311–320 of 420 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Protectionism is not an answer, it's never worked before and it won't work now.
You're not wrong, but your logic is flawed - things are happening now that have never happened before, like New Automation, that are massive game-changers. This means that things that have never worked before, will start working.
I hate to get involved in politics here at HN, but maybe I can contribute a comment that really isn't politics but is business and news strategy ? First, I try to stay up on the news , that is, the facts about what has been happening. Well, there's a lot of news on the Internet, so I can get a lot of input on some version of what has been happening. At this point, to me, the news doesn't make any sense. The news does…
This is so confusing to me. Most of the stuff I see in the news that you are referring to as "made-up, cooked-up, stirred-up", etc., is stuff you can see video of. It's clear, from video, that there was a gathering of white supremacists, which became violent and resulted in deaths. It's clear, from video, that the President's response to this was weasely equivocation. It's clear, from primary sources like Twitter, th…
No, his response was terrific, good leadership, presidential, calm the violence.
Your conclusion "weasely equivocation" was JUST from newsie GOSSIP, JUST as I wrote. It was just GOSSIP. You've been had.
Why? The newsies wanted Trump to accept their dictation of what should be in his speech. Then (1) Trump looks like an obedient puppy of the newsies, can't even write his own speech, and loses respect. The 90% Democrat newsies want that. (2) Trump attacks specific groups and people and, thus, starts fights and even incites violence against those groups. He divides the country more, raises tensions, and very likely gets more people killed. THEN the newsies get to blame Trump for that.
The newsies have you by the nose. You've been manipulated.
In his first speech, Trump did exactly the right things.
Then the newsies came with their game card that he didn't denounce specific groups, people, didn't denounce them fast enough, didn't denounce them strongly enough. To calm the violence, he should not be attacking specific groups and, thus, further dividing the country and giving some people more reason to be violent.
Trump was correct: The newsies will never be satisfied. Why? If people are satisfied, then the newsies lose headlines, eyeballs, and revenue. And the 90% Democrat newsies lose an opportunity to attack their enemy Trump.
Bluntly the newsies want violence, dead people, and then get headlines, blame Trump, etc.
You have been had by the newsies. It's dangerous.
You need to be a responsible citizen and quit letting the blood thirsty newsies lead you around by the nose and help them incite violence and get people killed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jack Posobiec - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Posobiec
http://i.imgur.com/iFPB5my.jpg The wikipedia article also suggests they don't like each other at all: >Posobiec organized a "Rally Against Political Violence" in Washington, D.C. on June 25, 2017. Richard Spencer ridiculed the event and called it "pathetic".
https://itsgoingdown.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/richie.j...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now you're going to have to figure out how to position BLM versus the Neo Nazis. For me the one is a response to structural unequal treatment by law enforcement, the other is the vilest element in society seeking a platform and a way to spread their hateful ideology.
> Now you're going to have to figure out how to position BLM versus the Neo Nazis. Do I? I just know people are outgrouping and arguing through violence and I'm opposed to that regardless or what policy changes they feel are appropriate. I don't feel the need to judge that political violence is worse in one case than in another case.
That doesn't mean you should be happy about it, it should be a means of last resort and it should be practiced only when all other avenues have not born fruit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The lunatic with a rifle is not representative of Sanders or his supporters And nazis aren't representative of Trump or his supporters. To say otherwise would insinuate that _half the country_ are nazis.
go look up the percentages on ideological crimes in America. You'll find right wing > muslim > left wing
According to PBS, "far-right extremists tend to be more active in committing homicides, yet Islamist extremists tend to be more deadly."
Are we comparing percentage of deaths or number of events?
Personally, I think both sides are fueled by religious beliefs. Their hate is cut from the same cloth.
[0] http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/analysis-deadly-threat-f...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or Europe has a lot of extreme left countries and the US is centre-right? What in the world are "accepted standards"?
OK, yeah, sure. It's everyone else. Good point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The lunatic with a rifle is not representative of Sanders or his supporters And nazis aren't representative of Trump or his supporters. To say otherwise would insinuate that _half the country_ are nazis.
>And nazis aren't representative of Trump or his supporters. It’s actually not clear if this is the case. It took three days and a ton of media pressure to get Trump to say he condemns Nazis, and then he immediately said that he only made the statement because “bad people” in the media forced him to. A very logical conclusion is that Trump actually does support Nazis.
I think it's just as possible that not all facts were available on Saturday afternoon. Once the facts were available on Monday, the President made a definitive statement.
Also, since when did days become inclusive? I count 2 days (48 hours) between noon Saturday and noon Monday. Another media concoction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which part of the group? The part that calls for an end to violence or the part that openly calls for violence against police officers? Lumping people into groups often times hides the positives and negatives of individuals.
Crooked police should be combated; police who do not stop crooked police should be combated. But, you seem to, at least, acknowledge that BLM has positive aspects. What positive aspects are there to white supremacists? https://theintercept.com/2017/01/31/the-fbi-has-quietly-inve... "First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the r…
Especially in today's political and social climate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I used to believe that; but the attitude in America that it's free speech and everyone should have their say, while applicable to nearly anything, does have many exceptions. The ideology that caused, directly and without ambiguity, the death of over 6 million people is not a position to be argued, it's not a viewpoint worthy of consideration. It's possibly the only one humans should just say "You know, this has nothi…
Communism and religion killed way more people than 6 million. Yet we dont ban them, yet.
Nazis, on the other hand, carried the ideals that led to the holocaust as a core component of the ideology, i.e. the purity of race and country. You wouldn't have the holocaust without the Nazis.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the only reason I post such a statement. To see how the myth of the switching parties is still being pushed.
I don’t understand that. Democrats today fight for civil rights for minorities. Surely you can’t argue against that. It’s part of the core platform. Democrats of the 1860s fought to keep black people enslaved. You yourself said this. So with those two statements, how can you then argue that the positions have not flipped? How does that even reconcile in your mind?
