Are you denying that he asked supporters to use their Second Amendment rights to stop Clinton? That he explicitly never agreed to accept the outcome of the election if he lost? That he said the elections were rigged? Some of us listened to what Trump said, and expected violence after Election Day if Trump lost.
I can compare anyone I like to Hitler. In the case of Trump, I noticed more disturbing similarities than I usually do, including references to violence and an irrational appeal.
Is it that horribly difficult to just write nothing on Facebook you wouldn't want any other person reading? I trust Facebook privacy settings less than I trust Trump's campaign promises, and I write accordingly. I've been called various things (including "black propagandist" - oooh), but nobody in law enforcement has ever talked to me over a post anywhere.
You're talking about people who deliberately broke the law. People who are negligent in handling classified information do not get criminally prosecuted for it. That seems to be the dividing line: intent vs. negligence. You may not agree with that, but in fact filing felony charges for what Clinton did would be unprecedented.
Legally, I think they're both protected speech, but I'd be much more likely to get a Secret Service visit from the former.
I never got the personal impression that the "Clinton for Prison" people really cared that much about due process, including the presumption of innocence and right to defend oneself.
Nuclear weapons are useless for anything except deterring a lethal attack. When Argentina invaded the Falklands/Malvinas in 1982, nobody I read seemed to even think about the British nuclear weapons.
In other words, part of the problem is that people don't lie down and take it without fighting back.
Conservatives have been pushy, rude, mean, dismissive, derisive, vicious, prejudiced, close-minded jerks to gays, and indeed they've been much worse than that to gays. Many of them still are. Everything you've said about gay rights supporters has applied to those conservatives, but more intensely. I haven't heard gays discuss torturing people to get the homophobia out. I haven't heard them saying that conservatives shouldn't marry who they love, or that they should be imprisoned. Traditionally, gay-bashing means going around and finding gays to physically beat up, while conservative-bashing is saying unkind things about them. I find it unrealistic to expect a long-vilified group to suddenly be all peace and love towards those who vilified it.
King was a truly exceptional person. It would be really nice if everyone could live up to his standard, but it's stupid to expect people to.
Is the OP's girlfriend here illegally? Walking up to someone who's in the country legally and telling them to go home is rude at best.
Personally, I'd like to see illegal immigration curbed in some ways, to start with putting teeth into the law and enforcement for requiring employers to get proof of right to legally work before employing someone. However, I'm happy with people of different religions and ethnicities coming to the US legally. We've gotten a lot of mileage out of diversity.
The users can't make Twitter do something. The shareholders basically can't either. The problem with objecting to restricting freedom of speech website by website is that you're walking up to individual website operators and telling them what sort of stuff they have to do, even if they think it will lose them business. If you don't like Twitter's policies, don't use it. Find some social media site you like better. If Twitter loses enough business to Insulter, it will either change its practices or go under, just like a market is supposed to work.
And no, people on the right are not in "right wing echo chambers." You can't be in a right-wing echo chamber because the entire culture is left wing, the TV media is left wing, and your friends on facebook are spamming those same HuffPo articles.
The culture varies. Talk radio is right-wing. My friends on Facebook spam some Breitbart articles, and from similarly dubious right-wing sources. There are echo chambers all over the political space, and people dedicated to them usually consider that they're in a bubble of truth that isn't an echo chamber.
So Trump isn't a fascist because he hasn't yet done anything fascist as President? By that reasoning, Hitler had nothing to do with fascism until appointed Chancellor. I don't know as much about Mussolini's career, but I suspect that at some time he hadn't attained power yet, and was therefore, according to you, not a Fascist.
the filth that has been RIOTING because they won't accept the election results, right
You know, if Trump hadn't suggested using Second Amendment rights against Clinton, and had said he'd accept the results of the election, I might actually pay attention to your complaints. Any anti-Trump rioters are basically doing what Trump suggested.
And just remember--if you silence *me* today, you're establishing a precedent for someone to silence *you* tomorrow.
So, you say that newspapers should have printed all letters to the editor sent in without change? Radio stations must allow everyone some air time for whatever you want? That's the equivalent as of, say, forty years ago.
Twitter is a highly successful private enterprise that wants to provide certain services to its customer base. I don't think this is a radical-left sort of thing. You, on the other hand, seem to think a private enterprise should be forced to do as you like.
Two different things. Twitter is not talking about breaking antidiscrimination laws. A better analogy: should a baker be forced to write things on cakes that they find extremely offensive?
Okay, so I start a social media site, keep certain standards, get it popular and growing, and then at a certain point the government says I can't maintain my standards, so my carefully built-up customer base doesn't like my site any more and goes away? If they give me full financial compensation, that may be reasonable for me, but what about my former users? They're out a system that they liked.
The government has an interest in how, in general, business is conducted. You have no duty to bake a cake for a party following a same-sex wedding. If you are in the business of baking wedding cakes, however, you are subject to rules on how to run a business, and that includes not discriminating against same-sex weddings (at least in some states).
The compelling state interest is that people should be able to do business as long as they behave.
"Refuse to bake a cake" means "run an Internet harassment campaign".
"Law and order" always means imposed order, never law.
"Locker room talk" means "confession of sexual assault".
"Freedom of religion" means many things, including "being an asshole to people who are different" and "spend money on Christian things".
If I cared, I could add more, but this should be good for a start.
The average Trump voted didn't seem to realize that voting for Trump is not going to help him buy a house, raise a family, and retire. Trump is a known liar, and is also known for screwing the little guy.
You seem to have a much more favorable view of Putin than I do.
There is evidence that Trump has likely unsavory connections with Putin, but Trump supporters don't seem to have cared. It would have been real nice to get that thrashed out during the campaign. Clearly, Trump would have been elected if he were indeed a Putin puppet.
As a Democrat (most of the time), it isn't clear to me that bribery was going on, and, if so, none of it is binding and there are no secret liabilities. Bribes don't work that way.
The US GDP, last year I have a handy reference for, was less than $17T. Divide that by $7G and you have something under 30K early deaths wiping out the whole GDP.
That doesn't put the power entirely in the hands of the establishment. Trump can get awfully stubborn, and he has the actual power. It'll be interesting and I hope not catastrophic.
Actually, I dropped the argument because it was going nowhere.
If Islamist ideology were inherent in Islam, we would see it in all devout Muslims, and we don't. Lots of them are reasonable, and only want to get along without imposing their views on others. We would see it in all periods of history, and we don't.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you denying that he asked supporters to use their Second Amendment rights to stop Clinton? That he explicitly never agreed to accept the outcome of the election if he lost? That he said the elections were rigged? Some of us listened to what Trump said, and expected violence after Election Day if Trump lost.
I can compare anyone I like to Hitler. In the case of Trump, I noticed more disturbing similarities than I usually do, including references to violence and an irrational appeal.
Is it that horribly difficult to just write nothing on Facebook you wouldn't want any other person reading? I trust Facebook privacy settings less than I trust Trump's campaign promises, and I write accordingly. I've been called various things (including "black propagandist" - oooh), but nobody in law enforcement has ever talked to me over a post anywhere.
You're talking about people who deliberately broke the law. People who are negligent in handling classified information do not get criminally prosecuted for it. That seems to be the dividing line: intent vs. negligence. You may not agree with that, but in fact filing felony charges for what Clinton did would be unprecedented.
Legally, I think they're both protected speech, but I'd be much more likely to get a Secret Service visit from the former.
I never got the personal impression that the "Clinton for Prison" people really cared that much about due process, including the presumption of innocence and right to defend oneself.
Nuclear weapons are useless for anything except deterring a lethal attack. When Argentina invaded the Falklands/Malvinas in 1982, nobody I read seemed to even think about the British nuclear weapons.
In other words, part of the problem is that people don't lie down and take it without fighting back.
Conservatives have been pushy, rude, mean, dismissive, derisive, vicious, prejudiced, close-minded jerks to gays, and indeed they've been much worse than that to gays. Many of them still are. Everything you've said about gay rights supporters has applied to those conservatives, but more intensely. I haven't heard gays discuss torturing people to get the homophobia out. I haven't heard them saying that conservatives shouldn't marry who they love, or that they should be imprisoned. Traditionally, gay-bashing means going around and finding gays to physically beat up, while conservative-bashing is saying unkind things about them. I find it unrealistic to expect a long-vilified group to suddenly be all peace and love towards those who vilified it.
King was a truly exceptional person. It would be really nice if everyone could live up to his standard, but it's stupid to expect people to.
Is the OP's girlfriend here illegally? Walking up to someone who's in the country legally and telling them to go home is rude at best.
Personally, I'd like to see illegal immigration curbed in some ways, to start with putting teeth into the law and enforcement for requiring employers to get proof of right to legally work before employing someone. However, I'm happy with people of different religions and ethnicities coming to the US legally. We've gotten a lot of mileage out of diversity.
The users can't make Twitter do something. The shareholders basically can't either. The problem with objecting to restricting freedom of speech website by website is that you're walking up to individual website operators and telling them what sort of stuff they have to do, even if they think it will lose them business. If you don't like Twitter's policies, don't use it. Find some social media site you like better. If Twitter loses enough business to Insulter, it will either change its practices or go under, just like a market is supposed to work.
The culture varies. Talk radio is right-wing. My friends on Facebook spam some Breitbart articles, and from similarly dubious right-wing sources. There are echo chambers all over the political space, and people dedicated to them usually consider that they're in a bubble of truth that isn't an echo chamber.
So Trump isn't a fascist because he hasn't yet done anything fascist as President? By that reasoning, Hitler had nothing to do with fascism until appointed Chancellor. I don't know as much about Mussolini's career, but I suspect that at some time he hadn't attained power yet, and was therefore, according to you, not a Fascist.
You know, if Trump hadn't suggested using Second Amendment rights against Clinton, and had said he'd accept the results of the election, I might actually pay attention to your complaints. Any anti-Trump rioters are basically doing what Trump suggested.
So, you say that newspapers should have printed all letters to the editor sent in without change? Radio stations must allow everyone some air time for whatever you want? That's the equivalent as of, say, forty years ago.
Twitter is a highly successful private enterprise that wants to provide certain services to its customer base. I don't think this is a radical-left sort of thing. You, on the other hand, seem to think a private enterprise should be forced to do as you like.
Two different things. Twitter is not talking about breaking antidiscrimination laws. A better analogy: should a baker be forced to write things on cakes that they find extremely offensive?
Okay, so I start a social media site, keep certain standards, get it popular and growing, and then at a certain point the government says I can't maintain my standards, so my carefully built-up customer base doesn't like my site any more and goes away? If they give me full financial compensation, that may be reasonable for me, but what about my former users? They're out a system that they liked.
The government has an interest in how, in general, business is conducted. You have no duty to bake a cake for a party following a same-sex wedding. If you are in the business of baking wedding cakes, however, you are subject to rules on how to run a business, and that includes not discriminating against same-sex weddings (at least in some states).
The compelling state interest is that people should be able to do business as long as they behave.
Ah, let's see what I can get on the other side.
"Refuse to bake a cake" means "run an Internet harassment campaign".
"Law and order" always means imposed order, never law.
"Locker room talk" means "confession of sexual assault".
"Freedom of religion" means many things, including "being an asshole to people who are different" and "spend money on Christian things".
If I cared, I could add more, but this should be good for a start.
The average Trump voted didn't seem to realize that voting for Trump is not going to help him buy a house, raise a family, and retire. Trump is a known liar, and is also known for screwing the little guy.
You seem to have a much more favorable view of Putin than I do.
There is evidence that Trump has likely unsavory connections with Putin, but Trump supporters don't seem to have cared. It would have been real nice to get that thrashed out during the campaign. Clearly, Trump would have been elected if he were indeed a Putin puppet.
As a Democrat (most of the time), it isn't clear to me that bribery was going on, and, if so, none of it is binding and there are no secret liabilities. Bribes don't work that way.
Conservativism is a better defined concept in societies. I do agree that the modern Republicans are not conservative in the US sense.
The US GDP, last year I have a handy reference for, was less than $17T. Divide that by $7G and you have something under 30K early deaths wiping out the whole GDP.
That doesn't put the power entirely in the hands of the establishment. Trump can get awfully stubborn, and he has the actual power. It'll be interesting and I hope not catastrophic.
IIRC, 10 Pro did come with upgrade rights to 7. There was a typo in the official literature, where it said "downgrade".
Actually, I dropped the argument because it was going nowhere.
If Islamist ideology were inherent in Islam, we would see it in all devout Muslims, and we don't. Lots of them are reasonable, and only want to get along without imposing their views on others. We would see it in all periods of history, and we don't.