OleRodrigo wrote: » It seems to me that societies remain healthy with a mix of conservative and liberal policies. Right now the pendulum is swing back to conservatism, until some of the problems of liberalism ( or neo-lberalism ) have been addressed. It will then probably swing back again. That liberals are taking so much offense with this is astonishing.
Hank Scorpio wrote: » One side during the election were extremely violent and continue to be so, and it wasn't Trump supporters The radical alt left terrorists like antifa need to be labeled as such
open_minded wrote: » Liberals certainly seem to have very few arrows in their armoury. They resort to name calling and violence very quickly. Liberals seek to shut down free speech and debate as they perform poorly in those areas. Liberals perform well in emotions and in feelz, but those things have very little objective value and relying on them leads you to make silly decisions. Liberalism is now a sinking ship. Neo-racists are in the ascendency.
Hank Scorpio wrote: » Are you missing something? The videos of Creamer and such came out much later.
Permabear wrote: » This post had been deleted.
Sofa Spud wrote: » Consider some of the policies that both Bernie and Trump put forward - Bernie focused a lot on wealth distribution, education and Health Care and even Trump went big on infrastructure projects for highways and airports - something the Democrats have repeatedly backed away from for fear as being seen as tax and spenders.
But Trump has been vague what about he'd do and what it would cost. During the campaign he said he'd double the $275 billion boost in government infrastructure spending proposed by his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton. A recent paper by Trump advisers calls for using federal tax credits to generate $1 trillion in private sector infrastructure investment over a decade. To offset the cost of the credits, U.S. corporations would be encouraged to bring home profits parked overseas to avoid taxes, in exchange for a low tax rate. If that corporate tax "repatriation" idea sounds familiar, it's probably because Obama has been urging Congress to do that, and Clinton cited repatriation as the way she would pay for her infrastructure plan.
jimmycrackcorm wrote: » Have you actually got 50 video examples to support what you say or can we take it as another example of alternative facts?
Hank Scorpio wrote: » Sure.http://pastebin.com/2YDyAMzM
alastair wrote: » And they didn't change a thing. They were sending people in to disrupt campaign rallies with loud dissenting viewpoints, but that's nothing new, and far from 'inciting violence'. Can you point to an instance of violence that was actually provoked by those people? Because all the actual violence doled out to those at Trump rallies is notably unconnected with Creamers operation.
Jimmy Garlic wrote: » In an American context there isn't as much violence and intimidation tactics being used at at protests by the right, no where near as much. They are being egged on by the likes of this-
Hank Scorpio wrote: » So you don't think people were paid to make trouble at Trump events? This says otherwise.http://abcnews.com.co/donald-trump-protester-speaks-out-i-was-paid-to-protest/ When asked about the other protesters at the rally, Horner said he saw most of them during the interview and training for the rally. “Almost all of the people I was protesting with I had seen at my interview and training class. At the rally, talking with some of them, I learned they only paid Latinos $500, Muslims $600 and African Americans $750. I don’t think they were looking for any Asians. Women and children were paid half of what the men got and illegals received $300 across the board. I think I was paid more than the other protesters because I was white and had taken classes in street fighting and boxing a few years back”
Asked by the Post’s Caitlin Dewey why he posted the fake story, Horner responded, "Just ’cause his supporters were under the belief that people were getting paid to protest at their rallies, and that’s just insane. I’ve gone to Trump protests — trust me, no one needs to get paid to protest Trump. I just wanted to make fun of that insane belief, but it took off. They actually believed it."
alastair wrote: » Assuming that these are valid videos (couldn't be bothered), that's only going to cover a single Trump supporter idiocy video, so you've got a ways to go to maintain that 50:1 ratio.
Jimmy Garlic wrote: » She is using her fame to reach an audience in order to call for violence. She has something like 10 million Twitter followers and she is calling for violence. Is that acceptable?
Brian? wrote: » You know what makes it more confusing? Calling left wing people liberals. It's rampant on this board thanks to exposure to US media. Liberals are not now and never have been left wing.
Brian? wrote: » The push back against "political correctness" really get me, it's like a bold child crying because they can't have their way anymore. No, I won't tolerant discrimination. But let's do it smart instead of screaming at them.
Zillah wrote: » You see comments to this effect a lot of the time and they really seem to miss the point. Liberalism is about tolerance of difference, not tolerance of intolerance, or tolerance of hatred and discrimination. Things a liberal should tolerate: - Different religions - Different political preferences - Different races, sexual orientations, etc Things a liberal shouldn't tolerate: - Racism - Fascism - Authoritatianism - Xenophobia Liberalism doesn't mean "anything goes". I'm not going to catch someone stabbing someone else in an alleyway and go "Well, who am I to judge?" So no, don't go treating people like they are horrible goblins for voting conservative, but yes, be very intolerant of people preaching racism and xenophobia.
Hank Scorpio wrote: » Not hard to keep up the 50.1 ratio when it's literally MOBS doing the violence.
alastair wrote: » You're really buying that guff? Honestly? .
Hank Scorpio wrote: » I don't base my logic on that link at all, because I've never seen it before. If it's untrue fine. Fact remains that Bob Kremer said those things on camera along with other democratic operatives - just because the liberal media likes to smear and discredit O'Keefe doesn't make it untrue, he had to step down. Craigslist I don't know what to believe, it's very easy to create ads to provoke a reaction or to smear people, the DNC themselves were doing it.https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/12803
alastair wrote: » You're to blame for your own gullibility tbh. The 'things said on camera' were remarkably unremarkable. If you were not aware that campaigns send disrupters to their opponents meetings, then I'll welcome you to the 19th century at the latest.
Hank Scorpio wrote: » If you think inciting violence at rallies is of the norm, good for you. I don't and neither do others as he had to step down.
Wanderer78 wrote: » im more terrified of world leaders that posse complex behavioural traits such as narcissism, or show signs of sociopathic and psychopathic personality disorders!
sabat wrote: » Try not looking at the internet for a week
ancapailldorcha wrote: » Cut out the petty insults.Post more constructively please.
Wanderer78 wrote: » my comment is exactly how i feel. we truly do have some very dangerous people in power or on the cusp of it. thank you
alastair wrote: » Nobody was inciting violence at the rallies. Don't really know how else to say this in a simpler fashion. He never said they were either.
OleRodrigo wrote: » Great post in Linkedin this week reminding us of what previous generations, not so long ago, put up with moving to the US.https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/my-jewish-irish-asian-italian-friends-joshua-brown
Hank Scorpio wrote: » Foval was subsequently fired and he was contracted and actively working with Creamer. Both were in cahoots and Foval does multiple times specifically outline which rallies they were attending, how many people they had and what methods they were using to start violence, led by Creamer. You can either fill in the blanks or continue to believe two people got booted for doing nothing wrong, which is fine. I have a different opinion.
red ears wrote: » The attitudes to other races back then was shocking, you can see how nazism took hold in Germany when you see human beings being compared to rats in America back then. We just find it hard to fathom those attitudes these days.
