1. "Trump is such an egomaniac that he truly believes that if he wrecks the place, he and he alone can fix it...Except he doesn't know how to fix anything back up. His recent tirade against Obamacare is a prime example...But no worries. Trump is just forcing the issue so he can come riding in on his stallion and save the day. Trump supporters, keep telling yourselves that when you are standing in the unemployment line. Guess what? Many overseas companies have plants in Mexico which they use to produce and distribute goods all over the world. Those will shut down also and create global havoc..."
2. "All this is true- but I believe the analysis does not go deep enough. And as presented here even abets the "punishers"- who punish- but the key question is: Whom do they serve? Who does Trump serve, first and foremost? At one level being clinically narcissistic- himself. Not even his family encroaches on this prime directive. But his allies are the rich, powerful and corrupt who see the legal system as a vehicle for impunity and devaluing of human life- all life actually. Here and abroad...And then there are the racists- who firmly believe they are not (racist), but have remarkable sympathies for White Supremacists, making immigrants their favorite "defenseless" victims (scapegoats). So yes- Trump is a punisher- but so much more."
3. "Apple would be liberated by a big increase in taxes on high incomes and especially dividends. It would reduce the stakes associated with the share price, increase the stakes of producing something new, and reduce the power of the "activist investors" who in reality are hyper-entitled vultures...Apple as a services operator isn't really going to go anywhere without being cross-platform, but the current configuration of the stock market and tax system incentivizes short-term maintenance of their current dividend at the expense of long-term development and locks them into the tried-and-true methods of the recent past."
4. "There’s no reason to keep sending aid to the so-called triangle of Central American countries when the aid appears to be nothing to stem the flow of illegal immigration from those countries. Better that we spend the money that we would have sent to strengthen our border and deal with the costs associated with this tsunami of illegal immigration. I note that even President Obama’s Homeland Security Secretary recently acknowledged that we do indeed have a crisis on the border. For those who say that these are asylum seekers, the law of asylum states that the asylum claimant must stop at the first safe country and make his or her claim. Mexico, for purposes of compliance with that international treaty, is deemed a safe country. Instead, these people are being given a fast pass through Mexico (Mexico isn’t stupid) and showing up at our border with mostly non-actionable claims of refugee status. Proof of the latter is that something like 85% of all asylum claims is rejected when they finally come up for review. It’s all a big, coached gaming of our hopelessly naive system by economic refugees who are forum shopping for the sweetest deal."
5. "I don’t really see this editorial offering any solution here to a real problem. I don’t agree with cutting off aid to Central America either, but does it really go to stop gang violence? Has it had any effect up to now? How will these hundreds of thousands of asylum cases ever be adjudicated? Meanwhile, affluent liberals (including the editorial board of the New York Times) continue to see no problem with massive migration, untouched themselves by the continuing strains on the social safety net, on schools and hospitals and housing and wages, and it’s the poor who suffer, not them"
All these comments that I chose as the effective comments had a similar view of looking at the Op-Eds. All the writers of the comments were putting on the lens of critiques while reading the articles. In that way, they were able to make these comments that suggested possible solutions for the issue, had professional background information about the issue and criticized the problem objectively, and supported their ideas with a lot of real-life examples. And I think all those elements are what made the comments effective.
Ineffective Comments:
1. "Why do his followers still support him? They are addicts, and Trump is their drug."
2."The main difference between an architect and an arsonist is patience. It only takes an iconoclast a moment to destroy something that took years if not decades to build. Both want to change, but one is willing to work, create and foster while the other just wants to see it burn. Only fools think this President will leave the country a better place. I think it will be weaker, more divided and threatened than before he took office."
3. "Trump's inability to handle the border responsibly and without undue drama and crises indicates his incompetence and unfitness for the Presidency. The previous President and all others before him have managed it. He's been President for two years and two months have shut down the government three times and is now threatening to close the border. If this is the best he can do he should resign."
4. "Please disregard:
1. Everything the President of the United States says;
2. Everything his White House spokesmen and women say;
3. Everything his Cabinet says;
4. Everything his TV Network says;
5. Everything the Republican Party says;
Because it is all lies and they are all liars."
5. "I’m a software developer for AR in Apple’s Xcode. Just wait until we replace your handheld devices with our magic!"
Finding all these ineffective comments were not hard at all for me. I found that 90% of the comments are actually hardly related to the article from the first place. I found that these comments usually do not have clear points in what they are talking about and do not suggest any solutions to solve the problems about the issue.
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기