191–200 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah! He probably hates gays too!
Pence is on the ticket. You don't put him on the ticket unless you are homophobic and sexist. Pence has proven himself to be truly outstanding in these areas.
Posts like this play directly into Trump's hands. The entire Trump ideology is based on a belief that "real Americans" are being oppressed by a sinister "global elite". Demanding that Trump supporters be fired tells everyone that the "elites" are a) scared of Trump, b) can't win through arguments and have to resort to intimidation, and c) are a powerful, dangerous group which is hostile to average people, who need so…
Yes there is in fact a campaign of elites against Trump, in case you don't believe that I suggest taking a look at the recent wikileaks.
You Americans (at least I think the majority of you are Americans) are getting quite ridiculous arguing over this. Supporting a political candidate is a personal choice, one that is given to every eligible individual in a democratic state. Calling for someone to be fired or sever ties with them over political choice is retarded and counter-productive.
By donating millions of $ you cross the line from speech to action.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
$1.25M is less for Thiel than $100 is for most people. The absolute amount is meaningless, you have to normalize by wealth here.
The absolute amount is not meaningless because it has an effect in the real world. It buys a certain amount of airtime, organizers' time, etc. Thiel said, "I'm not going to do X numbers of hours of work for you, but I'm going to donate them to your campaign." That number of hours is staggeringly high, by the way: equivalent to 30+ years of full-time work by unskilled laborers.
Right, I think GP was replying to your earlier statement that:
> Not many people are willing to part with $1.25M for someone they don't fanatically support.
Rather than trying to minimize the 1.25M
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's good that you aren't comparing this current context with our modern view on the NSDAP. Mainly because pressuring others into supporting a certain candidate through non-political means really is ridiculous and a deeply concerning attitude in democratic societies.
Wait a second, maybe I can't follow you here. Are you saying that there should be no consequences for anyone no matter who someone is political supporting, because it is in political context? If so, two questions: - What if someone is supporting someone in none political context (which is hard, cause kind of nearly everything could be defined as such), does then someone have to stand for her/his public behaviour and…
Not at all. I was inplying that the consequences should be political as well.
If your children aren't your opinion, try to engage in valuable conversation instead of cutting their allowance. If your neighbor puts up a sign for a candidate you don't like, put up your own sign and don't try to pressure his employer into making him leave.
Democratic societies actively require political variation. Using your physical or economic strength or maybe your status to make people do or state things they don't like is blatantly uncivil.
I'm not an expert on US constitutional law & procedure so you might need to make your own research on their legal specifics in this certain case, but in most western setups I'd bet it's not a very good idea to believe in a legal right which might allow you to publicly announce "anything". But I don't see its relation to our topic here, I think it's probably not essential.
To me, these attitudes (and their general acceptance + support) are just as worrying as Donald's own attitudes and supporters. One of the strangest things about human nature--at least that I've seen--is that when we vehemently resist something we detest we often produce its mirror image. It's honestly extremely frightening to think that making a political donation to a major-party candidate you support could cost you…
"Democratic politicians are the ruling class’s prime legitimate representatives and that because Republican politicians are supported by only a fourth of their voters while the rest vote for them reluctantly, most are aspirants for a junior role in the ruling class. In short, the ruling class has a party, the Democrats. But some two-thirds of Americans — a few Democratic voters, most Republican voters, and all independents — lack a vehicle in electoral politics."
http://spectator.org/39326_americas-ruling-class-and-perils-...
These are not political views. It's just absurdity, and supporting such a person with $1.25 million absolutely makes me question your judgement.
Marcos understanding of this situation is extremely telling for a fundamental problem with many americans relationship with politics. Most only get involved around election. After that their political interest is non existing. It's easy to get lured into the idea that politics is a simple choice between the moral good and the moral bad, that the choice is simple and that there is a one to one relationship between wha…
"the fundamental principle that no matter what in a democracy everyone have the right to say and mean what they want without having to fear the repercussions" I think you are mixing things, Democracy does not give anyone the right to be liked even when they say awful stuff. Marco is not saying that supporting Trump should be illegal, he is saying that supporting Trump is shameful, and that supporting someone who supp…
You Americans (at least I think the majority of you are Americans) are getting quite ridiculous arguing over this. Supporting a political candidate is a personal choice, one that is given to every eligible individual in a democratic state. Calling for someone to be fired or sever ties with them over political choice is retarded and counter-productive.
Both candidates' slogans are deeply ironic (Stronger Together and Make America Great Again) in light of the division and alienation the election is fostering. The US media are radicalizing the people for the sake of votes.
I hope Thiel doesn't stress himself over such outrage. I wish him well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do people keep making this false equivalence between the two options? One candidate has repeatedly taken racist and sexist stances, as well as demeaned those who are handicapped (and honestly, the list goes on and on). If people don't take a stand against this type of thing, it is a tacit acceptance.
Many very smart, educated, and informed people I know believe that Hillary has effectively monetized public service/political influence and is the most corrupt major party nominee to run for the Presidency in modern history. If people don't take a stand against that type of thing, isn't that tacit acceptance as well? Pick your poison, so to speak. Hillary's supporters will argue that she's not corrupt and has been in…
i also believe many others will vote for trump simply to push the country toward a breakup of the 2-party system into a 3 or 4-party system. they very well could have voted for bernie if that were an option.