Everyone who has left: Uber(Travel Ban and #DeleteUber), Disney(Paris withdrawal), Tesla/SpaceX(Paris Withdrawal). And now Merck, Under Armour and Intel(all left after failure to condemn white supremacists)
* Manufacturing council: http://uk.businessinsider.com/trump-manufacturing-council-wh...
* Business advisory council: http://uk.businessinsider.com/who-is-on-trump-business-advis... (older article)
Pepsi, Walmart, IBM and others are on the later. Also, it seems some companies have left quietly, where the individual has left the company and the company has not appointed a new person.
Could you please disambiguate that? I am confused.
Does it mean "Everyone who is left" or "Everyone who has left"?
Thanks!
Edit: For anyone who wonders what the heck I was talking about, the parent comment originally said "Everyone who's left" - and I honestly was not sure which it meant. That comment has now been edited to read "Everyone who has left", so I am grateful for the clarification.
I would delete this comment since it's now moot, but since a couple of people were kind enough to reply, deleting it now would probably make things even more confusing. :-)
Everyone who is left is xyz. Everyone who is left is abc. Everyone who is left is (insert usually more dramatic thing than xyz or abc).
There has been quite a bit of pruning since so I am not sure about now.
He was rich enough to not get hurt for opening his mouth in a way that made it clear that on certain issues he takes the same side as people the majority in CA consider to be a bunch of hicks.
There's plenty of people in SV (or NYC, or DC for that matter) who come from less prosperous places. They'll just keep quit rather than let people know what their opinions are because that's how you get ahead when your opinions are not those of the majority.
I also wonder if it was intentionally ambigous. He could have said "Just let people use the bathrooms they want to" or similar if he wanted to be clear. Was he worried that would go down worse?
Not fast enough for them?
The wikipedia article also suggests they don't like each other at all:
>Posobiec organized a "Rally Against Political Violence" in Washington, D.C. on June 25, 2017. Richard Spencer ridiculed the event and called it "pathetic".
https://itsgoingdown.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/richie.j...
To be clear, the left has acted violently as well in the past (just look at the Berkley riots), but in this context "violence on all sides" sounds as though the violence was not entirely initiated by one side. But for all accounts, that's exactly what happened. Counter-protestors weren't the ones to drive a car into a crowd.
Some people argue that the protestors having permits somehow excuses the fact that they attacked counter-protestors, but that doesn't make sense unless the violence was initiated by the counter-protestors (which there doesn't appear to be evidence for, and there is plenty of evidence to the contrary).
But they were (among) the ones who showed up with baseball bats, clubs, and mace (and even a few guns). It's not like the protesters were the only ones ready for a fight.
"Counter-protestors weren't the ones to drive a car into a crowd."
That happened well after there had been a lot of fighting already.
This all comes back to the whole "punch a Nazi" trope that was thrown around during the Berkeley riots. Assaulting someone for their political views is reprehensible, no matter what their views are. If a white supremacist is attacked at a protest, that is just as much of an issue as when a counter-protester is attacked.
If you use that card against the white supremacists, what are you going to if the pendulum swings? If you're okay with using violence against your political opponents, you don't have a leg to stand on when they retaliate and use violence against you.
My family comes from a country that was ruled by a communist dictatorship, and the very concept of "violence is justified against your opponents" is disgusting to me. We saw enough of that bullshit before we left. It's sad that discourse has devolved to this level.
All of that being said, discussion of "violence on all sides" is contingent on there actually being violence on all sides in the particular event. As I said in GP, I am not entirely aware of all of the relevant evidence.
"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."
I am all for equivalent response when it comes to a conflict, but "punch a Nazi" et al was about preemptively escalating a political discourse to physical violence. That's what my whole disagreement was with. As you can see in my original comment, I effectively said that if it's the case that the violence was initiated by the white supremacist protesters (which the initial evidence appeared to indicate) then counter-protester violence was justified.
Remember Ferguson? Remember how the Oath Keepers marched through black neighborhoods with machine guns? Can you imagine if black people marched through white suburbs with machine guns? If you can't, look at why California has strict gun laws - the Black Panthers. Or, why were only a few people arrested in Virginia? And, why were they treated with more decency than people protesting police brutality or the Dakota Pipeline? It's white supremacy in action.
You say you're from a communist country, and you may not be aware of America's history with white supremacy, but it runs deep. People who make false equivocations between groups like BLM and the KKK are no better than the white supremacists themselves, and they're the ones that allow this sort of thing to continue - in 2017 FFS.
This sums it up well:
https://scontent.ftpa1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/20800151_163...
Whatever he failed to say, it's deliberate and calculated, and they are playing right into it. They'd better just wait it out for 4 years, because their collective intelligence does not match his shrewdness.
He really isn't. He's everyone's impotent racist bigoted grandparent railing against the iniquities of the modern world because he doesn't understand that the world has moved on from 19th century plantations. The man is a demonstrable idiot who has achieved little off his own bat.