SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
President-elect Donald Trump realized early in his campaign that U.S. IT workers were angry over training foreign visa-holding replacements. He knew this anger was volcanic.
Trump is the first major U.S. presidential candidate in this race -- or any previous presidential race -- to focus on the use of the H-1B visa to displace IT workers. He asked former Disney IT employees, upset over having to train foreign replacements, to speak at his rallies.
"The fact is that Americans are losing their jobs to foreigners," said Dena Moore, a former Disney IT worker at a Trump rally in Alabama in February. "I believe Mr. Trump is for Americans first."
Yes, US nerds were angry about training H-1B replacements, but how much could they have helped put him over the top?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @11:14PM
> Trump tapped into all types of anger.
He certainly encouraged the worst of it. That's why the neo-nazis and jihadis are celebrating their asses off. They understand his election represents the potential breakdown of all moral authority of the US. Exactly what they've been saying all along.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by dyingtolive on Thursday November 10 2016, @11:25PM
The odd thing about that is that for all the anger that the right seems to have, if I google "violence against clinton supporters", all I get is articles and comments about the violence against Trump supporters.
For being the angry side celebrated by the "neo-nazi's and jihadis", I'm having a hard time finding them committing actual acts of violence. Google bias maybe? Do you get links for something else when you go searching for it? I'm logged in still, so my google results might be tainted somehow by the fact that I've been watching right wing fringe news because I've read literally every news article I've been able to get my hands on for the last year.
If you have something different, I'm genuinely curious.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @11:35PM
Don't forget the assassination attempts on Trump.
I mean look at all the peaceful disagreement with just in this thread, it's so hard to imagine.
And the Grand Dragon for the KKK endorsed Clinton.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-14/ku-klux-klan-grand-dragon-will-quigg-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president [usnews.com]
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @12:02AM
> And the Grand Dragon for the KKK endorsed Clinton.
Some poser endorsing clinton for lulz isn't even in the same league as the outright celebrations of Trump's win.
http://www.snopes.com/kkk-endorses-hillary-clinton/ [snopes.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @12:13AM
As opposed to the protests going on now.
Oh and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L65RBwrtOeQ [youtube.com]
Maybe you should do as Snopes asks and perform your own research.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @12:25AM
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L65RBwrtOeQ [youtube.com]
Funny how that video has exactly one jump-cut and it is practically mid-sentence in that guy's 'endorsement' of clinton.
I wonder why? Oh I know, it was just an artistic decision by the video editor, right?
> Maybe you should do as Snopes asks and perform your own research.
You mean like this interview with the so-called "grand dragon" where he wiggled out from anything verifiable?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/30/is-this-hillary-clinton-kkk-supporter-just-an-elaborate-troll.html [thedailybeast.com]
You trumpkins are so guillible.
Meanwhile the KKK is actually marching in celebration of Trump's win.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ku-klux-klan-parade-north-carolina-donald-trump-celebration-president-elect-white-supremacists-alt-a7410671.html [independent.co.uk]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @11:55PM
For being the angry side celebrated by the "neo-nazi's and jihadis", I'm having a hard time finding them committing actual acts of violence.
Are you seriously trying to argue that neo-nazis and jihadis are not violent?
Really?
Are you even buying your own bullshit?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @11:59PM
Are you trying to argue the Project Veritas didn't happen?
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @12:10AM
> Are you trying to argue the Project Veritas didn't happen?
You mean the video of a guy saying it was easy to make Trump supporters pop-off by simply wearing a t-shirt?
You think that proves clinton supporters are violent? As in they plan to go around hitting Trump's people's fists with their faces?
Yeah, what a bunch of hypocritcal fascists they are, amirite?!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @12:28AM
No, I mean this
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3924052/Twitter-erupts-calls-Donald-Trump-assassinated-elected-president-United-States.html [dailymail.co.uk]
and this
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/21/why-isnt-the-assassination-attempt-on-donald-trump-bigger-news/ [washingtonpost.com]
and this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjalRqifvf0 [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @12:40AM
None of your links are about project veritas.
So why did you bring up project veritas?
If you think a gish gallop makes you right, well it does more than that, it makes you alt-right!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @12:49AM
Operative who was dismissed makes mention the DNC incites people to violence, and you don't suppose that creates an air of violence that other people react to?
And thus far the only examples of violence are towards Trump supporters, with even an assassination attempt and further threats of assassination.
Yes those Hilary people are just so damn peaceful.
You can't be that dumb.
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Friday November 11 2016, @05:18AM
I am not trying to argue that. Sigh. To better clarify, I am arguing that, within the scope of this election and events directly relevant to it (rallies/protests), I can find plenty of politically motivated violence against people brandishing Trump paraphernalia. I'm struggling to find any sort of violence against people brandishing Clinton paraphernalia. I'm saying that if one group is the "violent" group out of the two, why is there not more obvious cases of Trump supporters attacking Clinton supporters?
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @09:03AM
So, to put it succinctly you are deflecting from the original point by bringing up something else that you feel you scan score points with.
There is absolutely no disputing the fact that neo-nazis and jihadis are ecstatic about a Trump presidency.
The fact that a handful of clinton supporters got out of hand is irrelevant. She never once encouraged violence, Trump's got a long record of doing exactly that from the stage. Even offering to pay the legal bills of people who beat up protestors. And if you are unaware of that, then you have done an absolutely piss-poor job of reading about Trump.
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Friday November 11 2016, @03:42PM
Well, technically, SHE didn't. The whole Project Veritas reveal as referenced by another poster earlier showed that Scott Foval and Robert Creamer actually supported inciting violence and voter fraud. Behold, from the alt-right tabloid known as WaPo:
"The result of all that was that the “Rigging the Election” videos got a skeptical reception — at first. But the video of Foval, a Wisconsin-based politico with a long résumé, had him bragging about a litany of political dirty tricks. In the first video, he boasts of “conflict engagement in the lines of Trump rallies,” takes credit for the violence that canceled a Trump rally at the University of Illinois at Chicago, admits he has paid “mentally ill” people to start trouble and says there's a “Pony Express” that keeps Democratic operatives in touch, regardless of whether they work for super PACs or the campaigns not permitted to coordinate with super PACs.
In the second video, Foval spends five minutes discussing how voters might be brought from outside Wisconsin to commit voter fraud, buying cars with Wisconsin plates to avoid looking suspicious. “We've been busing people in to deal with you f---ing a--holes for 50 years, and we're not going to stop now,” he says."
link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/10/19/two-democratic-operatives-lose-jobs-after-james-okeefe-sting/ [washingtonpost.com]
Trump did do what you say he did. I'm not denying that. I'm just saying that there's far more blood on the hands of the left this election, and even people who were part of the institution supported it. Ultimately though, NO ONE is innocent here.
Except me, because I'm a smug Stein voter. :D
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @12:03AM
It's actually very easy to find examples. Here are two from a quick search:
Three charged in Kansas plot to bomb homes, worship center for Somalis [kansascity.com]
Muslim Taxi Driver Shot In Pittsburgh On Thanksgiving Day [post-gazette.com] by a rider who had talked about ISIS
(Score: 3, Interesting) by dyingtolive on Friday November 11 2016, @05:27AM
I think you misunderstood me. I'm not sure if it was willful or otherwise, but I think I gave a shit explanation of what I was talking about, so it was probably an honest misunderstanding. To repeat my clarification from another post:
I am arguing that, within the scope of this election and events directly relevant to it (rallies/protests), I can find plenty of politically motivated violence against people brandishing Trump paraphernalia. I'm struggling to find any sort of violence against people brandishing Clinton paraphernalia. I'm saying that if one group is the "violent" group out of the two, why is there not more obvious cases of Trump supporters attacking Clinton supporters?
You could argue that those people were politically motivated, and you might have a reasonable argument for it, but no one declared their political beliefs so it's not a certainty. The people who specifically attacked people at what I'm describing were specifically one set of people consistently attacking another BECAUSE they were wearing a shirt or hat or holding a sign.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @09:09AM
> I'm saying that if one group is the "violent" group out of the two, why is there not more obvious cases of Trump supporters attacking Clinton supporters?
Did you miss the people getting beat up at Trump rallies while Trump cheered it on?
And you have the gall to accuse him of willfully misunderstanding you?
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Friday November 11 2016, @03:50PM
There was the one time when Trump offered to pay for the bills of protesters who got in fights. There was a conflict between two people there. I think there was another time I read about that was two people getting into a fight.
Now look at the giant list of stuff that comes up in here [google.com]. You simply CAN'T claim that one side is the "violent" side here. On top of that, I contend that the vast majority of it was actually coming from the left.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @04:08PM
so cite a link to it already. that's what he's asking for
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @07:30PM
I'm of the opinion that this whole mess was actually a beautifully choreographed media show that's been in the making for a long time. Trump is now gonna say some loud opinions after some bad thing happens and rally a large minority to accomplish some goal. Everyone will think that the strong man is making us safe and showing the world how the US "does things", and they will eat it up because that's what all these sycophants secretly want for themselves (tell the boss to fuck off, kill the people that make them angry and take their hard earned cash as taxes, etc). We will slide further into a dystopian police state with people cheering it on because they think its part of making America Great Again.
My only hope is that enough of the Trump supporters were really choosing the lesser of two evils and so he won't get enough support to push through full-blown fascism. Right now we still carry on with the illusion that we live in a free country, once they don't feel the need to keep up the show then shit will get MUCH worse.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @12:34AM
ISIS loved him when he won the primary: http://www.ibtimes.com/isis-wants-trump-president-islamic-state-twitter-users-say-republican-will-help-2408204 [ibtimes.com]
And now jihadists cheer Trump victory: https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/blogs/567492-jihadists-cheer-trump-victory [mmedia.me]
He is literally their candidate. His win is a validation of everything they claim about western society being at war with islam.
He's really energized them. He's made them "high energy."
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Friday November 11 2016, @05:48AM
So we should instead vote for people based upon what our enemies say?
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @09:07AM
We should vote for people based on how well they reflect our values.
Trump and ISIS think exactly the same. They both believe there is no place for muslims in the west.
That makes him an enemy to american values just as much as ISIS is the enemy.
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Friday November 11 2016, @03:59PM
Far as a single-issue vote works, sure, that's a pretty easy value judgement to make.
And I mean, I don't completely disagree with you. It was just an impossible situation, at least for me. I would have voted Democrat if it was ANYONE but Clinton. I would have voted Republican if it was ANYONE but Trump.
And, you know, I defend Trump because while I don't like him, I realize that trying to get people to calm the fuck down a little at this point and save it for when he actually DOES something is going to be the only way to keep things sane for the next four years. I still say, "Give him a chance. Let him try hanging himself in action before you blow up. Otherwise it will lessen the impact later." He can't dissolve rule of law. If he tries pulling anything overbearing, there WILL be plenty of time to react. The alternative is civil war. I don't like wars, which is one of the main reasons I didn't vote for either of the two of them to begin with.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!