Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On March 17 2019 05:55 JimmiC wrote:A teen decided to crack an Egg on a Right wing law maker in Australia's head. That law maker decided to punch him in the face. While this is kind of amusing. I am hoping for real change in regards to guns to show the US how they should have acted after their many many mass shootings.
To be clear, this is the "right wing law maker" who claimed that the shooting in New Zealand (by an Australian) was caused by Muslim immigration within 24 hours of the event. The guy's an independent because even our fringe right-wing parties can't tolerate him, and he became a senator in the first place on a technicality.
I heard he got 17 votes,16 if you include his own, which means that he couldn’t win the “his own friends and family” demographic.
On March 17 2019 05:55 JimmiC wrote:A teen decided to crack an Egg on a Right wing law maker in Australia's head. That law maker decided to punch him in the face. While this is kind of amusing. I am hoping for real change in regards to guns to show the US how they should have acted after their many many mass shootings.
To be clear, this is the "right wing law maker" who claimed that the shooting in New Zealand (by an Australian) was caused by Muslim immigration within 24 hours of the event. The guy's an independent because even our fringe right-wing parties can't tolerate him, and he became a senator in the first place on a technicality.
I heard he got 17 votes,16 if you include his own, which means that he couldn’t win the “his own friends and family” demographic.
Still people voted for the party he was on the list for
On March 17 2019 06:23 Introvert wrote: Trump I think almost always uses "invasion" in the same breath as talking about crime and cartels, although given he's so loose with his language, people who still want to find him justifying white nationalism will grab onto it. Doubt he knew that the terrorist used that word to be honest. I haven't read the manifesto, as I try to avoid doing so, but I'm sure the white nationalist used "means of production" and loved Candace Owens, a black woman, seriously, seems unlikely.
Would love to make a longer post about the very real crisis on the border but news events of the past few days have pushed that back again. But claiming that everyone who uses the word asylum is an honest-to-goodness asylee is incredibly naive.
edit: also, while we're here "thoughts and prayers" is not an NRA phrase, it's a common phrase that's been in use by everyone for years. Look at the tweet time stamps, she realized what she said was terrible so she tried to work one of the left's favorite villains into it. And you all bought it, first take.
Trump does it with calling people dogs, saying he's done more than any other president, and other things deserving of censure. People foolish with their speech, particularly in the style of Queens (It aint good coffee, it's the best coffee in the world!), don't give the same gravity to their words. I think the media is starting to catch on, for I so rarely hear the breathtaking "Breaking News: Trump Tweets!" style of headlines. But whatever.
The number of migrant families crossing the southwest border has once again broken records, with unauthorized entries nearly double what they were a year ago, suggesting that the Trump administration’s aggressive policies have not discouraged new migration to the United States.
More than 76,000 migrants crossed the border without authorization in February, an 11-year high and a strong sign that stepped-up prosecutions, new controls on asylum and harsher detention policies have not reversed what remains a powerful lure for thousands of families fleeing violence and poverty.
“The system is well beyond capacity, and remains at the breaking point,” Kevin K. McAleenan, commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, told reporters in announcing the new data on Tuesday.
The nation’s top border enforcement officer painted a picture of processing centers filled to capacity, border agents struggling to meet medical needs and thousands of exhausted members of migrant families crammed into a detention system that was not built to house them — all while newcomers continue to arrive, sometimes by the busload, at the rate of 2,200 a day.
The AOC phraseology was clunky due to wanting to distinguish between the good people offering their genuine thoughts and prayers, and the bad people that use the same phrase for ill intent. She has no choice. Her supporters believe that the phrase is used in substitute for genuine policy action. All the vestiges of Christian compassion and condolence have been erased off it it in their eyes. Bless their hearts.
Criminal organizations in Mexico have mounted a lucrative new smuggling operation that uses express buses to deliver Guatemalan migrant families to the U.S. border in a matter of days, making the journey faster, easier and safer, according to U.S. law enforcement reports and U.S. and Guatemalan officials.
The smugglers entice families with promises their journey will be free of the perils usually associated with travel to the U.S. border, along with assurances that by turning themselves in to U.S. authorities they will be released into the country within days.
Paying up to $7,000 per adult with child, families are transported to staging areas at ranches and hotels in southern Mexico, where they are organized into bus groups and rushed north along Mexican highways, “stopping only for food, fuel and bathroom breaks,” according to the U.S. law enforcement documents.
The model particularly appeals to families by minimizing some of the more intimidating and unsavory aspects of traditional Mexican smuggling operations, known for cramming migrants into squalid stash houses, where Central Americans are regularly abused and extorted for additional payments. The busing system has skirted those dangers, generating few reports of violence or mistreatment, U.S. officials say.
Within 72 hours of leaving the staging areas, the buses arrive at predetermined drop-off points within walking distance of the U.S. border. Migrant families are clustered into groups that have at times exceeded 300 adults and children, and they walk directly across the border, in some cases stepping over barriers in long, orderly lines. They then surrender to U.S. Border Patrol agents and initiate asylum claims.
Previously undisclosed details of the smuggling system are outlined in U.S. law enforcement reports reviewed by The Washington Post. The official who shared them did so on the condition of anonymity to disclose internal operations details. They depict an upstart, highly profitable entrepreneurial operation that is designed to exploit dysfunction in the American immigration system and U.S. court rulings that mandate families be released from custody while their asylum claims are processed.
The success of the operation is the most extreme example yet of smugglers’ ability to capitalize on the shift in unauthorized migration to the United States characterized by soaring numbers of adults traveling with children.
By using the direct-bus method, smugglers can eliminate the need for stash houses along the border where they would normally keep migrants under the watch of armed guards before sneaking them across the border. The express routes “minimize overhead and maximize capacity,” according to the U.S. documents, allowing smugglers to reduce “operational costs to a minimum.”
Since October, U.S. border agents have encountered at least 70 large groups of 100 or more migrants, up from 13 such groups during the 2018 fiscal year. Approximately 12,000 parents and children have arrived in the groups, generating tens of millions of dollars in smuggling fees.
***
migrants continue to stream to the border in a variety of ways, with large numbers of Hondurans forming caravan groups and other Central Americans making the trip in smaller clusters and by more conventional means. But describing the express buses to reporters last week, McAleenan said the “shorter smuggling cycle” offered by the smugglers had cut the length of the journey from several weeks to “four to seven days.”
“The availability of these express bus routes means that more young children are arriving at our border, and we are seeing migrants arrive with illness and medical conditions in unprecedented numbers,” he said.
Tailored to the new, booming aspect of unauthorized U.S. migration — parents bringing children — the new express bus system’s success would not have been possible in previous eras when the vast majority of migrants were single adults from Mexico whose goal was to avoid getting caught.
Instead, recruiters are selling clients in Guatemala on the journey with presentations akin to the benign pitch of a travel agency. They offer a range of price points at different levels of passenger comfort, according to U.S. and Guatemalan officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to share sensitive details about smuggling networks’ operations. Customers paying as little as $2,500 are typically made to ride in trucks or stand in cattle cars, while others buying packages for $7,000 or more get premium bus service. Children generally travel free, because those who arrive at the U.S. border with a minor only need to be guided to the edge, not smuggled across it.
The express journey is typically financed by migrants’ relatives already working in the United States or with microloans that leverage homes and property as collateral, in some cases with notarized documents that allow the smuggling organizations to collect unpaid debts. In an especially worrisome sign for U.S. officials, the price of the journey has been dropping in recent months as the rapid bus routes allow smugglers to cut costs and boost volume.
“With no change to U.S. policy or other factors, such as increasing smuggling fees, Central Americans will arrive at increasing rate,” one report warns.
***
In most cases, upon crossing the border the migrants express a fear of persecution if deported back home, the first step in seeking U.S. asylum. Some arrive with detailed stories of gang threats, violence and police inaction, and documents to back their claims.
But many other Guatemalans appear to be heading north for jobs in a humming U.S. economy that is facing labor shortages. In November, Guatemala became the leading source of unauthorized migration to the United States, surpassing Mexico for the first time.
One Guatemalan father, reached by phone in Houston where he was reunited with his wife and two children last month, said he paid $5,500 to bring all three family members to the border. He spent $8,000 a year ago when he made the journey alone.
“They traveled on a nice bus, with their own seats,” said the father, who described his family’s journey on the condition of anonymity because his wife now has a pending U.S. asylum claim.
A Guatemalan official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the express buses said the United States has been leaning on his government to crack down on the smuggling pipeline. But he said the government’s strategies rely mostly on social media messaging — such as one with the hashtag #NoMigraciónIrregular — but those approaches lack credibility alongside the personal testimonies of friends, relatives and neighbors who have completed the journey safely and with relative ease.
***
“They line up as if it’s some kind of regular immigration process, in single file, like they’re checking in,” said one U.S. official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the pattern. “It’s unbelievable.”
With the swelling arrest numbers, calls for a border wall have intensified. But in recent weeks, large groups have crossed in areas near central El Paso, where tall, modern steel barriers are already in place. Wading through shallow stretches of the Rio Grande, the migrants reach U.S. soil and wait to be taken into custody on the narrow strip of no man’s land between the river and the border fence.
**
The lower Rio Grande Valley of South Texas has long been the main entry point for Central American migrants, opposite the Mexican state of Tamaulipas. But warring factions of the Gulf Cartel and Los Zetas criminal organization have left the area with a fearsome reputation for kidnapping, rape and abuse, one reason the caravans have conspicuously avoided those areas, despite a shorter distance to the U.S. border.
Gunmen stopped a bus traveling through Tamaulipas last week and abducted 19 migrants, loading them into pickup trucks, Mexican authorities said. Another 25 migrants went missing after a similar incident in late February.
Such incidents appear to be one reason the express bus operators veer away from that part of northern Mexico, opting for longer routes to the El Paso area and points further west into New Mexico and Arizona.
U.S. officials say they have given Mexican authorities specific information on the location of ranches and compounds in the southern states of Chiapas and Oaxaca, as well as the names of individuals who appear to be coordinating the buses.
One staging location U.S. law enforcement officials have identified is a property ringed by a seven-foot concrete-block wall close to the center of Tuxtla Gutiérrez, Chiapas, where a fleet of gray buses loads up as many 150 migrants at a time, documents show. A cargo truck loaded with Guatemalan migrants crashed along a highway near the city last week, killing 25, and leaving more than 30 injured, authorities said.
Mexican president Andrés Manuel López Obrador, who took office in December, has sought a contrast with this predecessor’s immigration policies, promising to be more welcoming to Central American migrants. More quietly, his administration has been cooperating with an experimental U.S. policy to make Central Americans wait in Mexico until their U.S. asylum cases are settled.
Speaking of emergencies and executive powers, how about our ridiculous governor deciding that the laws of CA don't matter? The people of California continue to support the death penalty (most recently in 2016!). "Nah, I'm not doing that," he says. Where is our fine national media whining about executive abuse in the nation's largest state? As a California resident and someone who voted to keep the penalty I am deeply offended!
Nothing to see here, just the president of the United States recreating the rhetoric of a mass shooter.
I just loathe the idea that "I must use this word because I really want people to get worked up". He is openly admitting he thinks that the language used by certain parts of the right is justified, regardless of the consequences. It really just isn't.
He is validating this guy's thoughts by saying "and on that topic, you know OUR invasion..?"
I've been thinking a lot on this subject. Trump uses the words invasion, as do others. It appears to me and others to be an appropriate way to describe the illegal immigration of tens of thousands across the southern border. The capacity of the United States to set and enforce its immigration laws is described as racist and pitiless. This is one pillar of the argument that the rhetoric of the right should be abandoned because it's harshness will provoke crazies to violence.
The second point I want people like Mohdoo and micronesia to consider is how divisive their language is. A lot of us on the right think a border wall with harsh enforcement (and visa overstays, and eVerify) is the only way to maintain the nation's sovereignty and nationhood. It strikes at core traditions like the rule of law and the power of democratic government. The size and scale of the problem justifies impassioned rhetoric to provoke consideration of the issue.
But these attempts now fall under encouraging far right terrorism/white nationalist terrorism. What possible effect can that have but further embittering the divide? Try going around red counties telling people that they are partially responsible for terrorist violence by their speech. That's the rhetorical effect dividing the country. But, you say, this kind of speech is justified because it really does encourage anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant violence. Simply put, that's the same logical underpinning to support divisive speech by its need that the right uses.
It doesn't matter that blaming people on the right for violence by crazies is nuclear-level dividing of the country, to some, because it's justified. This feeds the next wave of division. Everyone that puts the guilt from mass murder on my doorstep for my speech is pathetic and disgusting in my view. I judge that you're doing a better job of dividing the country than Trump could hope for on his best day. The consequences of continuing down this line will not end well for your brand of politics and political hopefuls.
Fine i'll say it. This is what I imagine the defence of a white nationalist for his violent rhetoric to read like.
An invasion of the oppressed and destitute who flee oppression and poverty that must be kept out with harsh punishment to protect our way of life.
just sickening.
Edit: And if you feel personally attacked by that just consider that if your own personal beliefs sound so close to a white nationalist maybe your on the wrong side.
I want anyone that thinks like you to know just how divisive calling my speech adjacent to what a white nationalist's violent rhetoric would read like, or my personal beliefs are so close to a white nationalist. You want them to reject Trump, but simultaneously say their speech encourages violent and their beliefs are close to white nationalism.
I only hope you say it as loudly and frequently as you can. My coalition needs to not forget how they're viewed by people that will eventually come wanting their votes for "moderates."
You can read through what you responded for and pick up what's so close to white nationalism. All I'm seeing is I have to admit complicity in mass murder and accept divisive speech without criticizing other's divisive speech to avoid the charge of white nationalism. I never knew political rhetoric would come to that, and I only hope we look back on this era as a sad time that the left went crazy and lost power.
Do go on about how speaking out against intolerance and hate speech is divisive but your great emperor calling the free press the enemy of the people and calling for violence against anyone who speaks out against him isn't.
Nothing to see here, just the president of the United States recreating the rhetoric of a mass shooter.
I just loathe the idea that "I must use this word because I really want people to get worked up". He is openly admitting he thinks that the language used by certain parts of the right is justified, regardless of the consequences. It really just isn't.
He is validating this guy's thoughts by saying "and on that topic, you know OUR invasion..?"
I've been thinking a lot on this subject. Trump uses the words invasion, as do others. It appears to me and others to be an appropriate way to describe the illegal immigration of tens of thousands across the southern border. The capacity of the United States to set and enforce its immigration laws is described as racist and pitiless. This is one pillar of the argument that the rhetoric of the right should be abandoned because it's harshness will provoke crazies to violence.
The second point I want people like Mohdoo and micronesia to consider is how divisive their language is. A lot of us on the right think a border wall with harsh enforcement (and visa overstays, and eVerify) is the only way to maintain the nation's sovereignty and nationhood. It strikes at core traditions like the rule of law and the power of democratic government. The size and scale of the problem justifies impassioned rhetoric to provoke consideration of the issue.
But these attempts now fall under encouraging far right terrorism/white nationalist terrorism. What possible effect can that have but further embittering the divide? Try going around red counties telling people that they are partially responsible for terrorist violence by their speech. That's the rhetorical effect dividing the country. But, you say, this kind of speech is justified because it really does encourage anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant violence. Simply put, that's the same logical underpinning to support divisive speech by its need that the right uses.
It doesn't matter that blaming people on the right for violence by crazies is nuclear-level dividing of the country, to some, because it's justified. This feeds the next wave of division. Everyone that puts the guilt from mass murder on my doorstep for my speech is pathetic and disgusting in my view. I judge that you're doing a better job of dividing the country than Trump could hope for on his best day. The consequences of continuing down this line will not end well for your brand of politics and political hopefuls.
Fine i'll say it. This is what I imagine the defence of a white nationalist for his violent rhetoric to read like.
An invasion of the oppressed and destitute who flee oppression and poverty that must be kept out with harsh punishment to protect our way of life.
just sickening.
Edit: And if you feel personally attacked by that just consider that if your own personal beliefs sound so close to a white nationalist maybe your on the wrong side.
I want anyone that thinks like you to know just how divisive calling my speech adjacent to what a white nationalist's violent rhetoric would read like, or my personal beliefs are so close to a white nationalist. You want them to reject Trump, but simultaneously say their speech encourages violent and their beliefs are close to white nationalism.
I only hope you say it as loudly and frequently as you can. My coalition needs to not forget how they're viewed by people that will eventually come wanting their votes for "moderates."
You can read through what you responded for and pick up what's so close to white nationalism. All I'm seeing is I have to admit complicity in mass murder and accept divisive speech without criticizing other's divisive speech to avoid the charge of white nationalism. I never knew political rhetoric would come to that, and I only hope we look back on this era as a sad time that the left went crazy and lost power.
Do go on about how speaking out against intolerance and hate speech is divisive but your great emperor calling the free press the enemy of the people and calling for violence against anyone who speaks out against him isn't.
He's very deeply concerned about how intolerant and divisive political rhetoric is in the US. He just chooses not to hear it when it comes out of the mouth of the President of the United States.
Nothing to see here, just the president of the United States recreating the rhetoric of a mass shooter.
I just loathe the idea that "I must use this word because I really want people to get worked up". He is openly admitting he thinks that the language used by certain parts of the right is justified, regardless of the consequences. It really just isn't.
He is validating this guy's thoughts by saying "and on that topic, you know OUR invasion..?"
I've been thinking a lot on this subject. Trump uses the words invasion, as do others. It appears to me and others to be an appropriate way to describe the illegal immigration of tens of thousands across the southern border. The capacity of the United States to set and enforce its immigration laws is described as racist and pitiless. This is one pillar of the argument that the rhetoric of the right should be abandoned because it's harshness will provoke crazies to violence.
The second point I want people like Mohdoo and micronesia to consider is how divisive their language is. A lot of us on the right think a border wall with harsh enforcement (and visa overstays, and eVerify) is the only way to maintain the nation's sovereignty and nationhood. It strikes at core traditions like the rule of law and the power of democratic government. The size and scale of the problem justifies impassioned rhetoric to provoke consideration of the issue.
But these attempts now fall under encouraging far right terrorism/white nationalist terrorism. What possible effect can that have but further embittering the divide? Try going around red counties telling people that they are partially responsible for terrorist violence by their speech. That's the rhetorical effect dividing the country. But, you say, this kind of speech is justified because it really does encourage anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant violence. Simply put, that's the same logical underpinning to support divisive speech by its need that the right uses.
It doesn't matter that blaming people on the right for violence by crazies is nuclear-level dividing of the country, to some, because it's justified. This feeds the next wave of division. Everyone that puts the guilt from mass murder on my doorstep for my speech is pathetic and disgusting in my view. I judge that you're doing a better job of dividing the country than Trump could hope for on his best day. The consequences of continuing down this line will not end well for your brand of politics and political hopefuls.
Fine i'll say it. This is what I imagine the defence of a white nationalist for his violent rhetoric to read like.
An invasion of the oppressed and destitute who flee oppression and poverty that must be kept out with harsh punishment to protect our way of life.
just sickening.
Edit: And if you feel personally attacked by that just consider that if your own personal beliefs sound so close to a white nationalist maybe your on the wrong side.
I want anyone that thinks like you to know just how divisive calling my speech adjacent to what a white nationalist's violent rhetoric would read like, or my personal beliefs are so close to a white nationalist. You want them to reject Trump, but simultaneously say their speech encourages violent and their beliefs are close to white nationalism.
I only hope you say it as loudly and frequently as you can. My coalition needs to not forget how they're viewed by people that will eventually come wanting their votes for "moderates."
You can read through what you responded for and pick up what's so close to white nationalism. All I'm seeing is I have to admit complicity in mass murder and accept divisive speech without criticizing other's divisive speech to avoid the charge of white nationalism. I never knew political rhetoric would come to that, and I only hope we look back on this era as a sad time that the left went crazy and lost power.
Do go on about how speaking out against intolerance and hate speech is divisive but your great emperor calling the free press the enemy of the people and calling for violence against anyone who speaks out against him isn't.
He's very deeply concerned about how intolerant and divisive political rhetoric is in the US. He just chooses not to hear it when it comes out of the mouth of the President of the United States.
The real dividers are the leftists, you see. Their divisive language makes him very concerned.
It's all very 'being intolerant of intolerance is intolerance, you bigots' just with the serial numbers slightly filed off. A necessary pivot with Trump being divider-in-chief, but not much of a pivot.
Reading the news pieces my first thoughts were: Wouldn't it be great if all that money being wasted on a wall was diverted into manpower and more processing stations so the system could handle these guys?
I mean, when you supported, and continue to throw your weight behind, somebody who campaigned on a literal, physical division between us and those derned brown people, I can only laugh when I'm supposed to think you're some kinda victim of divisive rhetoric. I haven't had any liquor yet tonight, but now I'm thinking about it.
On March 17 2019 08:36 NewSunshine wrote: I mean, when you supported, and continue to throw your weight behind, somebody who campaigned on a literal, physical division between us and those derned brown people, I can only laugh when I'm supposed to think you're some kinda victim of divisive rhetoric. I haven't had any liquor yet tonight, but now I'm thinking about it.
That Trump is a master abusing "divide and conquer" should be obvious to anybody. It is a very effective way of consolidating power, especially if you can trick your opponents to battle eachother!
That being said, the left using divisive rhetoric themselves, discrediting and disrespecting their opponents, is absolutely an issue, and it is a strategic error if unity is the ultimate goal. The disasterous "deplorables" comment from Hillary is one prime example. The Russian troll farms did indeed promote leftwing points of view to divide the population, I hope the Mueller report sheds some light on it. Pointing at a at a terrorist and saying "he is one of you" is not exactly a unifying way of speech, and will only make people feel attacked and disgusted by people who come with such outrageous claims.
There are much more clever and effective strategies out there!
That leftwing terrorism is very rare now does not mean it has never been a problem. One should anyway never judge a whole group by the worst actions done by a few individuals, even though it can be very tempting!
The problem comes when people who say the exact same things as the extremists and terrorists are somehow baffled when people point it out for them. They want to be able to say the same things, and espouse the same dangerous ideas, without any of the accountability for what happens. And we're divisive for trying to point out why that's bullshit.
I don't know about you, but if I held a set of beliefs that someone parroted, point for point, right before shooting and killing a bunch of people, at the very least, I would take a good goddamn hard look at what I believe. I guess I don't speak for everyone though.
Nothing to see here, just the president of the United States recreating the rhetoric of a mass shooter.
I just loathe the idea that "I must use this word because I really want people to get worked up". He is openly admitting he thinks that the language used by certain parts of the right is justified, regardless of the consequences. It really just isn't.
He is validating this guy's thoughts by saying "and on that topic, you know OUR invasion..?"
I've been thinking a lot on this subject. Trump uses the words invasion, as do others. It appears to me and others to be an appropriate way to describe the illegal immigration of tens of thousands across the southern border. The capacity of the United States to set and enforce its immigration laws is described as racist and pitiless. This is one pillar of the argument that the rhetoric of the right should be abandoned because it's harshness will provoke crazies to violence.
The second point I want people like Mohdoo and micronesia to consider is how divisive their language is. A lot of us on the right think a border wall with harsh enforcement (and visa overstays, and eVerify) is the only way to maintain the nation's sovereignty and nationhood. It strikes at core traditions like the rule of law and the power of democratic government. The size and scale of the problem justifies impassioned rhetoric to provoke consideration of the issue.
But these attempts now fall under encouraging far right terrorism/white nationalist terrorism. What possible effect can that have but further embittering the divide? Try going around red counties telling people that they are partially responsible for terrorist violence by their speech. That's the rhetorical effect dividing the country. But, you say, this kind of speech is justified because it really does encourage anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant violence. Simply put, that's the same logical underpinning to support divisive speech by its need that the right uses.
It doesn't matter that blaming people on the right for violence by crazies is nuclear-level dividing of the country, to some, because it's justified. This feeds the next wave of division. Everyone that puts the guilt from mass murder on my doorstep for my speech is pathetic and disgusting in my view. I judge that you're doing a better job of dividing the country than Trump could hope for on his best day. The consequences of continuing down this line will not end well for your brand of politics and political hopefuls.
Fine i'll say it. This is what I imagine the defence of a white nationalist for his violent rhetoric to read like.
An invasion of the oppressed and destitute who flee oppression and poverty that must be kept out with harsh punishment to protect our way of life.
just sickening.
Edit: And if you feel personally attacked by that just consider that if your own personal beliefs sound so close to a white nationalist maybe your on the wrong side.
I want anyone that thinks like you to know just how divisive calling my speech adjacent to what a white nationalist's violent rhetoric would read like, or my personal beliefs are so close to a white nationalist. You want them to reject Trump, but simultaneously say their speech encourages violent and their beliefs are close to white nationalism.
I only hope you say it as loudly and frequently as you can. My coalition needs to not forget how they're viewed by people that will eventually come wanting their votes for "moderates."
You can read through what you responded for and pick up what's so close to white nationalism. All I'm seeing is I have to admit complicity in mass murder and accept divisive speech without criticizing other's divisive speech to avoid the charge of white nationalism. I never knew political rhetoric would come to that, and I only hope we look back on this era as a sad time that the left went crazy and lost power.
Do go on about how speaking out against intolerance and hate speech is divisive but your great emperor calling the free press the enemy of the people and calling for violence against anyone who speaks out against him isn't.
He's very deeply concerned about how intolerant and divisive political rhetoric is in the US. He just chooses not to hear it when it comes out of the mouth of the President of the United States.
Please he is not deeply concerned with anything he has just realized this style of concern trolling does stir up shit, but doesn't get him warned or banned. It is getting to crazy levels of % of posts he's doing in this style now.
Oh I know. I have very little patience for it. It goes hand-in-hand with his habit of always arguing in bad faith - arguing from a position of sincerity about something, which but for its agreement with his viewpoint he wouldn't give a shit about, because it's convenient. I don't want the conversation he takes part in to feel like it's between two equally valid and sincere viewpoints, because it rarely is with him.
Personally I would not put so much weight on the words of random people as opposed to leaders like trump. The actual "white supremacy" among the voters is confined to a fringe, but people like trump have purposely courted bigoted voters and kept them in his tent.
On March 17 2019 08:36 NewSunshine wrote: I mean, when you supported, and continue to throw your weight behind, somebody who campaigned on a literal, physical division between us and those derned brown people, I can only laugh when I'm supposed to think you're some kinda victim of divisive rhetoric. I haven't had any liquor yet tonight, but now I'm thinking about it.
That Trump is a master abusing "divide and conquer" should be obvious to anybody. It is a very effective way of consolidating power, especially if you can trick your opponents to battle eachother!
That being said, the left using divisive rhetoric themselves, discrediting and disrespecting their opponents, is absolutely an issue, and it is a strategic error if unity is the ultimate goal. The disasterous "deplorables" comment from Hillary is one prime example. The Russian troll farms did indeed promote leftwing points of view to divide the population, I hope the Mueller report sheds some light on it. Pointing at a at a terrorist and saying "he is one of you" is not exactly a unifying way of speech, and will only make people feel attacked and disgusted by people who come with such outrageous claims.
There are much more clever and effective strategies out there!
That leftwing terrorism is very rare now does not mean it has never been a problem. One should anyway never judge a whole group by the worst actions done by a few individuals, even though it can be very tempting!
I don't believe the Democrats believe unity is an option anymore. The Republicans have been crystal clear that they aren't interested, and any attempt Democrats make to achieve unity is perceived as a moment of weakness for them to pounce.
Maybe the Democrats can course correct if they get the Presidency back at some point, but right now there's little interest.
On March 17 2019 09:52 NewSunshine wrote: The problem comes when people who say the exact same things as the extremists and terrorists are somehow baffled when people point it out for them. They want to be able to say the same things, and espouse the same dangerous ideas, without any of the accountability for what happens. And we're divisive for trying to point out why that's bullshit.
I don't know about you, but if I held a set of beliefs that someone parroted, point for point, right before shooting and killing a bunch of people, at the very least, I would take a good goddamn hard look at what I believe. I guess I don't speak for everyone though.
Brevik was a Christian and branded his attack as a crusade, but I doubt anyone on this planet abandoned their religion because of his attacks in Norway. I think the same goes for political convictions.
I think this video from a leftwing guy is pretty interresting:
A nice quote is "calling someone a racist will not unracist a racist."
On March 17 2019 08:01 Introvert wrote: Speaking of emergencies and executive powers, how about our ridiculous governor deciding that the laws of CA don't matter? The people of California continue to support the death penalty (most recently in 2016!). "Nah, I'm not doing that," he says. Where is our fine national media whining about executive abuse in the nation's largest state? As a California resident and someone who voted to keep the penalty I am deeply offended!
The fact that it’s ineffective, immensely costly and morally bankrupt for an infinity of reasons (especially coupled with a justice system as utterly fucked up and inhuman as yours) may be part of the decision of that “ridiculous governor” decision.
The death penalty in the US absolutely horrifies other western nations. If you can’t understand why the state murdering people is wrong, think PR. Just for that it’s worth it.
On March 17 2019 08:01 Introvert wrote: Speaking of emergencies and executive powers, how about our ridiculous governor deciding that the laws of CA don't matter? The people of California continue to support the death penalty (most recently in 2016!). "Nah, I'm not doing that," he says. Where is our fine national media whining about executive abuse in the nation's largest state? As a California resident and someone who voted to keep the penalty I am deeply offended!
The fact that it’s ineffective, immensely costly and morally bankrupt for an infinity of reasons (especially coupled with a justice system as utterly fucked up and inhuman as yours) may be part of the decision of that “ridiculous governor” decision.
The death penalty in the US absolutely horrifies other western nations. If you can’t understand why the state murdering people is wrong, think PR. Just for that it’s worth it.
Does that matter in the 'who gives a fuck about the rest of the world?' era of US politics that we're currently in?
But your first sentence gets it spot on. There's too many mistakes made on death row. Too many cases of people actually turning out to be innocent (yes, one is too many, and the number's much higher than one), too many perversions of justice.
On March 17 2019 08:01 Introvert wrote: Speaking of emergencies and executive powers, how about our ridiculous governor deciding that the laws of CA don't matter? The people of California continue to support the death penalty (most recently in 2016!). "Nah, I'm not doing that," he says. Where is our fine national media whining about executive abuse in the nation's largest state? As a California resident and someone who voted to keep the penalty I am deeply offended!
The fact that it’s ineffective, immensely costly and morally bankrupt for an infinity of reasons (especially coupled with a justice system as utterly fucked up and inhuman as yours) may be part of the decision of that “ridiculous governor” decision.
How is a delayed abortion of an irredeemable individual more costly than keeping them in a high security prison for 40 years?
The death penalty in the US absolutely horrifies other western nations. If you can’t understand why the state murdering people is wrong, think PR. Just for that it’s worth it.
In a March 2015 YouGov survey commissioned by the Hoover Institution, respondents in France and Britain (about 1,200 in each) were asked their opinions about capital punishment. Specifically, they reported their own views and their impressions of the stances of the major political parties toward the justifiability of death sentences for “some serious crimes, such as pre-meditated murder or acts of terrorism that cause multiple deaths.” The results suggest that, on this issue, the major parties in two of the largest EU nations are out of step with most of the people they aim to represent.
In the UK, opinion leans toward favoring capital punishment with 50% of respondents saying they endorse the death penalty for serious crimes, and 35% saying they do not (the other 15% said they were unsure). A separate August 2014 YouGov poll found 45% support and 39% opposition, so the public might have shifted to the pro-side in the interim, though the questions were not identically worded. The only party perceived to be on the majority side, meanwhile, was the populist and anti-EU UK Independence Party (UKIP), which 30% thought was pro-death penalty, against 18% saying it was anti- (the majority of respondents were thus unsure of what position the party holds on the matter, or if it has one at all). Respondents saw all other parties as opposed, with 44% of respondents saying the Conservatives were anti-death penalty compared to the 14% who said the party was pro—and more than ten times as many respondents saying that the Labour, Liberal Democrat, and Scottish National parties were opposed versus in favor of capital punishment.
Across the channel, many French respondents probably recalled the Charlie Hebdo attack that left 12 people dead while answering the poll’s question about capital punishment. So perhaps it is not surprising that the French were even more pro-death penalty than the British, with 53% endorsing it, and only 29% not in support. Respondents overwhelmingly saw the right-wing National Front as holding the majority position, but no other party was at all widely perceived to favor capital punishment.
On March 17 2019 08:01 Introvert wrote: Speaking of emergencies and executive powers, how about our ridiculous governor deciding that the laws of CA don't matter? The people of California continue to support the death penalty (most recently in 2016!). "Nah, I'm not doing that," he says. Where is our fine national media whining about executive abuse in the nation's largest state? As a California resident and someone who voted to keep the penalty I am deeply offended!
The fact that it’s ineffective, immensely costly and morally bankrupt for an infinity of reasons (especially coupled with a justice system as utterly fucked up and inhuman as yours) may be part of the decision of that “ridiculous governor” decision.
How is a delayed abortion of an irredeemable individual more costly than keeping them in a high security prison for 40 years?
Looks like you are really well informed on the topic.
Enforcing the death penalty costs Florida $51 million a year above what it would cost to punish all first-degree murderers with life in prison without parole. Based on the 44 executions Florida had carried out since 1976, that amounts to a cost of $24 million for each execution. (Palm Beach Post, January 4, 2000). • The most comprehensive study in the country found that the death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million per execution over the costs of sentencing murderers to life imprisonment. The majority of those costs occur at the trial level. (Duke University, May 1993). • In Texas, a death penalty case costs an average of $2.3 million, about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years. (Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1992).
I wouldn't ask the question if I was as well informed as you are. I would attribute the vast majority of those costs to the inefficiency of an "utterly fucked up and inhuman justice system" (especially in Florida), which could be fixed, but I do concede that before that's fixed the death penalty will indeed remain more costly than life imprisonment in the US.
EPT
