Outrage about comparing the behavior of some Trump supporters to the behavior of German citizens during the early days of Hitler:
Is that outrage misplaced? Can we now legitimately compare the behavior of a significant segment of Trump's base to Nazis?
And what about Trump? One of his close advisors is white nationalist Steve Bannon. Trump's statement about the events in Charlottesville was tepid enough that it drew rebukes from many leaders on the right. Does this concern you?
History has taught us that if enough citizens remain silent about or excuse these elements, they will grow like a cancer.
Are you the least bit worried about the reaction of Trump and some of his defenders, especially considering the presence of a white nationalist in the inner circle of the White House?
The Hitler comparison: is it still verboten to compare the early days of the rise of Hitler to the behavior of these self-professed neo-Nazi Trump suporters and the defenders of Trump's tepid response?
Oh goodness. This certainly is expected. But, what about the left? Riots including destruction of private property. Riots to squelch free speech the groups do not approve of?
We can go on and on. The point is that we have to stop laying a blame game and people of good will, from both sides, need to stand together. What we don't need is to attempt to polarize this nation any more than has already been done. This is all (left and right) happening because instead of working together to stop it we are attempting to tie everyone we don't agree with to the violence perpetrated by specific individuals.
So, you, too, see Neo-Nazi groups as equivalent to university students protesting a particular speaker on their campus?
I think we can agree that any person, including a neo-Nazi, has a right to free speech, and that includes peacefully protesting against someone with whom that person disagrees. Yes?
But, can we also agree that belonging to an openly racist Neo Nazi or white spremecist group is not equivalent to occasionally assembling to disagree with a particular political philosophy?
Hitler systematically promoted an intolerance of Jews, resulting in a populace that, for the most part, swallowed it. Colleges and Universities do much the same with conservative philosophies - they are wrong and must be eradicated.
PP has a point - is there any real difference? One was done for political purposes (to promote the Third Reich and the "master race"), the other done for political purposes (to promote socialism, liberalism, progressivism, call it what you will).
Promoting the ideas of socialism and progress is the same of advocating the subjection and eradication of various races and ethnicity of humanity? Conservatives are more addled in the cabesa than I previously thought.
We are talking more than differences in politics here.
All I can do is :-D at this point. Do you have a college degree?
I don't want to veer too far off topic, but I have noticed that this viewpoint most often comes from those who have never set foot in a major university classroom.
Yes. And 40 years later, another 4 years of night school in a different topic. And neither was centered in the liberal arts, so I didn't find much of what I see today - not only the classes but the students I associated with were mostly non-political. It's hard to turn a discussion of why hydrogen and oxygen combine so easily, or exactly how much energy is released when it does, into a political rally. Not so much with a class on philosophy, history, culture or ethics.
But all one has to do is read the news stories coming out of Universities, where anything smacking of conservatism is automatically denied. Or talk to the students from liberal arts colleges. Or watch what speakers are invited and which are denied. Our colleges and universities are a microcosm of liberalism, with few exceptions. Hillsdale College, for instance is the opposite (although liberal philosophies are at least permitted) and MIT (and other similar science/engineering colleges) don't seem to care that much either way.
This is almost natural; our young people are often altruists, concerned with the rights and wrongs of the world. They have time on their hands. They haven't lived in the real world and they haven't been responsible for taking care of themselves or a family. And they want very much to "fit in" - the drama of high school cliques has not faded much.
So, it's your observation. I could counter your observation with my observation but it would be meaningless.
This conversation can go nowhere meaningful without empirical evidence.
When a college has to hire additional counselors because someone scrawled "Vote Trump" on a sidewalk, it says something. When the bastion of free speech (Berkeley) has to cancel a conservative talk because of liberal students rioting, it says something. When "quite spaces" are required with no conservative discussions, it says something. When 100% of "fuzzy subjects" students that I talk with are liberals it says something - most of my other friends and family are conservative.
I could go on, and so could you, but I think you get the point. There isn't a chance in the world that our universities are basically conservative or even neutral. Not in the humanities sections, anyway - the sciences are another matter.
Using the actions of the students as evidence of a concerted, systematic effort on the part of universities to promote socialism and quash conservatism is illogical. You have to have more evidence than your personal interpretation to make a rational case
And, equating those students' actions to those of an organized white supremecist rally is, well, evidence of my initial premise.
As someone who did mostly social sciences and humanities I have to say I'm a bit confused. Which areas specifically do you believe lean more left and why do you think that's a choice rather than based on facts?
"People of good will from both sides" - is a nice but useless sentiment. Really, it has been a lot of violence and people screaming about "shipping you back to Africa" and " going to burn in hell" - or the "ovens" precludes any rational or reasonable response.
http://indepthnh.org/2017/08/13/police- … ttesville/
The police did little to stop the bloodshed. Several times, a group of assault-rifle-toting militia members from New York State, wearing body armor and desert camo, played a more active role in breaking up fights. Nobody had been wounded due to confrontations between police and the public.
It is true that both sides have violent elements within the crowd:
http://wtvr.com/2017/08/13/protesters-b … -near-vcu/
Protesters screaming "take down the monuments" marched ...
“Stop filming bro,” one of the protesters yelled.
“I can film whatever I want,” the CBS 6 staffer replied. “Get out of my face.”
At that point video shows the photographer's phone knocked out of his hands. His phone landed on the ground, but it captured a protester hitting the photojournalist with what he described as a big stick. (it was a baseball bat)
http://www.newstimes.com/news/us/articl … 816871.php
"With the election of Barack Obama, there was so much talk about being this post-racial moment, and on some levels it was extraordinary," said Steven Hahn, a history professor at New York University. "But it didn't take long for the really vicious racism to surface. It turned out to be an instigator of an enormous amount of rage, and I think Trump both fanned it and inherited it."
"The bottom line is if it weren't for a bunch of neo-Nazis marching around it would have been a regular peaceful day in Charlottesville," said Kyle Kondik,
Sure. The blame game is working out so good for us thus far.
LOL And the second bottom line is that if the "counter protesters" had stayed home instead heading for the protest for the purpose of picking a fight it would have been a peaceful day in Charlottesville.
A bunch of idiots want to parade their stupidity for all to see, let them. No reason to look, no reason to respond, no reason to even be in the vicinity. And certainly no reason to start a fight.
Staying home and doing nothing means you accept it as OK.
You're advice for people is to lock themselves up in their own homes in fear or walking in the streets because then might be hurt or killed by a rampaging crowd of people bent on destroying non-whites?
Awesome advice there.
And your solution is to insert yourself into a protest of idiots known for violence, harassing them and intentionally provoking that violence.
Awesome advice. It's called "Darwinism", or maybe "evolution in action". Those "counter protesters" weren't "walking down the street"; they were there specifically to create trouble. Much like walking into a parking lot full of Hell's Angel's and kicking some of the bikes over - it just isn't very smart.
Personally I would find a group of supremacists marching down an empty street, shouting their ridiculous slogans and hate to empty air, to be hilarious. A better statement could not be made, and no one gets hurt. But that's just me - I've seldom found violence to be a reasonable course of action. And I've never found it smart (or useful) to insult and harangue a large group of idiots about their life philosophy.
they were there specifically to create trouble.
Neo-Nazis dress up in riot gear, armed with guns, riot shield, etc. You are showing your true colors wilderness. You are so self unaware of your own image that you put out. You think you are being logical and unbiased when in truth, I'm having a conversation with a white supremacist sympathizer.
Hundreds of white supremacists gathered with torches, shouting racial, ethnic and religious epithets about Black and Jewish people, chanting Nazi slurs, waving the Confederate flag and banners emblazoned with giant swastikas. A peaceful protester was murdered. Two brave police officers lost their lives.
Are you going to say that those two police officers were 'asking for it' doing their job? You are blaming innocent victims for being at the 'wrong place' at the 'wrong time'. That is a disgusting viewpoint that shows the depth of depravity you have in your heart that is two sizes too small.
“Many sides” suggests that there is no right side or wrong side, that all are morally equal. But I reject that. It’s not hard to spot the wrong side here. They’re the ones with the torches and the swastikas.
The white supremacists who gathered in Charlottesville were there to protest so-called “attacks” on their self perceived racial superiority. That’s it – that’s their grievance.
I don't think anyone is arguing in defense of neo Nazis. It will be grand when our society has evolved to a place where no one considers one race superior to another, where no one feels the need to violently protest and anyone who hears such speech can see it for what it is. A cry for help.
But, I accept that people with passionately held views are somehow (right or wrong) driven to their beliefs. Whether it be a failure of the family during upbringing, a failure of society somewhere along the way or a situation where someone has taken advantage of the weak minded; or it could simply be an exaggerated sense of self worth coupled with a complete lack of disregard for one's fellow man. . When hate breeds hate on both sides it is evident of our failure, as citizens, to take heed of the mitigating circumstances which have led up to these events; it is our failure to reasonably search to find the underlying causes. It is evidence of us allowing ourselves to be drawn toward the same mentality that we claim to be fighting against. It is why we see rallies veer from peaceful ones, it is why we see counter rallies turn violent. These are opinions. They are not cause for violence. But, when we see opinions turn to violence we are fools not to expect opposing opinions to respond with equal or greater violence.
"I disapprove of what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it."
Ever hear that? It's the root of free speech...you know, that part of freedom that you would eliminate in favor of only things you want to hear. Those idiots have a right to speak as they wish, to demonstrate and protest, just as you and your friends do. And yes, I will absolutely defend against you taking that right from them.
Dead police...uhh...you do know they died in a chopper crash? That the skinheads didn't kill them? Or is this just another spin you can put onto something you don't like?
You didn't address why those counter protesters were there, though - would you care to comment, or just leave it at they were there to rumble with the neo-nazis? Or, perhaps, had an IQ of around 40, because sure as can be any halfway intelligent person knew there would be violence between those two groups.
Are you saying that neo-nazis chanting 'blood and soil' (Blut und Boden) can just be ignored?
Should no American express the revulsion they feel for the ideology that thrust the world in WW2 and cost tens of millions of lives?
And does anyone expressing that disgust deserve to be mowed down by what appears to be a fanatic in a car?
Yes, I think they should be ignored, instead of giving credence to their crap. And if I were running the media they would get exactly zero coverage as well. Not so much as a single TV camera - at most a 10 second blurb on the late news that they were there and nothing more.
Of course, if you should wish to demonstrate against them another day, when there is little chance of violence, have at it. You would likely have a few of them coming out to confront you, but not the mob that came in from other cities. And it won't be you asking for trouble, it will be them.
Am I reading you right in that you think a counter protest should be organized, coming face to face with them in order to promote a rumble on the street? Why? So people can be killed in order that you gain attention in your counter? So the cops can be blamed for not preventing the trouble you asked for? (I will say that I like their photos being spread over the 'net, but that can be done from a distance, behind a window.)
*edit* I take back the last sentence. http://www.dailywire.com/news/19720/lef … nk-berrien
According to your statement; "Those "counter protesters" weren't "walking down the street"; they were there specifically to create trouble.
You are so wrong. the people who got ran over were just walking down the street BLOCKS away from the Statue. Didn't you even watch the drone footage of the car plowing into the crowd of people who were just walking? You are a lying liar, to say that those people who were run over were 'asking for it'. Blame the victims - that is so typical of a person who thinks they are better than anybody else. - So smug and - oh wait - supremacist attitude you are exposing.
According to your statement, it is the dead victim's fault for being on the street. You said "And the second bottom line is that if the "counter protesters" had stayed home instead heading for the protest for the purpose of picking a fight it would have been a peaceful day in Charlottesville.
Therefore according to your 'logic' just as it was the fault of the dead woman for being on the street when she should of stayed home - that could be said for the police - all they had to do was call in sick and have the 'blue flu' and be alive today.
Is that how you argue? "No reason to look, no reason to respond, no reason to even be in the vicinity. And certainly no reason to start a fight."
Who started the fight?
Did someone attack the car? - NO!
You said "And your solution is to insert yourself into a protest of idiots known for violence, harassing them and intentionally provoking that violence."
That's the same stupid pretzel logic rapists or wife beaters says when they defend themselves by saying "She was asking for it." -
How can a person defend a car driver plowing into a crowd of innocent peaceful citizens without provocation? The only reason I can think of for you to defend the attackers and blame the victims is that you don't truly believe that non-whites should be allowed the same freedoms as white people?
Are you a bigoted racist? If not, please clarify, because it sure sounds like you are.
A woman is dead! You are blaming that woman's death on her for simply walking down the street blocks away from the violent crowd when a car intentionally and randomly plowed through a crowd of people forwards AND backwards.
You disgust me. And you think of yourself as part of the superior species when I say; you are talking more like the stupider feces.
This is a prime example of how disagreements escalate into violence. I've seen it several times. Someone makes a statement such as yours of : "You disgust me. And you think of yourself as part of the superior species when I say; you are talking more like the stupider feces." They think it is cute and somehow shows them to be superior. It makes someone else hot under the collar. They continue with such lowbrow tactics because (from what I have seen) they cannot fathom that if they don't raise a fist the other person is simply going to either continue to be insulted or respond with insulting words. They are always amazed when someone hits them after repeatedly displaying such aggressive behavior. I never am. Respect goes both ways and disrespect can be displayed in myriad ways.
The only person responsible for throwing a punch is the person who threw the punch. I agree that sometimes the person on the receiving end was asking for it, but that does not absolve the puncher from sole responsibility for their action. The one engaging in a verbal assault is only responsible for his own behavior, and bears zero responsibility for the other person's reaction. That is solely on them.
I agree that, legally, that is true. However, those I have observed abusing this truth don't have a lot of room to whine about it.
Why not? If a young girl gets drunk, exposes her breasts, and then is gang raped, can she whine about it?
We cannot excuse the actions of Nazis, just because another group yelled ugly epithets right back at them.
I'm sorry but that makes as little sense as the comment from crankalicious. What does someone being drunk and baring their breast and then being gang raped got to do with someone who hurls repeated insults at another human being. Are you saying breasts are insulting?
It has to do with acting responsibly rather than carelessly. What should be is very often not what is and we do have a responsibility to behave in a way that does not end with being harmed.
Yes, one can scream insults at an angry protester or wave a baseball bat at them. One can get drunk and bare breasts. One can flip off another that cut us off on the freeway and then tailgate them. One can walk through central park at 2AM swinging a purse from the hand. There are lots of things we can do, things that we know carry a high probability of us getting hurt, that aren't smart. And to then sit back and say "(S)he should not have hurt me!", while true, is little more than an attempt to abrogate any responsibility we have for our own safety and well being.
If the Nazis had raped the woman who got run over would it have been her fault she got raped because she was dead?
I have no idea what would compel anyone to ask such a bizarre and pointless question. Hopefully, someone can enlighten us.
Try to figure it out. I'm making an analogy to a line of reasoning that's been used in this forum already.
So does disrespect, dear sir/ma'am sir/ma'am.
"You are a lying liar"
And with that, we're done here. I refuse to discuss anything with those that can't remain civil in the face of disagreement - they are no better than the skinheads screaming out their slogans and hate.
Lying liar? Really? In the world that Trump has created, "lying liar" is enough to end an argument? Truly, you must be joking.
That said, when one resorts to name-calling, it's usually because they can't argue effectively, so rather than declaring your disgust, you should probably declare victory.
Yes, the irony! I would've thought it was the "stupider feces" insult. Even then, for a Trump supporter to get butthurt about name calling is the height of irony and hypocrisy.
*shrug* You may be right; others can decide who "won" the argument. But I'm really not interested in continuing a discussion with those that cannot remain civil.
I guess I feel compelled to point this out because it certainly is ironic.
You're decrying ptosis's lack of civility for name-calling, but you're equating the lack of civility between the Nazi marchers and the counter protestors - I'm using "civility" in a very general sense to mean "behaving outside the norm". The dead woman is dead, not because she was peacefully protesting, but because she chose to be uncivil and therefore put herself in harm's way.
So if ptosis came and dropped a nuclear bomb on your house (I'm being intentionally hyperbolic), you would be at fault for engaging him?
Just as an aside, I am normally a person who believes pretty strongly that stupid behavior begets bad outcomes.
There you go again. You are not being civil, you are highly uncivil to blame a dead woman unarmed on the street and blaming it on her as if it was her fault. Your discourteous response to a person's death creates the incivility response. Now you claim victim-hood.
Trump's supporters believe a false narrative of white victimhood — and your posts proves it.
While I agree with your basic premise, I cannot abide your insults here. Everyone has a different line, and you have crossed mine. I'm pretty sure you are violating TOS.
I am sympathetic to your argument, just not your method of argument.
Interesting side conversation?
About a week after the election, my husband and I had a conversation about racism in America and what the election of Trump indicated about us as a people. I told him my fears of how good people turning a blind eye to the racist, misogynistic, and nationalistic rhetoric perpetrated by Trump, and electing him President of the United States could be the beginning of a revival of overt racism in America, and an acceptance of what used to be unacceptable behavior, in the furtherance of a political "cause." He pooh-poohed my fears, even though he did not vote for Trump (or Hillary for that matter).
Six weeks into Trump's presidency, my husband changed his tune. He was appalled by the appointment of Bannon to Trump's inner circle, and the lack of outcry from Republicans. There was much more, but long story short, he is now a registered Democrat.
This morning, he said he sees Trump's support slowly dwindling, which gives him hope. I mentioned his own transformation, and he said, "It's a slow process, and it's painful. Some people cannot do it."
To him, it was painful to reject the party he had been a part of for over 50 years. But, he did it, because he could not stomach the ugliness that Trump cynically taps into, and the indifference of the party leadership and the American people who defend his behavior no matter what. An indifference, he believes, is fueled by hunger for power. His party betrayed their principles just to win, and he will have none of it.
What will it take for you to say "no" to what is happening with the Republican party? How far will it go before you fully renounce your allegiance to the party that provides a platform for racist rhetoric? Any social scientist will tell you that this type of language coming from a leader will fuel and embolden racists. How long will you tolerate it?
Just curious, but do you really think that in general, GOP members accept Trump as a Republican? Do you think republicans accept Donald Trump as the leader of their political party, and follow his guidance?
Do you think voters "turned a blind eye" to his rhetoric, or just found it preferable to the actions of his opponent?
"Just curious, but do you really think that in general, GOP members accept Trump as a Republican?"
Yes, as evidenced by the majority Republican support he has enjoyed since gaining the nomination and still enjoys.
"Do you think republicans accept Donald Trump as the leader of their political party, and follow his guidance?"
Yes, again, as evidenced by the majority Republican support. How can you argue otherwise, if the vast majority of registered Republicans still approve of this president?
"Do you think voters "turned a blind eye" to his rhetoric, or just found it preferable to the actions of his opponent? "
Yes, voters said to themselves they could accept this person's rhetoric, behavior and personality when they checked that box beside his name. If they couldn't accept any of that, they would not have voted for him. It's quite simple, isn't it?
If a republican man-in-the-street disapproves of Trump, who would you suggest the party follow? Right now they have "the power" with "their" president; would you expect them to give it up because they disapprove?
That's why we see more and more R politicians condemning him, right?
"If they couldn't accept any of that, they would not have voted for him."
You would expect them to throw their vote away and let Satan himself take office? That's really quite simple, isn't it?
Donald Trump is in office because he won the Republican nomination. In order for that to happen, he had to win more votes than the other Republican candidates. Republicans chose him as their candidate. Then, enough Americans voted for him to win the electoral college.
Satan wasn't on the ballot. Why can't Trump voters take responsibility for their votes? It's downright weird.
"Satan wasn't on the ballot."
Yes he was. He wore the initials of H.C., and Donald Trump cannot possibly do more damage to the country than she would have. So how about Clinton voters taking responsibility for casting their vote for her, and acknowledge that they didn't care about the country as long as a Democrat got into the office.
It truly is/was a matter of perspective and opinion, you see.
You have repeatedly been told why many voted for Trump and that reason was the complete unacceptability of the candidate given to us by the Democratic party. What I find weird is that democrats can't take responsibility for ensuring that there was not an acceptable choice put forth.
I was pro Kasich and Sanders for the ticket. Should I not have voted, simply because neither party chose them?
What you see coming from the far right and from our President, is the intolerance of any kind of civil disobedience. It doesn't matter what kind of civil disobedience it is, whatever kind, it's wrong. Therefore, what is coming from the weak-minded and frankly, stupid, is equating all kinds of civil disobedience. Thus, the pro-Nazi and the anti-Nazi are all just part of the same problem and should be vilified equally because they are disturbing civil society and making those of us who bark from our easy chairs uncomfortable.
The truth is that one side are racists and the other side is not. To be intolerant of racism doesn't mean you get to be painted with the intolerant brush, but that's precisely what our racist President did. You see, if you side with white nationalists and Nazis, that makes you a racist. President Trump has basically proven that point by not condemning the Nazis, then condemning them two days later, then ending his day by retweeting some white nationalist propaganda. If it walks like a duck...
And the woman who got killed? It was obviously her fault for being so stupid as to engage in civil disobedience. She is much like the multitude of women who are responsible for their own rapes because they drank too much and wanted to have a good time. (That last sentence, in case you couldn't figure it out, is sarcasm)
DoJ has served a website-hosting company, DreamHost, with a search warrant for every piece of information it possessed that was related to a website that was used to coordinate protests during Donald Trump’s inauguration...
Your judiciary is going to important, if you want keep your civil liberties.
"It doesn't matter what kind of civil disobedience it is, whatever kind, it's wrong."
Well said. Believing that your cause is just and therefore gives you the right to flaunt the law doesn't make it so. It's still wrong.
After reading this thread, I struggle to find polite words. A very surprised "Wow" is the only safe choice.
The savage is within all of us. It is just a matter of how many layers must be peeled away to see it. Some of these comments have shown how few it is.
To be clear, it is not the premise that stepping into a lion's den is a bad idea that I found surprising.
ps. PrettyPanther - if you remember my thoughts about using Hitler comparisons - in one of our previous conversations, I might point to the tome of comments in this thread as evidence of my point.
What is in this thread is nothing compared to what is in the hateful minds of neo-Nazis, the KKK, and other white supremacists groups.
These people boldly marched with torches, shields, bats, and other weapons,because they feel emboldened by a racist president and the Americans who voted for him. THAT is what should receive your consternation, not a Nazi comparison, especially when Nazis and their racist brethren are marching the streets of America.
It appears my previous explanation, (in another thread), failed. Since I thought it was clearly stated, I don't suppose another effort would do any better.
To use one of your expressions; "I'm not going down that rabbit hole," or to point to what might be an error of conflation - I will just say that my comments did not address, Pres. Trump or the White Supremacists, nor were they directed at those "Nazis and their racist brethren " you mention.
Yet each of your responses have focused on them - instead of my comments. And here, you appear to justify some of this thread's poster's rhetoric by applying it to the standard of the groups you are condemning. That is not a logic I would trust. That might lead to someone thinking a brutal mugging isn't really bad when judged by the standards of a murderer.
Do you find me guilty by association, (perceived), because I have not joined in your condemnations - even though I have also not joined in their defense? Haven't my efforts to avoid any pro or anti-Trump comments raised a thought with you?
Do I really need to join your choir publicly condemning neo-Nazis, the KKK, and White Supremacists, to prove that I do condemn them? If so, wouldn't my failure to point out that many of the counter-protesters were also armed, (some with baseball bats), and prepared for a violent confrontation, mean that I support them too?
I will keep my public expressions of consternation, (you know, those Tsk! Tsk! type comments), in the realm of fellow forum participants where we can have discussions.
In most cultures conservatives are a reliable group. They respect authority, hold standard views, believe governments are doing the right thing and that their 'betters' (whoever they might be) have their interests at heart. A little paternalism and conformity can be a stabilizing influence.
What we are seeing in the US, is a conservatism that is morphing into radicalism.
When that happens there is nothing to hold a country together. Welcome to a lot more than bad manners.
by JAKE Earthshine 4 days ago
The result of a self absorbed orange abomination perched in our oval office in an apparent paranoid state facing impending impeachment and the righteous hand of justice to finally be laid upon his wretched being: A rapidly shrinking republican party can’t possibly be a surprise to anyone who...
by My Esoteric 18 months ago
Maybe. The 17th Century term High Crimes and Misdemeanors may not mean what you think it might be after seeing President Clinton impeached, but not convicted. A common interpretation is as follows:The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct peculiar...
by JAKE Earthshine 13 hours ago
Unprecedented instability, we’ve never experienced anything as chaotic and destructive as this: Greatest stock market crash in history, Unilateral trade wars with our allies instigated recklessly by Mr. Trump which is killing jobs for his own voters and everyone else, Americans dropping out of...
by Randy Godwin 3 months ago
Gas prices are soaring as usual under Republican leadership. This will hurt middle and lower classes more than it does those who got the lions' share of the tax cuts. Not only do we have to repay the Chinese for the money we borrowed , we now have to pay higher prices for fuel. I hope those wanted...
by Greensleeves Hubs 2 years ago
The Conservative Party has always been the major right of centre party in the UK - the party of Churchill, Thatcher, Cameron and current Prime Minister Theresa May. A party which believes in strong fiscal policy and freedom of the individual. A party, most of whose members believe in immigration...
by GA Anderson 12 days ago
I think this is a smart move politically. A fair move for Blasey/Ford. And an honest effort to ensure a non-circus hearing.Democrats, of course, are blasting the move. Blaming the Republicans of hiding, (anonymously?), behind their written questions submitted to that outside counselor.What do you...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|