731–740 of 906 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> His entire spiel about Mexicans being drug dealers and rapists. His entire spiel was spun up by the media. If you go back to what he actually said, in context, it's hard to find anything wrong. Show me an example.
The entire statement. Yes, I have seen it in context, and it was not "spun up". It is exactly what he said, and it is extremely abhorrent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Supporters of racism, sexism, etc. ought to be marginalized. And this was not a "majority", btw.
Why should people be marginalized for their political opinions?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. Why do they hate her? 2. Do they consider him not racist/sexist because they are a little bit too? (Not trying to be inflammatory) 3. I hate it too. 4b. Why are they hurting? Why is median household income so low?
I live in a small deep-red town, so I'll try to give my take on a few here. 2. Imagine you lived in a town where 99% of the population is not racist, but that 1% that is racist is blatantly so. They don't do thing subtly, but they openly use racial slurs and make it known that they don't like or trust people of a certain ethnicity. Now imagine someone comes into town and when they happen to see someone of color they…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By supporting trump (and thus pence and gop) one implicitly agrees with people dying due to cuts in health services. (And yes, pence has already done health-related things whose only consequence were deaths.) Do you feel being fired and blacklisted is a worse consequence than suffered by people impacted by support of trump (and his people)?
So by supporting Clinton would you implicitly be agreeing to bombing children in Syria? That's just a silly line of reasoning
Your trying to claim your statement is equivalent to mine is silly.
Syria is a conflict zone where the government has lost control and the USA along with 50 countries from the NATO is trying to help get the situation back under control. Nobody involved there is actually intending to hurt any civilians. In fact, the USA pulling out would likely cause a lot more deaths. (I'd like to remind you of the syrian government attacking their own civilians with chemical weapons.) Further, under no other candidate would substantially less deaths happen in that area, and particularly with Pence being a noted hawk there'll likely be more involvement there than under Clinton.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Then I read a casually racist opinion from a red tribe member or hear another xenophobic policy proposed by Trump and swing right back to a. I understand and respect that - but my friends who do that seem to also turn a blind eye to riots and beatings from folks "the left". There just seems to be a lot of double standards with saying fringe wackos on one side represent the entire group, but not the the side.
There are fringe wackos on both sides, but only one of the sides had a fringe wacko as a candidate.
This statement is probably true for most people, but the side with the fringe wacko for a candidate is up for debate.
Trump won largely because of disenfranchised blue collar caucasians resonated with him. Watching the witch hunt over the last 2 months you would think it would be anything but that. Fake news (just call it propaganda), russian hackers, 4chan memes and white supremacists have all received the majority of blame. I'm curious to whether the Democrats will ever come to terms with reality here, or will they just double dow…
No one wants rational debate. In the case of UC Berkeley students, it's easier to cause property damage because an alleged Nazi (an entirely slanderous claim, btw) is given a platform to speak. No one wants to wade through the muck and find out what opposing viewpoints are actually saying. Edit: And the people scoffing at my comment and hitting the downvote button are only proving my point.
This is untrue. What actually happened:
--------
A partial list of things people did to try to cancel Milo before Wednesday:
~particularly following MY's outing and sexual harassment of a trans student at UW Milwaukee (but also before), we talked with our communities about their thoughts on free speech versus harassment and realized many ppl supported the former but not the latter
~wrote op eds in high-profile news media about the differences between free speech, hate speech, and harassment
~met with many folks targeted by both MY and the Trump administration to hear their concerns and solutions to MY's talk; many asked for us to begin urging for cancellation
the above was all in November, immediately following the election of DT and the dramatic spike in hate crimes against the same groups MY targets
~we developed a large-scale letter writing campaign to faculty and administration urging for the cancellation of MY on the grounds that his speeches have targeted and harassed students and created unsafe campus environments
~worked with members of the community who wanted to draft letters to UCB administration urging for cancellation (particularly trans and poc people)
~once the sale started, we urged friends to buy out all of the tickets so the auditorium would be empty (we later learned that a only fraction of MY tickets were made available for public sale, and that his camp is very familiar with this tactic and just lets more ppl in the day of)
this was all in December
~organized a mass call in campaign to the Chancellor and to President Napolitano urging for cancellation ~visited other schools that invited this speaker and saw how many white nationalists use these talks to build their movement and how violent these spaces can be
~faculty wrote a letter to administration urging for cancellation; they were doxxed on Breitbart for signing on and began receiving personal messages meant to silence and intimidate them
~faculty wrote an op ed about MY's harassment and hate speech; some faculty received death threats for this
~submitted over 50 union grievances stating that the MY talk constitutes a hostile work environment under Article 20 of our contract, which protects against harassment and discrimination
~developed a toolkit that critically examines the history of free speech, pointing to its historical exclusions as well as limits outlined in the constitution, and how MY uses this argument to help build the white nationalist movement and to instruct people how to purge its others; some students who helped write this toolkit were doxxed and began receiving personal messages meant to silence and intimidate
~wrote numerous op eds in our school newspaper, writing for which some students opposed to MY's visit received very chilling death threats
~consulted lawyers on the matter of free speech vs. harassment so we could better understand the legal framework
~after the near-death shooting of a Milo protester at UW Seattle, we reached out to local and state politicians to convince our administration that this talk was a threat to public safety
~held several large public meetings to discuss and debate the merits of allowing this speaker a platform vs. urging for cancellation on the grounds of certain harassment and likely violence; it was at this point that the Berkeley College Republicans began following some of us in attempts to intimidate us
~actually met several times with UCB administrators and read aloud death threats we've received, urging them to protect our right to free speech in the context of threats meant to chill us
~learned that undocumented students would be targeted by MY and that the UCB administration knew this and offered them no protection
this was all in January
This is, again, a partial list that only includes things I remember. I've seen many op eds shame protesters (esp. black bloc) and say, why didn't you do x, y, z first? Believe me, if you can think of a tactic, we tried it. Next time someone shames us for not pursuing the polite route of asking nicely for the psychological and physical safety of us and our friends and loved ones to be honored, start reading this long list of things we actually did before Wednesday. I'm fucking tired and glad that creeper wasn't allowed anywhere near a UCB mic.
----------
The main reason I support Trump is his stance on 2A, and his nominees to SCOTUS (also colored by that issue.) 2A people are highly motivated to turn out to vote and were a major part of his support. (I was at a 4 day shotgun class during the election; there were long debates about the two acceptable candidates on multiple issues -- Johnson vs Trump.)
I want to be constructive about this topic. The /next/ president of the United States should be/campaign on: * A new new deal; end 'handouts', make it the government's job to offer productive job placement. ** This includes retraining for such ** or if that really can't work out (disability/age/etc) *** then 'retire' someone (frame the handout with a different name). * Simplify taxes (single plugin equation for base…
"He's not politically correct." I think this is important. Among the many problems with PC is this: When you exclude an idea from discussion, you don't eliminate that idea. You drive it underground into an echo chamber where it gathers strength and resurfaces later. Censorship -- even of a soft de-facto variety -- creates the impression that your position is weak. The censored idea starts to develop the mystique of a…
"He's not politically correct." It's as if people who rage against political correctness don't understand what it means. It means showing respect and being polite and not using pejoratives. That's all.