 years for his thugs to beat down the opposition, and now has free reign to be given emergency powers.
Meanwhile, the socialists are still alive and holding his feet to the fire.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
While reading your post, I found several items to make no sense to me at all. I mean no offense, but it seems you are not well-informed about several aspects of modern politics, especially regarding violence and protests. Let me give my take on your comment.
I have been very disappointed in the response of the losing side over this election.
I find it hard to be disappointed when people act exactly like I would expect them to act in a given situation. Staged rioting, funded by outsiders, is commonplace among the American left today. From Black Lives Matter, back to Occupy Wall Street, to vio
Re: (Score:3)
This is the kind of behavior I feared that would flare up on the other side when Trump lost the "rigged" election and the faithful rose up in revolt.
Why? How often to conservatives or Republicans riot?
Not often. But American politics hasn't really seen the situation as it was right before this election, with a major party candidate explicitly claiming the results would be rigged, with polls showing that a majority of Republicans didn't believe their votes would be counted fairly, and a documented groundswell in militias practicing and preparing to mobilize -- for what, we'll likely never be s
Re: (Score:3)
While I think there would have been a lot of angry talk, and maybe street protests, I wouldn't expect to see Trump supporters rioting and destroying property if he had lost. I would expect legal challenges over voting issues, and a lot of online vitriol, but that's about it. In fact I would expect Donald Trump to publicly call for an end to any violence that may have happened following his defeat.
And, for the record, I also have grown disgusted with both major parties. I voted Green Party this year, just li
Re: (Score:3)
I find it hard to be disappointed when people act exactly like I would expect them to act in a given situation. Staged rioting, funded by outsiders, is commonplace among the American left today. From Black Lives Matter, back to Occupy Wall Street, to violent protests on any number of college campuses, it is now the norm, not the exception.
It's so sad that wild conspiracy theories have become mainstream political views now.
Allow me to ask, are you selective about which conspiracies you believe? Is it just ones that make Trump look good, or do you think he is a Russian puppet too? And how far will you go, is the Clinton body count too much? Lizard people Illuminati?
How often to conservatives or Republicans riot?
Not so much since the civil war, because they want to maintain the status quo. That's what conservatism means. They haven't had decades of being murdered by cops with no recourse or
Re: (Score:3)
He should have quoted Thomas Jefferson.
"What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural ma
May (Score:5, Interesting)
Mr. Harrigan, next time you should think better of what you are about to say. What you said was not funny.
You could have simply said "There's nothing we can do about the travesty of this election. Except maybe the Second Amendment People can do something, I don't know."
See, that way it's funny, isn't it? That way it's just a joke. Everybody would have LOLed.
Re: (Score:2)
If I ever got a mod point, that deserves a funny. Also an insightful. Actually, if there were more mod points it would almost be a kind of election to see if people think it is more funny than insightful. The score could even be logarithmic...
Oh wait. Now I've gone back to those delusions about trying to improve Slashdot, and next thing you know I'll be suggesting that the trolls should be less visible.
I used to think a better financial model would help. Perhaps a system whereby nice people would be able co
Re:May (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Apples to school of sharks comparison (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh it definitely would have been gone. All she would have have to do is get an amendment with 2/3 approval through two houses of Congress that are Republican controlled, then get 38 states to ratify it, even though 32 of the states have Republican legislatures.
Do you notice who isn't involved in that process? The President. Your precious 2nd Amendment wasn't going anywhere.
Not likely....here's what would probably happen (Score:3)
Many of us have no doubt that Clinton and Co would use every part of government to enforce her brand of gun con
Correctly fired (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
As a CEO of a cybersecurity firm the first thing you should know is that no comment in facebook is private, regardless of the content. He was correctly fired just on grounds of incompetence, no matter his political stance.
NB: I disagree with killing anyone, no matter what.
I doubt he thought it was actually private in that no one could see it, rather he was post-election ranting in the context of a conversation between individuals on FB (where it would be clear it wasn't serious).
It was still a stupid thing to do, both because that kind of rhetoric is terrible in general, but also because as a semi-public figure he should have realized that someone could take his comment and completely change the context.
A fool and his freedom... (Score:3)
Sad how these unthinking people will put themselves on lists for the rest of their lives because they couldn't use the slightest bit of moderation.
Re: (Score:2)
these unthinking people will put themselves on lists for the rest of their lives
It's fortunate that he was outed before he could act. It's sad and scary that there are government lists that he can be put on for the rest of his life.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody expects the Email Inquisition (Score:3)
When jokes are outlawed, only outlaws will have jokes.
I'm taking him at his word that it was a joke, and I can easily imagine many contexts where such a joke could be made. None of them are public.
Actually, this isn't an example of the Email Inquisition, since the joke reportedly started on Facebook (though many people communicate more via Facebook than via email). Really hard to imagine how the CEO of a cybersecurity company could regard ANYTHING on Facebook as secure or private. Already quite sufficient reason for him to be fired, eh? He didn't even know how to control his own so-called privacy settings?
I have a theory about humor. I think we need it to be human. It's intimately linked to our nature as learning machines, quite possibly our deepest and most instinctive motivation for learning new things. Think of how easily babies are amused. Think of how funny your greatest teachers were, though of course they used humor selectively. You can even think of slapstick, where the humor is in the pain of someone else, and whereby you learn not to do that.
I call it the General Theory of Relatively Funny Stuff.
In closing, let me remind you not to attempt any jokes in an airport. A friend of mine once did that and it cost him a lot of money and several days of his time. The joke also contributed to some of your personal inconveniences if you ever travel with an electronic device, but 'nuff said.
Re:Nobody expects the Email Inquisition (Score:5, Informative)
The problem is that, "I'm gonna get a sniper rifle and shoot Donald Trump" is in no way shape or form even *related* to humor.
At. All.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm taking him at his word that it was a joke
Than you are idiot or uniformed. One post might be a joke, a second post about how very serious you are after multiple people advised you to calm down, isn't.
Re: (Score:3)
In closing, let me remind you not to attempt any jokes in an airport. A friend of mine once did that and it cost him a lot of money and several days of his time. The joke also contributed to some of your personal inconveniences if you ever travel with an electronic device, but 'nuff said.
Not saying "Hi, Jack" while traveling by air is one of those things I somehow learned early on in life. I don't know how I learned it - I never said it nor did I even know anyone named Jack, but it was just one of those things that sunk in, sort of like having respect at a funeral.
It's taken seriously.
Similarly, you can probably say you want to kill your neighbors because you hate them and no one will take you seriously unless you provide enough context to actually be credible.
Saying you want to kill the p
He needs to be arrested and prosecuted (Score:2)
"Criminal threats is the crime of putting someone in fear. California Penal Code 422 PC defines the crime of "criminal threats" (formerly known as terrorist threats). you communicate the threat verbally, in writing, or via an electronically transmitted device". Threatening to kill someone comes under this law.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Coming from someone who voted against Trump (didn't like Hillary but voted for her because Trump was much worse) and who is legitimately scared about the Trump administration (I'm Jewish and he's appointing an anti-Semite to a top post), First Amendment doesn't protect all speech. Yes, it protects a lot and it does protect speech that we'd rather see go away (for example, the Westboro Baptist Church). But when the speech becomes threats of violence or egging others on to commit acts of violence, a line has
And get pence in power? great idea (Score:2)
But on a more serious note, unless he posted a picture of the rifle along with it, i don't think he should be kicked out of the job outright.
But it does worth an investigation.
He's already in power (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's pence having to pretend he's trump, which means having to fight the establishment to a certain extent and not going thru with the gay zapping plan for now.
Re: (Score:3)
I can't tell if it scares me more or less if Pence is really in charge. I think my "Scare Meter" has maxed out and shattered. It now joins my sarcasm meter and irony meter as casualties of this election.
Finding myself more saddened than passionate now (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Finding myself more saddened than passionate no (Score:5, Funny)
I agree except for the 'deteriorated' part. Honestly we are not far removed from Jacksonian politics. Burr and Hamilton hated each other so much they fought a duel before that. After Jackson we moved to race baiting, and then to muckraker journalism. We took a little timeout to fight WWII and had a little second era of good feelings post war where things were somewhat more civil for 16ish years. We next promptly returned to race baiting, from their we segwayed into fear and nationalism. Which brings us to today. Where economic fears are pretty much the order of the day and the opposition party is trying to 'trump' the fear by resorting to race baiting and identity politic.
Frankly I don't think much of anything has changed at all, other than in relatively superficial ways.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
political discourse in this country is that it has for too long deteriorated into something that is sad, deplorable
How ironic that it's actually some of the Clinton supporters who are being deplorable.
Over-reaction (Score:2)
I've said it before, but feel it appropriate to repeat it here:
Trump is a most unpleasant, vile, human being but I get the feeling that the hysterical over-reaction to his election is going to do far more damage in the USA and globally than anything he is likely to do in his presidency.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump haters worse than Trump? (Score:5, Insightful)
One thing I am already sick of is the amount of anti-Trump articles doing the rounds based purely on speculation of what he might do as POTUS.
This sort of thing is bearable during an election when everyone is trying to convince others to vote for their person, but its over, he won, let it go.
He should be given the chance to lead and be judged on his actual decisions, not what we think he might do. All this Anti-Trump hysteria is doing is proving Trump right and feeding the monster.
Re: (Score:3)
Ok I think Trump is a moron who will probably fuck the country over,
If that is your expectation? What is your conclusion, maybe this:
but I support the democratic process therefore support him as the elected leader.
Democratic process? People go and vote, one person, one vote to be counted. Is it then fair, to filter those votes by state through another element - electoral college - historical origin described there: http://www.history.com/topics/... [history.com] and turn the result into the opposite what the vote count resulted in?
Not the first time this happened and supposedly again this time. Isn't this the opposite of a democratic process and can be manipulated?
What's the problem, he isn't running for president (Score:2)
If he's not currently running for president, then he can say whatever he likes and it doesn't go on his permanent record. Right?
Just a joke. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So let me guess...you were all up in arms over this guy, right? Because if you weren't you're just another right wing hypocrite.
http://usuncut.com/news/trump-supporter-openly-threatens-kill-hillary-clinton-shes-elected-video/
Comment removed (Score:3)
Remember, it's the Trump supporters (Score:2)
It's the Trump supporters we have to be worried about, right? I keep hearing it, but all I see in the news is crazy leftist looneys rioting and beating up Trump supporters.
Ya, no. (Score:3)
Harrigan apologized for his remarks and said the threats were meant to be a joke: ...
The Secret Service doesn't really have a sense of humor about things like that. (rightly so)
"Sniper rifle?" (Score:3)
Since he's never purchased or used one, then the chances of him hitting anything at range is basically zero.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
In my unqualified experience, there's about 20% of extremist nutters on any side of any debate, but these 40% get ALL of the press (as demonstrated by 42% of voters who chose not to participate in this circus). So if you want to find the other 60% of relatively normal people, switch off and get out more. That means no FB, no Twitter, no CNN, No Fox News. Switch it all off.
If you believe
Re: (Score:2)
....and the exact same thing can be said for "the right."
Not quite...
I'm on the right and I listened to Bernie Sanders carefully...
I don't think he is very realistic in his ideas outright, but he shouldn't be ignored either. Reality is somewhere in between here and there.
Both sides have good ideas from time to time, it would be wise to not shut anyone out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By that standard, perhaps Mr. Trump should also. His "2nd amendment solution" for Hillary implied assassination.
That being said, progressives have almost zero power in Washington despite being almost half the country. There is a lot of anger and frustration over that. We have hardly any representation.
Our system is broken, with see-sawing power-swings in both directions. Gerrymandering should be outlawed, the Supreme Court should constitutionally require 12 Justices (to make retirements less significant), a
Re: (Score:3)
The Court situation will quickly change, and without a majority in at least one house or the prez, you don't have enough influence to stop most highly partisan bills.
And one of the smartest and most experienced there is.
Can you guys please stop saying that phrase like it is based on reality? One term as Secretary of State, following one Senate term, while being married to the only President in living memory to be impeached, does not make Hillary "the most experienced" politician. Any state governor worth considering, Democrat or Republican, has more experience where it matters, working with a legislature and getting policies in place that make the people in the state better off.
Re: He should be in jail... (Score:2, Interesting)
I used to work for the guy, and I agree 100% with your statement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:He should be in jail... (Score:4, Insightful)
One of the things that that I believe hinders civil discourse is the insistence by some on the left that everything Republicans do is motivated by racism, sexism, and bigotry. It honestly gets a bit hard to remain civil against the constant barrage of people leveling those types of horrible charges against you at every turn, but lashing out in turn does no good either. Granted, the right is pretty good at name-calling too (especially Trump, of course), but let's talk about what you just said.
Why do you feel that criticism of Obama is solely because of his race? Are you perhaps somewhat young? Because EVERY president is criticized by political opponents, regardless of their skin color. If anything, I think Republicans were a bit afraid of taking off the gloves, at least early on, precisely for fear of being labeled as such. Bush Jr was described as a war criminal, and Reagan was reviled by the left, who took every opportunity to mock and denigrate him. But with Obama, it's racism?
Let me ask you: does opposing the abuse of the H1B program automatically mean one is prejudiced again Indians? It's a ridiculous notion, right? But why is someone who opposes illegal immigration automatically a racist, simply because most of those illegal immigrants are Hispanic?
Sure, there are Republicans who are undoubtedly racist, homophobic, or bigoted, but I resent it when we all get painted with that very ugly brush. Most of the Republicans I know personally are very nice people, just like most of the Democrats I know are very nice people. Not bigoted. Not racist. Not sexist. But too many of them are all too willing to think the worst of their political opponents.
who elected Trump? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
No but I remember that angry anti-government white dude who blew up the federal building in Oklahoma.
Re:B-b-b-ut it's the RIGHT WING that's violent! (Score:4, Interesting)
And I remember him being executed, with full agreement by right-wing white dudes.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You're saying that because he was a fringe actor we shouldn't equate his actions with the right as a whole? That's fine and all, but it does go both ways.
No, I'm saying that right wingers don't demand special privileges for being right wing. (Though they may demand special privs for being Christian.)
Re: B-b-b-ut it's the RIGHT WING that's violent! (Score:2, Informative)
From Wlkipedia: A former classmate, Caitie Parker, who attended high school and college with Loughner, described his political views prior to 2007, prior to his personality transformation, as "left wing, quite liberal,"[42] "radical."
Look, don't you know that 99% of ALL mass shootings in the US have been by leftists? It's always so interesting how ALL leftists are so ignorant of all facts that prove their worldview is completely wrong.
Re:B-b-b-ut it's the RIGHT WING that's violent! (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, the guy who worked on her campaign once.
Not exactly a poster boy for right wing violence, what with him being a Democrat and all.
Re: (Score:3)
A schizophrenic takes a shot at a politician and you're blaming politics? You don't know much about mental illness.
Jared Lee Loughner (the shooter) may have been mentally ill, but after the 2011 Tucson shooting there was much discussion about how the toxic political environment in the USA may have set him off. John Stewart of The Daily Show said it well:
For all the hyperbole and vitriol that's become a part of our political process—when the reality of that rhetoric, when actions match the disturbing nature of words, we haven't lost our capacity to be horrified. ... Maybe it helps us to remember to match our rhetoric with reality more often.
Re: (Score:3)
A schizophrenic takes a shot at a politician and you're blaming politics? You don't know much about mental illness.
A citizen takes a shot at a politician and you're blaming mental illness? You don't know much about politics.
Re: (Score:3)
As opposed to Occupy Wall Street that squatted in the middle of Manhattan and did go to war with law enforcement?
Re:He should count his blessings (Score:5, Informative)
Now that he's unemployed, he'll be eligible for free Obamacare! .
Free Obamacare? The unemployed get free health insurance? Since when?
Only in America..
Oh boy. You people really don't know much about the outside world, do you?
Re: (Score:2)
Free Obamacare? The unemployed get free health insurance? Since when?
Since the ACA was enacted, the income threshold to qualify for medicaid was raised (meaning more and more moderately-poor people qualify for it). If you have no income (for sufficiently long) you will (eventually) qualify for it. So those who are unemployed (for long enough), or even just sufficiently underemployed, or just underpaid, get free health insurance now. One of the only good things about the ACA, really.
That said, this guy having been a CEO, he probably still has (investment) income despite not h
Re:He should count his blessings (Score:5, Insightful)
The phrase that bothers me is that the company demanded his resignation.
Instead, he should have been "terminated for cause".
In the latter case, severance is typically not paid.
In the former case, they typically get a severance package.
This guy doesn't deserve a severance package.
Re: (Score:2)
Every state in the country has Medicaid, whether it was expanded or not. If you are unemployed with no income, you qualify for medicaid.
Re: (Score:2)
But but... wait.
These are the same people calling anyone who supports Trump "haters".
Ironically, they are doing the hating now. Blocking freeways, holding "fuck Trump" signs (see the USCD youtube video of them blocking Hwy 5).
I saw one of the California secessionists (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
So he can receive a severance package.
CEOs fired for cause don't usually get the package.
Re: (Score:2)
It's closer than Watts v. United States, but probably still not sufficient to constitute a true threat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I've heard this meme going around...... (Score:4, Informative)
No. If Trump dies before the electoral college vote, it's up to the electoral college. If Trump dies after the electoral college vote, Vice-President Elect Pence becomes President-Elect Pence. In no case is Obama eligible for a third term; that's barred by the 22nd Amendment.
Re:"If" I offended someone.... (Score:5, Informative)
You're either ignorant or lying about the joke involving gang rape.
This is the joke..."One awkward moment for Sarah Palin at the Yankee game during the seventh inning, her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez."
The joke was meant to be about Palin's 18 year old daughter, a spokesperson of sorts for teen abstinence and ironically a teenage mother at 18. Palin's younger 14 year old daughter had attended a Yankees game earlier that day or week and the writers mixed up which daughter it was that was there. The joke was not particularly well written but the punchline is that A-rod is so virile that he can make women pregnant just by attending the game - since the abstinence preacher surely wouldn't be having more pre-marital sex.