ramblerouser

They do.

Here is Richard Spencer mocking white nationalism:

http://doesnoonehavevision.blogspot.com/2018/10/wanna-be-sit...

Have you ever asked a black person if being proud of being black was black supremacy?

Good point there most certainly is. And Facebook recognizes that: >Going forward, while people will still be able to demonstrate pride in their ethnic heritage, we will not tolerate praise or support for white nationalism and separatism.

However, Facebook even now is ok with white people advocating for seperation. They claim there is a connection of white seperatism to white supremacy that made them ban it, while not banning other groups like the Basque from wanting independence.

>We didn’t originally apply the same rationale to expressions of white nationalism and separatism because we were thinking about broader concepts of nationalism and separatism — things like American pride and Basque separatism, which are an important part of people’s identity.

>But over the past three months our conversations with members of civil society and academics who are experts in race relations around the world have confirmed that white nationalism and separatism cannot be meaningfully separated from white supremacy and organized hate groups.

So chinese people who are proud of their heritage and promote it can be discriminated against because being proud of your race is just a view one can hold?

This is an excellent point ablut collusion. The Alex Jones debacles proves conclusively the media giants act in concert to censor political dissonants.

A distinction without a difference.

To be fair, it would be more like 40% of cars failing after 50,000 miles instead of 150,000

Bill Clinton was tougher on immigration than Donald Trump is. The Left made it a partisan issue, not the right. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RzlviQH4FhQ

https://www.fairus.org/issue/legal-immigration/us-commission... The bipartisan Jordan Commission recommended cutting legal immigration in half and punishing employers for hirin illegals. The democrats made this a partisan issue.

Pretending that your position is the center, and everyone who disagrees with you is an extremist doesnt work very well.

The right doesnt oppose clean air, it opposes giving Al Gore's carbon credit company a blank check.

The right (in the US) could just as easily ask why has boarder security become a left right issue.

>Everyone has something to provide, on many different levels.you are failing to see that, and that is your problem.

Totally false. Some prople are really bad at their jobs and gang up with other unproductive people to rag on those who are carrying the team. If you cant see that, you are probably insecure and rationalizing your hostility to people who are better and make you look bad in comparison.

Does anyone hve a link to the actual study, or know where his list of exercises cones from?

A poor person's car takes up the same number of parking spaces as a rich person's car, and a rich person has already paid a huge amount of their income to the poor person in the form of income taxes and welfare.

People are risk averse. The maximum sentences exist to scare people into irrationally pleading guilty when they are innocent. Federal maximum sentences are out of line with state sentencing because the federal government is less local and less accountable. Many federal crimes exist solely to trump up this maximum possible sentence. Politically connected people use this system to protect themselves against whistleblowers and political activists like Swartz and Snowden. I dont think you have addressed any of these points.

In principle I agree with you. In practice however, the FBI just uses this to harrass people. Look at what happened to Marth Stewart. She was totally innocent, did not say anything factually incorrect, but the feds thought she exagerated in some of her answers. That level of subjectivity shouldn't be involved in determining a criminal offense.

Or maybe puts on tin foil hat they know exactly what happened to him.

This is totally incorrect. The high conviction rate is a result of extremely high maximum sentences. People who are 100% innocent often plead guilty after being threatened with a 30-year prison sentence that would be only 1 or 2 years under local law.

Many federal crimes are unconstitutional and deliberately vague, like "lying (not volunteering incriminating evidence) to an investigator" and "mail fraud" which is just a way to charge you in federal court where the odds are stacked against you.

The US federal judicialry is a kangaroo court. 99% of federal crimes should be repealed and maximum sentences reduced to be in line with state laws.

Federal jury selection is also suspect, especially in cases involving "national security".

Democrats dont want to stop visa overstays either (they want to abolish ICE), so how is that an argument against the wall?

Yes.

If performance worsens over time, would you see it as evidence that women are just less interested in certain jobs?

They don't exist because China has protectionist policies that give them an advantage and the US elites abolished most of its tarrifs in the 80's and 90's. they could easily come back but the new york times doesn't want them to, and they don't want you to think it's even a possibility.

This article is anti-trump pro-globalist propaganda. The lack of real arguements demonstrates that. This is meant to demoralize Americans and make them feel helpless and dependent on a global free trade regime that has decimated the working class and could be abolished easily by restoring the tariffs that existed through the 1970's.

Some percent of the time the answer will be yes, and the loss is the difference in price, probably a lot more than $100. It is not unreasonable given no other information to assess the loss at $100, as the report being criticized does. If counterfeit goods didnt hurt sales one way or another, why would brands care so much about stopping them?

I didnt like this economist's article. A lot of economists are also political commentators who like to bring toy economic arguments to bear on problems that really aren't captured by economic theory at all. He appears to be one of them.

Great question.

>“Displaced”? So let me get this right. If my wife buys a Coach handbag for $100, and it’s a counterfeit from China, and she enjoys the handbag, then the “cost” to America is $100? I’m guessing that no actual economists participated in the writing of this government report.

This "economist" (your words) seems to think that the value his hypothetical wife gets from the handbag she or others thinks is a real Gucci offsets the fact that Gucci spent a fortune on their brand and China gets to take a big fat bite out of Gucci's sales because the US isnt willing to stand up to China on trade.

When the elites in your country are so hell bent on the repression of the people they rule over, that popular political candidates are cut off from the banking system and have to borrow money from banks in other countries, that should make you think twice when those same elites tell you populism is just a rouse perpetrated by people in the few countries willing to lend their support.

The fact that those countries were colonies is not why the elites in France and the West more broadly are pushing for immigration.

I googled "degaul algeria immigration". https://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/quotes/charles-de-gaull...

>Do you think the French body politic can absorb ten million Muslims, who tomorrow will be twenty million, after tomorrow forty? If we integrated, if all the Arabs and Berbers of Algeria were considered French, would you prevent them to settle in France, where the standard of living is so much higher?

-Charles de Gaulle

Obviously deGaulle didnt agree with you that being a citizen of a colony gave someone the right to immigrate to France. Algerians being admitted to France for serving in the military is exactly what "invade the world invite the world" means. After the Iraq war Iraqis who collaborated with the occupiers got green cards.

Thanks for the insight. I will look into that law more. It doesnt excuse the political process that has kept it on the books though.

Yes. A $100 counterfeit handbag costs American companies at least $100 in lost profits, possibly a lot more if she would have bought a $500 genuine handbag instead.

It's interesting to see that there are enough chinese people working in the US that they are posting lots of stuff here defending at least some of their government's actions. I don't blame them, but its something to keep in mind when discussing what levels of immigration we as Americans feel is in our best interest.

You seem to post a lot of comments about China. I appologize if you aren't actually Chinese, I've just noticed a lot of Chinese people advocating for the interests of China on here lately.

Ahh the old "legacy of empire" justification for mass immigration. The great French WWII leader Charles DuGaul gave up colonial posession of Algeria specifically to prevent migration to France. The cheap labor addicts in the European establishment dont care. Also, not Iraq, but France's bombing of Libya at the direction of the US is what started the migrant crisis. So yes, this is very much "invade the world invite the world" here.

The ease with which China can disrupt our supply chain (in the short term) is precisely the point. Their theft of millitary and comercial secrets is another.

China requires american companies selling or manufacturing in china to divulge secrets and implant chinese nationals (agents of the communist party) into said american companies so they can copy our technology and use state funds to begin competing chinese owned companies. This has hollowed out the American manufacturing base. Fewer qualified American engineers and workers means less military readiness, especially against threats China doesnt want us engaged with. Think Russia.

This process also means that their military will both have a larger industrial base to support it, and better technology to arm it.

The USA is not a tool for the Chinese to extract reasources and knowledge from. We worked hard to get where we are, and they are illegally piggybacking on us by stealing our intellectual property.

Would Marie Le Pen have done any of the things Macron did to damage the livelihoods of the French people? No. Because Macron is a Neo-Liberal puppet and Le Pen is not.

The leaders you seek are glaring you in the face, but you reject them because you buy into the lies about "right extremism" from the corporate media that got us here in the first place.