Amazon Customers Sign Letter To Jeff Bezos To Dump Donald Trump (thestreet.com)

An anonymous reader writes: More than 13,000 Amazon customers (including upwards of 5,000 Amazon Prime subscribers), have signed a letter to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos calling for the company to stop selling Trump's line of menswear. UltraViolet Action is the organization hosting the petition, which calls for Amazon to "stop profiting off of [Trump's] brand of hate." The letter reads: "Donald Trump has consistently lobbed racist, sexist, and xenophobic attacks against entire groups of people, encouraged violence and vitriol against his political enemies and perpetuated a culture of violence against women. Amazon.com should want to distance themselves from this hateful rhetoric, but instead, they're profiting off his brand," explained Karin Roland, Chief Campaigns Officer at UltraViolet, in a statement. "Jeff Bezos needs to listen to his customers and ensure that Amazon doesn't profit off of Trump hate, and take immediate steps to dump Trump." If Amazon does take action, they wouldn't be the first. Macy's stopped carrying Trump's products last summer, and Univision and NBC cut ties with Trump over his statements as well.

Comments

Valid Action

[Anonymous Coward]

Petitions are always just samples of the real objection, so this shows a sizable segment of the customer base objects to Trump's posturing.

It is a simple request to stop funding it by selling his merchandise, which Amazon must decide with weight on its PR impact now too.

Personally if Amazon drops Trump, I will make a point to buy more from them, even at a modest price increase per item.

Re:Valid Action

[Anonymous Coward]

So you supported Proposition 8 then? That was a real petition that showed a sizable segment of California were opposed to gay marriage.

Oh I'm sorry... Are only certain shows of mass movement allowed?

Oh now you want to argue civil rights while you simultaneously support people being blocked from selling stuff openly?

Yeah fuck you!

Re:Valid Action

[jellomizer]

I don't like Trump and I am scaird to think of him as president. However protesting Amazon for selling his goods that he was selling before he ran as president sound more like stereotypical liberal intolerance to contending ideas. Don't target the store selling the goods where there is a population that seems to demand it. Use the energy to boycott trump products not pressure the store to not offer it. If the stores stop selling then these products will just be more valuable.

Re:Valid Action

[rmdingler]

I'm a legacy Amazon Prime subscriber, and I have a hard time not being embarrassed Trump is still in the race, but I don't demand that my top purveyor of goods stop selling his.

There is something dark in that request that resembles a thing that I was for blowing up later in my face.

Re:Valid Action

[Anonymous Coward]

Conversely, I will stop buying from Amazon if they drop Trump. Simply for the fact I don't want to be a customer of a company who attacks people financially for their political opinions. (Even if I don't agree with them. (And in this case, it's about 50/50.))

Re:Valid Action

[houstonbofh]

If you don't like it, don't buy it. Simple. If no one buys it, it will go away. But when you try to stop me from buying it (not that I would ever want any Trump brand anything) that is different. That is a vocal minority imposing their views on others. Kinda like what Trumpers are being accused of doing...

Re:Valid Action

[sims 2]

I really didn't approve of the decision to drop the confederate flag from sale.

I feel this falls into the same box of stupid.

Re:Valid Action

[Applehu Akbar]

"Personally if Amazon drops Trump, I will make a point to buy more from them, even at a modest price increase per item."

So this 'relationship' by Amazon is carrying a line of Trump menswear?

Going into the primary season I was a Rand Paul voter, but the party changed the delegate rules to lock Paul out in case his open-market policies caused problems for any major party donors, like the pharma lobby. So I will probably support Trump just to spite the party apparatchiki

Re:Valid Action

[jshackney]

It is the same box of stupid. Unfortunately, that box is getting too small for it's contents and they're spilling over. I'm not a fan of Trump, but I can't make the leap from disliking the guy to infringing on his ability to make money. If people want to buy his shit, let them. If people don't want to buy his shit, . . . wait for it . . . don't buy his shit.

Re: Valid Action

[Anonymous Coward]

( ) provide argument counterpoint
(x) insinuate mental illness

Re:Valid Action

[Anonymous Coward]

In the past I was more of a google fan than Amazon, but I'm becoming more and more disgusted with Google.
Jeff Bezos is using the money he makes to fund Blue Origins. To help build a way to take us to the stars.
The company formerly known as Google is using it's, to turn the this country into a surveillance state.

I'm more offended in what Google turned out to be, than an east coast clown.

They should protest Google.

Re:Valid Action

[cavreader]

A whole 15,000 subscribers and a petition with 5000 signatures are an insignificant amount of people to force anyone's hand. Amazon deals with millions of subscribers. The righteous indignation of the few is just background noise. And the people starting these boycotts demand that all their views and opinions be taken seriously while any dissenting opinions need to be quashed.

Re:Valid Action

[Idou]

stereotypical liberal intolerance to contending ideas

Why must I be tolerant of intolerance? If Trump wants to ban Mexicans and Muslims, why am I not allowed to try to ban every trace of Trump?

Re:Valid Action

[SylvesterTheCat]

Why must I be tolerant of intolerance? If Trump wants to ban Mexicans and Muslims, why am I not allowed to try to ban every trace of Trump?

Expressing the desire to do something (ban Mexicans and Muslims, in this example) is not the same as doing it.

The issue is not tolerance of intolerance. It is tolerance of other people's ideas and beliefs, whether or not you agree with them. Tolerance is, by definition, the willingness to allow (not necessarily accept) ideas which are contrary to your own. Acceptance of ideas which are similar to one's own is not tolerance; it is agreement.

You may certainly "ban every trace of Trump" within spaces you own or control. Attempting to do the same anywhere else (especially in my space), is simply an attempt to exert control over others and -that- is an act of intolerance.

It's probably pretty safe to say that you will not vote for Trump, assuming you are a US citizen. That's fine. I cannot see myself voting for him either, however, for different reasons.

If you do not find that argument compelling, let me try another one. Let him talk. If you are right and his ideas are so repugnant, then those ideas will simply die in the open air. To quote a well-know political commentator, "Sunlight kills bacteria."

Re:Valid Action

[AK Marc]

He doesn't make money. Most of the stuff he sells isn't even sold by him or his companies, but is licensed. He's selling his likeness, not any products or services. He inherited $150M and turned it into about $100M and claims $10B, but refuses to open his finances the way all the other candidates have. He doesn't want anyone to know he's a loser that was born rich.

Re:Valid Action

[Oligonicella]

And you think 18K out of 244M is sizable? Wanna calculate that as a percentage, plug it into your statement and repeat it with a straight face?

Re:Valid Action

[Proudrooster]

I think the position is a little bit more nuanced that your simple statement on banning Mexicans and Muslims.

On Mexicans, he is proposing that we remove Mexican's/Latinos that came into the country illegally.
On Muslims, he proposed a suspension of travel until we figured out what was going on with respect to terror and the religion of peace.

It seems as if you are painting with the same broad brush you are accusing Trump of painting with.

While I will not try to defend Mr. Trump, I will point out the our system of government has let a lot of questionable and illegal things deliberately slide for the benefit of the top 1%. This is has led to an erosion of our laws and standard of living for many who used to be known as middle class.

The derivative housing market collapse, H1-B abuse, the blind eye to undocumented works who entered the country illegally and use stolen identities are just the tip of the iceberg. Additionally, our government picks winners and loser and hampers the free market in so many areas including but not limited to insurance, health care, commodities/food, copyrighted works, and prescription drugs. Meanwhile we have perpetual cash-cow wars and unconstitutional search and seizures of cash with documented abuse of police power. Meanwhile the ware on drugs rolls along with the high school to prison pipeline creating a steady stream of felons who will never get jobs because one brush with the law resulting in a felony means you can never answer 'NO' to "Have you ever beed convicted of a felony?"

Someone eventually needs to drop the hammer and fix the scales so they are honest again. Is this Trump? Is the Bernie? I know it isn't Clinton.
In any case, Trump is the first person to stand on the national stage and call this stuff out in a big way. This resonates with all the people who have been crushed and hurt.

Re:Valid Action

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn libtards, they cannot cope with people with different opinions that their own. Just look at PayPal's hypocrisy -- they bash and threaten NC for something that has existed across all cultures for thousands of years, yet happily do business in countries where gays are imprisoned.

Re:Valid Action

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree with your comment - so I see no reason why I shouldn't figure out who your employer is and petition for them to fire you. Live by the liberal intolerance shield and die by it.

Re:Valid Action

[JoeMerchant]

I generally agree, but also believe that at some point "hate speech" should be actively suppressed. I don't think Trump has really risen to this level, but he's on his way and these people are responding to that.

Re: Valid Action

[x0ra]

TL;DR;

Re:Valid Action

[LynnwoodRooster]

The most intolerant are those who demand others respect their own tolerance. And follow their rules about tolerance.

In other words, modern SJWs.

Re: Valid Action

[AK Marc]

Yeah, he inherited about $150M, and turned that into $100M. Losing $50M is "success", at least if you are loud enough about it. He has 4 more bankruptcies and 2 more divorces than I do, and has lost more inheritance than most people make over their entire lives.

If that's your definition of "success" then you may want to adjust your definitions. He seems like he's doing better because the has borrowed billions. He doesn't own anything, other than debt.

Re:Valid Action

[Austerity Empowers]

I don't agree, I don't like Trump, but enough is enough. All this well poisoning that is going on only encourages the kinds of leveraged, shady candidates we ALSO don't like (see also: Hillary Clinton). All these people are using funding from various evils to prop their campaigns. We can't seem to stop that, at least Trumps mechanism is a bit moe honest and straightforward. The real solution is just not to vote for him, to continuously call on his shenanigans, and to make him answer for the things he does in every forum where his name comes up. Also bear in mind that #2 behind Trump is Cruz, so are you cutting off your nose to spite your face? Can you also cripple Cruz's campaign finance?

The real question I have is what is going to happen to Trumps supporters when they realize he is not nearly as conservative as they think he is, and will he be able to control them? Trump is not a dumb man, there's a reason he wants to be president and walls on the border are not it. He has demonstrated he hasn't even thought the logistics through, and he doesn't care. Is whatever that reason is, in line with the best interests of anyone else? I don't see it, I'm not wealthy enough or invested in his empire enough to see why he's my man. I do not think his followers are asking those questions, they're being taken in by the frippery.

If you want to talk about campaign finance reform, great, we need a better way of getting viable candidates funded than taking glorified bribes or being independently wealthy. But poisoning the well is at least as anti-democratic as being funded by greedy business interests.

Re:Valid Action

[narcc]

Attempting to do the same anywhere else (especially in my space), is simply an attempt to exert control over others and -that- is an act of intolerance.

Ridiculous. To express my disapproval is not the same as silencing your voice. To petition a private company as a means to express your viewpoint is no different. As Amazon is free to carry whatever products they want, to consider that carrying those products is equivalent to supporting to those ideas is perfectly reasonable. It's the basic idea behind every boycott. (Would you have us dispense with those entirely? Wouldn't that be a terrifying suppression of free speech?)

To say "I won't buy your products as long as you support x" is not intolerance as you're under no obligation to underwrite speech with which you disagree by supporting the company that enables said speech to further disseminate. Tolerance does not mean "you must pay to support my ideas, regardless of your beliefs". You'd have us believe that by not funding your message, we're being intolerant.

Amazon's customers are saying "we don't want to pay you to provide a platform for these ideas". That's not intolerance. That's not saying "I want to prevent Trump from sharing his ideas" (he's free to do so on whatever platforms he controls) it's saying "I don't want to pay you to promote ideas I dislike." Amazon is free to continue to carry those products and their message if they're willing to accept the natural social and potential financial cost the comes from supporting those ideas. Speech is never free from social consequences, nor should it ever be. How else would ideas compete?

If you are right and his ideas are so repugnant, then those ideas will simply die in the open air. To quote a well-know political commentator, "Sunlight kills bacteria."

This is all part of that process. People aren't perfectly rational actors, after all. Ideas die when they become socially unacceptable, not because they're shown to be objectively wrong, harmful, or whatever. Alternative ideas and dissent constitute the "sunlight" in your metaphor.

Re:Valid Action

[narcc]

Who's trying to stop you (or anyone else) from buying Trump stuff? They can sell that stuff through any retailer that is willing to carry those products or through any outlets they control. You, in turn, can buy from those outlets.

A pharmacy chain a few years back stopped carrying tobacco products. Should they have been forced to continue to carry and sell those products? Did that prevent you, or any one else, from buying those products? Of course not.

So, why should Amazon be obligated to carry Trump products? Aren't they free to carry whatever legal products they want, and to not carry any products they don't want to sell? If Amazon believes its in their best interest to carry Trump stuff, they're free to do so. If Amazon doesn't think carrying those products is in their best interest, they're free to drop those offerings from their site. Customers, equally, are free to shop elsewhere if they find either decision distasteful. That's all part of the free exchange of ideas. Speech, of course, is never without consequences. In this case, consumers will speak with their wallets, producers with their merchandise, and retailers will respond to the wants and needs of their customers.

Re:Valid Action

[grasshoppa]

Except that's not what he said, or what he's advocated.

Intolerance I can handle. Ignorance, however, is to be stamped out with prejudice.

Re:Valid Action

[AchilleTalon]

Very lame argument. Amazon is not obligated to carry Trump products, you are facing the reverse. Someone trying to prevent Amazon to carry Trump products. You are way in the field with your argument.

Yes, they are trying to stop me and everybody from buying Trump stuff by making it less widely distributed. It doesn't take a Ph.D. in rocket science to imagine the next step will be to petition the next larger distributor of Trump products until none will distribute Trump products. The idea is actually to prevent people from buying Trump products. Don't be naive.

Re:Valid Action

[adhdengineer]

Now - What is a vote but a sample of the populace showing the way they feel on an issue in an even more rigorous and measured fashion than a petition.

I would argue it isn't a sample of the population, it is the population, including those that don't care one way or the other and choose to abstain.

Re:Valid Action

[narcc]

You seem to hate both free speech and the free market. Would you prefer regulation that banned boycotts and forced retailers to carry products? Or would you rather we self-censure and don't respond to ideas we find disagreeable and force ourselves to fund speech with which we disagree?

Someone trying to prevent Amazon to carry Trump products.

Really? Are they going to raid the warehouse? Blockade their supply lines? You're being overly dramatic. This is a bog-standard boycott. If you didn't know, the boycott is a popular means by which a group can exercise their freedom of speech, and the finest example of the free market working ideally.

The idea is actually to prevent people from buying Trump products. Don't be naive.

In turn, I'll ask you not to be foolish. Everyone knows that it's impossible to prevent people from buying and selling those products. As you know, Trump product manufacturers can sell via their own outlets even if they find no third-party retailers willing to carry them. That's the absolute worst case, of course, as there are endless retail outlets through which manufactures can offer their wares. Equally, there is a pretty low limit to the number of retail outlets that a boycott can effectively target. No one in their right mind thinks this is an attempt to prevent the sale of Trump-related products.

It's very obviously a political statement. One that doesn't come without risk! You may remember the Chick-fil-A boycott, back in 2012, that backfired as conservatives came out in support of the restaurant chain in response to the boycott, resulting in record-breaking sales.

See, the way to fight against speech you don't like is with speech of your own. (You can start your own petition in support of Trump stuff, for example.) You don't do it by opposing free speech or (more mildly) trying to limit the means by which a people can express their views.

Re:Valid Action

[KGIII]

Umm... I'm relying on the research of others and very little of my own. So, for what it's worth, I'm pretty sure it's easier to immigrate to the US than it is to immigrate to Mexico, for instance. The US has some of the more lax immigration laws on the planet. I realize it's fashionable to say something about the EU at this point and I'll preemptively point out that they're moving within a union and to immigrate to one of those countries is actually quite difficult unless you're blessed with a certain amount of money or have obtained a specific set of documentation.

Re:Valid Action

[Aighearach]

You're fired! lol

Quit moralizing, and think business. That's what Shortfingers would do.

He's undoubtedly increased his television appeal. As an actor, this will enhance his career.

As a brand? As a business-person? His brand is permanently tarnished.

He should really ditch television and try to leverage a multi-film franchise contract.

If people hate him, passionately, moralizing doesn't help his brand any.

Re:Valid Action

[Aighearach]

Shameful to see you down-modded for simple logic, what is this place coming to?

It reminds me of what Ayn Rand said about "social darwinists," and how to respond to them. (in "Philosophy: Who Needs It?")

The sad part is, they're getting all feely and emotionally righteous, so they have no concept of what an insult to Freedom it is to whine about people choosing where to spend their money, as a matter of speech, a matter of choosing what they (literally) support. And the fact that they're claiming to defend somebody on the basis of tolerating different opinions... it just defies the need for detailed analysis.

Re:Valid Action

[dave420]

The cost to immigrate legally to the US is too expensive for many, hence them entering illegally. The laws might be lax, but the cost is prohibitive.

Re: Valid Action

[zaphirplane]

To say it's ok to talk because it's not action is very wrong. There are laws that are broadly accepted that inciting hate is a crime. Rabble rousing to burn, hate, kill, injure is wrong even if you are the doing the evil.
As for the comment about wait and see if the idea takes off or sinks, is about the vocal minority out shouting the silent majority in evil, these actions are to wake, rally galvanize the majority.

Re: Valid Action

[zaphirplane]

Specific topic aside.
Why does every action need to correct all wrongs? Cant it be done one at a time. is a wrong an objective measure? There are broadly accepted wrongs, there are subjective wrongs and wrongs that the majority accept but do.

Re: Valid Action

[zaphirplane]

I will bet $1000 that if there is a hate group attacking you or your loved ones. Your opinion will change.
Perhaps it's free speech when you like the words or have no interest

Re: Valid Action

[zaphirplane]

How many people need to be offended for that to happen as a percent of voters ?

Re:Valid Action

[Attila Dimedici]

Why must I be tolerant of intolerance? If Trump wants to ban Mexicans and Muslims, why am I not allowed to try to ban every trace of Trump?

You are allowed to try to ban every trace of Trump...However, do not then attempt to claim that you are tolerant. By attempting to ban every trace of Trump, you are declaring that you are every bit as intolerant as Trump, just of different things.

Re:Valid Action

[Salgak1]

13,000 Amazon customers/5,000 Amazon Prime customers. Out of how many hundreds of millions of Amazon customers ? That's not even noise in the sample.

Re:Valid Action

[dywolf]

a popular measure to remove someones civil rights is cannot itself be considered a pro civil rights movement.

not everything is valid when put to a vote.
not slavery, not jim crow, not the discrimination against LGBT.

Re:Valid Action

[dywolf]

the old tolerance of intolerance gambit.
you also don't seem to understand how boycotts work.

Re:Valid Action

[pastafazou]

Trump claims $10B, Forbes claims $4.5B. You claim $100M. I'm guessing Forbes is much closer than you are.

Re: Valid Action

[mysidia]

If you can't then you are ignorant.

If you can, then you're just a hysteric fanaticist. Domestic partnership and marriage are equivalent in all legal respects.
Marriage is a religious sacrament; forcing that to be allowed is called oppressing the people and their traditions, cultures, and religion.

Re:Valid Action

[ganjadude]

you support silencing those to the point of ruin (if it was a mom and pops org i know it wont hurt trump in the slightest) simply because you disagree with what he has to say??? Pathetic

Re:Valid Action

[mysidia]

The more I see bullshit like this; the more I like trump.

Call it.... the biggest enemy of my enemy is my friend.

And one of my enemies is batshit insane hysterical leftists.

Re: Valid Action

[pastafazou]

Maybe you don't understand how bankruptcies work. Trump didn't declare bankruptcy personally. Every project/endeavor/venture he runs is it's own company. So of the many successful projects he's launched, 4 have failed. Incidentally, all 4 of those were from his Trump Entertainment Resorts. Following the second bankruptcy, he reduced his share of the company from 56% to 27%, meaning he was no longer a controlling interest in the company. So, in summary, Trump has had a single project fail multiple times, and several of those failures occurred when he wasn't even the controlling owner.
As for what Trump owns, you clearly need to do your research. His real estate holdings alone are worth $3.5Billion.

Re:Valid Action

[mysidia]

He doesn't want anyone to know he's a loser that was born rich.

No... he's self-funded and doesn't want $$$ to be part of his campaign.

And he knows that whenever financial info is published, people with an agenda will find some way of using it against him.

It's simply stupid to publish the information if you are vigorously opposed by extremists and biased media; If you do not have to.

Re:Valid Action

[stdarg]

not everything is valid when put to a vote.

Yes, it is actually. That's life. That's why we did in fact have slavery, jim crow, and discrimination against various groups.

The fact that everything is valid when put to a vote is why that stuff can change though, rather than saying "No no no, GOD wants slavery, so you can't just 'vote' it away, that's blasphemy."

Re:Valid Action

[mysidia]

Why must I be tolerant of intolerance? If Trump wants to ban Mexicans and Muslims, why am I not allowed to try to ban every trace of Trump?

For starters that is a highly-dishonest misattribution of Trump's proposed policies, which are not intolerant. Anyone who is claiming Trump wants to ban all Mexicans and Muslims based on irrational racial or religious prejudice is a bold-faced liar.

Re:Valid Action

[silentcoder]

>Expressing the desire to do something (ban Mexicans and Muslims, in this example) is not the same as doing it.

Private citizens cannot censor each other - there is no such thing, sure you can refuse to publish/sell something you can even convince others to, but that's not censorship - in fact it's the exact opposite of censorship - it's an act of free speech ! The person remains free to get somebody else to publish/sell it or publish/sell it themselves.

On the other hand, Trump made those statements as part of his run for president. He was NOT speaking as a private citizen but as a candidate for the highest office in government stating the policies he wants government to pursue. That DOES in fact make it a matter of liberty. If he had said this as just a private citizen a year ago and you responded this way - I may have felt it was wrong. Not illegal, not an infringement on liberty in the least - but morally I would have been opposed to this action as I generally believe that it is better to not go this route. It is an act of free speech even then - but one I would not support or join.

But the moment he announced his candidacy for president, and made these claims as official statements of policy - this action became perfectly justified. While asking people or businesses to boycott somebody is an act of free speech, when that somebody is a candidate for public office and the reason is their policies it becomes even more sacrosanct. This is an act of political protest against an unjust policy proposal.

This is literally the REASON we have free speech in the first place !

Re:Valid Action

[stdarg]

Look for this petition to succeed though, because Jeff Bezos really hates Trump. He owns the Washington Post, which has written some of the most ridiculous anti-Trump articles this past year. I think they've called Trump "the new Hitler" more than any other major publication.

Why? Probably genuine hatred over political differences, but there's also the bottom line... Trump is against H1B's.

Re:Valid Action

[silentcoder]

Trump is no longer a private citizen, and his words are no longer protected speech in the same way. He is a candidate for president and those words were an actual policy proposal.
This petition is no different than one on whitehouse.gov, it's a political protest petition against a policy. It's literally the thing free speech was invented to let us do.

Re:Valid Action

[ganjadude]

you have that right... in your home

you dont have the right to tell others what they can and cant do (and for the record, trump never said the things you are claiming he wants to do, context, its a thing

Re: Valid Action

[offrdbandit]

That's (partially) why we have the 2nd Amendment. Lead > Hate.

Re:Valid Action

[silentcoder]

That said - people keep talking about Trump as if he is a citizen and this is a reduction in his freedom.
Every part of that is wrong.

- It is not a reduction in his freedom, it is not censorship - only the GOVERNMENT can censor and only the GOVERNMENT is restricted from doing so. Private citizens have the right to boycott something, and to ask others to do the same, that's an act of free speech, it's the exact OPPOSITE of intolerance.
- He is NOT a citizen, he is a candidate for the presidency and those are not the remarks and opinions of a citizen - they are official statements of policy. To oppose them is not an intrusion on Trump the person at all (even one that free speech is actually created to encourage). To oppose them, for example through calling for boycotts, is political protest against a policy.

Isn't protesting policies you don't agree with literally the single most important use free speech has ?

Re: Valid Action

[silentcoder]

And protesting a proposed government policy with which you disagree is apparently "intolerant".

Re:Valid Action

[stdarg]

The real question I have is what is going to happen to Trumps supporters when they realize he is not nearly as conservative as they think he is, and will he be able to control them?

Nobody is as conservative as what conservatives want. The political conservative class has changed their definition of conservatism to include selling out the country on trade deals to export expensive jobs, and importing cheap labor to handle the jobs we haven't exported. How is that conservative? It's not. And those are far bigger issues than gay marriage or abortion or whatever.

Re:Valid Action

[silentcoder]

It is NOT a political opinion. It ceased to be a political opinion the moment he announced his candidacy. As of that moment it became a proposed government policy. We're allowed to protest those and lobby around them in any way we want. Including financially. Companies do that all the time - they give money to candidates advancing policies they like, the make money for candidates contingent ON advancing policies they like and they withhold money from candidates with policies they don't like.
Trump is a candidate, his position is a proposed government policy and we have the right to fight against those policies using every means of peaceful protest available to us - up to and including asking companies to share the effort.

The same people who are now complaining about this usually defend citizens united and genuinely believe that buying politicians is legitimate freedom of speech. Well then - refusing to buy FROM politicians is ALSO legitimate freedom of speech and lobbying businesses to not buy from them is also legitimate freedom of speech. You guys made money a form of speech - you can't complain when sometimes the way it talks is by becoming unavailable.

If you actually oppose candidates being financially disadvantaged for stating unpopular opinions (especially opinions unpopular with big, wealthy, corporations) then I highly recommend you vote for Bernie as he is literally the only candidate who supports extensive campaign finance reform.

And please note that with extensive campaign finance reform - this kind of protest will not go away, in fact it will become a lot more powerful because you can do this with far smaller financial resources than the types of donations lobbyists can often muster up. Which is at it should be.

Re:Valid Action

[silentcoder]

>Someone trying to prevent Amazon to carry Trump products

Nope. Nobody has done that, and since we're talking private citizens, nobody has the power to attempt that.
Some customers have asked a business to do something. The business can choose to do as they asked, or it can choose to ignore them. Doing as they asked will gain them loyalty from some customers and disgust from others. Not doing as they asked will gain loyalty from some customers and disgust from others. The business gets to decide which of the two groups is bigger, or maybe even - which of the two groups they agree with.

There is ZERO coercion here. Just a request.

Re:Valid Action

[dj245]

I don't like Trump and I am scaird to think of him as president. However protesting Amazon for selling his goods that he was selling before he ran as president sound more like stereotypical liberal intolerance to contending ideas. Don't target the store selling the goods where there is a population that seems to demand it. Use the energy to boycott trump products not pressure the store to not offer it. If the stores stop selling then these products will just be more valuable.

People in the USA have learned that pressuring politicians is completely futile. They don't listen. They listen only to rich people and large companies. The only logicial result is that rich people and large companies are now de-facto political middlemen. Putting pressure on them is one of the few working buttons for democratic change.

I don't like it either, but that's the country we live in now.

Re:Valid Action

[ganjadude]

and? if you want it, you gotta put in the work. its cost probiitive to own an NFL team, does that mean we can just claim one??

Re: Valid Action

[LynnwoodRooster]

As half an interracial marriage, been there - done that (hate group, both sides). Didn't change my opinion at all. Tolerance means letting others speak their mind, and LEGALLY do whatever they want to do (note: illegally entering a country doesn't make those who want to uphold the law haters - it makes the illegal alien a criminal). After all, better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open in and remove all doubt.

Re:Valid Action

[hambone142]

Why not just let the voters decide whether they want Trump? These complaining liberals want "diversity" but only their version of it.

I agree the guy is a nutjob but the voters get to decide whether or not he's elected. Not whiney special interest groups.

Re: Valid Action

[Anonymous Coward]

Many people hear the word 'bankrupt' and immediately associate it with 'financially irresponsible'. So when they hear that Trump had declared bankruptcy on four of his ventures, to these people's minds, Trump is obviously four times as financially irresponsible. Never mind that his other ventures have no problems generating profit over the long term, the stain of bankruptcy (x4!) outweighs any business venture that he has achieved!

There has been a time when Trump was deep into the red with a certain venture and he proclaimed that a homeless man had more money than he did! Rather than putting up his hands and declaring bankruptcy, he continued to borrow money and then administered the venture back to health. The number of people who are able to turn around a company with hundreds of millions of net liabilities are very rare indeed and Trump is one of these people.

Re: Valid Action

[dryeo]

Marriage is a contract between 2 people which in the past was sometimes witnessed and finalized by the only educated people around, namely religious people and sometimes just by the neighbouring people and now is usually done by a government official. Do many people even get married in church anymore?

Re:Valid Action

[Megol]

I think the position is a little bit more nuanced that your simple statement on banning Mexicans and Muslims.

On Mexicans, he is proposing that we remove Mexican's/Latinos that came into the country illegally.

Really? His statements indicate that Mexico (as an entity) exports murders and rapists to the US. For someone that is familiar with extreme right wing groups (mostly National Socialists) this linking of a state/race with a plan is common in both negative and positive sense. That isn't the only likenesses with Trumps statements and that of the extreme right, it is relatively safe to say he is a crypto-fascist.
Observe that nobody have claimed that the US (as an entity) exports murderers and rapists to the rest of the world - but if one argues that the Trump claim is factually true that is _also_ true!

On Muslims, he proposed a suspension of travel until we figured out what was going on with respect to terror and the religion of peace.

We already know: Muslims are more likely to be targeted for terrorism. Not what you wanted to hear? Well then, just ignore facts.

Re:Valid Action

[ganjadude]

a boycott is not doing business with X

this is demanding X not do business with others

Re:Valid Action

[danbert8]

If Amazon has any sense whatsoever, this petition will be as effective as the Whitehouse.gov ones too.

Re:Valid Action

[danbert8]

The US actually does explicitly export government sanctioned killers and rapists to the rest of the world. Or are the military troops we send out entirely pure and none of them have been known to commit crimes upon innocent civilians?

Re:Valid Action

[danbert8]

I didn't know you had to renounce your citizenship for run for office...

Re:Valid Action

[rahvin112]

It is tolerance of other people's ideas and beliefs, whether or not you agree with them.

No one is under any obligation to be "tolerant" of ANYONE elses ideas and beliefs. It might be polite but there is absolutely NO obligation.

You probably don't understand that what you just said supports speech restrictions, or maybe you do and don't care. Social consequences and counter speech such as boycotts are perfectly valid methods of counter speech. There is nothing at all wrong with them.

Re:Valid Action

[danbert8]

There's only two things I hate in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures and the Dutch. -Nigel Powers

Re: Valid Action

[jedidiah]

No, the invisible hand would be Amazon not stocking these items because they don't sell.

The fact that a bunch of whiny crybabies want to deprive some manufacturer of his rights has nothing to do with the "invisible hand". The invisible hand doesn't need petitions. It just sweeps players aside on it's own.

This is a bunch of people that can't handle the fact that the market isn't conforming to their pet political agenda. That is why they want a particular person shunned as if the US were some sort of cult (or Europe).

Re: Valid Action

[silentcoder]

The efficacy of boycotts as a means of protest is beside the point. They are a legitimate, peaceful and legal form of protest that is available in any free country and indeed no country xould be called free if they were not.

Re:Valid Action

[rahvin112]

Except that is EXACTLY what you are doing. So you must be SJW too eh?

Re: Valid Action

[wvmarle]

He doesn't own anything, other than debt.

Don't forget that this DOES make him a REAL American, living the American Dream! He doesn't worry about paying it back, because as soon as he becomes the president he'll just bail himself out as of course by then he's Too Big To Fail!

Re: Valid Action

[jedidiah]

> Many people hear the word 'bankrupt' and immediately associate it with 'financially irresponsible'.

A big part of the "unfair advantage" that the rich have is in not being stuck in such a pedestrian mindset. They understand how the system works and how to take advantage of it. This is above and beyond whatever "stake" or "advantage" they may start out with.

They are simply devoid of many of the bad ideas that keep the brother down.

Re: Valid Action

[silentcoder]

I didnt say that. You do however cease to be a PRIVATE citizen when you run for PUBLIC office. And your proposals for official government policy are definitely not just opinions when you do that. As a public office seeker we gain the right to actively protest by all legal means any policy you propose.

Re: Valid Action

[Grishnakh]

He can't be any worse than Hillary, who was a big supporter of the big bank bailout with no strings attached, so that bank executives could give themselves huge bonuses thanks to the taxpayer. Not to mention how she sells arms to nations with terrible human rights records and they give her Clinton Foundation big kickbacks.

As a progressive, I plan on voting for Trump if the election comes down to him versus Hillary. I just can't go along with today's stupid pro-corporate, pro-Wall street liberals and their warmongering. Trump isn't great, but he's better than that.

Re:Valid Action

[Ralph Wiggam]

The fact that everything is valid when put to a vote is why that stuff can change though, rather than saying "No no no, GOD wants slavery, so you can't just 'vote' it away, that's blasphemy."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

If that was true, we wouldn't need a constitution. The current popularly elected government would be right about everything.

And in the US, nobody "voted away" slavery. There was a big war about it. It was a whole chapter in your high school social studies textbook.

Re:Valid Action

[Maritz]

It's simply stupid to publish the information if you are vigorously opposed by extremists and biased media

Trump... Opposed by extremists. LOL.

Re:Valid Action

[jedidiah]

> Infringing on his right to make money? Things that are not rights for $1000 Alex.

An obvious liberal.

Our rights are nearly boundless. It's the powers of government that are limited. Our constitution is a set of limitations on government, not a comprehensive list of rights granted to us by that same government.

Re:Valid Action

[Grishnakh]

Mexico *does* export murderers and rapists to the US. Are you going to try to convince me that there isn't a single instance of an illegal Mexican immigrant who's been convicted of one of those crimes?

He never said that all illegal immigrants are murderers and rapists.

What's interesting is that your side (I'm assuming you're a Hillary supporter) is all in favor of sending US troops to other countries to kill people in huge numbers (over 100k Iraqis died in *your* war in Iraq, which Hillary voted for), and you're perfectly OK with that, but you raise a stink about Trump not wanting to import some people who might have some murderers among them.

Re:Valid Action

[jedidiah]

> Why must I be tolerant of intolerance?

The moment you set yourself up as petty dictator who gets to decide what heresy is illegal, you are enabling the very thing you claim to be afraid of. You have become exactly what you claim to be fighting against.

It's also not useful to hide "problems". All you ultimately do is kid yourself into thinking they don't exist. You never actually solve them.

Re:Valid Action

[jedidiah]

> only the GOVERNMENT can censor

That is bullshit. It's bullshit used as an excuse to engage in things contrary to our founding ideals. The Bill of Rights aren't just law, but they are a good idea that reflect basic expectations of liberty inherent to all of humanity.

The law is not meant an excuse to be fascist jackass to your fellow man.

Re:Valid Action

[rahvin112]

Your answer is to restrict the speech of the people involved because they are infringing Donald's "right to make money"? You ask for government to restrict not only someones right to speech but their right to free association? All boycotts are speech, one of the oldest forms of political speech in this country. The Boston tea party was a boycott. Think about that.

Re: Valid Action

[jedidiah]

> I will bet $1000 that if there is a hate group attacking you or your loved ones.

Are you trying to conflate speech with assault and battery?

If you are then you're a moron. They are quite different from each other and breach an important legal and moral barrier. They are not remotely the same thing.

Even things like harassment, stalking, and libel aren't the same.

When speaking of ethics or the law, all of the little details matter.

Re:Valid Action

[Grishnakh]

As a progressive, I'm voting for Trump if the election is between him and Hillary. I'm against more stupid wars like Iraq, and Hillary is a huge war hawk. So yeah, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and that's Trump.

Re:Valid Action

[Grishnakh]

WaPo isn't just anti-Trump, it's blatantly pro-Hilllary, and has been trashing Bernie for a long time now.

And IIRC, Bernie is against raising the H1B cap too. That might have something to do with it....

Re: Valid Action

[silentcoder]

I wasnt talking about what is legal. That was a statement on what is physically possible. Private citizens cannot censor one another because its physically impossible. Unless they are prepared to use violence (go to jail) it cannot be done. I can refuse to publish you. Thats the extent of possibility. I cant stop anybody else publishing you. I cant stop you publishing yourself. Choising not to publish you is a basic freedom you cant revoke without becoming the very despit you fear. But it is not censorship vecause it only applies to my domain. Censorship requres the ability to control your domain.

Re:Valid Action

[Krojack]

I agree. Today is all about "I don't like what you're doing so I'll start a bandwagon to censor you and shut you down."

It's either the far left censoring stuff like Trump or the far right trying to shut-out LGBT from everyday life because they feel it's immoral and goes against their beliefs even if they never interact with a gay person in their life.

Re:Valid Action

[dywolf]

your civics lessons were lacking then.

its called tyranny of the majority and the Founders went to great lengths to prevent it as much as possible.

while I normally dismiss the whole "republic not a democracy" thing as tripe, this is one of the primary argument that sustains that statement: the founders recognized that democracy often devolves into tyranny by majority rule. but that is still tyranny, and rights of the people, including minorities, still comes first.

Re:Valid Action

[dywolf]

no, and you're a fool.

Re:Valid Action

[dywolf]

batshit insane hysterical leftists

sure we aren't talking about you? cause while I know self-loathing (brought on by hypocrisy) is unhealthy, if typical for the right, you gotta admit, you fit 3 out of 4 of those words.

Re:Valid Action

[dywolf]

he's self-funded and doesn't want $$$ to be part of his campaign

1) No, he's not self-funded.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

2) For some one who doesn't want $$$ to be part of his campaign, he sure talks about it a lot, specifically about how much money he has and how he's a better candidate than the others because of it.

Re:Valid Action

[narcc]

Perhaps you're not familiar with the concept of a boycott.

Why, exactly, do you think boycotts happen?

Re:Valid Action

[LynnwoodRooster]

They are welcome to confirm their own intolerance that they try to strenuously deny, and I will revel in mine.

Re: Valid Action

[LynnwoodRooster]

To most SJWs, speech which offends is as bad as murder. "Microaggression" = physical assault.

Now give me my safe space with "cookies, coloring books, bubbles, Play-Doh, calming music, pillows, blankets, and a video of frolicking puppies". Because confronting ideas that I don't like is harmful and makes me regress to 4 years old.

Re:Valid Action

[Outta_the_way_peck!]

No, he's taking donations like everyone. He's only self funded in that he loaned his campaign money. He'll be paying himself back with those donations.

Re:Valid Action

[dkman]

You do I care if they profit off of Trump? I don't buy anything made under a Trump brand. If somebody is going to buy something Trump let Amazon profit off of it. That helps me by keeping Amazon afloat.

It's fine to ask Amazon not to promote anything Trump, but you have no right to demand they stop selling it. It anything isn't clearly labeled then slap a review on it showing that it's a Trump item and buyer beware. An educated buyer is a good thing.

If it were something extreme enough then you threaten to stop using the retailer. If Trump was marketing baby seal eyes I'd be on board, but he's just an everyday asshole. There are lots of those in C-level positions. I wouldn't buy anything if I took a hard stance on that.

Re: Valid Action

[dkman]

No, marriage is a civil contract. If you are religious you can believe there's a holy contract between the couple and God. But they're both just called "marriage". No redefinition bullshit is necessary.

Re:Valid Action

[Jack9]

1)

See, I love how every articles straight out illustrates he is self-funded, lays out how he is, then says he's not.
The source of the money is him. Saying it's a loan is irrelevant deflection. What's the difference between me buying a house with money I borrow (margin) from my own IRA or loaned from Stanley Morgan based on my liquid treasuries in probate? It's all my money and in this case, his loan is still his money with a chance at partial return...unlike a charity (no he cannot deduct the loan loss either). Trump loves talking about (and at times pretending to have) money,. He's certainly not going to give back contributions. Trump's simply not THAT rich...not just because it's cost ineffective, as he has described. The diagram also shows 9 million from donors which he initially put up and has gotten paid back, in a subtle attempt to minimize how much he put up, but if you're just going to get your information from WP wholesale, you aren't in a position to make a difference anyway.

2)

$$$ doesn't mean money to anyone but those with (ironically) their own personal agendas. Backdoor campaign contributions are the hot topic. The US public has a reasonable belief his political career (so far) is immune to. In a brokered convention, money decides so he will either secretly cave or lose.

I can't tell if your strange religious based ranting allows for honesty, since everything seem to revolve around self-assured rationalism with delusional gaps.

Re:Valid Action

[david_thornley]

You can't infringe "on his ability to make money". It isn't a right. You can reduce his ability, which is something that does often happen to people who publicly espouse unpopular political positions.

Re:Valid Action

[david_thornley]

I disagree that hate speech needs to be actively suppressed, but in this case Trump is saying things and other people are saying other things, which strikes me as perfectly reasonable. Boycotts have been a method of protest for a long time, but they tend not to work.

Re: Valid Action

[zaphirplane]

what a moron, didn't you even finish school? Physical attack is one type, there are others types.

For example when you tell your inbred sister/cousin/wife "am Gona attack that bbq squirrel plate"

Re: Valid Action

[zaphirplane]

Perhaps you are seeking to have a happy life and not weight down by the haters.
The context here is politics and rallying People in hatered, if you don't stand up, the country will morf slowly to bad, waking up to make sure your religious and genetic tag is charged up, and taking your kids to the segregated toilet and oh i earn 1/2 because I wasn't born in the right group

Re: Valid Action

[AK Marc]

As for what Trump owns, you clearly need to do your research. His real estate holdings alone are worth $3.5Billion.

And what of that are used as collateral for loans?

Maybe you don't understand how bankruptcies work.

He signed the papers for it as the owner. I realize it wasn't personal bankruptcies. As you say, he was the 57% owner when it failed twice, and it hasn't failed since he sold controlling interest. That's fiscal responsibility.

Re:Valid Action

[cavreader]

Those who have joined the anti-Trump movement better hope he doesn't win. Trump doesn't strike me as the kind of person who forgives slights. At the very least Trump has already assured the total destruction of the Republican party while also bringing to light the total worthlessness of winning state delegates. The entrenched Republicans and possibly the Democrats are going to be in the position of telling everyone who participated in the State Primaries that their votes are meaningless. It's been a long time since the last brokered conventions and back then social media did not exist to incite the population into an anti-government frenzy in real time. Personally I would like to see Trump win for the sheer entertainment value he would bring to the office. His campaign has rattled all the entrenched politicians and the behind the scenes political power brokers. People who have invested billions of dollars into their candidates are afraid their long term investments are going to be wasted. The US has desperately needed something to shake up the US political and patronage landscape. No President has the power to bring the country down. There are just too many checks and balances in place. The sheer inertia of US domestic and foreign policy cannot be easily set aside. Presidential candidates all make campaign promises that they know will never happen. People complaining about Trump act as if he is running for Emperor and can rule by fiat. He cannot fire Congress or the Supreme Court if they stand in his way. If he tries to exceed any his Presidential powers he can always be impeached. And since every politician in Washington hates him articles of impeachment would be drawn up and passed through Congress unanimously.

Re:Valid Action

[stdarg]

If that was true, we wouldn't need a constitution.

The constitution was voted on. Amendments are voted on. This stuff didn't just pop into existence from God or the Pope or the King or whatever non-democratic process you're thinking of.

And in the US, nobody "voted away" slavery. There was a big war about it.

Are you kidding? Of course it was voted away. There was a war to enforce the law, but the law was determined in a democratic process.

Re:Valid Action

[stdarg]

What you may be confused about is that "majority" strictly means 50% + 1, but in our system we have mutually agreed on stronger majorities required for some actions like amending the constitution. It's still a tyranny, and yes everything, EVERYTHING, is subject to vote. We could reinstate slavery tomorrow (well, maybe next election cycle) if enough people supported it.

It's funny that you're criticizing my understanding of civics. Where exactly do you think checks and balances comes from? God? The King? The Pope? Do you really not understand that all power rests with Congress, and ultimately with the people who vote for Congress? Are you even talking about America?

Re:Valid Action

[dywolf]

hah. some idiot mod thinks this is trolling.

Re:Valid Action

[dywolf]

i'm quite sure you don't know what you're talking about.

first you defend the idea of majority rule, even in regards to things that shouldn't be sustained even in the face of majority opinion.
then you trot out super majority requirements for no apparent reason.

exactly how many red herrings are you going to use to prove your non-existent point?

the issue is tyranny by majority rule, to which nothing you stated has any relevance.
you still miss the point that slavery, and similar ills, are wrong regardless of majority support.
hence the notion that voting on them is illegitimate. its still wrong. its still tyranny by majority rule.

as I said: your civics are lacking.

Re:Valid Action

[dywolf]

you are one deluded individual

Re:Valid Action

[KGIII]

And? It's less expensive than many, many other first world nations. Hell, it's less expensive than some third world nations.

Re:Valid Action

[Proudrooster]

We already know: Muslims are more likely to be targeted for terrorism. Not what you wanted to hear? Well then, just ignore facts.

No disagreement, this is an accepted fact that muslim-on-muslim terrorism is higher than muslim-on-American terrorism. Again, the nuance is that we don't want the US turning into "Sunis vs. Shiites" or whoever their grand leader shouts is guilty of blasphemy this week. By the way, the USA is guilty of blasphemy and according to their logic should convert to their flavor of islam (the religion of peace) or die. I think this is what Mr. Trump was referring to when he said, "We need to figure out what is going on."

We clearly do not want Muslims with this mindset freely roaming to and from the USA especially if their are attending "bomb making", "terror cell building", and "how to be a martyr" trade shows in Syria.

Allowing terrorists into the country to commit terrorism so we can justify more security theatre at airports or shovel tons more cash into unconstitutional, rights violating spy projects is not how I live out my days in a "free-society".

The only strategy that seems to work is hosting, "Draw the Prophet" events where the radical nut jobs come to you.

Re: Valid Action

[Coren22]

Considering that many experts estimate his net worth in the Billions, it would appear you are the one who is wrong.

http://247wallst.com/media/201...

Forbes: $4.5 billion
Bloomberg: $2.9 billion

Even the starting amount you give is wrong:

When Trump and his four brothers inherited their father’s real-estate business in 1974, the company was valued at an estimated $200 million. Trump’s share would have been worth $40 million. According to Vox.com, if Trump had invested that $40 million in an S&P 500 index fund in 1974, and reinvested all the dividends, not cash out and paid no fees, by August of 2015 he would have been worth $3.4 billion.

As far as the bankruptcies, taking risks is exactly that, risk. Companies fail all the time, blaming someone who probably had very little actual contact with a company for its failure is silly. He has many more than 4 companies that succeeded, so his success rate is also way higher than yours.

Re:Valid Action

[Coren22]

It is modded down as he is espousing positions that Trump did not take.

Re:Valid Action

[Coren22]

Perhaps there is a reason for that. Immigration should not be taken lightly, it is a tremendous decision, and it is something that harms the country you are leaving. It should not be easy to just leave your country of birth and move to another just because you don't like your home country anymore.

A study for the National Foundation for American Policy estimated that to hire someone on an H-1B visa, a U.S. employer has to pay about $2,500 in legal fees; a $1,500 training fee; a $1,000 “premium processing” fee; a $500 antifraud fee; a $190 immigration service fee; around $125 in additional incidental costs; and a $100 visa fee. That totals almost $6,000. Complicated immigration cases can cost eligible applicants $10,000 or more in legal fees alone. Meanwhile, even unauthorized immigrants from Central America pay between $7,000 and $10,000 in smuggling fees to get across the border, according to Alex Nowrasteh at the Competitive Enterprise Institute—often more than once, because they get caught, thrown out, and try to return.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...

So, a difficult immigration can cost around $10k, however, people are paying that amount to come in illegally in smuggling fees. So it must not be an issue how much it costs. The $6000 they list for hiring a H1B sounds pretty fair too, it costs around that to hire a citizen instead.

Adoption costs around this much, and it is just as much of a decision.

This site says that some Visas cost as little as $465, so it is just too much money!
http://www.theguardian.com/mon...

Re:Valid Action

[Aighearach]

LOL it sounds like it would be something that nobody would say. But I don't think you actually paid attention this time.

Re: Valid Action

[AK Marc]

So he inherited the equivelent of $3.4B (if put in a blind trust that didn't beat market), and is worth $2.9B. So rather than losing $50M, he's "lost" $500M.

And he won't release his finances, and lies to auditors. The one that claimed he was worth no more than $100M was sued by Trump, and Trump lost. Trump was unhappy with the accusation, but was unwilling (or unable) to prove it to be an incorrect accusation, since the truth is a defense to defamation, Trump lost (effectively leaving a court ruling that Trump agreed he was worth $100M).

As far as the bankruptcies, taking risks is exactly that, risk. Companies fail all the time, blaming someone who probably had very little actual contact with a company for its failure is silly. He has many more than 4 companies that succeeded, so his success rate is also way higher than yours.

Nope. It's not. He's lost much more than most people make in a lifetime. That's not success. That's complete and utter failure. Bankruptcy isn't "failing" it's walking away from your failures and refusing to keep your word to pay back creditors. He's bad at business and low in character. Outside the US, bankruptcy is treated as a criminal fraud conviction for future loans and employment. In the US, it's common because stealing from banks is considered sporting. Such fraud isn't considered acceptable elsewhere, another reason Trump is considered so poorly outside the US.

Re:Valid Action

[stdarg]

You're not making any sense. I said yes there is tyranny by majority. There's no avoiding that in a democracy, but we reduce its severity with things like supermajority rules. How is that indicative that I'm dismissing it (I'm actually acknowledging it) or not taking it seriously or I don't actually know anything about it? You'e an idiot.

Also I hate to break it to you but there's no God and there's no absolute list of moral bullshit for you to check off on what makes a good society. If some society wants to have slaves, they will. Even our own. Nothing you can do about it.

Re:Valid Action

[mgcarley]

This is only really a half-truth at best.

Sure, if you consider loaning the campaign money which he can reclaim or write off as a tax dodge when it fails as "self-funding", then yes.

Otherwise he has been using funds contributed to the campaign, just like every other candidate. And funds he's spending? Half of it goes back in to his own companies for stuff like rides in his own jet.

What he is *not* using is "traditional" fundraising and super PACs unlike Clinton and so on.

[source: http://www.politifact.com/trut... ]

Re: Valid Action

[mgcarley]

Considering he wants to run the country like a business (hmm, where have we heard that before?), the fact that his projects have gone bankrupt is worth taking in to account. To me it signals that while he might be slightly conservative when it comes to his own money, he doesn't give a fuck when it comes to other peoples money, and there are enough reports of investors (large and small) being left in the shit.

Re:Valid Action

[Nehmo]

I really didn't approve of the decision to drop the confederate flag from sale.

I feel this falls into the same box of stupid.

(I didn't know about that, but I'll assume you're right.)

I agree in that if someone doesn't violate Amazon's rules, then Amazon should continue their account. The question is how much is Amazon supposed to get politically involved? Where is the line drawn?

What if there was a flag banner saying, "Hang Dark Urbanites", or something similar. Would that be fair game to disallow?

Re: Valid Action

[Nehmo]

If even one company he managed went bankrupt, that's bad. It means creditors didn't get what they were owed. It means he didn't honor his commitments.

I've had projects fail too, but I paid everybody I owed. Going bankrupt is a shame to anybody who respects what a deal is. Trump seems to believe it's just another method of doing business. "I used the law four times and made a tremendous thing. I'm in business. I did a very good job." - Trump.

Moreover, running a gambling business is ethically wrong. Tricking gullible people into losing their money may be good for the gambling enterprise, but it's bad for the poor people. Nobody attacks him on this because it's legal nowadays. Once, however, the government put people in prison for the activity. It's only legal now because greedy government people figured out a way they could get a cut of the pot.

Yeah, this isn't going anywhere

[rsborg]

Amazon isn't exactly a liberal-loving corporation, I mean look at their PAC name:

AMAZON CORPORATE LLC SEPARATE SEGREGATED FUND (AMAZON PAC)

I kid you not. It's like openly... ahem, separate, -ist!

/snark.

Re:Yeah, this isn't going anywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, dumbass. Except for the fact that Democrats were the ones who introduced Jim Crow. Idiot

Re:Yeah, this isn't going anywhere

[houstonbofh]

Did you know that the word "segregated" has meanings outside of race? Like specific meanings in law, finance, and accounting? I know that is a but too long for a meme, however...

Re:Yeah, this isn't going anywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, the Democrats that are now part of the Republican party, fuckwad.

I just checked and the grand total of Republicans that were former Democrats and also voted in favor of Jim Crow is a grand total of...wait for it...fucking zero! You ignorant piece of shit

Re:Yeah, this isn't going anywhere

[Type44Q]

You'd expect a government-educated Millennial to know this? :)

Re:Yeah, this isn't going anywhere

[Rakarra]

Yeah, the Democrats that are now part of the Republican party, fuckwad.

I just checked and the grand total of Republicans that were former Democrats and also voted in favor of Jim Crow is a grand total of...wait for it...fucking zero! You ignorant piece of shit

The Democrats that joined the Republican Party are most dead at this point, because it happened a long time ago. The South used to be solidly Democratic, as before the Civil War, it was the party of small government, states rights, and strict construction. After the Civil War, they were the Solid South, the voting bloc of southern states that voted for Democrats. That ended in the 60s and 70s with the Civil Rights Movement. The Southern Democrat President, Lyndon B. Johnson, mentioned when he signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 "I think we just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come." The next Presidential election, LBJ won, but he'd lost the Deep South.

In a way, the Southerners (small government, states rights, Jim Crow, anti-federalist) didn't really change their beliefs in the last 200 years, but the Democratic Party certainly had. Maybe there was something to Reagan's "I didn't leave the party, the party left me."

Well..

[Etherwalk]

In fifteen years, when they write the two paragraphs in the 8th grade history books about this election, do you think Donald Trump will even be mentioned?

Re:Well..

[tnk1]

Possibly. He's brought out a lot of angry people. That could cause a paragraph's worth of trouble.

It's not like they need to give two paragraphs over to Hillary winning.

Re:Well..

[FatdogHaiku]

In fifteen years, when they write the two paragraphs in the 8th grade history books about this election, do you think Donald Trump will even be mentioned?

I think he may have as much effect as Ross Perot had in 1992...

Re:Well..

[sims 2]

Only if he wins and if he win's I expect a whole chapters worth.

Re:Well..

[Tablizer]

In fifteen years...do you think Trump will even be mentioned [in history books]?

If he loses the election: NO.

If he wins the election: YES.

If he wins the election but triggers Armageddon: NO. (There won't be any history books)

If he loses the election but triggers Armageddon anyhow via his YUUUGE mouth: NO.

Re:Well..

[houstonbofh]

Probably. It will be about how the Republican party alienated their base by pulling an establishment candidate out of nowhere, and tossed aside BOTH front runners who were anti-establishment. It will be the chapter on the end of the republican party. Right before the chapter on the end of the Democrat party for the super-delegate shenanigans.

Not that I support either Bernie or Trump, but this flagrant disregardful for the base will simply not fly this time.

Re:Well..

[110010001000]

If he wins the nomination it will likely tear the Republican party apart. Which is a good thing at this point. So pretty important.

Re:Well..

[jshackney]

I think he may have as much effect as Ross Perot had in 1992...

I've been saying this for a long time. We'll see when the dust settles what tally Trump has on the final score. I'm very curious to know if he's a 'Perot' candidate (one who takes enough votes away from one party so that the other can win with a very simple majority) or is he actually going to be elected.

Re:Well..

[dbIII]

I find it funny that a born to the purple old money guy like Trump that has been lurking on the fringe of politics for decades is seen as "anti-establishment". He IS the "establishment" FFS!.
If you can't trust an Atlantic City casino boss to look after you then who can you trust :)

Re:Well..

[AK Marc]

Goldwater has paragraphs in history. Nixon had paragraphs in history books by the time he ran again (lost to JFK in '60, won in '68), at least according to the memories of those who lived at that time that I asked. Dewey has chapters, but more for the effect on voting polls and surveys than who he was. Not sure about the 8th grade level. I can tell you every major presidential loser from my lifetime (And back 10-15+ from there), so they are remembered 15 years later.

Re:Well..

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

Well, after the hot war of 2018 it will be about 70 more years before more textbooks are printed, so perhaps.

Re:Well..

[Okian Warrior]

In 15 years Trump's face will be carved onto Mt Rushmore along side the other greatest presidents of all time.

In 15 years, Charleton Heston will collapse on a beach in front of a ruined statue of Trump's face, screaming:

"Oh my God. You Maniacs! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!"

Re:Well..

[tsotha]

Depends at least partially on what happens. He might get a mention even if he doesn't win the Republican nomination. He'll definitely get one if he does. And if he wins the presidency...

Re:Well..

[nedlohs]

Depends.

If he wins the nomination then certainly. If he doesn't win the nomination then it further depends on whether that triggers significant changes in the republican party.

Re:Well..

[x0ra]

These people are already angry of the constant erosion of civil liberties...

Re:Well..

[Alomex]

Perot took votes equally from both parties according to exit polls. Look it up.

Re:Well..

[Anonymous Coward]

those are some deep fried brains talking ^.

Full disclosure: East Indian. Immigrant. H1B worker here.

Trump is not the only rich guy. By that measure anyone more then 10 million USD would be rich (whats your threshold of "rich enough" to be establishment. Would that also means M Romney is not rich enough to be establishment? Anyway, I am not citizen so cant vote myself. But from where I see, it is everyone ganging up on Trump and he is a big guy who does not play victim. He just punches back in his own way.
What is so wrong about deporting illegal immigrants? I follow the law and get constantly worried if I have all the documents in order or not. And these guys just jump in knowing that democrats will save them if the republicans dont. I hate that. Its like being mocked at by those who are cutting line, because you follow the law. And the mockers have full protection of Republicans and Democrats. I hope President Trump becomes reality. :|

Re:Well..

[lego_boy_aus]

In fifteen years, when they write the two paragraphs in the 8th grade history books about this election, do you think Donald Trump will even be mentioned?

Or that Hillary will receive a sentence?

Re:Well..

[dbIII]

whats your threshold of "rich enough" to be establishment

It's more about connections. He was born with those political connections, kept his daddies connections and added a lot more.

Re:Well..

[KGIII]

Probably not. He's been dead for quite a while now. It was sometime not long after I sold and retired, IIRC. Either that or I was more inebriated than I thought... 'Cause I stomped around bemoaning the fact that Moses had died - and that now they could enter the promised land. I'm pretty sure I was a bit coked up at the time.

Re:Well..

[dbIII]

To dumb it down - his daddy was rich and very politically connected you tool. "Old money" was just a shorthand for that and not that he can trace his family back to William of Orange.

Re:Well..

[fyngyrz]

Not to worry. All he's triggered is a Democratic win.

Re:Well..

[GNious]

"In the 2016 US Presidential Elections, several large national news-agencies and financial institutions decided that Hillary should be the next president. So the voters all voted for her. Donald Trump also ran, to ensure that population was too confused to notice anything"

There, he's mentioned.

Re:Well..

[Alomex]

No, Perot didn't, he took votes from the Republican side by a large margin the accurate exit polls show this,

Ah, a republican de-skewering the polls to justify their dismal performance... what else is news.

Again, polls indicate Perot took votes equally. Also they were disenfranchised anti-NAFTA voters. Had Perot not been there what exactly makes you think they would have turned to Mr. Establishment, NAFTA negotiator Bush Sr?

In all likelihood they would have either (a) stayed home or (b) voted for change (i.e. Clinton).

The same is true for Nader and democrats by the way. In most states not having Nader on the ballot wouldn't have made much of a difference. The only place it might have is in Florida and only because the margins of victory were so low.

Re:Well..

[nytes]

It will be the younger Charleton Heston that time-traveled forward from the 1960's.

Re:Well..

[Rakarra]

You don't really understand the difference between being for sale, and being a person who buys other people. Politicians being for sale is the problem.

Are you buying the nonsense that Trump is "self funded?" He was self-funded, until his campaign took off. Right now, his campaign is very traditionally-funded, but he still says that he's self-funded.

Re:Well..

[Rakarra]

In the 2016 US Presidential Elections, several large national news-agencies and financial institutions decided that Hillary should be the next president.

I think predicting that she would be President is different from deciding that she should be President. The Democratic Party had, and still has, almost no leaders who could credibly make a presidential run. When Elizabeth Warren announced that she would not run for President (she had to do it several times since not many people believed her the first few times) it seemed like Hillary had a straight shot. And really, who was there to derail her campaign? She'd been building support for a decade now. In the past, at least in the recent past, people didn't just come out of nowhere to take the nomination; they needed establishment support. Even Obama had about four years of support-building before he launched his campaign. Warren could have been this year's Obama. Clinton's campaign had the aura of inevitability to it because you could see it coming for years. No one has been particularly excited about Hillary, but they didn't think, assuming they're voting for the party, that they had anyone better. As soon as Obama jumped in, everyone flocked to him. And now Sanders is siphoning away her support.

Re:Well..

[tnk1]

Yeah, but they've been stewing up until now. Now they have a standard-bearer and are really making a showing where before they felt like no one at that level would listen. That's worthy of note if this spirals out of control somehow. Or in the unlikely event Trump wins.

Also, when major US parties implode, as it happens every century or so, the proximate reason for it is usually noted in the history books.

Re:Well..

[david_thornley]

Romney is establishment, and doesn't deny it. Trump is establishment, and denies it.

Trump is not going to be elected. He's going to the convention with significantly less than 50% of the delegates, and therefore will not win on the first ballot. After that, there will be wheeling and dealing by the party regulars, and they really don't want Trump. Somebody else will be the sacrificial Republican this year. If Trump were on the ballot, he'd inspire people to come out and vote against him.

Re:Well..

[rioki]

I am not sure about your prediction, but at this point any significant disruption of US politics is a good thing. If we end up with 3 parties would actually be a signiiant improvement.

Re:Well..

[dbIII]

He is an "establishment" guy just as much as Romney was but denies it - plus if a casino boss is "less evil" then you have some serious problems.

13000

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty small number 13k considering the millions who use Amazon....

Re:13000

[Nethemas the Great]

Already past 50K

Re:13000

[Oligonicella]

Out of 244M.

Re:13000

[silentcoder]

Amazon does not have 7 Billion customers world-wide.

Re:13000

[danbert8]

Yet...

Yes, but no.

[MrKrillls]

I'm firmly in the "I wouldn't vote for Trump as dogcatcher" camp, but why should Amazon take sides by denying the Donald a place to sell trinkets? Unless Amazon also stops selling all political junk. Just because he offends me to no end doesn't give me license to rid the world of Trump merchandise. Is political correctness invading the marketplace???

Re:Yes, but no.

[jheath314]

Same here. I could almost see a case if the Trump merchandise was branded with overtly hateful messages (and not just something like "Trump 2016"). As far as I can tell, however, this is a case of "I don't like Trump, so no-one should be able to buy his stuff."

Re:Yes, but no.

[amiga3D]

I think Trump would make a wonderful dogcatcher.

Re:Yes, but no.

[FatdogHaiku]

Personally, I don't buy stuff from anyone based on who endorsed it or who styled it.
You don't HAVE to be a douche bag not to get my money...
but if you are it puts you at the top of the do not buy list.
I wouldn't buy anything from Hillary either, and you couldn't even GIVE me one of Bill's cigars!

Re:Yes, but no.

[amiga3D]

13,000 people is like spitting in the ocean. I mean really, that's such a tiny fraction of Amazon's customer base it's just silly.

Re:Yes, but no.

[Nethemas the Great]

The whole reason why Trump has become so popular is that corporations (particularly media) have been given him a podium from which to issue hate speech, and incite violence. I'm all in favor of the freedom of speech but these have already been ruled (for good reason) as types of speech that are not protected by the first amendment.

Re:Yes, but no.

[houstonbofh]

If they don't buy it, their money won't go there... It is not rocket science...

Re:Yes, but no.

[FatdogHaiku]

Have to add that when you go to the "Sign the Letter" page and read it, you are opting in to a news letter and they provide a link to a non existing privacy policy with a 404 message reading "The page you are looking for is The best thing I never had." So I'd be dubious about giving them my details...

Re:Yes, but no.

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you give quotes of his hate speech? Not just saying he's used hate speech based on political opponents not liking what he has said?

Wanting to secure the boarder is not hate speech. Wanting to halt Muslim immigration until we can implement better screening for ISIS affiliated operatives is not hate speech. They may not be the best policy, but they're also not hateful.

Re:Yes, but no.

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if Amazon will stop selling Che Guevara merchandise as well?

Re:Yes, but no.

[harrkev]

Hate speech? OK. I admit that I am NOT a Trump fan, and I generally try to ignore any news about him (except to skim the headline), but what has he said that is so hateful?

I know that people call him racist, but he has been against "illegal" (which is not a race) and urges caution in terms of Islam (once again, not a race, but a religion that creates more than 90% of terrorists).

Has he said something else that I have missed?

Plus, which types of speech are NOT regulated by the 1st amendment? There is the old "yelling fire in a theater" thing, which does not apply. There is also inciting to violence, but, from what I have read, the majority of violence caused at Trump rallies are caused by protestors. Has Trump ever actaully issued a call for violence? If so, I must have missed it.

Re:Yes, but no.

[Anonymous Coward]

Idiocy is not hate speech. What I'm seeing are quotes of policies people do not agree with. Any policy that is not liked by Hispanics is labeled as "racist".

Re:Yes, but no.

[TheGratefulNet]

I don't support chick-fil-a and their hate-group funding, but that does not mean I demand all restaurants be closed.

you put the filter on the receiving end, not the sending end. some of us still understand what america and freedom USED TO BE about.

Re:Yes, but no.

[Mashiki]

If so, I must have missed it.

You haven't missed it. Nethemas the Great is simply so drunk on koolaid, they don't realize they've gone from simply being partisan to a political hack that never questions anything.

Re:Yes, but no.

[stabiesoft]

You must only skim. While not saying specifically to beat someone up, he implies it by saying stuff like "in my day they would beat up someone like that", or I'll pay the legal bills of supporters that beat up protestors. I don't remember all the stuff he has said, but remember watching some of the clips and thinking man, that is getting very close to yelling fire in a theater. But with that said, I don't think amazon should pull stuff. I do think the one supporter that cold cocked the protester being escorted out by security should be arrested and convicted. The video was clear.

Re:Yes, but no.

[nedlohs]

How does there money get funneled there? Do you think that Amazon makes a loss on those products and pays Trump's campaign more than they charge for the items funding the difference with the profits from selling "Hard Choices"?

Re:Yes, but no.

[LynnwoodRooster]

I'm sure you were all over President Obama when he told his supporters to "get in the face" of others. To "bring a gun when they bring a knife". That those politically opposed to him should "shut up and get in the back of the bus". Right? I mean, that's all peace and lovey-dovey, right?

Re:Yes, but no.

[tlhIngan]

I'm firmly in the "I wouldn't vote for Trump as dogcatcher" camp, but why should Amazon take sides by denying the Donald a place to sell trinkets? Unless Amazon also stops selling all political junk. Just because he offends me to no end doesn't give me license to rid the world of Trump merchandise. Is political correctness invading the marketplace???

Well, basically 13,000 customers of Amazon are going to boycott Amazon. That letter was just telling Amazon why.

In a free-market system, you vote with your dollars. What this group did is just that - they're voting with their dollars that they would not spend anymore money at Amazon until they stop selling Trump's product.

What Amazon does is up to Jeff Bezos and Amazon management. If they want to lose business from 13,000 customers because they sell more Trump product than 13,000 Amazon customers, that's up to Amazon.

It's a free world. Boycotts may or may not work - usually the latter. This group simply let Amazon know why they aren't going to shop at Amazon anymore.

And yes, this is what you do when a company does something you don't like. You don't like Apple's walled garden? You don't buy Apple. You can send a letter to Tim Cook saying why you will never ever buy an Apple product. If Tim Cook and Apple management think your group of geeks will generate more business for Apple by taking down the wall, then Apple will change. If not, then business as usual.

It's just voting with your dollars.

Re:Yes, but no.

[jandersen]

Hate speech? OK. I admit that I am NOT a Trump fan, and I generally try to ignore any news about him (except to skim the headline), but what has he said that is so hateful?

'Hate speech' is beside the point here, I think. But I think he has said plenty to insult large sections of society, American as well as international, and his views and behavior are already a major embarrasment for America; just imagine him as president. A bit like Yeltsin, but perhaps fundamentally less honest.

I know that people call him racist, but he has been against "illegal" (which is not a race) and urges caution in terms of Islam (once again, not a race, but a religion that creates more than 90% of terrorists).

You should probably check your numbers. True, most of the terrorism we hear about is carried out by people who claim to be muslims, but there are significant other groups with other credos. Some call themselves Christians (IRA splinter groups: Catholics, several groups of groups call themselves 'Maoists' and so on). So-called 'Islamists' are the loudest right now, but it has been others before, and it will be others in the future. Also, the term 'racist' does not exclusively mean 'discriminating on the grounds of race' in modern, popular usage - it has a far wider interpretation now, including discrimination against ethnicity, and besides, until not long ago, 'Hispanic' was used in context where race was discussed - it probably still is.

Has Trump ever actaully issued a call for violence? If so, I must have missed it.

So it seems. To my mind, when somebody who wants to take on one of the most powerful jobs in the world, plays around with words about wanting to punch somebody, kill somebody etc, it carries significantly more weight than if a Joe Avg. says the same. I presidential candidate should be able to judge when it is appropriate to make jokes, and what kind of jokes are going to be understood as jokes in the context; otherwise, we have another Yeltsin dancing around in a drunken stupor at international conferences.

Re:Yes, but no.

[AmiMoJo]

That's a naive interpretation of Trump's words. He might not have said unambiguously that he hates Muslims, but he did say he would stop them entering the US completely. He didn't say that he thinks less of women in so many words, but he does frequently evaluate them on their looks rather than their words or actions and seems to think they are constantly flirting with him.

This technique is used by politicians on the extremes of the right and left. Rather than say things which can be pinned down as absolutely an unambiguously bigoted, they say things which leave room for interpretation but which their supporters understand clearly. That's why people call Trump sexist - they understand that you can't just naively parse his sentences, you have to look at what he says in context and as a body of work.

Classic Trump example of this: "Maybe he should have been roughed up because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing," (said of a protester). He's not inciting violence directly, but he is expressing his approval and thereby encouraging his supporters to use it.

Re:Yes, but no.

[dave420]

Well, he did call the Mexicans rapists and criminals, but tempered it afterwards by claiming not all of them are.

"Race" doesn't really mean anything - there is no scientific underpinning to the term, and it has many definitions, including groups of people with a strong identity and shared culture, which would quite reasonably mean "Muslims" are a race, as Muslims by definition share a strong identity and culture. The same can be said for Mexicans. This is the problem with using poorly-defined terms - the more vague a term is the less use it has. It might make your argument easier to just pick one definition that supports your argument, but it doesn't stop other people from using a definition which supports their argument. An accurate term doesn't have this problem.

As for the immigration debate, if the costs of application are far beyond the means of your average Mexican, it's no wonder so many will seek to further their families by doing it illegally. It would make sense to lower the costs/barriers for applying to ensure as many people can do it legally as possible. The immigrants are coming whether you want them to or not - the question is are you going to make them not want to register? The feeling of persecution felt by those attempting to do the right thing and improve their family's lot and being turned away because they don't have the requisite amount of money to apply simply can not be underestimated.

Back to the discussion at hand: Amazon is a private company. The people attempting a boycott are private citizens. They have a right to tell Amazon what they would like Amazon to do, and Amazon has a right to not listen if it doesn't want to. Boycotts have been a part of the western democratic process since its birth.

Re:Yes, but no.

[AmiMoJo]

Reminds me of the GamerGate efforts to get advertising removed from gaming sites they disagreed with. For some reason it was okay when GamerGate was doing it, but now someone else is exercising their freedom of speech to express their displeasure with Amazon it's suddenly an assault on freedom.

The best thing to do, in the interests of preserving everyone's freedom of speech, is to write to Amazon in support of Trump merchandise if you disagree. Don't complain about other people exercising their rights, exercise your own!

Re:Yes, but no.

[houghi]

Killing the terrorists and torturing their families sounds like a call for violence to me. The first I could perhaps agree with, depending on the context, the second in no way or form. Not even if they were terrorists themselves.
Now if I agree or not is irrelevant. If he issued a call for violence is.

So yes, he has.

Re:Yes, but no.

[dave420]

So you don't have an argument beyond "metaphors confuse me!"

Re:Yes, but no.

[Type44Q]

but these have already been ruled (for good reason) as types of speech that are not protected by the first amendment.

When, exactly, was this? (Hint: events that occurred within the confines of your head simply don't count; sorry.)

Re:Yes, but no.

[fgouget]

I know that people call him racist, but he has been against "illegal" (which is not a race) and urges caution in terms of Islam (once again, not a race, but a religion that creates more than 90% of terrorists).

Has he said something else that I have missed?

Donald Trump: "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." So being a Mexican immigrant means you're either a drug dealer or a rapist according to Trump. That's racism.

Donald Trump: "But you have people coming in and I'm not just saying Mexicans, I'm talking about people that are killers and they're coming into this country." And that's xenophobic.

Donald Trump: "Likewise, tremendous infectious disease is pouring across the border." Linking a community with disease. Where did I hear this before?

Donald Trump: "I’ll take jobs back from China, I’ll take jobs back from Japan. The Hispanics are going to get those jobs, and they’re going to love Trump.” Treating hispanics like dogs he can throw a bone to, that's racist too.

Donald Trump: "No surprise that China was caught cheating in the Olympics. That's the Chinese M.O. - Lie, Cheat & Steal in all international dealings." Note how he said it's the "Chinese modus operandi", not the "Chinese *government* M.O.". Claiming 1+ billion people are liars, cheaters and thieves, just for their ethnicity or the country they live in is racism.

Has Trump ever actually issued a call for violence? If so, I must have missed it.

Well he certainly did against protestors at his rallies.

But more importantly, "Donald Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States." and "Donald Trump said that he would 'absolutely' institute mandatory registration." So he says he will use the force of law to discriminate on the basis of religion. In other words he is against freedom of religion and against the bill of rights.

While those are not direct threats of violence, it's already too much for someone who wants to be the chief of the world's most powerful army.

Re:Yes, but no.

[Pharmboy]

Worse, it would mean that Amazon is actually taking sides by taking action against a single candidate. Some people need to get a grip. I'm not a fan of Trump (or Hillary, and Bernie will be pushed off soon enough), but I will just vote for Gary Johnson. Everyone should just vote for who they want to win the election.

This year has seen a lot of people trying to shut down candidates, Trump in particular, but most of those aren't real people, they are paid by someone else with big money, pulling the strings. That makes them little more than puppets: tools of the rich. This is on par with prostitution, where your body is being rented to do the bidding of someone with deep enough pockets.

Re:Yes, but no.

[stdarg]

Nope you're wrong. This is outside the democratic process. This is coercion, not political engagement. Know the difference? If you want to influence people democratically, you go talk to people who are willing to listen and tell them your views. Coercion is when you go around harassing people to the extent that you can get away with. Like if a business owner said "I will fire anybody with a Bernie bumper sticker." That's not democratic.

You're just whitewashing this stuff because it's a position you happen to agree with.

Re:Yes, but no.

[AmiMoJo]

Yeah, I'll go on record as saying Obama overstepped when he said that. There isn't a politician in the world who doesn't say unfortunate things some times. And Obama is far from perfect, both in words and actions (for me drone strikes are the worst bit).

But that's not equivalent to what Trump is doing. People questioned the Obama line because it doesn't sound like something he would normally say. With Trump it's exactly what you expect, because that's his pattern of behaviour. Naive parsing of his words is inadequate, you have to look at context and the frequency with which he says stuff.

Re:Yes, but no.

[AmiMoJo]

This is analogous to people writing to a bakery demanding that the bakery refuse to sell wedding cakes to gays and only gays.

What is wrong with that? Sure, it's repugnant, but as a matter of free speech it's important that people should be able to write those letters.

Re:Yes, but no.

[silentcoder]

Why should they not ? Companies support candidates they like, and withhold support from candidates they dislike. Frankly carrying or not carrying his trinkets is a helluva lot more honest a way to do that than campaign contributions - and a lot more democratic too.

Re:Yes, but no.

[silentcoder]

The vast majority of Americans do not agree with your assessments on whether those are hate speech or not, but what about when he went full Hitler and proposed that law abiding American citizens be locked up in camps if they happen to be Muslim ?

You don't get to CLAIM first amendment rights when you have actively proposed punishing people (innocent people not convicted of any crime) for their religion - when you are the enemy of free speech you no longer get to HAVE it.

Re:Yes, but no.

[silentcoder]

>but he has been against "illegal" (which is not a race)

False, he has only spoken against ONE group of illegals - who happen to have a common ethnicity.

> and urges caution in terms of Islam
Suggesting we lock up American citizens who have never committed any crime for their religion is not "urging caution" - it's religious persecution, and since the holders of this religion is overwhelmingly non-white, yes it's racist. You don't have to hate a race to be racist, you just have to think your own is better than any or all others. The idea that hating a whole swath of races is somehow better than hating just one is mindbogglingly stupid.

> but a religion that creates more than 90% of terrorists
False. In fact the religion that creates the most terrorists is Christianity. The largest Christian terrorist group on earth (the Lord's Resistance Army) kills more people in a month than all Islamic terror groups combined managed in the decade from 2000-2010, 9/11 is every fucking Tuesday for them. The numbers skewed a little when ISIS appeared on the scene, because ISIS has an army and actually kills rather more than any previous terror Islamic terror groups (and still only a tiny fraction of what Christian groups do) - but then again 99% of all the people they have killed were Muslims - so ironically the exact opposite of your claim is true: the vast majority of the world's terror VICTIMS are Muslim. More Muslims are killed by terror attacks in Beirut every month than have been killed in Europe, Canada and America COMBINED in the last TEN YEARS.

Fuck knows why you guys are so afraid... as far as the terrorists go, you're barely even a target. You're so low on the target list you almost never get hit. Europe is complaining about a sharp rise in attacks... 4 big attacks in 4 years... most middle-eastern cities get that many in a week.

>the majority of violence caused at Trump rallies are caused by protestors.
Either you read really stupid sources or you're just lying again - in fact nearly all violence at Trump rallies were direct AGAINST protesters and there have been almost no cases where protestors did anything to instigate violence whatsoever. Hell one protestor got beaten up for literally just sitting there silently. No placard. No message. Just sitting there while black.

>Has Trump ever actually issued a call for violence?
Saying "I would like to punch his face" is pretty much a not-very-subtle call for your supporters to punch his face (i.e. commit violence). And even more egregiously: "If any of my supporters are charged for beating up a protester at my rally I will pay his legal fees" - that's outright expressing support for the idea of protesters at a political rally (you know - a place where in free countries protesters are SUPPOSED to be) to get beaten up.

> If so, I must have missed it.
You seem to miss rather a lot... everything in fact.

Re:Yes, but no.

[Archangel Michael]

"Trump 2016"

Trump should sell chalk with that etched into it. We could cause all sorts of havoc on colleges across this land. The snowflakes would simply go apoplectic.

Re:Yes, but no.

[harrkev]

As for the immigration debate, if the costs of application are far beyond the means of your average Mexican, it's no wonder so many will seek to further their families by doing it illegally. It would make sense to lower the costs/barriers for applying to ensure as many people can do it legally as possible.

If the cost of buying a new car is if far beyond the means of your average American, it's no wonder so many will seek to further their families by doing it illegally. Steal a car -- it is OK because you can't afford one.

Sorry, but this country needs more jobs. If Mexicans are coming here to work, it is NOT the job of America to take them in and provide jobs. It is the job of Mexico to improve their economy and provide jobs for their own citizens.

To me, a country is kind of like a family. When I was growing up, there was not a lot of money, and both of my parents were heavy smokers (which I hated) -- I made the best of it. I did not try sneaking into another house and pretend to live there just to enjoy the benefits of being part of that family (having them buy me a car, pay my way through college, etc.).

We do still have unemployment in this country; where does it say that it is the job of America to provide jobs for the entire world? I say that we need get a job for every American citizen who wants a job first. If there are jobs left over that are unfilled, then we should consider letting others in. Why is a poor person from Mexico any more deserving of a job than a poor person from Wyoming?

The immigrants are coming whether you want them to or not - the question is are you going to make them not want to register?

Why are they coming? Why can't we control our border? Why is that such a hard concept? When a person sneaks into the country, that is a problem, whether you want to admit it or not. I lock my doors out to keep people out who are not invited. At my local Best Buy, they lock their doors at night too. The White House is surrounded by a fence and armed guards. We have TSA screening at airports to keep out those who do not belong. Why is it such a mental leap to expect the same thing of national borders?

The feeling of persecution felt by those attempting to do the right thing and improve their family's lot and being turned away because they don't have the requisite amount of money to apply simply can not be underestimated.

Persecution? Sorry, it is one thing to come here because your government is threatening to throw you in jail for something that is not your fault (religious/racial affiliation, etc.). It is another thing to come here just because you want a job. Not even comparable.

If there were an actual shortage of workers in this country, the demand for labor would automatically force the minimum wage to $15 by itself (supply and demand, you know). However the fact that some states have to force the minimum wage that high means that there is an over-supply of unskilled labor right now. Can we really provide a few million more jobs?

However, before giving me the "immigrants do low-paying jobs," that goes against the $15 minimum wage. A farmer will not let his crops rot -- he will pay whatever is necessary to get the job done, and then pass the costs along to the consumer. Having people available that are willing to work for substandard wages goes against the basic concept of a living wage for all, so this is a bad thing. Or, wait. Does the phrase "living wage" only apply to citizens and we can ignore it for immigrants?

Re:Yes, but no.

[Archangel Michael]

Or when Hillary changes her speech patterns when in front of a black audience, as if she were ... black. I find that much more offensive than anything Trump has actually said/done. Mind you, he's done quite a bit to be offended by, but as long as you give a pass to Hilliary's speech impediment your just a partisan hack.

Re:Yes, but no.

[LynnwoodRooster]

So what has Trump actually said that's so controversial? That those who are in the country illegally should be sent home and allowed to use the legal, normal process to enter?

Re:Yes, but no.

[Archangel Michael]

Name the last IRA bombing. Name the last Catholic murder. I have never heard of Maoists before today, and they are not of any religious belief (leadership may be Christian, but the revolution is all inclusive) . No looking it up on Wikipedia, or Google, off the top of your head. Go on.

The problem with people like yourself is that you have NO idea what you're spewing, you just are repeating something you heard without ANY facts to back it up. You believe it, because you WANT to believe it, and it suits your agenda, and not much more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

9 out of 10 is about right. That makes it 90%.

Re:Yes, but no.

[Oceanplexian]

"Fire in a Crowded Theater" was made up in US vs Schenck to argue for the conviction of Charles Schenck, a socialist, because he argued against the draft in WWI. You know, back when we put those filthy socialists in jail, instead of letting them run for president.

I can tell you right off the bat that Fire in a Crowded theater ALSO does not apply as an "exception" to the first amendment. It has no legal standing whatsoever. You could go yell fire in a theater today, if you're feeling up to it, and I guarantee you won't be prosecuted for speech. You'll get arrested for disturbing the peace, perhaps, but it's a free country and you can say whatever you want unless it's BOTH intended to be malicious and blatantly, knowingly false. If you actually thought there was a fire, you would be in the clear, since our legal system operates on INTENT and not what is politically correct or not.

1st Amendment has no exceptions. The closest thing to an exception would be national security secrets (Which, ironically, is partially the fault of Trump's #1 opponent), which we are fighting passionately in the courts right now.

Re:Yes, but no.

[MrKrillls]

Good question. I think it's different when the company does it for their own purposes - rather than being pressured.

Re:Yes, but no.

[MrKrillls]

Yup.

Re:Yes, but no.

[ganjadude]

this is my biggest problem with the left right here

it doesnt matter what people actually say anymore, only thing that matters is how others feel about what was said. words not matter, only feelings. wrong way to live

Re:Yes, but no.

[MrKrillls]

I dunno... Amazon probably sells Hillary stuff and Cruz stuff and Bernie stuff. I really really dislike Trump, but I am very uneasy with turning every possible thing that might offend me into a battleground. As far as I know, Amazon just sells stuff. I'm good with that. I'm heartened that they have stopped selling compromised USB C cables that can fry your cell phone.

I'm wary of making the market for political ideas more limited. I think that Amazon is fne selling Trump junk. Just because I think of Trump as riding on a wall of hatred doesn't mean I think that hiding him will extinguish the hate. I believe it should be publicly rooted out.

Re:Yes, but no.

[Anonymous Coward]

So being a Mexican immigrant means you're either a drug dealer or a rapist according to Trump

What about the "And some, I assume, are good people." You present a false dichotomy when trump said your good or bad.

And that's xenophobic.

It's xenophobic to not want killers coming into the country? You can argue whether his position is based in fact or not but saying that you don't want killers in your country is xenophobic is retarded.

Linking a community with disease.

Context is king. From your link: "The worst elements in Mexico are being pushed into the United States by the Mexican government," and "The largest suppliers of heroin, cocaine and other illicit drugs are Mexican cartels that arrange to have Mexican immigrants trying to cross the borders and smuggle in the drugs. The border patrol knows this. Likewise, tremendous infectious disease is pouring across the border. The United States has become a dumping ground for Mexico and, in fact, for many other parts of the world."

That is very different from what you are trying to implicate.

Treating hispanics like dogs he can throw a bone to, that's racist to"

Uh, saying that if we bring jobs back from China and Japan that Hispanics will get jobs is now treating them like dogs? When has a politician never promised jobs? You are retarded.

Note how he said it's the "Chinese modus operandi", not the "Chinese *government* M.O.". Claiming 1+ billion people are liars, cheaters and thieves, just for their ethnicity or the country they live in is racism.

Reaching a little aren't you? I have heard him say repeatedly "I love the Chinese" and talk bad about the government. You see racism where you want to. I think that this is arguable whether or not it is a racist statement or not. He could have easily misspoken and missed the word "government" or he thought it wasn't necessary because only tunneled visioned retards like you see racism where it is not.

Well he certainly did against protestors at his rallies.

That is arguable. A lot of those statements are not inciting violence. Maybe condoning but not inciting. Even though he did say "I do not condone violence." It's laughable to see you reach.

So he says he will use the force of law to discriminate on the basis of religion. In other words he is against freedom of religion and against the bill of rights.

And last from your first link: "Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life."

You can argue whether Islam is the religion of peace or if it is justifiable that Islam produces are large percentage of terrorists. but the point he is making is that there is a problem with radical Islam and until we find a solution its dangerous to let in people that do not follow the rule of law. You are reaching.

Re:Yes, but no.

[ganjadude]

calling one of his competitors a pussy is not racist or sexist, its an insult to an individual

as for the period thing are you sure you got that right? because you dont, he never said anything about anyone on their period. if you inferred that, that is on you, you sicko

Re:Yes, but no.

[MrKrillls]

I'm not sure that merely hateful speech is not protected as free speech. As in I could say now "I hate Trump". But, I am pretty sure speech that directly incites violence against Mexicans or gays or whoever IS unlawful. Kind of the yelling "fire" in the crowded theater thing. That's when your free speech stops.

Re:Yes, but no.

[MrKrillls]

You're an optimist.

Re:Yes, but no.

[ganjadude]

so you are saying obama is unqualified for saying "if they bring a knife we bring a gun" correct? because thats no different

Re:Yes, but no.

[AmiMoJo]

Well, he's pretty much the master of the sexist ad-hom in response to questions he doesn't like, for a start.

Re: Yes, but no.

[silentcoder]

Customers stating a prefference is exactly why its better tgan contributions. The latter has no accountability to the market.

Re:Yes, but no.

[rhazz]

Or when Hillary changes her speech patterns when in front of a black audience, as if she were ... black

. So what's problematic there, cultural appropriation?

Re:Yes, but no.

[LynnwoodRooster]

As an example?

Re:Yes, but no.

[Archangel Michael]

I forget, it is only Racist when someone not in the DNC does it. My bad.

Re:Yes, but no.

[wyHunter]

This. "I like freedom as long as everyone agrees with me." Trump is a buffoon but it's not against the law to be buffoon nor should he be gagged - unless you gag Hillary too (please)

Re:Yes, but no.

[david_thornley]

Speech does not have to be within the democratic process. This isn't coercion. A business owner firing Bernie supporters is coercion, because that's actual power over people. A few people telling Amazon they really don't want Amazon to sell Trump merchandise is a somewhat lame-looking attempt at political engagement.

Re:Yes, but no.

[Anonymous Coward]

"shut up and get in the back of the bus" eh? Source?

Re:Yes, but no.

[rhazz]

No, seriously, whoever does it, why is it a problem? If she adopted a bit of a southern drawl in front of white southerners, is it white-on-white racism?

http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/4084/what-causes-some-people-to-unconsciously-imitate-the-accents-of-others

Re:Yes, but no.

[Archangel Michael]

If she adopted a bit of a southern drawl in front of white southerners, is it white-on-white racism?

Does she do New York, Jersey, Minnesota, Valley Girl and Boston accents too? Does she customize her southern for the regional varances such as Carolina, Mississippi, and Texas ? Does she pick up a Hispanic accent in Miami?

Having listened to the speeches in question, it was contrived.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Yes, but no.

[rhazz]

Sad and awkward maybe, still don't see racism (unfortunately I couldn't watch the video from this location).

Re:Yes, but no.

[facetube]

No, he hasn't urged "caution". He has proposed a religious test for admission to the United States and for consideration thereof. This proposal should be abhorrent to anyone who understands the history and founding principles of the United States.

I think I'm voting for Trump now

[Anonymous Coward]

I normally vote third party but after seeing all the hyperbole about Trump being a racist because he (GASP!) wants the legal process of immigration to be followed is really just pissing me off. I'm sick of hearing this assholes who scream "racism" anytime you don't agree with the leftist agenda.

Re:I think I'm voting for Trump now

[amiga3D]

You must be racist! You don't believe in the agenda of all left thinking Americans! Why should Latinos have to follow the law? Hillary doesn't. Are you saying they aren't as good as Hillary? That's racist thinking there!

Re:I think I'm voting for Trump now

[JoshuaZ]

People do have a tendency to call people racist when they really mean they disagree about race relate political issues. But that isn't what is going on here. Trump's words far exceed any sort of attempt to enforce current immigration laws. For example, his claims that Mexico was deliberately sending its criminals to the US http://www.laweekly.com/news/heres-a-fact-check-of-donald-trumps-mexico-bashing-5754639 which was demonstrably false. He plans on making a wall between Mexico and the US and making Mexico pay for it, despite the fact that the number of illegal immigrants has in the last few years been stable or declined http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/19/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/. He's claimed that a judge in a legal case was biased against him purely under the basis that the judge was Hispanic http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-02-27/trump-university-argues-ex-student-can-t-bow-out-as-trial-nears. And then there was the bit where he refused to disavow the KKK and then lied about it, claiming it was due to mishearing the question when his response indicates he understood exactly what was being asked http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/28/politics/donald-trump-white-supremacists/

And this is before we get to the fact that many of his other policy ideas about immigration have nothing to do with enforcing current rules (e.g. his ideas about banning all Muslims from entering the US).

I don't know if Trump is racist, but he's made a lot of comments that certainly move in that direction, and if he isn't racist he's making a concerted effort to appeal to racists and general xenophobic sentiments.

Re:I think I'm voting for Trump now

[will_die]

Actually he called for stopping them from entering until the government âoefigure out what is going onâ (his words) about one of the terrorist attacks.
Didn't he disavow the support from the KKK and return money they had sent him, so far the person who has not done that is Hillary. http://dailycaller.com/2016/03...

Re:I think I'm voting for Trump now

[x0ra]

I don't mind being called a racist / bigot / whatever. Don't you get it ? petty shaming tactics ain't gonna work...

Re:I think I'm voting for Trump now

[JoshuaZ]

That is not an accurate assessment of what Trump sad. untilourcountry'srepresentativescanfigureoutwhatisgoingon.. I'm not sure what your point is in regards to disavowing the KKK, the point is that it ok him 24 hours to do it and he initially refused and then lied about. The Hillary comparison is also not helpful for a least 6 reasons: first, that's one endorsement of Hillary v. the many white separate white supremacists who endorsed Trump. Second, no major reporter has asked Hillary about the KKK endorser about her. Third, this ignores that many white supremacists have actively credited Trump with increasing their enrollment in their groups. http://theweek.com/speedreads/593608/white-supremacist-groups-credit-surging-interest-donald-trump-hes-certainly-creating-movement. Fourth, the Dragon who endorsed Hillary did so out of essentially a conspiracy theory about her actual policies being different than her stated policies, while the Trump ones are endorsing him based on his actual statements. Fifth, this is not a game of baseball where points against one candidate somehow magically count as points in favor of another candidate.

Re:I think I'm voting for Trump now

[JoshuaZ]

Um, no one argued that xenophobia was exclusive to one side of the political spectrum.

Re:I think I'm voting for Trump now

[JoshuaZ]

The person you are replying to is joking. Maybe you should rethink what people are saying politically about such issues if you can't tell a clear joke.

Re:I think I'm voting for Trump now

[Type44Q]

I don't know if Trump is racist

I'm going to propose that it has no bearing on anything whether he's a racist or not; he's a showman and all of his talking points are intended to appeal to his supporters. He doesn't need to actually believe any of what he's spewing; hell, he was once quoted as saying that if he ran for President, he'd run as a Republican because the constituents are dumber.

Re:I think I'm voting for Trump now

[JoshuaZ]

Yes, see the end of my comment where I noted that I couldn't tell if he was racist or just appealing to racists. Note by the way that the claimed quote about running as a Republican is actually not true: See http://www.snopes.com/1998-trump-people-quote/.

Re:I think I'm voting for Trump now

[stdarg]

I'm not sure what your point is in regards to disavowing the KKK, the point is that it ok him 24 hours to do it and he initially refused and then lied about.

No the point is he shouldn't have to do it.

Second, no major reporter has asked Hillary about the KKK endorser about her.

Yup, exactly. Look, KKK figures are probably going to vote and endorse SOMEONE. Every time there's an election. When the media tends to harass one one candidate more than others, they are clearly being biased. Do you support media bias?

Fourth, the Dragon who endorsed Hillary did so out of essentially a conspiracy theory about her actual policies being different than her stated policies

You probably won't believe it but I have heard people say they are strongly supportive of abortion because minorities get more abortions.

Trump isn't racist and in fact is more closely aligned with blacks on some issues than most candidates, specifically about illegal immigration. Economically, blacks support a higher minimum wage and tighter immigration control. I don't think Trump supports the higher wage, but he's the only serious candidate about immigration control. And what good is a higher minimum wage when you don't have a job? The black unemployment rate is quite high.

Re:I think I'm voting for Trump now

[MorePower]

The "legal process of immigration" is currently "no Mexicans (or anyone from south of Mexico)". Seriously, there is no visa category that your "average Jose" could even apply for.

Re:I think I'm voting for Trump now

[JoshuaZ]

No the point is he shouldn't have to do it.

Considering the large number of vocal white supremacists supporting him, it isn't by itself unreasonable to ask him. Even if you think the reporter shouldn't have asked the question, his initial refusal to disavow was pretty unacceptable as responses go.

Every time there's an election. When the media tends to harass one one candidate more than others, they are clearly being biased. Do you support media bias?

If anything, the media has been incredibly favorable to Trump, giving him ridiculous amounts of free coverage. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-donald-trump-hacked-the-media/. It also does not follow that if a given candidate his having the media call out a lot of the things the candidate says that the media is being biased. It can also indicate that the candidate is really saying a lot of crazy stuff. (Which in this case is pretty accurate.)

Fourth, the Dragon who endorsed Hillary did so out of essentially a conspiracy theory about her actual policies being different than her stated policies

You probably won't believe it but I have heard people say they are strongly supportive of abortion because minorities get more abortions.

That's completely believable; I'm not sure why you think I wouldn't believe it, nor do I see what point you are trying to make here.

Trump isn't racist and in fact is more closely aligned with blacks on some issues than most candidates, specifically about illegal immigration. Economically, blacks support a higher minimum wage and tighter immigration control.

I'm not sure what your argument is here. You appear to be arguing that he can't be racist because he agrees with blacks on a specific issue. However, the primary racism under discussion is directed at Hispanics, not blacks. Moreover, your claim about blacks and immigration is incorrect. Black Americans are consistently more pro-immigration than white Americans. See http://www.gallup.com/poll/184529/support-increased-immigration.aspx. You can argue that they shouldn't be, but apparently they disagree. And again, you seem to be ignoring what I said in my first comment: I don't know if Trump is racist, but if he isn't, he's going through a lot of effort to appeal to racists.

Re:I think I'm voting for Trump now

[stdarg]

Considering the large number of vocal white supremacists supporting him, it isn't by itself unreasonable to ask him.

Umm I'm not 100% sure but I suspect the white supremacist groups choose a Republican candidate in every election for the last 50 years or so. So what? They want to vote for the party that will work to keep welfare benefits lower because welfare disproportionately benefits minorities. They will vote for the party that is tougher on crime because minorities disproportionately commit violent crimes.

Guess what, black supremacist groups like #BLM, New Black Panthers, etc all vote for Democratics for the inverted reasons. They want the group that will help blacks over whites. Has a major newspaper called on Clinton to disavow the support of these black groups?

Re:I think I'm voting for Trump now

[stdarg]

Submitted too soon...

If anything, the media has been incredibly favorable to Trump

Eh sorry I don't believe that. Maybe at first it was but for the last 6 months or a bit longer the media has been viciously anti-Trump. You honestly think the "free coverage" from the Washington Post writing these headlines is good?

* The moment of truth: We must stop Trump
* The Hitler-ification of Donald Trump
* Trump's flirtation with fascism
* Donald Trump cannot close
* GOP leaders, you must do everything in your power to stop Trump

etc

Come on now.

That's completely believable; I'm not sure why you think I wouldn't believe it, nor do I see what point you are trying to make here.

The point I'm making is I've never heard the major media outlets asking Democrats, "Why are so many white supremacists supporting your legislation to expand abortion rights? Do you disavow their support?"

If the media wanted to highlight the alignment of Democrats with white supremacists on some issues like abortion, they could. But they don't want to. Why? Because divisiveness doesn't sell? Come on.

However, the primary racism under discussion is directed at Hispanics, not blacks.

Okay fair enough, but generally people call Trump racist without qualification, like the links to all the white supremacist groups. Clearly he's not a white supremacist, right?

You can argue that they shouldn't be, but apparently they disagree.

That link shows that 30% of blacks support more immigration. It isn't even about illegal immigration, which is Trump's main issue.

I don't know if Trump is racist, but if he isn't, he's going through a lot of effort to appeal to racists.

Trump is a populist so he's appealing to the biggest pieces of the population that he can. He's tapping into issues that lots of people support but that are ignored by both parties. Yes that includes issues that white supremacists care about.. but actually lots of people care about them who are not white supremacists.

Re:I think I'm voting for Trump now

[JoshuaZ]

Yes, the white supremacist groups generally do support Republicans, but it isn't every election cycle where they a) almost all strongly support a specific primary candidate and b) credit that candidate with having record numbers. Moreover, the BLM comparison doesn't work: the BLM activists are not in favor of blacks over whites (by and large) but are in favor of being treated equally, and not having young black men be shot to death. Not really an accurate comparison. Regarding the New Black Panthers, it is worth noting that they endorsed Obama last election and he then said that he didn't agree with them.

Re:I think I'm voting for Trump now

[JoshuaZ]

Your first bit is confusing editorials and op-eds with news coverage. Not the same thing.

If the media wanted to highlight the alignment of Democrats with white supremacists on some issues like abortion, they could. But they don't want to. Why? Because divisiveness doesn't sell? Come on.

No, because there's zero reason to even think or suspect that any of the Democrats are in favor of abortion for the same reason the white supremacists are. In the case of Trump, the motivation behind the agreement looks potentially pretty similar, especially because it isn't any single issue.

That link shows that 30% of blacks support more immigration. It isn't even about illegal immigration, which is Trump's main issue.

First, Trump is pretty strongly in favor of general reductions in immigration. Second, the link was being given to deal with the specific claim that blacks are against immigration. Third, if you do want to focus on illegal immigration there are actually studies showing the same thing there. See e.g. http://www.pewresearch.org/2006/04/25/attitudes-toward-immigration-in-black-and-white/ which shows that blacks are much more in favor of policies which help illegal immigrants.

Re:I think I'm voting for Trump now

[stdarg]

Your first bit is confusing editorials and op-eds with news coverage. Not the same thing.

I'm pretty sure that commentary is included in the studies showing how much free media coverage Trump receives. It does not say "free, neutral, objective news coverage".

No, because there's zero reason to even think or suspect that any of the Democrats are in favor of abortion for the same reason the white supremacists are.

There is actually. Of course there's the fact that Democrats historically were the more racist party with ties to the South. Today they appear supportive of blacks but many critics of Democratic policies argue that they actually harm blacks by keeping them dependent on the state.

So are you saying there's nobody out there who genuinely thinks the Republicans are better for blacks than Democrats, including their stance on promoting stronger families and morals and ending abortions?

Second, the link was being given to deal with the specific claim that blacks are against immigration.

I don't think it showed that. It showed 30% support which isn't very high. The point of the article was that blacks support it more than whites... not that a majority support it.

What a wonderful world we're moving towards

[Anonymous Coward]

"Donald Trump is a fascist! I demand we silence him, burn all his books and ban all his merchandise. We must not allow him to speak or be heard!." The irony of the anti-trump people is beyond comprehension.

Re:What a wonderful world we're moving towards

[dadelbunts]

Its insane how these people think. They call themselves progressives yet want to censor and silence any opposing opinion. And if you say anything that doesnt fit with their rhetoric they immediately label you a racist, misogynist, homophobe, or whatever the trendy word is that day. All while they themselves act totally racist and do nothing but project prejudices on people based on absolutely nothing.

Re:What a wonderful world we're moving towards

[Rockoon]

The party of real intolerance doesnt like people in the party of theoretical intolerance.

That explains all the Democrat support for this crap.
The Republican support is harder to explain, but based on polling numbers its really only the OG Republicans that support this shit..

Re:What a wonderful world we're moving towards

[ProzacPatient]

It's called an ad hominem logical fallacy; rather than refute his issues many people directly attack his character, launching accusations, to undermine and detract his arguments on various issues.

I'm not saying he hasn't but personally I haven't observed him say anything actually racist; rather he's been talking about changing our immigration policy and balancing the trade deficit with foreign countries like China. Furthermore I haven't actually ever heard Trump incite violence but rather it always seems to be his opponents and their supporters having a temper tantrum. Again I'm not saying he hasn't said or done any of these things but I've yet to personally observe the claims I've heard about Trump.

DISCLAIMER: I am not affiliated with any political party nor do I participate in voting.

Re:What a wonderful world we're moving towards

[dave420]

How on Earth is this silencing him? This isn't *his* platform, anyway - it's people selling goods licensed by Trump. That's it. It's not shutting him out of debates, stopping any mention of him on TV, or so on. Getting all confused and making ridiculous claims like that is not helping.

Re:What a wonderful world we're moving towards

[Grishnakh]

Yeah, as someone who supports a lot of progressive causes and is a fan of Bernie, I think this stuff is ridiculous, and I really don't understand why liberals are so hateful about Trump and focusing their attention on him, when to me, Cruz is far, far more dangerous, and even Hillary is a worse choice.

Cruz is a Dominionist Christian who wants to turn the US into a theocracy, and whose policies are extremely far-right, far more so than Trump's . Hillary is clearly sold out to Wall Street, is a criminal, is an imperialist warmonger, and has done all kinds of shady stuff with the Clinton Foundation to fill her pocketbook.

Why liberals think I should support Hillary, I have no idea. They talk about how great it'll be to have a female President, but I never saw them supporting Carly Fiorina, not to mention Sarah Palin.

Re:What a wonderful world we're moving towards

[rahvin112]

A censor is a government agent. A boycott is speech at it's core. The boycott is one of the few political protests with a long history in the US going back to the founders and still in use today. Various christian groups have probably more than 100 active boycotts in process right now.

So you think we should ban one of the oldest methods of public speech there is?

Re:What a wonderful world we're moving towards

[dadelbunts]

Except no one boycotts anymore. When people dont like a product instead of boycotting it and not purchasing it, these people constantly try to get it taken off the shelves and/or banned. You can see it in the videogame world all the time, instead of not purchasing a product, they complain that its some "ist" and try to get it pulled. One game was recently denied a N.American release as the makers didnt want to deal with toxic SJWs. The left is constantly trying to censor, not boycott any different opinions or views.

Re:What a wonderful world we're moving towards

[rahvin112]

The Boston tea Party is probably one of the oldest Boycotts in this country. It was an effort through a boycott of a product whose profits went entirely to the King to extract a political message about representation by denying the King those profits.

Getting a product removed from Amazon is as much speech as refusing to buy the product. It's an attempt to get Amazon to exercise their speech and freedom of association in refusing to sell Trump branded products. It is the ESSENCE of speech. Rather than call for a government ban on speech you should use your right to speech to propose a counter boycott or letter writing campaign. More speech is never a problem.

Re:What a wonderful world we're moving towards

[dadelbunts]

This isnt even a boycott. If they wanted to boycott they would all cancel their Amazon accounts and not purchase anything untill they removed Trump products. But that would actually require effort and a change of lifestyle for these people.

Re:What a wonderful world we're moving towards

[rahvin112]

Petitioning Amazon to remove a product with Amazon's Speech and freedom of association is a boycott as much as tossing tea into a harbor is! Get out of your partisan mindset and realize you are arguing against speech. Perfectly valid and reasonable speech! You can do the same, you can create petitions and send Amazon emails telling them to not do this. That is counter speech, not calling for government action to silence these people!

Don't support speech restrictions because you are too lazy to counter the speech of another group with your own speech.

Re:What a wonderful world we're moving towards

[facetube]

They're petitioning a private corporation. That private corporation is free to offer the products it wants. Its customers are free to shop at Amazon or choose not to, for any reason they want. If Amazon believes it will profit more by choosing not to carry Trump's products, they may make that choice. They're allowed to make that choice. This isn't fascism, it's free-market capitalism.

That is 0.1 % of the people he'd like to fire.

[dsmatthews9379]

There are over 11,000,000 people who's lives are at risk of being totally disrupted by Trump's plans, therefore the UltraViolet numbers are trivial. In fact the only remarkable thing is how small the numbers are given the consequences for some many people. Looks like somebody should have studies more Math and less liberal arts.

Re:That is 0.1 % of the people he'd like to fire.

[ganjadude]

and there are some 311 million peoples whos lives witll be affected no matter who is elected. those 11 million you are speaking of dont really have any say, they are not citizens, and they really cannot complain that we who do have rights want the laws enforced

Re:That is 0.1 % of the people he'd like to fire.

[dsmatthews9379]

What has that got to do with the maths, you know, in my comment?

Re:That is 0.1 % of the people he'd like to fire.

[dsmatthews9379]

If you boot out all your neo-slaves you will see wage inflation and the dollars you do take home will buy less. That is maths too, nothing to do with politics or "rights".

Re:That is 0.1 % of the people he'd like to fire.

[dsmatthews9379]

What has that got to do with my point, the fact that people don't get "scale"? X means nothing unless it is in the context of Y and in this case Y is far far larger so X is trivial. Doooo yooouu uuuundeeeeerrrrr staaaaand meeeeee noooooow?

Here's an easy solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't buy his cheap fucking suits.

Re:The hate

[tnk1]

Of course their stock tumbled. They did something that looked like it wasn't making immediate short term profit.

Nevertheless, it could score them some sweet PR in the longer term.

Different than Macy's, NBC, Univision situation

[JoshuaZ]

I was somewhat ok with NBC, Univision and Macy's dropping Trump, since in those cases the organizations were deeply tied into the profit from the Trump persona. However, Amazon has many products and is essentially content neutral.So the situation seems different. In general, in many ways things function best if keep politics and business separate, and don't engage in retribution to people whose politics we don't like. However, in Trump's case, his politics, persona and business are so wrapped together it is hard to see a distinction. At the same time, this sort of thing should worry people. How would people feel about a similar petition to Amazon to not sell Israeli goods? Palestinian goods? Chinese goods? Etc.

Sounds like harassment and intolerance to me.

[Anonymous Coward]

This sounds a lot like harassment and intolerance to me.

Can you image the uproar from leftists if some Christian fundamentalists had written to Amazon requesting that products associated with, say, transsexuals be pulled from sale?

Maybe the leftists don't realize this, but people in general are getting awfully fed up with their hypocrisy. That's why we see a candidate like Trump gaining so much support. People across the political spectrum, even including some moderates on the left, are getting fed up with how so many leftists say one thing, but do another.

Leftists say that bullying is wrong, yet they'll turn around and target certain individuals they dislike for some reason without showing any remorse.

Just look at the case of Brendan Eich for a good example of this. The way they savagely attacked him and his reputation is disgusting. Somebody shouldn't lose his job merely because of his stance on marriage! Leftists would throw a fit if somebody lost his job for supporting homosexual marriage, yet the moment somebody supports traditional marriage the leftists unleash on him with extreme fury and hatred.

Leftists really need to address their hypocrisy problem if they want to be taken seriously. To everyone else they're starting to look like total jokes.

Re:Sounds like harassment and intolerance to me.

[Anonymous Coward]

Philosopher Karl Popper defined the paradox in 1945 in The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1.

"Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."

He concluded that we are warranted in refusing to tolerate intolerance: "We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."

Re:Sounds like harassment and intolerance to me.

[AK Marc]

So everyone has the right to free speech, except leftist, because you don't like them, so they shouldn't complain.

Re:Sounds like harassment and intolerance to me.

[AK Marc]

You certainly have the right to express yourselves but when you actively work to silence someone for expressing themselves then you're no longer expressing yourselves,

"You certainly have the right to express yourselves but when you actively express yourself to complain about someone for expressing themselves then you're no longer expressing yourselves,"

Nope, your logic is not internally consistent.

you're rebelling against our constitutional republic by invoking mob rule.

That's what a democracy is. What, you don't like it, and would rather go back to when only white male land-owners could vote?

Re:Sounds like harassment and intolerance to me.

[narcc]

Can you image the uproar from leftists if some Christian fundamentalists had written to Amazon requesting that products associated with, say, transsexuals be pulled from sale?

How would that be any different from the current right-wing outrage over this petition?

This is what we call the "free exchange of ideas". You offer up ideas that I dislike, I offer my own ideas. If Amazon caves to consumer pressure on this issue, you're under no obligation to support them by shopping there. If Amazon gave in to your example demand, I'm equally free to pull my support and shop elsewhere. Our differing ideas will either coexist or one will dominate the other in the great marketplace of ideas, leaving the other to fade in to obscurity. Regardless, society will have changed in some way. It's how it's always been, and likely always will be.

Re:Sounds like harassment and intolerance to me.

[narcc]

We call it a boycott. Boycotts are a means by which a people can exercise their right to speak, as well as participate more fully in the free market. You'll find that boycotts have been employed for centuries, for various reasons, across the entire political spectrum. It's an old tradition. Here in the US, they go back well before the revolution. We've never been without them.

As for public shaming, that's really what decides what ideas are and are not accepted by a society. Some beliefs, actions, and ideas are taboo because we, collectively, feel that they are harmful. We hold to others because we, collectively, feel they are important. We're careful with our language around children and scold others when they don't. We work hard to support our families and denigrate the lazy and unmotivated who do not.

Our values change over time as our society changes. You can believe those changes are for the better or for the worst, but it's not something that an individual has much influence over. All we can do is participate in the free exchange of ideas. Boycotts are part of that process.

Re:Sounds like harassment and intolerance to me.

[goose-incarnated]

As for public shaming, that's really what decides what ideas are and are not accepted by a society.

Looking at the tiny, almost insignificant support for boycotting Trump from Amazon, I'd say that society in general has already decided that Trumps views are not as loathsome as you appear to find them.

Re:Sounds like harassment and intolerance to me.

[narcc]

It would be more useful to look at the number of people who actually support Trumps views, rather than the number of people who signed an obscure petition. For your own sanity, I'd recommend against further investigation.

Re:Sounds like harassment and intolerance to me.

[goose-incarnated]

It would be more useful to look at the number of people who actually support Trumps views, rather than the number of people who signed an obscure petition. For your own sanity, I'd recommend against further investigation.

I did not claim that his views were supported. I said that they do not appear to be as loathsome to society as you seem to think they are.

Re:Sounds like harassment and intolerance to me.

[narcc]

Again, you may want to look for more meaningful numbers to support that belief. The numbers you're using to support that assertion couldn't be less useful.

Re:Sounds like harassment and intolerance to me.

[goose-incarnated]

Again, you may want to look for more meaningful numbers to support that belief. The numbers you're using to support that assertion couldn't be less useful.

Actually, no I don't. The number of people in the boycott/I-Loathe-Trump camp are barely a statistical error. Why do I need to look for more numbers?

Re:Sounds like harassment and intolerance to me.

[dave420]

Because the number you are basing your argument on is clearly not accurate. This is just the number of people who:

1. Consider Trump's positions dangerous
2. Are aware of the proposed boycott
3. Buy from Amazon
4. Are willing to stop buying from Amazon
5. Bothered to sign the petition

Whereas you are assuming this is the number of people who:

1. Consider Trump's positions dangerous

Clearly there is some sort of gap in your thought process, as you are missing some steps in how you managed to ignore #2-#5, or assume that everyone who doesn't like Trump's policies uses Amazon, is aware of this boycott, is prepared to buy elsewhere, and bothered to sign the petition.

I hope you can see where you went wrong.

Re:Sounds like harassment and intolerance to me.

[goose-incarnated]

Because the number you are basing your argument on is clearly not accurate. This is just the number of people who:

1. Consider Trump's positions dangerous 2. Are aware of the proposed boycott 3. Buy from Amazon 4. Are willing to stop buying from Amazon 5. Bothered to sign the petition

Whereas you are assuming this is the number of people who:

1. Consider Trump's positions dangerous

Clearly there is some sort of gap in your thought process, as you are missing some steps in how you managed to ignore #2-#5, or assume that everyone who doesn't like Trump's policies uses Amazon, is aware of this boycott, is prepared to buy elsewhere, and bothered to sign the petition.

I hope you can see where you went wrong.

Actually, no. My thought was "Where are all the people who find Trump's policies loathsome enough to actually vote with their wallet?". IOW, where the hell are all these members of society who find Trump loathsome? Where are all the boycotts of his business? Why do Trump protesters number in the fractions of a percentage compared to his supporters?

As narcc put it above (and to which I replied), society determines the norms, and from where I sit there simply aren't enough Americans who find Trump or his policies loathsome to form a significant percentage of the population.

Re:Sounds like harassment and intolerance to me.

[WorkingDead]

So the far left is just as scary, if not more scary, than the far right? People living in actual socialist countries have been telling us this for decades and only now are we actually getting the smallest little sampling of it ourselves. Just ask Garry Kasparov.

Re:Sounds like harassment and intolerance to me.

[Type44Q]

Can you image the uproar from leftists if some Christian fundamentalists had written to Amazon requesting that products associated with, say, transsexuals be pulled from sale?

I absolutely detest [generally illiterate] evangelicals... and no, I still can't "imagine the uproar." Fundamentalist nuts of every ilk demand stupid shit all the time and it still has no bearing on this.

Re:Sounds like harassment and intolerance to me.

[stdarg]

This country would be in a hell of a lot better shape if only landowners could vote.

People who own land, or real estate like Trump, have a truly vested interest in the success of the country. Land prices go up if the country does well.

Compare that to other rich people and you see huge conflicting interests. Jeff Bezos probably derives some level of his hatred for Trump because of Trumps stance against H1Bs, for instance. Bezos would gladly vote against the prosperity of America for his own bottom line, whereas Trump's bottom line IS the prosperity of America.

Re:Sounds like harassment and intolerance to me.

[silentcoder]

So on one side we have the considered argument of one of the most influential philosophers of all time - coincidentally one of the largest contributors to what may philosophy's single most valuable contribution to society: the scientific method. An argument that was part of a proper philosophical treatise which meant it had to meet the laws of logic and be well supported by significant evidence in order to be taken seriously by his peers.

On the other hand we have an anonymous coward with zero references, no supporting evidence and no shred of a rational argument to back up his counter-claim.

Now which one of these arguments do you find more convincing ? Because for me it definitely is not the latter.

Re:Sounds like harassment and intolerance to me.

[silentcoder]

>Free speech is demanding businesses stop selling things from people you don't like and publicly shaming them if they don't comply?

It's not "people we don't like" - it's a politician proposing a government policy we don't like and have every right to protest.

Re:Sounds like harassment and intolerance to me.

[silentcoder]

Assuming you are right - that only further cements the right to express that feeling of loathsomeness, if anything minority and dissenting views are more deserving of protection because they do not have the power of the majority to defend them.

And this is an act of free speech - asking to boycott a politician over a policy proposal is literally the PURPOSE of free speech.

Re:Sounds like harassment and intolerance to me.

[ganjadude]

you seem to keep making the mistake of calling harassment a boycott

Ill say it one more time

refusing to do business with X - that is a boycott

harassing X until they stop doing business with Y is harassment, not a boycott. (its also childish and is pushing more people away from your cause generally speaking)

Re:Sounds like harassment and intolerance to me.

[rahvin112]

This sounds a lot like harassment and intolerance to me.

Then you don't know what harassment and intolerance is. These actions are SPEECH. A boycott is a traditional use of commercial power to express political views. It has a LONG history in the US. The primary goal of most Boycotts is to get the retailer to drop a product. This is an act of SPEECH by both the participants of the boycott and on the part of the retailer.

There is nothing at all wrong with these actions. They are at their essence counter speech to the politics of Donald Trump. Given that his "Brand" is his most valuable asset (from his own words), using a boycott to attack his speech is the perfect counter.

It's disturbing how few posts out of 400 recognize that a boycott IS speech and calls to restrict it are calls to restrict speech.

Re:Sounds like harassment and intolerance to me.

[narcc]

Ill say it one more time

Repeating it won't make any difference. It's still incomprehensible.

Why do people boycott an business? Because they want some aspect of that business to change. People might boycott a business because they want them to stop sponsoring a particular television program. They might boycott a business because they want to stop particular labor practices in their supply chain. They might boycott a business because they want them to stop carrying a particular product for various reasons.

In any and all cases, a boycott is intended to encourage the business to change in some way. Most of the time, that involves third-parties with which the business chooses to work. From sponsors to suppliers.

Why else have a boycott if you didn't expect the business to change their practices? What would the purpose of a boycott be otherwise?

Re:Sounds like harassment and intolerance to me.

[Aerokii]

Jeff Bezos is also a landowner. He's actually number 26 in the country, which seems to suggest he owns more than Trump.

Re:Sounds like harassment and intolerance to me.

[david_thornley]

Can you image the uproar from leftists if some Christian fundamentalists had written to Amazon requesting that products associated with, say, transsexuals be pulled from sale?

Yes, I can imagine the uproar. Trump supporters are free to supply their own uproar if they like. It's a free country. Trump is free to say stupid things, Amazon is free to sell or not sell his stuff, people are free to ask Amazon not to sell it, and people are free to object to that.

Maybe the leftists don't realize this, but people in general are getting awfully fed up with their hypocrisy. That's why we see a candidate like Trump gaining so much support.

No, if they were offended by leftists they'd turn to right-wing types. Trump's success, like Bernie's, is a reaction to the perception that the government is run by the 1% (or whatever other name you want). The upper classes tend to be more right-wing, with some exceptions. (If the public was turned away from leftists, why the heck is Bernie doing so well?)

Just look at the case of Brendan Eich for a good example of this. The way they savagely attacked him and his reputation is disgusting. Somebody shouldn't lose his job merely because of his stance on marriage!

The big issue is that Eich had donated $100K for the purposes of not letting some people get married. It was not merely his stance. If someone is active in a political issue, as opposed to just having views, there will be consequences.

BTW, there has not been any attack on traditional marriage, so there's absolutely no need to support it. A man and a woman getting married is completely uncontroversial, and nobody was trying to abolish it. Eich was not defending anything; rather, he was attacking the ability of others to get married. Some of us would be happy if people married who they liked and didn't try to stop others from getting married to those they love. We'd like religious denominations to decide for themselves what sort of marriages they will perform and approve of, and not bother other people with different views. We're just trying for tolerance here, and we really don't like people pushing for intolerance.

Re:Sounds like harassment and intolerance to me.

[david_thornley]

The size of the boycott is not evidence that Americans in general are against Trump. It is not evidence that Americans in general are not against Trump. I'm against Trump, for example, but I didn't know Amazon was selling Trump merchandise, and I don't really care one way or the other about that.

Re:Sounds like harassment and intolerance to me.

[stdarg]

For Jeff, the vast majority of his wealth comes from Amazon. Like $50 billion. Sure he owns land, as does Amazon... but it's a tiny proportion of his wealth (or Amazon's).

On the other hand, the vast majority of Trump's wealth comes from real estate or local businesses like casinos.

Anyway, most people who own land own tiny amounts of real estate, but it makes up a large proportion of their net worth -- homeowners. By restricting voting to people who own real estate, you'd get rid of a lot of young voters who have no clue what they're doing, like college students and recent grads. You'd get rid of a lot of childless people who frankly don't think about the future as much as people with kids.

Re:Sounds like harassment and intolerance to me.

[Aerokii]

I'd really like to see some numbers on how his (Bezos) wealth breaks down, so I'd prefer more than your word on the matter. Beyond that, much of what he owns isn't just land, but is also real estate (homes, apartments, offices, the like) as is shown in the first posted article.

While we're at it, it's interesting to note that much of what has Trump's name on it isn't actually something he owns. He's a big fan of licensing his name and having no other involvement beyond that, which gives the illusion that he owns more than he actually does. This article in particular has some interesting things to note- particularly the latest assessment by Forbes of Trump's net worth. Trump himself states his net worth (depending on the day and his mood) between 8.6 and 10 billion dollars when you include his "brand". The Forbes assessment actually says it should be 3.2 billion, which puts the "brand" component at up to 5.4 or even 6.8 billion dollars- a much larger portion of his wealth than his real estate holdings. Doubly so when in the same article, Trump says his brand is worth 4 billion. So, no, according to Trump himself and the other sources available, most of his wealth does not come from real estate, local businesses or casinos. It comes from his brand and licensing.

I also find the idea of only land and real estate holders having the ability to vote quite disturbing. I'm at a point in my life where I'm able to put time and effort into researching candidates and politics, but I don't have the money necessary to own real estate. I should not be prevented from having a say/having my voice heard just because I lack the funds to own something almost entirely irrelevant to most of the issues I care about. Since people who rent also don't own real estate, we'd lose many votes from the cities which would disenfranchise a great deal of minorities. Such a plan says that anyone poor, young, or not white, doesn't deserve a say in who represents them, even if they vastly outnumber the people who would be left with the vote.

Re:Sounds like harassment and intolerance to me.

[stdarg]

Exact numbers are hard to come by because the stock market fluctuates so much. But when I did my googling for that comment, I found one article that says Bezos owns 19% of Amazon as of sometime mid 2014. I haven't read anything about a huge divestiture so I"m assuming it's about the same. Based on recent market cap that puts his stake at about $52 billion. However the last article I saw showing his full net worth put it at around $49 billion. So it's hard to say on which exact date that article took their measurements. Feel free to google to verify these numbers.

Trump himself states his net worth (depending on the day and his mood) between 8.6 and 10 billion dollars when you include his "brand". The Forbes assessment actually says it should be 3.2 billion, which puts the "brand" component at up to 5.4 or even 6.8 billion dollars- a much larger portion of his wealth than his real estate holdings.

That's true, Trump is less dependent on real estate than the typical homeowner. I've read plenty of articles saying that among people about to retire, their home equity makes up like 90% of their wealth. So Trump is more like 30% or 40%. But Bezos is around 1%. That's really a different league.

I should not be prevented from having a say/having my voice heard just because I lack the funds to own something almost entirely irrelevant to most of the issues I care about.

I agree, but I don't think you're the typical case for a renter. That's the problem with hard rules, but on the other hand there are thoughtful 17 year olds who can't vote either, there are people who committed some random crime but still have ideas on what the government should do, etc. Don't you think one day you'll own property?

we'd lose many votes from the cities which would disenfranchise a great deal of minorities. Such a plan says that anyone poor, young, or not white

Yes well disenfranchisement is the whole point of this. Right now many people vote who don't have the best interests of society in mind. If you're voting for your own welfare benefits, or your own free college, or whatever, that helps you disproportionately compared to me. But on the other hand if I'm a landowner and I'm voting for things that will help the value of my land, there's a much greater chance that it will help all of society. My land goes up when society becomes wealthier. If society becomes a crappy, uneducated, unemployed, unhealthy shit hole... how much is my land worth?

It's not like this is every going to happen of course. The cat's out the bag. But I do think Benjamin Franklin had a great point -- "When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic."

Landowners can also fall susceptible to that but at least there's a balance against it like I said above.

No one is forced to listen to him or buy his stuff

[unimacs]

I find the prospect of a Trump presidency to be kind of scary. At the same time he's obviously tapped into some genuine concerns of a substantial portion of the public. Attempting to silence him just marginalizes his supporters even more and further justifies the extreme positions he advocates. Rather than suppressing or ignoring him, we should be trying to understand his appeal and attempting to address some of the underlying issues that fuel his popularity. My guess is that there's a link between Trump supporters and Sanders supporters. The middle class is hurting and has been for decades.

Re:The hate

[houstonbofh]

Not really... The boycott crowd is very "what have you done for me lately" and that is not long term support. Ask Chic-Fil-Et..

Re: Trump's Wearhouse tagline...

[slasher999]

A US retailer catering to men offers rack quality clothing at generally inflated prices is named 'Mens Wearhouse' and their slogan is "you're going to like the way you look" or something to that effect.

Constitutional Law FAIL

[linuxrocks123]

Incitement to violence is a VERY narrow category of speech. See R.A.V. v. St. Paul and Snyder v. Phelps.

Do the more profitable thing, keep selling it.

[sethstorm]

Every time that someone has appeased these social justice warriors, they lost money or profits. On the other hand, ignoring them (and selling the product) has been more profitable.

Consider these people to be the kind of customers that Amazon does not want and should gladly let go.

I'm Honestly Shocked

[Anonymous Coward]

at the utter lack of leaving people alone anymore. When I grew up in the 70s and early 80s, people were OK with others having a disparate opinion or viewpoint. These days, if anyone disagrees with anything, they're a "hater" or a "bigot". Frankly, it's ridiculous. Trump is free to be himself even if people don't like him.

No one should have the right to silence anyone else, try and prevent their wares from being sold, their voice from being heard, you name it. It's un-American. It really is. I remember being able to vociferously disagree with others and no one was calling for boycotts, firings, silencing each other. What happened to common sense?

13,000?

[tsotha]

They must be missing a couple zeros. Thirteen thousand in a country of three hundred forty million? That's nothing.

Re:13,000?

[Anonymous Coward]

How can we be sure that this was even limited to American citizens? What stops someone from Sweden from "signing" the "petition"?

Fight ideas

[manu0601]

Stalin said that when one could not fight ideas, one should fight the persons. It seems somebody here had the idea to go against the business.

This is an improvement over Stalin's approach, however it remains a terribly weak way of fighting ideas.

A whopping blow to Trump...

[Rick in China]

Wow, this would definitely take Donald Trump down a peg -- if it were ever to happen. Hitting him right in the pocket book when men can't buy Trump underwear on Amazon.com. Good campaign, democrats, you've got him now!

Any means possible

[Okian Warrior]

stereotypical liberal intolerance to contending ideas

Why must I be tolerant of intolerance? If Trump wants to ban Mexicans and Muslims, why am I not allowed to try to ban every trace of Trump?

Because it's morally "the ends justify the means".

It's going outside the process just because you don't like the results. That's not how we do things.

Effectively, the rule seems to be "it doesn't matter how we do it, we *have* to stop Trump. BY ANY MEANS!!!"

People shout at him during speeches. That didn't work, so they started being rowdy. That didn't work.

(Not letting him speak - how is this any different in principle to censorship?)

They dressed up in KKK robes and *that* didn't work either.

(I read about a 16yo protestor that falsely accused a rally goer of sexual assault. Willing to ruin a man's life for the cause - that's some dedication!)

I'm waiting for the assassination attempt, because "STOP TRUMP" is more important than how it gets done.

In the newspapers, they called him as clown. That didn't work, so they called him a sexist. That didn't work, so they called him a racist.

I remember reading analysis a couple of months ago, where pundits were astonished (!) that people were still supporting Trump, even after they called him a clown! (What are the Americans thinking?)

Then it was his supporters. We're all under-educated, unemployed, white, disempowered losers who are angry and want to take our country back. You don't want to be part of *that* group - do you?

That didn't work either.

Then they turned the crazy up to 11. Trump is Mussolini, Stalin, Satan, Hitler. The Washington Post said Cthulhu supports Trump.

That didn't work. Now it's backroom deals, delegate stealing, and rule changes.

Here on Slashdot, most of the political dialogue is name calling and unfounded drivel. We're the smart ones in the room, and even *we* have bought into the hatred. No one can put together a cogent political argument, simply because the other candidates don't have a clear position.

200 people control the election, and they do NOT want someone who will make the place better for the citizens.

It doesn't matter how many votes Trump gets, so long as he doesn't get 1237 on the first try. So long as we can prevent *that*, we can drop him from the race and pick someone we support.

It's as if voting doesn't matter.

The ends justify the means. Stop Trump using ANY MEANS POSSIBLE!

Re:Any means possible

[phantomfive]

Then they turned the crazy up to 11. Trump is Mussolini, Stalin, Satan, Hitler. The Washington Post said Cthulhu [washingtonpost.com] supports Trump.

I really hope the news media loses a lot of their power this election cycle.

Re: Any means possible

[KGIII]

No, they meant what they said. It was just too complicated for you to understand. In that portion their indicating the positions held by those for whom the ends really do justify the means. It's a pejorative. It's not that complicated but I can see where some people would be confused. It's fairly common in literature.

Re:Any means possible

[Major Blud]

It gets even crazier when you see the media falling over themselves about Bernie or Clinton. For example, I didn't know that Bernie had once supported abolishing mandatory K-12 education (http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/29/politics/bernie-sanders-own-words/). I'm sure he probably doesn't still feel this way, but I never heard it in the main stream media until he started losing primaries.

If Trump changes his mind on something, he gets crucified (look what happened to him when talking about guest workers). I guess Bernie gets a free pass when he does it.

I'm not voting for any of those three candidates, but it's pretty obvious that mainstream media has already decided who we should vote for.

Re:Any means possible

[crtreece]

Cthulhu supports Trump.

Why would Cthulhu support a lesser evil?

Re:Any means possible

[dj245]

Then they turned the crazy up to 11. Trump is Mussolini, Stalin, Satan, Hitler. The Washington Post said Cthulhu [washingtonpost.com] supports Trump.

I really hope the news media loses a lot of their power this election cycle.

The media has tremendous power. This year more than most years.

Political candidates are basically professional salespeople. They need to sell the public on themselves, and they need to sell donors that they can win. Most of them are quite good at it. Presidential candidates should be the top-tier of salespeople. They have more sales tricks in their bags than any normal person can defend against. The only way to even have a chance is to ignore everything they say and focus only on their past actions, and how that correlates to the job they would be elected to do.

This election cycle, the media has focused almost entirely on what the candidates are saying. I can count on one hand the number of articles I have read or TV segments I have watched that even brush the surface of what these people have done in the past. That makes the media very powerful since they are basically a tool of the politicians to sell their ideas. The fact that the media is uncontrollable by the politicians is not a problem for them (the media). It makes them even more powerful since they will follow the ratings to whatever candidate causes the most controversy. The media created some of these monsters. Don't expect the media to slay them.

Re:Any means possible

[rhazz]

It's going outside the process just because you don't like the results. That's not how we do things.

But... "He started it!".

Re:Any means possible

[phantomfive]

The media has tremendous power. This year more than most years.

I don't think so....they've been losing their power as more and more people use the internet and stop listening to what they say. For example, when the NYT tried to portray Rubio as financially irresponsible for buying a luxury speedboat in his past, it failed in ways it hasn't before.

The news media for a long time has tried to create its own narrative, but the internet is changing that.

Re:Any means possible

[Grishnakh]

WTF are you talking about? The mainstream media hates Sanders. They've been doing everything they can (esp. WaPo) to get him out of the way in favor of war-hawk pro-Wall Street Hillary. Your CNN link is a prime example of this: they're digging up some old ramblings of his from his younger days during the hippie movement to try to discredit him. I didn't see anything there, just a young man questioning societal norms and the establishment and raising questions, such as whether the traditional education system is really the best way to do things.

I haven't seen Bernie change his mind on anything, within recent memory (comparing his current positions to his positions from 1970 isn't the same thing). Trump changes his positions within weeks or months, all within this election cycle. But you're half right: he's getting crucified for it, whereas Hillary gets a free pass when she adopts or gives lip service to Bernie's positions in a lame attempt to get real progressives to vote for her.

And if you're not voting for those 3, that only leaves Cruz, who is an extremely far-right Dominionist Christian who wants to create a theocracy. AFAIC, he's the worst candidate of the 4. Given how much I hate Hillary, and that I don't expect Bernie to get the DNC nomination, I only hope the GOP gets its shit together and has a brokered convention and chooses Kasich or someone moderate to run against her.

Re:Any means possible

[phantomfive]

But what is the mainstream alternative?

Youtube is already a step above mainstream because you can see the entire quote, instead of a single sound-bite taken out of context, like the media corporations do.

Re:Any means possible

[Coren22]

You missed the recent lies told about the abortion comments.

NBC's Chris Matthews asked Trump, if abortion was illegal, should women who get abortions be arrested? Then every report on this seems to conveniently omit the original question when trying to cast him as hating women.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03...
http://www.wsj.com/articles/tr...

All three of those articles fail to mention the bolded part above, all Trump was saying is "if it is illegal, of course your should get punished for it", they are all making it out to be that he thinks all women who get abortions should be punished, when he didn't even say that.

I own several Trump neckties

[j33px0r]

All of my Trump licensed ties are fantastic in terms of construction, materials, and styling. Unfortunately for the angry anti-Trump masses, I bought them all at TJ Max for $10-12 bucks a year after Macy's passed them on for next years model...ok, so maybe I shouldn't have emphasized styling but hey! I saved $30-50 bucks per tie.

Most people buy ties at the store so that they can physically check them out...just can't see Amazon as the primary market for Trump clothes. If their petition does work then I would wager that the people that make the ties are the ones that will be impacted most by the rabid anti-Trumpers, not the Don himself.

Either have democracy or don't

[Karmashock]

If you want freedom of speech, a free exchange of ideas, freedom of association, civic participation in government by the people... then we can do that.

Or if the progressive peasants are just too triggered by contrary opinions they can give up all that and the nobility will take care of them. No need for any more elections. Hereditary nobility for... ever. Hillary's daughter is already being groomed for high office. They very ready to simply accept your offer at ennoblement... right now.

You can all sit in communal buildings every Sunday and chant along from a book of dogma. And everyone can live by the strict new code of political correctness. We can have religious conformity inspectors... they'll probably be blue/pink haired hipsters wearing ceremonial trilby's that will scream in my face about how tolerant they are... You can see it now.

And then we can have government enforced gender equality... but only in jobs women want to do... or often as not... just get the pay and status of doing the job. Because after all, a lot of those jobs are hard, boring, lonely, and really only a bunch of nerds would do them anyway. But its unfair that there aren't equal numbers of women in those fields. Maybe we should just figure out how many women want to do a given job, then say that equal number of men can also do that job. But no more than that even if there is a need for more than that. After all, that would be sexist.

The whole political scene in the US has been fucking retard inception for the last 10 years at least. You want to cite a longer duration... sure. Cite your favorite flavor of ice cream and we'll go with that. But its just so stupid.

Listening to code pink go on and on and on about how bad war is and how we should just bring everyone home... and then when the people they campaigned for start blowing up Libya or whatever... fucking crickets.

Endlessly being told that there's too much money in politics... except when that money happens to be used by progressives... then its fine. Use tax dollars to bribe people to vote for you? No problem. Use tax money to run partisan propaganda campaigns for your faction? No problem. Use billionaire slush funds to advance your position... No problem. But anyone else does even a shadow of the shit that they get away with on a daily fucking basis... clearly the second coming of literal Hitler.

The sophistry on display is so astounding that I can't take anyone seriously anymore on these issues. Too many people are full of shit. No one can claim they're serious with any sincerity because its been outed at bullshit too many times.

Gents, just express yourselves... actually be tolerant... as in... actually... not just tolerant of YOUR OWN stupid opinions whilst naturally being utterly intolerant of any view that contrasts with your own. Because, that's not tolerance.

Re:Either have democracy or don't

[x0ra]

The left isn't about democracy, they're about "justice"... theirs.

Re:Either have democracy or don't

[Karmashock]

I was clear what I was talking about.

If you want to be an apologist for people that silence political discourse than that is your own business. But know what you're doing. Because that's what you're about.

Re:Either have democracy or don't

[x0ra]

What you call "press" is an awfully one sided propaganda machine selling the UN agenda. They have been abusing their power over, and over, and over. Look at the Gawker vs Hogan case. Just because you are a press website does not allow you to publish the sex life of someone. So yeah, the argument to muzzle the press is actually sound. [and I say this as a libertarian, desperate times calls for desperate measure].

Re:Either have democracy or don't

[x0ra]

Btw, the "left" has a pretty awful track record as well when it comes to silencing what does not match their agenda.

Re:Either have democracy or don't

[Karmashock]

And what does "right wing" even mean? The dichotomy between right and left is meaningless.

All it means in the 21st century is Marxist versus non marxist.

That's it.

If you're a marxist derived ideology then you're left. If you're not marxist then you're right. That's all that means.

Look at the diversity on the "right" and you'll see... all right wing means is "everyone else".

So am I not a marxist? Guilty as charged.

But that's all that means.

Re:Either have democracy or don't

[Karmashock]

Your choice in this discussion
() Rebut the opposing argument with ANYTHING.
(x) Make a fallacious statement of contradiction that doesn't actually address anything and could be applied to literally any conversation in the history of EVER.

Your choice is noted.

Re:Either have democracy or don't

[Karmashock]

The left and right aren't accurate descriptors to what we're talking about at this point. The two flags associated with political camps are not well understood or used.

It basically boils down to this... Left is any marxist derived political faction. Right is literally everything else.

If you're marxist derived, you're left. Doesn't matter if you push people into mass graves in the jungles of Columbia or advocate for kindergarten in Denmark. Everything marxist is left. And everything not marxist is right. Doesn't matter if you're a neo nazi or a Libertarian.

The two faction flags are meaningless. By the old definitions of right and left, basically everyone is left. Who is advocating for kings and the control of the church? Basically no one. Who is advocating for nobility, the end to voting, etc? Almost no one.

As descriptors of politics in the west "right" and "left" are basically useless unless you want to identify Marxists. That's about all its good for these days.

Re:Either have democracy or don't

[rahvin112]

So you are against an open democratic society eh?

Because Boycotts are speech. They are one of the oldest forms of commercial speech in this country and have been in use since the republic was founded. There are over 100 active boycotts by Christian groups in this country. Disney is one of their popular targets and has been under active boycott by one group or another for probably more than 20 years.

Re:Either have democracy or don't

[Karmashock]

So you clearly would see it as equal if half the country... which is your political opposition... boycotted all your businesses?

What you're not getting is that it undermines the society at its core. We cannot share a society with you if you are this intolerant.

And you are intolerant.

Re:Either have democracy or don't

[Karmashock]

It would be the end of the country.

By the way, I find it very funny that you have no problem with that but you probably will have a problem with the Christian baker not wanting to cater a homosexual wedding? Freedom of Association?

Or does that only work when you want it to work?

I think you should serve someone even if they don't ascribe to your politics. And by the same token, don't boycott people because they don't.

But if you think one is fine... I see it as inconsistent to be against the other.

Which would mean a return to what... racially segregated coffee shops? You're playing with something you don't understand. You're a baby with a hand grenade. You giggle and mouth it... and you don't understand that if you pull that pin... its going to do something dramatic in 5 seconds.

Re:Either have democracy or don't

[Karmashock]

And if you believe that, then you believe that David Duke isn't a white supremacist. Just ask him... he'll tell you he isn't.

Believe him?

People are not always what they say they are...

Re:Either have democracy or don't

[Karmashock]

1. As to warning that things can fail. They do fail. So while most such claims are false... one of them is eventually right. Rejecting my statement out of hand means that you'll be surprised when it happens.

2. As to me guessing correctly that you would have a double standard on that association argument.

Boom... head shot.

As to doctors and big deals... freedom of association. Right? I told you your idea would destroy everything. You didn't understand and you probably still don't.

3. As to some chicken sandwich place... you go where you want. When you tell everyone to stop doing business with them because someone that founded the company makes a legal political contribution using his own money to voice his own opinion in the political process... and your response is BURN THE HERETIC... yeah, that's a problem. You shop where you want. Don't however force the zoning commission to deny them a business license in the area or harass people that just want to get lunch. And both of those things happened.

That's well beyond you personally making choices. That's using collective action to punish opposing political views.

And again, I have no problem with that so long as it goes both ways. Which means I don't have to serve you if I don't feel like it. Freedom to refuse service, am I right?

Again, it has to go both ways or not at all. You want to have an opinion? Have any opinion you want. Its a free country. We're not talking about opinions. We're talking about financially ruining people that don't ascribe to your politics.

Not
The
Same
Thing.

And if you'll let me ruin your economic situation simply for pissing me off, then lets do it. Lets fuck ourselves over as fast as we possibly can by undermining everything.

4. As to hobgoblins, I see... it doesn't matter... then you clearly won't mind when we take the opposing position and permit businesses to deny service to customers on the basis of politics?

Hobgoblins indeed, sir.

5. As to things being tools and thus being right in one case rather than another... sure, and if we judge that to be what is in your interests versus someone else's then you are quiet correct.

The problem with these ideas is that you're weaponizing them. And that means you're incentivizing other people to do the same thing. And if you think you're the only one that can think of something nasty to do with the law... you are kidding yourself.

We can play fair and be honest about our positions or we can smear dark paints on our faces and play who is a better killer by moonlight.

You're forcing people to take an adversarial position towards you.

Re:Either have democracy or don't

[Karmashock]

Its not an extreme hyperbole. You're saying you want to turn everyone against everyone. You want us all to start denying service and not using the businesses of people that don't ascribe to the values of our tribe like a bunch of fucking primitives.

That you don't understand what you're doing is not surprising to me. That was in fact my point.

You do not know what you're doing. You're the baby with a hand grenade. And you're sucking on the pin.

As to you having no problem with people refusing service on ideological grounds. You would of course extend that to any professional relationship? You're going to either have to admit to hypocrisy on this or admit the boycott idea is destructive. There's one way out of the box you made for yourself. You can either leave through the door or sit in it.

As to you NOW saying you're against both. Excellent, so you agree with me that the boycotts are destructive and should not be encouraged.

High five.

As to even bigger hyperboles... actually segregating coffee shops racially is less of a hyperbole than the country being over. Also, we have existing examples of racial segregation. Typically against white people not for them... but technically the same thing. And as to the destructive nature of it... it doesn't really knit a community together when you're doing that sort of shit. So... yeah... basically the same thing in all ways that matter.

Re:Either have democracy or don't

[Karmashock]

Not in the sense of my comparison which was in the sense that people do not always tell you honestly what they believe.

You say that there are no marxists because there are no people that officially run under that title. My point is that people lie about what they believe all the time and it is extremely common in politics.

After all, think of the political speeches of ANY politician. Does the political opposition of any of these people think they are being entirely honest about those positions? They do not.

Which means your claim that there is only upfront frankness in politics is the statement of either a completely naive new born baby... or a fucking liar.

Which of the two are you? Are you literally a toddler? Because if you're not... you're completely full of shit.

Re:Either have democracy or don't

[Karmashock]

Fine. You get what you want... we put on dark colored paint and kill each other by moon light.

You can either let people alone and have their own opinions and leave the politics to the politics. Or you can start fucking with my apple sauce and that's going to mean retribution.

You clearly think you can manipulate the rules better than the opposition to such an extent that you're invulnerable. Well, have fun with that little dream, sweat heart.

Re:Either have democracy or don't

[Karmashock]

Nope. I just said that people misrepresent themselves when it is in their interest to do so. I gave the example of David Duke who is doing that right now by saying he isn't a white supremacist. We have a lot of other examples of politicians lying about their leanings and affiliations and goals.

For you to be right, they'd have to be honest consistently even when it is against their interest to be honest. I have no reason to believe in that.

As to conspiracies... Was Julius Caesar assassinated in the Roman Senate? So conspiracies exist. Have coup d'états happened? So conspiracies exist. Have there been revolutions? So conspiracies exist. Do you think there are special interests in politics where deals are cut in secret to see that bills are passed, loopholes included, etc etc etc? Then what the fuck do we call that?

Your position is a fallacy. Your argument is a reductio ad absurdum.

Re:Either have democracy or don't

[Karmashock]

I didn't say that socialism and communism are the same thing. So that was a strawman.

As to saying that there is not a connection between marxism and socialism doesn't pass the laugh test.

We can have a real discussion about this if you want. You tell me if that's what you want to do. Absent an affirmative I'll just assume you're shit posting.

Re: Either have democracy or don't

[Karmashock]

Well, I don't think right and left are useful and I do think they're vague concepts no matter how you look at them.

However, I find that marxist derrived is highly predictive as to whether things are labeled left and not marxist derrived is highly predictive for things being labeled right. As such, I see those two terms in that context. The one being marxist and the other being something not marxist.

This serves the interests of marxists because they morally tilt right and left to be up and down morally... where in the more marxist you are the more moral you are and the less marxist you are the less moral you are. That is the value of the linear scale. You can set up a false dichotomy and then get people to compete for high moral virtue by agreeing with an ideology they don't especially understand because the more you agree with it the more moral you are in this paradigm.

I reject the paradigm entirely... see the marxism for the marxism. And instead I want to argue everything on an issue by issue basis from base principles because if you don't do that all the choices tend to be pre-scripted tribalistic answers that don't especially mean what anyone thinks they mean.

When you are offered two choices by a rival and you don't like either option... Create a third option.

Re:Either have democracy or don't

[Karmashock]

It isn't. I explained why it wasn't. You need to explain why it is to rebut not merely contradict my conclusion.

Pointblank.

As to the rest of your post... its just obvious rhetorical obtuseness blended with sophistry. So I'm not much moved to engage with you intellectually when you're clearly just squirting ink in the water. You can engage with me if you want. But its not going to be you sniping at me and running away. I will close and grapple.

Re:Either have democracy or don't

[Karmashock]

Which group did I cite as being consistently honest?

I love watching you guys paint yourselves into corners.

Re:Either have democracy or don't

[Karmashock]

... so you don't understand hierarchical category structures? Do you know that both cars and trucks are automobiles? Do you know that both space ships and dildos are human artifacts? The irony of you starting off saying "don't be stupid" and then you basically confess that you don't know what a hierarchical category structure is... *sigh*

What do I expect from ACs... Need to be better about just ignoring ACs in general... wasting my time.

Re:Either have democracy or don't

[Karmashock]

I did a search for Trump and Cruz's name... did not get a hit.
I did a search for conservative... did not get a hit.

Please quote specifically what I said that suggested that a given group or entity is always honest.

You're in a corner... and you're fucked. Take what is left of your integrity and admit it.

Re:Either have democracy or don't

[Karmashock]

You say that while effectively conceding that you had no argument, cannot produce a citation to back up your claim, and are at this point a liar.

You lose.

*takes all the internet argument chips, laughs at you, and leaves the table*

Re:Sick of the erosion of our Bill of Rights!

[x0ra]

You pretty much summarized Trump's message. ENOUGH !

Re:I signed a letter too...

[x0ra]

...telling them to keep him. Cruz fucks Hilary and Bernie....Stalin and Moussolini of the modern age.

FTFY.

What the fuck?

[Okian Warrior]

So Trump attempting to ban minorities by seeking the highest office of the free world and riling up mobs until they start beating up said minorities = "He has a right to speak!"

What the fuck?

He hasn't done any of that!

Re:What the fuck?

[Idou]

So Trump attempting to ban minorities by seeking the highest office of the free world and riling up mobs until they start beating up said minorities = "He has a right to speak!"

What the fuck? He hasn't done any of that!

Donald Trump on Muslims: 'They're not coming to this country if I'm president
Donald Trump on protester: 'I'd like to punch him in the face'
Trump supporter charged after sucker-punching protester at North Carolina rally

What the fuck? Ya' live in a cave!?

Re:What the fuck?

[sumdumass]

Way to completely lose all perspective and conflate crap to fit your own desires.

Re:What the fuck?

[AchilleTalon]

Don't you see the irony in your own comment?

Re:What the fuck?

[AchilleTalon]

First of all, in all cases about Mexicans and South Americans, Trump has talked about illegal immigrants. Don't miss the illegal before the immigrants. Every country is actually expulsing illegal immigrants, even the Obama administration is doing it. Since nothing has actually worked to control illegal immigration, Trump is proposing something else and engaged Mexico's responsability in that.

Second, the ban on Muslims is a temporary measure and what actual right should someone have to actually immigrate in USA? Once you are an American citizen you are protected by the USA Constitution, but until you are, what the fuck?

Third, what's the point of protesters to invest Trump's rallies and try to prevent him to address his supporters? This is a bullying attitude in very first place from the protesters. I would like to see Bernie and Hillary being treat the same way just to see their very reaction and the reaction of their own supporters for fun.

Re:What the fuck?

[KGIII]

Umm... So, I cheated and looked. None of those say any of the things you claimed. There's no banning Muslims or Mexicans in any of that. In fact, now that I've looked, I'm rather inclined to disbelieve your further utterances.

Re:What the fuck?

[ganjadude]

context - look it up

Re:What the fuck?

[Grishnakh]

And how is any of this worse than what Cruz advocates?

Why all the hate for Trump, but Cruz gets a free pass from the liberals?

Re:What the fuck?

[rhazz]

I have no idea what Cruz advocates. Given that people aren't up in arms about him, I'll assume he's pretty much the status quo. Does Cruz have a personal product line on Amazon? Not sure where you're going with this.

Re:What the fuck?

[rhazz]

Wow, you just described EXACTLY what most democrats do.

I stopped reading there. Get your head out of your ass and focus on the arguments people are presenting and not the group you think they represent.

Re:What the fuck?

[Grishnakh]

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Re: What the fuck?

[KGIII]

I think you are. Banning means kicking them out. He's only talking about kicking those who are here illegally out. If they're here legally, there's shit all he can do about it. He can, on the other hand, bar further entrance.

Same thing with the wall rhetoric. He wants to get rid of the illegals here already. He's not building a wall without doors - he's building a wall to stop *illegal* entry. Well no, he's not building a wall at all but we'll assume his rhetoric is real.

Those are a far cry from what people have insisted he means. He's said nothing of the sort. You can "read between the lines" and read anything you want. How about we only judge based on facts? Intuition, hunches, etc? They're not really valid.

Don't get me wrong, he's an idiot and there's zero chance that I'll vote for him. Well, there's one possibility... If Sanders runs and picks Trump as his VP then I'll vote for him - hands down. Trump can keep the idiots amused and Sanders can try to get shit done. I might even vote for it if the roles were switched. Might... Like I said, there's zero chance.

Re: What the fuck?

[KGIII]

He can talk about it until he's blue in the face, if they're here legally then he can't ban them.

Re:What the fuck?

[Coren22]

FYI, punching someone who spits on you is in many places considered a measured response. If someone spits on you, that is an assault, in cases of assault, you are within your rights to defend yourself. The 70 year old man will win out in that case, it is just a matter of time for the case to be heard.

Being caught on film spitting on a 70 year old man is not too wise.

Re:What the fuck?

[mgcarley]

FWIW, non-citizens are also protected by the constitution while under US jurisdiction (i.e. on US soil).

intolerance or lobbying?

[DavidMZ]

There is no more liberal intolerance (which is semantically speaking an interesting oxymoron) than there is conservative intolerance. Political ideas tend to be very polarizing and people are using the tools available to them to promote their ideas or block the opponents'; in other words, to lobby.

They are not calling for a ban on Trump's line of products: the decision to sell the product or not lies with amazon. They are making it sound like a moral choice, but at the end of the day it will be a business decision.

Re:intolerance or lobbying?

[jedidiah]

Liberals do tend to be more eager to suppress politically relevant speech. They will censor you and then smugly declare it was all for the greater good. They don't like being contradicted and especially can't handle being contradicted in a competent fashion.

Re: Trump's Wearhouse tagline...

[basecastula]

My favorite piece from that wiki "Zimmer's experience caring for his mother, who died of cancer, led him to support research into the therapeutic use of MDMA,[13] and for his efforts to legalize cannabis (for instance, by making donations equaling $170,500 to support California's Proposition 19 in 2010).[14][15] He is a member of the Democratic Party"

More people care to save an Ass than to ban Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

More than 13,000 Amazon customers (including upwards of 5,000 Amazon Prime subscribers), have signed a letter to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos calling for the company to stop selling Trump's line of menswear.

Who gives a shit. At the time of this writing 14,131 gamers have signed a petition on a letter to Activision-Blizzard to get them to remove "guns" from the game Overwatch, Because, guns are offensive, that's why! A lone SJW bitched about a pose of "Tracer" being "sexist" since she turned her back towards the camera. Having a rear end on a character is now sexist (I thought both sexes had asses). Blizzard removed the "butt pose", and so we think they should remove all the other offensive things in the game, most offensive of all is Guns. Hey, if one complaint gets an ass removed, then 14K people should get some guns removed from the shooter game, eh?

I'm sorry, if there are more people willing to troll a game company to make a point about censoring games, it makes this leftist hit-piece laughable in comparison. Authoritarian "stop selling what we don't buy" fuckheads are going to have to step up their game. I don't even support Trump, but censorious shit like this disgusts me, and that's the last straw. Fine, I'm fucking voting for Trump. I'd be a fool not to vote for anyone who pisses off the Cry Bullies so much, if only for entertainment potential alone, it will be worth it.

Stay salty, butthurt bitches.

Re: Trump's Wearhouse tagline...

[TechyImmigrant]

Their board also railroaded their founder and fired him three years ago.

I didn't know that. But it fits. MW used to be good. Circa 15-10 years ago I could go in and someone with a clue would find a suit that was close to fitting and them a person who knew how to alter clothing (at my local store a 70ish year old woman from Eastern Europe) would come from out back, prod, pull and mark. 1 week later the perfectly fitting suit would be ready.

On my last visit last year it was staffed with sullen teenagers who knew nothing and there was no tailor handy.

I Own a Donald Trump Shirt.

[TechyImmigrant]

I don't think my neck is all that odd, but two years ago in Las Vegas, the only shirt in TJ Max with my neck size was branded by none other than Donald Trump.

So I now have a Donald Trump shirt. Maybe I could auction it to Trump supporters on Ebay.

Re:Pathetic.

[x0ra]

of course, they haven't been taught what it was about to be a real man...

Oh great...

[NoMaster]

Great. Now where will I buy my workclothes?

I'm not sure the kids will recognise me with just the balloon animals and little tricycle...

This is wrong

[m76]

A retailer shouldn't allow politics into what items they sell. They must allow everything to be sold as long as it is legal to sell. Everything else is pure nonsense, and it has no place in the marketplace. Product censorship is censorship nonetheless.

Re:This is wrong

[david_thornley]

You're saying that retailers should be compelled to sell anything legal? That they shouldn't be allowed to pick and choose? Or are you saying retailers shouldn't pay attention to customer demand? I'm having trouble understanding you.

Re:This is wrong

[m76]

You're saying that retailers should be compelled to sell anything legal? That they shouldn't be allowed to pick and choose? Or are you saying retailers shouldn't pay attention to customer demand? I'm having trouble understanding you.

I'm not saying that at all. I don't even know how you got that twisted notion. Are you trying to strawman me? Retailers should not be compelled to stop selling something, because it hurts someone's feelings.

Customer demand is when you want to buy something.
If some customers demands the retailer to "not sell" something, then they absolutely should not listen. What about the other customers who want to buy the product? This type of demand is clearly a despicable selfish thing, which serves no other purpose than to make some SJW feel better about themselves.

Re:This is wrong

[david_thornley]

Good news for you: nobody is compelling Amazon to do anything. Some customers are using their free speech rights to ask that Amazon stop selling something. This happens all the time in small retail: you don't want to sell something that will offend your customers too much. Back in the day, although porn was highly profitable in bookstores that sold it, most stores wouldn't handle it. Same principle. If you're going to be offended at customers wanting stores not to sell something, you're doomed to be offended all over the place.

Re: Trump's Wearhouse tagline...

[Salgak1]

I beg to differ. 25 years ago, I was getting bespoke suits (and uniforms as well) from a tailor in South Korea. They were less expensive than off-the-rack in the US, and of higher quality (in fact, I still own them. Can't FIT in them anymore, but they're in the closet. . . ).

And with the rise of automation and computer-aided manufacturing, a bespoke suit that fits perfectly may be available locally relatively soon. . . with rapid delivery, and low cost.

Seriously?

[wkwilley2]

Point blank. Amazon is a business and businesses have to make money in order to stay a business.

There are lots of items that Amazon sells that I would never personally buy, but that's my choice and I have no right to think I can deny someone else the right to buy something.

That's just bullshit.

Speaking of dubious revenues

[ThatsNotPudding]

Is anyone else also not able to Disable Advertising on Slashdot now? To paraphrase Rainier Wolfcastle, "The checkbox, it does nothing!"

Arrogant little jerk.

[sabbede]

I don't like Trump, but I'm not going to get a bug up my ass about it and force everyone to accept my beliefs. What's so special about this UltraViolet ass that he gets to tell everyone what to buy or sell? He's just another arrogant loudmouth, same as Trump.

Re:No one is forced to listen to him or buy his st

[hey!]

Actually in the case of Trump, research offers some insights. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...">Narcissists often take over leaderless/rudderless groups. Their relentless self-absorption provides a focus to a group that has lost its way. However people tend to become disenchanted with narcissists once they get to know them.

So the Trump phenomenon represents a loss in faith in the Republican party's leadership, and a test of that leadership's ability to convince the base it knows what it's doing.

On the Democratic side you have a mirror phenomenon with Bernie Sanders. Although Sanders does not display the personal self-aggrandizement you'd expect from a narcissist, his single-minded fixation on the billionaire class provides a similar focus for loyalists who feel the party has lost its way. That's infuriating to Democrats who are basically happy with the pragmatic center-left orientation of the party.

I suspect this is what you get in a two-party system where the parties have fought themselves to a stalemate. When neither party can deliver much to it's most ardent supporters, they start casting around for drastic medicine.

I'm not on board.

[hey!]

I think Trump's a dangerous, psychologically disturbed demagogue. But I have no problem with him selling suits.

It's ironic though; Trump himself is a terrible advertisement for his clothing line. He wears superb $10,000 suits, but he wears them wrong. Ever notice how in a Bond movie whenever 007 gets out of a car he buttons his suit? That's because Bond is a snob about doing things right: when you sit you unbutton the jacket; when you rise you button it except for the bottom button (and the top in a two-and-a-half button suit).

Trump walks around with his jacket unbuttoned -- like a guy who's gained weight and hasn't got around to getting a new suit yet. That reveals that he likes to wear ties that are waaay too long, it makes him look like a middle-school kid who's raided dad's closet. I like his bold color choices, but it's too much. If you want to show off a long tie, you wear a two button suit and give people a flash of the tip now and then, although I don't care for that myself.

If you want to model your wardrobe on a Republican politician, Rubio's your man. Yes, he's a fatuous ass, but he doesn't dress like one.

Re:I'm not on board.

[Not-a-Neg]

This just makes me want to vote for Trump even more knowing that he is being himself and not putting on a fake facade to trick people. Honesty is so rare these days, Trump is quite refreshing.

Re: I'm not on board.

[hey!]

Well, I was talking about buying his fashion, not his politics. However his style seems more fake, more calculated to make a specific phony impression than simply wearing his suits correctly would. You see, a true shlub wears off the rack suits, because he has to wear one, because that's the most he can be bothered with. That's authentic. So is the guy who wears a ridiculous ascot because dressing that way makes him happy.

Trump manages to be both fussy and frumpy at the same time, and clearly that's a choice he's made to convey a specific impression.

It reminds me of people who write their own wedding vows. I'm not against that in principle, but the gist of those vows too often turns out to be how much more special they are than ordinary people. That's not only in very poor taste, it's naÃve and paintings embarrassing to watch. You're expected to feel that way on your wedding day, but it's a lot classier to show it by doing things the usual way, only better.

Re Don't you see the irony

[drainbramage]

He doesn't, he's a liberal.
Can he do the math on Sanders economy?
No, math is hard, besides, math isn't liberal. it keeps following the same rules.

Re:No one is forced to listen to him or buy his st

[houghi]

In Europe we would handle this with protest parties. e.g. Kabouter Partij (Gnome party) that will go for only one goal or a minimal amount of goals.
They will see that certain things are not shoved under the table and handled. I understand that it is hard to grasp how this might work if they do not have the absolute majority, but in a multi party system this works (no, it is not perfect either).

With the multiparty what you hopefully get is that they don't do something because the others want it. In reality you get a differnce in wording for both parties, because they are basically the same. The differences are juste makeup.

Trump trumps himself

[fyngyrz]

maybe the consequence of your never shutting the fuck up is the masses get pissed off, swing violently against you and Trump gets elected.

The masses, by which I specifically mean a majority of voters and potential voters, show no indication of this at all. On the contrary, Trump is disliked and deemed unacceptable by a very large majority of those same people; unless that can be turned around, something there is also no indication of, the man is outright not electable.

The fact that a majority of voters in the Republican primary might prefer the man notwithstanding, that's not anywhere near enough to result in his election. He also has to convince the rest of the Republicans, and the swing voters or some equivalent swatch of Democrats. Again: There is no indication of this at all.

To put it another way, 51% of Republicans liking a candidate will get them through the primary quite handily; it will not in any way suffice in and of itself to see that candidate through to elected office.

...and as of today, it doesn't even look like he'll reach 51%.

In fact, again as of today, his ultimate contribution to the process has every indication of serving as a near-guarantee that we will have another four years of a presidency sourced from within the Democratic party.

Re:Trump trumps himself

[david_thornley]

I see no evidence that a majority of people voting in Republican primaries and attending Republican caucuses support Trump. If they did, you'd expect him to be on track to have the majority of the delegates, and he isn't. The impression I get is that the majority of Republicans are against him, but not an overwhelming majority.

Not a democracy...

[fyngyrz]

That's what a democracy is

Um. Yes. However, the overriding form of government is that of a constitutional republic; that's a form where the elected representatives make the laws, not the direct democratic vote of the people.

Further, the constitution guarantees a republican form of government to the states (see article IV, section 4, first assertion.)

It seems to me that "proposition anything" within the form that California currently enables is a violation of the very idea of a republican form of government. I strongly suspect that a supreme court actually reading the intent of the framers would rule out the very idea.

Just my opinion.

Re:Not a democracy...

[david_thornley]

A republic is a state without a hereditary monarch. A democracy is a state where the people, directly or indirectly, control what's going on.

Re:Not a democracy...

[AK Marc]

It's a democracy, as the people have a vote in the lawmakers. It's a representative democracy because the people don't make the laws themselves. It's a Republic because it doesn't have a monarch. It's a constitutional democracy because there is a constitution that lays out the framework on which the government functions, which "consititional" is a weak term because many constitutional monarchies don't have a constitution.

Answer to your question

[fyngyrz]

when did left/right partisan hackery become 5, Insightful?

That happened in 1997, when "moderation" was deemed to be "whatever some random person wants to do to a post" by Rob Malda and Jeff Bates.

No need to thank me, glad to be of service.

I'm not quite dead. Think I'll go for a walk...

[fyngyrz]

Probably not. He's been dead for quite a while now.

I see you haven't kept up with film technology.

Brand of hate

[jodido]

The petitioners oppose what they call Trump's "brand of hate"--perhaps there's a brand of hate they don't oppose? Hate has gotten a bad name, from liberals. Why is hate bad? I hate a lot of things. I hate racism, I hate police brutality, I hate the waste of lives in the society we live in. Am I a bad person for "hating"?

What Amazon Customers Really Wanted

[AnalogDiehard]

Trump is funding his campaign with his own money. The objective of the Amazon Customers who signed the letter is to cut off his supply .

The boisterous left are getting crafty but they are also p!ssing off voters with their tactics (not just with Trump) so bad that they will support Trump just to spite them.

Dump Che Guevara

[RogueWarrior65]

Right... just as soon as they get rid of the 21,238 results for "Che Guevara"

Man-Swear?

[Plumpaquatsch]

Curses!

Re: Trump's Wearhouse tagline...

[jedidiah]

As a simple matter of random chance, it has to be possible for someone to look good in an off the rack suit. Just because you obviously can't doesn't mean that it's impossible.

You're just jealous that a freak like me can wear a cheap suit from the Mall and look better than you when you're blowing all kinds of money trying.

Although bearing makes up for a lot regardless of what you are wearing. Some of us have it and some of us clearly don't. '-p

Re:No one is forced to listen to him or buy his st

[Grishnakh]

Absolutely. And the Hillary supporters are really making clear their disdain for the working class by their actions and their anti-Bernie rhetoric.

Re: Trump's Wearhouse tagline...

[TechyImmigrant]

Bespoke is nice, but I was not in South Korea and OTS + alter is just fine. The cost of a plane ticket across the pacific undermines the benefits of a cheap bespoke suit abroad.

I agree, automation may come.