Gov. McAuliffe in Charlottesville ‘No Place in America’ for Alt-Right, Refuses to Condemn AntiFa
Charlottesville, VA — The usually busy streets of the historic downtown of Charlottesville saw its tourists and locals substituted with heavily armed police and protesters this afternoon, following altercations which lasted from Friday night through to Saturday morning.
Originally billed as a protest in favour of free speech — alongside the disdain over the removal of Confederate statues in the city — the “alt-right” rally found itself transformed into a torch-wielding, Nazi-flag waving dereliction of American values — at least considering the publicity afforded to the event, and the behaviour of some of the rally’s attendees.
In brief, what transpired amounted to a disgusting and unwelcome throwback to segregationist ideas and rhetoric at a time when patriotic conservatism is gaining ground. While many media minutes and deliberations will be afforded to the fascistic right, almost none will be dedicated to the fascistic left.
Gun control supporter Governor Terry McAuliffe was whisked into a downtown building under massively armed police protection in the middle of the afternoon, via a small alleyway off Main Street. One female witness to the scene shouted, “Thank you for showing up!”
On Main Street, after the initial violence, hard leftists sang songs, re-purposing Lady Gaga’s hit song “Paparazzi” with the words “pop a Nazi”. One man told me he was told it was the “wrong day to be white in this town,” while the abandoned stores and bars sported signs that read: “We kindly ask to respect our policy to not bring weapons inside our restaurant or on our patio”.
In the mid afternoon — after protesters were run over by a car, leaving one dead — stick-wielding left-wing activists roamed the streets aimlessly in groups of four or five. One such group screamed: “F**k Donald Trump,” as a girl — clearly unrelated to either side — walked past them.
A few hours later, McAuliffe took the opportunity to address the nation from the stage of the Albemarle County office building, flanked by local officials, as well as a man in a t-shirt which read “Menace II Supremacy”.
McAuliffe flipped back and forth between urging for calm and unity, and demanding division while insisting pro-Confederate statue protesters were persona non grata in his Commonwealth.
He lauded presidents Jefferson and Washington, but ran entirely contrary to their commitments to free speech by declaring of protesters: “There is no place for you in America”.
Insisting “we were here to bring people together and unify folks”, he added “We are a nation of immigrants… unless you’re native American”.
“Please go home and never come back,” he said to Unite the Right protesters, adding: “Take your hatred and take your bigotry”.
Instead of a call for dialogue, or even trying to explain what would be a totally reasonable and easily-made argument against flying Nazi flags or torch-lit demonstrations, he chose to further drive a wedge, as did those who flanked him on stage.
“They’re going to be in the trash heap of history,” said the Charlottesville mayor, while police chief Al Thomas defended the police strategy on the day. Despite having had weeks of notice, as well granting a protest permit to alt-right protesters, there were three fatalities and many injured. In an oddly nativist tone, he declared “outsiders do not tell our story”.
The media tone is also evidently one-sided. While no one — including this website — would take up the cause of defending the actions of the alt right or Nazi flag wavers, it is important to note how quickly many have chosen to lump the blame at the doorstep of President Donald Trump.
CNN issued a push notification to app users’ mobile devices around 8:30pm local time stating: “President Trump fails to condemn the alt-right and white supremacists in his statement about violence in Charlottesville, Virginia”.
No such accusations were hurled by the establishment media at Democrat leaders when a Bernie Sanders supporter shot at Republican congressmen in June.
In brief, it can be said with demonstrable authority that while Republicans and conservatives are very swift to decry extremists claiming to act in the name of their causes, the left do no such thing. In fact, they continue to fund and support antiFa and radical elements in their ranks, scarcely asked questions by the establishment media, and without any contritition for the divisions caused as a result.
I asked Gov. McAuliffe four times tonight to condemn in equal measure the violence of antiFa. I didn’t want him to rescind criticism of the alt right. I didn’t expect him to be nuanced. But I did think — perhaps foolishly — that he might want to distance himself from violent tactics on both sides. I supposed wrong.
Raheem Kassam is the editor in chief of Breitbart London http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/08/12/gov-mcauliffe-in-charlottesville-no-place-in-america-for-alt-right-refuses-to-condemn-antifa/
Originally billed as a protest in favour of free speech — alongside the disdain over the removal of Confederate statues in the city — the “alt-right” rally found itself transformed into a torch-wielding, Nazi-flag waving dereliction of American values — at least considering the publicity afforded to the event, and the behaviour of some of the rally’s attendees.
In brief, what transpired amounted to a disgusting and unwelcome throwback to segregationist ideas and rhetoric at a time when patriotic conservatism is gaining ground. While many media minutes and deliberations will be afforded to the fascistic right, almost none will be dedicated to the fascistic left.
Gun control supporter Governor Terry McAuliffe was whisked into a downtown building under massively armed police protection in the middle of the afternoon, via a small alleyway off Main Street. One female witness to the scene shouted, “Thank you for showing up!”
On Main Street, after the initial violence, hard leftists sang songs, re-purposing Lady Gaga’s hit song “Paparazzi” with the words “pop a Nazi”. One man told me he was told it was the “wrong day to be white in this town,” while the abandoned stores and bars sported signs that read: “We kindly ask to respect our policy to not bring weapons inside our restaurant or on our patio”.
In the mid afternoon — after protesters were run over by a car, leaving one dead — stick-wielding left-wing activists roamed the streets aimlessly in groups of four or five. One such group screamed: “F**k Donald Trump,” as a girl — clearly unrelated to either side — walked past them.
A few hours later, McAuliffe took the opportunity to address the nation from the stage of the Albemarle County office building, flanked by local officials, as well as a man in a t-shirt which read “Menace II Supremacy”.
McAuliffe flipped back and forth between urging for calm and unity, and demanding division while insisting pro-Confederate statue protesters were persona non grata in his Commonwealth.
He lauded presidents Jefferson and Washington, but ran entirely contrary to their commitments to free speech by declaring of protesters: “There is no place for you in America”.
Insisting “we were here to bring people together and unify folks”, he added “We are a nation of immigrants… unless you’re native American”.
“Please go home and never come back,” he said to Unite the Right protesters, adding: “Take your hatred and take your bigotry”.
Instead of a call for dialogue, or even trying to explain what would be a totally reasonable and easily-made argument against flying Nazi flags or torch-lit demonstrations, he chose to further drive a wedge, as did those who flanked him on stage.
“They’re going to be in the trash heap of history,” said the Charlottesville mayor, while police chief Al Thomas defended the police strategy on the day. Despite having had weeks of notice, as well granting a protest permit to alt-right protesters, there were three fatalities and many injured. In an oddly nativist tone, he declared “outsiders do not tell our story”.
The media tone is also evidently one-sided. While no one — including this website — would take up the cause of defending the actions of the alt right or Nazi flag wavers, it is important to note how quickly many have chosen to lump the blame at the doorstep of President Donald Trump.
CNN issued a push notification to app users’ mobile devices around 8:30pm local time stating: “President Trump fails to condemn the alt-right and white supremacists in his statement about violence in Charlottesville, Virginia”.
No such accusations were hurled by the establishment media at Democrat leaders when a Bernie Sanders supporter shot at Republican congressmen in June.
In brief, it can be said with demonstrable authority that while Republicans and conservatives are very swift to decry extremists claiming to act in the name of their causes, the left do no such thing. In fact, they continue to fund and support antiFa and radical elements in their ranks, scarcely asked questions by the establishment media, and without any contritition for the divisions caused as a result.
I asked Gov. McAuliffe four times tonight to condemn in equal measure the violence of antiFa. I didn’t want him to rescind criticism of the alt right. I didn’t expect him to be nuanced. But I did think — perhaps foolishly — that he might want to distance himself from violent tactics on both sides. I supposed wrong.
Raheem Kassam is the editor in chief of Breitbart London http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/08/12/gov-mcauliffe-in-charlottesville-no-place-in-america-for-alt-right-refuses-to-condemn-antifa/
Tags
Who is online
112 visitors
without the hate groups as the base dems they wouldn't have anyone to vote for them. dems have welcomed them all.
And have done so gladly.
another nonsensical article from the dregs of online "media"
In brief, it can be said with demonstrable authority that while Republicans and conservatives are very swift to decry extremists claiming to act in the name of their causes, the left do no such thing. In fact, they continue to fund and support antiFa and radical elements in their ranks, scarcely asked questions by the establishment media, and without any contritition for the divisions caused as a result.
"Antifa" is barely a blip on the national radar.
White supremacist ideas effect the country negatively every day.
Antifa" is barely a blip on the national radar.
White supremacist ideas effect the country negatively every day.
never saw a white supremacist in my lifetime marching in the city but i have seen BLM and lots of liberal hate groups marching and advocating violence on all "trumpsters"..
liberal hate groups seem to be very prevalent and affecting us negatively...of course any violence on those they disagree with is forgiven and perfectly reasonable to libs.---there is a name for that....
never saw a white supremacist in my lifetime marching in the city
You ... ummm... didn't notice what went on in Charlottesville these last few days?
Jeeeeeeez!
never saw a white supremacist in my lifetime marching in the city but i have seen BLM and lots of liberal hate groups marching and advocating violence on all "trumpsters"..
I suppose which particular hate group people have seen marching probably depends to a large degree as to which city or county you happen to live in.
(Of course in the recent C-ville demonstrations, an innocent person was brutally murdered in cold blood-- and many were terribly injured. And while some folks might not be aware of it, Antifa members were not the ones who did it...)
here is another tactic libs use---rent a crowd...trying to make protests etc look more supported than they are in reality.
Crowds on Demand | Celebrity Experiences for Rent | Entourages, Paparazzi and Fans| Strategic Publicity Stunts | Corporate Events
Are you looking to create a buzz anywhere in the United States? At Crowds on Demand, we provide our clients with protests, rallies, flash-mobs, paparazzi events and other inventive PR stunts. These services are available across the country in every major U.S city, every major U.S metro area and even most smaller cities as well. We provide everything including the people, the materials and even the ideas. You can come to us with a specific plan of action and we can make it happen. OR, you can approach us with a general idea and we can help you plan the strategy then execute it.
Crowds on Demand | Celebrity Experiences for Rent | Entourages, Paparazzi and Fans| Strategic Publicity Stunts | Corporate Events
For a couple thousand dollars, Swart will send a “peaceful but lively” crowd that behaves like a real protest; so much so that an “outside observer would never know the protest is not genuine.”
All participants provided by COD sign a non-disclosure agreement to maintain secrecy and control leaks to the press.
COD provides:
• Entourages at shopping malls or airports
• Publicity stunts using actors
• Voter registration for the GOP
Swart told the media that back in 2012 his company has received “pretty interesting requests from some of the political candidates in the Los Angeles spring election.”
Although Swart did not reveal who the clients were, he said they were “big players on the political scene.”
COD has been asked in the past to stage a “political protest against a candidate’s opponent.”
Recently, Swart told activist Ian Cioff that COD has “worked with dozens of candidates in the US primarily but not exclusively Republican.”
Cioff wrote: “People would rather pick the perceived winner than the person who’s best for our country.”
Both congressional and state senate candidates have employed COD; as well as one presidential candidate (whose name was withheld).
Swart said his manufactured crowds “has led to increased poll numbers” for political clients because:
• Photo-ops with diverse attendees
• Creating the air of “enthusiastic supporters” to bring media attention
• Large crowds provide supporters with “a sense of legitimacy” about their favorite candidate
• Large crowds provide candidates with “self-confidence”
The political services offered by COD focus on getting media attention for “political rallies [and] public relations”.
On their website , COD described an instance wherein an unnamed “foreign government” hired the company “to help generate a positive reception for its newly elected leader during the UN General Assembly” in order to impress “a US audience”.
By utilizing “local and national [media] outlets”, COD was able to attract “more supporters creating a strong presence for this leader at the UN and an improved perception of him by the American public.”
In 2013, Anthony Weiner allegedly hired COD to provide crowds of supporters to show the press how important he was.
According to an unnamed source, Weiner’s campaign personnel “approached” COD “days after Indiana-native Sydney Leathers came forward to say that Weiner had continued his digital dalliances after resigning from Congress.”
Last year Tim Draper, venture capitalist and inventor of the 6 Californias concept, hired COD for $51,000 to manufacture crowds to get attention to his cause.
Elizabeth Currid-Halkett, associate professor at the University of Southern California Sol Price School of Public Policy, remarked that companies such as COD are “business[es] based on deceiving the public.”
here is another tactic libs use-
Well, at least there's one thing we can be grateful for-- at least conservatives would never do that sort of thing!
AND DONALD TRUMP COWERS FROM CONDEMNING NAZIS … WHO MURDERED AN INNOCENT WOMEN YESTERDAY.
HE DID CONDEMN THE ATTACK. Comment removed for skirting the CoC. jwc2blue AND SHOUTING.
HE DID CONDEMN THE ATTACK. STOP LYING. AND SHOUTING.
He did not condemn the Nazis nor the White Supremacist … he copped out for fear of alienating his base of haters; David Duke declared that the Nazis were there to support Trumps promises.
When you can't win the debate, condemn the type face.
I condemned your point and your typeface.
So it doesn't change reality.
The reality is trump in not likely to ever denounce racism and white supremacists as long as the racists and white supremacists follow and vote for him because the man has no class to begin with. It's all about gaining power and wealth.
The more power trump can gain the easier his job of turning this left leaning country to the right as he and his followers want. His family and friends in his inner circle and cabinet already give trump more influence (power) that most other presidents. add that to the fact trump is used to pushing the limits of laws and norms and watch what all power he can and does accumulate.
trump wants to be in charge of America, not just a equal player in the three branches of government that governs all of us.
Never underestimate this man !
That's one interpretation. Without evidence of course.
You may have condemned it but you didn't disprove it; and being a font policeman is picky stuff.
"We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence, on many sides."
Questions?
Questions?
He failed to mention Nazis and White Supremacists and David Duke … unlike when he castigates those who won't say "Radical Islamic Terrorists," "Mexican Rapists" …
Why?
Was Duke at Charlottesville? Did he kill anyone?
Apparently you missed the Duke video I posted; I will post it again tomorrow; he declared the Nazis were there to carry out Trump's promises ... and one of the Nazis murdered an innocent woman.
Tell me; when an Islamic terrorist runs a truck or car over innocent civilians, do you tell everyone not to condemn all Muslims, or do you do what Trump and his supporters do and blame all Muslims?
Duke, on the video, will leave no question as to why they were in Charlotteville and for whose agenda.
In the same way Hitler didn't personally herd Jews into gas chambers, the Trumps and Dukes and Bannons and Millers and all those who fail to condemn them for inciting the haters, they share culpability.
Trump WAS there. He was there in the actions of every member of the racist Alt-Right.
So you must agree that Democrat leaders were all there in the actions of ANTIFA and the others right?
Here's what Duke actually said:
Former KKK leader David Duke also says Saturday's rally is in a 'turning point' in the effort to help people like him 'fulfill the promises of Donald Trump'.
You are just hacked that he also called out the violence of the left. The left just can't seem to distance themselves from their violent hate groups antifa and BLM. They also love their domestic terrorists ALF and ELF.
Trump could have read a statement prepared by Obama and you would have still criticized him.
That's not true. He denounced everyone there. They were all responsible. Why do you insist he only denounce one side? Why does the left insist he only denounce one side? Is it because they support the other thugs?
Only one side came armed with assault rifles and high-capacity magazines... and gosh! It's that same side that killed one person and injured 19.
If you see no difference... you're blind.
He denounced everyone there. They were all responsible. Why do you insist he only denounce one side? Why does the left insist he only denounce one side? Is it because they support the other thugs?
Not only was Trump equivocating, at least two alt-right sources have THANKED HIM FOR DOING SO!
Reacting to Trump’s words on Saturday, the neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer praised the president’s comments as “good.”
“He didn’t attack us. He just said the nation should come together. Nothing specific against us,” wrote Andrew Anglin, the website’s founder.
“No condemnation at all,” Anglin continued. “When asked to condemn, he just walked out of the room. Really, really good. God bless him. ”
When did Barack obama condemn black lives matter?
I don't know that Obama did; but BLM arose from a history of violence and discrimination against blacks; I disagree with any violence they perpetrated in the name of "justice" ... but they protested based on issues ... The Nazis and White Supremacists weren't protesting any issue, they were advancing a racist agenda and came armed while unprovoked.
And David Duke made it clear on video that they were there to do Trump's bidding.
Just how intellectually dishonest will you get, Sean, before the neo-nazi violence in Charlottesville blows over?
Obama is gone, Sean, BLM was an entirely different thing, Sean... but you'll raise any topic, no matter how irrelevant, to try to shift attention from the simple fact that Donald Trump, despite prompting, refused to condemn neo-nazi violence.
Your efforts to make disappear the reality that alt-right and neo-nazi are linked, right there in Donald Trump's silence are... pitiful.
I keep seeing this advertisement on TV. Direct TV bad, Spectrum Good.
Kind of reminds me of Trump and Obama.
I've come to the conclusion the best thing Trump can do in any situation is just say "I agree with whatever Obama says".
Really, Six?
You really, truly believe what you're saying?
Or are you just spouting bullshit?
Comment removed for skirting the CoC [ph]
Skirting the CoC. jwc2blue
I can accept and understand "conservative" thinking and policy. And discuss it, calmly.
I do not understand the alt-right's desire to base itself on half-truths and outright lies.
I mean... you know what you are doing! You know that "I've come to the conclusion the best thing Trump can do in any situation is just say "I agree with whatever Obama says" is pure bullshit. Why do you feel compelled to post this cr@p?
Why??
Why do you imagine that this interests me, six? Go talk to the Workers World Party.
Oh... and then go visit the Daily Stormer. If you think they're mirror images, then there's something very wrong with you...
Looks like a case of biased moderation to me that your comment is still standing and Six had his removed. That's what conservatives have come to expect on forum pages though.
They even leave an antisemitic post by an uber liberal and you praise it. How nice is it to be so protected Bob?
Looks like a case of biased moderation to me that your comment is still standing and Six had his removed. That's what conservatives have come to expect on forum pages though.
They even leave an antisemitic post by an uber liberal and you praise it. How nice is it to be so protected Bob?
Please show me where an antisemitic comment was allowed to stand? And for the record, Bob has been on this forum since it's start and he has always been a bigger supporter of Israel. Also Bob has had his fair share of moderation.
McCaurther's attack on any Jew who doesn't think a certain way. The one Bob agreed with.
McCaurther's attack on any Jew who doesn't think a certain way. The one Bob agreed with.
When referring to me, spell my name correctly, please; beyond that, I didn't refer to just any (or all) Jews -- I clearly referred to Jared Kushner who, a self-ascribed "Orthodox Jew" who works for a President who hires and panders to the alt-right, David Duke and Nazis.
Don't mischaracterize or misrepresent or misquote me … if you need clarification on a comment, ask for it.
... and Bob agrees with
McCaurtherMac"Any self-ascribed "Orthodox Jew" such as Jared Kushner,"
So you support attacks on Orthodox Jews?
So you support attacks on Orthodox Jews?
I clearly referred to Jared Kushner who, a self-ascribed "Orthodox Jew" who works for a President who hires and panders to the alt-right, David Duke and Nazis.
So again, you mischaracterize what I wrote … whether you do it out of dyslexia, or, just be be an annoying PIA, you contribute nothing to the board but bad blood.
Now you try to spin your own words? Your words are what they are. You either were imprecise in the choice of them or you meant what you said. Which is it?
Now you try to spin your own words? Your words are what they are. You either were imprecise in the choice of them or you meant what you said. Which is it?
MY ACTUAL WORDS …
" … self-ascribed "Orthodox Jew" who works for a President who hires and panders to the alt-right, David Duke and Nazis."
My point is clear … and so is your disingenuousness.
This may not be disingenuous, Mac. He may simply not understand...
This may not be disingenuous, Mac. He may simply not understand...
If he states unequivocally that your interpretation is correct, I'll unequivocally apologize.
I think it's worse than that. He doesn't understand that he doesn't understand, and he presumes the worst. He fills the vacuum with an imaginary insult.
Define the word ANY. Am I missing the definition of ANY? It must mean something since he chose to omit it from a later post.
Define the word ANY. Am I missing the definition of ANY? It must mean something since he chose to omit it from a later post.
The word "any" generally is used in conjunction with a qualifier … that is a portion of a statement preceding or following its position in the clause or sentence in which it appears.
Had I written, i.e., "Any or ALL annoying individuals. etc. … " without specifying any PARTICULAR, ANNOYING INDIVIDUALS, then "any" or "all" could reasonably be taken to mean literally, "every annoying individual, anywhere and everywhere at any time."
BUT I STIPULATED THAT THE "ANY" I REFERRED TO, WOULD BE THE "ANY" UNDER A VERY SPECIFIC SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES.
It isn't that you're missing the definition of the word "any," it's that you failed to consider it in the specific context I used it.
Again, even after I addressed your allegation that I "chose" to omit it in a subsequent post, you play dumb to have a "gotcha" moment.
I'll assume that you are "playing".
I'll assume that you are "playing".
No, Mac... His question about "any" confirms that he didn't understand.
And rather than ask, he guessed... wrong...
No, Mac... His question about "any" confirms that he didn't understand.
And rather than ask, he guessed... wrong...
If he confirms that, I will apologize to him immediately.
"Again, even after I addressed your allegation that I "chose" to omit it in a subsequent post, you play dumb to have a "gotcha" moment.
I'll assume that you are "playing".
You did omit the word because it changed the meaning of your post. Spin it all you want but that's what you did.
Skirting the CoC to get me into a slap fight? Not biting.
What happened to the impasse?
Last time on both; You choose not to want to take the "any" statement as a whole and in its full context. That's on you.
Impasse is not synonymous with "ignore," rather it applies to an on-going debate between two members on the same subject; after I declared impasse (on the "any" discussion), you posted the Israel comment ... a different conversation at that point.
Done.
"Any self-ascribed "Orthodox Jew" such as Jared Kushner,"
Your words!
So attacking any Orthodox Jew is acceptable here? What other groups are acceptable to ridicule using that standard?
Wow. How many fucking times am I going to see you whine about someone being "attacked"? Your idea of being attacked is everyone else's interpretation of just being mentioned.
Whining is one of their core values.
That's all you have?
Do you find anything in this offensive: "Any self-ascribed "Orthodox Jew" such as Jared Kushner,"
Gee, I dunno. Are you a self-ascribed conservative, or do you need someone else to define who you are for you?
Like I said... he simply doesn't understand.
"Gee, I dunno."
That was telling!
MY ACTUAL WORDS …
self-ascribed "Orthodox Jew" who works for a President who hires and panders to the alt-right, David Duke and Nazis.
So attacking any Orthodox Jew is acceptable here? What other groups are acceptable to ridicule using that standard?
I have responded to you several times on this … what you do now is taunt …
You responded with an attempt to make the words you wrote mean something other than what you wrote.
All you had to do was say that you didn't mean to use the word "any" and life would have been good.
Alternatively... You don't understand...
Don't back down. These people don't care about Jews (other than to be sacrificed for them come Armageddon)
You and all your rightwing buddies need to quit pretending you give a shit about Jews (other than to be fodder for your "salvation" come the BS Armageddon you believe in). You aint foolin' nobody, particularly Jews. They may be more polite to your face but they know you'd turn on them in a NY half second in the pinch.
The only one turning on the Jews and Israel is the left.
The only one turning on the Jews and Israel is the left.
Citation please … examples, sources, verification.
Your incendiary pronouncements are making viable discussion quite difficult.
I thought we were at an impasse?
I thought we were at an impasse?
We are on one topic; you opened a new can of worms with a new comment; an IMPASSE applies to a specific, on-going dialogue between (usually) two individuals.
Jews in the White House and Jews in Israel are different topics.
So that lets you cancel the impasse whenever it suits you. I wasn't talking to you out of respect to your using of impasse. Impasse means you get to take the last shot? Sounds like impasse is meaningless.
AND WHERE THE FUCK IS JARED KUSHNER!
What manner of political whore is a Jewish man in a Trump White House?
A DATHAN by any other name.
I agree, Mac.
No Jew with an ounce of pride could work in this White House.
oh, wait... ounce of pride... Jared Kushner...
Never mind.
I notice you left out the word ANY. Nice try!
I notice you left out the word ANY. Nice try!
And I notice that a complete thought seems beyond your ability to grasp!
YOU LEFT OUT ALL OF THE WORDS AFTER THE WORD "ANY" … as follows …
Any Jewish Individual Who Supports, Works For, Fails To Denounce Or Otherwise Is A Part Of The Enablers Of Anti-Semitism … Deserves Condemnation As A "Sell Out" And "Political Whore"!
IMPASSE!
"He did not condemn the Nazis nor the White Supremacist … he copped out for fear of alienating his base of haters; David Duke declared that the Nazis were there to support Trumps promises."
He condemned them twice since the riot, which for some reason was allowed to happen. he condemned them during the campaign as well. The funny part is Barak Obama couldn't ever find the way to say Islamic Terrorist in 8 years as President. I didn't see the media going ballistic over that at the time.
The fact that the media and the evil left keep trying to bring Trump into every mention of neo-Nazi's is really obvious to anyone with common sense. The story here is that the removal of Confederate statues has re-ignited a small ugly segment of the population. Otherwise we wouldn't hear from these people. So I recommend to those who want to remove Confederate statues and have the authority & responsibility to do so - do it quietly, without fanfare.
He condemned them twice since the riot, which for some reason was allowed to happen. he condemned them during the campaign as well.
Not so; in fact, when that issue arose in his campaign, Bannon conducted a poll that indicated Trump's base didn't care about "race" so he nixed such a condemnation!
And I have posted several times today, a video and a quote from alt-right leaders and Nazis praising Trump for equivocating and giving the cover.
"Not so; in fact, when that issue arose in his campaign, Bannon conducted a poll that indicated Trump's base didn't care about "race" so he nixed such a condemnation!"
In fact it is so:
The Crusader, the most prominent newspaper of the white supremacist group, expressed its approval of Trump on the front page of its latest issue. Trump’s campaign swiftly rejected the support and called the publication “repulsive,” CNN reports.
“Mr. Trump and the campaign denounces hate in any form. This publication is repulsive and their views do not represent the tens of millions of Americans who are uniting behind our campaign,” the campaign said in a statement to CNN.
"And I have posted several times today, a video and a quote from alt-right leaders and Nazis praising Trump for equivocating and giving the cover."
They can support whoever they want. Look at who Bill Ayers & the Rev Wright & the Black Panthers supported.
One more thing. To have a good conversation, it may be better if you stopped insisting that everything you say is documentary and what others say is "untrue". I think we can have a really good conversation.
One more thing. To have a good conversation, it may be better if you stopped insisting that everything you say is documentary and what others say is "untrue". I think we can have a really good conversation.
Anything with which you disagree is yours to contradict with specific rebuttal … I never summarily do what you allege … I take a position, back it up and invite dissent via specific counter-points.
Your references to Ayers … obviously you don'y know the particulars … as for the Black Panthers and Wright … when they are wrong they are wrong … AND WHEN THEY PROTEST THINGS LIKE SLAVERY, LYNCHING, PERENNIAL DISCRIMINATION, DISPARATE INCARCERATION OF BLACKS AS COMPARED TO WHITES CHARGED WITH THE SAME CRIMES …
They protest victimization of injustices that NO NAZI, ALT-RIGHT, WHITE SUPREMACIST, KKK MEMBER OR WHITE NATIONALIST CAN JUSTIFIABLY PROTEST AS THE "VICTIMS THEREOF … FOR THEY ARE THE PERPETRATORS OF SUCH INJUSTICES.
Indeed, we can have a really good conversation, but do not mischaracterize my citing specifics for positions I take as if arbitrarily being "documentary". Anyone with counter information to my documentations need only to show it, and if it's valid, I will say unequivocally, "I stand corrected."
Fair enough.
If you'd like, I will again post the NAZI/ALY-RIGHT PRAISE OF TRUMP'S EQUIVOCATION IN DEFERENCE TO THEM.
I look forward to good point-counter-point conversations with you, Vic.
“Mr. Trump and the campaign denounces hate in any form.
For openers …
This long history is important. It would be one thing if Trump simply misspoke one or two times. But when you take all of Trump’s actions and comments together, a clear pattern emerges — one that suggests that bigotry is not just political opportunism on Trump’s part but a real element of Trump’s personality, character, and career.
Trump has a long history of racist controversies
Here’s a breakdown of Trump’s history, taken largely from Dara Lind’s list for Vox and an op-ed by Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times :
For many people, none of these incidents, individually, would be totally damning: One of these alone might suggest that Trump is simply a bad speaker and perhaps racially insensitive (not "politically correct," as he would put it), but not overtly racist
But when you put all these events together, a clear pattern emerges. At the very least, Trump has a history of playing into people’s racism to bolster himself — and that likely says something about him too.
And of course, there’s everything that’s happened since his presidential campaign.
During the campaign, Trump made many more racist comments
On top of all that history, Trump repeatedly made racist — often explicitly so — remarks on the campaign trail:
Once again, there’s a pattern of racism and bigotry here that suggests Trump isn’t just misspeaking. It is who he is.
IMO the Nazi and KKK were looking for trouble, and they got it from some that were antiFa...Others were not members of antiFa.... This is not new to either the Nazi's in the U.S. or the KKK. Goggle Greenboro Massacre 1983, when the American Nazi party joined the hands with the KKK and attacked the American Socialist (communist) party...Five Socialist members were killed and more wounded. It is their history, like it or not.
Was antiFa right in what they did, not in my opinion. We now have armed groups on both sides fighting each other, it isn't going to end well.
George Lincoln Rockwell would be proud.
Here is a link to the American Nazi Party/George Lincoln Rockwell and the Greensboro massacre.
"I look forward to good point-counter-point conversations with you, Vic. "
Excellent! I believe I have countered your claim that Bannon prevented any denunciation by the Trump campaign of white supremacy groups.
If you'd like, I will again post the NAZI/ALY-RIGHT PRAISE OF TRUMP'S EQUIVOCATION IN DEFERENCE TO THEM.
No that is neither necessary or relevant. As I said any one can support whoever they want. If the Klan supports Trump is does not mean that Trump in any way supports them JUST AS the Black Panthers (another hate group) supporting Obama means that Obama is in league with them.
Do you understand my logic?
Excellent! I believe I have countered your claim that Bannon prevented any denunciation by the Trump campaign of white supremacy groups.
Point, Counter-point.
Greg Sargent ponders Donald Trump’s reluctance to denounce white nationalism today, and concludes that (a) Trump doesn’t want to risk his support among racists, (b) he doesn’t recognize that he has any particular public obligations as president, and (c) he can’t stand to give in to critics who are pressuring him. Plus this:
Do you understand my logic?
I understand your logic but disagree with regard to Trump's support of the Alt-Right, Nazis, etc. .
When one of your top advisors os the acknowledged leader of the Alt-Right (Bannon), another is a Nazi sympathizer and Holocaust denier (Gorka), and David Duke states unequivocally that the NAZI march in Charlottesville is in fulfillment of Trump's promises … until such time if ever, Trump fires Bannon and Gorka and declares he DOES NOT WANT THE SUPPORT OR VOTES OF HATE GROUPS AND THEIR MEMBERS … he supports them and they support him.
"Here’s a breakdown of Trump’s history, taken largely from Dara Lind’s list for Vox and an op-ed by Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times :"
I cant say I have much respect for Vox or Kristof or the Times, however the incidents listed all do involve actual events, although I see a lot of things taken either out of context or incomplete.
Example:
"1973: The US Department of Justice — under the Nixon administration, out of all administrations — sued the Trump Management Corporation for violating the Fair Housing Act."
That was a huge suit against many building managers - just like suits against lenders who didnt lend to enough minorities. The reasons why didnt count, you better start finding minorities to fill your quota.
Do you know the rest of that story?
"Though Trump Management later sued the government for $100 million over the accusation, the two parties reached an agreement in 1975 in which the company had to provide the New York Urban League with a list of apartment vacancies every week for two years, and the league could present qualified applicants to every fifth opening in a Trump building where less than 10 percent of the occupants were black."
"Here’s a breakdown of Trump’s history, taken largely from Dara Lind’s list for Vox and an op-ed by Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times :"
I cant say I have much respect for Vox or Kristof or the Times, however the incidents listed all do involve actual events, although I see a lot of things taken either out of context or incomplete.
Example:
"1973: The US Department of Justice — under the Nixon administration, out of all administrations — sued the Trump Management Corporation for violating the Fair Housing Act."
That was a huge suit against many building managers - just like suits against lenders who didnt lend to enough minorities. The reasons why didnt count, you better start finding minorities to fill your quota.
Do you know the rest of that story?
"Though Trump Management later sued the government for $100 million over the accusation, the two parties reached an agreement in 1975 in which the company had to provide the New York Urban League with a list of apartment vacancies every week for two years, and the league could present qualified applicants to every fifth opening in a Trump building where less than 10 percent of the occupants were black."
Point, Counter-point.
I'm afraid those are opinions, not facts. Greg Sargent & Joshua Green are both deeply race based individuals. They are obsessed with it. Almost as bad as Barak Obama was.
I'm afraid those are opinions, not facts. Greg Sargent & Joshua Green are both deeply race based individuals. They are obsessed with it. Almost as bad as Barak Obama was.
"Bannon told Green" … that's how it was reported.
The Obama part of your comment was tossed in for what purpose?
And Obama had Van Jones, Eric Holder and Susan Rice - all extremists in their own right. Did you complain about that?
That's a pronouncement … post specifics regarding their "extremism".
When one of your top advisors os the acknowledged leader of the Alt-Right (Bannon)
And Obama had Van Jones, Eric Holder and Susan Rice - all extremists in their own right. Did you complain about that?
he supports them and they support him.
can you demonstrate how Donald Trump supports hate groups like the KKK?
can you demonstrate how Donald Trump supports hate groups like the KKK?
Until Trump specifically denounces this …
… by virtue of his failure to do so, he accepts KKK support … it can't be both ways … if he accepts their support, they are mutually supportive of each other.
Until Trump says to any/all of these groups, "I do not want your support and I do not want your votes," they are in a symbiotic relationship known in nature as "MUTUALISM".
Dinner break.
Let me start with Jones:
Jones' roots in radical politics, and a spate of newly surfaced links Saturday documenting his advocacy for convicted cop killer and former Black Panther Mumia Abu Jamal — a death row prisoner who many in the activist left view as an unjustly convicted political prisoner — threatened to play into that narrative, which reached new heights this week when the chairman of the Florida Republican Party challenged the President’s plan to speak to schoolchildren across the country as part of a plot to “indoctrinate” them in “socialism.”
Now the disgraced Holder:
Holder’s testimony and questions lasted 75 minutes. In any normal environment his rigid and flat-footed performance would have to be deemed a disaster. As Pike notes:
Under questioning, Attorney Gen. Holder was surprisingly forthright in admitting that the hate bill is not intended to protect everyone, or even the majority. He said only historically oppressed minorities were to benefit. This means Jews, blacks, homosexuals, women, etc. Holder made it clear that if a white Christian male, including a serviceman or police officer, was the victim of a violent hate crime by any minority he would have to find redress from traditional law. He could not avail himself of the triple penalties and rapid government/justice system response given a protected minority
In other words minorities who murder a white for purely racial reasons will not be charged with a hate crime!
and Ms Rice:
Clearly, there were some improprieties in the gathering of information about the Trump people. There probably was felony committed in the leaking of the information about General Flynn.
The story today about Susan Rice is, well, if she did order or she did allow herself to go in then and unmask all these people, the question is this: was it in pursuit of national security interests, in which case it's proper. Or was it not? In which case it's improper. Possibly illegal. That's an important story because you don't want to have -- look, it could be the reverse four years or eight years from now.
One party that controls the intelligence apparatus and gets the information using the information as a weapon against the other party.
Do we continue with race ?
Vic,
I will get to everything in your comment … not all tonight, but I will discuss each part.
Let me start with Jones:
Jones' roots in radical politics, and a spate of newly surfaced links Saturday documenting his advocacy for convicted cop killer and former Black Panther Mumia Abu Jamal — a death row prisoner who many in the activist left view as an unjustly convicted political prisoner — threatened to play into that narrative, which reached new heights this week when the chairman of the Florida Republican Party challenged the President’s plan to speak to schoolchildren across the country as part of a plot to “indoctrinate” them in “socialism.”
I am quite familiar with Mumia case … it happened here in Philadelphia (where I have lived my whole life).
FYI: Mumia Abu-Jamal is an American activist and journalist who became involved in black nationalism in his youth and was a member of the Black Panther Party until October 1970.
Born : April 24, 1954, Philadelphia, PA Died : August 10, 2017, Philadelphia, PA
Abu-Jamal was sentenced to death by the unanimous decision of the jury. Amnesty International has objected to the introduction by the prosecution of statements from his youth at the time of sentencing. It also protested the politicization of the trial, noting a documented recent history in Philadelphia of police abuse and corruption including fabricated evidence and use of excessive force. Amnesty Int'l concluded "that the proceedings used to convict and sentence Mumia Abu-Jamal to death were in violation of minimum international standards that govern fair trial procedures and the use of the death penalty." [2]
A bit more background …
Private investigator George Newman claimed in 2001 that Chobert had recanted his testimony. [38] Commentators also noted that police and news photographs of the crime scene did not show Chobert's taxi, and that Cynthia White, the only witness at the trial to testify to seeing the taxi, had previously provided crime scene descriptions that omitted it. [39] Cynthia White was declared to be dead by the state of New Jersey in 1992, but Pamela Jenkins claimed that she saw White alive as late as 1997. Mumia supporters often claim that White was a police informant and that she falsified her testimony against Abu-Jamal. [40]
___________________________________________________________
Vic,
I want to research Jones' involvement after-the-fact and I will then be able to have a good discussion with you. You have my word that I will be specific in my comments and fair in our discussion.
Look for me to resume this tomorrow.
Vic Elder -
Holder’s testimony and questions lasted 75 minutes. In any normal environment his rigid and flat-footed performance would have to be deemed a disaster. As Pike notes:
Under questioning, Attorney Gen. Holder was surprisingly forthright in admitting that the hate bill is not intended to protect everyone, or even the majority. He said only historically oppressed minorities were to benefit. This means Jews, blacks, homosexuals, women, etc. Holder made it clear that if a white Christian male, including a serviceman or police officer, was the victim of a violent hate crime by any minority he would have to find redress from traditional law. He could not avail himself of the triple penalties and rapid government/justice system response given a protected minority
In other words minorities who murder a white for purely racial reasons will not be charged with a hate crime!
Are you in the habit of using EU Times as a source?
I'm just curious as to what you would find enlightening in articles like these, which I saw on today's issue of that online publication
How Trump got "elected" with the help of Secret Societies
Charlottesville Car Ram: Man Snaps after 5 Hours of Violence by Antifa Thugs
President Trump Given Final “Deep State” Warning: “We Are Going To Kill This Guy”
Hillary Clinton “Turns To God” As Trump Plea Deal Looms And Democrat Death Scandal Erupts
RINO Rick Wilson calls on Dems to impeach Trump and start Civil War
BBC Depicts Black People as “Typical” Family in Roman Britain -They are trying to re-write history!
Half of Detroit’s 8 Mayoral Candidates are Convicted Criminals
etc.
I think this site is shaky at best. Why did you choose to use this as a source?
"Dinner break."
Good idea. We can talk later
"Dinner break."
Good idea. We can talk later
Vic,
Returning to Mumia and Jones (as an entity in this case), anyone in Philly at the time of Daniel Faulkner's murder, especially guys my age, have been, for all the years since, reading and hearing about the case, attempts for a retrial, and, the emotional/racial intensity it still evokes.
I have lots of friendships and various associations with Philly cops … and we cannot discuss the Faulkner/Mumia case …not even the points of the trial, the witnesses … none of it.
Now that you have a sense of what the Mumia case is from where and how I have encountered its fallout, as we discuss Jones in that context, you will have to decide if you think I can be objective in such a context.
Having said this, look it over … I'm going to the gym … and later on I'll get to Jones.
To stay on track, here's how we began this discussion … you wrote …
And Obama had Van Jones, Eric Holder and Susan Rice - all extremists in their own right. Did you complain about that?
Having been in the business of providing representation for individuals cited in adverse actions, I am a stickler on those who make allegations, satisfying the BURDEN OF PROOF. While you see these individuals as "extremists," you're going to have to cite specifics that lead to that conclusion.
See you later today.
Continuing …
Before you cite what you deem specifics that lead you to the conclusions of "Extremism," we're going to have to agree on a definition of the term as it applies to government/political officials, advisors, etc. .
First things first.
Before you cite what you deem specifics that lead you to the conclusions of "Extremism," we're going to have to agree on a definition of the term as it applies to government/political officials, advisors, etc. .
To me that means that an AG treats all people equally.
It also means that a President does not politicize the various agencies of government.
P.S. The reason I brought up the Obama people was because when you brought up Bannon, you see to have forgotten that president Obama got to appoint whoever they wanted and the same should go for Trump
To me that means that an AG treats all people equally.
Then Sessions, based on his record in the Senate and his recent undermining of voting rights litigation is worse than Holter.
Tell you what, if you're willing, I will post Sessions acts/legislation resulting in unequal treatment, you post Holter's, and we'll see where we are when the smoke clears. I will certainly concede the rhetorical premise that "an AG should adjudicate even-handedly. As for "extremism," if/when we post specifics, we'll see whether either/neither or both are extremists.
It also means that a President does not politicize the various agencies of government.
Same offer on this re: Trump vs. Obama
P.S. The reason I brought up the Obama people was because when you brought up Bannon, you see to have forgotten that president Obama got to appoint whoever they wanted and the same should go for Trump
I don't question their right, I question their picks.
Then Sessions, based on his record in the Senate and his recent undermining of voting rights litigation is worse than Holter.
I hope your'e not going to try and tell me that fighting for voting integrity is synonymous with denying voting rights
Tell you what, if you're willing, I will post Sessions acts/legislation resulting in unequal treatment, you post Holter's, and we'll see where we are when the smoke clears.
Try and bear in mind that Sessions prosecuted and sent a KKK leader to the death house (if that's where youre going). As for Holder (you keep calling him Holter), Iv'e already posted his bias - A hate crime should apply equally to all people!
I hope your'e not going to try and tell me that fighting for voting integrity is synonymous with denying voting rights
And I hope you're not going to tell me that, in the absence of proof of any significant voter fraud (determined by the (W) Bush administration Justice Department that went looking for and could not find it), that "voter integrity" is anything more than a b.s. cover up for voter suppression.
Try and bear in mind that Sessions prosecuted and sent a KKK leader to the death house (if that's where youre going). As for Holder (you keep calling him Holter), Iv'e already posted his bias - A hate crime should apply equally to all people!
Sorry … I had a friend in college named "Holter" … on the rest, we agree that the AG should adjudicate even-handedly … where we part ways, is on the issue of extremism.
Attorney Gen. Holder was surprisingly forthright in admitting that the hate bill is not intended to protect everyone, or even the majority. He said only historically oppressed minorities were to benefit. This means Jews, blacks, homosexuals, women, etc. Holder made it clear that if a white Christian male, including a serviceman or police officer, was the victim of a violent hate crime by any minority he would have to find redress from traditional law. He could not avail himself of the triple penalties and rapid government/justice system response given a protected minority
There's more to than that …
• He also sought to assure opponents that such a bill would not allow Christian clergy to be prosecuted for outspoken opposition to homosexuality.
• The bill would allow the Justice Department to provide assistance to state and local authorities in the prosecution of hate crimes while also expanding federal protection against hate crimes to cover disability, gender and sexual orientation.
Here's my bottom line; A CRIME-IS-A-CRIME. There is something fundamentally not addressed when making a distinction between a specific crime and a crime of the same type perpetrated against a particular demographic.
But let me add, if such a crime was intentionally orchestrated and premeditated as a kind of statement-of-hatred, although it should carry the same penalties as the same crime perpetrated with no indication of a hate-motivation, because a "hate-crime" indicates a potential on-going threat to the target group, THAT ASPECT OF IT MUST BECOME PART OF THE RECORD.
But let me add, if such a crime was intentionally orchestrated and premeditated as a kind of statement-of-hatred, although it should carry the same penalties as the same crime perpetrated with no indication of a hate-motivation, because a "hate-crime" indicates a potential on-going threat to the target group, THAT ASPECT OF IT MUST BECOME PART OF THE RECORD.
I'm not exactly sure of what you mean by that. Do you believe that there is such a thing as hate crimes committed against whites?
I'm not exactly sure of what you mean by that. Do you believe that there is such a thing as hate crimes committed against whites?
Certainly … most of which statistically are perpetrated by OTHER WHITES!
I'm not exactly sure of what you mean by that. Do you believe that there is such a thing as hate crimes committed against whites?
Certainly … most of which statistically are perpetrated by OTHER WHITES!
I remember Vic from the vine. He is one of the good ones for sure. This conversation you two are having did much to change my opinion of you. This is an excellent conversation!!!!
But let me add, if such a crime was intentionally orchestrated and premeditated as a kind of statement-of-hatred, although it should carry the same penalties as the same crime perpetrated with no indication of a hate-motivation, because a "hate-crime" indicates a potential on-going threat to the target group, THAT ASPECT OF IT MUST BECOME PART OF THE RECORD.
I'm not exactly sure of what you mean by that. Do you believe that there is such a thing as hate crimes committed against whites?
Dinner - to be continued
Certainly
Then you must agree with me that if whites are the victims - they also were victims of a hate crime. Therefore, Eric Holder was not upholding (he even admitted it) the "hate crime" law
Then you must agree with me that if whites are the victims - they also were victims of a hate crime. Therefore, Eric Holder was not upholding (he even admitted it) the "hate crime" law
I answered that … to summarize …
A crime is a crime and the punishment and protection/prevention phenomena and laws should be implemented even-handedly.
While I personally do not believe that crimes designated as "hate crimes" should be adjudicated any differently than those committed when no indication of hatred as a motive is established …
NEVERTHELESS, adjudication aside, when a bona fide hate crime is committed, the demographic it has targeted, IMO, is entitled to whatever notification via law enforcement, the press, etc. is viable.
Ya' wanna' talk Holder and disparate justice? If so …
I GIVE YOU JEFF SESSIONS …
… and you can have him!
So was Holder the AG for all Americans or just minorities?
What do you call it when legal protections are withheld from one race?
So was Holder the AG for all Americans or just minorities?
What do you call it when legal protections are withheld from one race?
I'm going to disagree with our premise … while the designation of a "hate crime" applies to TRADITIONAL TARGETS OF HATRED (and you are a "traditional values" guy as I recall) … the penalties for the (i.e. murder) of a Caucasian are the same as for the murder of a Black victim.
If we're going to split hairs on this kind of disparity, let's go the extra mile and cite the disparate arrests, indictments, convictions and incarcerations of blacks when committing the same crimes as whites!
I'm going to disagree with our premise … while the designation of a "hate crime" applies to TRADITIONAL TARGETS OF HATRED (and you are a "traditional values" guy as I recall) … the penalties for the (i.e. murder) of a Caucasian are the same as for the murder of a Black victim.
I'm glad you agree and and denying the same rights to whites is racism.
If we're going to split hairs on this kind of disparity, let's go the extra mile and cite the disparate arrests, indictments, convictions and incarcerations of blacks when committing the same crimes as whites!
I will go down that road with you. I tried to upload the FBI statistics on violent crime, I dont see my post, so let me ask you - why has such a small portion of the population committed so much of the violent crime?
I will go down that road with you. I tried to upload the FBI statistics on violent crime, I dont see my post, so let me ask you - why has such a small portion of the population committed so much of the violent crime?
Why do you think it is? Crime rates are higher in ghettoized and poverty circumstances and always have been.
Or do you think there is a characteristic of these criminals that explains it?
small portion
which small portion?
do they commit crime because they are poor and ghettoized, or is there some other reason?
or is your argument that only this certain group contains individuals that are irresponsible and want it the easy way?
I'm going to disagree with our premise … while the designation of a "hate crime" applies to TRADITIONAL TARGETS OF HATRED (and you are a "traditional values" guy as I recall) … the penalties for the (i.e. murder) of a Caucasian are the same as for the murder of a Black victim.
I'm glad you agree and and denying the same rights to whites is racism.
I did not come close to saying that and explained myself completely.
I can speak for myself, please, don't put e\words in my mouth.
I will go down that road with you. I tried to upload the FBI statistics on violent crime, I dont see my post, so let me ask you - why has such a small portion of the population committed so much of the violent crime?
Disenfranchised minorities tend to live in densely populated, low-rent, urban areas. Much of violent and other crimes are "crimes of opportunity."
A crime of opportunity is a crime that is committed without planning when the perpetrator sees that he/she has the chance to commit the act at that moment and seizes it. Such acts have little or no premeditation.
Here's a statistical reality … most whites are murdered by other whites, etc. because people tend to live in homogeneously configured communities.
Conservative tend to accuse liberals of "playing the race card" and being preoccupied with race … that ascription appears to be a projection. You have raised the issues that began our debate and continue … it's all about race.
it's all about race.
And who made it about race? Did'nt you just say "let's go the extra mile and cite the disparate arrests, indictments, convictions and incarcerations of blacks when committing the same crimes as whites!" ???
I'm answering you - 13% of the population committing over 50% of the violent crime has everything to do with that disparity!
it's all about race.
And who made it about race? Did'nt you just say "let's go the extra mile and cite the disparate arrests, indictments, convictions and incarcerations of blacks when committing the same crimes as whites!" ???
I'm answering you - 13% of the population committing over 50% of the violent crime has everything to do with that disparity!
It's been explained on several levels; discrimination, disenfranchisement and the resultant poverty push such populations into densities completely unlike other demographics.
Crimes of opportunity increase exponentially with population density; again, most murdered whites are murdered by other whites ... and I have not checked statistics, but I would suspect per capita correlations would not be radically different.
No argument regarding single parent homes but again, what is the statistical breakdown overall regarding crime and children from single parent homes.
Disenfranchisement begets poverty and poverty begets crime; there is no justification for crime, but to ignore causes and effect is either ignorant, stupid , or, fuels false narratives to justify unjust agendas.
And it's all too convenient to pretend that all the illegal guns used in violent crime are not a factor.
I did not come close to saying that and explained myself completely.
I can speak for myself, please, don't put e\words in my mouth.
In other words Holder's denial of equal protections to white victims is not racism in your opinion? Why? - because the misused word -"racism" that gets thrown around by liberals every single day & twice on Sundays, dosen't apply to certain people?
In other words Holder's denial of equal protections to white victims is not racism in your opinion? Why? - because the misused word -"racism" that gets thrown around by liberals every single day & twice on Sundays, dosen't apply to certain people?
Not in "other words" -- I explained it … punishment for crimes are based on legal standards … whether a murder in the first degree is motivated by hatred or some other motive, the protections in the form of attendant punishments do not vary.
I stated that there is a superfluous aspect to designating certain crimes as hate crimes, BUT, THAT DOES NOT HEIGHTEN SANCTIONS AGAINST SUCH PERPETRATORS … MURDER IS MURDER, VANDALISM IS , etc. .
Addressing the causes and effects of hate crimes vs. the same crimes not motivated by hate … WARRANT A DISTINCTION. BUT THE LAW DOES NOT CREATE UNEQUAL PROTECTIONS … and your viewing it as otherwise myopically focuses on black victims with no apparent deference to other demographics that are hate crime targets … Jews, gays, the homeless, handicapped …
do they commit crime because they are poor and ghettoized, or is there some other reason?
My guess, is because many of those individuals came out of single parent homes and that parent was not a man doing the work of disciplining children. No family structure is a big factor - imo.
See you tomorrow, Vic.