I also care about democracy. I hope that in the future, the DNC doesn't collude with the mainstream media to destroy any real chances of a third-party in this country.
Since they haven't apologized to the American public for doing so and instead keep doubling-down on emotional rhetoric, I don't want them anywhere near the white house.
I really hate Trump. But I hate that you pushed me to vote for him because the alternative meant that this politically correct toxic culture would continue to saturate all parts of our society.
I support resistance. The resistance against the anti-fascists who are beating people up in our streets and threatening someone with violence for speaking their mind. If their idea is ridiculous, have a civil debate and stop using violence in an attempt to win an argument.
What a nonsense - the violence has been minimal, and no more than the usual violent idiots you get in any situation, from any group.
Also, I would buy you not wanting to vote for a DNC candidate because of the way they handle their primaries or whatever, sure. The idea you'd be willing to vote for a GOP candidate after their blatent disregard for the public, truth and democracy is laughable.
If you are claiming you want to punish the DNC by withholding your vote from them, sure, fine. Rewarding the GOP for the way they acted? A joke. Completely undermines your point.
This just reads like so many of the comments I've read recently - focusing on the very small negatives of 'the left' while completely ignoring the huge issues from 'the right'. It's such a nonsense.
I think violence is only a pretty fringe part of the movement. It's like KKK members who support Trump. They definitely exist but they are a very small percentage of his actual supporters
There it is; they were "pushed" to vote for him.
What do you say about someone who decides instead of incrementally fixing a problem with discipline and superior solutions and consensus, instead decides to spin the wheel with an unknown, likely setting decades of labor and institutions on fire, when vulnerable real lives are at stake.
Exactly how an immature child behaves, flipping the game board, without regard for anyone else.
And all that horrible "politically correctness", aka having manners and respecting others regardless of your own bad upbringing, racism, prejudices, and ignorance; actually demonstrating their own emotional limitations and refusal to evolve.
GOP leader calling for a Kent State again; is that what you mean? The violence is on both sides, a small minority and you know it.
I'm surprised a company would take such a rash action not particularly based on facts. Did the executive order mention Muslims in any regard? Did the executive order ban countries where the majority of Muslims immigrate from? Did the executive order ban all countries with a majority Muslim population?
This highlights the importance of open source and distributed architectures for these social tools we depend on. I have no choice but to use a tool and support a company taking a terrible political stance in order to attend programming and hiking meetups I'm interested in.
Noticed there's nothing for New Zealand so I impulsively requested one. If anything positive could come out of 2016, it's renewed civic responsibility.
This is a great example of a tech company stepping up to create space for political action in a way that doesn't silence anyone and brings people together. Bravo!
The email advertising this movement repeated false claims about the government banning people on the basis of religion. Spreading hysteria and fear and inaccurate facts is not the way to win the argument.
Is this the line you're referencing? "But after the recent executive order aimed to block people on the
basis of nationality and religion, a line was crossed."
How are these false claims? The executive order directly mentions religious grounds and allows "minority religions" in the 7 listed majority Muslim countries to be allowed in while prohibiting the rest.
I read it and I believe your interpretation is false.
It DOES NOT allow minority religions in while excluding the rest.
It does instructs the applicable departments to simply prioritize people facing religious persecution. Prioritizing people through the safety checks and paperwork who are at the most risk should be the EXACT purpose of a refugee program with a humanitarian basis to it.
Not specifically religious persecution -- it's if you're part of a 'minority religion.' Which seems silly to me. Yes, assessing their level of danger should be part of any vetting and prioritization, but it should be an overall thing. If a person is in more danger (due to political ties, or maybe they helped US forces) than someone who's in a minority religion but otherwise safe, shouldn't the first person have priority?
It's good to go about helping the most vulnerable people. Unfortunately, the proposed methodology in the EO was ham-handed at best, and unconstitutional at worst.
I think there's fair room for critiques on this implementation and their methodology for selecting priority.
If more than a small number of protesters brought up these kinds of rational arguments, I think many on the right would be far more receptive to seriously listening.
Instead, you hear about a "Muslim ban" and people calling Trump literally Hitler and most people on the right are sick and tired of these kinds of arguments and aren't going to be receptive.
Since they haven't apologized to the American public for doing so and instead keep doubling-down on emotional rhetoric, I don't want them anywhere near the white house.
I really hate Trump. But I hate that you pushed me to vote for him because the alternative meant that this politically correct toxic culture would continue to saturate all parts of our society.
I support resistance. The resistance against the anti-fascists who are beating people up in our streets and threatening someone with violence for speaking their mind. If their idea is ridiculous, have a civil debate and stop using violence in an attempt to win an argument.