Facebook co-founder pledges $20 million to help stop Donald Trump becoming president

[davislane1]

Count on it... Believe it.

Fixed that for you.

I think that TechSpot shouldn't be a place for politics.

Bro... You have a Ron Paul Revolution avatar. I haven't seen irony this strong since Comey said the Federal Bureau of "Investigation" couldn't find evidence of wrong doing in Clinton's deleted emails.

 

[bnjohanson]

Historically speaking, China back in the 15th century or so, was much like the US is now. They were in many ways more advanced than the rest of the world. Then China cut itself off from the rest of the world instituting an isolationist policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism

I think many still believe that China is yet still recovering from that 15th century isolation.

Some might think that it is a great policy because it prevents those with opposing viewpoints from entering the country, and in this day and age, that is perceived as preventing entry of terrorists to a country. However, it works both ways. Isolationism could prevent exports, and it could prevent imports of technology and ideas that might spur further innovation and economic development.

As I see it, isolationism is a knee-jerk reaction that fosters a feel-good mentality, we're better than they are, we don't need them, and for sure, we will prevent all bad from affecting us. IMO, humanity, though, is at its best when there is a free and open exchange of ideas. Unless there is drastic economic change, and what that might be I do not know, there will inevitably be those who have not wanting to have the things of "those who have," and perhaps, willing to do anything to achieve those ends.

With isolationism, we might pay a heavy price that stands a chance of lasting for centuries. There's a saying about history repeating itself if the lessons are not learned.

It's either too bad you have clung-on to this myth for so long, or equally so that you numbingly absorb what the media tells you and reflexively repeat it back like some kind of species of parrot...

..."Free Trade" that results in billions upon billions of trade deficits is not non-isolationist, it's called IDIOCY. A far more balanced approach to "Free Trade" eliminating such massive deficits and seeking "smarter trade" for this Country's benefit is not Isolationist, IT'S SMART...not unlike one would expect of a First-World Super Power.

Unfortunately, we have a Third World despot as a President working with Second-World Europeans seeking to export our wealth overseas to the Third World in their efforts to construct a One World Globalist entity where just like Socialism has ALWAYS resulted in NEVER giving a hand-up, it has instead always has brought equal misery.

LEARN AND EDUCATE YOURSELF BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE...

...the mind is a terrible thing to waste.

 

[bnjohanson]

Good luck with that... A waste of money if you ask me. Both "nominees" are terrible choices. I get to pick between a c*nt or a douche, meh. Both have a good chance of destroying our country further. Obama has already screwed us enough, hasn't anyone learned?

yeah, brilliant; you wish we had Romney and Obama as choices again...LOL

 

[bnjohanson]

Historically speaking, China back in the 15th century or so, was much like the US is now. They were in many ways more advanced than the rest of the world. Then China cut itself off from the rest of the world instituting an isolationist policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism

I think many still believe that China is yet still recovering from that 15th century isolation.

Some might think that it is a great policy because it prevents those with opposing viewpoints from entering the country, and in this day and age, that is perceived as preventing entry of terrorists to a country. However, it works both ways. Isolationism could prevent exports, and it could prevent imports of technology and ideas that might spur further innovation and economic development.

As I see it, isolationism is a knee-jerk reaction that fosters a feel-good mentality, we're better than they are, we don't need them, and for sure, we will prevent all bad from affecting us. IMO, humanity, though, is at its best when there is a free and open exchange of ideas. Unless there is drastic economic change, and what that might be I do not know, there will inevitably be those who have not wanting to have the things of "those who have," and perhaps, willing to do anything to achieve those ends.

With isolationism, we might pay a heavy price that stands a chance of lasting for centuries. There's a saying about history repeating itself if the lessons are not learned.

I agree for the most part... The US was founded on the idea of immigration, and just about the entire country is formed of immigrants. Banning a specific group of people isn't going to solve the problem (although admittedly it might slow it down) but there are still plenty of terrorists already in the country. Immigrants need to be accepted with open arms, but their past should be scrutinized to learn as much about them as possible. And if a known "terrorist" is trying to enter the country, let them... Say "Thanks for turning yourself in, here is your cell."

Just because the US should let everyone in though doesn't mean they should be getting so much assistance. This is the "land of opportunity" and you have to find it [opportunity] yourself. You shouldn't expect the country to hold your hand the entire way to success. The country needs to stop giving things away for free to every begging hand, and needs to be extremely vigilant with groups of people known to cause problems. And yes at this time, I'm speaking of those who follow the Islamic/Muslim faith. That is not to say people of other religions haven't caused problems either though.

no country in earth, let alone this one, has EVER accepted with "open arms" unlimited amount of immigrants at any given time. Manage the number allowed such that a sovereign isn't over run by population, culture, and its financial capacity to support such an influx. What a moronic statement that was...

 

[bnjohanson]

The fact that trump ISN'T beating Hillary in a landslide just shows how incompetent he is as a candidate.

It also shows up people don't want to vote for Clinton either... The story isn't just on Trump. The real story is how this nation don't want niether of these clowns but yet have some how made it to the ballot for both parties.

Trump will accumulate more votes than any President in decades among a swath of both parties and those that haven't voted in an eon; you watch. QUIT ALLOWING YOURSELF TO BE HYPNOTIZED BY THE MEDIA....it makes you look really stupid.

 

[bnjohanson]

The fact that trump ISN'T beating Hillary in a landslide just shows how incompetent he is as a candidate.

Wouldn't it also be fair to say that the fact that Hillary ISN'T beating Trump in a landslide just shows how incompetent she is as a candidate?

btw...I'm not saying I'm for one or the other.

then grow a pair.

 

[bnjohanson]

Recall that Hillary couldn't beat a nobody senator from Illinois back in 2007. She has been able to keep it a close race exclusively because of the media focusing on Trump.

I honestly don't remember that at all...however, with all the cards stacked against trump, as of yesterday, he is leading in polls, 45 vs 43.

Hillary has never won anything in her life that wasn't handed to her....EVER.

That is, unless you count the tenure at that certain law firm that a certain Governor handed to her after she failed to pass the BAR exam...and was banned from qualifying to take it again.

 

[RustyTech]

I'm not for either candidate, but everyone knew going into this election what Hillary was all about. The fact that trump isn't beating someone as obviously corrupt as Hillary shows incompetence. I wouldn't use the words incopetent to describe the Clintons. I'd actually say they are very smart, it's just that their long career of corruption is getting too big to hide, especially under the spotlight of a presidential election.

well said...I'd have to agree

 

[Kenrick]

I see it like this: traditional politician (hillary) vs contemporary politician (trump).

 

[psycros]

"However, it works both ways. Isolationism could prevent exports, and it could prevent imports of technology and ideas that might spur further innovation and economic development."

Yes, isolationism has really impacted Chinese exports, and they've *never* managed to stea-errr, IMPORT foreign technology. Constantly devaluing their own currency and employing state-run media to control the masses has certainly weakened them as a world power..

/triple facepalm

 

[umbala]

Extreme vetting. Extreme! EXTREEEEME VETTING!!!! lol

 

[jack_alexander]

While I am for the first time in my 40 odd years of voting (Democrat) I am now non-partisan since I don't care for either of the candidates. Hillary is a Dixiecrat which is a person who wouldn't join the party of Lincoln. She is aristocratic and racist, whether she show it or not. I am sorry I voted for her old man who was just a bridge between the Bush regimes.

This time I don't care to take the blame for what is in store for this country if either of these morons are elected.

I approve of the $20 million donation but as I've seen above, this against the rich *******'s money is nothing but a small spot in the election. I hope they both vanish before the election.

 

[JamesSWD]

It also shows up people don't want to vote for Clinton either... The story isn't just on Trump. The real story is how this nation don't want niether of these clowns but yet have some how made it to the ballot for both parties.

Hillary stole it from berni by rigging the primaries, Trump stole the Republican nomination by turning the election into a reality TV show

Trump won the nomination fair & square because people voted to nominate him. They had a choice and they made it.

 

[JamesSWD]

Moskovitz = A fool and his money will soon part. Trump is going to win this thing.

 

[Mike89]

Liberal Facebook for liberal Clinton. And that surprises who? Just astounds me that people will vote for Hilary Clinton. She might as well belong to the mob as crooked as she is. That woman doesn't have an honest bone in her body and a lie to her is just politics. She will probably get elected with everything stacked against Trump including the liberal press but I'm damn sure not voting for her. If elected, she will go down as the most hated president of all time.

 

[IAMTHESTIG]

I hear what you are saying, however, the US is also supposed to be a country where freedom of religion is tolerated. Extremism, though, knows no religious boundaries. Labeling all those who are Islamic/Muslim as undesirables, IMO, is another feel good approach, but has the effect of labeling non-terrorists as terrorists because they happen to be Islamic/Muslim.

As I see it, this is the equivalent of labeling all Catholics/Christians terrorists because members of the Mafia are Catholic/Christian. I think it is not beyond those who regularly post here to see that such labeling is equally unfair to those of Catholic/Christian faith.

What is being fought in both cases is violent extremists. I think that there will be unwarranted suffering until we learn to leave religion behind in the labeling of violent extremism, and I also think we can do better to those who have nothing to do with violent extremism - no matter what they choose as their personal faith.

I never said anything about labeling groups... just about being vigiliant with groups known to have people that cause problems. Right now that group just happens to be Muslims.

 

[wiyosaya]

Historically speaking, China back in the 15th century or so, was much like the US is now. They were in many ways more advanced than the rest of the world. Then China cut itself off from the rest of the world instituting an isolationist policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism

I think many still believe that China is yet still recovering from that 15th century isolation.

Some might think that it is a great policy because it prevents those with opposing viewpoints from entering the country, and in this day and age, that is perceived as preventing entry of terrorists to a country. However, it works both ways. Isolationism could prevent exports, and it could prevent imports of technology and ideas that might spur further innovation and economic development.

As I see it, isolationism is a knee-jerk reaction that fosters a feel-good mentality, we're better than they are, we don't need them, and for sure, we will prevent all bad from affecting us. IMO, humanity, though, is at its best when there is a free and open exchange of ideas. Unless there is drastic economic change, and what that might be I do not know, there will inevitably be those who have not wanting to have the things of "those who have," and perhaps, willing to do anything to achieve those ends.

With isolationism, we might pay a heavy price that stands a chance of lasting for centuries. There's a saying about history repeating itself if the lessons are not learned.

It's either too bad you have clung-on to this myth for so long, or equally so that you numbingly absorb what the media tells you and reflexively repeat it back like some kind of species of parrot...

..."Free Trade" that results in billions upon billions of trade deficits is not non-isolationist, it's called IDIOCY. A far more balanced approach to "Free Trade" eliminating such massive deficits and seeking "smarter trade" for this Country's benefit is not Isolationist, IT'S SMART...not unlike one would expect of a First-World Super Power.

Unfortunately, we have a Third World despot as a President working with Second-World Europeans seeking to export our wealth overseas to the Third World in their efforts to construct a One World Globalist entity where just like Socialism has ALWAYS resulted in NEVER giving a hand-up, it has instead always has brought equal misery.

LEARN AND EDUCATE YOURSELF BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE...

...the mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Good luck with your view. China manipulating the value of their currency. Need I say more? But, their prices are rising, too. The US is not doing all that bad for owing so much to China. Is China presently able to come and take their due from the US? I doubt it.

 

[wiyosaya]

I hear what you are saying, however, the US is also supposed to be a country where freedom of religion is tolerated. Extremism, though, knows no religious boundaries. Labeling all those who are Islamic/Muslim as undesirables, IMO, is another feel good approach, but has the effect of labeling non-terrorists as terrorists because they happen to be Islamic/Muslim.

As I see it, this is the equivalent of labeling all Catholics/Christians terrorists because members of the Mafia are Catholic/Christian. I think it is not beyond those who regularly post here to see that such labeling is equally unfair to those of Catholic/Christian faith.

What is being fought in both cases is violent extremists. I think that there will be unwarranted suffering until we learn to leave religion behind in the labeling of violent extremism, and I also think we can do better to those who have nothing to do with violent extremism - no matter what they choose as their personal faith.

I never said anything about labeling groups... just about being vigiliant with groups known to have people that cause problems. Right now that group just happens to be Muslims.

What about extremist Christians killing people because they don't like the policies they support, such as abortion. Ah, I forgot, that is not causing trouble, that is following the word of God.

No group or religion has a lock on causing trouble.

 

[WithoutAnyMilk]

The fact that trump ISN'T beating Hillary in a landslide just shows how incompetent he is as a candidate.

Or, more likely, it shows just how incompetent the average citizen is at gauging potential leadership. The current President was elected in large part due to his ethnicity and because he was young and perceived as charismatic. I assure you that the majority of the electorate will not have changed their shallow ways since the previous Presidential election cycle.

 

[Yynxs]

<!--//--><script>PrxModAtr=1;</script>

<!--//--><script> function NoError(){return(true);} onerror=NoError; </script>

<!--//--><script> function moveTo(){return true;}function resizeTo(){return true;}</script>

And yes at this time, I'm speaking of those who follow the Islamic/Muslim faith. That is not to say people of other religions haven't caused problems either though.

I hear what you are saying, however, the US is also supposed to be a country where freedom of religion is tolerated. Extremism, though, knows no religious boundaries. Labeling all those who are Islamic/Muslim as undesirables, IMO, is another feel good approach, but has the effect of labeling non-terrorists as terrorists because they happen to be Islamic/Muslim.

As I see it, this is the equivalent of labeling all Catholics/Christians terrorists because members of the Mafia are Catholic/Christian. I think it is not beyond those who regularly post here to see that such labeling is equally unfair to those of Catholic/Christian faith.

What is being fought in both cases is violent extremists. I think that there will be unwarranted suffering until we learn to leave religion behind in the labeling of violent extremism, and I also think we can do better to those who have nothing to do with violent extremism - no matter what they choose as their personal faith.

<!--//--><script>PrxRST();</script>
uh, no it's not. Read the history. The Cosa Nostra and it's US derivatives were in the business of business and skimming therefrom. Islam is a violence dependent religion. The adherents that practice the violence are in the world to convert others to Islam with no excuse for not converting accepted. Islam has been this way since its founding. The very schism between Shiite and Sunni illustrates this perfectly, e.g. "It's my way or the graveyard".

When you try to link obscure similarities like this, you obfuscate the problem. Read all the history and all the information and all their literature. Without a Reformation, Islam is the Inquisition without the foreplay of arrest.

 

[Yynxs]

I hear what you are saying, however, the US is also supposed to be a country where freedom of religion is tolerated. Extremism, though, knows no religious boundaries. Labeling all those who are Islamic/Muslim as undesirables, IMO, is another feel good approach, but has the effect of labeling non-terrorists as terrorists because they happen to be Islamic/Muslim.

As I see it, this is the equivalent of labeling all Catholics/Christians terrorists because members of the Mafia are Catholic/Christian. I think it is not beyond those who regularly post here to see that such labeling is equally unfair to those of Catholic/Christian faith.

What is being fought in both cases is violent extremists. I think that there will be unwarranted suffering until we learn to leave religion behind in the labeling of violent extremism, and I also think we can do better to those who have nothing to do with violent extremism - no matter what they choose as their personal faith.

I never said anything about labeling groups... just about being vigiliant with groups known to have people that cause problems. Right now that group just happens to be Muslims.

What about extremist Christians killing people because they don't like the policies they support, such as abortion. Ah, I forgot, that is not causing trouble, that is following the word of God.

No group or religion has a lock on causing trouble.

https://prochoice.org/education-and-advocacy/violence/violence-statistics-and-history/
Their self-description: The National Abortion Federation has been compiling statistics on incidents of violence and disruption against abortion providers since 1977. Our comprehensive database is an invaluable resource that enables us to detect changes in the patterns and trends in anti-abortion activities.

...The first provider was murdered in 1993. Including the recent attack in Colorado, there have been 11 murders and 26 attempted murders due to anti-abortion violence....

So, um, let me get this straight. You're equating 11 murders and 26 attempted murders over a period of 22 years by mostly mentally ill and a couple of fringe Christians with Religiously Inspired Islamic Terrorism? Setting aside 9/11 go do a count of Islamic killings for the same period.

While you're at it, get a handle on reality. One killing does not make a religion classified as violent. An argument could be made for 10,000 not making a religion violent since there's nearly a billion Muslims and you're spreading it over 22 years and 11 countries around the world. I believe the question is: At what number of religious sponsored and condoned and celebrated killings do you think a religion could be labled as violent and therefore not the same as 37 *****s who call themselves Christians?

 

[Gaara]

When Trump brings ALL the jobs back to the US, does that include all his companies making money out of the country???? Someone in the media, perhaps at the debate, should ask that question.

 

[Raoul Duke]

Historically speaking, China back in the 15th century or so, was much like the US is now. They were in many ways more advanced than the rest of the world. Then China cut itself off from the rest of the world instituting an isolationist policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism

I think many still believe that China is yet still recovering from that 15th century isolation.

It's possible many do, but China as the "Middle Kingdom" was quite self-sufficient, prosperous and likely one of the most advanced nations on Earth at that time. Other people wanted what they had, but didn't want to pay for it...like the British.
Tea imports were bankrupting Britain and they wanted to pay for it with opium instead of the gold and silver which the Chinese insisted on as nothing else the West had shown them had any value for them. Britain kept illegally supplying opium and when China protested, Britain sent the Royal Navy to teach them a lesson. China was not a match for the Royal Navy, the result China had to cede to Britain Hong Kong and accept a humiliating trade deal. There were 2 opium wars. Humiliated, forced to accept bad trade deals at the point of a gun.

 

[Quester55]

SOUNDS to me like this " PoS," is PUBLICLY POSTING A CONTRACT ON MR. TRUMP!?!
May the FCC Introduce this Terrorist to the gray-bar Hotel for a Lifelong visit!!

 

[RustyTech]

It's possible many do, but China as the "Middle Kingdom" was quite self-sufficient, prosperous and likely one of the most advanced nations on Earth at that time. Other people wanted what they had, but didn't want to pay for it...like the British.
Tea imports were bankrupting Britain and they wanted to pay for it with opium instead of the gold and silver which the Chinese insisted on as nothing else the West had shown them had any value for them. Britain kept illegally supplying opium and when China protested, Britain sent the Royal Navy to teach them a lesson. China was not a match for the Royal Navy, the result China had to cede to Britain Hong Kong and accept a humiliating trade deal. There were 2 opium wars. Humiliated, forced to accept bad trade deals at the point of a gun.

Sounds like the present day. Superpowers making bad trade deals with other countries...so sad.