Politics 20/20 now with extra hindsight!

[ComradeYellow]

On 10/29/2020 at 5:48 PM, HoonDing said:

Drump got it in the bag tbh

 

I'm starting to hope that Trump wins, if only for the same reason you cheat on your spouse as some sort of revenge move.  My liberal girlfriend has control freak issues and is too obsessed with the conservative neighbor over illusory and ridiculous things.  Finally you get fed up and just go pay her a visit.

[Hurlshort]

32 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

Please point me to almost 6 beheadings done by those groups in the last weeks.

They have to be beheadings to count?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

48 minutes ago, Hurlshot said:

They have to be beheadings to count?

If they're vampires yeah, otherwise no. I don't think the people killed or their loved ones care so much about the method of murder so much as there was a murder.

[Skarpen]

55 minutes ago, Hurlshot said:

They have to be beheadings to count?

I'm willing to give a pass to decapitations. I'm definietely will not count hate mail, prank calls and evil eye stares as being in the same category. Some people probably would and call it Good Fun! But I have standards.

[Gorth]

43 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

I'm willing to give a pass to decapitations. I'm definietely will not count hate mail, prank calls and evil eye stares as being in the same category. Some people probably would and call it Good Fun! But I have standards.

I'll save you the hard work of googling the numbers... (and no, nothing so stupid as harsh words or derogatory words, just plain old murders of people in all age groups and the murder of cops too)

 

(not going to link to business insider as that is behind a paywall, but according to their numbers, since 1994 329 people have been murdered by far right groups in the US and 0 people by far left groups, but, if someone has a subscription, would love to know the accompanying text from the article)

From the horses own mouth so to speak, an itemized list from the last few years (as it says, includes, which means it doesn't include all murders):

https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/s894/BILLS-116s894is.xml

"Fatal terrorist attacks by far-right-wing extremists include—

(A) the August 5, 2012, mass shooting at a Sikh gurdwara in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, in which a White supremacist shot and killed 6 members of the gurdwara;
(B) the April 13, 2014, mass shooting at a Jewish community center and a Jewish assisted living facility in Overland Park, Kansas, in which a neo-Nazi shot and killed 3 civilians, including a 14-year-old teenager;
(C) the June 8, 2014, ambush in Las Vegas, Nevada, in which 2 supporters of the far-right-wing “patriot” movement shot and killed 2 police officers and a civilian;
(D) the June 17, 2015, mass shooting at the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina, in which a White supremacist shot and killed 9 members of the church;
(E) the November 27, 2015, mass shooting at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, Colorado, in which an anti-abortion extremist shot and killed a police officer and 2 civilians;
(F) the March 20, 2017, murder of an African-American man in New York City, allegedly committed by a White supremacist who reportedly traveled to New York “for the purpose of killing black men”;
(G) the May 26, 2017, attack in Portland, Oregon, in which a White supremacist allegedly murdered 2 men and injured a third after the men defended 2 young women whom the individual had targeted with anti-Muslim hate speech;
(H) the August 12, 2017, attack in Charlottesville, Virginia, in which a White supremacist killed one and injured nineteen after driving his car through a crowd of individuals protesting a neo-Nazi rally, and of which former Attorney General Jeff Sessions said, “It does meet the definition of domestic terrorism in our statute.”;
(I) the July 2018 murder of an African-American woman from Kansas City, Missouri, allegedly committed by a White supremacist who reportedly bragged about being a member of the Ku Klux Klan;
(J) the October 24, 2018, shooting in Jeffersontown, Kentucky, in which a White man allegedly murdered 2 African Americans at a grocery store after first attempting to enter a church with a predominantly African-American congregation during a service; and
(K) the October 27, 2018, mass shooting at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in which a White nationalist allegedly shot and killed 11 members of the congregation."

 

Edit: So no, not really and beheadings. It seems to be a trademark of ISIS and the thugs in the Mexican drug cartels who thought it was a splendid practice to copy. Nationalists seems to lower the average human IQ.

[majestic]

1 hour ago, Gorth said:

(not going to link to business insider as that is behind a paywall, but according to their numbers, since 1994 329 people have been murdered by far right groups in the US and 0 people by far left groups, but, if someone has a subscription, would love to know the accompanying text from the article)

Wait, that's not right. Antifa and BLM murder people every day, not to mention that socialist incited civil war that's been going on in the US.

[Guest]

41 minutes ago, majestic said:

Wait, that's not right. Antifa and BLM murder people every day, not to mention that socialist incited civil war that's been going on in the US.

Sarcasm?

[Gromnir]

2 hours ago, Hurlshot said:

They have to be beheadings to count?

is idiotic on multiple levels. show where Gromnir has suggested those guilty o' murderous decapitation should be allowed to immigrate to the US? am thinking if you can check the box for murder decapitations, it should count as a mark against you when seeking to immigrate to the US. would we be having this discussion if trump had promised a decapitations ban?

~1.8 billion muslims worldwide not guilty o' the decapitations in france.

also, we request skarp point to islamic fundamentalist groups in the past month who has been arrested for planning the kidnap and murder of at least one US state governor?  is kinda easy to find a specific crime or act and then tailor the question so it precludes the group you wish excluded.  not much imagination. meaningless. as @Gorth post highlights, is not difficult to find white supremacist violence occurring in the US... didn't even need cherry pick from a different continent.

additional example and from skarp_one's source:

A white supremacist gang has been charged with kidnapping and forcibly removing a tattoo of a former member before killing him

nevertheless, only counts and has skarp wetting the bed if a limb had been removed with the tattoo before the murder? okie dokie.

that said, if we found the requested white supremacist decapitations, do you think for a second skarp_one would agree that a christian ban is legit under such circumstances? please.

all o' which ignores the point-- even if we did find decapitations by white supremacists in the past week, a resulting ban on all christians attempting to immigrate to the US would be wrong both legal and moral. do we blame blame all christians for the excesses o' a handful? back in 2015, some l00n shot up a planned parenthood clinic in colorado. shooter claimed he were a "warrior for the babies" or somesuch. killed multiple people.  while no doubt a few folks here and elsewhere saw the event as proof o' the evil o' religion and/or christianity, the idea we should deny rights and opportunities to all christians based on the violence perpetrated by a few anti-abortion supporters woulda' been unjust. would be un american.

"congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

is the US. in this country we claim to offer refuge to those fleeing religious persecution. to discriminate 'gainst those friendless and homeless refugees because o' their religion should be unthinkable, but somehow such vile invective became the basis o' a successful Presidential campaign.  should be a national embarrassment. 

more important: do the trump voters o' conscience who  chose his orangeness for President after he promised a muslim ban genuine want oro and skarp_one defending their choice? these are the voices you want defending your position? 

okie dokie 

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Guard Dog]

So last night I was following a little bit of the Trump rally on Fox news on my XM radio. As you might expect it was part campaign pitch, part BS session, and part Pep Rally. Along the way the crowd broke out into chanting “we love you“. Apparently this has happened at others of his rallies. OK, I have to say I’m a little put off by that. That’s not something Americans typically do. Look, we are not a reserved people generally speaking. But hearing people chanting that to a political leader is a little, shall we say, offputting. Even more than when they were chanting “yes we can“ at Barack Obama. Or maybe it’s just me.

[Malcador]

How was. "Yes, we can" off-putting ? Was just a campaign slogan, right, like MAGA.

People saying they love a politician proves people are always dumber than you expect, though.

[HoonDing]

China and Japan have so little crime because there are almost no white people.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Americans love a conman, Trump is a conman, and his supporters feel like they're in on it rather than being rubes. That they're chanting how much they love him shows where they are.

[Gromnir]

30 minutes ago, Malcador said:

How was. "Yes, we can" off-putting ? Was just a campaign slogan, right, like MAGA.

People saying they love a politician proves people are always dumber than you expect, though.

off-putting for gd 'cause obama were "the government." gotta embrace the false equivalency o' gd where all candidates representing the government is corrupt and vile and is only a matter o' degree which separates best from the worst. "yes we can," and "we love you," is necessarily equivalent 'cause in both situations, the government is using emotion to create support for misdeeds current and future...

fast-forward to ~1:20

https://www.c-span.org/video/?476584-1/president-trump-motorcade-walter-reed

"i will die for that man." 

any evidence o' popular and emotional support for a candidate or politician is gonna cheese off gd. none o' them deserve it. all the same, or same enough. 

you are not gonna hear Gromnir yelling, "i will die for that man," regarding any politician. public servants. the President and other politicians in this country work for us and not the other way around. what sacrifices will the President make on our behalf? we will sacrifice for the Constitution and free speech and America, but not for a politician. 

that said, bothered by "yes we can" requires the gd false equivalency and blanket condemnation o' "the government" we cannot manage to evoke. 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited November 1, 2020 by Gromnir

[majestic]

1 hour ago, Achilles said:

Sarcasm?

No, I just don't like murderous Antifa and BLM Nazis! R00fles!

I mean, yeah, sure sarcasm. Has Volo been gone too long now?

[BruceVC]

2 hours ago, majestic said:

Wait, that's not right. Antifa and BLM murder people every day, not to mention that socialist incited civil war that's been going on in the US.

Sometimes we think this type of valid assessment of groups like BLM and Antifa is the reason these types of groups dont pose a risk to our societies in any real way. But this a well meaning false equivalence and strawman argument and unintentionally misses the real threat these type of groups can and do create within most modern first world Democracies

They cannot be compared to the likes of  ISIS or any established Right wing, Hitler inspired group because the reason for there creation and the way they operate within the US is very different to how BLM and Antifa operates. Also technically I dont really consider BLM or Antifa " far left " in the sense there are  real, far left militant groups linked to violent acts of terrorism  throughout the world but you dont really see this in the USA as the Cold War is over and the militancy element within the left is not the same as the established and well known " neo-Nazi "  violence we see sometimes from right wing groups

I personally have also called them " far left " but thats only because its easier to make the point on this forum that way, they operate on the left but BLM needs to  be separated from Antifa as Antifa is more " far left " which means Antifa gets automatically moved into the criminal side of all current far left groups globally. This is the same as how we should view all established right wing groups, the moment the group is openly encouraging and participating  in any acts that breaks the law they get moved into the " criminal " view we should have of them. I dont consider BLM the same as Antifa is this regard 

But thats not the concern  we should all have over the  outcomes and future approaches groups like Antifa would adopt. The risk BLM and Antifa poses is more about the economic and social changes they could impact on our  cities or ways we address inequality. So in other words no one wants a BLM or Antifa protest in there neighborhood that sometimes and often leads to violence because communities suffer real economic damage when you look at the impact looting has.

But with the risk Islamic extremism and right wing violence creates its more about real loss of lives and real targeted killings. So we should try  to separate our views on danger that right wing and left wing currently poses globally because they real  but very different 

3 hours ago, Gorth said:

I'll save you the hard work of googling the numbers... (and no, nothing so stupid as harsh words or derogatory words, just plain old murders of people in all age groups and the murder of cops too)

 

(

 

Edit: So no, not really and beheadings. It seems to be a trademark of ISIS and the thugs in the Mexican drug cartels who thought it was a splendid practice to copy. Nationalists seems to lower the average human IQ.

And just to respond by making  the same point I am trying to make with Majestic, sometimes we get pulled into the interesting debate over " who is worse to the USA....Islamic extremism, far left or right wing " and we think this debate can be easily understood through binary definitions by using accurate statistics around loss of lives caused by real violence created by people from these groups 

But that isnt a fair way to compare the risk these groups pose to our modern societies and more importantly how we personally respond or how our  governments respond. In other words each groups impact is nuanced  and has levels of complexity and requires at times a different response

But we must never think " group  X "  is no real threat because they only killed 2 peoples as opposed to  " group y  " killed 100 people 

Just an example  

Edited November 1, 2020 by BruceVC

[Skarpen]

48 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Along the way the crowd broke out into chanting “we love you“. Apparently this has happened at others of his rallies. OK, I have to say I’m a little put off by that. That’s not something Americans typically do.

Really? It's quite easy to find a few clips of people saying it to Obama, Bill Clinton, possibly other popular presidents like JKF or Reagan also heard it from time to time. So I don't think it's something that is new and tied to Trump.

[Guard Dog]

4 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

Really? It's quite easy to find a few clips of people saying it to Obama, Bill Clinton, possibly other popular presidents like JKF or Reagan also heard it from time to time. So I don't think it's something that is new and tied to Trump.

JFK was before my time but I clearly remember the campaigns of all the others you mentioned. I do not recall ever hearing that chanted. Some political leaders in US history have engendered some real affection and even admiration from the public. Most are treated with a little respect to downright derision. None in my lifetime has ever heard a crowd chant "we love you". Frankly it bothers me a little bit. Political leaders are a necassary evil. But too many autocrats have heard that for me to comfortable.

[Zoraptor]

Wouldn't say autocrats get that sort of chant much- if they do, it's usually forced so not genuine- but it's certainly the sort of thing you get from cults. Unfortunately the sort of unquestioning obedience/ prosetylising/ mania you get from cults and which is mostly how they 'work' is also very appealing to politicians too.

[Gromnir]

17 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

 None in my lifetime has ever heard a crowd chant "we love you". 

am hardly defending gd on this but am trying to recall crowds chanting, "we love you," for a President in our lifetime. individuals? sure. 

am remembering general cheering for reagan when he were in the hospital after being shot... were a less than a minute where ron and nancy appear from the hospital window and the crowds yell, but am not genuine able to recall a chant of "we love you," even from that crowd. 

but again, the "we love you, " bit is different. is not same or even similar to "yes we can." much o' the success o' trump is that he continued and magnified what obama did. obama became his party, changing the goals and standards o' traditional democrats and am thinking such were not a good trend. bad for one man to define the party. trump did what obama did... x10. 

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Malcador]

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

Sometimes we think this type of valid assessment of groups like BLM and Antifa is the reason these types of groups dont pose a risk to our societies in any real way. But this a well meaning false equivalence and strawman argument and unintentionally misses the real threat these type of groups can and do create within most modern first world Democracies

They cannot be compared to the likes of  ISIS or any established Right wing, Hitler inspired group because the reason for there creation and the way they operate within the US is very different to how BLM and Antifa operates. Also technically I dont really consider BLM or Antifa " far left " in the sense there are  real, far left militant groups linked to violent acts of terrorism  throughout the world but you dont really see this in the USA as the Cold War is over and the militancy element within the left is not the same as the established and well known " neo-Nazi "  violence we see sometimes from right wing groups

I personally have also called them " far left " but thats only because its easier to make the point on this forum that way, they operate on the left but BLM needs to  be separated from Antifa as Antifa is more " far left " which means Antifa gets automatically moved into the criminal side of all current far left groups globally. This is the same as how we should view all established right wing groups, the moment the group is openly encouraging and participating  in any acts that breaks the law they get moved into the " criminal " view we should have of them. I dont consider BLM the same as Antifa is this regard 

But thats not the concern  we should all have over the  outcomes and future approaches groups like Antifa would adopt. The risk BLM and Antifa poses is more about the economic and social changes they could impact on our  cities or ways we address inequality. So in other words no one wants a BLM or Antifa protest in there neighborhood that sometimes and often leads to violence because communities suffer real economic damage when you look at the impact looting has.

But with the risk Islamic extremism and right wing violence creates its more about real loss of lives and real targeted killings. So we should try  to separate our views on danger that right wing and left wing currently poses globally because they real  but very different 

And just to respond by making  the same point I am trying to make with Majestic, sometimes we get pulled into the interesting debate over " who is worse to the USA....Islamic extremism, far left or right wing " and we think this debate can be easily understood through binary definitions by using accurate statistics around loss of lives caused by real violence created by people from these groups 

But that isnt a fair way to compare the risk these groups pose to our modern societies and more importantly how we personally respond or how our  governments respond. In other words each groups impact is nuanced  and has levels of complexity and requires at times a different response

But we must never think " group  X "  is no real threat because they only killed 2 peoples as opposed to  " group y  " killed 100 people 

Just an example  

What is the real threat from BLM, though?

[HoonDing]

[BruceVC]

4 minutes ago, Malcador said:

What is the real threat from BLM, though?

Excellent question and there are different and important considerations in how we need to assess all left and right inspired groups and what is there real threat. Also the good news is the groups that really pose the greatest threat to our societies are, in most countries,  already outlawed or known as groups linked  to real global terrorism or violence, like ISIS or known Aryan Brotherhood violence 

And then the best way to really understand how to fairly define all the various left and right groups is simply ask yourself 3 questions about each  group , if you are interested in seeing real connections  between these groups that are different to ideological  views or reasons people sometimes are very concerned about a particular groups outcomes

The 3 questions are 

1. Why was the group created or what is it influenced by is important to understand its foundation
2. What policies does the group have or what is the groups objective 
3. Then you ask, " what  are the real actions or outcomes " the group has committed and do they align to the original objection

This may sound overly complicated but its much easier to do once you get use to it and it does allow better objective understanding of the differences in the groups that exist nowadays

So to answer your original question I will use the 3 questions approach to explain the logic and where the data comes from that answers the question " What is the real threat from BLM " 

1. BLM was created to address a real societal problem that exists in some states around some cases where the police were involved in excessive force, profiling or criminal choices around the treatment of African Americans
2. It doesnt have clearly defined outcomes that arent already in the law or Constitutions of most countries, for example you cannot kill anyone for no reason irrespective if you the police or not in the police. 
3.  It has raised attention to real societal issues and examples of some police discrimination and this should be seen as a  positive thing, it is unclear if these things have been reduced or meaningfully addressed in the long term but  I am confident the US police have learnt lessons  

So in summary, BLM is a well meaning movement that has some elements within it that push there own agendas or criminal acts

But they dont have any policies that would be considered illegal so you cant generalize when we see looting or violence even though the people involved say they BLM inspired we must see this as criminal acts and arrest the people committing the illegal acts 

So the real harm they pose is the direct negative economic impact sustained  protests have on any city or region and then people committing criminal acts in the name or support of BLM

 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

1 hour ago, Malcador said:

What is the real threat from BLM, though?

If BLM gets their way, some folks won't have police protection from their slaves.

[Skarpen]

9 minutes ago, KaineParker said:

If BLM gets their way, some folks won't have police protection from their slaves.

Poor democrats then.

[Raithe]

Is it politics, is it covid....