they don't?
The Trump Presidency
- Thread starter The Tariff King
- Start date
they don't?
sturg33
I
Seriously? I miss the thoughtful objective Julio.
1. White nationalists aren't Nazis
2. As Jaw said, I'm on the right and don't support Nazis... Nor does 99% of people on the right.
But if you want to play the game, then the left supports communists and while we're at it, all Muslims are terrorists.
sturg33
I
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
If you read the Buzzfeed piece that's been knocking about, you'll see the back-and-forth and exchange of ideas between the folks I mentioned and the Daily Stormer. I mean, dude, really...if all you have is semantic hairsplitting about who's a Nazi and who's merely a racist white nationalist who uses Nazi terminology and iconography...well, best of luck.
At no point did I say that "the right " supports Nazis. I made a specific statement and I would love to hear your specific rebuttal of it.
"White nationalists" who do and say everything nazis do are nazis. People close to trump, who currently defines the right, support or at best sympathize with these people. Supporting trump and his people makes one complicit.
not all nazis burned Jews. i also didn't say everyone on the right is a nazi. but the tacit support is there from the current head of the right.
not all nazis burned Jews. i also didn't say everyone on the right is a nazi. but the tacit support is there from the current head of the right.
Runnin
Well-known member
We should not get hung up on what defines a Nazi and if our current white nationalists meet that definition. Nazism what just one incarnation of what might be called ethnic nationalism. Of course our version is a little different, but clearly it's the same drumbeat from a few to stoke fear among the populace and gain control of the state.
sturg33
I
The post I responded to was the following.
You seemed to take issue with me disagreeing with this generalization. I recognize that rationality is dead and we must make emotional arguments to make our point these days, but I'm not sure how you can support such a broad generalization.
You may disagree but I think having less illegal immigrants in this country would benefit the legal citizens. Nobody can ever answer the question how a flood of cheap labor is good for Americans. No matter how much it feels wrong to you Americans should come first in America. This is not a small belief but one that is held by many more people than you'd like to admit. The people who are MOST hurt by illegal immigration are minority groups like African Americans and Hispanics. This is another fact that you will probably never admit.
Therefore, I don't agree that pardoning Arpaio was a bad decision.
57Brave
Well-known member
Taking for granted you chose Trump for his decision making ability.
Here is some more of that:
..................................................................................................................
Under the new rules, virtually any nongovernmental employer can exempt themselves from these requirements, including publicly traded corporations asserting religious objections to providing contraception coverage. Second, while the previous policy only recognized religious objections to providing contraception coverage, the new policy states that moral objections are equally valid in many cases.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixg...ium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=gs
Finally, while the previous policy ensured that almost all women working for objecting employers would get such coverage either from an insurer or third-party administrator (TPA), the government drops any attempt to ensure that this coverage is provided in the new rules. Thus, many women who are receiving contraception coverage under the previous policy may now lose it.
Here is some more of that:
..................................................................................................................
Under the new rules, virtually any nongovernmental employer can exempt themselves from these requirements, including publicly traded corporations asserting religious objections to providing contraception coverage. Second, while the previous policy only recognized religious objections to providing contraception coverage, the new policy states that moral objections are equally valid in many cases.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixg...ium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=gs
Finally, while the previous policy ensured that almost all women working for objecting employers would get such coverage either from an insurer or third-party administrator (TPA), the government drops any attempt to ensure that this coverage is provided in the new rules. Thus, many women who are receiving contraception coverage under the previous policy may now lose it.
57Brave
Well-known member
Unfortunately, the new rules may result in an increase in unintended pregnancies and abortions. NBC has
reported that a 2012 study found that when women got birth control at no cost to them, the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions dropped by between 62 and 78 percent, and other studies have come to similar conclusions. It is puzzling to see an administration that says it is pro-life downplay concerns like these.
reported that a 2012 study found that when women got birth control at no cost to them, the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions dropped by between 62 and 78 percent, and other studies have come to similar conclusions. It is puzzling to see an administration that says it is pro-life downplay concerns like these.
57Brave
Well-known member
Jess DweckVerified account @TheDweck 22h22 hours ago
Jess Dweck Retweeted Jessica Taylor
He told Howard Stern he wanted to abort Tiffany