VR Devs Pull Support For Oculus Rift Until Palmer Luckey Steps Down (vice.com) 657
After it was revealed that Oculus founder Palmer Luckey backed a pro-Trump political organization called Nimble America that is dedicated to "shitposting" and spreading inflammatory memes about Hillary Clinton, several developers of the Oculus Rift virtual-reality headset have announced that they will stop supporting the headset until its founder steps down. One of the biggest developers for Oculus Rift, Insomniac Games, told Motherboard, "Insomniac Games condemns all forms of hate speech. While everyone has a right to express his or her political opinion, the behavior and sentiments reported do not reflect the values of our company. We are also confident that his behavior and sentiment does not reflect the values of the many Oculus employees we work with on a daily basis." Fez and Superhypercube developer Polytron also said in a statement, "In a political climate as fragile and horrifying as this one, we cannot tacitly endorse these actions by supporting Luckey or his platform." Motherboard reports: Motherboard has reached out to several other, more well-known VR developers who work with Oculus including Fantastic Contraption makers Northway Games and Job Simulator makers Owlchemy Labs. Northway Games couldn't be reached immediately for comment but tweeted the following: "What. The. Fuck. [accompanied with a link to the news via Kotaku]" and "Definitely using every fibre of my 'professionalism' to not tweet some tweets right now." Owlchemy Labs, which is currently developing for Job Simulator for the Oculus Touch controls, declined to comment either way. E McNeill, who has developed a couple of games for Oculus Rift and GearVR, suggested that like-minded VR developers raise money for Hillary Clinton's campaign to counter the money Luckey has raised for Trump. [E McNeill tweeted: "Idle Q: Would any Oculus devs join me in a donation drive for HIllary? We could aim to beat Nimble America's $11k. I'd start with $1k myself."] "This backlash is nonsense," said James Green, co-founder of VR developer Carbon Games. "I absolutely support him doing whatever he wants politically if it's legal. To take any other position is against American values."
So basically... (Score:5, Insightful)
So basically these developers are intolerant of any type of political message other than their own.
Re:So basically... (Score:5, Insightful)
The "political message" was spamming social media via bots to upload and upvote images. It's not the contents so much as the delivery method that's a proble.m
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
And liberal groups are not attacking Trump with similar tactics?
Re:So basically... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure they are, but since Soros is paying for that it's OK.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
And liberal groups are not attacking Trump with similar tactics?
That's too much like work, its far easier to just replay everything he actually says. It goes viral on its own...
And then replay the videos of everything he denies ever saying. (Roll 212 !)
[I don't know why anyone would want a President that doesn't understand how video recorders/tape works.]
Re: (Score:3)
Like the week-long "scandal" over a star-shape in a Trump tweet, the time he "didn't" disavow David Duke, or the two times he "called for Hillary to be assassinated?" Please, I'd love to see the videos of these things that never happened.
Re:So basically... (Score:4, Insightful)
Like, say, "Correct the Record" which shitposts pro-Hillary?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not an American, so I won't be voting for either, but it does seem that (a) most of the stories about Hil
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Pretty much the case. They're protesting their distaste of perceived intolerance with flat out, unabashed intolerance.
Re: (Score:2)
This boycott approach smells a lot like tactics used by vile characters in early to mid-20th century germany.
lolwut? That came out of left field.
Re:So basically... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So basically... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's fair. And it's also fair for the devs to refuse to work with Occulus...unless they have a contract that says otherwise. If they do, they'd be doing the same kind of unethical behavior that Trump has often been charged with.
Re:So basically... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The old "why don't you care about children starving in Africa!" argument. When your doctor treats you for an in-growling toe nail, do you berate him for not concentrating his resources on cancer patients who are in even greater need?
Here is something they can do something effective about immediately.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, I made a note of these devs and I will never buy one of their products.
Big deal, I'm never using a VR product of any kind. In fact, I'm thinking about poking one of my eyes out.
Re: (Score:2)
People have a general right (if not a duty) to boycott their company if their leader is using or has used the MONEY he's making from their labor (not merely his words) to support an odious cause. Boycotting is in general reasonable when the person or organization is actively spending large a
Re: (Score:2)
So basically these developers are intolerant of any type of political message other than their own.
This. Exactly this.
Trump might be an idiotic bigot, and Hillary might be a liar and crook, but that does not mean anyone is entitled to their own opinion.
And sure, it is your right to not to business with someone you don't agree with, but that makes you an even bigger idiot because that's not how a society will function. It's more Kindergarten behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
Unlike the people who have vowed to boycott the NFL because of something a backup quarterback did.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems fair to me the market will have a field day with Palmer Luckey.
Of world population (market), how many % endorses Trump? Less than 1% I'd say. He is viewed as a scary incoherent constantly lying madman with completely crazy ideas in all places I can think of... except USA.
Re: (Score:2)
He can do what he wants with his own money, but he is a very public figure and through that he represents the company. If he had only endorsed Trump by giving campaign money not many would have cared much at all.
But this? This pisses people off. Many people gave money to his kick-starter from where his wealth originally came.
Re: (Score:2)
That's their right. Luckey's right is to speak against Hillary, VR devs' right is to be intolerant to Luckey, a consumer's right is to boycott those VR devs because of their siding with Hillary and so on.
As long as we all have those rights and are exercising them legally it works itself out. It's sad that so much hate is going on but you can't blame Trump or Hillary for that -- it's the state of the world at the moment that created the conditions for it. In a wiser world such conditions would be prevented b
Re: (Score:3)
That's their right. Luckey's right is to speak against Hillary, VR devs' right is to be intolerant to Luckey, a consumer's right is to boycott those VR devs because of their siding with Hillary and so on.
As long as we all have those rights and are exercising them legally it works itself out. It's sad that so much hate is going on but you can't blame Trump or Hillary for that -- it's the state of the world at the moment that created the conditions for it. In a wiser world such conditions would be prevented before Trump or Hillary would rise to prominence, but it is what it is.
While this is absolutely true, it doesn't mean it's good -- in the long term -- for American culture to slide into "I'll boycott anyone I disagree with about anything" mentality, because it reduces social cohesion and increases social friction.
As a libertarianish conservative, I agree 100% with people's free speech, and free speech about others free speech, and economic boycotts about others' free speech. I still lament that it has come to this and hope this age passes quickly. There's a resonant effect tha
Re:So basically... (Score:5, Interesting)
So basically these developers are intolerant of any type of political message other than their own.
You have no evidence upon which you can draw such a broad inference.
The only thing you can conclude with any certainty is that these developers are intolerant of some messages different from their own, delivered in certain ways. That probably describes everybody who cares about anything.
Take me for example. I'm a nerd. That makes me intolerant of political messages based on sloppy logic.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So basically these developers are intolerant of any type of political message other than their own.
You say "any type" like Trump's messages of hate and intolerance are typical political speech. Well, they aren't.
Re: So basically... (Score:3)
Hillary has actually voted for actual wars where thousands of actual people have been killed. You don't need to speculate on how bad she might be because she's already proven how bad she actually is. Both candidates are appalling. Comparing someone who hasn't contributed to mass murder to Hitler because he's a dick who says things that upset you while letting off the one who has because she represents your "team" is why US politics is such a mess.
The party of tolerance (Score:4, Insightful)
As long as you think EXACTLY the way they do.
Of course if he was "shitposting" Trump, that would be A-OK, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
whats this party shit? I am not a trump supporter but I wont enable children to shitbag any candidate
Re:The party of tolerance (Score:5, Insightful)
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
When they, by which I assume you mean the Democrats, say they are tolerant, they mean of things that people have no choice over. Gender, sexuality, race etc. They don't mean that they will tolerate any and all political views without condemnation or shunning.
Political ideas are not a protected class, they are something each person chooses and will be judged on.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I just love it when somebody says... (Score:4, Insightful)
So what I've learned is that when the girlfriend of someone they don't like gets threatened on Twitter, SJWs are perfectly okay with it, because who cares about progressive principles when we're busy abusing people for supporting the wrong political party? Or are you going to claim she did something wrong merely by being his GF?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They didn't tolerate intolerance (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, I run a business. It's all that supports me, and it brings in the money reliably. The way I got there is by building a reputation for behaving ethically. Part of ethics is not standing up for it when people do the wrong thing. Ethics is not neutral, people with ethics have to be able to back it up with action. Maintaining that reputation means opposing garbage like "shitposting" with lawful action as well as words.
Re: (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
> Yes, but democracy doesn't mean that you have a right not to be criticized, shunned, fired, boycotted, and abused in any other lawful manner for your speech.
Actually, your own state laws define such a right, at least for being fired. Surprised to see you champion abuse in there, though. I mean, you do realize that some woman is being abused just for being this guy's GF, right? I find it interesting that's not in conflict with your values, given that you've yet to condemn that in any way. Anyhow, I
Re: (Score:3)
https://www.fbi.gov/news/press... [fbi.gov]
Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.
From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.
That is 110 counts of Felony mishandling of classified information.
With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. There were no additional Top Secret e-mails found. Finally, none of those we found have since been “up-classified.”
There are three more counts.
Now, as to the government issued cell phone, she was offered a Blackberry like every other government employee, she chose instead to have her own Blackberry, so how did she exactly avoid the "poor excuse" for a cell phone?
http://www.politico.com/story/... [politico.com]
As well, the fact that she failed to turn over official records, that were improperly stored and destroyed breaks the records re
Blacklisting again (Score:4, Interesting)
And so, in the name of "tolerance", they consigned heterodox unbelievers to a blacklist.
Palmer Lucky is Brendon Eich 2.0.
The new left is so violently opposed to dissent (Score:4, Insightful)
Can they not even see what parodies of themselves they've become?
TV tells them someone is hitler and they all try to out-tantrum one another.
It's not even about supporting Trump anymore, it's about being ashamed to stand with or anywhere near these people. They don't have any liberal values. They run on feigned indignation and trying to publicly shame others.
It's pathetic. Pull yourselves together, you numbnuts.
Re: (Score:3)
It's the way the left has been since the 1920s. Usually it was confined to doctrinal infighting among Leninists, Trotskyites, and other socialist factions. Usually once one faction had established dominance they simply became authoritarians, rejecting any punishing all dissent.
One of the best party amusements has always been exposing conflicting elements among leftists. Years ago when AIDS was peaking, you'd find a leftist, usually a vegan, who favored animal rights, and then an AIDS activist and then in
Re:The new left is so violently opposed to dissent (Score:5, Insightful)
There's been a rise in the term "regressive left" for a while. And for good reason, the left(especially progressives and the social justice clique) have been at the forefront of anti-democratic beliefs for quite a while(see the big push on free speech zones, safe spaces, no-platforming, violent protests against individuals, anti-individualist choices, etc). And unlike the right, that cast and purged their crazies out, the left is still embracing theirs and parroting their views. In many cases, I'm going to guess that it's because they're afraid of being labeled "racists/sexists/homophobes/misogynists/etc" that the regressive left has been using to attack anyone who doesn't share their insular worldview.
Anyone who's been paying attention to tech culture or gaming culture will notice it. The regressive left is against free expression, they only want their view points, their ideals, and their versions of vidya. And are willing to throw hissyfits over any of this. They have no qualms about actually harassing people, they'll run ops to do it(see con [heatst.com] leaks) [youtu.be], and all [lianakerzner.com] the rest of the nasty shit that they claim those on the right do. Which some people have figured out is pure projection on their part.
Hate speech is perfectly okay! (Score:2)
Without hate speech, how could we rag on republicans?
Fire the management that pulled VR support (Score:3, Insightful)
But here's the thing, Insomniac and Polytron management: your job is to make money for the investors of your company, not to use them as some political tool because you disagree with the politics of one of the employees of Oculus. Period.
These decisions will only harm these companies financially because of diminished interest from people who own an Oculus. Unless the management has concrete data that their continued support of the Oculus will harm their sales due to the political connection (and I'll bet diamonds to dollars that they don't), then the boards of directors of all of these companies should direct the executive management of the companies that withdrew support for Oculus to reverse their decision or be terminated for breach of fiduciary duty.
Enough of this SJW bullshit, especially when investor money and returns are at stake and the backlash from these actions could be worse. E McNeill is totally correct - if you want to fight a Trump supporter, put your own money up rather than trying to suppress others as if you were some Soviet-era state enterprise licking the boots of the party you support.
Re: (Score:2)
Insomniac is a privately owned company. I'm not sure about Polytron, but given Phil Fish's history, it's likely privately owned as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Nevertheless, it's still monumentally stupid to mix your business with politics
Insomniac has been around for over 20 years making highly acclaimed and successful games through four generations of consoles. I'm pretty sure they don't need business advice from some random asshole on Slashdot.
Re: Fire the management that pulled VR support (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure they don't need business advice from some random asshole on Slashdot.
Well they won't lose any sleep over it, that's sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But here's the thing, Insomniac and Polytron management: your job is to make money for the investors of your company, not to use them as some political tool because you disagree with the politics of one of the employees of Oculus. Period.
And a large part of that job is to maintain a staff of key people who can do the work needed to make this profit. So if enough people threaten to walk, management may have to appease them.
Can Oculus Rift survive without Luckey? Probably. Can they survive without the support of the developers that are threatening to drop support? Maybe. So it will be an interesting standoff.
Re:Fire the management that pulled VR support (Score:4, Insightful)
I find that a reputation for ethics helps in business. One doesn't gain such a reputation by supporting bad action or standing by while it happens. Now in this case, a good deal of the message was outright lies, and the rest was subverting the comment system with robots. I certainly will do what I can to show my strong disapproval of such actions, and my refusing to do business with that sort of liar and cheat and advocating that others make the same refusal is one of the ways that society deals with liars and cheats.
Re: (Score:3)
In the case of Eich his staying might have negatively affected Mozilla. That's why he quit.
Nonsense (Score:4, Insightful)
"This backlash is nonsense," said James Green, co-founder of VR developer Carbon Games. "I absolutely support him doing whatever he wants politically if it's legal. To take any other position is against American values."
I have little to no interest in VR, and negative interest in Oculus. But I now know of Carbon Games and have a respectful view of them.
Conversely, I also now know of Polytron and have a negative opinion of them. Insomniac was also a 2nd rate developer and now I have further reason to ignore them.
Re: (Score:3)
Then I'm sure you're lining right up to stop using any gizmodo(univision) products right? After their open attacks against his GF for daring to have a different opinion, which has resulted in open harassment(by the social justice clique) and by the idealistic supporters who's viewpoints you espouse on a regular basis.
If you actually are intolerant of intolerance then I'm sure that works fine. Oddly, you seem to be perfectly tolerant of people being attacked when it's a view point that is 180deg., from yo
So? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Social media reactions" is basically mob rule. Are you really advocating that mob rule is a desirable characteristic for a society?
Re: (Score:2)
"Social media reactions" is basically mob rule. Are you really advocating that mob rule is a desirable characteristic for a society?
As compared to the oligarchy we're living in now, at least it would be democratic. The only motivation which works on the upper class is torches and pitchforks. The fear of that showing up is supposed to lead them to provide at least bread and circuses, if not education. But the bread and circus system is breaking down...
"Shitposting" is fraud, not speech (Score:5, Insightful)
"Shitposting" is fraud rather than speech for a few reasons.
It is knowingly false. For example, "shitposters" distribute a purported photo of Hillary Clinton in blackface with Bill, which doesn't match her eye color or her and Bill's appearance at the time [snopes.com]. But they keep distributing it.
They then spoof the comment system by having robots upmod posts and downmod their detractors, thus fraudulently promoting their comments as highly regarded.
They mis-state the first amendment of the constitution by telling people that reactions to their abuse are hypocritical and against the first amendment, when the first amendment does not protect anyone from the consequences of their speech, nor does it promise anyone the podium of their choice.
Taking action to show your disapproval of such action is laudable.
Re: (Score:2)
"If I disapprove, it's not speech." Do you support blacklisting Palmer Luckey and others like him, Bruce Perens?
Re: (Score:3)
That doesn't answer the question. Do you support blacklisting him or don't you?
Re: (Score:2)
Still not answering the question. Do you support blacklisting Palmer Luckey from employment, or don't you? It's an important question.
Re: (Score:3)
What happened? When did you become a common cyberbully?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok, well you really seem to support blacklisting people from employment based on their politics, but I understand why you don't want to say it outright.
It's one thing to do a little evil for the team, or to look the other way for evil, or even to cheer for evil like you seem to be doing here. It's another thing to formally, publicly pledge allegiance to evil.
Maybe when you're done fooling and you're sober you'll be able to make a clear choice. No need to tell us what it is. Someone who is against blackli
Re:"Shitposting" is fraud, not speech (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, people like to call all kinds of things the other political team does "fraud" and such. It helps them justify whatever nasty behavior they want their team to engage in.
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks! Just trying to do my part, arguing against blacklisting people from employment based on their politics.
That's not how it works (Score:4, Insightful)
"This backlash is nonsense," said James Green, co-founder of VR developer Carbon Games. "I absolutely support him doing whatever he wants politically if it's legal. To take any other position is against American values."
I think you meant to say you absolutely support other people doing what they want politically if it's legal, such as disagreeing with Luckey, or boycotting his product, or raising money for Clinton in response. Because taking any other position would be against American values _and_ hypocritical, right?
And yes, he's perfectly within his rights to say what he said, and i'm within my rights to point out the contradiction, and other people are within their rights to respond to me with disagreements, and etc. Saying that one person gets to have their say and everyone else needs to shut up about it after that is not how political discourse works.
It's OK to Not Tolerate Inteolerance (Score:5, Insightful)
It's OK to refuse to tolerate intolerance. Indeed, it's something you need to do.
Re:It's OK to Not Tolerate Inteolerance (Score:5, Insightful)
So simply label whatever you dislike "intolerance" and then anything you want to do, no matter how evil it would be otherwise, is instantly 100% justified. That's the lesson of the week for team blue! Go team!
Free Speech (Score:5, Insightful)
This is free speech working the way it should work.
I refer you to the XKCD panels about the First Amendment.
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/fr... [xkcd.com]
There's a lot of hate on both sides (Score:3)
I wonder what the people supporting this will say when the Trump-et crowd hounds someone out of their job for donating to the "racist, segregationist, pro-violence-on-cops Black Lives Matter hate group"?
You don't think that's a fair description of BLM? Try explaining your reasons to the baying mob.
No, these attacks on Luckey, Brendan Eich and so forth aren't censorship, exactly, but they are certainly intimidation, and an attempt to move certain political positions outside the realm of legitimate discussion. That's not something I welcome, and nor will the people doing it when they discover their opponents can do it to them as well.
Hypocrite much? (Score:3)
Pulling support for Oculus Rift is also political and legal. If James Green doesn't support this just as well, then by his own logic, he is taking a position against American values.
good, put your money where your mouth is (Score:3)
A game developer boycotting a platform, and hence forego millions in profits, is a good illustration of the idea that money and the actions it pays for amounts to political speech.
As for the choice these game developers are making, I think they are a bit naive. Hillary Clinton and her wealthy supporters, PACs, and affiliated groups, have a large number of highly skilled political message consultants and PR experts working for her, trying to manipulate public opinion in her favor, including through massive use of social media. The only thing that is remarkable about someone sinking millions into an organization whose job is to create "shitposts" about Hillary on social media is what an inept attempt at PR it actually is.
As usual, we have Hillary Clinton's well-oiled political machinery versus Donald Trump's incompetent attempt at running a political campaign. The really remarkable thing is that Hillary Clinton is such a lousy candidate and her political program is so bad that she still is struggling to put together a decisive win. Just imagine how poorly she would be doing if she actually ran against a serious candidate.
If only (Score:3)
we could get a law written that forbids negative advertising towards the other candidate.
I'm kinda tired of seeing all the " Look how bad X is for this position because of Y " ads that dominate the airways this time of year.
I would much rather see " I believe I'm the better choice for the position because of the following accomplishments or strengths I posses " instead.
Considering neither candidate has much to brag about, the number of ads would be quite limited in number.
A win-win all the way around.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This isn't what you get with the Citizens United decision. This is what you get when money can buy hate.
Re:No one likes (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering how much corporate money is flowing into Hillary's campaign... She's obviously not going to change that.
Hillary... on paper, she's everything Democrats claim to hate.
And for a party that claims to fight hate... There sure is a lot of violence, racisim and hate coming from the party that says they want to bring us together.
Of course... they mean "we want to unite... as long as you vote Democrat and agree with everything we say". It's all about freedom of speech and freedom of expression until you say "Hillary is a POS".
Re:No one likes (Score:4, Insightful)
Disagree with Hillary being what Democrats hate?
Rich? White? Elite? Above the law? Votes for every war put before her? Is a LARGE part of what's responsible for the Middle East being the cluster fuck it is? Racist comments like "I'm late? I must be on CP time." because, you know, colored people are to lazy to be on time? Super Predators?
What about Hillary doesn't scream "This is what Democrats hate"?
Re: No one likes (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Please remember your history. There was a lot of mire in the Middle East before 9/11, exacerbated by the mess Pres Geo Bush got us into.
This isn't her fault, much of it isn't Pres Geo Bush's fault. This has been boiling for forty+ years.
You're not paying attention, in my opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: No one likes (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: No one likes (Score:3, Funny)
Give Trump a chance, he'd probably invade the sun.
The secret plan is to surprise them by going at night.
Re:No one likes (Score:5, Informative)
Not the best choice? Neither candidate is trustworthy, but Trump hasn't gotten a good portion of the world mired in failed countries at war.
Trump heads the political party that started those wars, and he is their elected candidate. He supported those wars.
His plan at the moment is to kill millions of innocent people with trident missiles fired from submarines in the persian gulf [realnewsrightnow.com].
Unless he is lying?
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't what you get with the Citizens United decision. This is what you get when money can buy hate.
Money is protected speech. Including hate speech. That's Citizens United for you, buddy. And, for the record, Hillary was the original opponent of Citizens United.
Re: (Score:3)
Very, very true. I'm against Citizens United, but also, campaign contributions from 1) outside the USA of any kind 2) outside of an electoral district from any source 3) contributions that aren't made from an anonymous donor pool and 4) contributions of over $500 by any individual-- and only corporations domiciled within the electoral district, paid once, to one candidate per office.
Re: (Score:3)
Remember, Trump solicited campaign contributions from foreign nationals [thehill.com]. He has business interests all over the world, including many in Russia. His idea of a "blind trust" for his businesses is for his children to run them. There's no way Trump can avoid massive conflict of interests around the world. He's heavily indebted to Russian oligarchs [newsweek.com] and other areas that are in conflict with our national security.
How do mod points work? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's Trump's emphasis on "defeat them quickly" that led me to the same conclusion. I don't think a few nuclear bombs will do that much damage, though they would still be war crimes. The real risk is that Trump bungles his "limited" nuclear attack and somehow sucks Pakistan or Israel into the mess... Given the Donald's record of bungling everything he touches, I wouldn't bet on a good outcome. There are some Trump supporters who would gladly welcome a permanent state of war with 1.6 billion Muslims.
On the Hi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He plays a game called, "I'm just crazy enough to do it", a sort of bully's aggression play. Might work well in business, but that's money vs lives at stake vs uncontrolled war.
It's my greatest fear.
Re: (Score:3)
Worked for Nixon. Matter of fact it's been the basis of our defense since the 50s.
Re: (Score:3)
Well that may be because you don't remember the events.
Here's the timeline for you
Paris Peace Accords 1973
Nixon Resigns 1974
Saigon Falls 1975
Re: (Score:3)
And people should stop taking Trump's campaign statements seriously. Candidates running for office say and promise anything to get elected but rarely implement any of their campaign promises.
Then what should we judge him on exactly? His many fraudulent businesses dealings? His terrible interpersonal skills? His constant, pathological lying about things that can be simply fact checked? His ridiculous hair? Give me something here.
Trump would have no support from either party and the chance of him getting some of his more crazy ideas moved forward is effectively nil.
Again, if you don't believe any of his platform will actually happen then you are effectively voting for a complete unknown politically, and a person that has shown to be vulgar, petty, vindictive and racist on a personal level.
Re: (Score:3)
Your point really bears repeating. I don't know how people can be so willing to just dismiss what a candidate says they'll do. I mean, saying that all politicians make meaningless campaign statements, though true some of the time, ignores the many, many campaign statements that, once elected, politicians actually follow through on. In fact, the majority of campaign statements made by politicians actually do manifest in some form or another.
Of course, I can already hear the, "Trump isn't a politician," senti
Re: (Score:2)
I've volunteered to protest. No one needs to pay me. Soros is a skunk.
You dismiss many people in one swoop. Do you fear these people that much?
Re: (Score:3)
Constant shouts of Soros are pretty silly. He's the ostensible boogeyman behind everything. I don't think he gives a fleep about the whole matter. OTOH, I know individuals that have nothing to do with corporate money that are plentifully incensed about the pipeline, and it would seem from the facts, with good reason.
Statistically, pipeline spills are up, and their damage increasing. I have no financial stake in any of it.
Re: (Score:2)
You can yell "fire" in a crowded theater. You can be held responsible for the direct result, but no one can ever legally restrict your right to say whatever you want.
That is a nonsensical statement. The only thing that makes something a crime is that you are 'held responsible' afterwards, there is nothing specially sacrosanct about speech. The reason you can't be restricted from saying criminal things is because nobody knows what the fuck you are going to say before you say it.