The mainstream propaganda has done its job.
This reminds me of "libertarian" Peter Thiel, who backs Trump, whose Palantir profited mightily off of the military industrial contracts for surveillance. Can't people make a billion, thank their lucky stars, and chill out instead of becoming assholes?
Criticism, or a media wide "witch hunt" about his weight etc.? Oh, those memes and jokes don't count ? So far I've checked, he's still a legitimate presidential candidate. What the mainstream media doesn't obsess about is the Clinton business, not to mention censoring the whole health issue as a "conspiracy theory".
> Why does anything associated with Trump often lead to some relation to something Putin is doing, however, indirect?
I have no clue, because only one obsessing with Putin are the regressive left Americans. The boogeyman mantra apparently still stands and can be used effectively.
*Disclaimer: I'm a EU citizen and don't even believe in "left" or "right", because those are idiotic terms to frame political belief. The world isn't "left" or "right", or "white" or "black", or "blue" and "red". This is a very simplistic view of the world and I'm afraid very typical for US. I also believe a very simple life rule, the answers to "cui bono" (who benefits) and "who pays the check" ? Because those answers are at the end the only ones who have some weight, everything else is based on emotions.
I want less involvement of USA in the world affairs and the boosting of the empire, so I agree with Trumps words of minding your own business and cleaning crap at home first. Not to mention that Clinton is pro-war with Russia, Trump is not and that's fine with me.
1) a bad manager and executive, bully, narcissist 2) apparently has a low attention span and no appetite for work 3) a thin skin that is prone to retaliate 4) a fraud who uses the tactics of a salesman and appeals to the devils of peoples nature, namely: bigotry, xenophobia
You think Trump is an isolationist who will reduce America's empire footprint? In 2000, George Bush, running against Bill Clinton, claimed he would be a President with a "humble" foreign policy, as opposed to Bill Clinton's interventionist ways (referring to Serbia/Bosnia). He would not engage in "nation building" or attempts to spread democracy by force. He appointed Donald Rumsfeld as SecDef, and had Cheney as Vice President. What do you think happened?
Trump has said the following: 1) he wants to outsource the functions of the Presidency, that means foreign policy will be delegated mostly to beltway neo-cons 2) he called for bombing libya 3) he has called for carpet bombing syria, killing the families of terrorists, and doing "a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding" 4) he's talked about using nuclear weapons not as retaliation for a WMD first strike.
You can find ample saber rattling from Trump, and given his past inability to stay the course on any stated policy, and his inability to even run his own businesses without delegating, what on gods green earth makes you think his Presidency would be less aggressive and militaristic than Hillary? It's a complete unknown. Hillary's a known quantity, yes, she is hawkish to a degree, but most US Presidential candidates have been. But it's a predictable quantity.
Trump's level of retaliatory involvement is unknown. If another 9/11 happens, who is going to show more restraint, Hillary or Trump?
The mere fact that the man actively courts openly racist supporters and won't disavow them (even a few days ago, Mike Pence wouldn't disavow David Duke), is bad for the fabric of American society and threatens the rise of neo-nazi politics here, and is enough IMHO to completely disqualify him.
Ergo, any techbro billionaire in SV, who presumably should be smart enough to evaluate these issues, and supports Trump, IMHO, deserts heavy criticism. This is not a normal election between left-wing socialist/progressives/liberal ideology and right-wing/free-market/conservative ideology, and Trump is not the torch bearer of the latter, he's something far worse.
It's the rhetoric that's been put forth in this election to pander to the lowest common denominator, whether we like it or not.
It's dumbing down discourse even more to stupid memes and caricatures and shitposts.
Thought crimes will not be tolerated. Extrapolating 'likes' to mean sympathy with racists (which is what Motherboard's article infers) is disgusting, surely.
This culture of witch-hunting people for what they liked on Twitter (which could mean anything from 'I like this' to 'interesting insight' - not that it matters) or who they choose to support is shameful.
Believe it or not, people are allowed to have views that differ from your own.
And by calling out, you mean public shaming him for his beliefs. I see it on my FB feed everyday - "look at this idiot Trump supporter". Or from the other side - "these libt_rds actually believe this stuff".
Remember when Viralnova made big bucks making cute cat pics go viral? We don't see them anymore because media outlets have figured that outrage gets more clicks, and the results are so unhealthy for our discourse.
On Twitter right now, a million person witch-hunt is in full swing, calling for the virtual expulsion of a person for beliefs it has been inferred he holds.
No point in letting Luckey explain himself, of course. That would take too long and we're outraged now!
Most of us want to live in a world that says this is not ok.
